Philosophy, Leadership, and Scholarship: Confucian Contributions to a Leadership Debate

Philosophy, Leadership, and Scholarship:
Confucian Contributions to a Leadership Debate

By Adrianna Kezar,University of Southern California
kezar@usc.edu
________________________________________________________________________

Academic Citation: Adrianna Kezar, “Philosophy, Leadership, and Scholarship:

Confucian Contributions to a Leadership Debate,” Kravis Leadership Institute,
Leadership Review, Vol. 4, Fall 2004 pp. 110-131.

Keywords: Confucianism, essentialism, leadership

About the Author: Adrianna Kezar is an Associate Professor in the Rossier School of
Education at the University of Southern California.
________________________________________________________________________

Abstract

Almost every leadership study conducted falls into one of these two perspectives: essentialism (one best
way) and non-essentialism (context and interpretation focused). This article traces how essentialism and
anti-essentialism became so prevalent within Western philosophy/science and later became embedded in
studies of leadership. Reconciliation of these two opposing perspectives has been difficult because they
make vastly different claims about the nature of reality and knowledge development. The article makes
visible the assumptions, limitations, and contradictions within the essentialist and anti-essentialist
perspectives. I propose the use of Confucian philosophy as a way to move forward, beyond “apparently”
dichotomized views of leadership, introducing a new avenue for future studies.



Recently several leadership scholars have commented on a problematic tension within the
literature – there is a dichotomy between researchers that tend to see leadership as an
essentialistic or universal concept versus those that tend to see it as a non-universalistic or
non-essentialist concept (Barker, 2001; Grint, 1997).i This tension is also often described
as between the “one best way” and “subjective interpretation.” Practitioners are often
left wondering whether they should be developing core traits and behaviors that will
transcend circumstances or whether they should be focused on situation or contextual
cues to guide their leadership. Essentialist scholars (Burns, 1978; Greenleaf, 1977)
suggest that non-essentialists are wasting people’s time by having them focus on details
of subjectivity, context, and culture whereas non-essentialist scholars (Astin & Leland,
1991; Ensari & Murphy, 2003; Offerman & Phan, 2002) worry about the reductionist and
simplistic notions developed by essentialist scholars that do not acknowledge the role of
interpretation and local conditions. Both lines of argument worry about a deep and
pervasive issue in the scholarship of leadership – what ontological stance makes most
sense? As Grint (1997) notes, “we tend to perceive leadership in such oppositional terms
and this may not be the most appropriate way to analyze, develop and enact leadership”
(p. 3).ii
Leadership Review, Kravis Leadership Institute, Claremont McKenna College, Vol. 4, Fall 2004
110

---

Underlying these two perspectives are fundamentally different epistemological (theory of
knowledge) and ontological (views of reality and phenomena) assumptions. Grint
(1997), Hunt (1991), and Barker (2002) are among the few scholars to conduct an
examination of the fundamental assumptions of leadership. They all note that during this
historical time period, as great shifts in scientific thinking are occurring, an examination
of changing assumptions is needed.iii Most research has centered on defending the
appropriateness of either the essentialist or non-essentialist positions. Few scholars have
tried to explore how we might understand leadership differently by bringing these two
perspectives together or moving beyond them.

Almost every leadership study conducted or philosophy offered falls into one of these
two perspectives, essentialism and non-essentialism.iv Why is essentialism so prevalent
and why is reconciliation so elusive? Essentialism is so prevalent because it undergirds
Western philosophy and research. Reconciliation has been difficult because the two
“pure” perspectives are dichotomized and make vastly different claims about the nature
of reality and knowledge development; as currently conceptualized they are logically
inconsistent. Yet, this tension does not exist in some non-western writings on leadership.

This article has two main goals: first, to develop an awareness of the essentialist
assumptions responsible for the problematic dichotomized leadership literature (through a
review of the literature); and second, to propose the use of Confucian philosophy as a
way to move forward, beyond “apparently” dichotomized views of leadership,
introducing a new avenue for future studies.v This perspective is helpful because it
demonstrates that the two views are not logically contradictory or mutually exclusive.
Why focus on underlying assumptions about the nature of reality in order to advance our
thinking on leadership? This paper will demonstrate that different assumptions about
ontology (represented in the debate of essentialism) greatly affect the study of leadership
and ultimately our understanding of the phenomenon. Practitioners might be better
served by research and an understanding of leadership that demonstrates that these two
views each have legitimate assumptions and that it is problematic to maintain a pure
essentialist or non-essentialist view.

The article will proceed as follows: First, I review the contested nature or definition of
leadership, and define essentialism and non-or anti-essentialism. Second, I review the
leadership literature from the essentialist and non-essentialist perspectives. There is an
extensive collection of essentialist texts. In order to make this comprehensive task
manageable, I have chosen certain texts to epitomize the essentialist position such as
Burns (1978)), Greenleaf (1977), Fiedler (1964/76), and Heifetz (1994). All are classic
and/or famous texts on leadership. I will then review the non-essentialist positions,
which can be divided into several related schools of thought: cognitive, social/cultural,
processual, and contextual approaches. There are comparatively fewer non or anti-
essentialist researchers that have written on leadership. The leadership field is dominated
by essentialist scholars, but there is a growing interest in exploring non-essentialist
perspectives. The review of essentialist and anti-essentialist positions in the leadership
literature provides evidence of the dichotomized views and ways essentialism pervades
Leadership Review, Kravis Leadership Institute, Claremont McKenna College, Vol. 4, Fall 2004
111

---

our conceptualizations (even within the anti-essentialist perspective which emerged in
opposition). The article ends by describing some assumptions of Confucian philosophy
and how it might be applied to the study and practice of leadership.


Philosophical Stances: Essentialism and Anti or Non-Essentialism

Before describing essentialism and non-essentialism and how they affect the study of and
understanding of leadership, it is important to briefly note that the definition and
conceptualization of leadership is highly contested. Almost every text written on
leadership notes that definitions vary by the primary assumptions brought to examine the
phenomena.vi For example, trait theorists define leadership as a set of traits while
behavioral theorists identify it as a set of skills. Researchers from a social constructivist
perspective tend to define leadership as a process and relationship. There are seven main
approaches that have been brought to bear to study leadership and constitute main
schools of thought: trait, behavioral, power and influence (the more recent
power/influence theories are sometimes referred to as reciprocal leadership theories),
contingency, cultural, cognitive/processual/social constructivist, and critical/postmodern
approaches (Bensimon, Neumann, and Birnbaum, 1989; Grint, 1997). One of the key
underlying assumptions of these varying definitions regards views of ontology, which
will be described next. Thus, this paper argues for another way to define or
conceptualize leadership, adding to this on-going debate and examination.

Understanding Essentialism and its Legacy
Views on essentialism affect the way leadership has been defined as either a universal
phenomenon (essentialist) or as a cultural, context-based phenomenon (anti-essentialist).
For example, trait, behavior, power and influence, and contingency theories are most
often aligned with researchers holding essentialist assumptions while cognitive, cultural
and critical theorists tend to be aligned with anti-essentialist assumptions. This
distinction will be described in greater detail in a later section. Next I begin to define
essentialism.

One of the most basic definitions of essentialism is: members of a category have a
property or attribute (essence) that determines their identity.vii Essentialist philosophy
has changed slightly over time, but began with Plato and Aristotle, who believed that the
universe was made up of two different realities: the essential universe and the perceived
universe (Takala, 1998). The essential universe was that ideal or perfect universe while
the perceived universe was a façade or perception. The perceived universe is
continuously changing and dying. All observed imperfections would be a part of that
perceived reality and they would not affect the perfect essential reality beneath. The goal
of wisdom and later scientific research is to identify the essences or “real knowledge” and
to get beyond the perceived, which is merely opinion and belief. The essential forms are
more “real.” How does this essentialist view affect the study of leadership? Although
this will be described in detail in the section on essentialist views of leadership, in brief,
Plato attempted to identify the ideal mindset and skills (such as prudence, wisdom,
Leadership Review, Kravis Leadership Institute, Claremont McKenna College, Vol. 4, Fall 2004
112

---

justice, courage) for the philosopher king (leader) that could be used within any situation
in order to move societies toward the ideal state.

Plato and Aristotle’s views of the nature of reality were also infused into modern notions
of science. This century, Popper supported in general "methodological essentialism"
(based on Aristotle) which directs research of invisible essences through examination of
their phenomenal changes ( Ellis, 2001). Scientific essentialism, which gained credibility
in the first half of the last century, defends the view that the fundamental laws of nature
depend on the essential properties of the things on which they are said to operate. These
laws are not imposed upon the world by God, the forces of nature, or anything else, but
rather are immanent in the world (Ellis, 2001). Natural objects must behave as they do,
because to do otherwise would be contrary to their natures. The laws of nature are,
therefore, metaphysically necessary, and consequently, there are necessary connections
between events. Essentialist ontology was used to explain the physical world and it was
also applied to social phenomena over the last hundred years and used in virtually every
discipline and field. Within leadership, the goal was to identify the universal laws
(represented through traits, behaviors, power/influence strategies) that govern the
phenomena.viii

Toward an understanding of anti-essentialism
Because essentialism is understood as a belief in the real, true essence of things, the
invariable and fixed properties, which define the “whatness” of a given entity, it is
typically defined in opposition to difference (Fuchs, 2001). Anti-essentialists or non-
essentialists hold that a complex system of cultural, social, psychological, and historical
differences, not a set of pre-existent human essences, position/constitute the subject or
human phenomenon (Fuchs, 2001). Anti-essentialists come from many different
disciplinary traditions. Some are anthropologists that find the search for universal human
characteristics problematic in the face of deeply embedded cultural differences. Others
come from psychology and worry about the ability of labels to properly identify complex
phenomena. Yet, non-essentialists are not abandoning the idea that phenomena exist,
such as leadership, but that they are more complex, mutli-faceted, and varying than
previously envisioned.

In addition to the critique that essentialism is not an accurate portrayal of reality, another
concern has been lodged by postmodern, poststructural, and post-colonial scholars. Post
colonialists argue that essentialism was used to reduce indigenous people to an
"essential" idea of what it means to be African/Indian/Arabic, thus simplifying the task of
colonization (Ashcroft, Griffiths, & Tiffin, 1995). Essentialism is seen as an act to control
and oppress nature and people. Instead, nationalist and liberationist movements define
themselves as comprised of complex multi-faceted individuals without an essentialist
nature to be colonized. In a postcolonial interpretation, essentialism is more than an
inaccurate reflection of the state of the world (although this is argued as well), it is an act
by those in power to marginalize and oppress others. Over the years, has an essentialist
view of leadership been used to protect a class of people to maintain their hierarchical
status within leadership positions by defining the quality and characteristics of a
particular group as leadership? These critiques also lead to the significance of examining
Leadership Review, Kravis Leadership Institute, Claremont McKenna College, Vol. 4, Fall 2004
113

---

essentialist assumptions that continue to undergird much of the leadership research. It is
these kind of questions that have made more and more scholars adopt anti-essentialist
approaches in recent years.

Yet, the long-standing tradition of essentialism also makes one wonder if something more
than maintaining power has made this position convincing. Are there any compelling
aspects to the essentialist position that might be lost in the move toward anti or non-
essentialism? How can we advance leadership research in a context in which the
essentialist position has been shown to be so problematic across almost every academic
field and discipline (although this is not to say that some scholars do not find essentialism
compelling)? To better answer these questions, I review essentialist and anti-essentialist
views within leadership.


Essentialist views of leadership

Within essentialism, leadership was understood as a set of ideal or essential
characteristics and traits. The search continues for a pure form of leadership – the traits,
behaviors, or processes that can be identified which reflect leadership in its basic form.
As noted earlier, almost all trait, behavioral, power/influence, and contingency/situational
theories of leadership (which makes up the vast majority of all research), emerge from an
essentialist perspective.ix I will provide four exemplars across this host of theories to
demonstrate the way essentialism is pervasive in the leadership literature and how it is
enacted.

Essentialism in Power and Influence Theories
Perhaps one of the most influential works on leadership in the past century was written
by James MacGregor Burns (1978). Burns puts forth the quintessential essentialist
perspective within the power and influence tradition, reviewing hundreds of years of
conceptualizations of leadership in order to ascertain key aspects. His goal is to develop
a “general” theory of leadership that transcends time, context, and culture, which is itself
the task of an essentialist. Burns puts forth the proposition that leadership is an ideal
relationship that is characterized by two basic types: transactional and transforming. The
transactional leader is much more common and is involved with exchanging one thing for
another. Bureacrats, political parties, and legislators tend to operate within the
transactional form of leadership. The transformational leader seeks to cultivate
followers’ higher needs and engages the full person of the follower (p. 4). The
transformational leadership process is more mutual and elevates the follower and leader.
Burns also examines moral leadership that is related to the fundamental needs,
aspirations, and values of the followers and also an inherent part of transformational
leadership. The aim of leadership is social change measured by intent and by the
satisfaction of human needs and expectations. Burns refers to this aim as the “essence”
of leadership (p. 15). Transformational and transactional leadership are idealized types
that are characterized by essential, timeless, unchanging features that can be identified
across culture, situation, and context. Also, Burns believes it is possible for the leader to
Leadership Review, Kravis Leadership Institute, Claremont McKenna College, Vol. 4, Fall 2004
114

---

identify the “true” and essential needs of followers – certain universal psychological,
economic, spiritual, aesthetic, and safety needs.

Essentialism in Trait and Behavioral Theories
Greenleaf’s concept of the servant leader also reflects essentialist assumptions and falls
within the trait/behavioral approach to studying leadership (some refer to it as a
reciprocal approach). Greenleaf (1977) identifies the essential features of the servant
leader, providing a guide for behavior. He describes exemplary individuals he has
observed who exhibit the behaviors of servant leaders noting that the qualities transcend
context, organization, or historical time period. The two essential behaviors are integrity
and a profound sense of the mystical, both guided by the heart (p. 249). The leader is a
servant, a person who first wants to serve others and puts their needs and desires before
his or her own. A set of traits and behaviors mark the servant leader: goal oriented,
listens and understands others, pays attention to language and meaning, imagination,
reflection, acceptance and empathy, focusing on the unknowable, prophetic or practicing
foresight, awareness and perception, persuasion, and conceptualizing. Greenleaf reviews
the actions and traits of leaders throughout history to identify this group of essential traits
and behaviors.

Essentialism in Contingency Theories
For the most part, situational or contingency scholars are also essentialist; they document
idealized and universal personality traits and situations and match the leader’s orientation
with certain organizational contexts or situations. Fiedler is one of the early writers on
contingency theory, examining how a leader’s personality or behavior affects leadership
performance (1964) and situational theory, focusing on aspects of the organization or
environment (1976). The “essential” leader’s personality traits are task-oriented versus
relationship-oriented. The “essential” leadership environment feature is situational
control marked by: 1) the leader being or feeling accepted and supported by group
members; 2) the task is clear cut and structured; and 3) the leader has the ability to
reward and punish, and thus obtain compliance. The task-motivated leader performs
best in both high and low situational control. Relationship motivated leaders perform
best in situations in which control is moderate. Fiedler’s conclusion is that leaders
perform best in situations that match their leadership style. People can be reduced to an
enduring preference style that can be matched to a stagnant environment that can be
identified at some point in time. Experience, training, and organizational turbulence are
also conditions that can be “fixed” and examined in relation to leader effectiveness.

Essentialism in Situational Theories
A more recent version of situational theory is Heifetz’s adaptive leadership (1994).
Similar to Fiedler’s work, Heifetz attempts to identify idealized situational types that can
be examined and planned for by change agents. There are three leadership situation
types: 1) Type I- clear problem definition, clear solution and implementation, primary
locus of responsibility for the work is with the leader and the work is technical; 2) Type
II – problem definition is clear, solution and implementation requires learning, the
primary locus of responsibility for work is shared between leaders and followers and the
work is both technical and adaptive; 3) Type III – the problem definition requires
Leadership Review, Kravis Leadership Institute, Claremont McKenna College, Vol. 4, Fall 2004
115

---

learning, the solution and implementation requires learning, the primary locus of
responsibility for work is with the follower and secondarily the leader and the work is
adaptive. Technical kinds of work are routine and mechanical and the follower can
depend on the leader to develop a solution. Heifetz uses a medical analogy of a patient to
describe how certain medical situations require little troubleshooting, the diagnosis and
solution are clear. However, in Type II and III situations, the work is adaptive and
requires involvement of the patient.

The task of leadership is to be able to accurately identify the situation and match
leadership activities. Type I responses are the most typical, because they entail a more
authoritative approach, which is prevalent in society. However, Heifetz points out that
many of the situations we encounter are actually type II or III and that a type I response is
not effective. He reviews various leaders’ decisions examining when they effectively
identified the situation type and matched their response and showed that they encountered
successes when this occurred. What makes Heifetz or Fiedler essentialist is that the
situations they identify are not believed to differ based on cultural, social, psychological,
and historical differences.

Strengths and limitations of essentialism
The attraction of essentialist theories is that they provide specific advice to change agents
by identifying essential characteristics of leadership that can be used regardless of the
context or that identify enduring context issues or situational types to match leader
personality and preferences. The idealized types (like servant leadership) or models
developed such as adaptive leadership provide ready tools and approaches for leaders.
The results are tangible and usable. At some level, they also provide hope. Beyond the
problematic world of appearances lie enduring truths about leadership that if we try hard
enough, we can understand and implement. The problem with these approaches is that
they tend not to hold up to empirical analysis, although the evidence has been mixed.
Vision is the only characteristic of effective leadership that appears to be repeatedly
found across studies (Bolman and Deal, 1991). Some are more commonly identified
such as commitment or passion, the ability to inspire trust and develop relationships.
Reviews of the leadership literature find hundreds of attributes, traits, behaviors, and
situational variables, but none appear essential or universal although researchers argue for
their legitimacy, even with data or evidence lacking (Bolman and Deal, 1991). Perhaps it
is the way that essential or universal qualities are defined or conceptualized (separate
from context) that makes it difficult to document. Other limitations of essentialism have
already been noted such as the way it can be used to oppress individuals and groups by
portraying reality as a single perspective that represented the interests of elites.


Non-essentialist views of leadership

Leadership remained a relatively essentialistic phenomenon until the 1980s when
researchers began to challenge assumptions of universality through the lens of cultural,
cognitive, contextual/ processual theories of leadership (Bensimon, Neumann, and
Birnbaum, 1989). Many different aspects were examined including cultural differences
Leadership Review, Kravis Leadership Institute, Claremont McKenna College, Vol. 4, Fall 2004
116

---

in leadership (for example that different countries value different traits or power and
influence strategies), social differences (for example, race and gender), different
psychological orientations (for example, different types of intelligences or cognitive
orientations among leaders), organizational differences (that different organizational
contexts require different leadership – including processual change which examines
distinctive organizational histories and cultures), and historical differences (for example,
that different approaches to leadership were required in the 1960s than are required now)
(Antonakis, Avolio, & Sivasubramaniam, 2003; Astin & Leland, 1991; Ayman, 1993;
Bensimon, 1989; Bolman & Deal, 1991; Dawson, 1994; Gordon, 2002; Kezar, 2001;
Osborn, Hunt, and Jauch, 2002; Tierney, 1993).

Underlying many of these new approaches to examining leadership, particularly
cognitive and cultural theories, is the notion of social constructivism and/or
constructivism. Social constructivism is the belief that reality is developed through
people’s interpretation of the world and a denial of essences. Reality is a social and
cultural construction, not an idealized form beyond our immediate perception. By
examining multiple interpretations, a shared sense of reality can be detected, yet, our
understanding of reality is always partial and imperfect. Constructivism is a philosophy
founded on the premise that, by reflecting on our experiences, we construct our own
understanding of the world we live in. Each of us generates our own "rules" and "mental
models," which we use to make sense of our experiences. The cognitive perspective is
more aligned with the constructivism perspective, while the cultural perspective is closer
to the social constructivist perspective (Bensimon, Neumann, and Birnbaum, 1989;
Kezar, 2001). More recently, postmodern theorizing of leadership has also been
conducted. Postmodern scholars challenge universal truths and essences because there is
no objective vantage point (or reality) and our perceptions are the only thing we can
come to know (Grint, 1997). They also question whether universal essences or truths
even exist beyond our perceptions. Instead, knowledge is seen as contingent to local
conditions and contexts.

How do these perspectives relate to the notion of creating non-essentialistic views of
leadership? Social constructivists, constructivists, and post-modernists take a non-
essentialist view that leadership is shaped by local conditions, individual
backgrounds/experience, and circumstances. Local conditions and circumstances vary
and “essential” situation types are not possible to identify. There are no essential traits or
behaviors that can or should be identified; the process is contingent upon many factors
and conditions. Yet, as noted earlier, anti-essentialists, for the most part, are not
abandoning the idea that leadership exists, but that it is more complex, multi-faceted and
varying than previously envisioned. Social constructivists and postmodernists suggest
that past essentialist studies of leadership identified traits and behaviors or influence
strategies that reflected the perspectives of those in power; generally wealthy, white men
(Astin & Leland, 1991). Next, I review the major strands of non-essentialist leadership
research: cognitive, cultural, and contextual/processual theories.
Leadership Review, Kravis Leadership Institute, Claremont McKenna College, Vol. 4, Fall 2004
117

---

Anti-essentialism in Cognitive Theories
Cognitive theories of leadership identify how leaders have different perspectives or
lenses (Bensimon, Neumann, and Birnbaum, 1989). For example, Bolman’s and Deal’s
research, Reframing Organization, 1991, demonstrated that leaders tend to examine
situations through one or more lens or cognitive orientations (e.g., political, symbolic,
structural, or human resource). Building on contingency theory, they also demonstrated
that different situations might require different cognitive approaches to leadership; a
political orientation might serve a leader in one situation while a bureaucratic orientation
is important within another. They break from contingency theorists’ essentialist efforts of
matching situation and leader type. Instead, they describe how leaders often try to lead
organizations by finding the one right answer and the one best way and they are stunned
by the turmoil and resistance that they thereby generate (1991, p. 18). Bolman and Deal
argue that leaders must be passionately committed to their principles, but flexible in
understanding and responding to the events, situation, and contexts around them that are
constantly shifting and changing. This view is anti-essentialist in claiming that there are
no enduring qualities of leadership that change agents can cling to. In addition, we can
not come to an understanding of some essential traits, behaviors, power and influence
strategies, or even cognitive orientations that are the essence of leadership. Instead,
leaders must constantly relearn and leadership is more artistry, not exact or precise.
Research demonstrating that leaders have vastly different cognitive orientations resulted
in social/cultural research about other types of differences among leaders’ approaches
and beliefs.

Anti-essentialism in social and cultural theories
The social/cultural leadership literature examines gender and race (e.g., Astin & Leland,
1991; Cantor & Bernay, 1993; Ferguson, 1984; Helegesen, 1990; Kezar, 2001; Rosener,
1990; Statham, 1987) as well as cross-cultural issues (e.g., Ayman, 1993; Morrison,
1991; Tierney, 1993). Studies of women leaders have demonstrated that they tend to
understand, define and enact leadership in unique ways from men (Astin & Leland, 1991;
Bensimon & Neumann, 1993). The leadership of women emphasizes reciprocity,
mutuality, and responsibility toward others; is collective and participatory; focuses on
relationships and empowerment; and highlights outcomes as a central goal of leadership
(Astin & Leland, 1991; Cantor & Bernay, 1993; Ferguson, 1984; Helegesen, 1990;
Rosener, 1990; Statham, 1987). In contrast to men’s style, they de-emphasize hierarchical
relationships, individualism, and one-way power relationships (Astin & Leland, 1991;
Cantor & Bernay, 1993; Helegesen, 1990). Although fewer studies exist, research on
racial or ethnic differences in the U.S. have found that their leadership also differs from
the earlier research conducted on all white, male samples. Native Americans emphasize
community, wisdom, and spirituality as important for leadership and African Americans
describe a non-hierarchical, community based definition of leadership (Ayman, 1993;
Morrison, 1991; Tierney, 1993).

Cross-cultural studies have exploded in the literature in the last decade and provide some
of most powerful examples of the non-essentialist position (Dickson, Den Hartog, &
Mitchelson, 2003; Dorfman, 1996; House, Wright, & Aditya, 1997). Dickson, Hartog
Leadership Review, Kravis Leadership Institute, Claremont McKenna College, Vol. 4, Fall 2004
118

---

and Mitchelson (2003) describe how since 1996 there has been a decline in the quest for
universal leadership principles and a rise in awareness of differences, generally applying
Hofstede’s dimension of culture. The research examines a host of issues from differences
related to individual countries -- to an examination of clusterings of countries based on
like contexts or histories. The studies reveal unique ways that leadership is defined
among eastern (collective, wholistic, spirituality based) and western cultures
(hierarchical, authority based, and individualistic) (Ayman, 1993; Cox, 1993; Enarsi &
Murphy, 2003). Other studies have examined cross cultural difference based on more
general societal/cultural differences such as individualistic (focus on individual
achievement and rights) versus collective societies (focus on collective achievement and
rights) and found dramatic differences (Chong & Thomas, 1997; Enarsi & Murphy, 2003;
Hofstede, 1991; Offerman & Hellman, 1997; Offermann & Phan, 2001). x

Anti-essentialism in processual and contextual theories
In addition to different mental models, cross-cultural, racial and gender differences,
studies have also examined how the context affects leadership (Parry, 1998; Pettigrew,
1997; Pettigrew, Woodman, & Cameron, 2001). Osborn, Hunt, and Jausch (2002) argue
that the leadership literature has long emphasized micro perspectives. Macro perspectives
that take context and complexity into account have received limited attention. Many
contextual and processual theories of leadership emerge from anthropological approaches
applied to the study of organizational phenomena (Chaffee & Tierney, 1988; Dawson,
1994; Pettigrew, 1997; Tierney, 1988) The focus is on how organizations and societies
have particular histories and cultures that affect organizational phenomena, including
leadership. Contexts are usually so distinctive that comparison across them is often not
meaningful. For example, Tierney’s (1988) analysis of higher education leadership
demonstrates how leadership is like a spider’s web—each one is unique to the spot in
which it is created. Similarly, leadership is unique within each context. Also, leadership
is dynamic and unfolds over time – an underlying assumption of processual theories.
Because it is a process, it is volatile, sensitive to changes, and universal essences make
little sense in this emergent understanding and context of leadership (Dawson, 1994).

Strengths and limitations of anti-essentialist theories
The anti-essentialist leadership approaches have been heralded for addressing the missing
elements of context, culture, and social dynamics to the study of leadership. There is
growing evidence that the various aspects of context make a difference for leadership
processes and effectiveness. Because they are newer in application, there has been less
empirical data as well as less criticism developed. In the introduction I noted that there is
some concern that anti-essentialist views send leaders off on “a wild goose chase” to
understand cultural and social differences, psychological orientations, and situational and
historical elements which can become an all consuming process. The level of cognitive
complexity required to attend to all the elements of context may not be realistic for most
people. The significance of attention to these contextual and social elements compared to
the importance of enduring qualities is largely unknown.

Leadership Review, Kravis Leadership Institute, Claremont McKenna College, Vol. 4, Fall 2004
119

---