Perspectives on Integrating Leadership and Followership

Wendelin Küpers

University in Hagen, Germany

Holonic Leadership and Followership

The modified holonic leadership/followership occasion considers both individual and collective elements. Leadership and followership are not separate but interwoven in an ongoing dynamic.

Quadrants of Integral Leadership and Followership

An integral model requires a multilevel analysis that accounts for subjective, intersubjective, and objective dimensions of both leadership and followership.

Integral Quadrants of Leadership and Followership

Quadrant I.Quadrant I is the individual/internal aspects and involves the intrapersonal or internal reality of a person lived here by a leader or a follower as an individual. This includes personal values, attitude, intention, and meanings as well as various experiences. In this quadran; the articulation of specific self-relationships, a sense of confusion, raptures, or vocation and visions involves an internal language or other form of intrapersonal conversation (i.e., sensations, images, sounds, feelings, intuitions, etc.). Therefore, methodologically, responses are accessible through profound dialogues with the person; access to private writings, speeches, or other productions; or interviews with the individual and his or her close associates.

Related to the business context; this quadrant comprises the readiness and self-management for motivation and commitment to self, to a goal, or to an organization. In this quadrant, the focus is on helping organizational members see what their leadership and followership style might be so that they get more insight into themselves and their impact on others. It also deals with the psychological, cognitive, emotional, and volitional dimensions of an individual leader or follower and how these impact the organization and its development. As this realm reflects the self’s personal experience being conscious, it can be named the consciousness quadrant which has specific relevance for leadership and followership (Chatterjee, 1998; Young, 2002). A long-term study done by Torbert (2004) clearly showed that the success of organizational transformation efforts was dependent upon the level of consciousness.

In many leadership studies, the focus of leaders’ character and inner traits emphasizes the upper left quadrant or the intentional realm. On the one hand, trait theories are often criticized as inadequate means for understanding leadership (Rost, 1991); while on the other hand, leadership scholars are continuously flailing away at mounds of traits (e.g., Fleishman et al., 1991) and reviving and refining the idea to investigate individuals and their innate, intentional qualities. One important issue in this field concerns the motivation of leaders (e.g., McClelland & Boyatzis 1982) and followers (e.g., Mumford, Dansereau, & Yammarino, 2000). In addition to other personal characteristics, research has shown the relevance of leaders’ and followers’ values (e.g., Hanges, Offerman, & Day, 2001). Ehrhart and Klein (2001) have shown that followers look for leaders whose values match their own. Recent research showed that incongruence of values of leaders and followers reduce effectiveness (Ilies, Morgeson, & Nahrgang, 2005). The research on charismatic leadership has suggested that followers’ self-concepts and self-identity may be relevant in determining their motivations to follow certain leaders (Howell & Shamir, 2005; Lord & Brown, 2004). Nevertheless, identities of followers and leaders are inextricably linked, mutually reinforcing, and shifting within specific contexts (Collinson, 2006). Moreover, there seems to be no evidence demonstrating routinization or stable and long-term effects of leaders on follower self-esteem, motives, desires, preferences, or values (Bryman, 1993, 2004). However, leadership and followership development and practice is most effective when the individual interior dimensions are linked and supported by external tangibles.

Quadrant II. The second quadrant treats the individual external aspects of enacted leadership and followership. This is the area of external traits, knowledge, concrete skills and their practice, embodied action, accountability, and performance levels that can be measured and refined. Methodologically, this behavioral world can be approached by empirical observation, measurement, and analysis. Furthermore, training and development opportunities that support the development and enactment of competencies and peak performance as well as coaching, planning, decision making, and any skill that develops individual effectiveness are part of this quadrant. The role of leadership and followership in this realm of performance requires the management and realization of specific tasks, competencies, and actions to achieve the larger goals of the organization. In this capacity, leaders and followers manage performance-related resources, staff, and time efficiently and check that tasks and costs are on target and are being carried out correctly. As this sphere covers particularly overt behaviors with others and in the world, it can be marked as the behavior quadrant.

For example; path-goal theory(House, 1996), besides emphasizing the leader/follower relationship through its focus on the level of motivation of the follower, sees that appropriate behaviors can be taught and are less dependent on the traits of the leader and more amenable to training. The behavioral model still dominates both the research and practice of leadership (Bryman, 1996; Yukl, 2002), particularly approaches considering the leadership style and competencies in relation to followers.

Implicit leadership theory (ILT) (Lord & Maher, 1991) demonstrates that individuals hold inherent schemas of prototypical leadership (external) traits and behaviors. Individuals who display prototypical traits and behaviors are more likely to be perceived as leaders by potential followers and, hence, are more effective in leadership roles than others who do not portray those characteristics. According to this line of research, addressing the evaluations people make about leaders and the cognitive processes underlying evaluations and perceptions, leadership and leadership success become social constructions of the followers (Meindl, 1995; Meindl et al., 1985) that help them make sense of social situations.

However, due to the theoretical foundation of ILT strongly embedded in the information processing paradigm, it is difficult to draw valid conclusions about (a) the cognitive and particularly emotional processes underlying subjects’ responses and behavior and (b) the interrelation between leaders and followers and their embedment. Thus, a more holistic integral orientation would enhance existing ILTs towards a more comprehensive embrace.

Furthermore, the effects of transformational leader behaviors as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors have been investigated (e.g., Podsakoff et al., 1996). However, neocharismatic theories have been criticized for offering inadequate or untested explanations of the process by which the theoretical leader behaviors are linked to and influence the affective states of followers (House & Aditya, 1997).

Also, followership behavior has been investigated as a neglected aspect of leadership studies (Ifechukude & Mmobuosi, 1991). Followers may use impression management in practices like appraisal, negotiations, and career strategies (Giacalone & Rosenfeld, 1991) or deploy dramaturgical strategies (Collinson, 2006). However, behavior-oriented approaches tend to be fragmented by not connecting the interior aspects of leadership with the exterior behavioral aspects. Considering both relationship and tasks as influential categories of leader behavior, some leadership approaches(e.g., Blake & Mouton, 1964) expanded the attention also into further dimensions.

Quadrant III. The third quadrantdeals with the collective internal aspects of leadership and followership. Shared history, myths, stories, and values are all part of this quadrant. It is also the domain of unwritten beliefs, shared meaning worldviews, as well as taboos and informal norms. It calls leaders to focus on the deeper significance of collective symbols, sociocultural purposes, and visions. In this quadrant, crucial ingredients for sustainable organizational success such as organizational integrity and morale are also addressed. This world of the we is characterized by a common language and signs that can be understood, communicated, and shared with others. It also includes the levels of consciousness expressed at the collective level. One the one hand, leadership exerts various influences upon this area; on the other hand, it is very much codetermined by the followers. As a kind of people management leadership and followership, coaching and working with and among leaders and followers to cultivate teamwork and communication is required. Via accurate and timely feedback, followers feel valued and develop their contribution to the team and organization. As all these dimensions are part of the organization’s culture, this sphere can be titled the culture quadrant. There have been many studies investigating ways in which leaders and followers are influenced and influence the culture of an organization.

Sociocultural approaches (e.g., based on Cole & Engestrom, 1993) dealing with issues such as implicit or explicit group norms and values and dynamics, role expectations, and further influences of organizational culture on leadership and followership (Schein, 1985) focus attention to this quadrant. For example, in social exchange theory, the amount of status and power attributed to a leader is proportionate to the group’s evaluation of the leader’s potential contribution relative to members or followers. Social exchange theory explains that the most fundamental form of social interaction is an exchange of benefits which can include not only material benefits but also psychological benefits such as expressions of approval, respect, esteem, and affection. Individuals learn to choose to engage in social exchanges early in their childhood, and they develop expectations about reciprocity and equity in these exchanges. Member expectations about what leadership roles the person should have in the group are determined by the leader’s loyalty and demonstrated competence (Hollander, 1995). On a macro level, national cultural influence as evidenced in the GLOBE report (House et al., 2004) has shown that leadership and its relationship to followership vary from one culture to another.

Quadrant IV. The final quadrant covers the collective external aspects of leadership and followership. This is the world of resources, tools, technologies, organizational design, strategic plans, and workflow procedures or formal policies and rules. It is also formed by institutional conditions, external constrains, and influences (e.g., natural resources, climate, etc.). It includes financial processes and compensation programs as well as quantities and qualities of outputs, productivity, and efficiency. In other words, this is where thinking about the organization as a performance system is important. The leadership and followership focus of this area is on issues such as how to design the organization to perform at higher levels or how the creative forces show up in the way the organization runs. It covers tools such as the structuring of external management and group conditions and processes; financial strategies; means of production; and techniques of marketing, information, and communication technologies. This realm also includes relationships and negotiating with the next level of the organization or industry stakeholders to obtain resources and factors relevant for the organization. This includes keeping in contact with customers and ensuring that the services and products are meeting their needs. As this realm refers to the concrete collective world of that which is tangible, measurable, and quantifiable; it can be apprehended from the outside. Relating to various functional and structural systemic functions, structures, and conditions; it represents the system quadrant.

Leaders and followers engage with each other through practical structures and functions or formal roles to accomplish objectives. This systemic order includes concrete workplace conditions, workflow procedures, or resources like budgets and information and communications technologies used for delegation or exchanges between leaders and followers. Additionally, individual leaders or followers take on behavioral identities or receive structural empowerment defined by the necessities of this collective sphere. Furthermore, this sphere encompasses institutional settings and media, reward systems, problem-solving strategies or methods for supporting ethical action, and so forth.

Approaches focusing on organizational structure and external context (Osborn, Hunt, & Jaush, 2002) or functional or resource-related orientations as well as different systems theories of leadership generally emphasize the lower right, systemic quadrant. System thinking and chaos theory have been applied to leadership and follower-relevant issues (e.g., Stacey, 1992, 2001). Following more recent approaches of system theory, leadership and followership have been described as the interpenetration between the organization system and the personality system of humans generating mostly organizational communications (Charlton & Andras, 2004). Figure 3 shows the different quadrants of integral leadership and followership with some specific features and an exemplary approach within each sphere

Interrelations between Quadrants

Each quadrant is interdependent, and leadership and followership practices unfold across all four domains. An integral approach considers these interconnections for effective leadership development.

The lines of development influence how well leaders, followers, groups, and organizations perform. These developmental lines can be measured using levels of proficiency. For example, a leader or follower may possess a high level of proficiency in cognitive ability (e.g., high IQ) but may have a low level of proficiency in interpersonal skills (e.g., low EQ). Therefore, it is important to assess and identify proficiency levels in each major line of development for both leaders and their followers (e.g., in integral psycho- and/or sociographs).

Knowing these proficiency levels helps leaders and followers make informed decisions about delegation, support, and coaching team members based on their specific capacities. It also determines the need for training to strengthen selected proficiencies.

An integral level of development in a leader and a follower allows for better adaptation to fundamental changes without threatening personal identity. It also enhances their ability to support the self-development of others and understand themselves in a multiparadigmatic way.

Furthermore, the levels, lines, and quadrants are energized by the dynamics of growth and integration within an integral cycle (Cacioppe & Edwards, 2005a, 2005b; M. Edwards, 2004, 2005), which keeps these elements interconnected in a coherent and dynamic system. It also coordinates interactions between the four quadrants and the holonic developmental levels and lines. The integral cycle's ability to analyze, categorize, and synthesize leadership concepts provides important heuristic benefits, allowing for a representation of the interrelations between quadrants, structures, developmental stages, and lines. These components illustrate their growth dynamics and the relationships between domains along evolutionary and involutionary pathways.

When combined, the four quadrants and the various developmental levels and lines within the integral cycle form an all quadrant, all level, all lines (AQAL) approach to leadership and followership (Wilber, 1995). This AQAL framework of quadrants, levels, lines, and dynamics is flexible enough to be applied to individual leaders, followers, teams, organizations, and larger social entities.

Processual Turn towards Inter-, Leader-, and Followership

As we have seen, understanding and enacting leadership and followership in organizations demand a comprehensive and integrative framework that is suited to investigating complexities involved. The outlined holonic, multilevel, and integrative approach allows differentiating and relating interior and exterior dimensions as well as individual and collective spheres of leadership and specific, interconnected, intentional, behavioral, cultural, and social domains. However, for overcoming the dualistic orientation in these differentiations and developing a more dynamic approach, the following outlines a necessary processual turn towards an interrelational understanding of leadership and followership events. A relational paradigm finds its theoretical underpinnings in social constructionism (Gergen, 1986, 1944) and advanced phenomenology (Merleau-Ponty, 1962, 1995; Küpers, 2007).

Basically, relating itself is a “reality-constituting practice” (D. Edwards & Potter, 1992, p. 27) in which shared understandings are developed, negotiated, and socially constructed between participants with their embodied experiences. This relational reality is characterized by ongoing, local processes (Parker, 1992) that include nonlinguistic (e.g., gestures, objects, documents, etc.) as well as linguistic and cognitive processes (e.g., conversations, stories, rumors, etc.) and emotional dimensions (e.g., various feeling states and emotions).

Relationally, it becomes possible to overcome a possessive individualism (Sampson, 1993) or obsessive objectivism by which leadership or followership is seen as an identifiable entity sui generis based on the individual or made objectively measurable. Alternatively, with a relational intelligibility in place, we can shift our attention from what is contained within individuals to what transpires between people (Sampson) and artifacts.

For example, relational arguments allow us to go beyond notions of power over to include something like power to (Gergen, 1995; Hosking, 1995) which is a power to reconstruct or to change ways of relating and, therefore, constructions of self and other in relationship. Furthermore, with such a relational approach, it becomes possible to understand that the interactions, interpassions, and structural interrelationships between leaders and followers constitute their realities. With this, leadership and followership become factually based on relational processes that are joint or dialogically structured activities as a kind of responsive action (Shotter, 1984, 1995; Stacey, 2000, 2001) involved in all experiencing. As an ongoing event of relating and responding, leadership and followership develop out of a complex set of interactions between subjects and objects by which experiences and meanings are continually created, recreated, put in question, and renegotiated through a weaved systemic internetwork of “to-and-fro influences” (Cooper, 1976, p. 1001). Thus, the interwoven process of leadership and followership; “always momentary, tentative and transient” (Cooper, 1998, p. 171); “occurs in that imperceptible moment between the known and the unknown” (Cooper, 1998, p. 171) via a vacillating interaction (Cooper, 1987) of subjective form and advantageous circumstance.

Accordingly, the interrelationships of the leaders’ consciousness, his or her behavior, values and worldviews, and social/formal roles and embedments are linked together with that of the follower’s consciousness, behavior, values and worldviews, and his or her social/formal roles and embedments. Consequently, for a relational understanding, the complex interrelationships among leaders, followers, tasks, performances, and contexts become central (Hosking, Dachler, & Gergen, 1995). With this, the focus shifts towards the processual space in between (Bradbury & Lichtenstein, 2000), the intermediate field and interplay, where all parties involved can meet in mutual admiration and respect in an ongoingness of relating within embedded responsive con-+-texts (Küpers, 2006). This interspace between the individual and environment is marked by a creative tension that both separates and joins as a reflection of each other (Cooper, 2005). Therefore, leaders and followers are collaborative agents in the transformation of social reality (Reicher, Haslam, & Hopkins, 2005). For this reason, leadership and followership as interconnected human agencies are continuously connecting and disconnecting in a fluctuating network. In other words, it is the interrelationship between leaders and followers that constitutes their phenomenal realities.

Ontologically, the interrelationship of this relational nexus, the in-between of leadership and followership as an ongoing flow of events, can be assessed by Merleau-Ponty’s (1962, 1964) phenomenology and indirect ontology of primordial flesh. This philosophy of flesh refers to a formative medium or milieu anterior to the conceptual bifurcation into the subjective and the objective, a chiasmic intertwining and reversibility. This embodied interbeing is part of an intercorporealitywithin a relational and reversible chiasm (Merleau-Ponty, 1964).

By going back to our actual lived bodily experience, we can rediscover the process of a living in between which allows a specific interstanding (Taylor & Saarinen, 1994) of interrelated leadership and followership. The inclusion of felt, embodied experience of leading and following provides renewed possibilities for developing deeper, richer, more textured understanding of how leaders, followers, and organizations are enfleshed with each others’ interbeings.

Ultimately, this embodied in between is the birthplace of the process of leading and following as well as individual identity, social relationships, objective manifestations, and creativity and added value in organizations. All the interrelational processes are always on the move between order and disorder that are always becoming and never complete. It is a continuously energizing, excessive “zero degree of organization” (Cooper, 1990, p. 182). Hence, developing an integral leadership and followership requires taking an ontological stance where leadership and followership are holonically, intermediated processes in which reality is in constant flux. Stabilities are merely recursively created feedback loops in the fluxing reality. What the relational and processual paradigm encourages us to do is describe and understand leadership and followership processes in a continual state of becoming (Bergson, 1946; Chia, 1999; Cooper, 1986, 2005; James, 1909; Ranson, Hinings, & Greenwood, 1980; Sztompka, 1991; Tsoukas & Chia, 2002; Whitehead, 1979). Framed in terms of ontology of becoming, leadership and followership can be perceived as events in the ongoing stream of activities of multiple organizational participants. Such a process and activity-based view treats each and both leadership and followership not as something that an organization has but as something that the members of an organization do that together form a coherent pattern of actions and unfoldement. Thus, leadership and followership are perpetually differentiating processes of becomingness in which the fixity of ephemeral arrangements conversely comes and goes (Wood, 2005, 2006).

Theoretical Considerations and Methodological Implications

Methodologically, an integral and processual approach shifts to seeing interrelationships in their connections rather than linear cause-effect chains and seeing processes of nonlinear change rather than regarding snapshots for control and predictability. An integral and relationalistic methodology emphasizes conditions of possibility and recognizes the multiplicity of causal forces of leadership and followership rather than simple causal explanation. In the space between; agency, action, and structures have polycausal interdependence (Archer et al., 1998) and intertwine and cogenerate individual, social, and objective interdependencies and interrelationships. This genealogical and processual approach allows overcoming the inherent problems and limits of an atomistic and mechanistic substantialist perspective with its codifying and essentialistic interpretations. With this, the dyadic perspective can be replaced or complemented and the relationship between leaders and followers more adequately described and employed in terms of several distinct but interrelated influence processes. Instead of seeing only the roles of individual leaders or followers as enduring and pervasive sets of traits and behaviors, such perspective links the leadership and followership processes to specific activities in the work involved in making organization and change happen. Furthermore, from an integral, interrelational perspective; leadership and followership effectiveness and personal, social, and organizational well-being depend on the active integration of the complex interrelationships (a dynamic balance between personal and interpersonal relationships as well as the accomplishment of objective tasks and performance goals) (Küpers, 2005). As subjective, intersubjective, and objective relationships and processes are in a constant codetermining and coevolving connection; an integral leadership and followership considers systematically diverse dimensions and roles of leaders and followers (e.g., self-management, self-organizing, people management, and performance management). This can be assessed by an integral 360-degree feedback (Cacioppe & Albrecht, 2000) and responsive evaluation (van der Haar & Hosking, 2004).

As we have seen, integral leadership is a multifaceted construct which calls formultiple research designs covering the different dimensions for an integral investigation. Therefore, researchers need to engage with ideas and standpoints from different inquiry paradigmscharacterized by different assumptions about actors and relationships (Bryman, 1996, 2004). For growing into a more multi- and interdisciplinary endeavor, future leadership/followership research needs to break the largely univocal narrative and open to multiple and innovative methods. Approaches from disciplines outside of social psychology, management, and the social sciences in general and nontraditional disciplines need to be recovered and juxtaposed against one another and against the field’s traditional narrative (Lowe & Gardner, 2000).

As conventional ways of inquiry and measurement are often limited in assessing and investigating the outlined domains, developmental stages and lines of leadership and followership require an integral methodology. Methodologically, it is challenging to investigate and integrate various perspectives as the first-, second-, and third-persons(singular and plural forms) related to leadership and followership.

These perspectives, with their inherent methodologies or modes of inquiry, help to inform the way research seeks out different approaches for understanding the complex dimensions of the leadership/followership connection in organizations. The first-person perspective is related to subjective awareness and meaning of personal experience and action as spheres of influence via self-reporting or biographic ethnomethodologies. The second-person interpersonal perspective seeks insight and understanding through dialogue and direct communication with qualitative empathy to disclose multiple voices about collective meaning making. The third-person perspective uses empirical observation and methods of behavioral or systemic sciences to investigate quantitative data with rigor. Bringing these perspectives together highlights the different possibilities that exist for investigating how they might interrelate to better understand the interdependence of leadership and followership in organizations. Exploring leadership and followership as interrelated and processual events implies a methodological focus on relationships, connections, dependences, and reciprocities investigating specific encounters, issues, or situations (Wood, 2005).

Furthermore, the outlined integral and interrelational premises and arguments for a processual understanding make it possible to view leadership and followership research as processes of social construction. Thus, this research itself is part of the relational processinvestigated and narrated. Hence, the research process can be interpreted as a way of going on in relationship, constructing knowledge, and socially validating them. To facilitate multiloguing heterachical ways of relating (Hosking, 1995); the research methodology of participatory action research (Reason, 1994) and the deployment of a qualitative, interpretive, and ethnographic research strategy with a strong situational focus (Alvesson, 1996) seem particularly suitable. Methodologically, an integral approach can also contribute to reexamining the implications of variations in qualitative techniques, participative observation, narrative interviews, and so forth. But, integral methodology recognizes also the validity of behavioral, functionalist, and objectivist analyses in the study of organizations. Following such integral methodological pluralism contributes to obtaining a more comprehensive explanation and deeper understanding of interrelated processes of leadership and followership.

Conclusion and Perspectives

This article has argued that an integral approach to leadership enables a consequent and more inclusive enfoldment and offers practical implications for a different discourse and practice of leadership and followership as well as their interrelationship. Taking into account the integral and relational dimensions of personal, interpersonal, and structural dimensions and influences allows developing a much needed decentered perspective on the leadership and followership connection. Furthermore, by considering stages and lines of development in an integral cycle, dynamic processes of leadership and followership can be assessed more systemically.

As a consequence, the integral model provides a powerful heuristic framework in which we can make sense of how leadership and followership are interwoven. Providing a metaorientation, it enables analysis and interpretation of various aspects and dimensions of both leadership and followership and their complex holonic interrelationships. The comparative advantage of an integral theory with respect to leadership and followership research lies in its potential to generate theory and research that is inclusive but juxtaposed against prevailing conceptions.

Drawing upon the integral model, the proposal is to advance the study of leadership and followership by appreciating how both are founded upon each other. The proposal is to offer a base for a substantial theoretical advancement of investigating the interplay between leadership and followership. This may contribute to overcoming increasingly outdated individualistic, mechanistic inquiries and corresponding realities of organizations.

However, understanding leadership and followership as an integral capacity of all members at various levels of an organization means that corresponding leadership practice and development are more complex and difficult to design and implement (van Velsor & McCauley, 2003). Realizing such extended and sustainable practice of an integral leadership and followership requires an even deeper understanding of the role of personal, interpersonal sociocultural and systemic interrelations in organizations. Attaining this kind of a more profound comprehension and practice of an integral leadership and followership requires further research. Accordingly, the outlined concept of integral leadership and followership provides only a bedrock for more rigorous theory building, further analysis, and empirical testing.

As we are in the early stages of moving into an integral leadership/followership paradigm, there are lots of open questions and fields of applications to be explored. Research may further investigate ways in which diversely situated individuals and their behavior as well as groups in various interrelational arrangements and systemic organizational settings constitute, experience, enact, and process interrelated leadership and followership practices. The conceptual integrated framework presented in this paper can support research along those avenues. Thus, it would be beneficial to conduct research on the outlined four interrelated quadrants, levels, and lines and their interdependent effects. By examining all four dimensions in an integrated fashion, one arrives at a more integrated understanding of the causes, developments, and effects of leadership in organizations including the ways for dealing with and evaluating them. Research could also examine how the interaction between individual and organizational priorities affects the character and development of various experiences and processes including aesthetic dimensions (Küpers, 2002, 2004) or ethical issues.

Leadership and followership research is evolving more and more into one of converging evidence and integration (van Seters & Field, 1990). Therefore, the challenge is to synthesize accumulated results and develop further knowledge in such a way that we can begin to construct hybrid theories of leadership and followership covering diverse perspectives. Researchers and practicing organizational members cannot only categorize existing data but also evaluate future concepts. Thus, the integral framework helps to generate innovative conceptual leverage in studies of leadership and followership as well as facilitates a corresponding practice. As a dynamic model, it is robust enough to provide guidance to practitioners and help explain problems being experienced. For example, it may tell them where sticking points might be and what might be causing them and suggest what needs to be done about them. Accordingly, it may help leaders and followers consider which aspects of the personal, interpersonal, and objective dimensions are being impacted in order to set priorities and enact practices. An integration of theory and practice may help to bridge the divide between practitioner and academic perspectives towards an effective symbiosis (Zaccaro & Horn, 2003).

The process of developing an integral leadership and followership is a long-term project that requires much effort, time, learning, continual updating, feedback, and modification. This is not an easy agenda in times of increasingly strong performance and other pressures faced by practitioners. While an integral leadership and followership and a corresponding development are strategically important, both are also expensive. Therefore, an evaluation of expenses and benefits as well as creating a chain of impact that connects leadership development to relevant organizational outcomes is needed (Martineau & Hannum, 2004).

Nevertheless, as a differentiated reminder of the life-world’s multifaceted wholeness and tremendous multidimensionality, a further integral investigation and implementation of an integral leadership and followership is likely to serve as a helpful antidote to short-time orientations, biased approaches, and one-sided investigations. Even more, employing the proposed integrated framework in an emerging leadership/followership theory and practice will provide a base on which to build a more sustainable, successful, and rewarding life-world of organizations.

In other words, successful and effective leaders and followers and their interrelated practices of the 21st century will be those who and which understand, foster, help create, and enact a more integral way of leading and following; integrating and processing practical wisdom (Srivastva & Cooperrider, 1998; Sternberg, 1998). Integral wise leadership and followership comprises and enacts the ability to influence and develop individuals, teams, and organizations and their various relevant dimensions integrally. This supports processes not only to successfully accomplish organizational objectives but to achieve a worthwhile purpose that meets the present and future needs and contributes to the well-being and well-be(com)ing of members and stakeholders of organizations (Küpers, 2005). It is hoped that the approach proposed in this article offers grounds for a more holistically-oriented research and innovative practice of leadership and followership.

All in all, the integral and interrelational model of leadership and followership allows developing a much needed comprehensive perspective on both as well as their mutually constitutive and interconnected practices and coevolution. Specifically, the outlined integral processual approach can be used to illustrate, highlight, interpret, deconstruct, or reconceive the interrelationality of leaders and followers. Leaving behind the reductionistic flatland ontologies (Wilber, 1995) and researching the lived experience and complex nexus of leadership and followership is a challenging endeavor. However, it can contribute to a more integral and profound understanding and practice of leading and following for the present and future.

About the Author

After working for several yeas in the business world and earning a Ph.D. at the University of Witten-Herdecke in Germany, Wendelin Küpers has worked with the Institute for Leadership and Human Resource Management at the University of St. Gallen in Switzerland. Currently, besides teaching at various universities, he is affiliated with the department of business administration, leadership, and organization at the German FernUniversität in Hagen. His research interests include integral leadership/followership as well as emotional dimensions and issues related to knowledge and learning in organizations. Being involved in an advanced phenomenological research project, he is developing an integral phenopractice providing the practical relevance of phenomenology for questions related to integral ways of organizing and managing. E-mail: Wendelin.Kuepers@Fernuni-Hagen.de

References

Albrow, M. (1992). Sine ira et studio – or do organizations have feelings? Organization Studies, 13(3), 313-329.

Alcorn, D. S. (1992). Dynamic followership: Empowerment at work. Management Quarterly, 33, 9-13.

Alvesson, M. (1996). Leadership studies: From procedure and abstraction to reflexivity and situation. Leadership Quarterly, 7(4), 455-485.

Archer, M., Bhaskar, R., Collier, A., Lawson, T., & Norrie, A. (Eds.). (1998). Critical realism: Essential readings. London: Routledge.

Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1993). Emotional labor in service roles: The influence of identity. Academy of Management Review, 18(1), 88-115.

Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1995). Emotion in the workplace. A reappraisal. Human Relations, 48(2), 97-125.

Barry, D. (1991). Managing the bossless team: Lessons in distributed leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 20(1), 31-48.

Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and educational impact. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bennis, W. G., & Thomas, R. J. (2002). Crucibles of leadership. Harvard Business Review, 80, 39-45.
Bergson, H. (1946). The creative mind. New York: Carol.

Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston, TX: Gulf.

Block, P. (1996). Stewardship: Choosing service over self-interest. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Bradbury, H. (2003). Sustaining inner and outer worlds: A whole-systems approach to developing sustainable business practices in management. Journal of Management Education, 27(2), 172-188.

Bradbury, H., & Lichtenstein, B. M. B. (2000). Relationality in organizational research: Exploring the space between. Organization Science, 11, 551-564.

Bradford, D. L., & Cohen A. R. (1998). Power up: Transforming organisations through shared leadership. New York: John Wiley.

Brown, H., & Hosking, D. M. (1986). Distributed leadership and skilled performance as successful organization in social movements, Human Relations, 39(1), 65-79.

Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organizations. London: Sage.

Bryman, A. (1993). Charismatic leadership in business organizations: Some neglected issues. Leadership Quarterly, 4(3/4), 289-304.

Bryman, A. (1996). Leadership in organization. In S. A. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. R. Nords (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (pp. 276-292). London: Sage.

Bryman, A. (2004). Qualitative research on leadership: A critical but sympathetic review. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 729-769.

Cacioppe, R. (2000). Creating spirit at work: Re-visioning organization development and Leadership – Part II. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 21(1-2), 110-120.

Cacioppe, R., & Albrecht, S. (2000). Using 360 feedback and the integral model to develop leadership and management skills. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 21(8), 390-408.

Cacioppe, R., & Edwards, M. G. (2005a). Adjusting blurred visions: A typology of integral approaches to organizations. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18(3), 230-246.

Cacioppe, R., & Edwards, M. G. (2005b). Seeking the holy grail of organizational development: A synthesis of integral theory, spiral dynamics, corporate transformation and developmental action inquiry. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 26(2), 86-105.

Charlton, B. G., & Andras, P. (2004). The nature and function of management – A perspective from systems theory. Philosophy of Management, 3, 3-16.

Chatterjee, D. (1998). Leading consciously. A pilgrimage toward self mastery. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Chia, R. (1999). A “rhizomic” model of organizational change and transformation: Perspective from a metaphysics of change. British J. Management, 10, 209-227.

Cole, M., & Engeström, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 1-46). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Collinson, D. (2006). Rethinking followership: A post-structuralist analysis of follower identities. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 179-189.

Conger, J. A. (1989). The charismatic leader. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cooper, R. (1976). The open field. Human Relations, 29(11), 999-1017.

Cooper, R. (1986). Organization/disorganization. Social Science Information, 25, 299-335.

Cooper, R. (1987). Information, communication and organization: A poststructural revision. Journal of Mind and Behaviour, 8(3), 395-415.

Cooper, R. (1990). Organization/disorganization. In J. Hassard & M. Parker (Eds.), The theory and philosophy of organizations: Critical issues and new perspectives (pp. 167-197). London: Routledge.

Cooper, R. (1998). Assemblage Notes. In R. C. H. Chia (Ed.), Organized worlds: Explorations in technology and organization with Robert Cooper (pp. 108-129). London: Routledge.

Cooper, R. (2005). Relationality. Organization Studies, 26(11), 1689-1710.

Dachler, H. P., & Hosking, D. M. (1995). The primacy of relations in socially constructing organizational realities. In D. M. Hosking, H. P. Dachler, & K. J. Gergen (Eds.), Management and organization: Relational alternatives to individualism (pp. 1-28). Aldershot, England: Avebury.

Day, D., Gronn, P., & Salas, E. (2004). Leadership capacity in teams, Leadership Quarterly, 15(6), 857-880.

Dotlich, D., Noel, J. L., & Walker, N. (2004). Leadership passages: The personal and professional transitions that make or break a leader. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Drath, W. H., & Palus, C. J. (1994). Making common sense: Leadership as meaning-making in a community of practice. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (1992). Discursive psychology. London: Sage.

Edwards, M. (2004). Good for business: An integral theory perspective on spirituality in organizations [Electronic version]. Spirituality in Leadership and Management Journal. Retrieved January 10, 2005, from http://www.integralworld.net/edwards19.html

Edwards, M. (2005). The integral holon: A holonomic approach to organizational change and transformation. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18(3), 269-288.

Edwards, M. (2006). Occasions, holons, and quadrants. Unpublished manuscript, Integral Leadership Centre, University of Western Australia, Perth.

Ehrhart, M. G., & Klein, K. J. (2001). Predicting follower’s preferences for charismatic leadership: The influence of follower values and personality. Leadership Quarterly, 12, 153-179.

Fiedler, F. E. (1964). A contingency theory of leadership effectiveness. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology: Vol. 1 (pp. 149-190). New York: Academic Press.

Fineman, S. (2002). Emotion in organizations (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

Fleishman, E. A., Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Levin, K. Y., Korotkin, A. L., & Hein, M. B. (1991). Taxonomic efforts in the description of leadership behavior: A synthesis and functional interpretation. Leadership Quarterly, 2, 245-287.

Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Miles, D. (2001). Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in response to job stressors and organizational justice: Some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 291-309.

George, J. M. (2000). Emotions and leadership: The role of emotional intelligence. Human Relations, 53(8), 1027-1055.

Gergen, K. J. (1995). Relational theory and the discourses of power. In D. M. Hosking, H. P. Dachler, & K. J. Gergen (Eds.), Management and organization: Relational alternatives to individualism (pp. 29-50). Aldershot, England: Avebury.

Giacalone, R., & Rosenfeld, P. (Eds.). (1991). Applied impression management. London: Sage.

Gioia, D. A., & Pitre, E. (1990). Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building. Academy of Management Review, 15, 584-602.

Gordon, R. D. (2002). Conceptualising leadership with respect to its historical-contextual antecedents to power. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 151-167.

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 perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219-247.

Greanleaf, R., & Spears, L. (1998). The power of servant leadership. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Gronn, P. C. (1995). Greatness re-visited: The current obsession with transformational leadership. Leading & Managing, 1(1), 14-27.

Hanges, P., Offerman, L., & Day, D. (2001). Leaders, followers and values: Progress and prospects for theory and research. Leadership Quarterly, 12, 129-131.

Harding, S. (1991). Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from Womens Lives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Harrè, R. (Ed.) (1986). The social construction of emotions. Blackwell, NY: Basil.

Hassard, J., Holliday, R., & Wilmott, H. (2000). Body and organization. London: Sage.

Hearn, J. (1992). Men in the public eye. London: Routledge.

Hearn, J. (1993). Emotive subjects: Organizational men, organizational masculinities and the deconstruction of “emotions.” In S. Fineman (Ed.), Emotions in organizations (pp. 148-166). London: Sage.

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1969). Life cycle theory of leadership: Is there a best style of leadership? Training and Development Journal, 79, 99-107.

Hollander, E. P. (1978). Leadership dynamics: A practical guide to effective relationships. New York: Free Press/Macmillan.

Hollander, E. P. (1992a). The essential interdependence of leadership and followership: Current directions. Psychological Science, 1(2), 71-75.

Hollander, E. P. (1992b). Leadership, followership, self, and others. Leadership Quarterly, 3(1), 43-54.

Hollander, E. P. (1995). Organizational leadership and followership: The role of interpersonal relations. In P. Collett, & A. Furnham (Eds.), Social psychology at work: Essays in honour of Michael Argyle (pp. 69-87). London: Routledge.

Hosking, D. M. (1995). Constructing power: Entitative and relational approaches. In D. M. Hosking, H. P. Dachler, & K. J. Gergen (Eds.). Management and organization: Relational alternatives to individualism (pp. 51-70). Aldershot, England: Avebury.

Hosking, D. M., Dachler, H. P., & Gergen, K. J. (1995). Management and organization: Relational alternatives to individualism. Aldershot, England: Avebury.

House, R. J. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy and a reformulated theory. Leadership Quarterly, 7, 323-352.

House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of Management, 23(3), 409-473.

House, R., Gupta, V., Dorfman, P. W., Hanges, P. J., & Javidan, M. (Eds.). (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Howell, J. M., & Shamir, B. (2005). The role of followers in the charismatic leadership process: Relationships and their consequences. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 96-112.

Hunt, J. G. (1991). Leadership: A new synthesis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ifechukude, B., & Mmobuosi, I. B. (1991).Followership behaviour: A neglected aspect of leadership studies leadership & organization development, 12(7), 11-16.

Ilgen, D. R., & Klein, H. J. (1989). Organizational behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 40, 327-351.

Ilies, R., Morgeson, F. P., & Nahrgang, J. D. (2005). Authentic leadership and eudaemonic well-being: Understanding leader-follower outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 373-394.

James, W. (1909). A pluralistic universe. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Jones, A. (2005). Ritual process, liminality and identity in leadership development programs: A cultural analysis. Paper presented at the Sixth International Conference on HRD Research and Practice Across Europe, Boulder, CO.

Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Boston: Harvard University Press.

Kelley, R. E. (1992). The power of followership. New York: Doubleday.

Kimura, B. (1988). Aida. Tokyo, Japan: Kobundo.

Kisfalvi, V., & Pitcher, P. (2003). Doing what feels right: The influence of CEO character and emotions on top management team dynamics. Journal of Management Inquiry, 12(1), 42-57.

Koestler, A. (1967). The ghost in the machine. London: Arkana.

Kofman, F., & Senge, P. (1993). Communities of commitment: The heart of the learning organizations. Organizational Dynamics, 22(2), 5-23.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2003). Leadership challenge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Küpers, W. (2002). Phenomenology of aesthetic organising. Ways towards aesthetically responsive organizations. Journal Consumption, Markets and Cultures, 5(1), 31-68.

Küpers, W. (2004). Art and leadership. In J. M. Burns, R. R. Goethals, & G. J. Sorenson (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of leadership (pp. 47-54). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Küpers, W. (2005). Phenomenology and integral pheno-practice of embodied well-be(com)ing in organizations. Culture and Organization, 11(3), 221-231.

Küpers, W. (2006). Phenomenology and integral pheno-practice of responsive organizations and management. In D. Barry & H. Hansen (Eds.), New approaches to management & organization. London: Sage.

Küpers, W., & Weibler, J. (2005). Emotionen in organizationen. Stuttgart, Germany: Kohlhammer.

Küpers, W., & Weibler, J. (in press). How emotional is transformational leadership really? Some suggestions for a necessary extension. Leadership & Organization Development Journal.

Landrum, N. E., & Gardner, C. L. (2005). Using integral theory to effect strategic change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18(3), 247-258.

Lewis, M. W., & Grimes, A. J. (1999). Metatriangulation: Building theory from multiple paradigms. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 672-690.

Lewis, M. W., & Kelemen, M. (2002). Multiparadigm inquiry: Exploring organizational pluralism and paradox. Human Relations, 55(2), 251-275.

Lord, R. G., & Brown, D. J. (2004). Leadership processes and follower self-identity. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1991). Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions and performance. Boston: Unwin Hyman.

Lowe, K. B., & Gardner, W. L. (2000). Ten years of the leadership quarterly: Contributions and challenges for the future. Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), 459-514.

Marion, R., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2001). Leadership in complex organizations. Leadership Quarterly, 12(4), 389-418.

Martineau, J., & Hannum, K. (2004). Evaluating the impact of leadership development. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

McClelland, D. C., & Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). Leadership motive pattern and long-term success in management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(6), 737-743.

Meindl, J. (1987). The romance of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 91-108.

Meindl, J. (1993). Reinventing leadership: A radical, social psychology approach. In J. K. Murnighan (Ed.), Social psychology in organizations: Advances in theory and research, (pp. 89-118). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Meindl, J. (1995). The romance of leadership as a follower-centric theory: A social constructionist approach. Leadership Quarterly, 6(3), 329-341.

Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. (1985). The romance of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 78-102.

Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception. London: Routledge.

Merleau-Ponty, M. (1964). The visible and the invisible. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.

Mitroff, I. I. (2003). Crisis leadership: Planning for the unthinkable. New York: John Wiley.

Mitroff, I. I., & Denton, E. A. (1999). A spiritual audit of corporate America: A hard look at spirituality, religion, and values in the workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Morris, J. A., & Feldman, D. C. (1996). The dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of emotional labour. Academy of Management Journal, 21, 989-1010.

Moxley, R. S. (2000). Leadership and spirit. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mumford, M. D., Dansereau, F., & Yammarino, F. J. (2000). Followers, motivations and levels of analysis: The case of individualized leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 313-340.

Neal, J. (in press). Integral learning: Management education for the whole person. In C. Wankel & R. Defillippi (Eds.), Rethinking management education.

O’Toole, J. (2001). When leadership is an organizational trait. In W. Bennis, G. M. Spreitzer, & T. G. Cummings (Eds.), The future of leadership (pp. 158-174). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Osborn, R. N., Hunt, J. G., & Jaush, L. R. (2002). Toward a contextual theory of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 13(6), 797-837.

Parker, I. (1992). Discourse dynamics: Critical analysis for social and individual psychology. London: Routledge.

Pauchant, T. C. (Ed.). (2002). Ethics and spirituality at work: Breakthroughs and pitfalls of the search for meaning in organizations. New York: Quorum Books.

Pauchant, T. (2005). Integral leadership: A research proposal. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18(3), 211-229.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996). Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 22, 259-298.

Prewitt, V. (2004). Integral leadership for the 21st Century, World Futures, 60, 1-7.

Putnam, L., & Mumby, D. K. (1993). Organizations, emotions and the myth of rationality. In S. Fineman (Ed.), Emotions in organizations (pp. 36-57). London: Sage.

Quinn, R. E. (1996). Deep change: Discovering the leader within. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Quinn, R. E. (2004). Building the bridge as you walk on it. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Ranson, S., Hinings, B., & Greenwood, R. (1980). The structuring of organizational structures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 1-17.

Reams, J. (2005). What’s integral about leadership? A reflection on leadership and integral theory. Integral Review, 1, 118-131.

Reason, P. (Ed.). (1994). Participation in human inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Reicher, S., Haslam, S. A., & Hopkins, N. (2005). Social identity and the dynamics of leadership: Leaders and followers as collaborative agents in the transformation of social reality. Leadership Quarterly, 16(4), 547-568.

Roberts, C., & Parry, K. (2002). Choosing to follow: The emotions and interests of “could-be followers.” Paper presented at the Third Emotions in Organisational Life Conference, Gold Coast, Australia.

Rooke, D., & Torbert, W. R. (1998). Organizational transformation as a function of CEO’s developmental stage. Organization Development Journal, 16(1), 11-28.

Ropo, A., & Parviainen, J. (2001). Leadership and bodily knowledge in expert organizations: Epistemological rethinking. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 17(1), 1-18.

Rost, J. C. (1991). Leadership for the twenty-first century. New York: Praeger.

Rost, J. C. (1993). Leadership development in the new millennium. Journal of Leadership Studies, 1(1), 92-110.

Sampson, E. E. (1993). Celebrating the other: A dialogic account of human nature. Hemel Hempstead, England: Harvester/Wheatsheaf.

Sanders, J. E., III, Hopkins, W. E., & Geroy, G. D. (2003). From transactional to transcendental: Toward an integrated theory of leadership. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9(4), 21-30.

Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Senge, P. M., & Carstedt, G. (2001). Innovating our way to the next industrial revolution. Sloan Management Review, 42(2), 24-38.

Shotter, J. (1984). Social accountability and selfhood. Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Shotter, J. (1995). In conversation: Joint action, shared intentionality, and ethics. Psychology and Theory, 5, 49-73.

Sims, H. P., & Lorenzi, P. (1992). The new leadership paradigm: Social learning and cognition in organizations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Sivasubramaniam, N., Murry, W. D., Avolio, B., & Jung, D. I. (2002). A longitudinal model of the effects of team leadership and group potency on group. Group Organization Management, 27, 66-96.

Srivastva, S., & Cooperrider, D. (Eds.), (1998). Organizational wisdom and executive courage. San Francisco: New Lexington Press.

Stacey, R. (1992). Managing chaos. London: Kogan-Page.

Stacey, R. (2000). The emergence of knowledge in organizations. Emergence, 2(4), 23-39.

Stacey, R. (2001). Complex responsive processes in organizations: Learning and knowledge creation. London: Routledge.

Sternberg, R. (1998). A balance theory of wisdom. Review of General Psychology, 2(4), 347-365.

Sztompka, P. (1991). Society in action: The theory of social becoming. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.

Taylor, M. C., & Saarinen, E. (1994). Imagologies. New York: Routledge.

Torbert, W. (2004). Action inquiry: The secret of timely and transforming action. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. (2002). On organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational change. Organization Science, 13, 567-582.

van der Haar, D., & Hosking, D. M. (2004). Evaluating appreciative inquiry: A relational constructionist perspective. Human Relations, 57(8), 1017-1036.

van Seters, D. A., & Field, H. G. (1990). The evolution of leadership theory. Journal of organizational change management, 3(3), 29-45.

van Velsor, E., & McCauley, C. (2003). Our view of leadership development. In C. McCauley & E. Van van Velsor (Eds.), The center for creative leadership handbook of leadership development (pp. 1-25). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wharton, A. S., & Erickson, R. J. (1993). Managing emotion on the job and at home: Understanding the consequences of multiple emotional roles. Academy of Management Review, 18(3), 457-486.

Whitehead, A. (1979). Process and reality: An essay in cosmology. New York: Free Press.

Wilber, K. (1995). Sex, ecology, spirituality: The spirit of evolution. Boston: Shambhala.

Wilber, K. (1999). Collected works of Ken Wilber: Vol. 1-4. Boston: Shambhala.

Wilber, K. (2000a). Collected Works of Ken Wilber: Vol. 5-8. Boston:Shambhala.

Wilber, K. (2000b). A theory of everything: An integral vision for business, politics, science and spirituality. Boston: Shambhala.

Wilber, K. (2001). The eye of the spirit: An integral vision for a world gone slightly mad. Boston: Shambhala.

Wood, M. (2005). The fallacy of misplaced leadership. Journal of Management Studies, 42(6), 1101-1121.

Wood, M. (2006). Adventures of difference in leadership studies. Paper presented at EGOS 2006,Bergen, Norway.

Wunderer, R., & Küpers, W. (2003). Demotivation à Remotivation. Wie Leistungspotenziale blockiert und reaktiviert werden. Neuwied, Germany: Luchterhand-Wolters-Kluwer.

Young, J. E. (2002). Spectrum of Consciousness for CEOs. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 10(1), 30-54.

Yukl, G. A. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.), Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Yukl, G., & Lepsinger, R. (2004). Flexible leadership: Creating value by balancing, multiple challenges and choices. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Zaccaro, S. J., Rittman, A. L., & Marks, M. A. (2001). Team leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 12, 451-483.

Zaccaro, S. J., & Horn, Z. N. J. (2003). Leadership theory and practice: Fostering an effective symbiosis. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 769-806.