A Prescriptive Hybrid Model of Leadership: Complexity

Leadership Theory and Authentic Leadership Theory

David Livingston and Jenna Lusin
The George Washington University, USA
dliving@gwmail.gwu.edu
jmlusin@gmail.com

Abstract: Recent events have increased public scrutiny about the way organizations are managed and led due
to a perceived loss of managerial integrity and a sense of betrayal caused by amoral organizational leaders
(Aschkenasy, 2009). The high level of public scrutiny and cynicism associated with a lack of faith in leadership,
coupled with the increasing complexity of the workplace, has created the need for alternative leadership
paradigms (Sinclair, 2007). These prescriptive paradigms must be more moral, ethical, credible, and people-
focused while incorporating a systems level perspective that acknowledges the complexity of the contemporary
situation. Complexity Leadership Theory (Uhl-Bien, Marion, and McKelvey, 2007) has made significant strides
toward the understanding of leadership as a complex process, but it has failed to adequately incorporate the
impact of actors characteristics and behaviors on the leadership phenomena. This paper is an attempt to take
the first steps toward an integration of trait and behavior based theories with complexity theories. First, this paper
will examine Complexity Leadership Theory in light of its three separate but intertwined leadership functions:
administrative, adaptive, and enabling (Uhl-Bien, Marion, McKelvey, 2007). Second, the role of authentic
leadership, founded on honesty and trust (Luthans and Avolio, 2003), will be discussed, including its three main
components: self-awareness, self-regulation, and self-development, in conjunction with a complexity theory
perspective. Third, a prescriptive hybrid model derived from an integration of Schreiber & Carleys (2008)
Complexity Leadership Theory model and Avolio, Gardner, Walumbwa, Luthans, & Mays (2004) definition of
authentic leadership will be presented. The Prescriptive Hybrid Model of Leadership depicts the process of
leadership with the enabling leadership function as the gateway between administrative and adaptive leadership.
Finally, the implications of the prescriptive hybrid model for organizations existing in the contemporary global
economy will be explored.

Keywords: Complexity Leadership, authentic leadership, Hybrid Model
1. Introduction
Recent events have increased concern about the way organizations are managed and led. Increase
in public scrutiny is substantially due to the loss of integrity by amoral organizational leaders
(Aschkenasy, 2009). There is a deep-seated public perception that leadership is disingenuous,
focusing on company profits and efficiency over employee welfare (Sinclair, 2007). Organizational
members have demonstrated a desire for leadership authenticity as a result of such scandals as the
AIG leadership bonus pay-outs (Leaders: Easy does it; AIG and the president, 2009) and the collapse
of Enron (Hannah & Zatzick, 2008). The theoretical relationship between authenticity and the complex
process of leadership is necessary to formulate alternative leadership paradigms that will sufficiently
address the high level of public scrutiny and cynicism associated with a lack of faith in leadership
(Sinclair, 2007). These prescriptive paradigms must be more moral, ethical, credible, and people-
focused while incorporating a systems level perspective that acknowledges the complexity of the
contemporary situation.

Complexity Leadership Theory (Uhl-Bien, Marion, and McKelvey, 2007) has made significant strides
towards the understanding of leadership as a complex process, but it has failed to adequately
incorporate the impact of actors characteristics and behaviors on the leadership phenomena. This
paper is an attempt to take the first steps toward an integration of trait and behavior based theories
with complexity theories by (a) examining Complexity Leadership Theory, (b) discussing the role of
authentic leadership in a complex environment, (c) presenting a prescriptive hybrid model
incorporating Complexity Leadership Theory and Authentic Leadership Theory, and (d) exploring the
implications of the hybrid model.

For the sake of this paper, it is important to note leaders and leadership are distinctly different.
Using Schreiber and Carleys (2007: 231) definition, leaders constitute collective change agents that
are the competitive source of adaptive response and learning. They are individuals or groups that
influence the direction of a system or organization. In contrast, leadership should be seen not only as
position and authority but also as an emergent, interactive dynamic a complex interplay from which
a collective impetus for action and change emerges when heterogeneous agents interact in networks
102

David Livingston and Jenna Lusin
in ways that produce new patterns of behavior or new modes of operating (Uhl-Bien, Marion &
McKelvey, 2008: 187). It originates in the interactive space between agents and is, therefore, in a
constant state of flux. Patterns of communication, influence, and action among interacting individuals
within the system produce leadership effects for the system that influence the information and
resource flows throughout the systems economic plumbing (Hazy, 2008: 356). Leadership is
fundamentally the process of influencing the creation, destruction, transformation, and distribution of
information throughout the system, and enabling action in response to this information. It is a complex
process existing in a complex environment.
2. Complexity Leadership Theory
Complexity theory is the study of the dynamic behaviors of complexly interacting, interdependent,
and adaptive agents under conditions of internal and external pressure (Marion, 2008: 3). Complex
systems exist in an unpredictable world where a multitude of interactions at the micro level between
individual agents result in drastic implications at the macro level. Complexity theory acknowledges the
importance of individual agents while taking into account the monumental importance of the
interactions between those agents. It is an examination of systems at the collective level of analysis.

In Complexity theory, leadership is explored through a novel paradigmatic focus on the dynamics of
relationships. The theory posits that leadership is far too complex to be understood as traits and
behaviors of one or more individuals, rather, it involves a mystifying interplay between multiple,
interacting forces. Leadership theory in the realm of complexity thought embraces both order and
chaos as it focuses on identifying and exploring the strategies and behaviors that foster
organizational and subunit creativity, learning, and adaptability when appropriate complex adaptive
systems dynamics are enabled within contexts of hierarchical coordination (Uhl-Bien et al., 2007:
299).

One of the primary challenges faced by organizations existing in complex environments is the
constant tension between top-down, centralized structures that enable exploitation and bottom-up,
emergent, structures that provide adaptive exploration (Panzar, Hazy, McKelvey, & Schwandt, 2007).
March (1991: 71) states, Exploration includesvariation, risk taking, experimentation, play, flexibility,
discovery, innovation. Exploitation includes such things as refinement, choice, productivity, efficiency,
selection, implementation, execution. There is an intrinsic tradeoff between the two processes due to
the organizations inability to allocate all of its resources to both endeavors. However, to remain
fruitful in a competitive environment, organizations must learn to balance the refinement of existing
systems, structures, or products with the invention of new ones (March, 1991).

One hypothesis proposes the paradoxical, but necessary, existence of exploitation and exploration in
an organization is only made possible through the micro-dynamic interactions of individual agents
acting within the collective (Hazy, 2008). Leadership is a process resulting from micro-dynamic
interactions, and it is leadership that guides the collectives energy toward exploitation or exploration
(Panzar et al., 2007). It is the specific micro-dynamic interaction of leadership that provides the
necessary structure for efficient exploitation, the circumstances that promote innovative exploration,
and the integrating bridge between these two extreme organizational functions needed for survival.
Based on this premise, Complexity Leadership Theory contends that leadership consists of three
separate, but intertwined leadership functions; administrative, adaptive, and enabling (Uhl-Bien et al.,
2007).

Administrative Leadership. Administrative leadership includes official managerial functions such as
organizational structuring, vision generation, organizational strategy development, and resource
acquisition. It is a top-down function based on authority and position (Uhl-Bien et al., 2008: 200).
The structured nature of administrative leadership establishes a conduit through which official
decisions and strategies can flow and be implemented. It is focused on the establishment of control
and the exploitation of responses, resulting in greater organizational efficiency (Schreiber & Carley,
2008).

Adaptive Leadership. Adaptive Leadership is the collective dynamic that fuels change in an
organization. As agents interact competitively or cooperatively, distributed knowledge is created and
stored (Gronn, 2002). Networks in which agents are perpetually interacting and adapting to
environmental pressures are referred to as complex adaptive systems (CAS) (Hazy, 2008; McKelvey,
2008). CAS are fueled by the existence of differentials known as adaptive tension. A balance must be

103

David Livingston and Jenna Lusin
maintained such that an appropriate amount of tension exists to promote adaptive evolution while
retaining order. The point of balance between the extremes of adaptive tension is referred to as the
edge of chaos (Lewin, 1999). The emergent and adaptive outcomes produced by the complex web of
social interactions, known as adaptive leadership, enables organizations to remain at this edge.

For adaptive leadership to alter the social system, the information produced and transformed within its
emergent processes while at the edge of chaos must be successfully transplanted into the structure of
the organization. Osborn and Hunt agree with this sentiment, stating, What is needed is bottom-up
structuration combined with top-down hierarchy (Lewin, 1999: 323).

Enabling Leadership. Enabling leadership serves to create beneficial conditions that promote and
stimulate emergent collective action, while simultaneously channeling productive responses
originating in adaptive leadership dynamics back up through the hierarchical structure of
administrative leadership for strategic planning and exploitation (Schreiber & Carley, 2008). Enabling
leadership is composed of two primary roles. First, it fosters conditions that enable the emergence of
complexity dynamics, or adaptive leadership within an organization (Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2007: 152).
It can be viewed as a catalyst, bringing the necessary conditions of CAS into contact through the
fostering of interaction and interdependency, while injecting adaptive tension that results in an
interactive dynamic (Uhl-Bien et al., 2007). The second role of enabling leadership is that of a
maestro, masterfully weaving the dissonance of administrative leadership and adaptive leadership
into a harmonious melody. Enabling leadership manages the entanglement between administrative
and adaptive leadership; this includes (1) managing the organizational conditions in which adaptive
leadership exists, and (2) helping disseminate innovative products of adaptive leadership upward and
through the formal managerial system (Uhl-Bien et al., 2008: 205-206). Enabling leadership is
fundamentally responsible for managing the bidirectional interface between administrative and
adaptive leadership.

Limitations of Complexity Leadership Theory. Complexity theory has made monumental strides in
understanding the interdependent dynamic comprising leaderships core, but the theory retains
significant limitations. The first is a lack of consideration for the impact of behaviors and
characteristics exhibited by actors within the leadership process. Uhl-Bien et al. (2007: 314) remark,
By focusing on emergent leadership dynamics, Complexity Leadership Theory implies that leadership
only exists in, and is a function of interaction; despite this, there are roles for individual leaders in
interacting with this dynamic. Unfortunately, the authors fail to describe how these roles, and the
accompanying behavior and characteristics, impact the greater system. In particular, the complexity
literature has little to say on how beneficial leadership characteristics increase the effectiveness of the
leadership process as understood by Uhl-Bien et al. (2007). This lack of integration is a recurring,
systemic problem in much of the complexity theory literature.

A second limitation of Complexity Leadership Theory is that of applicability. It offers a theoretical
framework for approaching the study of leadership (Uhl-Bien et al., 2008: 216), but does little to show
how the framework may be applied to enhance the capabilities of leaders within organizational
settings. Beyond facilitating the fitness of lower-level units, complexity theory is, unfortunately,
extremely vague about the types of demands and constraints placed on managerial leaders there
appears to be little appreciation that organizations are hierarchies (Osborn and Hunt, 2007: 332).
Complexity theories must continue to pursue theoretical advances while providing valuable insights
that enable organizational leadership to function more effectively.

This paper proposes that the incorporation of authentic leadership theory may provide a supplemental
framework that would reduce the aforementioned limitations found in Complexity Leadership Theory.
First, it might offer greater insight into how beneficial characteristics of actors impact the complex
leadership process. Second, it might provide practical applications that would allow leaders to engage
in meaningful activities that could benefit the organization despite its inherent complexity.
3. Authentic Leadership Theory
Leadership research in the area of authenticity has channeled positive psychology (Seligman and
Csikszentmihalyi, 2000; Sheldon and King, 2001) to focus on leaders strengths rather than
weaknesses. Luthans (2002a, 2002b, 2003) has taken this positive approach and related it to the field
of organizational studies. Avolio and colleagues (Avolio and Gardner, 2005; Avolio et al., 2004;
Luthans and Avolio, 2003) have taken the concept a step further by applying positive psychology to

104

David Livingston and Jenna Lusin
leadership, which they term authentic leadership. The basis of Authentic Leadership Theory is best
put by Shakespeare (1901), to thine own self be true. Luthans and Avolio (2003: 243) define
authentic leadership as:
A process that draws from both positive psychological capacities and a highly developed
organizational context, which results in both greater self-awareness and self-regulated
positive behavior on the part of leaders and employees, fostering positive self-
development. The authentic leaders are confident, hopeful, optimistic, resilient,
transparent, moral/ethical, future-oriented, and give priority to developing employees to
be leaders.
Embedded within the Luthans and Avolio (2003) definition are three main components of authentic
leadership: self-awareness, self-regulation, and self-development. Authentic Leadership Theory
describes effective leaders as being deeply aware of how they think and behave and are perceived
by others as being aware of their own and others values/moral perspectives, knowledge, and
strengths; aware of the context in which they operate (Avolio, Luthans, & Walumbwa, 2004: 4, as
cited in Avolio Gardner et al., 2004).

Self-awareness. One gains self-awareness by testing personal beliefs and self-schema. Hannah
(2005) defines self-awareness as an attention state where the individual directs his or her conscious
attention to some aspect of self, thus becoming self-aware. George (2003: 11) describes authentic
leadership as being yourself and suggests that to accomplish this feat, leaders must understand
their passions and underlying motivations. In addition, Kouzes & Posner (2002) suggest that reaching
an authentic state requires finding ones voice by clarifying ones own personal values. Through
introspection, authentic leaders gain clarity in respect to their core values, identity, emotions, motives,
and goals.

Self-regulation. The second fundamental component of authentic leadership is self-regulation.
Luthans and Avolio (2003) suggest individuals can only embrace their uniqueness and be true to self
if self-awareness and self-regulation are attained. Self-awareness is linked to self-reflection, by
introspection. The unbiased collection and interpretation of self-related information causes self-
correction. This regulation is internally driven by the leaders core self, not through external forces or
expectations. The leader does not ignore or exaggerate self-evaluations or other related knowledge,
thereby enhancing self-development (Luthans and Avolio, 2003).

Self-development. The third fundamental component of authentic leadership is self-development. As a
derivation of self-awareness and self-regulation, self-development provides the leader with greater
internal tools with which he or she might achieve greater organizational effectiveness. The positive
effects of self-development move beyond the leader as the individual becomes an archetype for
followers. The extension of beneficial outcomes through authentic leadership to followers has been
conceptualized by Avolio and Luthans (2006; Luthans and Avolio, 2003) as the intersection of positive
organizational behavior (Luthans, 2002a, 2002b, 2003), transformational leadership (Avolio, 1999,
2002) and ethical development (May et al., 2003), responding to todays challenging and changing
environment.

Avolio and Gardner (2005) specifically propose that authentic leadership can stand up to the unique
challenges facing leaders today through the development component. Authentic leadership is
presented as creating the conditions for higher trust, by helping organizational members to be more
positive and to build on their strengths. This reduces stress levels in uncertain circumstances thus
generating a more stable environment. An Authentic leader believes that every individual in the
organization has something to contribute, and helps those individuals build and leverage those
capabilities. Block (1993) suggests that authentic leadership is a balance between dominance and
compliance. By leveraging their strengths, people can find meaning and a connection at work, as a
result of the supportive work environment created by authentic leadership (Avolio and Gardner, 2005).
This ultimately adds value by improving the overall performance of the organization over time.

The trust and stability provided by Authentic Leadership is a necessary and vital component in the
dynamic realm of leadership. Its incorporation into the systems level perspective of Complexity
Leadership Theory holds great promise for contemporary leadership in the complex and ever-evolving
organizational climate.


105

David Livingston and Jenna Lusin
4. Prescriptive Hybrid Model of Leadership
The residuals of increased trust and stability that result from the three fundamental components of
authenticity influence all three functions of the leadership process described in Complexity Leadership
Theory (Uhl-Bien et al., 2007). Trust and stability are particularly important to the effectiveness of
enabling leadership due to its tenuous position between administrative and adaptive functions. The
relationship between Complexity Leadership Theory and Authentic Leadership Theory is presented in
the Prescriptive Hybrid Model of Leadership. The model (Figure 1) is a derivation of Schreiber and
Carleys (2008) Complexity Leadership Theory model and Luthan and Avolios (2003) definition of
authentic leadership. It retains the three basic functions of Uhl-Bien et al.s (2007) Complexity
Leadership Theory, but seeks to incorporate the impact of authentic characteristics on the leadership
process.

Enabling leadership acts as a mediating structure, allowing beneficial adaptations to pass from the
organizational periphery to the center while restricting the passage of destructive or immature ideas,
policies, or products that may damage the organization. Working with the adaptive and administrative
systems, enabling leadership decides which creative outputs of the adaptive subsystem are the most
appropriate to move forward into the broader bureaucratic structure (Uhl-Bien et al., 2008, p. 213).
Due to its pinnacle position, enabling leadership controls the flow of information between the opposing
realms of adaptive and administrative leadership. Effective adaptation calls for a dynamically,
collectively-led system where bottom-up structuration emergesstructuration built around a desired
order (Osborn and Hunt, 2007, p. 338). Enabling leadership is the information bridge that allows an
organization to retain the appropriate mixture of stability and flexibility, facilitating survival in a
dynamic environment.

Uhl-Bien et al. (2008: 209) state, At the individual level, agents can engage in enabling leadership by
recognizing the creative value of tension and using it to foster productive discussions and interaction.
Conflict, tension, and stress are the fundamental tools employed by enabling leadership. The tools of
enabling leadership have the potential to raise the organization to previously unknown levels of
effectiveness and success. The components of authentic leadership (self-awareness, self-regulation,
and self-development) find their greatest worth through the harnessing of the enabling leadership
tools.

In times of conflict, tension, and stress, authenticity is demonstrated as individuals respond to internal
insights, as opposed to external pressures (Deci and Ryan, 2000). Individuals with optimal self-
awareness, self-esteem, and satisfaction are more resistant to external pressures that may have
otherwise compromised their beliefs and values. Authentic leadership resists external stressors by
creating the conditions for organizational members to be more positive and to build on their strengths,
through a relationship of trust and personal development (Avolio and Gardner, 2005). The
atmosphere created by authentic leadership is conducive to the proper usage of conflict, tension, and
stress within an organization, resulting in beneficial adaptations and collaborations rather than
destructive behavior.

Figure 1: The Prescriptive Hybrid Model of Leadership

106

David Livingston and Jenna Lusin
The Prescriptive Hybrid Model of Leadership depicts the process of leadership with the enabling
leadership function as the gateway between administrative and adaptive leadership. The bidirectional
relationship between all three functions are depicted by the black arrows. The characteristics of
authentic leadership are not part of the process, but rather, impact the process. Authenticity
strengthens the leadership process, increasing its effectiveness, and this relationship is depicted by
the gray arrows. The differing size of the arrows indicates differing degrees of impact by the authentic
characteristics.

As depicted in the pictorial metaphor (Figure 2), it is the function of enabling leadership that acts as a
bridge between administrative and adaptive leadership. Information between the two functions may
only pass through the enabling conduit. It is a restricting function that only allows certain items to
make the journey. This gateway role results in the greatest amount of stress in the system being
placed on enabling leadership. When the organization is impacted by environmental change, the
greatest pressure is felt by the bridge of enabling leadership as it is responsible for maintaining
administrative structure while concurrently allowing adaptive innovation to occur in response to the
environmental stimuli. The critical function of enabling leadership and its tenuous use of conflict and
tension makes it more reliant upon the supportive structure of authentic leadership traits and
behaviors.

The bridge metaphor also shows that the complexity leadership functions may exist and operate
without the presence of authentic leadership; however, the presence of an authentic leadership
support structure allows for greater overall effectiveness through the increased transmission of
information between administrative and adaptive leadership. Prusak (1996: 6) states, The only thing
that gives an organization a competitive edge the only that that is sustainable is what it knows,
how it uses what it knows, and how fast it can know something new. A dynamic environment requires
a greater influx and use of knowledge. In The Prescriptive Hybrid Model of Leadership, knowledge
and information are regulated by enabling leadership. To increase the overall leadership effectiveness
and the transmission of information throughout the entire system, the gateway of enabling leadership
may be supported and strengthened by the trust and stability resulting from leadership authenticity.

Figure 2: The bridge metaphor is based on the Prescriptive Hybrid Model of Leadership
5. Implications and limitations
Theoretical Implications and Limitations. The model presented in this paper is prescriptive in nature,
demonstrating how one set of beneficial characteristics (authenticity) may positively impact a complex
system. It is not our intent to suggest this type of relationship exists between the complex process of
leadership and all actors traits and behaviors. However, acknowledgement of a relationship between
actors characteristics and complex processes is a step toward the reconciliation of the opposing
paradigmatic viewpoints of complexity and trait- and behavior-based theories. If a theoretical
understanding of the relationship between the complex process of leadership and actors
characteristics is established, organizations may exert greater influence over future outcomes. The
multitude of variables impacting the complex process prohibits the possibility of prediction or the
establishment of definitive causal relationships, but an illumination of the relationship between

107

David Livingston and Jenna Lusin
processes and characteristics may increase the probability of an organization being steered in a
positive direction by its leadership.

Practical Implications and Limitations. It is our hope that Authentic Leadership Theory may provide a
doorway through which Complexity Leadership Theory can find real-world application. The
Prescriptive Hybrid Model of Leadership model is purely theoretical at this time and is in need of
significant qualitative and quantitative research. The initial step toward a vigorous research
examination would involve the explicit categorization of specific leadership functions into
administrative, adaptive, and enabling leadership. Once these functions were categorized,
relationships between leadership functions and leaders authenticity could be qualitatively evaluated.
As mentioned above, causal relationship would be impossible to establish in such research, but an
evaluation of phenomenological correspondence between the complex process of leadership and
actors characteristics may possibly be revealed. If such a correspondence was observed, practioners
may then take the first step toward effectively impacting CAS. An organizations success is ultimately
dependent upon a multitude of other factors beyond leadership authenticity, but it may shed light on
how individual level traits and behaviors fit into the world of complexity.
6. Conclusion
This paper has described the contributions of Complexity Leadership Theory at the systems level and
demonstrated that the theorys contribution at the individual level would be significantly expanded with
an integration of Authentic Leadership Theory. Leaders must guide the organization through
turbulence by establishing trusting relationships and inspiring their followers and releasing their
inherent creativity (Keene, 2000). This inspiration, born out of the behaviors and traits of authentic
leaders, provides the conduit through which enabling leadership allows the flow of information
between administrative and adaptive leadership. As the model depicts, it is authentic leadership that
acts as a reinforcing structure, allowing enabling leadership to effectively bridge the gap. Authentic
leadership is necessary in all facets of leadership, but its presence is most critical in the functions of
enabling leadership due to its gateway role and its explicit tools of conflict, tension, and stress.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the faculty of the Human and Organizational Learning Doctoral program at The
George Washington University, especially Dr. Diana Burley, Dr. Margaret Gorman, Dr. David
Schwandt, and Dr. David Szabla in addition to our classmate Paige McDonald. Special thanks goes
to our spouses and families we could not have done this without your support.
References
Aschkenasy, J. (2009). Bill George on what's gone wrong on Wall Street and how to make it right. Journal of
Financial Planning, 22 (2), 14-18.
Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations. Newburg Park, CA:
Sage Publications.
Avolio, B. J. (2002). Examining the full range model of leadership: Looking back to transform forward. In Day, D.
and Zaccaro, S. (Eds). Leadership development for transforming organizations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa, F. O, Luthans, F., & May, D. R. (2004). Unlocking the mask: A look at
the process by which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes and behavior. The Leadership Quarterly,
15, 801-823.
Avolio, B. J. and Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of
leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315-338.
Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2004). Authentic leadership: Theory-building for veritable
sustained performance. Working Paper, Gallup Leadership Institute, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
Avolio, B. J. and Luthans, F. (2006). The high impact leader: Moments matter in accelerating authentic leadership
development. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Bass, B. M. and Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior.
Leadership Quarterly, 10, 181-217.
Block, P. (1993). Stewardship: Choosing service over self-interest. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Deci, E. L. and Ryan, R. M. (2000). What and why of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination
of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.
George, W. (2003). Authentic leadership: Rediscovering the secrets to creating lasting value. San Francisco:
Jossey Bass.
Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 423-451.
Hannah, D. R. & Zatzick, C. D. (2008). An Examination of leader portrayals in the U.S. business press following
the landmark scandals of the early 21st century. Journal of Business Ethics, 79 (4), 361-378.

108

David Livingston and Jenna Lusin

Hannah, S. T. (2005). Agentic leadership efficacy: Test of a new construct and model for development and
performance. Unpublished Dissertation, Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
Hazy, J.K. (2008). Leadership or luck? The system dynamics of Intels shift to microprocessors in the 1970s and
1980s. In M. Uhl-Bien & R. Marion (Eds.), Complexity leadership: Part 1conceptual foundations (pp. 347-
378). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Keene, A. (2000). Complexity theory: The changing role of leadership. Industrial and Commercial Training,
32(1), 15-18.
Kouzes, J. M. & Posner, B. Z. (2002). The leadership challenge. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Leaders: Easy does it; AIG and the president (2009). The Economist, 390 (8623), 14.
Leithwood, K. A. & Steinbach, R. (1995). Expert Problem Solving, Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Lewin, A. (1999). Complexity: Life at the edge of chaos (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Luthans, F. (2002a). The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 23, 695-706.
Luthans, F. (2002b). Positive organizational behavior: developing and managing psychological strengths.
Academy of Management Executive, 16, 57-72.
Luthans, F. (2003). Positive organizational behavior (POB): Implications for leadership and HR development and
motivation. In Steers, R. M., Porter, L. W., and Begley, G. A. (Eds), Motivation and Leadership at Work.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. (2003). Authentic leadership development. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E.
Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline. San Francisco: Berrett-
Koehler.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organizational Science, 2(1), 71-87.
Marion, R. (2008). Complexity theory for organizations and organizational leadership. In M. Uhl-Bien & R. Marion
(Eds.), Complexity leadership: Part 1conceptual foundations (pp. 1-16). Charlotte, NC: Information Age
Publishing, Inc.
Marion, R. & Uhl-Bien, M. (2007). Paradigmatic influence and leadership: The perspectives of complexity theory
and bureaucracy theory. In J. K. Hazy, J. Goldstein, & B. B. Lichtenstein (Eds.), Complex systems
leadership theory (pp. 143-162). Mansfield, MA: ISCE.
May, D. R., Chan, A. Y. L., Hodges, T. D., and Avolio, B. J. (2003). Developing the moral component of authentic
leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 32, 247-260.
Osborn, R., & Hunt, J. (2007). Leadership and the choice of order: Complexity and hierarchical perspectives near
the edge of chaos. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(4), 319-340.
Panzer, C., Hazy, J.K., McKelvey, B., & Schwandt, D. R. (2007). The paradox of complex organizations:
Leadership as integrated influence. In J. K. Hazy, J. Goldstein, & B. B. Lichtenstein (Eds.), Complex
systems leadership theory (pp. 299-320). Mansfield, MA: ISCE.
Prusak, L. (1996). The knowledge advantage. Strategy & Leadership, 24, 6-8.
Schreiber, C. & Carley, K. M. (2007). Leadership style as an enabler of organizational complex functioning. In J.
K. Hazy, J. Goldstein, & B. B. Lichtenstein (Eds.), Complex systems leadership theory (pp. 227-246).
Mansfield, MA: ISCE.
Schreiber, C. & Carley, K. M. (2008). Network leadership: Leading for learning and adaptability. In M. Uhl-Bien
& R. Marion (Eds.), Complexity leadership: Part 1 conceptual foundations (pp. 185-224). Charlotte, NC:
Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Seligman, M. E. P. and Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology. American Psychologist, 55, 5-14.
Shakespeare, W. (1901). Hamlet. New York: The University Society.
Sheldon, K. M. and King, L. (2001). Why positive psychology is necessary. American Psychologist, 56, 216-217.
Sinclair, A. (2007). Leadership for the disillusioned. Crows Nest, N.S.W.: Allen & Unwin.
Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the
industrial age to the knowledge age. Leadership Quarterly, 18(4), 298-318.
Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2008). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the
industrial age to the knowledge era. In M. Uhl-Bien & R. Marion (Eds.), Complexity leadership: Part 1
conceptual foundations (pp. 185-224). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
109
Copyright of Proceedings of the European Conference on Management, Leadership & Governance is the
property of Academic Conferences, Ltd. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted
to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.