Recommonded reading on leadership

$ means we are not able to provide free downloads of an article, because it must be purchased from its publisher.

Cavallo, Kathleen, "Emotional Competence and Leadership Excellence at Johnson & Johnson: The Emotional Intelligence and Leadership Study."

Abstract: A study was conducted on three hundred and fifty-eight Managers across the Johnson & Johnson Consumer & Personal Care Group (JJC&PC Group) globally to assess if there are specific leadership competencies that distinguish high performers from average performers. Participants were randomly selected, then coded for performance rating, potential code, gender, functional group and regional area. More than fourteen hundred employees took part in a one hundred and eighty three question multi-rater survey that measured a variety of competencies associated with leadership performance including those commonly referred to as Emotional Intelligence. Results showed that the highest performing managers have significantly more "emotional competence" than other managers.

Goleman, Daniel. "Leadership That Gets Results." Harvard Business Review, March 2000. $

A leader’s singular job is to get results. But even with all the leadership training programs and "expert" advice available, effective leadership still eludes many people and organizations. One reason, says Daniel Goleman, is that such experts offer advice based on inference, experience, and instinct, not on quantitative data. Now, drawing on research of more than 3,000 executives, Goleman explores which precise leadership behaviors yield positive results. He outlines six distinct leadership styles, each one springing from different components of emotional intelligence. Each style has a distinct effect on the working atmosphere of a company, division, or team, and, in turn, on its financial performance. The styles, by name and brief description alone, will resonate with anyone who leads, is led, or, as is the case with most of us, does both. Coercive leaders demand immediate compliance. Authoritative leaders mobilize people toward a vision. Affiliative leaders create emotional bonds and harmony. Democratic leaders build consensus through participation. Pacesetting leaders expect excellence and self-direction. And coaching leaders develop people for the future. The research indicates that leaders who get the best results don’t rely on just one leadership style; they use most of the styles in any given week. Goleman details the types of business situations each style is best suited for, and he explains how leaders who lack one or more of these styles can expand their repertories. He maintains that with practice leaders can switch among leadership styles to produce powerful results, thus turning the art of leadership into a science.

Goleman, Daniel. "What Makes A Leader?" Harvard Business Review, November 1998. $

Abstract: When asked to define the ideal leader, many would emphasize traits such as intelligence, toughness, determination, and vision—the qualities traditionally associated with leadership. Often left off the list are softer, more personal qualities—but they are also essential. Although a certain degree of analytical and technical skill is a minimum requirement for success, studies indicate that emotional intelligence may be the key attribute that distinguishes outstanding performers from those who are merely adequate. Psychologist and author Daniel Goleman first brought the term "emotional intelligence" to a wide audience with his 1995 book of the same name, and Goleman first applied the concept to business with this 1998 classic HBR article. In his research at nearly 200 large, global companies, Goleman found that truly effective leaders are distinguished by a high degree of emotional intelligence. Without it, a person can have first-class training, an incisive mind, and an endless supply of good ideas, but he or she still won’t be a great leader. The chief components of emotional intelligence—self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy, and social skill—can sound unbusinesslike, but Goleman, cochair of the Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations, based at Rutgers University, found direct ties between emotional intelligence and measurable business results.

Kriger, Mark and Yvonne Seng. "Leadership with inner meaning: A contingency theory of leadership based on the worldviews of five religions." The Leadership Quarterly 16 (2005) 771-806. (Reproduced with permission from Mark Kriger)

Abstract: The purpose of this article is to create the foundation for a contingency theory of leadership based on the inner values and worldviews of five major religious traditions: Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism. The article identifies similarities and differences in the implicit leadership models among these five religious traditions. It further explores the implications of this model for organizational leadership in an increasingly uncertain and evolving global economy, where not only cultures but also religions, their belief systems and their values, are in increasing contact and interaction. We develop and describe a multiple-level ontological model of being to expand upon and enlarge the currently accepted behavior-based contingency theories of leadership. The article proposes and creates an integrative model of organizational leadership based on inner meaning, leader values, vision and moral examples at multiple levels of being as an extension to prior behavior-based contingency theories of organizational development.

"Leading Resonant Teams." Interview with Daniel Goleman. Leader to Leader, No. 25, 2002.

Abstract: Daniel Goleman discusses how leaders can improve team performance.

Robertson, Lori. "Down with Top-Down." American Journalism Review (August/September 2003).

Abstract: The New York Times and Salt Lake Tribune implosions underscore the perils of the top-down management style. Is a more enlightened approach to running newsrooms on the horizon?

Sala, Fabio. "It’s Lonely At the Top: Executives’ Emotional Intelligence Self (Mis)perceptions."

Abstract: Data shows that the higher the leadership position, the less feedback executives get on how well they lead.