In the reading “Transcendent Leadership,” Crossan and Mazutis introduce a framework of leading across four levels – self, others, organization, and society – and discuss the challenges for each.
1) From your experiences, which level do you believe presents the most challenges in leading others? Explain.
2) The authors talk about “leadership of self.” Can I lead myself? Does the author make a sound case for this or not? Explain.
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
www.elsevier.com/locate/bushor
Business Horizons (2008) 51, 131–139
Mary Crossan ⁎, Daina Mazutis
Richard Ivey School of Business, University of Western Ontario, 1151 Richmond Street North, London, Ontario,
Canada N6A 3K7
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: mcrossan@ivey.u
dmazutis@ivey.uwo.ca (D. Mazutis).
1 Statistics gathered from http://ww
decadebookproduction.html.
0007-6813/$ – see front matter © 200
doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2007.11.004
Abstract
Leadership theories abound, but few have provided a means to integrate the depth
and breadth of the vast literature available. Building on the research of Crossan,
Vera, and Nanjad (who propose Transcendent Leadership as an integrative frame-
work), we describe the key leadership challenges of leading across the levels of self,
others, organization, and society. We argue that much of the leadership discourse has
focused almost exclusively on leadership of others and occasionally on the leadership
of the organization as a whole, yet little has focused specifically on the integral
component of leadership of self. We provide evidence of the necessity of multiple
levels of leadership, as well as some practical guidance, by drawing from in-depth
interviews of six leaders in various contexts.
© 200
7 Kelley School of Business, In
diana University. All rights reserved.
KEYWORDS
Transcendent leadership;
Leadership of self;
Strategic leadership
“Mastering others is strength. Mastering yourself
is true power.”
—Lao Tzu
1. Will the real leader please stand up?
The publishing industry in the United States produces
over 5000 new business titles every year, selling
billions of dollars worth of business advice for
managers and would-be corporate leaders.1 Of
these five thousand titles, a large number are on
leadership specifically. To make matters worse,
wo.ca (M. Crossan),
w.bookwire.com/
7 Kelley School of Business, In
leadership advice is not restricted to the business
shelves; recommendations can also be found in other
sections: self-help, finance, home, career, and even
religion. In their sincere efforts to lead effectively,
managers may therefore become understandably
confused by the plethora of new and fashionable
leadership theories from which to choose the
strategies that promise to make them successful.
Unfortunately, the discourse on leadership in
academia is not much different. A recent review by
Yammarino, Dionne, Chun, and Dansereau (2005)
found at minimum 17 different leadership theories,
ranging from the classical approaches (such as path-
goal theory and Ohio State) to more contemporary
forms (such as charismatic and transformational
leadership). However, this study did not include
other dominant streams of leadership such as upper
echelon/strategic leadership or shared leadership
perspectives. In addition, the field has also recently
diana University. All rights reserved.
mailto:mcrossan@ivey.uwo.ca
mailto:dmazutis@ivey.uwo.ca
http://www.bookwire.com/decadebookproduction.html
http://www.bookwire.com/decadebookproduction.html
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2007.11.004
132 M. Crossan, D. Mazutis
seen an upsurge of research into new positive forms
of leadership (authentic, spiritual, servant, moral,
ethical, prosocial, responsible, Level 5, primal, etc.)
which were not included in this discussion. This begs
the question: Howmanydifferent “effective” leader-
ship theories are there? And could the real leader
please stand up?
We argue, as well, that much of the discourse on
leadership has focused almost exclusively on leader-
ship of others and occasionally on the leadership of
the organization as a whole, yet little has focused
specifically on perhaps the most integral component
of leadership: leadership of self. Managing in
increasingly complex and dynamic environments,
today’s strategic leaders can benefit greatly from
learning how to “master themselves” (in addition to
others and the organization) by developing self-
awareness and self-regulatory capabilities. By doing
so, they would be less susceptible to following the
latest management fads and fashions as propagated
by the 5000-plus new business books and 17-plus
leadership theories, through a better alignment of
their internal values and beliefs with their strategic
decisions and actions.
Our knowledge of how successful leaders master
this level of leadership is virtually non-existent,
however. The extant literature has focused instead
on how these leaders have either transformed their
organizations or their employees. There has been a
notable absence in linking success at the organiza-
tional level to success in leadership of self. We
concur with Crossan, Vera, and Nanjad (in press)
that in order for long term sustained firm perfor-
mance to materialize in today’s dynamic business
environment, today’s leader needs to master lea-
dership at all three levels – self, others, and the
organization – a concept the previously-cited
authors refer to as transcendent leadership. In
fact, leadership at the societal level is also a likely
requirement of transcendent leadership.
Crossan et al.’s use of “transcendent” is consistent
with that of Aldon (1998) and Gardiner (2006), among
others. Gardiner, for example, focused on the
transcendent qualities of self and the transcending
of the organization to the societal level. Aldon focused
on the levels of self and others to bridge spirituality
and science. As such, the term transcendent is ideally
suited to a model holding that leaders need to
transcend the levels, as it captures the quality of
going above and beyond, within and between levels.
Building on the work of Crossan et al., we provide
practitioners with some evidence of the necessity of
multiple levels of leadership, as well as some
practical guidance, by drawing from in-depth inter-
views of six North American business leaders in
various contexts, both profit and not-for-profit. We
begin by reviewing what we know about leadership
and what has changed in the business landscape of
the 21st century that necessitates a different
approach. We conclude by giving some practical
advice on leadership at all three levels – self,
others, and the organization – to help leaders
ensure long term, sustainable firm performance in
today’s dynamic environments. Leadership at the
societal level is also discussed.
2. What we know for sure
Many authors have put forth lists of “must-dos” for
successful strategic leadership in and of the
organization (Boal & Hooijberg, 2000). With regards
to leadership in organizations, much work has been
done on understanding dyadic and small-group level
leadership, anchored heavily in a supervisor’s
transactional and/or transformational leadership
roles. Transformational leadership is described as
the ability to induce immediate followers to deliver
performance beyond expectations through inspira-
tional motivation, individualized consideration,
intellectual stimulation, and idealized influence
(Bass, 1985). Transactional leadership focuses more
on the exchange between managers and subordi-
nates through constructive and corrective behaviors
(Avolio & Bass, 2004). Both types of leadership,
however, focus on the leader’s immediate followers
and define success in terms of positive follower
outcomes such as increased employee commitment,
job satisfaction, empowerment, task engagement,
job performance, and extra effort (Avolio, Gardner,
Walumbwa, Luthans, & May, 2004).
With regards to leadership of the organization,
or strategic leadership, even more lists of required
activities exist. For example, Ireland and Hitt
(2005) state that strategic leadership in the 21st
century is based on determining the firm’s purpose
and vision, exploiting and maintaining core com-
petences, developing human capital, sustaining an
effective organizational culture, emphasizing ethi-
cal practices, and establishing balanced organiza-
tional controls. In his competing values model,
Quinn (1988) argues that executives must play
eight competing leadership roles simultaneously:
innovator, broker, facilitator, mentor, coordinator,
monitor, producer, and director. Similarly, Hart and
Quinn (1993) assert that CEOs play four roles –
vision setter, motivator, analyzer, and taskmaster –
to affect firm performance. House and Aditya
(1997, p. 445) describe the main tasks of strategic
leadership in both transactional (e.g., implemen-
tation of compensation and control systems) and
transformational terminology (e.g., formulation of
organizational goals and strategy).
133Transcendent leadership
Nonetheless, very little is said in these models
about the critical component of leadership of self. In
fact, the original model of strategic leadership (or,
upper echelon theory) specifically highlights that
strategic decisions taken by members of the top
management team or dominant coalition are bound
by cognitive processes of which they are likely
unaware (Hambrick & Mason, 1984). A leader’s
values and beliefs are said to affect the selective
perception of information on which decisions are
made, as well as the final strategic decisions taken.
Furthermore, one of the major causes of CEO failure
has specifically been identified as “mindset failure,”
whereby leaders are either blind to the changes that
need to bemade or too arrogant to admit they are on
the wrong path (Finkelstein, 2003). As such, execu-
tive cognitions can and do play a critical role in the
success, or failure, of the organization.
In the end, while the individual tasks and roles of
strategic leaders are clearly very important to firm
performance, ensuring that any competitive advan-
tage is sustained will also depend on a leader’s
ability to manage oneself in addition to others and
the organization. The ability to recognize your own
internal biases, to be aware of the mental maps that
are causing your selective perception, and to self-
regulate your actions to be consistent with internal
standards will be crucial to navigating the complex
changes in today’s business environment.
3. What has changed
Today’s business climate has been described as fast
changing and disruptive, hostile and turbulent (Bettis
& Hitt, 1995; Brown & Eisenhardt, 1998; D’Aveni,
1994; Hambrick, 1988). The era of globalization, of
the knowledge worker, and of relentless technologi-
cal innovation has given rise to unprecedented
complexity, uncertainty, and dynamism in today’s
business environment (Hitt, Keats, & DeMarie, 1998;
Ireland & Hitt, 2005; Nadler & Tushman, 1999). This
hyper-competition, characterized by intense and
rapid competitive moves, makes sustainable compe-
titive advantage extremely difficult to achieve and
leads to environments where discontinuous change
occurs more rapidly (D’Aveni, 1994; Hambrick, 1988).
The accompanying increased risk and uncertainty has
rendered a firm’s strategic response capabilities a key
source of competitive advantage (Bettis & Hitt,
1995), thereby placing particular demands on today’s
strategic leaders with respect to interpreting the
environment, crafting the appropriate strategy, and
building an organization that thrives in such contexts.
There has also been a shift in the moral and
ethical climate of business, particularly since the
very well-publicized failures of WorldCom, Enron,
and Tyco. In a post 9/11 world plagued by com-
promised Western ideals of security and prosperity,
corporate scandals that recount individual greed
and rampant materialism have led to an increased
distrust of, if not disdain for, corporate leaders. It
has also brought to the forefront a more public
discourse on issues of trust, honesty, integrity, and
morality. Today’s leaders are therefore exposed to a
much higher level of public scrutiny in an environ-
ment where most corporate actions must be
completely transparent, given that global informa-
tion dissemination is almost instantaneous. Given
the increasing complexity of today’s business con-
text, what actions can leaders take to secure long
term sustained performance?
4. What needs to be done
As discussed, skill sets including leadership of
others and leadership of the organization are
critical in today’s dynamic environments. In addi-
tion to these very well documented roles and
functions of strategic leaders, however, today’s
leaders must also learn and master leadership of
self. Leadership of self includes the responsibility
of being self-aware and proactive in developing
personal strengths. Building on the work of Crossan
et al. (in press), a strategic leader who leads within
and amongst the levels of self, others, and the
organization is defined as a transcendent leader
and will be better positioned to rise to the
challenge of leading in a complex, turbulent, and
highly transparent environment.
To demonstrate, a leader who excels at only one
level of leadership cannot realize sustained perfor-
mance benefits for the organization. For example,
despite being adept at leading your team and
instilling motivation, commitment, and loyalty in
your immediate followers (leadership of others),
leadership in today’s dynamic environment necessi-
tates a coherent alignment of your actions with the
strategy of the organization as a whole (leadership
of the organization), as well as strong self-leader-
ship to effectively navigate the difficult tradeoffs in
complex decisions (leadership of self). Even leader-
ship at two levels will not lead to long term
performance, for the leader who is able to turn a
company around and motivate employees to follow
is still very susceptible to falter without a strong
sense of self, a moral or ethical compass, or the
character strengths to help them face inevitably
difficult decisions. Leadership at all three levels, or
transcendent leadership, is therefore key to effec-
tive strategic leadership in today’s dynamic envir-
onments (see Fig. 1).
134 M. Crossan, D. Mazutis
5. Leadership of self
In order to lead in today’s turbulent times, during
which both competitive and ethical stakes have
been raised, strategic leaders must actively develop
personal strengths such as self-awareness and self-
regulation. Self-awareness “refers to one’s aware-
ness of, and trust in, one’s own personal character-
istics, values, motives, feelings, and cognitions”
(Ilies, Morgeson, & Nahrgang, 2005, p. 377). Only by
being aware of one’s limited field of vision, which is
influenced by one’s values and cognitive base, can a
leader understand his/her own selective percep-
tions and interpretations, and the manner in which
these influence the strategic decisions they make
(Hambrick & Mason, 1984). Today’s leader must be
aware of their own weaknesses and cognitive biases,
and acknowledge the role their perceptions may
have on their thoughts, feelings, actions, and
strategic decisions. Self-awareness does not refer
only to recognizing one’s shortcomings; it can also
be key to understanding your own unique capabil-
ities and in leveraging that knowledge and experi-
ence to make smarter decisions. As such, self-
reflection and introspection are key mechanisms
through which leaders can achieve clarity with
regard to their core values and mental models, and
how these shape the decisions they make (Gardner,
Avolio, Luthans, May, & Walumbwa, 2005).
Coupled with the ability to be self-aware, the
capability of self-regulation is also critical to leader-
ship of self and is the process whereby a leader aligns
his/her values with intentions and actions (Avolio &
Gardner, 2005). This process includes making one’s
motives, goals, and values completely transparent
to followers, leading by example, and demonstrat-
Figure 1 Transcendent leadership: Strategic leadership
within and amongst three levels. Source: Crossan, Vera, and
Nanjad (in press).
ing consistency betweenwhat one says andwhat one
does. Today’s strategic leaders cannot get by with
deliberately manipulating their image, falsely por-
traying their intentions, or engaging in impression
management. Rather, they must ensure that they
self-regulate their behaviors so that the outcomes
they anticipate from their actions are congruent
with their internal standards (Gardner et al., 2005).
By doing so, they effectively manage internal
tensions and avoid conflicts between their personal
values and organizational responsibilities, allowing
for more honest and transparent interactions with
multiple constituents.
In our interviews with corporate leaders, leader-
ship at this level was readily apparent in only about
half the subjects. For example, the President and
CEO of a major metropolitan hospital exhibited
significant leadership of self; she regularly engages
in self-assessment exercises to better understand
her leadership and communication styles and their
impact not only on her top management team, but
also on the organization as a whole. Furthermore,
she has made self-awareness a mandatory practice
throughout the organization via the implementation
of self-diagnosis tools that have allowed all manage-
ment and staff to engage in more open and efficient
communications. Approximately 70% of her staff has
also engaged in Koestenbaum’s Leadership Diamond
analysis, a systems tool which allows one to discuss
his/her strengths and weaknesses with their imme-
diate subordinate(s) and supervisor(s), particularly
as they relate to their leadership style and percep-
tions of their leadership style. This CEO is also
attempting to implement the practice of developing
and sharing personal vision statements to better
align individual, group, and organizational objec-
tives. Leading by example, she was the first to
complete her personal vision statement and share it
with her entire management staff, calling the self-
reflective and self-disclosure exercise “one of the
hardest things I have ever done.”
Other leaders interviewed also indicated that
they were highly self-aware and engaged in self-
regulatory behaviors. The president and owner of a
direct marketing company, for example, acknowl-
edged that in addition to setting the strategic vision
for her firm, she also sets out every year a personal
strategic plan whereby she outlines what she wants
to accomplish in her own life (e.g., establishing an
African outreach program). The president and
owner of a multi-million dollar retail operation
also demonstrated that she was highly self-reflec-
tive, stating that one of the issues that regularly
‘kept her up at night’ is “yesterday…you always
question; did I do yesterday as good as I could
have?”
135Transcendent leadership
In contrast, other leaders could not provide any
examples of self-reflective behaviors – even upon
direct questioning – and seemed to lack self-
awareness and self-regulatory capabilities, in gen-
eral.When askedwhat hewould do differently from a
leadership perspective if he were to run the same
event over again, the chairperson of a national
sporting event, for instance, replied that he would
take more time to select a better top management
team. When asked if any of the negative reactions to
his hands-on leadership style prompted him to
reconsider his leadership approach, he said: “No. It
is just part of the job,” which was to articulate the
vision and ensure buy-in. If there was dissention, his
job was to rein people in. In the end, although the
event was successful, his impact on the organization
appears to have been somewhat different from the
other leaders interviewed. Had this been a recurring
event, we doubt that his leadership style would have
been conducive to long term sustained performance.
Leadership of self may also extend beyond self-
awareness and self-regulation to developing a parti-
cular set of character strengths that can help guide
leaders through the dynamic competitive, and
challenging ethical, climate of our time. The exten-
sive research of Peterson and Seligman (2004) on
character strengths and virtues, for example, can be
employed to describe leadership of self. They
identify “six core moral virtues that emerge con-
sensually across cultures and throughout time” and
which are associated with a set of character
strengths, as follows:
(1) Wisdom and knowledge – Creativity, curiosity,
open-mindedness, love of learning, perspective;
(2) Courage–Bravery, persistence, integrity, vitality;
(3) Humanity – Love, kindness, social intelligence;
(4) Justice – Citizenship, fairness, leadership;
(5) Temperance – Forgiveness andmercy, humility
or modesty, prudence, self-regulation; and
(6) Transcendence – Appreciation of beauty and
excellence, gratitude, hope, humor, spirituality.
Although some of these character strengths may
seem at odds with the commonly held view of
strategic leaders, personal attributes such as humi-
lity, modesty, and persistence have been empirically
linked to Level 5 Leaders, or those leaders who have
led companies that have gone from Good to Great
(Collins, 2001). Positive moral and psychological
capital are also theorized to be core strengths in
authentic, spiritual, servant, and ethical leadership
models (Fry, 2003; Greenleaf, 1977; Kanungo &
Mendonca, 1996; Luthans & Avolio, 2003).
Dynamic environments will therefore place a
premium on leadership of the self. When facing the
many tradeoffs that arise in complex and changing
environments, the leader will need a high level of
self-awareness and deep judgment. A strong indivi-
dual compass will prevent today’s leader from simply
drifting or responding to the environment and ensure
that the strategic decisions made on behalf of the
firm are not simple enactments of their cognitive
biases, but rather self-aware, self-regulated actions
rooted in introspection and self-reflection.
6. Leadership of self and others
Unlike leadership of self, much has been written on
leadership of others, ranging from the behavioral
theories and the effect of leaders on followers to
the interaction of the leader and follower relation-
ship with the organizational context (Vera &
Crossan, 2004). Most of the research in leadership,
in fact, has focused on the dyadic or small-group
interface at various managerial levels throughout
the organization. However, our focus herein is the
strategic leader at the top of the organization and
we add only that in today’s dynamic environments,
leaders must have a portfolio of both transforma-
tional and authentic leadership behaviors to effec-
tively lead others. The integration of leadership of
self with leadership of others is therefore just one
necessary component of transcendent leadership.
For example, in addition to crafting a compelling
vision, transformational leaders are said to move
followers beyond self-interest to self-actualization
through charisma, inspiration, intellectual stimula-
tion, and individual consideration (Bass, 1985). We
argue, however, that in order to do so effectively in
the challenging ethical climate of our time, these
transformational leadership behaviors must also be
married with deep introspection and leadership of
self. Authentic leaders are said to be:
“those who are deeply aware of how they think
and behave and are perceived by others as being
aware of their own and others’ values/moral
perspectives, knowledge, and strengths; aware of
the context in which they operate; and who are
confident, hopeful, optimistic, resilient, and of high
moral character.” (Avolio, Luthans, & Walumbwa,
2004, p. 4, as cited by Avolio et al., 2004)
These character strengths are embodied in the
self-awareness and internalized regulatory pro-
cesses described above, as well as in the framework
presented by Peterson and Seligman (2004), and are
136 M. Crossan, D. Mazutis
considered essential in developing similar strengths
in one’s followers.
The interviewed hospital President and CEO speci-
fically noted how important it was, in setting the
strategic plan for the hospital, to be aware of others’
values and perspectives, including all levels of the
organization in drafting the vision for the next five
years:
“We talk about that a lot, about being self
aware….In order for an organization to change, each
individual has to change. And you don’t change
unless you are very aware of how you need to
change, and are willing to do that.”
Furthermore, she incorporates different learning
styles into her communications, noting if others are
more visual, oral, or sensory learners and then
modifying her approach. This awareness is also used
in generative coaching sessions with her top man-
agement team and has cascaded down in dyadic
sessions throughout the organization. The aim is to
engage the staff, energize them, and encourage
them not only to learn about their own strengths and
weaknesses, but also to feel safe in expressing their
ideas. These generative coaching sessions build
relationships and understanding between the two
team members to support self-awareness and facil-
itate the capacity of all members of the organization
to be more resourceful, flexible, and creative in the
achievement of the strategy.
This CEO claims that the process of building self-
awareness and self-regulatory leadership capabilities
in her management team is a process built on trust.
Importantly, she notes that “trust is not just about
having good characteristics, such as integrity. It is
about being consistent. If you say you are going to do
something, you do something.” With regards to
valuing her people, she emphasizes that “it is all
about the workplace. We don’t get a part of a person;
we get the whole person. So, what goes on here
affects your family…happy staff members are more
likely to provide better care.” By modeling positive
leader behaviors in dyadic and small group situations,
this leader is able to shape the self-awareness and
self-regulatory processes of her followers, helping
themdevelop clarity about their values, identity, and
emotions (Gardner et al., 2005). These skills have
been formalized in the institute’s shared values of:
• Listening to appreciate diversity;
• Learning through dialogue and reflection;
• Leading with courage, transparency, and forgive-
ness; and
• Servingpatients, families, andotherswith kindness.
In contrast, a recent study on managerial failure
highlighted personality-based factors as one of the
causal variables resulting in a leader’s inability to
obtain results during times of change. Specifically,
managers believed that only those leaders who apply
themselves to breaking bad habits and personally
adhere to the highest standards of integrity, con-
sciously expressing humility and genuine concern,
were likely to achieve the results desired (Long-
enecker, Neubert, & Fink, 2007). Thus, integrating
leadership of self with leadership of others canbe said
to be a key requirement of today’s strategic leaders.
7. Leadership of self and of organizations
Crossan et al. (in press) state that leadership of self
and others must also be integrated with leadership
of organizations, which includes setting strategy,
managing the non-human elements of the firm such
as structures, rules, and procedures, and ensuring
fit with the external context. Today’s leaders are
not just passive recipients of the rapid and
turbulent changes in their environments, but rather
can be dominant forces in affecting change both in
their own strategies and organizations, as well as in
how they interact with the overall external context.
7.1. Strategy
In setting the firm’s strategy, today’s leader under-
stands the organization as a dynamic system of forces
and actors that cannot be completely controlled, and
therefore provides minimal constraints and simple
rules within which strategy can emerge (Brown &
Eisenhardt, 1998; Eisenhardt & Sull, 2001). Because
the transcendent leader understands that he/she is
simply part of this system, rather than setting tightly
configured planswhich are equally tightly controlled,
he/she establishes performance aspirations within
which individuals feel free to experiment and
execute. The key skill is to balance stability and
innovation, creatively disturbing the status quoof the
organization but also enabling the firm to work at
dynamic equilibrium by developing in the firm both
planning and improvisational capabilities. The stra-
tegic leaderwho hasmastered the level of self should
be able to communicate value-based visions, not of
a specific future, but of a set of processes and
principles thatwill lead to a higher state of capability.
The hospital CEO, for example, has implemented the
following guiding principles for strategic renewal,
stating that the organization is aspiring to move from
a culture of “blaming to accountability; from
‘command and control’ to stewardship; from bosses
to coaches; and from silos to systems.”
137Transcendent leadership
7.2. Organization
In managing the non-human elements of the firm, it
is the responsibility of today’s leader to ensure that
the organization operates adaptively by designing
fluid structures, modularity of function, and easy
recombination. Today’s dynamic environment re-
quires flexible, innovative, and responsive organi-
zational structures and systems. Having provided a
deep structure of values and vision, therefore, the
transcendent leader can encourage initiative, own-
ership, and flexible career paths for organizational
members, combining entrepreneurship, self-orga-
nization, and member ownership in mutually rein-
forcing ways (Miles, Snow, Mathews, Miles, &
Coleman, 1997). This type of structure supports
meritocracy and considers leadership roles to be the
domain of all organizational members, depending
on their ability to best lead in a given context. The
president of the direct marketing firm, for example,
acknowledges that her organization has moved to
this more organic level. While there is a formal
structure in place, she says:
“It is turning into fun, and it is turning into
opportunities. The people that are here, now more
than ever, are picking up the reins where I don’t
have to….I am able to trust them. They are bringing
in more technology, they are bringing in more ideas
and concepts, and reaching out to new clients and
acquiring different kinds of contracts…It is really
exciting.”
7.3. Environment
In managing the organization’s fit with the external
context, today’s leader ensures that individuals,
groups, and the organization have a high capacity to
learn from their external and internal environ-
ments. The transcendent leader promotes learning
through experimentation, experience, diversity of
opinion, and collaboration. He/she understands the
competitive challenges of the industry and ensures
that the firm’s systems, structure, and strategy are
aligned to support the flow of ideas from individuals
to the team and the organization and the flow of
learning from the organization back to teams and
individuals, managing the tension between exploi-
tation and exploration (Crossan & Hulland, 2002;
Vera & Crossan, 2004).
The CEO and President of the metropolitan
hospital clearly embodies this learning orientation,
building the organization’s strategic map on learning
and growth enablers, first asking: “What are the key
strengths we need in structure, culture, and skills to
excel at our desired customer and financial out-
comes?” This is then manifest in the organization,
not only in the processes and procedures outlined
previously in the sections on leadership of self and
others, but also in the implementation of formal
programs such as Kaizen analysis of work-flow
bottlenecks and Nine Sigma review of operating
procedures. Best practices and benchmarks are
therefore sought not only from within the health-
care field, but from manufacturing and other
external “high consequence” industries, as well.
This leader has a clear vision that more change, risk,
and complexity is on the horizon and is ensuring that
the internal processes are in place at the hospital to
support the dynamic environment:
“The problems we are solving are no different
[than the airline or chemical manufacturing industry]
….It is a cultural leadership backdrop: the engage-
ment, and the empowerment, and that you canmake
your own changes…and make them work….That is
what will sustain change. It is all about change.”
In fact, almost all of the executives interviewed
explicitly or implicitly supported a learning organiza-
tion by regularly attending and sending their staff to
seminars, conferences, or other learning opportu-
nities. For example, the owner of a retail operation
believes strongly that her employees’ willingness to
learn is a key contributing factor to her company’s
continued growth and success, and regularly pays for
staff to attend brand “universities,” an irregular
practice in the competitive retail industry. The owner
of a small electrical service business has also joined a
community of best practices in his industry and takes
his staff on learning expeditions at host businesses
throughout North America, in addition to receiving
guests himself.
In short, the responsibilities of crafting strategy,
establishing the structure of the organization, and
making sense of the environment are key to leading
in today’s dynamic context. Only through deep self-
awareness and the aligning of internal values and
beliefs with strategic actions, will leadership of
others and the organization intersect to ensure
transcendent leadership and sustained, long term
firm performance.
8. Beyond the organization
Although not explicitly included in the original model
of transcendent leadership, Crossan et al. (in press)
suggest that, given today’s complex and uncertain yet
increasingly transparent environment, today’s lea-
ders are likely to have to transcend the organizational
level and master leadership at the societal level, as
well. Consistent with the growing literature on cor-
porate social responsibility and performance, we
138 M. Crossan, D. Mazutis
agree with the contention that the responsibilities of
today’s strategic leaders have moved beyond making
a profit and obeying the law, to include being ethical
and a good corporate citizen (Carroll, 1999). In fact,
doing so is unequivocally aligned with leadership of
self and displaying enduring character strengths such
as courage, humanity, and justice (Peterson & Selig-
man, 2004).
Most leaders interviewed did extend their leader-
ship beyond the immediate organization and into
the community, serving on boards, getting involved
in local causes, and organizing charity fundraisers.
Explaining why he funds a yearly event for over 600
people (this year, to salute the military), the
president of the small electrical services company
claimed that one reason he likes to get involved is
because:
“It sets an example in the community and maybe
somebody else will do something like that… maybe
not for that same cause….I’m not looking for it to
happen, but I know that it does. If I do something
nice, somebody else will do something nice, as
well.”
The president of the direct marketing firm looks
forward to the opportunity to partner with local
not-for-profit organizations as a way of giving back
to the community, and states this as part of her
leadership philosophy: “I volunteer in a variety of
areas, and so do most of my management team….It
is something that is encouraged at every level,
being involved in the community…because we are
very blessed by this community.”
Yet, simply focusing on the societal level without
regard for the organization has been referred to by
some as self-serving at best, and corporate theft at
worst. Transcendent leaders need to understand the
inter-relationship of leadership across levels and
have the capacity to do so.
9. Transcendent leadership: Leading
within and across (and beyond) levels
In today’s dynamic and ethically challenging envir-
onment, strategic leaders must be able to lead
within and amongst the levels of self, others, and
the organization, and likely beyond to even the
societal level. Leadership at one level will no longer
be sufficient to guarantee high firm performance in
the long run. The era of the turnaround CEO, for
example, is over. Although highly adept at leader-
ship of the organization, this singular focus on
restructuring or cost-cutting has proven to lead
mostly to short term financial gains, but not to long
term sustainable performance. Similarly, firm per-
formance will also suffer if the strategic leader is
focused only on transformational leadership, instil-
ling followers with high levels of motivation,
commitment, and loyalty. Without leadership of
self, employees may be motivated and committed
to the wrong projects; without leadership of the
organization in its changing and dynamic environ-
ment, the potential for failure is magnified.
As such, only the transcendent leader (who
possesses high levels of leadership of self, others,
and the organization) can deliver higher sustained
firm performance in today’s dynamic environments.
If you haven’t stopped to reflect on your own
leadership style, now is the time to become more
self aware of your own cognitive biases and capa-
bilities, and to understand how these may have
shaped or continue to shape your strategic decisions.
One former CEO of a large consumer foods company
emphasized that major strategy change must begin
with yourself. He remarked: “How do you expect the
organization to change if you don’t?” One of his more
difficult experiences included confronting what he
referred to as his “rackets”: the excuses individuals
build up in advance to explain any possible failing.
He suggests they are our personal safety valve to
avoid holding ourselves accountable. It is impera-
tive, therefore, that you ask yourself if the direction
your firm is headed is aligned with your internal
values and beliefs. Then, look to see if this self-
regulated behavior is reflected in your interactions
with others and the systems and procedures you
have put in place in your organization.
If you’ve read just a couple of last year’s leadership
best sellers, you have likely received only a third of
this advice. Most contemporary books on the subject,
and in fact much of the academic discourse as well,
has focused on one level of leadership only: either
leadership of the organization or leadership of others
and, less frequently, leadership of self. Nonetheless,
in order to navigate today’s dynamic environments
and the heightened moral and ethical climate of our
time, developing the skills of a transcendent leader
will be key to ensuring sustained long term perfor-
mance for your firm. Learning to lead within and
amongst the levels of self, others, and the organiza-
tion – and beyond – will be associated with the
highest level of firm performance in today’s con-
tinually changing business landscape.
References
Aldon, L. J. (1998). Transcendent leadership and the evolution of
consciousness. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University
of San Diego, CA.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. (2004). Multifactor leadership ques-
tionnaire – 5X (3rd ed.). Menlo Park, CA: MindGarden, Inc.
139Transcendent leadership
Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership
development: Getting to the root of positive forms of
leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 315−338.
Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., &
May, D. R. (2004). Unlocking the mask: A look at the process
by which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes and
behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(6), 801−823.
Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2004). Authentic
leadership: Theory-building for veritable sustained perfor-
mance (Working Paper). Lincoln, NE: Gallup Leadership Institute.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond
expectations. New York: The Free Press.
Bettis, R. A., & Hitt, M. A. (1995, Summer). The new competitive
landscape. Strategic Management Journal, 16(special issue),
7−19.
Boal, K. B., & Hooijberg, R. (2000). Strategic leadership research:
Moving on. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), 515−549.
Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. (1998). Competing on the edge:
Strategy as structured chaos. Boston: Harvard Business School
Press.
Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution
of a definitional construct. Business and Society, 38(3),
268−295.
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great. New York: Harper Business.
Crossan, M., & Hulland, J. (2002). Leveraging knowledge through
leadership of organizational learning. In C. Choo & N. Bontis
(Eds.), Strategic management of intellectual capital and organi-
zational knowledge: A collection of readings (pp. 711−723). New
York: Oxford University.
Crossan, M., Vera, D., & Nanjad, L. (in press). Transcendent
leadership: Strategic leadership in dynamic environments.
The Leadership Quarterly.
D’Aveni, R. (1994). Hypercompetition: Managing the dynamics of
strategic maneuvering. New York: The Free Press.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Sull, D. N. (2001). Strategy as simple rules.
Harvard Business Review, 7(1), 107−116.
Finkelstein, S. (2003). Why smart executives fail and what you
can learn from their mistakes. New York: Portfolio.
Fry, L. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. The
Leadership Quarterly, 14(6), 693−727.
Gardiner, J. J. (2006). Transactional, transformational, and
transcendent leadership: Metaphors mapping the evolution
of the theory and practice of governance. Leadership Review,
6, 62−76.
Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., & Walumbwa,
F. O. (2005). Can you see the real me? A self-based model of
authentic leader and follower development. The Leadership
Quarterly, 16(3), 343−372.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership. New York: Paulist
Press.
Hambrick, D. C. (1988). Navigating change. Boston: Harvard
Business School Press.
Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. (1984). Upper echelons: The
organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of
Management Review, 9(2), 193−206.
Hart, S. L., & Quinn, R. E. (1993). Roles executives play: CEOs,
behavioral complexity, and firm performance. Human Rela-
tions, 46(5), 543−574.
Hitt, M. A., Keats, B. W., & DeMarie, S. M. (1998). Navigating in
the new competitive landscape: Building strategic flexibility
and competitive advantage in the 21st century. Academy of
Management Executive, 12(4), 22−42.
House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The social scientific study of
leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of Management, 2(23),
409−473.
Ilies, R., Morgeson, F., & Nahrgang, J. (2005). Authentic leader-
ship and eudaemonic well-being: Understanding leader–
follower outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3),
373−394.
Ireland, R. D., & Hitt, M. A. (2005). Achieving and maintaining
strategic competitiveness in the 21st century: The role of
strategic leadership. Academy of Management Executive,
19(4), 63−77.
Kanungo, R., & Mendonca, M. (1996). Ethical dimensions of
leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Longenecker, C. O., Neubert, M., & Fink, L. (2007). Causes and
consequences of managerial failure in rapidly changing
organizations. Business Horizons, 50(2), 145−155.
Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. (2003). Authentic leadership develop-
ment. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.),
Positive organizational scholarship. San Francisco: Berrett-
Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Miles, R., Snow, C., Mathews, J., Miles, G., & Coleman, H. (1997).
Organizing in the knowledge age: Anticipating the cellular
form. Academy of Management Executive, 11(4), 7−20.
Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. L. (1999). The organization of the
future: Strategic imperatives and core competencies for the
21st century. Organizational Dynamics, 28(1), 45−60.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. (2004). Strengths of character and
well-being. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23(5),
603.
Quinn, R. E. (1988). Beyond rational management: Mastering the
paradoxes and competing demands of high performance. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2004). Strategic leadership and
organizational learning. The Academy of Management
Review, 29(2), 222−240.
Yammarino, F., Dionne, S., Chun, J., & Dansereau, F. (2005).
Leadership and levels of analysis: A state-of-the-science
review. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 879−919.
-
Transcendent leadership
Will the real leader please stand up?
What we know for sure
What has changed
What needs to be done
Leadership of self
Leadership of self and others
Leadership of self and of organizations
Strategy
Organization
section10
Environment
Beyond the organization
Transcendent leadership: Leading within and across (and beyond) levels
References