RESEARCH NOTES. A Leadership Discussion With Dr. Bernard Bass. University of Windsor. W. James Weese

Transcription

1 RESEARCH NOTES Journal of Sport Management, , O 1994 Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc. A Leadership Discussion With Dr. Bernard Bass W. James Weese University of Windsor Sport management scholars and practitioners alike hold tremendous interest in the area of leadership. Recent developments in the area, particularly regarding transformational leadership, offer great promise to both groups. This article contains a discussion with internationally famous leadership scholar Dr. Bernard Bass about the current thinking and future direction for leadership theory development. A summary of that discussion is presented along with implications for sport management scholars and practitioners. Paton's (1987) review of literature prompted him to conclude that leadership is the most popular topic for research by sport management scholars. This is not surprising given the fact that leadership has captured the attention of political and industrial analysts, poets, and scholars for centuries. Bennis and Nanus (1985) noted the unparalleled attention that leadership has enjoyed with their comment that "literally thousands of empirical investigations of leaders have been conducted in the last seventy-five years alone" (p. 4). Testimony to the validity of this claim is offered in Bass and Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership (1990), which contains over 7,500 citations. However, Bennis and Nanus's (1985, p. 5) comment that "never have so many labored so long to say to little" reflects the perspective of many contemporary leadership scholars. This feeling has not evaded sport management scholars or practitioners in their struggle to arrive at a valid and applicable concept of leadership. One explanation for the lack of consensus for the leadership construct might be that empiricists have concentrated on less effective forms of leadership: the exchange of promises from the leader for compliance by the follower or threats from the leader for follower failure. Minimal empirical attention has been directed toward the actual "movers and shakers" who lead organizations. The popular press (e.g., Sports Illustrated) has provided extensive treatment of leaders from the sports industry like Red Auerbach, Vince Lombardi, David Stem, and Peter Ueberroth. However, like industry, politics, and social movements, the academic community has not traditionally analyzed these leaders from an empirical perspective, although things have been changing recently. A new W. James Weese is with the Department of Kinesiology, University of Windsor, Windsor, ON, Canada N9B 3P4.

2 180 Weese and exciting paradigm of leadership research has emerged, focusing on what makes leadership work. Sport management scholars and practitioners might take solace and gather new insights and perspectives from the leadership research and the applications emerging from the Center for Leadership Studies at the State University of New York (SUNY-Binghamton). Dr. Bernard Bass and his associates are exploring the dynamics of &ansactional and transformational leadership. They are also uncovering the ways that transformational leaders can be developed through designed educational and experientially based programs. The possibilities for similar research initiatives set in sport management settings are very promising. Transactional and transformational leadership paradigms have rapidly moved to the forefront of the leadership literature since the 1980s (Bass, 1985; Kuhnert & Lewis, 1987; Yammarino & Bass, 1990). Bums (1978) first drew a distinction between transactional and transformational leadership in his highly acclaimed' book Leadership. His contribution helped separate the conflicting aspects of both theories into two comprehensible approaches to leadership which, while similar in some ways, were distinct approaches that brought about differing outcomes (Bass, 1985). Transactional leadership is the traditional form of leadership existing in organizational settings, whereby managers clearly outline tasks &d how they might be performed. Followers agree to complete the assignments in exchange for commensurate material or psychological compensation or to avoid being disciplined (Avolio, Waldman, & Yammarino, 1991). Avolio et al. (1991) suggested that the two-way exchange between the leader and follower (goal clarification and goal acceptance) is crucial to the success of this type of leadership. Leaders employing a constructive transactional leadership style can expect acceptable standards of performance and moderate levels of employee commitment to the leader and the organization. Bass (1985) offered that if leaders only intervene to correct mistakes, their leadership is dissatisfying to followers. This type of leadership has its limits and does not align with the image that most people hold for leadership. They expect much more! Bass and Avolio (1990) noted that transactional leadership does not adequately fit the description that people participating in leadership workshops offer when asked to describe their vision of the ideal leader (Bass & Avolio, 1990). The leaders most often depicted as ideal appear to carry a higher level of influence. These leaders have the ability to inspire followers to go beyond acceptable levels of commitment and contribution. These leaders move followers to emotionally attach to the leader and the organization. They motivate followers to envision an anticipated future for the organization. Followers think in futuristic terms and aspire to higher levels of performance, because their personal actualization needs are being met. Consequently, their own self-interests are superseded by the interests of the group andlor organization. The ideal leader these people are describing is classified in today's literature as a transformational leader. Examples of such leaders from sport management might include Frank Smith from the 1988 Winter Olympics Organizing Committee; A1 Davis, Cliff Fletcher, or Pat Gillick from professional sport; or an array of lower profile yet equally effective leaders from YMCAs, collegiate athletics, health clubs, or sport marketing firms. The purpose of this project was to meet and interview arguably the most prolific writer in the leadership field and to discuss the current thinking in the

3 Leadership Discussion 181 area of leadership. Applications for the sport management scholar and practitioner are interspersed throughout the paper. I met with acclaimed leadership scholar Dr. Bernard Bass, who is a Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Management at SUNY-Binghamton and the director of the Center for Leadership Studies. Dr. Bass's accomplishments include authoring 13 books, editing eight other texts, and publishing close to 300 articles as well as an equal number of technical reports and papers. He currently serves as the executive editor of The Leadership Quarterly and has recently completed the third edition of the voluminous Handbook of Leadership. Perhaps his greatest contribution is his book entitled Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations (1985). In this text he offered a comprehensible, testable theory and model of transformational leadership that he has continued to expand and refine. Dr. Bass has lectured and conducted leadership workshops over the last 30 years in 40 countries including Japan, Britain, Australia, Italy, Spain, India, and Brazil. He has been a regular consultant to a number of Fortune 500 companies and United States Government agencies. He is the coauthor of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), a survey instrument designed to quantitatively measure transformational leadership. He has been labeled as the foremost authority in the area of leadership (Jermier, 1993). An interview was conducted with Dr. Bass at SUNY-Binghamton during the summer of I followed the suggestions for collecting and analyzing qualitative data in a modified Delphi technique as outlined by Patton (1990). The interview was tape-recorded and the data were transcribed verbatim. Following an initial editing of the transcribed data, the information was returned to Dr. Bass for an accuracy check of the content as well as to provide the opportunity for further reflection and elaboration. After a second editing, the transcripts were again returned to Dr. Bass for final reflection and elaboration. The final edited interview, prepared in a form designed to satisfy both the sport leadership scholar and practitioner, is presented below. The Interview J.W. You note (Bass, Avolio, & Goodman, 1987) that the topic of leadership has captured the attention of biographers dating back to ancient Greece. Given the extensive attention that the topic has received throughout the years, cynics appear to be justified in their opinion that we can't possibly understand the concept if we haven't figured it out by now. In response to the critics of leadership theory development, why haven't we figured it out by now? B.B. Perhaps the problem lies in the perception that we are going to amve at a final, conclusive answer to all of the leadership questions. This is not realistic and doesn't follow the natural progression of science. Typically, in any science, one ends up with more questions than answers as progress is made, and this is what has happened in the study of leadership. I believe that considerable progress has been made in the leadership area, particularly since the publication of Bums's (1978) Leadership text. Our thinking has crystallized with the development and refinement of transactional and transformational leadership paradigms. These theories hold considerable relevance for both scholars and practitioners.

4 182 Weese The recent shift in modem industry away from an emphasis on organizational hierarchies and strict adherence to a chain of command to a "team" approach to management has significantly altered our thinking in the area of leadership. What is interesting to me is that the concept of shared leadership was proposed and discussed in the 1940s and 1950s, although industry didn't embrace the concept with much enthusiasm until recently. In the final analysis, I believe that there has been considerable progress in the study of leadership, and I hold great optimism for its continued growth and refinement. J.W. This is very interesting. It is obvious the leaders of our various sport organizations need to appreciate the importance of developing a shared meaning for staff members and getting people meaningfully involved in the attainment of the focus. This is what true leadership is all about, and perhaps is what more sport managers could be doing if they want to maximize their influence and, consequently, the potential of their organization. Following up on your comment about transactional and transformational leadership, you note that transformational leadership is built on transactional leadership theory. One gets the impression from some authors (e.g., Kuhnert & Lewis, 1987) that transformational leadership is uniquely different from transactional leadership. Can you please clarify your position? B.B. I feel that the concepts are different; however, they can be closely related. Transformational leaders bring about higher levels of commitment and performance than transactional leaders. This is poignantly illustrated in Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. When ordinary expectations are laid out, and ordinary effort and motivation are exhibited by the follower in exchange for fair compensation, transactional leadership has occurred. However, the key adjective in this exchange is the term ordinary. Transformational leadership augments transactional leadership. It results in extraordinary effort and achievement, and as highlighted in the title of my book, has the potential to generate performance "beyond expectations." Transformational leaders ask followers to look beyond their own self-interests and focus on the big picture. Transformational leaders challenge followers to aspire to what can be, rather than the current practicalities. It's an attempt to cany people beyond their own self-interest and strive toward the achievement of transcendental goals. Followers are concerned with what is good for the group, for the organization, for society. J.W. It appears that transactional leadership equates with a management mindset and transformational leadership aligns more closely with influence and inspiration. Aspiring leaders from the sports industry will be very interested in the notion of intellectual challenge that you forward. Sport ''people" often think of physical challenges; however, leaders hoping to maximize their influence potential may need to place greater emphasis on creating intellectual challenges. In the 1970s and early 80s leadership theorists promoted the idea that leadership was impacted by the situation-namely time, place, and circumstance. Reviewing the literature of that period leads me to conclude that the situational leadership theories held great intuitive appeal. On paper, they made sense; however, they have not withstood empirical rigor. What are your thoughts on the situational approach to leadership?

5 Leadership Discussion 183 B.B. A good question. You are quite correct when you note that the situational theories of the 70s and early 80s dominated our thinking; however, in spite of the appeal that these models and theories held, they lacked empirical support from the research community. To a large degree, the situational determinants blurred our focus and the reality that there are a number of universal components to leadership. We're back to focusing on the person and reaping the benefits of this paradigm. I do believe that leadership is generally a universal phenomenon. Naturally, there are situational contexts that impact the effectiveness of these universal attributes (e.g., cultural differences, organizational situation). However, I believe that transactional and transformational components of leadership are basically universal. I'm on record at the 1991 Academy of Management Conference as stating that "although the model of transformational and transactional leadership may have needs for adjustments and fine-tunings as we move across cultures, particularly into non-western, overall, it holds up as having a lot of universal potential" (Bass, 1991, p. 26). J.W. I'm not convinced that the new thinking in leadership has pervaded the sports industry. Many sport management scholars and practitioners remain scripted in the leadership theories of the past. There is some exciting work unfolding in the leadership area, and we need to be more effective in spreading its theoretical and applied meanings. Let's attempt to do some of that now by focusing on the universality issue. What are the universal components of leadership? B.B. Effective leaders are those individuals who pay attention to the development of their associates, inspire and stimulate them to improve the organization, and engage in a continually improving set of relations, both inside and outside the organization. J.W. I'm impressed by the empirical underpinnings of your work, as well as the intuitive appeal of your paradigms. You have partitioned transformational leadership into the "four I's," which are intellectual stimulation, individual consideration, inspirational leadership, and idealized influence. You have developed (with Bruce Avolio) the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) to quantify transformational leadership on the basis of the four 1's. For the benefit of our sport management scholars and practitioners, let's discuss each of your four 1's. Let's begin with "intellectual stimulation." B.B. Intellectual stimulation refers to the capacity of leaders to awaken and excite the intellectual curiosities of followers. On the basis of my research I have determined that transformational leaders inspire and challenge followers on an intellectual basis. This is a component of leadership that in my opinion has often been overlooked by leadership theorists. Transformational leaders get their followers to shift their paradigms and begin to look at problems in more creative ways. Actually, problem is not the appropriate word in the context of these leaders. They view problems as challenges or opportunities. It is important to note that it isn't necessarily the leader who is more creative. More accurately, the leader helps others to be more creative. Leaders who are intellectually stimulating are not threatened by the possibility of learning from their followers. These leaders recognize the potential of synergy and the power of collective creativity. They understand that followers who are mentally

6 Weese challenged and appreciated are stimulated and energized. These followers adopt a level of excitement that is both refreshing for the organization and selfmotivating for the employee. J.W. How about the second I, which you termed "individualized consideration"? B.B. This is also an important element of transformational leadership. It deals with the relationship between leaders and their followers on two important tangents. The first component is that each member of the group is treated as an individual, not as a number. Each situation has to be reviewed individually due to differing circumstances. This factor measures the leader's willingness and ability to deal with matters on this basis. Leaders who are "individually considerate" are active listeners and attempt to understand the perspectives offered by their followers. The second part of this factor is the personal development of these individuals. Transformational leaders help identify weaknesses in followers as well as help them secure the resources and assistance they need to improve and to attain their goals. J.W. As you know, the Leadership Behavior Questionnaire and the Ohio State Leadership Model of the late 50s also used the term consideration, although their meaning was quite different from what you are forwarding. Could you please highlight the key distinctions between what you mean by individualized consideration relative to the use of the term consideration in previous theories? B.B. Yes, you are correct that the earlier use of the term consideration has clouded what we are attempting to advance in our transformational leadership theory. The essential difference is that in the earlier use of the label consideration, leaders were measured in relation to the emphasis they placed on concern for members as a group. The group served as the unit of measurement. Naturally there is some overlap with our conceptualization of individualized consideration; however, we clearly distinguish our concept with the use of the adjective individualized. Transformational leaders focus on people as individuals and make decisions on a "case" basis. J.W. What can you say about the third I, called "inspirational leadership' '? B.B. Transformational leaders inspire their followers, making them feel valued, appreciated, and critical to attaining the vision of the organization. These leaders add clarity and meaning to the vision of the organization by simplifying what needs to be done and communicating this information with such confidence and charisma that followers are aroused and excited about making the vision a reality. J.W. How does this differ from the fourth I, which you labeled "idealized influence "? B.B. The scales are closely related; however there are some differences between the two factors. There is more to being a transformational leader than being inspirational. Transformational leaders are genuinely respected by their followers. Followers believe that the leader has the competence and character to make the vision a reality. Follower confidence in the leader and in the vision of

7 Leadership Discussion 185 the organization is high. Followers believe in the transformational leader and don't perceive that their energies or contributions will be wasted. Successes of smaller magnitude help strengthen the commitment and emotional bond that followers have for their transformational leader. Followers are influenced by the leader to strive harder to reach their full potential so that both the member and the organization can reap the benefits. The leader sets a role example for the followers who want to identify with the leader. Idealized influence relates very closely to charisma. You'll note from the literature that others believe that charisma plays a large part in transformational leadership (Conger, 1989; Conger & Kanungo, 1987; House & Howell, 1992). I too believe that charisma is important; however, we have moved a bit off track by focusing on charisma as the sole element in this form of leadership. There is more to being a leader than being a charismatic person. Specifically, transformational leaders instill confidence and commitment to a vision in followers who, through their contributions and efforts, validate a charismatic presence. Once charisma spreads throughout an organization that is focused on a shared vision or mission, immense possibilities occur. There is an excitement within the organization. For too long, charisma has been held as a mystical gift that people possessed. Charismatic behavior can be learned (Howell & Frost, 1989). I do believe that charisma results in an emotional identification of the follower with the leader of a group. However, one can be charismatic and not inspire followers to attain for the betterment of the group, the organization, or society. Being charismatic does not necessarily imply that one is concerned about the development of followers or being intellectually stimulating. Otherwise, one might be perceived as being charismatic without being a role figure. In my opinion, charisma is an important component of leadership but only within the context of the other elements that are represented in the four 1's. J.W. You've highlighted the benefits of this type of leadership in your responses to some of my earlier questions, particularly those focusing on the four I's of leadership. You've provided sport management scholars with information about your theory and introduced them to a valid and reliable instrument that they may want to utilize in future leadership studies. Finally, you've provided practitioners with an overview of your theory along with insights into what they can do to heighten their transformational leadership tendencies. Is there anything else that you'd like to add about leadership? B.B. Not really. As I mentioned, transformational leaders positively impact follower effort, satisfaction, and effectiveness, and I believe this is a significant research finding. Our research has shown that followers of transformational leaders expend greater effort and their performance is higher than the same measures for followers of transactional leaders. J.W. Your comments remind me of Warren Bennis's perspective as noted in the preface of Leaders on Leadership (1992). He stated that the true leaders of the day will not be recognized for their personal accomplishments, but more accurately, their real genius will be found in the unleashing of the talent and potential of their followers. Let's switch gears and focus on the development of leaders. Noted management consultant Peter Drucker (1990) suggested that leadership can't be taught, that at best, it can only be learned. I know that you hold a different point of

8 Weese view based on the voluminous numbers of leadership training workshops you have held throughout the world. Can you please comment on Drucker's perspective? B.B. You are quite correct in your assessment. I disagree with Drucker on this matter and here is why. We have empirical evidence to support our position that leaders can be taught if exposed to a designed leadership development program, and we have been doing it successfully for years. Bennis and Nanus (1985) noted that leadership can be learned through carefully designed educational programs designed to heighten visioning skills, highlight the importance of the character ethic, and refine behavioral tendencies linked to transformational leadership. Howell and Frost (1989) offered conclusive evidence that leadership can be taught and learned. Our research findings from the leadership workshops staged by the Center for Leadership Studies offer convincing evidence that leadership can be learned through role modeling of successful leaders within and external to the organization. Bennis's (1994) research with leaders prompted him to conclude that leaders learn to be effective from observing and working with other leaders-both effective and ineffective types. Where is Drucker's empirical support? He often makes interesting comments that fit with current biases, and I believe that this is a prime example. The reality is that leadership can be taught. Yet, in some sense, Drucker is correct. You can drag managers to leadership workshops, but you can't make them learn. In the final analysis, leadership development is self-development. J.W. As a way of bringing our discussion to a close, I'd like you to suggest what you see as the future directions in leadership research. B.B. Well, it has taken a great deal of time to get to our current state. For example, we focused on the traits and characteristics of leaders, and this brought us up to the 1940s. We then redirected our attention to the behavioral components of leadership. We are now in the midst of a cognitive revolution. We believe it is important to understand how leaders think. I see leadership theorists continuing to pursue the cognitive area and beginning to focus on the protocols that transformational leaders enact as they actually go through their work. Then we might develop principles and rules that different leaders tend to apply. The methodology might take the form of identifying highly transformational leaders as well as novices who are rated low in their transformational tendencies where both have attempted to deal with the same leadership situations. One might quantify their thought processes as they go through each scenario and attempt to distinguish the rules that both groups employ. This type of research could have immense implications for the development of transformational leaders. J.W. Sport management scholars would be well served following a similar line of inquiry. Transformational leaders from sport management could be identified, and research studies could be carried out to analyze the characteristics, decisions, and thought processes that these leaders enact as they lead their respective organizations. Data from these leaders could be compared to data from transactional leaders from the sport environment to quantify the impact of both types of leadership on organizational outcomes. Sport managers generally operate on a seasonal basis. Perhaps the impact of transformational leaders from a variety of different sport settings could be measured to determine if this form of leadership makes a difference on some

9 Leadership Discussion 187 outcome measures (e.g., organizational effectiveness, employee satisfaction, or organizational culture). The relatively quick turnover within the sport fraternity also makes leadership succession studies a possibility. These studies might allow researchers to better understand the impact that transformational leaders have as they move from one organization to another. Finally, sport offers leadership opportunities at a variety of hierarchical levels. Perhaps the impact of coaches' leadership could be compared to the impact that sport managers have on the same organizations. These studies would reveal some interesting insights into which level of leadership is most important to organizational success. It is obvious that sport management scholars and practitioners have much to contribute to and garner from the new thinking in the area of leadership. The developments in the field hold great promise and cause for optimism from both research and application perspectives. On behalf of the sport management scholars and practitioners, I want to thank you for sharing your insights and observations about the developments and future directions in the area of leadership. B.B. Thank you. I agree that the current developments are exciting and that your field is a tremendous setting for leadership exploration and application. Conclusion This paper offered an overview of the current thinking in leadership from the perspective of arguably the most eminent leadership scholar, Dr. Bernard Bass. The conversational reporting of the content of this interview, coupled with the theoretical underpinnings to the points raised, was designed to satisfy both the leadership practitioner and sport management scholar. Profit and nonprofit sport and recreation managers have a great deal to gain from understanding and applying the elements of transformational leadership. The four 1's of transformational leadership can be easily grasped and put into practice by these individuals for the benefit of both the people within the organization and the organization as a whole. The purported benefits of this type of leadership include a more satisfied and empowered staff as well as a more focused and productive organization (Bass, 1990). Professional development opportunities and leadership workshops designed to heighten the transformational leadership tendencies of sport managers and their staff members are encouraged. Administering sport programs in the 1990s is a challenging exercise. Economic realities, coupled with the many and varied entities competing for limited resources, make the need for effective leadership even more acute. The transformational leadership literature offers valuable information to the practicing sport manager relative to focusing a working force and inspiring people within it toward the attainment of the organization's goals. Sport management scholars also have much to gain from the recent transformational leadership developments. The sports industry provides an excellent medium for vibrant and challenging research projects carrying a transformational leadership theme. The large number of staff members and the seasonal schedules that many sport organizations follow provide outstanding opportunities to quantify the impact that transformational leaders can have on their organizations. However, it is important that sport management scholars let go of the old approaches to

10 188 Weese leadership research and begin focusing on current approaches like transformational leadership. As well, sport management researchers interested in quantitatively measuring transformational leadership would be well served in utilizing the valid and reliable Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). Leadership scholars (Avolio et al., 1991; Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1990; Bennis, 1989; Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Burns, 1978; Conger, 1989; Kouzes & Posner, 1993; Nanus, 1989; Sashkin, 1987; Schein, 1990; Tichy & Devanna, 1986; Yammarino & Bass, 1990; Yukl, 1989) offer convincing evidence that organizational success and survival are linked to effective leadership. In particular, these scholars suggest that transformational leaders have a positive impact on employee satisfaction, productivity, and organizational effectiveness. Empirical investigations of sport appear to have much to offer in investigating and substantiating these claims. References Avolio, B.J., Waldman, D.A., & Yammarino, F.J. (1991). Leading in the 1990's: The four 1's of transformational leadership. Journal of European Industrial Training, 15, Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. Bass, B.M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill's handbook of leadership: Theory, research and managerial applications. New York: Free Press. Bass, B.M. (1991). Is there universality in the full range model of leadership? Paper presented at the Academy of Management Conference, Miami, FL. Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. (1990). Developing transformational leadership: 1992 and beyond. Journal of European Industrial Training, 14, Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J., & Goodman, L. (1987). Biography and assessment of transformation leadership at the world-class level. Journal of Management, 13, Bennis, W. (1989). Why leaders can't lead: The unconscious conspiracy continues. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bennis, W. (1994). Shakes and quakes. Executive Excellence, 11, 3-4. Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders. New York: Harper & Row. Bums, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Conger, J.A. (1989). The charismatic leader: Behind the mystique of exceptional leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Conger, J.A., & Kanungo, R.N. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 12, Dmcker, P.F. (1990). Management of nonprofit organizations: Principles and practices. New York: Harper Collins. House, R.J., & Howell, J.M. (1992). Personality and charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 3, Howell, J.M., & Frost, P.J. (1989). A laboratory study of charismatic leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 43, Jermier, J.M. (Ed.) (1993). Review of Bass and Stogdill's handbook of leadership: Theory, research and managerial applications. The Leadership Quarterly, 4, Kouzes, J.M., & Posner, B.Z. (1993). Credibility: How leaders gain and lose it, why people demand it. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

11 Leadership Discussion 189 Kuhnert, K.W., & Lewis, P. (1987). Transactional and transformational leadership: A cons!mctive/developmental analysis. Academy of Management Review, 12, Leaders on leadership: Interviews with top executives (with a preface by Warren Bennis). (1992). Boston: Harvard Business School. Nanus, B. (1989). The leader's edge: The seven keys to leadership in a turbulent world. Chicago: Contemporary Books. Paton, G. (1987). Sport management research: What progress has been made? Journal of Sport Management, 1, Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Sashkin, M. (1987). A new vision for leadership. The Journal ofmanagementdevelopment, 6, Schein, E.H. (1990). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Tichy, N.M., & Devanna, M. (1986). The transformational leader. New York: Wiley. Yammarino, F.J., & Bass, B.M. (1990). Transformational leadership and multiple levels of analysis. Human Relations, 43, YuM, G.A. (1989). Leadership in organizations (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Acknowledgment The author wishes to acknowledge Dr. Trevor Slack for his insightful comments on an earlier draft of this article.