http://jlo.sagepub.com/Organizational StudiesJournal of Leadership &

http://jlo.sagepub.com/content/18/3/308The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1177/1548051811404895

2011 18: 308 originally published online 28 April 2011Journal of Leadership & Organizational StudiesKem M. Gambrell, Gina S. Matkin and Mark E. Burbach

Cultivating Leadership: The Need for Renovating Models to Higher Epistemic Cognition  

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of: 

  Midwest Academy of Management

can be found at:Journal of Leadership & Organizational StudiesAdditional services and information for     

  http://jlo.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

 

http://jlo.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

at Midwest Academy of Management on August 8, 2011jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Introduction

Because of a number of factors including world events and a desire for more “self-development,” individuals and their employers are looking for a more inclusive, progressive, and holistic experience in the workplace (L. W. Fry, 2008). At present, however, there lacks a clear understanding of how leaders and their organizations can not only satisfy but also develop and sustain these more complex introspective outlooks. As Boyatzis (2008) posits, “desired change is at the heart of leadership development” (p. 300).

Modern leadership theories superficially discuss these “inclusive” and “more self-actualized” perspectives to some extent; however, organizational perspectives and support-ing research has not maintained pace with this fervent desire by society to become more self-actualized. Today’s leader-ship standards and techniques are not keeping pace with the needs of individuals today or their future needs (Scarborough, 2002). “Corporations are becoming larger and more com-plex; the competition for all companies is more intense and the competitive environment is very turbulent; in addition, today’s stakeholders are more demanding” (Scarborough, 2002, p. 2). Thus, the need for proficient leaders is greater than ever.

Leadership models such as spiritual leadership have emerged from this plea as well as the desire of people to bring more of “self” to the workplace. Aburdene (2005) suggests that spirituality and inner development is increas-ingly affecting our personal lives and is spreading into orga-nizations to cultivate a transformation within them. Some

are calling this trend “a spiritual awakening in the American workplace” (Garcia-Zamor, 2003).

This “awakening” has also slowly appeared in leadership research and adult development theory, but when mentioned, the conscious awareness and development-related leader-ship practices have been superficially mentioned at best. The awareness of this change by scholars has perhaps been somewhat slow in response. “The idea that we’re experienc-ing a crisis in leadership probably isn’t new . . . new realities have certainly demanded new thinking about leadership” (Senge, Scharmer, Jaworski, & Flowers, 2004, p. 177).

Kegan and Lahey (2001) suggest that personal develop-ment is the ability to make meaning of experiences—regardless of age. According to Kuhnert and Lewis (1987), constructivist personality theories posit that people differ in how they construct and make meaning of experiences in their physical, social, and personal environments. The authors suggest that “understanding the process through which peo-ple construct meaning out of their experiences may advance our knowledge of how leaders understand, experience, and approach the enterprise of leading” (Kuhnert & Lewis, 1987, p. 650). Yeganeh and Kolb (2009) posit that “practicing

404895 JLOs18310.1177/1548051811404895Gambrell et al.Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies© Baker College 2011

Reprints and permission: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

1Viterbo University, La Crosse, WI, USA2University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA

Corresponding Author:Kem Gambrell, Viterbo University, 900 Viterbo Drive, LaCrosse, WI 54601-8802, USA Email: kmgambrell@viterbo.edu

Cultivating Leadership: The Need for Renovating Models to Higher Epistemic Cognition

Kem M. Gambrell1, Gina S. Matkin2, and Mark E. Burbach2

Abstract

More than ever before, people are reevaluating their lives and work as they search for deeper meaning. This “self-actualization” has only superficially appeared in leadership theory and research. This essay will discuss why adult development and higher levels of critical thinking in leadership is essential to effective leadership. The authors hypothesize that a “cultivated” aspect of leadership is currently lacking in leadership theory and research and is essential to leader and follower development. Additionally, the authors envision that impending organizations will necessitate more leaders with the ability to facilitate follower growth and development along these constructs.

Keywords

leadership development, cognitive processes, leadership, effectiveness, transformational leadership

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies18(3) 308 –319© Baker College 2011Reprints and permission: http://www. sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/1548051811404895http://jlos.sagepub.com

at Midwest Academy of Management on August 8, 2011jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Gambrell et al. 309

‘mindfulness’ enhances mental and physical health, creativ-ity and contextual learning” (p. 13).

Given that leadership theory has merely implied both higher orders of adult development and critical thinking, and that there appears to be a call for more conscious awareness of leaders, the purpose of this conceptual article is to show that constructive development and higher order thinking are essential and closely related to more effective leadership. We will attempt to answer the following research questions:

Research Question 1: Are leaders more successful at higher constructive development levels?

Research Question 2: Do current leadership theories address leader and follower constructive develop-ment?

Research Question 3: Do critical thinking, apprecia-tive inquiry, and transformational learning (higher order thinking) theories affect leader success?

Research Question 4: Is there a relationship between constructive development and “thinking” theories?

This conjectural article will discuss these questions as well as hypothesize that a “cultivated” aspect of leadership is currently lacking in research and should be considered to better encompass leader and follower development. Discussion will also be made concerning the need for leaders to have higher constructive development levels and, in turn, higher order thinking (for the purpose of this article: critical thinking, appreciative inquiry, and transformational learning) to be more successful in the future. In addition, the authors envision that future leadership will also call for individuals with the ability to facilitate follower growth and develop-ment along these constructs. Consideration of some of the most widely advanced and current leadership theories and the degree to which these models address the notion of leader and follower constructivist development and higher level thinking are explored. Last, a model of “cultivating leadership” is proposed regarding this construct.

Adult Cognitive DevelopmentConstructive Development

Leadership development involves emergence of nonlinear and frequently sporadic experiences in an iterative cycle (Boyatzis, 2008). Boyatzis and McKee (2006) hypothesize that creating and sustaining exceptional leadership is to distinguish, control, and direct one’s own process of learn-ing and change. In The Evolving Self, Robert Kegan (1982) put forward what he termed a third psychological tradition of adult development, which he labeled “constructive-development” (p. 4). Kegan (1982) described this as a way that people hold their world and themselves together, making sense of the environment around them. Kegan’s (1982, 1994)

theory describes the way adults develop and change over the course of their lives. This is a constructive–developmental theory, because it involves both the construction of how an individual understands reality and the development of that construction to more complex levels over time. Specifically, emphasis is placed on “development toward autonomy, and the development toward differentiation,” (Kegan, 1982, p. 5) and helps “liberate individuals from a static view of phenomena” (p. 13). Kegan (1982, 1994) explains this reality-making relationship—what individuals identify with as sub-ject and consider to be object—“ultimately determines the difference between a baby and a Buddha” (Kegan, 1982, p. 13). The transformation of the subject–object rela-tionship enables individuals to become truly open-minded and see what is veritable. This is often a goal of many spiri-tual practices.

Kegan (1994) posits five main levels of development, with a number of substages between as one transitions from one to another. These stages are (a) Stage 1—Impulsive; (b) Stage 2—Instrumental; (c) Stage 3—Socialized; (d) Stage 4—Self-Authoring; and (e) Stage 5—Self-transforming. Each stage’s key characteristic is that which is held subject, or what an individual is “embedded in,” and what is held object, or what people can identify and take a perspective about and take action around (Berger, 2005). The basic propositions of constructive–developmental the-ory are the following:

1. People actively construct ways of understanding and making sense of themselves and the world (as opposed to “taking in” an objective world).

2. There are identifiable patterns of meaning mak-ing that people share in common with one another; these are referred to as orders of consciousness, ways of knowing, levels of development, organiz-ing principles, or orders of development.

3. Orders of development unfold in a specific invari-ant sequence, with each successive order transcend-ing and including the previous order.

4. In general, people do not regress; once an order of development has been constructed, the previous order loses its organizing function but remains as a perspective that can be reflected on.

5. Because subsequent orders also include all earlier orders, later orders are more complex and support more comprehensive understanding than earlier orders; later orders are not better in any absolute sense.

6. Developmental movement from one order to the next is driven by limitations in the current way of constructing meaning; this can happen when a per-son faces increased complexity in the environment that requires a more complex way of understand-ing themselves and the world.

at Midwest Academy of Management on August 8, 2011jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from

310 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 18(3)

7. People’s order of development influences what they notice or can become aware of and, therefore, what they can describe, reflect on, and change (Cook-Greuter, 2004).

Kegan (1982) describes the first major stage, Impulsive, as being embedded in impulse and perception. This first order resides in young children from birth to approximately 7 or 8 years of age. During this time span, children do not have the capacity for abstract thought. Durable objects are not understood, except in the moment the child interacts with them. The world is not concert (working together) at this order, and children are unable to hold ideas in their head very long. In the first order, impulse control is not possible because children are subject to their impulses. In the impulsive order, there is the need for constant supervi-sion and reminders of the rules (Kegan, 1982, 1994).

Instrumental, or Stage 2, generally encompasses adoles-cents (7-10 years of age) as well as some adults. At this order, individuals discover feelings and are aware that oth-ers have feelings. For second order individuals, a rule today is a rule tomorrow, and individuals may have a preoccupa-tion with trying to figure out how to get past the rule if it impedes their way. Empathy is not possible at this order, though they know others have feelings and desires. Generally, people at the Instrumental stage are self-centered and see others as helpers or barriers to having their own needs met (Kegan, 1982, 1994).

The third order, or Socialized, generally encompasses older adolescents and the majority of adults. In this order, individuals have developed the ability to subordinate their needs to include the needs of others. People in the Socialized order have the ability to internalize feelings and emotions of others. They are guided by institutions that are important to them (school, religion, political party). Third order people are able to think abstractly, are self-reflective of their own and others actions, and can be devoted to something greater than their own needs. When there is conflict between impor-tant others, they often feel “torn in two” and cannot make a decision. Self-esteem is not possible at this order, as there is no “self” outside of those around them who define and make up who they are at this stage (Kegan, 1982, 1994).

The fourth order, or the self-authoring modernist mind-set, is described as a self that is defined outside of its rela-tionships to others. Previous opinions and desires of others that were subject to those that are self-authored are internal-ized and do not have control over them and are now object (Kegan, 1982, 1994). In the fourth order, individuals are able to examine and mediate over rule systems that earlier helped define them. Self-authoring individuals have their own self-governing system to make decisions from and mediate conflicts. Fourth order individuals can feel empa-thy for others and take others needs/desires into consider-ation when making decisions, but do not feel “torn” by conflict

because they have their own system to utilize in making decisions. They are often referred to as self-motivated, self-directed, and self-monitoring.

Stage 5, or Self-transforming, is the least described by Kegan (1982, 1994). This order is described as being embedded in the interpenetration of structure and inner systems—and the limits of having an inner system in gen-eral. Instead of viewing others as people with separate and different inner systems, those who have reached this order of self-transformation see across inner systems to look at the similarities that are hidden inside what used to look like dif-ferences. These individuals are less likely to see the world in terms of dichotomies or polarities. Thus, they are more likely to believe that what others often think of as black and white are just various shades of gray (Berger, 2005).

In Kegan’s (1994) research on constructive development, he suggests that the process of transitioning is more complex than one might expect. Kegan (1994) points out that those individuals in the third order need to adjust the way they organize their minds if they are to be able to reflect on and describe their thoughts and problem-solving processes accu-rately. If this is not attained, individuals are more likely to report, automatically, what they perceive others want them to convey rather than what they actually think. Kegan (1994) posits that when an individual’s mind is not correctly orga-nized, he or she is likely to experience the condition of “what we should feel is what we do feel” (p. 275). In Kegan’s (1994) opinion, reflecting on “one’s thoughts and feelings is not a simple process of learning to make new distinctions; it requires a transformation in the way the mind is organized” (p. 275). It is not merely “a matter of getting individuals merely to identify . . . a distinction between two parts that already exist, but a matter of fostering a qualitative evolution of mind that actually creates the distinction” (p. 275). Boyatzis (2008) surmises that “sustained change represents metamorphosis in actions, habits and competencies” (p. 298) and thus requires intentional effort.

Both Kegan (1994) and Grossman (2009) posit that not until individuals reach a new order of self-authorship, or fourth order, are they truly able to reflect on their inner states. In a study comparing higher level thinking and con-structive development, Berger (2005) found that what she called transformational postmodernists, or fifth order, have the most profound orientation toward curiosity and open-ness. They abstain from judging other ideas as less complex or inferior than their own, even when others frustrate or impede them. The belief is that this kind of confusion and constant challenge “is part of life is both inherent in the postmodern [self-authoring] philosophy and also in the self-transformational meaning making system” (Berger, 2005, p. 23). Berger also found that fifth order individuals tend not to focus on the limitations of others’ perspectives but are instead very interested in how and why others have the perceptions and opinions they do.

at Midwest Academy of Management on August 8, 2011jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Gambrell et al. 311

Kegan’s (1982, 1994) model has been presented as a method to explain why some leaders exhibit more transfor-mational behaviors. Kuhnert and Lewis (1987) posit that the differences between leaders are due to their differing constructive development levels. Thus, transformational leaders are qualitatively different in the way they view the world and construct meaning from it (McCauley, Drath, Palus, O’Conner, & Baker, 2006). McCauley et al. (2006) found that leaders such as those who are more transactional rely on a relationship of mutual support, expectations, obli-gations, and rewards with their followers, a method more consistent with third order. Transformational leaders, on the other hand, were found to rely on a personal value sys-tem that they motivate followers to adopt. This way of executing leadership is most equivalent with the self-authored fourth order in which individuals define them-selves through a self-determined sense of identity. Kuhnert (1994) further argued that transactional and transforma-tional leaders approach the task of delegation differently. The difference in what is considered effective delegation by each leader is determined in part by his or her devel-opmental order. Transactional leaders operating at the Interpersonal order value “effective delegation as a process that promotes group goals, shared knowledge, and loyalty” (McCauley et al., 2006, p. 639). Although effective at times, this approach can often be exceedingly influenced by the views of others. Transformational leaders, on the other hand, who function at the forth order, understand del-egation in a much broader context in line with the long-term goals of the organization. “These leaders are more likely to delegate important tasks and offer the follower an opportunity to become more autonomous” (McCauley et al., 2006, p. 639).

Currently, the majority of research using Kegan’s frame-work to connect constructive development order to leader effectiveness has focused on differences in the Socialized and Self-authored levels. This may be because Kegan’s research has found that most adults are operating from, or in transition between, these two orders (Kegan, 1994). Kegan and Lahey (1984) theorize that Socialized individuals are more likely to be constrained in their effectiveness in exer-cising authority because of their attachment to their current self-identity and unwillingness to call that identity into ques-tion (McCauley et al., 2006). They suggest that fourth order individuals are the most effective in exercising authority because they are more likely to exercise influence on behalf of facilitating the development of others. Kegan (1994) has called for leadership models in which leaders create the context whereby parties can create a collective vision together, and operate from a Self-authoring order, as opposed to the leader directly providing a vision. Kegan (1994) also notes that this type of leadership practice may be frustrating to followers operating at earlier orders of development, who expect their leader to have a clear vision and plan. Berger

and Fitzgerald (2002) have also argued that the gap in understanding between followers who may be mostly at a Socialized level and those Interindividual leaders can be so great that Interindividual leaders may become dissatisfied with leadership roles.

Higher Order Thinking ParadigmsCritical Thinking

Like other conceptual constructs of human behavior, criti-cal thinking has been defined in a number of different ways. According to Paul and Elder (2002),

Critical thinking is best understood as the ability of thinkers to take charge of their own thinking. This requires that critical thinkers develop sound criteria and standards for analyzing and assessing their own thinking, and routinely use those criteria and stan-dards to improve its quality. (p. 24)

Hedges (1991) posits that critical thinking is different from problem solving in that problem solving is a linear process of evaluation, whereas critical thinking is a comprehen-sive set of abilities that allows the inquirer to properly facilitate each stage of the linear problem-solving process. Chaffee (1988) describes critical thinking as “our active, purposeful, and organized efforts to make sense of our world by carefully examining our thinking, and the thinking of others, in order to clarify and improve our understanding” (p. 29). Paul and Elder (1995) define critical thinking as thinking about thinking for the purpose of improving the thought process itself. Halpern (1996) described critical thinking as the use of cognitive strategies and skills that increase the likelihood of a preferred outcome.

Included in several critical thinking models is the under-standing or belief that there is a set of intellectual virtues that reflects one’s “disposition” to think critically. According to Facione (1990), this philosophy describes the critical thinker as follows:

Habitually inquisitive, well-informed, trustful of rela-tion, open-minded, flexible, fair-minded in evaluation, honest in facing personal biases, willing to reconsider, clear about issues orderly in complex matters, dili-gent in seeking information, reasonable in the selec-tion of criteria, focused in inquiry, and persistent in seeking results which are as precise as the subject and the circumstances of inquiry permit. (as cited in Rudd, 2007, p. 47)

Rudd (2007) refined Facione’s (1990) constructs to include three critical thinking dispositions: engagement, cognitive maturity, and innovativeness. Engagement is described by

at Midwest Academy of Management on August 8, 2011jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from

312 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 18(3)

Rudd (2007) to describe an individual’s ability to “anticipate situations where they can exercise reasoning and judgment” (p. 48). Demonstration of cognitive maturity includes those individuals who are more developed constructively; thus, they are aware of their own biases and predispositions that affect their reasoning and decision making. Last, Rudd (2007) explains innovativeness as people who exhibit the desire to learn, gain new insights, are creative, and intel-lectually curious.

As critical thinking is described and defined, application of these skills and constructs would be very difficult for individuals at a third order constructive development level or lower. The ability to look at information objectively, past one’s own biases and personal inclinations to reflect on its validity and connection to the solution, is not generally a third order function (Kegan, 1994). Although the individual at the socialized order may be able to follow a road map or skill set to linearly pursue a decision-making process, the ability to look beyond the basics and critically analyze information outside one’s own imbedded biases is a con-structivist process held object for those at higher levels.

Appreciative InquiryAppreciative Inquiry is believed to be rooted in the values of an interindividual or fifth order paradigm, where people accept and embrace the complexity and subjectivity of the world around them (R. Fry, 2000; Walker & Carr-Stewart, 2004). According to Cooperrider, Whitney, and Stavros (2008), Appreciative Inquiry is a systematic discovery of what gives “‘life’ to a system when it is most alive, most effective, and most constructively capable” (p. 5). In Appreciative Inquiry, individuals “accept that change and operationalizing plans are an iterative process; and they embrace the view that there are many paths to reach a goal” (Walker & Carr-Stewart, 2004, p. 73). Appreciate Inquiry is a highly collaborative and participative process that seeks to identify and enhance the “life giving forces” that are present when a system is performing optimally. As such, Appreciative Inquiry is more of a creative, genera-tive theory based around the “anticipatory articulations” of tomorrow’s possibilities rather than the explanations of yesterday’s world (Walker & Carr-Stewart, 2004; Whitney & Cooperrider, 1998).

In the emerging Appreciative Inquiry literature, several core suppositions are generally associated with the para-digm (Walker & Carr-Stewart, 2004):

1. In every society, organization, or group something works.

2. What we focus on becomes our reality.3. Reality is created in the moment, and there are

multiple realities.4. The question alone influences the group’s process.

5. People have more confidence and comfort to jour-ney to the future (the unknown) when they carry forward parts of the past.

6. If we carry parts of the past forward, they should be what are best about the past.

7. It is important to value differences.8. The language we use creates our reality.

According to Burr (1995), Appreciative Inquiry challenges the socialized ideas about previous thought processes. It acknowledges that there are many possible social constructions of the world and that the world is about relationships and communal deliberation. Thus, the implication of Appreciative Inquiry is that it requires an advanced constructivist perspec-tive as well as a need for relationship and community to advance the mere nature of thinking. By the sheer definition of Appreciative Inquiry, those individuals who are not able to hold concepts or make decisions apart from themselves (third order) are not able to fully use this form of higher order thinking. One can consider any decision as arising from two sources. “One is the external environment—how we respond to the incentives facing us. The other is the internal environment—those parts of our internal make-ups that cause us to deviate from the demands of the external environment” (as cited in Jones, 1999, p. 298). Therefore, individuals in constructive development levels below fourth order (self-authoring) would have difficulty making considerations or decisions outside of their institutions.

Transformative LearningSince there are no fixed truths or completely definitive knowl-edge, and because situations and circumstances change, the human experience may be best understood as an ongoing effort to negotiate contested meanings (Mezirow, 2000). Thus, in considering the adult learning process, it is impor-tant to emphasize “contextual understanding, critical reflec-tion on assumptions, and validating meaning by assessing reasons” (Mezirow, 2000, p. 3). Individual justifications for much of what we know and how meaning is made depends on the context, biographical, historical, and cultural, in which they are embedded (Mezirow, 2000).

The perception that individuals develop over time or change with age is fundamental to adult learning theory. According to Mezirow (2000), development is at the heart of Transformational Learning. In Transformational Learning, one’s “values, beliefs, and assumptions compose the lens through which personal experience is mediated and made sense of” (Merriam, 2004, p. 61). Through the process of Transformational Learning, when the meaning making sys-tem is found to be inadequate, it can be replaced with a fresh perspective. This new perspective becomes one that is gen-erally more “inclusive, discriminating, open, emotionally capable of change, and reflective” (Merriam, 2004, p. 61).

at Midwest Academy of Management on August 8, 2011jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Gambrell et al. 313

This development, however, does not necessarily come as a normative developmental process.

Bruner (1996) identified four modes of meaning making: (a) establishing, shaping, and maintaining intersubjectivity; (b) relating events, utterances, and behavior to the action taken; (c) constructing of particulars in a normative context deals with meaning relative to obligations, standards, confor-mities, and deviations; and (d) making propositions. Mezirow (2000) posits that transformation theory adds a fifth dimen-sion: becoming critically aware of one’s own tacit assump-tions, perceptions, and expectations, as well as being aware of those of others and assessing their relevance for making an interpretation. It is in this awareness, or transformation, that epistemic cognition, or reflection on the limits of knowledge, the certainty of knowledge, and the criteria for knowing, that transformational learning attempts to address.

The concept of Transformational Learning has several distinct features: (a) The form that is undergoing transforma-tion needs to be better understood; thus if there is no form, there is no transformation. (b) At the heart of a form is a way of knowing (what Mezirow calls a frame of reference). Thus, true Transformational Learning is to some extent an episte-mological change rather than merely a change in behavior or an increase in the quantity knowledge. (c) Even as the con-cept of Transformational Learning needs to be narrowed by focusing more explicitly on the epistemological, it needs to be broadened to include the whole life span. Transformational Learning is not the province of adulthood or adult education alone (Mezirow, 2000).

The goal of Transformational Learning is independent thinking. Individuals not only form meaning but change the very form by which meaning is made. Consequently, while life processes may or may not encourage constructive devel-opment, Transformational Learning takes place through a planned deliberate process, or through a life changing event (Mezirow, 2000). This philosophy parallels Kegan’s (1994) model of constructive development in that not every indi-vidual reaches a higher order and not everyone becomes a transformational learner. Indeed, Merriam (2004) reasons that although Transformative Learning

appears to lead to a more mature, more autonomous, more “developed” level of thinking, it might also be argued that to be able to engage in the process in the first place requires a certain level of development and in particular, cognitive development. (p. 61)

In other words, a higher level of cognitive functioning (above third order) is a prerequisite for Transformational Learning.

Leadership TheoriesAlthough there are a number of different leadership theo-ries, more often than not, researchers have focused on the “scientific” study of leadership, looking more at the

antecedents, traits, and behaviors than searching for the phenomenology of it. The issue with this mindset is that it creates a dichotomous framework that negates a fluid and evolutionary process, as well as excludes discussion of how actual leadership development and change can occur (Boyatzis, 2008). As Boyatzis (2008) deduces, leadership effectiveness is a complex system that includes components such as behavior, thoughts, feelings, and perceptions. Research has shown that developing leaders’ emotional, social, and cognitive intelli-gence competencies have been shown to predict effective leadership (Boyatzis, 2008; Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002; Luthans, Hodgetts, & Rosenkrantz, 1988; Spencer & Spencer, 1993). For the purpose of this article, four different leadership theories are considered regarding constructive development and critical thinking: Servant, Transformational, Authentic, and Spiritual leadership. These four theories are chosen because they represent highly researched and pro-moted current leadership theories.

Servant LeadershipThe term servant leader was first created by Robert Greenleaf and characterizes the belief that leadership devel-opment is a lifelong learning process (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006). Servant leader is described by Greenleaf (1970) as someone having 11 core qualities that include the follow-ing: having a calling, listening, empathy, healing, aware-ness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, growth, and building community. Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) operationalized Greenleaf’s supposition into five con-structs. These constructs include the following: (a) Altruistic calling—having a natural deeply rooted and value-based desire to serve others; (b) Emotional healing—having strong listening skills and a genuine interest in fostering the spiri-tual healing of others; (c) Wisdom—having a consciousness of surroundings and awareness of the consequences of deci-sions; (d) Persuasive mapping—having sound reasoning and mental frameworks; (e) Organizational stewardship—preparing one’s organization for positive societal contribu-tions (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006).

From these dimensions, there are two that potentially correlate to having a leader with a higher self-cultivated development level: wisdom and persuasive mapping. Of these none discuss the development of followers in the advancement of their constructive development. Generally, Greenleaf (1996) and others discuss the implied wisdom of servant leaders, but never specifically connect it to a culti-vated self or higher constructivist level.

Servant leaders recognize the importance of “positive moral perspective, self-awareness, self-regulation, positive modeling, and a focus on follower development for a leader to function effectively” (Sendjaya, Sarros, & Santora, 2008, p. 404). Bierly, Kessler, and Christensen (2000) describe servant leaders as categorically wise, and their decision processes are believed to be instruments for invoking

at Midwest Academy of Management on August 8, 2011jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from

314 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 18(3)

organizational wisdom, which is described as the alliance of applied knowledge and informed experience to make both optimal and altruistic choices. Servant leaders have been portrayed as capable of balancing the assorted paradoxes of decisions, which may promote the development of organizational wisdom (Srivastva & Cooperrider, 1998). “Historically, the importance of great leaders seeking knowledge has been described as one of two key attri-butes of wisdom” (as cited in Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006, pp. 306-307).

As discussed in Barbuto and Wheeler’s (2006) study, the dimension of foresight is used by servant leaders to anticipate the future for the organization and its members. Longman (2002) discussed the historical notion that a leader’s wisdom extended beyond insight and mere facts toward proactively navigating the course of action, being able to anticipate the challenges and consequences. For servant leaders, concep-tualization encourages others to use mental models and to expand the creative process. Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) operationalized conceptualization as “fostering an environ-ment that uses mental models and encourages lateral thinking” (p. 307). Last, for servant leaders, one of the greatest out-comes is that followers develop as individuals (Greenleaf, 1996). Thus, leaders who demonstrate a commitment to the growth of their employees have been found to experience positive organizational outcomes (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006). Although specific associations between servant leadership and wisdom have been vague and conjectural, their philo-sophical congruencies are noteworthy. At this point, a more precise clarification of the construct of wisdom for servant leadership is needed.

What is also significant is the implied constructivist development or cultivated self that is threaded in Greenleaf’s (1996) work. Given the nature, depth, and complexity of the servant leader constructs, it makes sense that to display the characteristics that Greenleaf (1996) and others posit, indi-viduals would need to be at constructive development forth order or higher to be considered a servant leader. Although at this point research has not compared servant leadership, higher order thinking methods, and constructive develop-ment levels, it is something that should be considered given the nature of Greenleaf’s (1996) paradigm.

Transformational LeadershipJames McGregor Burns (1978) first proposed the idea of a transformational leader as someone who connects with the needs and motives of his or her followers and raises both the leader and followers to a higher level of morality and motivation. Bass (1997) believed that transformational leaders transcend their own self-interests to help their followers reach their fullest potential and, in the process, transform the world around them. According to Bass (1997), there are four factors that make up transformational leader-ship: (a) idealized influence (or charisma), (b) inspirational

motivation, (c) individualized consideration, and (d) intel-lectual stimulation.

Leaders who use idealized influence provide their follow-ers with a compelling vision, they take stands on difficult issues; present their most important values; and emphasize the importance of purpose, commitment, and the ethical consequences of decisions. These leaders express confi-dence in the vision of the organization and develop trust and confidence among employees by “walking the walk.” Inspirational motivation leaders articulate an appealing vision of the future, inspire others to perform, and help followers achieve more than they thought possible. These leaders cre-ate a strong sense of purpose among employees and align individual and organizational goals. Individualized consid-eration leaders are compassionate and empathize with indi-vidual needs. These leaders make interpersonal connections with employees, showing genuine care and compassion in their interactions with others; they deal with others as indi-viduals, furthering their development by advising, teaching, and mentoring. Intellectual stimulation leaders question old assumptions, traditions, and beliefs. These leaders stimulate new perspectives and ways of doing things in others and encourage the expression of new thoughts, ideas, and rea-sons (Bass, 1997; Boyd, 2009).

Of these transformational leadership factors, only intel-lectual stimulation broaches the idea of follower develop-ment with regard to mental processes. As described by Bass (1997), intellectual stimulation is operationalized by push-ing individuals past their original assumptions and biases. Given Kegan’s (1994) position that individuals operating in a socialized (third order) level are embedded in maintaining relationships rather than challenging processes, it would be difficult for leaders at this level to solicit followers to cogni-tively process at a level they themselves cannot see. Therefore, like servant leadership, more research is needed in these con-structs to further understand leadership effectiveness at higher cognitive orders.

Spiritual LeadershipThe work environment is becoming one of the most signifi-cant communities for many people. Employees are coming to expect work to satisfy deeply held desires for wholeness as well as providing spiritual support for values and aspira-tions for personal and economic growth. A growing body of supporting research attests to the centrality of work in meet-ing both financial and spiritual needs of individuals (Fairholm, 1996). Because of the unstable work environment (additional work hours, layoffs, and increased task responsibility), dis-trust within organizations has increased. This distrust has created the perception by employees that they are often deemed an expendable resource. As such, this has com-pelled employees to search for deeper meaning and connec-tion in life and consequently incorporated a spiritual–work identity (L. W. Fry, 2008).

at Midwest Academy of Management on August 8, 2011jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Gambrell et al. 315

Unfortunately, the term workplace spirituality has been a fairly ambiguous term, although scholars are increasingly attempting to bring clarity to the concept (L. W. Fry & Slocum, 2008). Perhaps part of the dilemma in defining spirituality is not only the uncertainty by some that spiritual-ity and religion are difficult to tease apart but also the legal muddling of what is and is not appropriate to discuss and practice in the workplace (Vaill, 1998). This debate between religion and spirituality continues to be one of the great discussions of spirituality in the workplace (International Institute for Spiritual Leadership).

Ashmos and Duchon (2000) defined workplace spirituality in terms of its elements: (a) a recognition that employees have an inner life, (b) the assumption that employees desire to find work meaningful, and (c) a commitment by the company to serve as a context or community for spiritual growth. These authors incorporated these dimensions into a term called spiri-tual well-being, which they defined as “a self-perceived state of the degree to which one feels a sense of purpose and direction” (Ashmos & Duchon, 2000, p. 137). Giacalone and Jurkiewicz (2003) define workplace spirituality as “a frame-work of organizational values evidenced in the culture that promotes employees’ experience of transcendence through the work process, facilitating their sense of being connected in a way that provides feelings of compassion and joy” (p. 12). Mitroff and Denton (1999) defined spirituality from their study as “the basic feeling of being connected with one’s com-plete self, others, and the entire universe” (p. 83). Spirituality occurs in moments of shared humanity, “enriching the lives of everyone” (“Search for meaning,” Preston, A. 2008, p. 18). According to Mitroff and Denton (1999), if a single word best captures the meaning of spirituality and the vital role that it plays in people lives and in the workplace that word seems to be “interconnectedness.”

Spiritual leadership theory addresses a number of work environmental challenges such as disengaged employees, low morale, and leadership styles that typically view employees as intellectual capital. Spiritual leadership addresses these workplace challenges by aligning employee “callings” with appropriate organizational roles, modeling universal val-ues that demonstrate ethics and morality as well as integrat-ing employee spirits, minds, and souls (Quinnine, 2007). L. W. Fry’s (2003) spiritual leadership is a causal leader-ship theory designed to create organizational transforma-tion through an intrinsically motivated learning organization. Initially, “the spiritual leadership theory was developed to incorporate vision, hope/faith, altruistic love, theories of workplace spirituality and spiritual well-being” (L. W. Fry, 2008, p. 133). Operationally, spiritual leadership according to L. W. Fry and Slocum (2008) comprises the values, atti-tudes, and behaviors that are necessary to intrinsically moti-vate one’s self and others so that they have a sense of spiritual well-being through calling and membership (L. W. Fry & Slocum, 2008).

L. W. Fry (2003) posits that spiritual leadership entails: (a) creating a vision wherein leaders and followers experi-ence a sense that life has meaning, purpose, and makes a difference and (b) establishes a social/organizational cul-ture based on the values of altruistic love whereby leaders and followers have a sense of membership, feel understood and appreciated, and have genuine care, concern, and appre-ciation for both self and others.

L. W. Fry (2008) later went on to expand his theory by exploring the concept of human health, psychological well-being, and life satisfaction. Duchon and Plowman (2005) found that work unit performance was positively related to work unit spirituality. Reave (2005) found that there is a connection between spiritual values and practices and leader-ship effectiveness. Thus, what is needed for workplace spiri-tuality is “an inner life that nourishes and is nourished by calling or transcendence of self within the context of a com-munity based on the values of altruistic love” (L. W. Fry, 2005, p. 612). Because Kegan (1994) posits that a strong understanding of self and personal values do not become object until the forth order (self-authored), it stands to reason that for spiritual leaders to encompass the values, attitudes, and behaviors that are necessary to intrinsically motivate one’s self and others would require a higher order of con-structive development.

Authentic Leadership‘Initially, the model of authentic leadership starts with a more integrative focus, but Avolio (2007) speculates that it can and must “remain open . . . to help explain the full complexity involved with how leaders and leadership genu-inely develops” (p. 30). Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May, and Walumbwa (2005) describe authentic leadership as containing the following characteristics:

• Cognitive elements: Center on leader and follower self-awareness including how individuals view their “actual self” and what could become their possible self or selves. This includes balanced processing, which refers to how objectively indi-viduals view information about themselves in cur-rent and potential future contexts, and from there, how decisions will be made.

• Individual leader–follower behavior: How lead-ers and followers regulate the translation of their awareness into behaviors–actions that are consid-ered authentic to self and ethical decision making.

• Historical context: How such history has gener-ated or subdued development in the past.

• Proximal context: How an engaged and ethical organizational climate can facilitate the develop-ment of authentic, transparent, ethical leaders and followers (Avolio, 2007; Gardner et al., 2005).

at Midwest Academy of Management on August 8, 2011jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from

316 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 18(3)

Like other leadership constructs, authentic leadership assumes a degree of adult or constructive development in the model. Not only is a higher level of thinking implied “how the leaders history has triggered or stifled development in the past” but also how leaders “regulate the translation” of their own development. As posited earlier, these contempla-tive modalities imply a higher order of both critical thinking and constructive development; however, at this point there is minimal research on the construct.

The “Cultivated Self”The Confucian theory of leadership rests on the idea that an individual must recognize the true meaning of life before he/she can become a great leader (Senge et al., 2004). Senge et al. (2004) reiterated this by stating: “you must under-stand yourself first” (p. 180). In more traditional leadership, according to philosophers such as Plato and Confucius, the individual has mastered a number of “states,” or reached a certain adult developmental level, so that he or she is not obstructed by emotions such as greed, fear, anger, and anxiety, which would prevent someone from making well-informed, convergent, divergent, inductive, deductive, and nonegocentric decisions. In Western society, decisions are often linked to the leaders’ assumptions and attachments, which have affected their ability to be unbiased (Senge et al., 2004). Since the view of Confucian theory concerns long-term individual “cultivation,” it follows that not only have leaders personally committed to their own as well as others’ development, but that they have also transgressed through a number of the lower levels of constructive devel-opment.

There are those that hypothesize that the best hope for society is to move to a more compassionate and complex way of knowing. According to Russell (1992), this will only come if there is a shift from the old manner of thinking

and into a higher realm of awareness. Part of this shift is moving from an individualistic model of decision making into a more collective one. “We can think collectively, solve problems collectively—and we will need collective thinking to solve societal problems” (Shapiro, 2009, p. 32). Thus, it becomes more and more important for leaders to not only have a cultivated sense of self but to also priori-tize the development of others. Along with this extended or cultivated sense of self comes the acknowledgment of a more creative, fluid, higher order thought process, which can only be developed through a collective deliber-ate process.

Cultivated Self and LeadershipMore than 25 years ago, Bartunek, Gordon, and Weathersby (1983) encouraged the use of developmental stage theories to inform the design of management and leadership educa-tion programs that increase “complicated” and “sustained” understanding in managers. The authors posit that the abil-ity to see and understand organizations from multiple perspectives was (and is) necessary for dealing with the complex nature of many of the problems managers face. Current leadership theories such as servant, transforma-tional, authentic, and spiritual imply the need for leaders to perform at higher constructive development levels. This structure is modeled in Figure 1. Currently, however, little research has teased out these ambiguous concepts and applied them to follower expectations, satisfaction, and potential for sustained organizational change. Further development and understanding of these constructs and their relationship is needed to continue to keep up with the ever-changing demands of life. “We are faced with a world that has ren-dered familiar cosmologies, identities, and epistemologies maladaptive, requiring us to master new cognitive skills” (Anderson, 2003, p. 235).

Figure 1. Cultivating leadership model

at Midwest Academy of Management on August 8, 2011jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Gambrell et al. 317

Conclusion

Successful leadership theory and practice necessitates lead-ership development that not just hints at but embraces and develops higher order thought processes. This kind of trans-formational change depends on pervasive, deep, and sustain-able tactics that can counteract opposing priorities, resource constraints, and misunderstandings (Bilimoria, Joy, & Liang, 2008). This progress of change, especially with regard to future leaders, should include higher level thinking con-structs and constructive development in leadership philoso-phy and research and also the expectation that leaders have began the process of cultivating themselves as well as oth-ers. “People who manage their own development intention-ally are poised to make good choices about what they need to do to be more effective” (Boyatzis & McKee, 2006, p. 49). Current societal issues have traversed beyond the level where solitary individuals can make successful deci-sions that are sustainable. We hypothesize that for leaders to analyze complex situations at higher levels, they need to be at higher constructive developmental levels as well. These cultivated leaders can then challenge themselves and their protégés to evaluate and confront the biases, perceptions, and agendas in which they operate.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-ship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Aburdene, P. (2005). Megatrends 2010: The rise of conscious capitalism. Charlottesville, VA: Hampton Roads Publishing.

Anderson, W. T. (2003). The next enlightenment. Integrating East and West in a new vision of human evolution. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.

Ashmos, D. P., & Duchon, D. (2000). Spirituality at work: A con-ceptualization and measure. Journal of Management Inquiry, 9, 134-145.

Avolio, B. J. (2007). Promoting more integrative strategies for leadership theory-building. American Psychologist, 62, 25-33.

Barbuto, J. E., Jr., & Wheeler, D. E. (2006). Scale development and construct clarification of servant leadership. Group & Organizational Management, 31, 300-326.

Bartunek, J. M., Gordon, J. R., & Weathersby, R. P. (1983). Developing “complicated” understanding in administrators. Academy of Management Review, 8, 273-284.

Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional–transformational lead-ership paradigm transcend organizational and national bound-aries? American Psychologist, 52, 130-139.

Berger, J. G. (2005). Living postmodernism. The complex balance of worldview and developmental capacity. ReVision, 27(4), 20-27.

Berger, J. G., & Fitzgerald, C. (2002). Leadership and complexity of mind: The role of executive coaching. In C. F. Fitzgerald & J. G. Berger (Eds.), Executive coaching: Practices and per-spectives (pp. 27-58). Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.

Bierly, P. E., Kessler, E. H., & Christensen, E. W. (2000). Organi-zational learning, knowledge and wisdom. Journal of Organi-zational Change Management, 13, 595-618.

Bilimoria, D., Joy, S., & Liang, X. (2008). Breaking barriers and creating inclusiveness: Lessons of organizational transfor-mation to advance women faculty in academic science and engineering. Human Resource Management, 47, 423-441. doi:10.1002/hrm.20225

Boyatzis, R. E. (2008). Leadership development from a complex-ity perspective. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 60, 298-313.

Boyatzis, R. E., & McKee, A. (2006). Intentional change. Journal of Organizational Excellence, 25, 49-60. doi:10.1002/ joe.20100

Boyd, B. L. (2009). Using a case study to develop transformational teaching theory. Journal of Leadership Education, 7(3), 50-61.

Bruner, J. (1996). Frames for thinking: Ways of making mean-ing. In D. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), Modes of thought (pp. 93-105). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Burr, V. (1995). An introduction to social constructionism. London,

England: Routledge.Chaffee, J. (1988). Thinking critically. Boston, MA: Houghton

Mifflin.Cook-Greuter, S. R. (2004). Making the case for a developmental

perspective. Industrial and Commercial Training, 36, 275-281.Cooperrider, D. L., Whitney, D., & Stavros, J. M. (2008). Appre-

ciative inquiry handbook: For leaders of change (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Duchon, D., & Plowman, D. A. (2005). Nurturing the spirit at work: Impact on work unit performance. Leadership Quar-terly, 16, 807-833.

Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert con-sensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruc-tion. Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press.

Fairholm, G. W. (1996). Spiritual leadership: fulfilling whole-self needs at work. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 17(5), 11-17.

Fry, L. W. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. Leader-ship Quarterly, 14, 693-728. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.09.001

Fry, L. W. (2005). Introduction to The Leadership Quarterly special issue: Toward a paradigm of spiritual leadership The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 619 -622. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.07.001

Fry, L. W. (2008). Spiritual leadership: State-of-the-art and future directions for theory, research, and practice. In J. Biberman & L. Tishman (Eds.), Spirituality in business: Theory, practice and future directions (pp. 106-124). New York, NY: Palgrave.

at Midwest Academy of Management on August 8, 2011jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from

318 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 18(3)

Fry, L. W., & Slocum, J. W., Jr. (2008). Maximizing the triple bot-tom line through spiritual leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 37, 86-96.

Fry, R. (2000). Unlimited cooperation. New Zealand Manage-ment, 47, 46-47.

Garcia-Zamor, J. C. (2003). Workplace spirituality and organiza-tional performance. Public Administration Review, 63, 355-363.

Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2005). Can you see the real me? A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 343-372.

Giacalone, R. A., & Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2003). Toward a science of workplace spirituality. In R. A. Giacalone & C. L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.), Handbook of workplace spirituality and organizational performance (pp. 3-28). New York, NY: M. E. Sharp.

Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R. E., & McKee, A. (2002). Primal lead-ership: Realizing the power of emotional intelligence. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1970). The servant as a leader. Indianapolis, IN: Greenleaf Center.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1996). On becoming a servant leader. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Grossman, R. (2009). Structures for facilitating student reflection. College Teaching, 57, 15-22.

Halpern, D. F. (1996). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hedges, L. E. (1991). Helping students develop thinking skills through the problem-solving approach to teaching. Columbus, OH: Author.

Jones, B. D. (1999). Bounded rationality. Annual Review of Politi-cal Science, 2, 297-321.

Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self. Cambridge, England: Harvard University Press.

Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads. The mental demands of mod-ern life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. L. (1984). Adult leadership and adult development: A constructionist view. In B. Kellerman (Ed.), Leadership: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 199-230). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. L. (2001). Seven languages for transfor-mation. How the way we talk can change the way we work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kuhnert, K. W. (1994). Transforming leadership: Developing people through delegation. In B. Bass & B. Avolio (Eds.), Improving organizational effectiveness through transforma-tional leadership (pp. 10-25). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kuhnert, K. W., & Lewis, P. (1987). Transactional and transfor-mational leadership: A constructive/developmental analysis. Academy of Management Review, 12, 648-657.

Longman, T. (2002). How to read proverbs. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Luthans, F., Hodgetts, R. M., & Rosenkrantz, S. A. (1988). Real managers. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Press.

McCauley, C. D., Drath, W. H., Palus, C. J., O’Connor, P. M., & Baker, B. M. (2006). The use of constructive-developmental theory to advance the understanding of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 634-653.

Merriam, S. B. (2004). The role of cognitive development in Mezirow’s transformational learning theory. Adult Education Quarterly, 55, 60-68.

Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical per-spectives on a theory in progress. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mitroff, I. I., & Denton, E. A. (1999). A study of spirituality in the workplace. Sloan Management Review, 40(4), 83-92.

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2002). Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your learning and your life. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Preston, A. (2008, January). Search for meaning: Shared humanity brings clarity. Nursing Standard, 22(21), 18-20.

Quinnine, T. E. (2007). Spiritual leadership within the service industry: A phenomenological study interpreting the spiri-tual leadership experiences of eight business executives (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Capella University, Minneapolis.

Reave, L. (2005). Spiritual values and practices related to leader-ship effectiveness. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 655-687.

Rudd, R. D. (2007, October). Defining critical thinking (Research reports). Techniques, 46-49.

Russell, P. (1992). Waking up in time: Finding inner peace in times of accelerating change. Novato, CA: Origin Press.

Scarborough, J. D. (2002). Transforming leadership: An assess-ment tool. Journal of Industrial Technology, 18(2), 2-8.

Sendjaya, S., Sarros, J. C., & Santora, J. C. (2008). Defining and measuring servant leadership behavior in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 45, 402-424.

Senge, P., Scharmer, C. O., Jaworski, J., & Flowers, B. S. (2004). Presence: An exploration of profound change in people, orga-nizations and society. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Shapiro, M. (2009, March). Good morning world: This is your wake-up call. Ode, 7(2), 31-33.

Spencer, L. M., Jr., & Spencer, S. M. (1993). Competence at work: Models for superior performance. New York, NY: Wiley.

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

Vaill, P. B. (1998). Spirited leading and learning. Process wisdom for a new age. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Walker, K., & Carr-Stewart, S. (2004). Learning leadership through appreciative inquiry. International Studies in Educa-tional Administration, 32, 72-85.

Whitney, D., & Cooperrider, D. L. (1998). The appreciative inquiry summit: Overview and applications. Employment Relations Today, 25(2), 17-28.

Yeganeh, B., & Kolb, D. (2009). Mindfulness and experimental learning. OD Practitioner, 41(3), 13-18.

at Midwest Academy of Management on August 8, 2011jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Gambrell et al. 319

Bios

Kem M. Gambrell is an Assistant Professor in the Dahl School of Business at Viterbo University. Her research interests include race, ethnic and gender issues in leadership, as well as leader devel-opment in organizations and communities.

Gina S. Matkin is an assistant professor in the Department of Agricultural Leadership, Education and Communication at the

University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Dr. Matkin has conducted research in the areas of intercultural sensitivity in the organization and work-place settings, as well as gender and leadership issues.

Mark E. Burbach is an associate geoscientist with the University of Nebraska-Lincoln’s School of Natural Sciences. Dr. Burbach’s research efforts have ranged from studying why farmers engage in conservation practices to exploring park visitor’s connection to nature.

at Midwest Academy of Management on August 8, 2011jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from