Transactional and Transformational Leadership: A Constructive/Developmental Analysis

Author(s): Karl W. Kuhnert and Philip Lewis

Source: The Academy of Management Review , Oct., 1987, Vol. 12, No. 4 (Oct., 1987), pp.
648-657
Published by: Academy of Management

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/258070

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/258070?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
The Academy of Management Review

This content downloaded from

79.41.228.85 on Wed, 21 May 2025 12:48:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
? Academy of Management Review, 1987, Vol. 12, No. 4, 648-657.

Transactional and
Transformational Leadership:
A Constructive/Developmental
Analysis
KARL W. KUHNERT
PHILIP LEWIS
Auburn University

The transactional and transformational theories of leadership devel-

oped by Burns (1978) and Bass (1985) are clarified and extended by
using a constructive/developmental theory to explain how critical per-
sonality differences in leaders lead to either transactional or transfor-
mational leadership styles. The distinction between two levels of trans-
actional leadership is expanded, and a three-stage developmental
model of leadership is proposed.

James MacGregor Burns, in his book Leader- sions" (p. 27). In contrast, transformational
ship (1978), identified two types of political leaders
leadership: transactional and transformational. attempt and succeed in raising colleagues, subor-
Transactional leadership occurs when one per- dinates, followers, clients, or constituencies to a
son takes the initiative in making contact with greater awareness about the issues of conse-
others for the purpose of an exchange of some- quence. This heightening of awareness requires
a leader with vision, self confidence, and inner
thing valued; that is, "leaders approach follow-
strength to argue successfully for what he [sic]
ers with an eye toward exchanging" (p. 4). Trans- sees is right or good, not for what is popular or is
formational leadership is based on more than acceptable according to established wisdom of
the compliance of followers; it involves shifts in the time (Bass, 1985, p. 17).
the beliefs, the needs, and the values of followers. Both Burns (1978) and Bass (1985) identified
According to Burns, "the result of transforming leaders by their actions and the impact those
leadership is a relationship of mutual stimula- actions have on others. Missing from their works,
tion and elevation that converts followers into however, is an explanation of the internal pro-
leaders and may convert leaders into moral cesses which generate the actions of transac-
agents" (p. 4). tional or transformational leaders. That is, nei-
Bass (1985) applied Bums' (1978) ideas to or- ther author provided a framework for under-
ganizational management. He argued that trans- standing the motivational states or personality
actional leaders "mostly consider how to margin- differences that give rise to these two types of
ally improve and maintain the quantity and leadership.
quality of performance, how to substitute one In this paper, an attempt to alleviate this short-
goal for another, how to reduce resistance to coming is made. The authors propose a frame-
particular actions, and how to implement deci- work for examining the processes through which

648

This content downloaded from

79.41.228.85 on Wed, 21 May 2025 12:48:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
transactional and transformational leaders de- zation than employees who engaged in relation-
velop. It is based on the idea that transactional ships that involved contractually agreed upon
and transformational leaders are qualitatively elements such as eight hours of work for eight
different kinds of individuals who construct real- hours of pay (low-quality). The work reported by
ity in markedly different ways, thereby viewing Graen et al. suggests low-quality transactions
themselves and the people they lead in contrast- are based on the exchange of goods or rights,
ing ways. The framework used here to explain whereas high-quality transactions are aug-
the differences between transactional and trans- mented by an interpersonal bond between lead-
formational leaders is constructive/develop- ers and followers (Landy, 1985).
mental personality theory (Kegan, 1982; Selman, Burns (1978) and Bass (1985) similarly distin-
1980). guished between levels of transactional leader-
ship. Burns suggested that the kinds of transac-
Transactional and Transformational tions leaders and followers engage in range from
Leadership the obvious (jobs for votes, subsidies for cam-
paign contributions) to the less obvious (ex-
Transactional leadership represents those ex- changes of trust, commitment, and respect).
changes in which both the superior and the sub- Similarly, Bass noted that transactional leaders
ordinate influence one another reciprocally so have various transactions available to them.
that each derives something of value (Yukl, 1981). Transactions based on leaders' knowledge of the
Simply stated, transactional leaders give follow- actions subordinates must take to achieve de-
ers something they want in exchange for some- sired personal outcomes (e.g., working overtime
thing the leaders want. Transactional leaders for a paid vacation) are most common. In these
engage their followers in a relationship of mu- exchanges, transactional leaders clarify the roles
tual dependence in which the contributions of followers must play and the task requirements
both sides are acknowledged and rewarded followers must complete in order to reach their
(Kellerman, 1984). In these situations, leaders are personal goals while fulfilling the mission of the
influential because doing what the leaders want organization.
is in the best interest of the followers. Effective A less common form of transactional leader-
transactional leaders must regularly fulfill the ship involves promises or commitments that are
expectations of their followers. Thus, effective rooted in "exchangeable" values such as respect
transactional leadership is contingent on the and trust. Burns (1978) referred to these values
leaders' abilities to meet and respond to the reac- as modal values; modal values bond leaders to
tions and changing expectations of their follow- followers in an attempt to actualize the needs of
ers (Kellerman, 1984). both parties. Thus lower-order transactions de-
Although transactional leadership can be pend upon the leaders' control of resources (e.g.,
described as the exchange of valued outcomes, pay increases, special benefits) that are desired
closer examination of the literature suggests by the followers (Yukl, 1981). If such rewards are
that all exchanges are not equivalent (e.g., not under the leaders' direct control, their bar-
Dienesch & Liden, 1986). Indeed, it appears that gaining power is diminished. Higher order trans-
two "levels" of transactions can be distinguished. actional leadership, on the other hand, relies on
Graen, Liden, and Hoel (1982), for example, stud- the exchange of nonconcrete rewards to main-
ied the impact that both high-quality and low- tain followers' performance. In this relationship,
quality exchange relationships had on the turn- the leaders directly control such exchanges since
over of employees. They found that employees they rely upon nontangible rewards and values.
who engaged in relationships that involved sup- Transformational leadership also originates in
port and the exchange of emotional resources the personal values and beliefs of leaders, not in
(high-quality) were less likely to leave an organi- an exchange of commodities between leaders
649

This content downloaded from

79.41.228.85 on Wed, 21 May 2025 12:48:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
and followers. Both Bass (1985) and Bums (1978) failed to explain how particular traits cohere to
indicated that transformational leaders operate produce different types of leaders. It appears that
out of deeply held personal value systems that constructive/developmental personality theory
include such values as justice and integrity. can provide a framework for understanding the
Bums refers to these values as end values-those processes through which different types of lead-
that cannot be negotiated or exchanged be- ers emerge.
tween individuals. By expressing their personal Constructive personality theories hold that peo-
standards, transformational leaders are able ple vary in the ways in which they construct or
both to unite followers and to change followers' organize experiences about themselves and their
goals and beliefs. This form of leadership results social and interpersonal environments. Accord-
in achievement of higher levels of performance ing to this view, events and situations do not
among individuals than previously thought pos- exist, psychologically, until they are experienced
sible (Bass, 1985). and composed privately (Kegan, 1982). Thus, un-
Perhaps the concept of charisma (House, 1977; derstanding the processes through which peo-
Weber, 1947) comes closest in meaning to Burns' ple construct meaning out of their experiences
(1978) and Bass' ideas of transformational leader- may advance our knowledge of how leaders
ship. House described charismatic leaders as understand, experience, and approach the en-
those "who by force of their personal abilities terprise of leading.
are capable of having a profound and extraordi- It appears, from this perspective, that the or-
nary effect on followers" (p. 189). He further con- ganizational and perceptual structures of trans-
tended that the term "is usually reserved for lead- actional leaders are quite distinct from those of
ers who by their influence are able to cause transformational leaders. Also, it can be argued
followers to accomplish outstanding feats" (p. that the constructive/developmental framework
189). can be used to distinguish between lower order
Both transformational leaders and charismatic and higher order transactional leadership by fo-
leaders gain influence by demonstrating impor- cusing on the personality mechanisms that in-
tant personal characteristics. Many of these char- duce leaders to engage in one level of exchange
acteristics were described by Bass (1985; Avolio versus the other. Thus, while the behaviors of
& Bass, 1986); some of them are self-confidence, leaders may change under different circum-
dominance, and a strong conviction in the moral stances, the underlying personality structures
righteousness of one's beliefs. Thus, key behav- that produce the behaviors are quite stable.
iors of successful transformational leaders may
include articulating goals, building an image, Constructive/Developmental Personality Theory
demonstrating confidence, and arousing moti-
Constructive/developmental theory, as out-
vation. These behaviors can convince and moti-
lined by Robert Kegan (1982), describes a critical
vate followers without bartering for goods and
personality variable that gives rise to the range
rights, which characterizes transactional leader-
of an individual's experiences (the growth of in-
ship.
terpersonal and intrapersonal understanding).
A Model of The constructive part of the theory assumes that
Transactional and Transformational humans construct a subjective understanding of
Leadership the world that shapes their experiences as op-
posed to their directly experiencing an objective
Bass (1985) identified a number of personality "real" world.
variables believed to distinguish transformational Constructive/developmental theory extends the
from transactional leaders. Except for a brief constructivist view by highlighting sequential
foray into psychoanalytic theory, however, he regularities or patterns in ways that people con-

650

This content downloaded from

79.41.228.85 on Wed, 21 May 2025 12:48:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
struct meaning during the course of their lives, the child can make his/her perceptions the ob-
and by showing how individuals progress from ject of that organizing process; this opens up a
simple to more complex (encompassing) modes new way of viewing the world.
of understanding. Kegan (1982) argued that these Constructive/developmental theory supports a
regularities are the deep structure of personality similar view of the personality structure of adults.
which generate people's thoughts, feelings, and What is subject for some is object for those at
actions in the same way that linguistic deep higher stages of development, freeing adults
structures generate grammatical language to examine new ways of interpreting themselves
(Chomsky, 1968). Throughout this developmen- and their interpersonal relationships. Indeed, the
tal process (which extends into adulthood for most process of development of the personality from
individuals), there is an expansion of people's this theoretical perspective is one of qualitative
abilities to reflect on and understand their per- restructuring of the relationship between the sub-
sonal and interpersonal worlds. This expansion ject and the object of experience.
is made possible by increasing differentiation of It is important for adult development (and con-
oneself from others and by simultaneously inte- sequently for leadership) to determine what is
grating the formerly undifferentiated view into a subject and what is object at various develop-
more complex and encompassing view. mental stages and then to understand what im-
To understand the nature of these personality plications this distinction has for leaders' be-
stages and how they relate to transactional and havior. Kegan (1982) described six developmen-
transformational leadership, it is necessary to tal stages, three of which are characteristic of
distinguish between two personality structures the level of interpersonal understanding of most
which Kegan (1982) termed subject and object. adults (see Table 1). Since it will not be possible
The structure by which people compose experi- to discuss Kegan's highest stage (5), and lowest
ence is termed subject; it is so basic to human stages (O and 1) here, interested readers may
functioning that typically people are not aware consult Kegan's book (1982) for a description.
of it. It is, in other words, the lens through which In stage 2, individuals' frames of reference
people view the world and their inner exper- (subject) are personal goals or agendas. This
iences, and they are unable to examine that lens. frame of reference becomes the lens through
Piaget (1954) demonstrated this phenomenon which stage 2 adults view their interpersonal
by showing that the typical four-year-old child is world; everything they "witness" is experienced
subject to his/her perceptions. In his now famous and evaluated in those terms. For example, a
experiment, the typical four-year-old reported stage 2 leader whose goal is becoming the youn-
that there was more liquid in a taller, thinner gest manager to be promoted in the unit can be
beaker than there was in the shorter, wider expected to view his or her followers largely in
beaker, even when the same amount of water terms of whether they are advancing or thwart-
was poured from one container to the other. ing this aspiration.
For this preoperational child, the perceptual pro- Enmeshed in personal goals as an organizing
cess is subject: Perceptions are the organizing process, the stage 2 leader also assumes, often
process, and these perceptions cannot be made incorrectly, that others operate because of sim-
object. ilar motives. It follows that leaders who have
Only when the child has moved to Piaget's failed to progress beyond Kegan's second devel-
concrete operational stage is he/she able to take opmental stage are apt to use lower level trans-
a perspective on his/her perceptions, recogniz- actional leadership, an approach that motivates
ing that even though the level of liquid is differ- followers through trade-offs of the leaders' and
ent in the two beakers, they actually contain the followers' personal goals. Constructive/develop-
same amount. With this new organizing process, mental theory suggests that stage 2 individuals

651

This content downloaded from

79.41.228.85 on Wed, 21 May 2025 12:48:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Table 1 Stage 2 leaders, from a constructive/develop-
Stages of Adult Development Showing the Or- mental perspective, lack an ability to reflect on
ganizing Process ("Subject") and the Content of their goals; they do not have agendas-they
that Organizing Process ("Object") are defined by them. When individuals reach
Kegan's (1982) stage 3, they are able to reflect on
their own interests and to consider these inter-
Subject Object
ests simultaneously with the interests of others.
(Organizing (Content of
At this developmental stage, personal needs are
Stagea Process) Experience)
no longer a part of the subjective organizing
2
process; they become the object of a new organ-
Imperial Personal goals Perceptions,
(Lower-order and agendas immediate needs, izing process. This is a critical point in the growth
Transactional) feelings of interpersonal understanding because for the
3 first time individuals can experience trust, com-
Interpersonal Interpersonal Personal goals mitment, respect, and mutuality-values that are
(Higher-order connections, and agendas central to higher level transactional leadership.
Transactional) mutual
The new subjective frame of reference for stage
obligations
3 leaders (connectedness to their subordinates)
4
is the result of their new ability to override per-
Institutional Personal Interpersonal
sonal needs and to coordinate their needs with
(Transformational) standards connections,
and value mutual the needs of others. Whereas the stage 2 leaders
system obligations negotiate with their employers to satisfy personal

Note: When individuals progress from one stage to the

agendas, stage 3 leaders sacrifice their personal
next, what was formerly subject becomes the object of a new goals in order to maintain connections with their
organizing process. employers. Thus, the key transactions for the
a Stage numbers and names are taken directly from stage 3 leaders are mutual support, promises,
Kegan (1982).
expectations, obligations, and rewards.
Stage 3 leaders progress to a level of under-
standing where personal goals are transcended
by a focus on interpersonal relations. They be-
are able to use only lower level transactional come free to understand that for some followers
leadership techniques. the concrete payoffs they provide are not as im-
Stage 2 leaders may say that they aspire to portant as the maintenance of a certain level of
higher order transactions (e.g., team spirit, mutual regard. This alleviates the pressure of
mutual respect), but from the perspective of constantly monitoring and rewarding followers'
cognitive/developmental theory they have not performance and permits higher level transac-
developed the organizing processes (subject) nec- tional leadership. Communicating attitudes (e.g.,
essary for understanding or participating in mu- trust or respect) becomes the critical dynamism
tual experiences and shared perceptions. Al- behind this type of leadership. It is the followers'
though wanting to be the youngest manager to sense of these feelings that maintains their atti-
be promoted in the unit may be an acceptable tudes and work performance.
goal, such single-minded vision may have nega- Higher level transactional leadership also can
tive consequences for co-workers, the unit, or have serious shortcomings. Stage 3 leaders, for
the organization. Even though one cannot be whom commitment and loyalty are basic, can-
certain how this leader's behavior will affect the not take a perspective on those commitments and
unit's effectiveness, it is certain that his/her com- loyalties; in effect, they are controlled by higher
mitment to the organization is one of reciprocity. order exchanges. Stage 3 leaders may feel "torn"

652

This content downloaded from

79.41.228.85 on Wed, 21 May 2025 12:48:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
in situations of conflicting loyalties (e.g., loyalty words, they can operate as transformational
to the organization versus loyalty to their subor- leaders. In order to reach the transformational
dinates). Unable to take a perspective on com- stage, leaders must know the limitations, the
peting loyalties because the loyalties comprise defects, and the strengths of all perspectives
the organizing process, they find that the only (Mitroff, 1978).
satisfactory course of action is one that somehow The hallmark of stage 4 leaders is their capac-
preserves competing loyalties by being fair to all ity to take a perspective on interpersonal rela-
parties. tionships and to achieve a self-determined sense
In one sense, stage 3 transactional leaders are of identity. Whereas stage 3 leaders define them-
transformational because they use relational ties selves through interpersonal relationships (feel
to motivate followers to believe work is more than torn when conflict arises), stage 4 leaders re-
the performance of certain duties for certain con- solve conflict based on their internal standards.
crete payoffs. Followers may perform at exem- Leaders at this stage of constructive/develop-
plary levels with little immediate payoff in order mental maturity possess the critical requirement
to maintain the respect of their leader. Still, of acting according to end values (e.g., integrity,
higher level transactional leadership is not trans- self-respect, equality). Because stage 4 leaders
formational in one important respect. Although hold independent self-authored values and can
followers who are persuaded by higher level carry these out despite competing loyalties while
transactional leaders may expend extraordinary evaluating their own performance, they often can
effort to maintain a certain level of mutual re- convert followers to their way of thinking and
gard with their leader, their beliefs and goals can integrate their values into the work group.
typically have not changed (Bass, 1985). Mutual Because individuals can operate through these
regard also includes the liabilities of situational end values does not necessarily mean that they
leadership; it requires continuous give and take will always do so. Sometimes transformational
between leaders and followers. The more "bar- leaders use transactional methods to lead, but
gains" (concrete or interpersonal) that are struck stage 4 leaders have the ability to understand
between leaders and their followers, the more the available leadership options and to act in
likely it is that the leader will be unable to make the manner that is most appropriate to the situa-
good on all promised transactions. More critical, tion. Unless leaders have progressed to stage 4
stage 3 leaders are dependent on a shared sense personality structures, they will be unable to tran-
of mutual respect, as are their followers. scend the personal needs and commitments of
In contrast, leaders who have progressed to others and they will be unable to pursue their
stage 4 in the development of interpersonal un- own end values.
derstanding do not experience competing loyal- Transformational leaders motivate followers
ties as a critical dilemma that stems from attempt- to accept and accomplish difficult goals that fol-
ing to maintain the respect of everyone. This is lowers normally would not have pursued.
because stage 4 leaders have developed a sub- Transforming leadership is made possible when
jective frame of reference (organizing process) leaders' end values (internal standards) are
that defines their selves, not in terms of their adopted by followers, thereby producing
connections to others (the hallmark of stage 3), changes in the attitudes, beliefs, and goals of
but in terms of their internal values or standards; followers. It is end values such as integrity,
this is what Burns (1978) called end values. At honor, and justice that potentially can transform
this stage, leaders are able to take an objective followers. Further, the commitment of followers
view of their goals and commitments; they can to their leaders' values causes leadership influ-
operate from a personal value system that tran- ence to cascade through the organization (Bass,
scends their agendas and loyalties. In other Waldman, & Avolio, 1986).

653

This content downloaded from

79.41.228.85 on Wed, 21 May 2025 12:48:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The literature on contingency theories of lead- investigating the possible link between transfor-
ership (see Hunt, 1984, for an overview) suggests mational leaders' conduct and their followers'
that leader personality is not nearly as impor- actions; it also may be useful for determining the
tant to leader effectiveness as selecting the right behaviors of transformational leaders.
behavior or style for a given situation. However, Clearly, longitudinal research is needed. If
Lord, DeVader, and Alliger (1986) argued that leaders develop as the constructive/develop-
the relationship between personality and leader- mental perspective suggests, then a longitudi-
ship is stronger and more consistent than many nal approach is necessary to help discover/
contemporary writers believe. A reconciliation decipher the variables that influence how this
of these competing views could come from a bet- leadership emerges and how it is expressed.
ter understanding of differences in how individu- Thus, studies are needed that span leaders'
als process information about situations. The careers; at the same time, these studies should
constructive/developmental personality theory identify the ways in which experiences are re-
presented here, which explains both individual flected in changes in the leaders' cognitive or-
differences in perceptual processing and differ- ganizing processes.
ential responsiveness to situations, may provide It is important to expand the criterion variables
that understanding. studied in leadership research. In past research,
effective leadership has been defined too nar-
Implications rowly. That is, too many researchers have lim-
ited effective leadership to its impact on task
Methodological Issues
performance. Although task performance is im-
Constructive/developmental theory has been portant, neglecting other variables such as group
used here as a heuristic for distinguishing or organizational effectiveness misses the poten-
between transactional and transformational tial transforming contribution of higher stage
leadership. The success this theory has in fur- leaders. In fact, increased focus on transactional
thering researchers' understanding of the lead- and transformational leaders may help to iden-
ership process is contingent upon accurately tify the outcome variables that are necessary to
measuring leaders' developmental stages. effectively evaluate the different leadership
Kegan (1982) described a methodology for deter- styles.
mining adults' levels of perceptual processing in
Substantive Research Issues
which a structured interview is used to deter-
mine how adults organize their values and how Applying constructive/developmental theory to
they use language to describe their level of in- transactional and transformational leadership
terpersonal understanding. Although research liberates researchers from a static view of leader-
which measures developmental stages has in- ship; it emphasizes leaders' development over
creased (Kegan, 1982; Lewis, Kuhnert, & Magin- the course of their lives. Rather than categoriz-
nis, in press), more empirical research is needed. ing behaviors and inferring the presence of trans-
Vital to transformational leadership are the ar- actional or transformational leadership based on
ticulation by the leader of end values and the those behaviors, constructive/developmental the-
acceptance of those values by followers. Since ory focuses on changes and growth in leaders'
the communication of values depends upon lan- perspective-taking abilities as the means for un-
guage (e.g., Pondy, 1978), it is crucial that re- derstanding changes in their behaviors.
searchers analyze (a) how transformational According to Kegan and Lahey (1984), leaders
leaders convey values to followers, and (b) the who are at different developmental levels use
processes by which followers internalize their different systems for construing reality (implying
leaders' value systems. Behavioral modeling differences in their approach to leadership is-
(Manz & Sims, 1986) may provide a tool for sues and problems). If it can be demonstrated
654

This content downloaded from

79.41.228.85 on Wed, 21 May 2025 12:48:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
that the perceptual processes of leaders change ers develop from one stage to another and to
over time, concomitant behavioral changes also understand the mechanisms necessary for tran-
should be explored. An important question for sition of subject (the organizing process of exper-
empirical study is "are there observable changes ience) to object (the content of experience). Such
in leaders' behaviors as a function of their research also may help to identify the extent
own personality development, or do changes in to which cognitive processing can be learned
leaders' behaviors merely reflect changes in the and, consequently, the potential effectiveness of
leadership context?" As stated earlier, this ques- leadership training programs.
tion cannot be answered unless longitudinal in- Another focus for research is the question
vestigations of leaders' cognitive processes are "what happens when leaders and followers op-
undertaken along with studies of the situations erate at different developmental levels?" Because
in which leaders' decisions are made. constructive/developmental theory is a general
If a pattern of how leaders develop can be theory of human development (not a theory of
determined reliably, the constructive/develop- leaders' personalities), both leaders and follow-
mental framework may have implications for se- ers can be examined from the same theoretical
lecting and developing leaders. It may be possi- perspective; it may be that developmental fit be-
ble to select individuals for particular leadership tween leaders and followers explains the suc-
positions on the basis of their stage in the devel- cesses and failures of leaders. For example, it
opment process and the needs of the organiza- may be that leaders who function at develop-
tion. That is, stage 2 leaders may work well when mental levels beyond the levels of their followers
contingency management is needed, particularly are better able to motivate their followers. Alter-
in an organization in which goals are clearly nately, similarity in perceptual processing may
defined and rewards are controlled by the leader lead to leader effectiveness. Even more intriguing
(Sims, 1977). In contrast, stage 4 leaders may be is the question "can transactional leaders be ef-
necessary at upper levels of such an organiza- fective in motivating subordinates whose organ-
tion because they possess perspective-taking izing processes are more developed and encom-
abilities that have not yet been attained by indi- passing than their own?"
viduals at lower constructive/developmental lev- This focus on the relationship between leaders
els (Jacobs & Jaques, in press). That is, we might and followers gives rise to still other areas for
expect stage 4 leaders to be skilled at resolving research. In particular, the distinction between
organizational conflict because they can tran- transactional and transformational leaders as de-
scend interpersonal allegiances. Therefore, re- fined by their constructive/developmental stage
search on the degree to which organizations can may help to define a crucial determinant of the
manage the fit of leaders to positions is called work environment. It may be that interactions
for. between leaders and followers, as described
A second question of interest is "are the hy- above, influence characteristics of the work envi-
pothesized stages of development invariant?" ronment such as the organizational culture. Per-
That is, do all leaders advance through the de- haps the culture of an organization is determined
velopmental stages in the same manner, or do by the quality of co-worker interactions in organi-
the patterns differ for different leaders? zations characterized by transactional leader-
If leaders progress through the four stages in ship, but it may be influenced significantly by
order, related questions would be "is it possible the values and standards of leaders when the
for all leaders to advance to the highest level of dominant mode of leadership is transformational.
structural maturity, or are some leaders limited Again, the constructive/developmental frame-
to lower levels? If so, by what means?" Research- work provides us with unique challenges for the
ers need to identify the processes by which lead- study of leadership.

655

This content downloaded from

79.41.228.85 on Wed, 21 May 2025 12:48:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 References

Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1986) Transformational leadership, Leadership: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 200-230).
charisma, and beyond (Tech. Rep. No. 85-90). Binghamton: Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
State University of New York, School of Management.
Landy, F. L. (1985) Psychology of work behavior. Homewood,
Bass, B. M. (1985) Leadership and performance beyond IL: Dorsey Press.
expectations. New York: Free Press.
Lewis, P., Kuhnert, K. W., & Maginnis, R. (in press) Defining
Bass, B. M., Waldman, D. A., & Avolio, B. J. (1986) Transfor- military character: A new perspective. Parameters: Journal
mational leadership and the falling dominoes effect (Tech. of the U.S. Army War College.
Rep. No. 86-99). Binghamton: State University of New York,
Lord, R. G., DeVader, C. L., & Alliger, G. M. (1986) A meta-
School of Management.
analysis of the relation between personality traits and
Bums, J. M. (1978) Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. leadership: An application of validity generalization pro-
cedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 402-410.
Chomsky, N. (1968) Language and mind. New York: Harcourt,
Brace, & World. Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. Jr. (1986) Beyond imitation: Com-
plex behavioral and affective linkages resulting from
Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986) Leader-member ex-
exposure to leadership training models. Journal of Ap-
change model of leadership: A critique and further de-
plied Psychology, 71, 571-578.
velopment. Academy of Management Review, 11, 6 1 834.
Mitroff, I. (1978) Systemic problem solving. In M. W. McCall
Graen, G. B., Liden, R. C., & Hoel, W. (1982) The role of
leadership in the employee withdrawal process. Journal
& M. M. Lombardo (Eds.), Where else can we go? (pp.

of Applied Psychology, 67, 868-872.

129-143). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

House, R. J. (1977) A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In Piaget, J. (1954) The construction of reality in the child. New
J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting York: Basic Books (First published in 1939).
edge. Carbondale: Southem Illinois University Press. Pondy, L. R. (1978) Leadership is a language game. In M. W.
Hunt, J. G. (1984) Organizational leadership: The contingency McCall & M. M. Lombardo (Eds.), Where else can we go?
paradigm and its challenges. In B. Kellerman (Ed.), (pp. 87-99). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Leadership: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 113-138). Selman, R. (1980) The growth of interpersonal understanding:
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Developmental and clinical analyses. New York: Academic
Jacobs, T.O. & Jaques, E. (in press) Leadership in complex Press.
systems. In J. A. Zeidner (Ed.), Human productivity en- Sims, H. P. (1977) The leader as manager of reinforcement
hancement, Volume II: Organizations and personnel. New
contingencies: An empirical example and a model. In J.
York: Praeger.
G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting
Kellerman, B. (1984) Leadership: Multidisciplinary perspec- edge (pp. 121-137). Carbondale: Southern Illinois Univer-
tives. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. sity Press.

Kegan, R. (1982) The evolving self: Problem and process in Weber, M. (1947) Theory of social and economic organiza-
human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer- tion (T. Parsons & A. M. Henderson, Trans.). New York:
sity Press. Oxford University Press.

Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. L. (1984) Adult leadership and adult Yukl, G. A. (1981) Leadership in organizations. Englewood
development: A constructivist view. In B. Kellerman (Ed.), Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

656

This content downloaded from

79.41.228.85 on Wed, 21 May 2025 12:48:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Karl W. Kuhnert (Ph.D., Kansas State University) is
now an Assistant Professor of Psychology at the Uni-
versity of Georgia. Correspondence regarding this ar-
ticle can be sent to him at: Department of Psychology,
University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602.

Philip Lewis (Ph.D., Syracuse University) is Professor

of Clinical and Industrial/Organizational Psychology,
Department of Psychology, Auburn University.

The authors thank Mary Anne Lahey, Robert Vance,

Richard Klimoski, Robert Billings, and Leon Rappoport
for the helpful comments on an earlier draft of the
manuscript and Auburn University for its Grant-In-
Aid Program which partially supported the research.
Portions of this paper were completed while the first
author was a Visiting Professor at Ohio State Univer-
sity.

657

This content downloaded from

79.41.228.85 on Wed, 21 May 2025 12:48:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms