The synergistic leadership theory
| Published date | 01 August 2002 |
| Date | 01 August 2002 |
| Pages | 304-322 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230210433409 |
| Author | Beverly J. Irby,Genevieve Brown,Jo Ann Duffy,Diane Trautman |
| Subject Matter | Education |
Journal of
Educational
Administration
40,4
304
Journal of Educational
Administration,
Vol. 40 No. 4, 2002, pp. 304-322.
#MCB UP Limited, 0957-8234
DOI 10.1108/09578230210433409
Received March 2001
Revised October 2001
Accepted December 2001
The synergistic leadership
theory
Beverly J. Irby, Genevieve Brown, Jo Ann Duffy and
Diane Trautman
Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, Texas, USA
Keywords Theory, Leadership, Organizational structure, Values
Abstract Modernist theories in leadership were traditionally dominated by masculine
incorporation and lacked feminine presence in development and language. The synergistic theory
of leadership (SLT) seeks to explicate the need for a post-modernist leadership theory by providing
an alternative to, and not a replacement for, traditional theories. Six aspects particular to the SLT
influencethe ideas and include issuesconcerning diversityand the inclusion of the femalevoice in the
theory. Four factors are key to the relational and interactive nature of the theory, which provides a
useful framework for buildingand understanding the interdependent relationships.In a tetrahedron
model, the theory uses four factors, includingleadership behavior, organizationalstructure, external
forces, and attitudes, beliefs,and values to demonstrate aspectsnot only of leadership but its effects
on various institutions andpositions. Developed through a qualitative approach,the theory has been
validated qualitatively and quantitativelynationwide and is currently being validated internationally.
The synergistic leadership theory
For two decades theories in leadership and management have been challenged
for failure to include feminine presence or voice in the theory development
(Brown and Irby, 1994; Shakeshaft and Nowell, 1984). In an early analysis of
leadership theories, Shakeshaft (1989) found gender-biased language and the
absence of females in related research studies. In 1999, we examined 24
leadership theories (Table I) commonly taught in leadership and management
courses, focusing on the original development of each theory as well as the
theory itself. These theories were examined for:
.the inclusion of the female experience and attitudes;
.gender as a significant variable in development of the theory;
.females in the sample population;
.use of non-sexist language; and
.generalizability of the theory to both male and female leaders (Brown
et al., 1999; Irby et al., 1999).
Nine generalizations emerged:
(1) ``Great men'' leadership models excluded the female experience in theory
development.
(2) Theory development was limited to males, as corporate leadership
positions were exclusive to males.
(3) Male-dominated agencies and/or corporations sponsored many of the
studies which led to leadership theories: military; Xerox corporation;
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm
Synergistic
leadership
theory
305
General Electric; American Management Association, Exxon, Bell
Telephone Labs; Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.
(4) Sexist language was present, as leader/manager was defined in male
terms (``he,'' ``his,'' ``fine fellow'').
(5) Females, when mentioned, were not expected to have the same career
aspirations as males. Further, females were expected to behave like men
to achieve like men. If females did not produce the same results as males,
their results were simply ignored.
(6) While some of the theories advocated democratic leadership styles, the
theories themselves were undemocratic because only one gender was
represented in the theory development.
(7) Several theories opposed paternalism as a leadership style, yet they
affirmed it in gender-biased descriptions of leaders.
(8) Some of the theories recognized the need for a participative, democratic,
employee-friendly, and consensus-building approach to leadership;
however, when these models were not present, theorists did not consider
this absence as attributable to the fact that female leaders were not
included in the theory development.
Table I.
Twenty-four theories
analyzed
Type of theory Name of theory Primary writers
Organizational Fusion process Bakke (1953)
Complex learning organizations Etzioni (1975)
Structure in fives Mintzberg (1983)
Learning organizations Senge (1990)
Organizational framework Bolman and Deal (1991)
Organizational
behavior
Social system theory Homans (1950; Getzels and
Guba (1955)
Needs hierarchy theory Maslow (1955); Porter (1964)
Management Functions of executive Barnard (1938)
3-D theory Reddin (1970)
Theory Z Ouchi (1981)
Total quality management Deming (1988)
Strategic management Nahavandi (1993)
Leadership Iowa studies Lewin et al. (1939)
Leadership factors Stogdill (1948)
Ohio state studies Halpin and Winer (1957)
Hemphill and Coons (1957)
Theory X&Y McGregor (1957)
Performance-maintenance Misumi et al. (1958)
Four-factor theory Bowers and Seashore (1966)
Michigan studies Likert (1961)
Contingency theory Fiedler (1967)
Leadership grid styles Blake and Mouton (1968)
Situational leadership Hersey and Blanchard (1969)
Path-goal theory Evans (1970)
Transformational leadership Burns, 1978; Bass and Avdio (1994)
To continue reading
Request your trial