Do Followers Think Alike? Individual Conceptions of Leadership

Running head: DO FOLLOWERS THINK ALIKE? INDIVIDUAL CONCEPTIONS OF

LEADERSHIP

Do Followers Think Alike? Individual Conceptions of Leadership

Bryan Easley

Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA

Do Followers Think Alike? 2

Abstract

Implicit leadership theory suggests individuals have their own unique conceptions of what

leadership is based on experiences, interactions, and mental interpretations. Thus, leadership, as

a concept, may be quite different from person to person. This article qualitatively explored 8

different followers on their individual conceptions of leadership.

The study revealed that although followers use common descriptions of leadership, followers

have different understandings of what those descriptions mean and expectations of leader

behavior. It concludes followers have different expectations of leader behavior, which may vary

widely from very similar to very different. The experiences, environment, interactions with

others, needs, interests, and knowledge a follower has significantly shape individual conceptions

of what leadership. Followers use these conceptions to construct a unique, personalized implicit

framework for how they prefer and expect leaders to behave. Leaders are then individually

evaluated based on how they conform to follower expectations.


Do Followers Think Alike? Individual Conceptions of Leadership

Is leadership an objective, concrete concept or a socially constructed phenomenon? Is it a

single, identifiable idea or a “virtual reality [that is] filtered, interpreted, and acted upon in very

different ways” (Bresnen, 1995, p. 510) depending on the perceptions, circumstances, and

relationship of people involved? Traditional leadership research tends toward the former in its

attempts to encapsulate the key behaviors, competencies, and attributes of effective leadership

(Conger & Ready, 2004). Recent research, however, has been questioning this traditional line of

thinking in pointing to the widely diverse meanings given to leadership as well as the lack of

attention to leadership’s relation to other social factors (Bresnen, 1995). Two alternatives

currently present in the literature, attribution theory and implicit theory, gravitate towards

leadership as a socially constructed concept driven by social perceptions and circumstances.

The attribution approach suggests that “people have very diverse views of what

leadership represents and means to them” (Bresnen, 1995, p. 498). Attribution occurs when

people infer “good” leadership as the cause for desirable performance and “bad” leadership as

the cause for undesirable (Hartog, House, Hanges, & Ruiz-Quintanilla, 1999). Attribution differs

slightly from implicit theory in that attribution begins with an external stimulus, the performance

of the leader. Leadership is interpreted in light of how the observer interprets the outcome of the

leader’s work.

Implicit theory, on the other hand, begins with the observer’s inner, mental picture of

what leaders are or should do. The implicit theory approach is concerned with “the fit between

an observed person’s characteristics [and] the perceiver’s implicit ideas of what ‘leaders’ are”

(Hartog et al, 1999, p. 225). Implicit theories suggest followers evaluate and interpret leadership


behavior based on their ideas of what leaders should do. Schyns (2006) calls these “generic”

ideas about what traits and behaviors leadership generally entails. Bresnen (1995) observes an

individual’s idea of leadership is constructed from “a complex set of phenomenological

experiences” (p. 500), interactions with others, and individual mental translation in such a way as

to make sense to them.

Kenny, Blascovich, and Shaver (1994) and Keller (1999) suggest followers form basic

categories concerning normative leader behavior and evaluate leader behavior against the ideal

behaviors of this category (Schyns, 2006). Thus, some leaders may be seen as very leader-like

and others less so, depending on how well they fit the ideal of the basic category of leader (Engle

& Lord, 1997). Such implicit theories are “organized expectations” (Kenney et al, 1994, p. 1),

“cognitive structures… [or]…preconceived ideas” (Schyns, 2006, p. 189) which form an

individual frame of reference for interpreting leadership (Bresnen, 1995, p. 498). Hartog et al

(1999) found that these implicit categories exist in cultural groups as well as individual

followers. These categories form a mental picture of the ideal leader. Thus, discovering how an

individual follower conceives of the ideal leader is an important research topic.

People’s basic assumptions about the relationship between leaders and followers affect

how they attribute leadership to leaders and how that leadership perceived. In light of this, the

ultimate question for the leadership researcher may not be “What makes an effective leader?”

but, rather, “What do people think leadership is?” Leadership must ultimately be studied from

the individual’s frame of reference, i.e., the implicit theories of the followers.

This paper presents the results of a basic exploratory study into how followers view and

think about leadership. A phenomenological inquiry (Patton, 2002) approach was taken to


explore the question, “How do followers’ ideas of leadership vary?” Eight followers were

interviewed concerning their views and perceptions of leadership, and the interview data

compared and contrasted to determine the extent to which implicit leadership theories were

present.

Method

Eight participants were identified through convenience sampling. An invitation and the

questions were distributed via email to a contact list of 40 people compiled by the researcher. As

the study focused on the individual conceptions of followers, the primary consideration for the

sample was that participants were actively (or had recently been) involved as followers in a

leader-follower situation. The list of invitees were people known by the researcher to be

currently employed in a situation where they reported to a superior. Furthermore, these potential

participants had been worked under the leadership of others for much of the past three to four

years. Having a recent history of working as a follower is important in providing meaningful data

for exploring follower’s implicit views of leadership.

Five of the participants responded via this email invitation. The remaining three

participants had received the invitation via email but opted to provide paper responses. As this

was a qualitative study focused on the actual insights and thoughts of followers (natural inquiry;

Patton, 2002), the eight responses provided adequate data for exploring the research question.

Participants provided written answers to seven open-ended questions regarding their view

of leadership. Participants were allowed to give as much or as little feedback as they wished and

no restrictions were placed on how the kind of answers they could provide. The seven open-

ended questions were as follows:


1. What does "leadership" mean to you?

2. What do you think is the most effective style of leadership?

3. What kinds of behavior do you most expect from leaders with whom work/have

worked?

4. List 10 or so words that come to mind when you think of the optimal leader.

5. List 10 or so words that come to mind when you think of the least effective

leader.

6. What are the top four primary responsibilities of a leader (rank them from 1 [most

important] to 4)?

7. Why did you pick #1 and #2 the way you did?

Results

Individual Views of Leadership and Style

Participants were asked what leadership meant to them and what style of leadership they

thought was most effective. At the end of each interview, participants were asked to identify in

rank order the top four primary responsibilities of a leader. This was asked to provide additional

insight into how they defined or viewed leadership. Several responses to the question of

definition were common, textbook descriptions, such as “leadership is influence” or “leadership

is the act of leading.” Others, such as Participant #2’s (P2) multi-paragraph answer, reflected a

more thoughtful awareness of leadership concepts. Three common themes were present

regarding the meaning of leadership: motivation, coaching/teamwork, and providing direction or

guidance.


Motivation

Participant #1 (P1) viewed leadership as “planning, organizing, motivating,

empowering.” Participant #2 (P2) saw it as “the ability to motivate people to act or move.”

Participant #8 (P8) stated that “a leader is willing to lead others and to motivate and to work with

others.” These were the only explicit mentions of motivation as a part of what leadership entails.

Participant #3 (P3) stated that leaders “[discipline] when necessary, always focusing on positive

reinforcement and fair treatment” which might be construed as a form of motivation vis-à-vis

transactional leadership behaviors.

Teamwork

Two respondents included teams or teamwork as a leadership dynamic. P7 wrote: “It also

means taking individuals and getting them to work as a team” and considered one of a leader’s

primary responsibilities to be “unifying people into a team.” In connection to the idea of

coaching, P3 saw that leaders, in guiding, “coach their team along the way.” P4 felt that team-

building was the primary responsibility of a leader because

without team work, the emphasis focuses on the leader doing and being everything to

everyone. However, if a group finds solidarity and unity through the efforts of a leader,

then they are then able to move follow the vision that leader and the team have developed

and move forward toward implementing.

Guiding

The concept of leadership as guiding was mentioned twice. P3 viewed leadership as

“someone guiding others in the way they should go, either leading by example, by teaching, or


by rules and guidelines.” P7 stated that “it means providing guidance and direction to a group of

individuals.” Both respondents considered “provid[ing] guidance” or “leading by example” as a

leader’s primary responsibility. P7 believed that “people will tend to naturally follow a leader

who does so through example as well as one whom they feel has their best interest in mind.” In

contrast, the basis for P3’s view was “I consider my boss an effective leader, and these describe

him.”

P4, in similar fashion to Kouzes and Posner’s LPI construct, saw the effective leader as

the “one that leads through example, modeling, coaching, mentoring, empowering, and then

passing the baton to another leader.” As before, P4 related effectiveness to a developmental

perspective.

P5, without regard for any of the other leadership attributes, saw effective style as one in

which the leader would “give clear directions to those you are leading and let them do their

thing.” P8 expanded on this directing perspective:

the leader sets the example for me, shows me how to do my given task, tells me what is

expected of me, and works with me to accomplish the bigger vision that he/she has.

Although this statement was the only one to relate vision to the meaning of leadership,

others used vision-related words in describing the ideal leader as a "future thinker (visionary)"

(P1), "visionary" (P4 & P8), and "forward thinking" (P6), descriptions related to guiding

behavior.


Divergent views

Apart from the basic themes of motivation, guidance, and teams, the respondents had

largely divergent ideas of what leadership was or how they seemed to categorize it. P5 stated

simply that leadership was “the ability to communicate effectively, not micromanaging.” No

mention was made by P5 of any of the other dimensions of guidance, empowering, motivating,

or encouraging. P4, on the other hand, seemed to embrace a developmental orientation to

leadership in stating simply that leadership meant “a person and/or group that creates leaders.”

P2, having spoken of the ability to motivate, noted that in this level of leadership, “all

sorts of people can be leaders in a variety of arenas.” They then went on to describe the best

leadership as that which “reflects a focus on truth, what is right, what is best…upon the cause

and not the person.” This understanding was related to a spiritual view with Jesus Christ as the

preeminent example.

Context

P2 and P6 both include the context as an important consideration for effective style. As

seen above, P6 sees that in certain circumstances, the “top down model” can be more effective

than servant leadership.

P2 offers a more robust insight, offering five different styles depending on circumstance:

“In war and crisis, consensus leadership can be dangerous. In crisis, bold sure

leadership is often best. There is a downside to that both during the crisis and certainly

once the crisis is over. The most effective leadership is evidenced by those who have a

cause and are willing to sacrifice all for the cause. In human history, both good and evil


leaders have used that all consuming, very driven mindset to get what they want. On

grounds of moral leadership, the most effective style is like that of the prophets of the

OT. They know the truth (god has spoken) and they care not but to proclaim it. In most

of life, I believe a consensus approach to motivating and moving people is best.

However, this consensus approach is more of a method.”

Other themes common throughout leadership literature, such as vision (Conger & Ready,

2004; Tait, 1996), ambition (Tait, 1996), managing change (Conger & Ready, 2004) or conflict

(Yukl, 2002), or likability (Engle & Lord, 1997) were not mentioned at all in the context of

defining leadership although they were words that were associated with optimal leadership

behavior.

Empowerment (Yukl, 2002; Kouzes & Posner, 2003) and modeling (Conger & Ready,

2004; Kouzes & Posner, 2003) were each mentioned only once, and briefly at that. P1 included

empowering as one of the dynamics of leadership and P3 mentioned “leading by example” as

one of the possible ways in which leaders could guide followers. P6 wrote about followers,

observing that someone “cannot lead without someone following, regardless of context.”

Servant leadership

In terms of effective style, three respondents specifically mentioned servant leadership.

P7 noted simply: “servant leadership that leads by example,” offering nothing beyond this

elementary description. In contrast, P1 provided more thoughtful and personal insight, noting

some specific aspects of what he considered to be servant leadership:


I’ll give the good old bible answer “servant.” Actually, we just had the leader who hired

me leave and it’s made me very aware of the loss and what he brought. Lots of questions,

good actionable feedback, timeliness, makes decisions, shepherds the hearts of those

under his care, encourages. I’ve got to stick with “servant” because a great leader

really is one that is shepherding people, directing them, and enabling them which only

works well with a humble spirit.

P6 also identified servant leadership, but was unique in conditionally accounting for the

motive of the leader:

When the leader is truly dedicated to the cause and to the development of his or her

followers I think servant leadership is the most effective. Typically, and sadly, since the

position/intention of a leader is hardly ever altruistic I think the top down model is the

next most effective, potentially even more-so than that of a servant leader in certain

contexts.

Each of these three examples mentions servant leadership, but reflect very different

considerations of what the concept means. One definition seemed to be little more than a

textbook statement. The second reflected an optimistic, confident notion of the

servant/shepherding leader based on a personal encounter with such a leader. The third reflects a

more skeptical pessimism based on the centrality of leader altruism as a central concept for

servant leadership (Winston, 2002), suggesting, perhaps, a more academic familiarity with the

theory. Thus, while there is the similar mention of servant leadership as concept, the underlying

differences in how that concept may be conceived suggest diversity in how followers perceive

leadership.


Even though there were similar themes in their answers, participants had different

definitions of leadership and effective style. There was a range of views and some of the

elements overlapped, but, overall, different people focused on different things. This is consistent

with implicit leadership theories’ perspective that internal values, concepts, or frameworks form

the basis for interpreting or describing leadership behavior.

Expected Behaviors

Participants were asked “What kinds of behavior do you most expect from leaders with

whom work/have worked?” As a part of this area of exploration, they were also asked to

list 10 or so words that came to mind when thinking of the optimal leader, and 10 or so

words when thinking of the least effective leader. Follower concern, decision-making,

character, and relationship to follower stood out as common themes.

Concern for follower

P1 expected a leader to be in “prayer for those under them” and that they should show

“concern for life and family outside of the office.” P3 said, “I expect my leaders to look out for

my best interest, while looking out for the best interest of the company, and its customers.” P6

spoke of dealing with “people who were more concerned about helping me grow than with the

overall ‘management’ of my position. As a result that's something I have come to value and try

to model in situations where I am the leader.”

P8 voiced the expectation that a leader “looks out for the interests of others” and said that

a most important thing a leader does is “cares about people...[and] provides hope.” In their


perspective, “people want to know they are loved for who they are and they need hope so they

can be a part of the team.”

Decision-making

Two respondents referred to decision making as a part of their expectations for

leadership. P2 said leaders should “make decisions and set the course. Stick to the course unless

sufficient reason to do otherwise.” There is the implication of predictability and stability in this

view. P2’s view is contrasted with P4’s expectation that a leaders should be “decisive…willing

to change, [a] progressive thinker.” P7 held a more absolute expectation that the leader should

exhibit a “willingness to do what is necessary to get the job done,” but with a “positive attitude

and demeanor.”

P1 related decisiveness to the ability to provide “clear direction and prioritization” and

identified the ability to organize to this end as the primary responsibility of leadership. Leaders,

P1 stated, should “organize the present work…[and] plan for the future work” because “the

worst thing is disorganization. Resources aren’t getting applied to meet the needs effectively. “

Character

P4 expected leaders to be “trustworthy, honest, willing to change.” P7 wanted to see a

“positive attitude and demeanor,” describing the ideal leader as one with “integrity, honesty, and

commitment.” P8 also looked for “integrity, honesty” and connected these character traits to a

spiritual attitude of humility in wanting leaders to be “willing to do menial jobs [and be]

compassionate about God and his work.”


In terms of character, the data is not suggestive of significantly different conceptions of

ethical or moral issues. The one variation was the mention of explicit spiritual contexts.

Respondents generally seemed to have similar views about the importance of the leader’s

character. This observation is in harmony with research that finds honesty (Kouzes & Posner,

2003) is a top expectation of followers concerning leader behavior.

Relationship to follower

P8 had the single reference to “loving” as an expected leader behavior and provided little

insight into what they thought “loving” means. Love was mentioned by two respondents

regarding effective style. P3 said the most effective style was “when someone exhibits love to

those he leads, even in disciplinary moments, and leading by example.” P8 commented that the

leader “loves me for who I am but challenges me to become better.”

P3 commented that “I expect fair treatment. I expect my leaders to look out for my best

interest, while looking out for the best interest of the company, and its customers.” (This was the

only mention of either the organization or customers among all responses.)

P4 held the generic expectation that a leader to be “approachable, encouraging, decisive,

inviting of input.” On the other hand, P5 focused only on the expectation that the leader show

“respect” and “understand…I am capable of doing the tasks I have been asked to do.”

Different Expectations

Although common themes exist in the data, the differences in perspective suggest

individual followers are more divergent than alike. Concerning decision-making, there is a range

of opinion as to what decisiveness is and what decision-making should entail. In talking about


leadership style, participants tended to have different ideas of what would be the most effective

style. Relating to followers was thought of primarily in terms of love, setting the example, or

enabling follower autonomy.

As with defining leadership, answers seemed to be framed by personal experiences, sense

of self need, and intellectual knowledge of leadership theory. Each respondent’s answers present

a slightly different picture of leadership. No single view in the data captured or even addressed

the many different issues in leadership training.

Participant #1 views leaders primarily as servants who provide organizational and

planning oversight. Participant #2 perceives ideal leaders as being driven by commitment and

moving others toward objective truth. Participant #3’s view of leadership as setting the example

with fairness and equality points to attribution theory in being based on the behaviors of their

current boss; because the boss is considered to be “effective,” the picture of good leadership is

based on that boss.

Participant #4 focuses on leadership beyond the actual leader. In this view, leadership is

significantly team-driven and aimed at always developing new leaders. In a similar

developmental focus, Participant #5 viewed leadership primarily in terms of communicating

desired goals and then releasing followers to perform. Here, the leader is more hands-off and

distant than might be present in work teams.

Participant #6 emphasized the development of followers by a serving leader, but held a

slightly pessimistic attitude that such leaders were common. Participant #7 held a servant leader-

like view in which the leader works alongside of followers, serving and caring for others.

Participant #8 conceives of the visionary leader who sets the example and cares for followers.


The comparison and contrast of participant’s answers to the kind of behavior they expect

and what they consider to be the optimal leader again reveal a range of perspectives and areas of

focus. There is a spectrum of views and some of the elements overlapped, but, overall, different

people focus on different things. Personality, experience, situational context, or prior training all

were factors that contributed to each person having a unique overall perspective. While isolated

components of leadership such as vision or motivation are seen the same in the abstract, when

placed into the mixture with everything else in the respondent’s makeup, each conception of

leadership takes on its own slightly different look. These findings are consistent with the notion

that implicit leadership theories shape the way in which followers interpret leader behavior.

Limitations and Future Research

Data was collected via written forms and the respondent’s original submissions were used

in the analysis. The study would have been strengthened had follow-up conversations taken place

with each follower for purposes of clarification or expansion.

Subsequent analysis of the data in light of ILT suggested several questions could be

eliminated from the interview protocol and additional one added to provide even greater insight

and depth. A critical incident response approach (Patton, 2002) in which respondents were asked

to describe their best and worst experiences with a leader would have been very valuable data.

Participants were chosen based on convenience and accessibility. Future studies along

this line might look at followers in similar environments, such as industry, education, financial,

entrepreneurs, etc. Such a sampling approach might provide more insight in terms of how work

context affects leadership perspective. Similar studies in terms of gender, education, nationality,

etc., all flow from the same objective and are being undertaken.


Conclusion

Eight followers were interviewed to explore their basic views and perceptions of

leadership and leader behaviors. Several basic concepts overlapped among the participants, but

the data revealed differences in what those concepts actually meant to the individuals. When

asked to describe leadership using key words, many used the same kinds of words. However, it

appears that individual followers assemble these separate concepts into a unique, personalized

implicit framework for how they prefer and expect leaders to behave. In summary, the data

suggests that while there may be common tasks, behaviors, and attitudes, which constitute

leadership in the abstract, followers selectively give greater attention or priority to some of these

more than others.

The findings of this exploratory qualitative study provide support for the assertions of

implicit leadership theory. Followers have different expectations of leader behavior, which may

vary widely from very similar to very different. A person’s experiences, environment,

interactions with others, needs, interests, and prior and new knowledge significantly shape

individual conceptions of what leadership means.


References

Bresnen, M. (1995). All things to all people: Perceptions, attributions, and constructions of

leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 6 (4), 495-513.

Conger, J. and Ready, D. (2004). Rethinking leadership compentencies. Leader to Leader, 32,

41.

Engle, E. and Lord, R. (1997). Implicit theories, self-schemas, and leader-member exchange.

Academy of Management Journal, 40 (4), 988-1010.

Hartog, D., House, R., Hanges, P., and Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. (1999). Culture specific and cross-

culturally generalizable implicit leadership theories: Are attributes of

charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed? Leadership Quarterly, 10

(2), 219-256.

Keller, T. (1999). Images of the familiar: Individual differences and implicit leadership theories.

Leadership Quarterly, 10 (4), 589-607.

Kenney, R., Blascovich, J., and Shaver, P. (1994). Implicit leadership theories: Prototypes for

new leaders. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 15 (4), 409-437.

Kouzes, J., and Posner, B. (2003). The Leadership Challenge (3rd Edition ed.). San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd Edition ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.


Schyns, B. (2006). The role of implicit leadership theories in the performance appraisals and

promotion recommendations of leaders. Equal Opportunities International, 25 (3), 188-

199.

Tait, R. (1996). The attributes of leadership. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal,

17 (1), 27-31.

Winston, B. (2002). Be a Leader for God's Sake. Virginia Beach, VA: Regent University School

of Leadership Studies.

Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in Organizations (5th Edition ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Prentice Hall.


Much better

LPHD706 Minor Project 5: Interview

• Interview organization followers (interview) Written for a scholarly audience

Interview eight (8) followers in an organization other than your own to determine what followers want from leaders. Then compare and contrast this information with what you know from current leadership literature. Use Atlis.ti to analyze the interview texts. (estimated at 16 hours)

Grading Criteria Weight Assessment % Score

Known Content Thread: Present and discuss leadership style models and their impact on followers from the perspective of the follower. “A” work will show in-depth doctoral-level knowledge, and compare and contrast the models. “B” work will show doctoral-level knowledge of the models. “C” work will show masters-level knowledge of the models. “D” work will show familiarity with some of the models. “F” work will show lack of familiarity with the models

20% 90 18.00

Research Thread: Show evidence of approaching the project in a manner that seeks a solution to an expressed problem via exploration of the variables of the models.

“A” work will show doctoral-level understanding of the variables of the models, and demonstrate any contextual constraints of the models. “B” work will show doctoral-level understanding of the variables, but not show comprehension of contextual constraints. “C” work will show familiarity of the variables, but lack doctoral-level understanding. “D” work will show knowledge of the variables in

10% 90 9.00

Bruce E. Winston, PhD � 8/12/07 8:14 PMFormatted: Space Before: 0 pt, Bulleted+ Level: 1 + Aligned at: 0.75" + Tab after: Bruce E. Winston, PhD � 8/12/07 8:14 PMFormatted: Bullets and Numbering

Bruce E. Winston, PhD � 8/12/07 8:14 PMFormatted: Indent: First line: 0", Linespacing: singleBruce E. Winston, PhD � 8/12/07 8:14 PMFormatted: Indent: First line: 0", Linespacing: single

Bruce E. Winston, PhD � 8/12/07 8:14 PMFormatted: Indent: First line: 0", Linespacing: single


use, but not through expressed understanding. “F” work show lack of knowledge of the variables of the models.

Communicating Knowledge Thread: Quality of writing: style, flow, appropriate citations, and correct use of the word-processor to handle formatting. Clear introduction that sets the stage for the reader to know what the article is about and how the article supports the premise.

“A” work will show no grammar or wordsmithing errors, and the text will flow well. “B” work will show 1 grammar or wordsmithing errors (not counting repeats of the same problem). The introduction might not be clearly presented. “C” work will show 2-4 grammar or wordsmithing errors (not counting repeats of the same problem). Transitions between topics might not be clear. “D” work will show 5-7 grammar or wordsmithing errors (not counting repeats of the same problem), and might not be smooth and flowing in style. “F” work will show 8 or more grammar or wordsmithing errors (not counting repeats of the same problem), and seem to lack coherence.

20% 80 16.00

Critical Thinking Thread: The article has a logical progression of ideas/concepts, and results in a logically supported argument.

“A” work will show a clear and logical (inductive or deductive) progression of points and conclusions with evidence that the author understands critical thinking. “B” work will show evidence the author understands logical progression, but not evidence of understanding critical thinking. “C” work will lack evidence of logical progression, but have conclusions. “D” work will show facts, but lack logical support. “F” work will show lack of facts.

10% 90 9.00

Spiritual Formation Thread: Show evidence of comprehension and application of the discoveries gained from the research and critical

20% 85 17.00





thinking that apply to the author’s spiritual formation and to the spiritual formation of the intended audience.

“A” work will show clear and deliberate comprehension and application of spiritual formation in the document. “B” work will show evidence of application to the intended audience, but not to self. “C” work will show evidence of attempted application. “D” work will show reference to spiritual formation, but no evidence of comprehension. “F” work will show lack of evidence of comprehension and application.

Consulting Thread:

Show evidence of comprehension and application of concepts and principles found in the research that applies to leadership development and to the identification/solutions of organizational leadership problems. “A” work will show clear and specific comprehension of application to leadership development and organizational leadership problem solving. “B” work will show evidence to apply the concepts and principles to leadership development and organizational leadership problem solving. “C” work will show weak evidence to apply the concepts and principles to either leadership development and/or organizational leadership problem solving. “D” work will lack support for findings. “F” work will lack evidence of considering the consulting aspect.

10% 90 9.00

Teaching Thread:

Submission includes obvious and deliberate structure and presentation of the content in a clear and engaging manner appropriate for use in a teaching setting. “A” work will show obvious and deliberate structure and presentation of the content in a clear and

10% 90 9.00




engaging manner appropriate for use in a teaching setting. “B” work will show potential structure and presentation of the content in a manner appropriate for use in a teaching setting. “C” work will show presentation of the content for a teaching setting. “D” work will show insufficient structure and presentation of the content for use in a teaching setting, yet could be modified for use in a teaching setting. “F” work will lack any use in a teaching setting.

Late points -100% 0 0.00

Resubmission points -100% 10 - 10.00

Total: 77

Note: If the communicating knowledge score is less than 51% then the student should discuss with the professor about participating in a writing (or other) seminar

Bruce E. Winston, PhD � 8/12/07 8:14 PMFormatted: Indent: Left: 0"Bruce E. Winston, PhD � 8/12/07 8:14 PMFormatted: Indent: First line: 0", Linespacing: singleBruce E. Winston, PhD � 8/12/07 8:14 PMFormatted: Indent: Left: 0"Bruce E. Winston, PhD � 8/12/07 8:14 PMFormatted: Indent: First line: 0", Linespacing: singleBruce E. Winston, PhD � 8/12/07 8:14 PMFormatted: Indent: Left: 0"Bruce E. Winston, PhD � 8/12/07 8:14 PMFormatted: Indent: First line: 0", Linespacing: singleBruce E. Winston, PhD � 8/12/07 8:14 PMFormatted: Indent: First line: 0", Linespacing: singleBruce E. Winston, PhD � 8/12/07 8:14 PMFormatted: Normal

Documents

Do Followers Think Alike? Individual Conceptions of Leadership