The Lighthouse of Leadership Theory 1

Values-based Leadership: The Lighthouse of Leadership Theory

Stacey Crawford
Royal Roads University

June 30, 2005

Faculty Advisor:
Elizabeth Cull
 The Lighthouse of Leadership Theory 2

Values-based Leadership: The Lighthouse of Leadership Theory

My strong desire to pursue and understand the characteristics of leadership are

based on the belief that there is a growing need for the development of sophisticated

leadership and problem solving skills necessary to meet the changing role of this

responsibility within organizations both today and in the future.

My journey began at RRU with a leadership philosophy that was largely based on

integrity, fairness, a willingness to share my vision, and a lead-by-example approach.

What I never thought to explore was why those principles were important to me, how

they could be utilized to serve the values of those I was leading and, more importantly,

how to utilize the knowledge in the manner intended. What I have come to learn is the

importance of expanding and grounding these principles within a rigorous theoretical

framework, recognizing the collective values of those I work with, and how to

consciously apply these principles within a socially and emotionally responsible manner.

In exploring the leadership philosophies, I came to appreciate values-based

leadership, as it was firmly planted in the ground of commonly held values. Although I

do not believe that there is one best approach towards effective leadership, there is

significant quantitative and qualitative data to suggest that values-based leadership makes

a difference to the realizable potential of any organization. In the words of James

O’Toole (1996), “there is no alternative to the practice of values-based leadership” (p.

79).

To understand the values-based leadership approach, one must understand and

deal with the prime motivators of constituent behavior that determine performance. These

motivators include norms, values, and beliefs. A leader who is consciously and
 The Lighthouse of Leadership Theory 3

emotionally aware of this relationship has a better understanding of the content and

strength of the organizational culture, and is able to build a vision with the commitment

and cooperation necessary to create an environment for success.

Although the importance of creating and having a vision is a common theme

within most leadership philosophies, it is my opinion that this is often a leadership

pronouncement devoid of “consensus around shared values” (Kouzes and Posner, 2002,

p. 80). In building a shared vision, "One is hard-pressed to think of any organization that

has sustained some measure of greatness in the absence of goals, values, and missions

that become deeply shared throughout the organization." (Senge, 1994, p. 9).

Prior to the study of leadership philosophy, my personal view focused on an

understanding of leadership as the art and science of management. This understanding

was based on prior learning and defined the science of management responsibility as the

analysis of operational process, planning, framework, and functional structure. The art of

management was the integration of these processes into the organizational culture to

influence constituent behaviour. Together, these principles formed the characteristics of

the manager, or leader, who provided the operational context and purpose for the

constituents. My belief now is such that regardless of leadership approach or philosophy,

“strategies, tactics, skills, and practices are empty without an understanding of the

fundamental human aspirations that connect leaders and constituents” (Kouzes and

Posner, 2002, p. 23).

In the absence of a vision that does not have consensus on shared values,

individuals become confused about what they should be doing and how they should be

operating. Leadership and constituent values may be incongruent, causing the loss of
 The Lighthouse of Leadership Theory 4

personal effectiveness and productivity (Kouzes and Posner, 2002). This scenario is an

inherent failing of organizational leadership that does not incorporate constituent input

and is likely to result in a crisis situation.

Diametrically opposed to values-based leadership is the contingency philosophy.

The theory suggests that “How the leader acts to effect change will depend on the

situation” (O’Toole, 1996, p. 106). O’Toole (1996) also suggests that “few leaders

succeed at leading change…because so many are adherents, consciously or

unconsciously, of situational leadership” (p. 108). The reasons for this failure are that

situational leaders need a situation to arise before they can apply their leadership solution.

When leaders take a reactive approach, they respond automatically and

unconsciously to the dynamics of transformation based on their conditioned

habits, existing knowledge, and dominant leadership style. Their lens is filtered,

causing critical people and process dynamics to go unseen. They can only apply

their old management techniques, because their limited awareness offers them no

other possibilities. (Anderson and Ackerman Anderson, 2001, p. 52)

This very reactive approach is often in response to a crisis. When we are being

reactive versus proactive, “the situational leader does not know where to look, what to

look for, or how to look–because they do not believe that such things are even there to be

discovered” (O’Toole, 1996, p. 108). In my opinion, the missing component is a moral

point of reference.
 The Lighthouse of Leadership Theory 5

Taking the time to build and affirm collectively held values and beliefs of a group

or organization before a situation arises “give(s) purpose to your daily decisions”

(Kouzes and Posner, 2002, p.394). This is the point of reference that allows a leader or

constituent to make a decision without wondering what the decision depends on, as in

contingency theory. Kouzes and Posner (2002), address the power of shared values as a

common language upon which “tremendous energy is generated when individual, group,

and organizational values are in synch” (p. 78).

Values-based leadership also shares commonalities with the theories of

transformational and servant leadership. Transformational leadership “appeals to the

moral values of followers in an attempt to raise the consciousness about ethical issues and

to mobilize their energy and resources to reform institutions” (Yukl, 2002, p.119).

Servant leadership “encourages collaboration, trust, foresight, listening, and the ethical

use of power and empowerment” (Greenleaf, 2002).

As a result of these commonalities, I will posit that the fundamental difference

between these three philosophies and the theories of contingency, relativism, and realism,

which are generally aligned with the pursuit of self-interest, are the significant long-term

benefits of knowing at any point in time what to base your actions on, namely the shared

values of the organization.

This is not only a qualitative philosophical difference, but an important

quantitative benefit where “there’s actually a logarithm that predicts that relationship: For

every 1 percent improvement in the service climate, there’s a 2 percent increase in

revenue.” (Spencer, L. paper as cited in Goleman et al, 2002, p. 15). This paper,

presented in 2001 by Lyle Spencer at the meeting of the Consortium for Research on
 The Lighthouse of Leadership Theory 6

Emotional Intelligence in Organizations, quantifies that improvement in the service

climate drives increases in revenue. According to Kouzes and Posner (2002), “Leadership

decisions based on the collective values of the organization are investments in the

organization's future” (p. xix), and “when there's congruence between individual values

and organizational values, there’s significant payoff for leaders and their organizations"

(p. 79),

As it relates to the values of strong morale and effective interrelationships,

contingency, and oft compared realist and relativist leadership styles, appear to garner

short-term corporate results as a consequence of using a variety of leadership styles

determined on a situation by situation basis. Perhaps more damaging, this inconsistency

negatively affects the credibility of the leader. This credibility is based on their perceived

trustworthiness, expertise, and dynamism, and when credibility is low, productivity,

motivation, and dissatisfaction are significantly higher (Kouzes and Posner, 2002).

In addressing the preferred leadership styles and their meaning, it is important to

also understand the characteristic traits and competencies that are required as a leader to

gain commitment from your constituents. Yukl (2002) summarizes the requisite skills for

leadership success as “cognitive complexity, emotional and social intelligence, self-

awareness, cultural sensitivity, behavioral flexibility, and the ability to learn from

experience and adapt to change” (p. 79).

For me, utilization of these skills begins with self-awareness; an honest reflection

and understanding “of one’s emotions, as well as one’s strengths and limitations and

one’s values and motives” (Goleman et al, 2002, p. 40). In this context, when we can

bring forth the best of ourselves and the requisite skills mentioned previously, we create
 The Lighthouse of Leadership Theory 7

an environment open to interaction with individuals. “At the heart of our expertise is

awareness” (Short, 1998, p. 3). This awareness also allows us to “respond to the

expectations of our constituents, underscoring the point that leadership is a relationship

and that the relationship is one of service to a purpose and service to people” (Kouzes and

Posner, 2002, p. 27).

Relationships and an emphasis on interconnectedness appear to be driving forces,

or at the very least, values that are being revisited in organizations today. As such,

it is predicted that the economy of the new millennium, fluid and technologically

driven, will be based on creativity and relationships (RRU, 2005, p. 3).

Yukl (2002) suggests the foundation of these skills lies in our cognitive ability

and that these conceptual skills include “analytical ability, logical thinking, concept

formation, inductive reasoning, and deductive reasoning” (p. 71). These skills represent

conscious reasoning, and to support the importance of relationships, must be united with

the appropriate mix of interpersonal (social) skills (Yukl, 2002). Conscious reasoning

enjoys the support of most traditional and modern management theories; however, the

importance of interpersonal skills should not be underestimated; “Deficiencies in

interpersonal skills were a major reason for managers who eventually derailed in their

management careers" (CCL Study, as cited by Yukl, 2002, p. 73).

The fundamental interpersonal skills include emotional intelligence, social

intelligence, and the ability to learn. Emotional intelligence allows us to understand our

own feelings and the feelings of others. Social intelligence is the ability to determine the
 The Lighthouse of Leadership Theory 8

requirements for a particular situation, while selecting an appropriate response. The

ability to learn allows us to analyze our own cognitive processes (Yukl, 2002).

In recognizing values-based leadership as a leadership philosophy I personally

espouse, I have come to learn that I must clarify the principles that will govern my life,

and that these will serve as the point of reference in the uncertain times that are all too

prevalent in organizational settings. In managing relationships Goleman et al (2002),

suggest that “managing relationships skillfully boils down to handling other people's

emotions" (p. 51).

My personal journey recognized values-based leadership as a philosophy I

believed in because it provided a constant moral reference point when applying conscious

reasoning to a leadership situation. It negated situational thinking; for if it all depends,

what does it depend on? For me, it depends on the collectively held organizational values

within an organization.

References

Anderson, Dean & Ackerman Anderson, Linda (2001). Beyond change management:

Advanced strategies for today’s transformational leaders. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass/Pfeiffer

Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R. & McKee, A. (2002). Primal leadership: Realizing the power

of emotional intelligence. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Greenleaf, R. (2002). Greenleaf center for servant-leadership: what is servant

leadership? Retrieved June 26, 2005, from

http://www.greenleaf.org/leadership/servant-leadership/What-is-Servant-

Leadership.html
 The Lighthouse of Leadership Theory 9

Kouzes, J. & Posner, B. (2002). The leadership challenge. (3rd ed.) San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

O’ Toole, J. (1995, 1996) leading change:The argument for values-based leadership.

New York: Ballantine Books.

Senge, P. (1994). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization.

New York: Doubleday.

Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations. Fifth edition. Englewood Cliffs,

NJ:

Prentice-Hall.