In Module 5, we examined adaptive leadership as an expression of the complexity hypothesis and transformational leadership as an expression of the charisma hypothesis. Both theories explain organizational change, but the readings showed that leadership theories must also be evaluated for their assumptions about authority, ethics, power, and whose interpretation of reality becomes legitimate.
Adaptive leadership distinguishes technical problems, which can be addressed through existing expertise, from adaptive challenges, which require changes in values, beliefs, identities, and behaviors. Beerel (2021) explains that adaptive leaders diagnose changing realities, regulate distress, and return responsibility to organizational members rather than becoming saviors. We found this distinction useful because it prevents organizations from treating systemic problems as merely procedural. However, Beerel questions whether the theory adequately explains how leaders recognize new realities or develop the courage and emotional complexity required to confront them.
Uhl-Bien and Arena (2018) present adaptability as an organizational process involving entrepreneurial, operational, and enabling leadership. Enabling leaders create “adaptive space” where innovative ideas can challenge established systems and become integrated into operations. Leadership therefore emerges through networks rather than belonging exclusively to formal leaders. Dugan (2017), however, notes that adaptive leadership may still permit an authority figure to diagnose problems and manage everyone else’s distress. Critical sensemaking offers a more collective approach that examines how identity and power determine whose knowledge is recognized.
The transformational leadership readings expose a similar tension. Mhatre and Riggio (2014) describe transformational leadership through idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. These behaviors may inspire stronger performance, but unclear definitions, overlapping constructs, weak measurements, and destructive charisma limit the theory. Tourish and Pinnington (2002) argue that transformational leadership can resemble corporate cultism when a leader’s vision suppresses dissent and demands conformity. Van Knippenberg and Sitkin (2013) further contend that the theory lacks a coherent definition, confuses leadership with its effects, and overlaps with general measures of effectiveness. Together, the readings taught us to ask who defines change, whose disagreement is protected, and whether authority is genuinely distributed.
We selected Eagly et al.’s (2003) meta-analysis of 45 studies comparing women’s and men’s transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership. Women demonstrated slightly more transformational leadership and contingent reward behavior, while men demonstrated somewhat more management by exception and laissez-faire leadership. Although the differences were small, the behaviors more frequently demonstrated by women were positively associated with effectiveness; those more frequently demonstrated by men generally had neutral or negative relationships with effectiveness.
We believe the article adds a necessary gender analysis to the module. It challenges assumptions that effective leadership is naturally masculine and suggests that organizations may overlook leadership capacity when authority remains associated with men. It also shows that organizations may value transformational behaviors while evaluating them differently depending on who demonstrates them.
We do not interpret these findings as evidence that women are inherently better leaders or share one universal style. The study uses binary gender categories, combines varied organizational contexts, and identifies only small average differences. Nevertheless, it demonstrates that leadership theories operate within gendered systems. Critical analysis must therefore consider not only which behaviors are effective, but who is permitted to exercise them, whose leadership is legitimized, and whether demonstrated capacity becomes meaningful organizational influence.
References
Beerel, A. (2021). Rethinking leadership: A critique of contemporary theories. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003044444
Dugan, J. P. (2017). Leadership theory: Cultivating critical perspectives. Jossey-Bass.
Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen, M. L. (2003). Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 569–591. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.4.569
Mhatre, K. H., & Riggio, R. E. (2014). Charismatic and transformational leadership: Past, present, and future. In D. V. Day (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of leadership and organizations (pp. 221–240). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199755615.013.012
Tourish, D., & Pinnington, A. (2002). Transformational leadership, corporate cultism and the spirituality paradigm: An unholy trinity in the workplace? Human Relations, 55(2), 147–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726702055002181
Uhl-Bien, M., & Arena, M. (2018). Leadership for organizational adaptability: A theoretical synthesis and integrative framework. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(1), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.12.009
Van Knippenberg, D., & Sitkin, S. B. (2013). A critical assessment of charismatic–transformational leadership research: Back to the drawing board? The Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 1–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2013.759433