







































Communication, Society and Media 
ISSN 2576-5388 (Print) ISSN 2576-5396 (Online) 

Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm 

81 

Book Review 

Leadership in Organizations-A Book Review 
Paul Andrew Bourne1* & Heather A. Smith-Sherwood1 

1 Northern Caribbean University, Mandeville, Manchester, Jamaica 
* Paul Andrew Bourne, Northern Caribbean University, Mandeville, Manchester, Jamaica 

 

Received: April 24, 2018         Accepted: May 18, 2018        Online Published: May 29, 2018 

doi:10.22158/csm.v1n1p81                     URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/csm.v1n1p81 

 

Introduction 

Dr. Gary Yukl was born in 1940 and received a BA in Business Administration from the Occidental 

College in 1962 and PhD in Industrial-Organizational Psychology from the University of California in 

1967. Professor Yukl is among the gurus in leadership and is currently employed to the University at 

Albany (State of University of New York or SUNY) where he lectures in Management and Psychology. 

Among the many accolades of Professor Yukl are 1) books including Leadership in Organizations; 2) 

countless peer reviewed articles, including in Personal Psychology, Journal of Management, Journal of 

Organizational Behavior, Leadership Quarterly, Organizational Dynamics; 3) contributed to the 

improvement of leadership in the US Army and Navy; and 4) a fellow of the American Psychological 

Association (i.e., APA) as well as the American Psychological Society, and the Society for 

Industrial-Organizational Psychology. One of the fascinating things about this distinguished scholars and 

organizational-psychologist as well as leadership experts is the fact that his book entitled Leadership in 

Organization is at its eighth-edition.  

The book was first published in 1981, and the longevity of this text indicates its 1) value to knowledge 

and content; 2) quality of content; 3) blending research, case histories, and personal narratives; and 4) 

relevance to contemporary issues in leadership and organizations. This book review addresses the four 

areas previously mentioned in order to provide coverage of the book.  

According to Yukl (2006), “The book is about leadership in organizations. Its primary focus is on 

managerial leadership as opposed to parliamentary leadership, leadership of social movements, or 

emergent leadership in informal groups” (p. xv). He continues that “Many academics are skeptical about 

the value of prescription and guidelines for practitioners and considers them premature in the absence of 

further research. In contrast, most practitioners want some immediate answers about what to do and how 

to do it in order to be more effective as leaders” (p. xv). Having outlined the aforementioned issues, Yukl 

pens the text in keeping with those positions and meeting their expectations, which makes for a great look 

in organizational leadership as well as general leadership. It is a book that contains an instructor’s manual 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 

 
82 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

in conjunction with case studies, exercises and role-playing activities. 

Value of Knowledge and Content 

The book Leadership in Organizations comprises fifteen chapters of some 535 pages, with 458 being 

dedicated to the various chapters. There are some new areas in this book such as ethical leadership and 

diversity; developing leadership skills; leadership in teams and decision groups; strategic leadership by 

executives; leading change in organizations, and charismatic and transformational leadership. The topics 

in conjunction with the case studies, summaries, diagrammatic representations, and review questions add 

to the value of the knowledge and the content of the materials. Many of the topics are extensively 

reviewed in this paper, as well as contextualizing the areas with other scholarships. 

The Nature of Leadership 

Yukl, in his book “Leadership in Organizations” like Bass and Bass, and other scholars in leadership 

argued how this concept was taken from a “common vocabulary” and brought into a “technical 

vocabulary” and that  accounts for its splintered definitions. He, however, provided 10 different 

definitions of leadership from various scholars prior to providing one of his own. Yukl wrote 

“Researchers usually define leadership according to their individual perspectives and the aspects of the 

phenomenon of most interest to them”. After a comprehensive review of the leadership literature, 

Stoghill (1974, p. 259) concluded that “there are almost as many definitions of leadership as there are 

persons who have attempted to define the concept” (p. 2) and this epitomizes the challenge of all scholars 

on matter, which excludes none. It should not be surprising that Yukl did provide a definition of his own 

on the concept but like Bass and Bass indicated that situation, behaviour, relation, influence and other 

characteristics may account for such a conceptualization. Yukl’s definition reads “Leadership is the 

process of influencing others to understand and agree about what needs to be done and how to do it, and 

the process of facilitating individual and collective efforts to accomplish shared objective” (p. 8).  

The definition offered by Yukl was comprehensive and unlike others that I have read outlined some 

features that are noteworthy such as 1) process; 2) followership; 3) needs; 4) task; 5) agreement or shared 

vision, 6) influence (i.e., types and purpose); 7) collective consciousness, 8) principles in carry out a task, 

and 9) effectiveness. Those phenomena set the platform accountability of people, especially the leader, 

and this is encapsulated in what is referred to as leadership effectiveness. According to Yukl, “Like 

definitions of leadership, conceptions of leader effectiveness differ from one writer to another” (p. 9). 

Although Yukl forwarded that there are many definitions of leadership, he postulated that this is 

measured based on the action(s) of the leader on the followers and various stakeholders in the 

organizations. It is easy to understand that the leader is, therefore, evaluated not merely on his/her vision; 

but primarily his/her performance, growth, influence, and accomplishment of tasks. As such, the matter 

of influence introduces the human element, followership, and this is how the leader is able to accomplish 

tasks by way of “buy-in”.  

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 

 
83 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Issues in Leadership 

Yukl mentioned that outcome of a decision by the leader may be in the short-term, medium or long-term, 

and that leaders should not be judged solely based on the immediate result of his/her influence on the 

followers. As such, the measurement of leadership effectiveness should be based on 1) criteria 

assessment, and 2) objectives and values evaluation. We are contending that evaluation of the 

effectiveness of the leader must be based on characteristics of 1) the leader, 2) the follower, and 3) 

situation (Yukl, 2006, p. 12). It follows; therefore, that the leader must be assessed not only by his 

contribution; but of equal importance is the situation, follower, power-influence and an integrative 

approach. As such, a leader should not be judged solely based on a particular situation as followers will 

be different, the conditions will not be similar, and the process will all be different. So, Winston Churchill, 

Nelson Mandela, Michael Manley, Alexander Bustamante, and many other leaders did particular things 

at a certain time and today we may assess them based on current knowledge and situation, which is 

juxtaposing today on the past. The issue is, times may have changed, but the concept of leadership 

remains the same. People are people, followers are followers, issues are generally the same; there will 

be various situations which will require that the leader uses his expertise or otherwise to address the 

issues and bring a workable solution. It is a part of his stewardship to deal with issues or better yet to be 

proactive rather than reactive. 

Yukl’s work can be used to explain the interaction between leader and follower (Yukl, 2006). He referred 

to this as dyadic role making. One of the fundamental things in leadership is social interaction between 

him/herself and his/her subordinates. Yukl argued that effective leaders must invest some social time in 

each person in an effort to understand 1) skill set of the follower, 2) interest, 3) values, 4) desires, and that 

the follower is also expected to evaluate his/her leader in the same way the leader does it. The matter 

supports 1) the selling of the vision, 2) execution of the vision, and 3) fundamentally the “buy-into”. It 

can be deduced from dyadic role making that there is a social exchange between the leader and each 

follower, and this one-on-one interaction provides the needed information for both parties.  

The dyadic role model fundamentally operates in a dual way, with each agent (i.e., leader and 

subordinates) interacting with each other simply to gather information on the other. It is the obtained 

information that each party uses in an effort to attain his/her self-reasons. The social exchange between 

the leader and the follower is not merely to obtain information as it is for understanding 1) best-fit, 2) 

competencies, 3) how the person’s self-interest can be served, and 4) for aid in addressing performance or 

behaviour issues. In fact, the data gathered by each participant, particularly the leader, can be used to 

address unsatisfactory performance and/or to “improve the quality of the exchange relationship” of the 

followership or subordinate (Yukl, 2006, p. 117). As such, this provides a roadmap for the leader, and 

oftentimes it can be used in a destructive manner. The destructive manner includes 1) having the 

subordinate conduct spy work in an effort to displace another for a post or function, 2) use the individual 

to carry out personal acts, 3) sideline individuals, and 4) discredit others because they would have 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 

 
84 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

obtained information on people and this is used against them. Inspite of the challenges, dyadic 

relationship/role making is critical in ascertain information of an entity or individual—a one-to-one 

relationship for exchange of information. 

Despite some of the negatives of leader-member exchange, the leader employment of different exchange 

relationship with each subordinate in their by-party interaction provides a cognitive sense of respect for 

each individual. Yukl refers to the aforementioned as the LMX theory—Leader-Member Exchange 

(LMX). He contended that personal and direct social interaction between the leader and follower 

provides a base for leader influencing performance, attitudes and actions of the follower, and that this is a 

reciprocal exchange. One of issues that surround the LMX theory was the fact that the exchange 

relationship is built over time. This means that leaders and/or followers should not be expected to equally 

provide information to each other, if trust is developed and that this is process which takes time. Hence, 

Yukl opined that “LMX theory was formerly called the vertical dyad linkage theory because of its focus 

on reciprocal influence processes within vertical dyads composed of one person who has direct authority 

over another person” (Yukl, 2006, p. 117). He continued that “According to the theory, most leaders 

develop a high-exchange relationship with a small number of trusted subordinates who function as 

assistants, lieutenants, or advisors” (p. 117). Once again, the leader may use the information obtained 

from the people to build a social system to protect him/herself, which is a negative to LMX theory. 

Nevertheless, the leader may build a cadre of trusted people to carry out his/her mandate and not 

necessary use the LMX for negative rewards. 

The matter of the two-sidedness of LMX’s theory, does not detract from its stages, measurement, and 

evaluation. Yukl outlined that LMX is a “life cycle model” and to this we disagree. The fact that power is 

not equally shared between the leader and follower or subordinate, the exchange of information can be 

used in the same manner by each party. Nevertheless, the three stages are initial testing phase in which 

the leader evaluates the subordinate’s motives, attitudes, resources, and that mutual role expectations are 

established. We are not concurring with the perspective of mutual expectations between the leaders and 

subordinate as this presupposes that individual interest will become jointly fulfilled. However, we are 

proposing that individual’s interest can be foregone for the mutual interest, with there being a latent 

personal gratification. Stage two being the exchange arrangement is refined trust, and loyalty and respect 

is develop. This presupposes that obtained information makes both people equals and so trust can be 

established. In fact, the matter of cooperation does not necessarily represent mutual trust as one party 

may accept his/her role because of limited alternatives. In addition, there may be a general level of 

understanding possible to the extent of how much is revealed by the leader. Hence, the individual may 

cooperate out of personal interest and not that there is mutual trust. The next stage is the mature phase as 

self-interest is gradually transformed into personal interest.  

The LMX theory can be used and this has been done over the years by way of 1) a standardized 7-item 

survey, and 2) multidimensional scale. It can be deduced from those measurement approaches that 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 

 
85 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

perception is the core of this evaluation. Hence, Yukl argued that there may be a disparity between the 

perception of the leader and that of the subordinate, and this brings into focus the validity of the 

measurement of LMX (Yukl, 2006, p. 119). The importance of disparity is aptly described by Yukl this 

way “It is not clear whether the low correlation reflects measurement problems in the scale or actual 

differences in perception. More research is needed to determine the answer and to clarify the implications 

of measuring LMX from different (leader and subordinate) perspectives” (p. 119). We are concurring 

with Yukl that the disparity that exists in the literature on the measurement of the LMX theory can be 

solved by varying the methodology, and a rigorous process of instrument validation. In fact, we are 

disappointed that the validation of the instrument was not done and as a result the discussion could be 

about the other aspect as referred to by Yukl. However, he contended that “LMX theory can be improved 

by incorporation of attributional processes that explain how leaders interpret subordinates actions and 

subordinates interpret leader actions” (Yukl, 2006, p. 121), which takes the discussion to the level of 

inquiry (or research).  

Yukl postulated that many different research methodologies have been employed to conduct research in 

this area from the use of surveys, experimentations (laboratory, field), analysis of communication 

patterns and observations. He dates back inquiry into this phenomenon to the 1970s, which begs the 

question, why have scholars not answered the question in the previous paragraph that relates to validity 

of instrumentation. Nevertheless, many evaluations of the LMX theory has been ongoing and they can be 

carried out in a 1) descriptive approach, or 2) prescriptive approach. Despite the conceptual issues of the 

LMX’s theory and the fact that many studies have been conducted in the area, we are in total agreement 

with this statement made by Yukl, “LMX theory still has a number of conceptual weaknesses that limit its 

utility. Early versions of the theory did not adequately explain how dyadic relationships develop over 

time” (p. 121). This is a starting one for my dissent and reluctance to buy into dyadic role model as the 

weaknesses are many as have been outlined above.  

This is a thought paper and as such with other issues still remaining in this topic, the discussion must 

continue to include attributions, and followership. According to Yukl (2006), “As we already discussed, 

how a leader acts towards a subordinate varies depending on whether the subordinate is perceived as 

competent and loyal, or incompetent and untrustworthy” (p. 122). This is where I have an issue with 

LMX theory as playing field is not comparable because the legitimate leadership power of the leader 

compared to that of the followers. The information that is obtained by the leader can be used against the 

subordinate. The matter of competence does not mean that the leader will utilize the person for the 

benefit of the organization as he/she may sideline the competence at the cost of the incompetent owing to 

self-interest or self-preservation. My reservation of attribution is captured by Yukl this way “The type of 

attribution made by a manager influences the response to the problem” (p. 123). He continued “When an 

external attribution is made, the manager is more likely to respond by trying to change the situation, such 

as providing more resources, providing assistance in removing obstacles, providing better information, 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 

 
86 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

changing the task to reduce inherent difficulties, or in the case of bad luck, by showing sympathy or 

doing nothing” (p. 123). 

If the obtained information were only going to be used for betterment of the organization and not for 

self-interest, the leader’s attribution of a subordinate would be good. However, there is a reality that this 

may not be the case as well as self-interest of the leader may retard his/her actions or inactions of a certain 

subordinate. Like how there is leader’s attribution, there is also follower’s attributions. Yukl contended 

that the followers “buy into” of the leader’s vision will be equally based on the perception of the leader 

being competence; setting clear and timely performance indicators; action of the leader; leader’s 

intention; situation. Because followers are seeking to “buy into” the vision of the leader, in most cases the 

reality of acceptance of the leader’s competence is critical to this process (Yukl, 2006, p. 128). This leads 

to the other point, followers’ contribution to leadership effectiveness. 

Yukl postulated that people frequently ascribe all the accolades to the leader, and little attention is paid to 

the quality of the followers. Quality followership must be equally used to explain leadership 

effectiveness as is quality leadership. The follower is able to destroy leadership by way of dissent, and 

passive resistance, and the reverse is equally true that of cooperation, support, sharing the leader’s visions 

and cooperation in the functioning processes. The issue of quality leadership and followership was 

expressed in the case study of Cromwell Electronics. Clearly Ed Corelli did not have competent 

followers that could “let him look good” and vice versa. Furthermore, Ed failed to understand that it is 

important to understand theories; but that generally tailoring suits for people before meeting them could 

be catastrophic to say the least. In that, Ed did not understand the needs of each subordinate. In dyadic 

role making, the leader must interact with each subordinate and spend some time to understand their 

needs, competence, interest, visions, and this used on an individual basis in distributing assignments.  

Influence  

According to Yukl (2006), “Influence is the essence of leadership” (p. 145). It can be argued based on 

writing of scholars and experts in leadership that if there is no influence, there can be no leader. The 

matter of influence, therefore, brings into focus followership and sets the tone for ideas of effective and 

ineffective leaders. Yukl indicated that “To be effective as a leader, it is necessary to influence people to 

carry out requests, support proposals, and implement decisions” (p. 145). An effective leader, therefore, 

must be able to motive his/her followers into action, which highlights how the leader is able to activate 

the cognitive domain of those whom he/she deals. Because a leader stimulates and massages the 

cognition of his/her followers into action; then, the matter of power must be brought into the discourse 

of leadership as this is one way of executing influence over followers. Clearly the matter of influence 

by the leader was replicated in all the cases examined that looks at leader 1) Restview (Yukl, 2006, pp. 

177-178) and 2) Sporting Goods Store (Yukl, 2006, pp. 178-179).  

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 

 
87 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Power 

Power, on the other hand, according to Yukl (2006) is “…understanding how people are able to 

influence each other in organization” (p. 146). The matter of power and influence appears to be the 

chicken and egg dilemma that has existed for decades and will, in the unforeseeable future. 

Nevertheless, what is unavoidable is that power is used or disused by leader to stimulate a response 

from his/her followers. It is this action or inaction that is carried out by the followers that demonstrate 

that the leader is able to stir people to action or otherwise, influence. Yukl captured the dynamics of 

power this way, “It is difficult to describe the power of an agent without specifying the target person(s), 

the influence objectives, and the time period. An agent will have more power over some people than 

others and more influence for some types of issues than for others” (Yukl, 2006, p. 146). There is also a 

symbiotic relationship between power and influence to the point where the capacity to influence and 

that this influence is greater with more power given to the leader.  

The matter of the degree of power of the leader and his/her ability to execute influence over the 

subordinates speak to the authority. “Authority involves the rights, prerogatives, obligations, and duties 

associated with particular positions in an organization or social system” Yukl said (2006, p. 146). As 

such, this takes the discussion to the various types of power. Yukl identified. Seven different categories 

of power—1) Legitimate; 2) Reward; 3) Coercive; 4) Referent; 5) Expert; 6) Information, and 7) 

Ecological power. However, Lunenburg only identified six types of power, with ecological power being 

omitted for him. Unlike Yukl, Lunenburg had two broad categorizations of power—1) organizational, 

and 2) personal (see Figure 1 below).  

 

 

Figure 1. Sources of a Leader’s Power 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 

 
88 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

The concept of power is undoubtedly an understanding of the usage of influence over others in and 

outside of organizations (Mintzberg, 1983; Pfeffer, 1981, 1992). “Control over information is a source 

of upward influence as well as downward and lateral influence” (Yukl, 2006, p. 157), indicating that 

power may also be over information. Legitimate power is another that speaks to power invested in a 

leader as a result of his/her formal position or authority (French & Raven, 1959). In such instances, 

subordinates will comply with the authority of the leader and this explains how he/she influences the 

followers. Yukl contended that “the amount of legitimate power is also related to one’s scope of 

authority” (p. 149). Reward power occurs when the leader is perceived to hold resources, and the 

subordinate’s demand for these resources make the leader of influence and control over the follower. 

Yukl noted that this is commonly exercised with an implicit or explicit promise to provide resource(s) 

to the target audience. Coercive power obtains when “A leader’s coercive power over subordinates is 

based on authority over punishment, with varies greatly across different types of organizations” (Yukl, 

2006, p. 154). Referent power occurs when subordinates will please the leader owing to the emotional 

attachment-love, affection, admiration, and loyalty. Expert power is power over knowledge and skills. 

This means that the leader being personal endowed with a skill or knowledge set uses this to or against 

the subordinate. Ecological power is when the leader has control over the physical environment, 

technology, and this is used to control the followers. Having examined how power is used, this begs the 

question, can power be lost? 

Yukl contended that this is possible and has occurred in the past through 1) social exchange, and 2) 

strategic contingencies. It can be deduced from Yukl’s perspective that power is not a constant for the 

leader, and so change may occur that reduces the leader’s influence over his/her followers or 

subordinates. According to Yukl, “Social exchange theory emphasizes expert power and authority, and 

other forms of power do not receive much attention” (p. 159), which means that the leader’s power is 

obtained from a social system and this is framed because of the exchange of benefits or rewards. As 

such, if the leader loses his/her leverage over resources, this power is automatically reduced as his/her 

influence is only because of this exchange of benefits. This happens regularly in politics. Strategic 

contingencies theory addresses the matter of subunits, and how they can gain or lose power. Because 

approaches that can be utilized by a leader to hold on to power, the matter of tactic must be brought 

into the discussion. 

Tactic 

The term tactic means strategies that can be carefully desired to achieve a specific end. Clearly, the 

employment of tactic is nothing new and in fact it is an old concept that has been widely used by 

leaders to accomplish a stated end. According to Yukl, there are three types of tactics—1) Impression 

management, 2) Political, and 3) Proactive influence. For Impression management tactics, the leader 

employs strategies that influence the subordinates or followers to like him/her. This can be done by way 

of 1) distribution of scare resources to the follower, 2) praise, and 3) offering other unconditional 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 

 
89 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

assistance to the subordinate. Political tactics, on the other hand, occurs when the leader influences 

organization decisions. According to Yukl (2006), some of the political tactics employed have been 

deceptive, manipulative, and an abuse of power. Proactive influence tactics is “…an immediate task 

objective, such as getting the target person to carry out a new task, change the procedure used for 

current task” (p. 164). He further classified proactive influence task into eleven areas: rational 

persuasion; apprising; inspirational appeals; consultation; collaboration, ingratiation; personal appeals; 

exchange; coalition tactics; legitimating tactics, and pressure. Having identified that tactics are well 

used by leaders to obtain a particular end, it follows that they can be used effectively and otherwise by 

a leader.  

Charismatic Leadership 

Yukl (2006) argued that charismatic leadership emerges from Max Weber’s theory. Yukl contended that 

“Charisma is a Greek work that means “divinely inspired gift’ such as the ability to perform miracles or 

predict future events” (p. 24), suggesting that the matter is an innate issue. We totally agree with the 

forwarded perspective by Yukl that charisma is more nature than nurture which is different from social 

skills that can be taught social skills. The rationale for this insight based on the characteristic of 

charismatic leadership—1) confidence; 2) creativity; 3) vision; 4) determination; and 5) 

communication. Within the context of the characteristics, the matter of communication which is 

important attribute of charisma, the question is whether this can be taught or is it innate. According to 

Riggio (2012): Charisma is really a process—an interaction between the qualities of the charismatic 

leader, the followers and their needs and identification with the leader, and the situation that calls out 

for a charismatic leader, such as a need for change or a crisis. But when it comes to the charismatic 

qualities of leaders, the emphasis is on how they communicate to followers and whether they are able 

to gain followers’ trust, and influence and persuade them to follow. 

Most politicians, particularly on the national scene, have developed their ability to communicate 

effectively—to make speeches, “work the room” with potential donors and supporters, etc. So many 

seasoned politicians have a lot of “personal charisma”.  

In an effort to understand my justification and rationale for arguing that charisma can be nurtured, 

Ciampra’s perspective (2016) will be used here. He postulated that “Charismatic leaders are skilled at 

articulating a compelling vision that inspires followers. They’re also adept at reading the environment 

and sensing the needs of followers to tailor a message that will have the most impact. Charismatic 

leaders are good storytellers who use symbolism and metaphor to make stories come alive” (Ciampra, 

2016). The issue of a skill unequivocally holds being taught, practiced and mastered over time, 

suggesting that this is outside of the individual and not innate as one scholars would want us believe. 

Nevertheless, we are concurring that there is some aspect of innateness of charisma; but that there are 

aspect of this that can be nurtured by the individual.  

Attribution theory outlined that charismatic leaderships have certain qualities, expertise, and behaviour 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 

 
90 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

that are framed by a situation for a stated time period (Yukl, 2006, p. 250). Yukl opined charisma is 

more likely to be attributed to leaders who 1) advocate a vision which is different from the status quo; 2) 

use unconventional way to attain a vision; 3) make self-sacrifice; 4) are trustworthy; 5) are confident 

people; 6) have an emotional appeal; 7) use authority to participate into the decision process; and 8) 

“charismatic leaders influence people to collectively accomplish great things that initially seem 

impossible” (Yukl, 2006, p. 251). 

Another theory that examines charismatic leadership is self-concept. This theory explains that 

charismatic leaders possess a certain trait, skill and personality. “… The theory by incorporating new 

developments in thinking about human motivation and a more detailed description of the underlying 

influence processes. The following assumptions were made about human motivation: (1) behavior is 

expressive of a person’s feeling, values, and self-concept as well as being pragmatic and goal oriented; 

(2) a person’s self-concept is composed of a hierarchy of social identities and values; (3) people are 

intrinsically motivated to enhance and defend their self-esteem and self-worth; and (4) people are 

intrinsically motivated to maintain consistency among the various components of their self-concept, 

and between their self-concept and behavior”, Yukl stated (Yukl, 2006, p. 252). Clearly, the leader’s 

personality traits are critical to charismatic leadership, and they are likely to hold the key to the 

influence and power of the leader over the followers.  

The issue of charismatic leadership is not limited to the two aforementioned theories, self-concept and 

attribution. The concept is also explained from the perspective of psychodynamic processes. According 

to Yukl (2006), charisma can be viewed from the vantage point of the unusual and irrational influence 

of the charismatic leader in which the leader becomes a spiritual or superhero like person. Yukl 

believed that “The intense personal identification of followers with such leaders is explained in terms 

of psychodynamic processes such as regression, transference, and projection” (p. 254). He continued 

that regression deals with the return of feelings and behaviour that were obtained at a younger age. In 

order to further explain this theory, Yukl opined that “…followers suffering from fear, guilt, or 

alienation may experience a feeling of euphoric empowerment and transcendence by submerging their 

identify in that of the seemingly superhuman leader” (p. 255), suggesting how charismatic leaders tap 

into the sub consciousness of the follower or subordinate.  

The issue of charismatic leadership should not be construed as all position as the pervious perspective 

may be taken too far and become a consequence for the follower (i.e., negative side of charisma). Yukl 

aptly explains this, “Charismatic leaders tend to make more risky decisions that can result in serious 

failure, and they tend to make more determined enemies who will use such a failure as an opportunity 

to remove the leader from office” (p. 259). The case study encapsulated how charisma was taken too 

far by the CEO, and this later resulted in the bankruptcy of his company (Yukl, 2006, pp. 280-283). 

Like what obtains in Astro Airlines, it was this dark side that accounted for the suicide of Pastor 

Alexander Bedward in August Town (Beckwith, 1969; Chevannes, 1994; Elkins, 1977; Hill, 1981; 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 

 
91 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Lewis, 1987). Having extensively examined a charismatic leader, this begs a question “Who is a 

transformational leader and are transformational and charismatic leaders one of the same?” 

Transformational Leadership 

The aforementioned question will be examined in two parts, firstly, who is a transformation leader? 

And secondly, a comparison between the two leadership styles. The work transformational comes from 

the root work “transform”, which is to change completely from its initial state to another. This 

definition of the concept “transform” means that transformational leader must change the social, 

physical, environmental or psychological space that he/she grew up in and have come to accept as the 

best practice. Hence, a transformational leader according to Yukl, this leader appeals to the moral 

psyche of the follower which he/she uses to reform old situation, practices, habits, objects or the 

environment (Yukl, 2006, p. 249). Using Burns’ definition of transformational leadership, Bass and 

Bass wrote the leader “…(1) raises the followers’ level of consciousness about the importance and 

value of designed outcomes and way of reaching them; (2) gets the followers to transcend their own 

self-interests for the sake of the team, organization, or larger polity; and (3) raises the followers’ level 

of need on Maslow’s (1954) hierarchy from lower-level concerns for safety and security to higher-level 

needs for achievement and self-actualization” (p. 619).  

The transformational leader appeases the psychological consciousness of the follower; whereas the 

transactional leader is offering a tangible product for the engagement of the follower. Simply put, the 

transformational leader employs moral persuasion and the transaction leader uses physical product as 

exchange for followership. It is easy to understand how transformational leaders must be trustworthy, 

highly admired, loyal and respected by their followers. Yukl (2006) said something that stood out on 

the transformational leader that “…the leader transforms and motivates followers by (1) making them 

more aware of the importance of task outcomes, (2) inducing them to transcend their own self-interest 

for the sake of the organization or team, and (3) activating their higher-order needs” (p. 262). On 

examining the transformational and the charismatic leader, there appears to be similarities between both 

leaders and that there is still a clear line of demarcation.  

Transformation and Charismatic Leader 

Yukl commences the discourse on the comparison of transformational and charismatic leadership this 

way “One of the most important issues for leadership scholars is the extent to which transformational 

leadership and charismatic leadership are similar and compatible” (Yukl, 2006, p. 270) to which we are 

in total agreement. Like the various leadership scholars (Burns, 1985; Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. 2008; 

Yukl, 2006; Covey, 1991), we are supporting the perspective that there is clear distinction between 

transformational and charismatic leader and that they are one of the same concept. The transformational 

leader does inspire, motivates and charm the subordinate into action like the charismatic leader; but that 

the former’s actions will result in some fundamental change in space in which he/she once operated. 

Another difference is that transformation leader inspires the follower toward an end or outcome that is 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 

 
92 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

predetermined objective(s); whereas the “Charismatic leaders probably do more things that foster an 

image of extraordinary competence for the leader, such as impression management, information 

restriction, unconventional behavior, and personal risk taking” (Yukl, 2006, p. 271). 

Change 

“Leading change is one of the most important and difficult leadership responsibilities” (Yukl, 2006, p. 

284). Change is an unknown concept which ignites fear, apprehension, intolerance, resistance and 

disgust because of its nature. The issue of change does not come with a prescription of the stated reality 

as it is embedded in the unknown or a futuristic outlook that is concretized in finite results. The future 

is driven by the past (history), but still it is not felt solely to such dictates. It is this reality that set the 

framework for the resistance to change. Change which is “the move away from a present state toward a 

future state” (Rashid et al., 2003, p. 161) is not only labeled in perception as is the fear of the unknown. 

People live in the present, guided by the experiences of the past and anticipate the future because they 

hope of betterment. This suggests that their behaviours are enclosed in past, current realities and 

futuristic outlook. Such situations provide the basis upon which the socialization (or culturalization) 

works, the people are framed and future is advanced. Yukl contends that people resist change based on 

the following rationales: 1) lack of trust; 2) belief that change is unnecessary; 3) belief that the change 

is not feasible; 4) economic threats; 5) relative high cost; 6) fear of personal failure; 7) Loss of status 

and power; 8) threat to values and ideals; and 9) resentment of interference (Yukl, 2006, pp. 285-286). 

Like Rashid and colleagues argued, the people who are the most resistance to change can reduce, alter 

and erode the intended goal(s) of an organization owing to their culturalization and attitudes towards 

change (cognitive, affective and behavioural). The resistance to change are sometimes enveloped in the 

“dealignment” between the organizational objectives and those of the employee, the outlook of the 

employee and his/her perception of the foci of the institution and the role(s) he plays in that position, 

and resistance to change owing to personality traits. In addition to the individualized culture of the 

people in the organization, there is a different organizational culture that is formed in institutions that 

play a key role to the change process (Pool, 2000; Ahmed, 1998; Silvester & Anderson, 1999; Rashid et 

al., 2003). Yukl outlines that in understanding the change process one should examine some of the 

theories such as Lewin’s force-filed model. He opines that “…the change process can be divided into 

three phases: unfreezing, changing, and refreezing” (Yukl, 2006, p. 286). Simply put, change is a 

process and should not be expected in a single moment because of the vision or perspective of someone 

as the individual goes through the following phases: 

Unfreezing: Yukl indicates that at this stage, people have come to the realization that the old ways of 

doing things must modified, altered, or drastically change because they have become ineffective in 

being able to accomplish the task at hand. He writes it this way, “This recognition may occur as a result 

of an obvious crisis, or it may result from an effort to describe threats or opportunities not evident to 

most people in the organization” (Yukl, 2006, p. 286).  



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 

 
93 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Changing: At the second stage, having being aware or recognizing the need to do things differently, 

people seek new ways of doing things, which accommodates the willingness to change old paradigms 

or approaches.  

Refreezing: According to Yukl (2006), “All three phases are important for successful change. An 

attempt to move directly to the changing phase without first unfreezing attitudes is likely to meet with 

apathy or strong resistance. Lack of systematic diagnosis and problem solving in the changing phase 

will result in a weak change plan” (pp. 286-287). It can be deduced from the aforementioned 

perspectives that change must be taken with the context of the organizational culture. Yukl contends 

that there are three ways of changing the organizational culture; a primary (role-modeling; criteria for 

allocating rewards, selection and dismissal), secondary way (design of management systems, 

procedures and organizational structure as well as facilities; formal statements, stories and other 

legends), and cultural form (changing symbols, slogans, rituals et cetera).  

Such a theoretical model was also used by Rashid and colleagues to investigate “The influence of 

organizational culture on attitudes toward organizational change” (Rashid et al., 2003, p. 161), which is 

presented below: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2. Theoretical Model 

Source: Rashid et al. (2003, p. 167). 

 

Rashid et al., write that “From the above literature and the model of the study, it is hypothesized that 

there is an association between organizational culture and attitudes toward organizational change” 

(Rashid et al., 2003, p. 168), suggesting that organizational culture can be changed. Yukl indicates, “In 

general, it is much more difficult to change culture in a mature organization than to create it in a new 

one. One reason is that many of the underlying beliefs and assumptions shared by people in an 

organization are implicit and unconscious. Cultural assumptions are also difficult to change when they 

justify the past and are a matter of pride. Moreover, cultural values influence the selection of leaders 

Corporate culture 
Communal culture 
Fragmented culture 
Networked culture 
Mercenary culture 

Attitudes toward change 
Cognitive  
Affective 
Behavioral 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 

 
94 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

and the role expectations for them” (p. 295). This denotes that implementing change in a mature 

organization must be a carefully craft mechanism, process and procedures to do so (Yukl, 2006, pp. 

300-308)—pace and sequencing the change; determine who can oppose and facilitate the change; build 

a broad coalition to support the change; fill key position with competent change agents; use task force 

to guide implementation; make dramatic, symbolic change that affect the work; monitor the progress of 

change; create a sense of urgency about the need for change; prepare people to adjust to change; aid 

people to deal with the pain of change; provide opportunities; informed people about the process of 

change; empower people to implement the change; and, demonstrate continued commitment to the 

change.  

Unlike Yukl, using “Theoretical Model”, Rashid et al., (2003) find a significant statistical association 

between organizational culture and attitudes towards organizational change (χ2 (6) = 82.764, P < 

0.0001). Disaggregating the “organizational culture” and “attitudes toward organizational change”, 

Rashid et al., (2003) found that there is a relationship between types of culture and affective attitude (χ2 

(6) = 68.497, P < 0.0001); types of culture and behavioural attitude (χ2 (6) = 48.151, P < 0.0001); and 

types of culture and cognitive attitude (χ2 (6) = 82.764, P < 0.0001). This indicates that the 

organizational culture plays a critical role in organizational changes, be it acceptance or rejection which 

is in keeping with other studies (Ahmed, 1998; Lorenzo, 1998; Silvester & Anderson, 1999; Pool, 2000; 

Yousef, 2000). And, Wise (2002) postulated that economic and budgetary restraints are among the 

endogenous determinants of organizational change, indicating that advanced statistical methodology is 

employed to ascertain ingredients of institutional changes. Undoubtedly the issue of organizational 

change must be made with some context of teamwork and this is undeniable having perused the works 

of Yukl and others. 

Leadership in Teams and Decision Groups 

For some time, the leadership discourse on organizations has paid little attention to team or group 

leadership (Yukl, 2006). One of the reasons for its non-inclusion is the leaders/managers unwillingness to 

share power or authority with others. Yukl (2006) contends that team-leadership means that the 

leader/manager must empower the team members or group to make decisions and that denotes that they 

are relinquishing some of their power and/or authority. However, increasingly, the matter of teams and 

groups is on the rise in leadership research.  

An organization is a collection of sub-systems, which is widely called departments, units, sections, or 

divisions (Yukl, 2006). Normally in organizations, the sub-systems operate independently unlike a team 

or group that works interdependently for a singular purpose, complementary skill, and goal. The author 

forwards that the team or group approach in organizations is a growing phenomenon, one that has merits 

in functioning and building of and facilitating mechanism in decision making. Some examples used to 

concretize the position of a team or group which is different from that of an organization are basketball 

and soccer. Yukl (2006) write that “The word team usually refers to a small task group in which the 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 

 
95 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

members have a common purpose. To clarify the distinction, interacting teams are found in basketball 

and soccer, whereas in bowling or wrestling the teams are actually coactive groups” (Yukl, 2006, p. 319). 

The two example previously mentioned are examples of teams and organizations, and Yukl further 

classify teams into four groups—1) functional operating team; 2) cross-functional team; 3) 

self-management operating and virtual team; and 4) top executive team (see more in Table 1): 

 

Table 1. Common Characteristics of Teams 

Defining 

Characteristic 

Functional 

Operating 

Team 

Cross-Functional 

Team 

Self-Management 

Operating Team 

Top Executive 

Team 

Autonomy to 

determine mission 

and objective 

Low Low to Moderate Low to Moderate High 

Autonomy to 

determine work 

procedures 

Low to 

Moderate 

High High High 

Authority of the 

internal leader 

High Moderate to High Low High 

Duration of 

existence for the 

team 

High Low to Moderate High High 

Stability of the 

membership 

High Low to Moderate High High 

Diversity of 

members in 

functional 

background 

Low High Low High 

 

Functional teams: In this team the members have a specific job to perform, which is usually based on 

specialization but all the parts fit for a certain function (e.g., maintenance crew, combat squad, SWAT 

team, et al.). 

Cross-Functional teams: “The team is given responsibility for planning and conducting a complex 

activity that requires considerable coordination, cooperation, and joint problem solving among the 

parties” Yukl says (Yukl, 2006, p. 320). 

Self-Managed Teams: In this team, the authority or power that is vested in the manager is position to 

turn over the team members (e.g., maintenance technicians, production operators).  



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 

 
96 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Virtual Teams: Yukl describes this team as separated by geo-political boundaries and as such they 

seldom have direct interactions. This means that the team’s media of communications are e-mails; 

videoconferencing; cellular phone; groupware).  

Having outlined the different types of teams, Yukl indicates that two of the pillows upon which a team 

operate are 1) trust, and 2) cooperation. In fact, “Even a talented, well-organized team may fail in 

carrying out its mission unless there is a high level of cooperation and mutual trust among the members” 

(Yukl, 2006, p. 327). He continues that “Cooperation is especially important when the mission requires 

members to share information and resources, help each other, and work together in close proximity for 

long periods time under stressful conditions” (Yukl, 2006, p. 327). 

Leadership Development 

The issue of nature and nurture in leadership is among topics that account for the training of leaders, 

leadership development. Yukl places leadership development in Chapter 13 and it dealt with developing 

leadership skills, suggesting that leaders can be taught the competencies of leadership. “Leadership 

competencies can be developed in a number of ways, including (1) formal training, (2) developmental 

activities, and (3) self-help activities”, Yukl opines (Yukl, 2006, p. 386). Clearly it can be deduced from 

the author’s viewpoint that leadership can be taught to people by way of formal training (i.e., short 

courses, workshops) to produce effective leaders. The author indicates that these can be done by way of 

established theories—1) least preferred coworker contingency theory; 2) normative decision model; 3) 

transformational leadership; 4) situational leadership theory; and 5) managerial motivation. The author 

points out the much-vaunted statement that effective skills for leadership are mostly learned from 

experience and not from training programmes. With this in mind, work-based developmental activities 

are considered, and the presence of a strong learning culture in an organization goes a long way to 

supporting leadership development. 

Ethical Leadership and Diversity 

Dr. Covey contends that “To focus on personality before character is to try to grow the leaves with the 

roots” (Covey, 1991, p. 57), suggesting that ethics is a central component of leadership, and I will go 

further to say human relations. Yukl, on the other hand, contends that ethics is critical to the discourse 

of effective leadership. As such, Chapter 14, is an inclusion to the preceding book—Ethical Leadership 

and Diversity. Hence he writes “Ethical leadership is an ambiguous construct that appears to include a 

variety of diverse elements. It is useful to make a distinction between the ethics of an individual leader 

and the ethics of specific types of leadership behavior” (Yukl 2006, p. 418). He continues that “One 

difficulty in evaluating the morality of individual leaders in the subjectivity inherent in determining 

which criteria to use and their relative importance” (Yukl, 2006, p. 418). The issue of ethics, individual 

or collective, emerged in the leadership discourse from the contribution of scholars such as Burns, 

Heifetz, Covey, and Greenleaf “…who viewed leadership from a broader perspective than most of the 

theories reviewed in this book” (Yukl, 2006, p. 419). Clearly, Yukl has come to accept that ethics must 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 

 
97 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

be brought into the leadership discourse, and that in an effort to empower, influence and guide people 

into accepting and supporting the leader’s vision integrity, trust and cooperation must be present in the 

leader/manager.  

Quality of Content 

The book is simply written with illustrations from practitioners, practice questions, case studies, and all 

the issues are grounded in scholarships (i.e., theories). It is simple to understand there this perspective by 

Yukl that “Academics will be pleased to find that major theories are explained and critiqued, empirical 

research on leadership is reviewed and summarized, and many references are provided to enable them to 

follow up with additional reading on topics of special interest” (Yukl, 2006, p. xv). The author was able to 

balance the expectations of the lay-readers, practitioners and scholars and this make for high quality 

contents.  

Relevance to Contemporary Issues in Leadership and Organizations 

“With its focus on effective leadership in organizations, this book is especially relevant for people who 

are currently managers or who expect to become a manager in the near future” (Yukl, 2006, p. xvi), which 

summarizes the relevance of the book. On reading the book, I can concur with the author that the book 

provides insightful situations that can be applied to solve current issues. The use of practice questions 

provides a platform for scholars and students to review the major issues in the book as well as the case 

studies with questions.  

Evaluation: Strengths and Weaknesses 

The book entitles Leadership in Organizations has absolutely no weaknesses, which is exceptional of 

material written for lay-people, scholars, and practitioners. Leadership in Organizations examines many 

complex issues in leadership, provided theoretical underpinnings, research perspectives, illustrations, 

questions and case studies that framed the completeness of the volume. Yukl writes the book in simple 

language, expounding on complex concepts with simplicity, providing illustrations that are real and 

giving explanations of issues from theoretical and conceptual vantage points, while holding the realness 

of the cases. Simply put, the format of the book is good with the large prints, bold headers and 

sub-headers, itemized definitions, diagrams, questioning and cases studies that are included at the end of 

each chapter.  

There are some advantages of notable importance that must be singled out in this review. These are 1) the 

use of research, theories, questioning and case study provide much context and balance the book for all 

concerns; 2) interviews with leaders and managers provided a framework of scholarship for the book, 

while making the material of high quality; and 3) the material can be used by practitioners, scholars, both 

undergraduate and graduate students in leadership and this speaks to the quality of the book. 

Conclusion 

Leadership in Organization is a scholarly written book on issues of leadership in organizations. The 

author provides reviews of other works in the area, illustrations of issues including challenges, citations 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 

 
98 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

of other scholars, summaries, reviews and discussion questions at the end of each chapter as well as key 

terminologies. The book addresses issues on nature of leadership; nature of managerial work; 

perspectives on leadership effectiveness behaviour; managerial traits and skills; power and influence; 

teams and decision groups; strategic leadership of executives; ethics in leadership and diversity, and 

developing leadership skills. The book is so written that it provides insights for practitioners, current 

managers and prospective managers as well as having a balance for the scholars. In fact, Yukl’s aptly 

describes the book this way “The book is also useful for practicing managers who are looking for 

something more than superficial answers to difficult questions about leadership” (p. xvi). Clearly, the 

perspective of Yukl is absolutely true based on the real life illustrations, summaries and introspective 

questions. The values of an excellent book are embodied in its characteristics. Those are contribution to 

knowledge, great insights, can be used as a training manual and guide in best practice, high reflectivity, 

highly interactively, low readability, and information have practical and theoretical underpinnings. This 

book fulfills all of those previously stated characteristics and so we recommend this as a valuable book 

for leaders, prospective leaders, scholars, practitioners, lay-people, and undergraduate as well as 

post-graduate students in leadership and/or management. It is a worthwhile read for all and one that will 

entice, entreat, motivate, and provide guidance in being an effective leadership in an organization. 

 

References 

Ahmed, P. K. (1998). Culture and climate for innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 

1(1), 30-43. https://doi.org/10.1108/14601069810199131 

Bass, B. (1985). Leadership: Good, better, best. Organizational Dynamics, 13(3), 26-40. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(85)90028-2 

Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2008). The Bass Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research & Managerial 

Applications. New York: Free Press. 

Beckwith, M. W. (1969). Black Roadways: A Study of Jamaican Folk Life (1929). New York: Negro 

Universities Press. 

Bennis, W. G. (1959). Leadership theory and administrative behavior: The problems of authority. 

Administrative Science Quarterly, 4, 259-301. https://doi.org/10.2307/2390911 

Blanchard, K. (2007). The Heart of a Leader: Insights on the Art of Influence (2nd ed.). Colorado: 

Cook Communication Ministries. 

Blanchard, H. B., & Hodges, P. (1999). Leadership by the Book: Tools to Transform Your Workplace. 

New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc.  

Burns, J. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. 

Chevannes, B. (1994). Rastafari: Roots and Ideology. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press. 

Ciampra, D. (2016). When Charismatic Leadership Goes too far. Retrieved December 22, 2017, from 

https://hbr.org/2016/11/when-charismatic-leadership-goes-too-far 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 

 
99 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Collins, J. C., & Porras, I. (1994). Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies. New York: 

Harper Business. 

Covey, S. R. (1989). The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. New York: Simon & Schuster. 

Covey, S. R. (1990). Principle-Centered Leadership. New York: Simon & Schuster. 

Covey, S. R. (2004a). Seven Habit of Highly Effective People. New York: Free Press. 

Covey, S. R. (2004b). The 8th Habit: From Effectiveness to Greatness. New York: Free Press. 

DuBrin, A. J. (2013). Leadership: Research Findings, Practice, and Skills (7th ed.). Ohio: 

South-Western Cengage Learning. 

Elkins, W. F. (1977). “Prophet Bedward.” In Street Preachers, Faith Healers, and Herb Doctors in 

Jamaica (pp. 1890-1925). New York: Revisionist Press. 

French, J., & Raven, B. H. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwight (Ed.), Studies of social 

power (pp. 150-167). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute of Social Research. 

Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2002). Primal Leadership: Realizing the Power of Emotional 

Intelligence. Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press. 

Greenleaf, K. R. (1977). Servant leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and 

Greatness. Paulist Press: New York.  

Hill, R. (1981). Leonard P. Howell and Millenarian Visions in Early Rastafari. Jamaica Journal, 16, 

24-39. 

Kellerman, B. (1986). Political Leadership: A Source Book. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh 

Press. 

Kellerman, B. (2007) James MacGregor Burns: Leo as Leader. In R. Couto (Ed.), Reflections on 

leadership (pp. 9-18). Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, Inc. 

Kellerman, B. (2008). Followership: How Followers are Creating Change and Changing Leaders. 

Boston: Harvard Business School Press.  

Kellerman, B. (2004). Bad Leadership: What It Is, How It Happens, Why It Matters. Boston: Harvard 

Business Press. 

Kellerman, B. (2012). The End of Leadership (p. 190). New York: Harper Business. 

Kellerman, B. (Ed.). (1983). Leadership: Multidisciplinary Perspectives. New York: Prentice Hall. 

Kellerman, B. (Ed.). (2010). Leadership: Essential Selections on Power, Authority, and Influence. New 

York: McGraw-Hill. 

Kim, D. (2002). Foresight as the Central Ethic of Leadership, Voices of Servant—Leadership. Series, 

Booklet 8. Indiana: The Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership.  

Lewis, R. (1987). Garvey’s Forerunners: Love and Bedward. Race and Class, 28, 29-39. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/030639688702800303 

Lunenburg, F. C. (2012). Power and Leadership: An Influence Process. International Journal of 

Management, Business, and Administration, 15(1), 1-9. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 

 
100 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Mintzberg, H. (1983). Power in an around Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall.  

Pfeffer, J. (1981), Power in Organisations. Boston: Pitman. 

Pfeffer, J. (1992). Understanding power in organizations. California Management Review, 29-50. 

https://doi.org/10.2307/41166692 

Pool, S. W. (2000). Organizational culture and its relationship between job tension in measuring 

outcomes among business executives. Journal of Management Development, 19(1), 32-49. 

https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710010308144 

Rashid, Md. Z. A., Sambasivan, M., & Rahman, A. A. (2003). The influence of organizational culture 

on attitudes toward organizational change. The Leadership and Organizational Development 

Journal, 25(2), 161-179. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730410521831 

Riggio, R. E. (2012). What is charisma and charismatic leadership? Retrieved December 22, 2017, from 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cutting-edge-leadership/201210/what-is-charisma-and-ch

arismatic-leadership 

Silvester, J., & Anderson, N. R. (1999). Organizational culture change. Journal of occupational and 

Organization Psychology, 72(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317999166464 

Winston, B. E., & Patterson, K. (2006). An integrative definition of leadership. International Journal of 

Leadership Studies, 1(2), 6-66. 

Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in Organizations (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. 

Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. 

Yousef, D. (2000). Organizational commitment and job satisfaction as predictor of attitudes toward 

organizational change in a non-western setting. Personnel Review, 2(5), 567-592. 

https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480010296401 

 

 


