1. Introduction

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Human Resource Management Review 17 (2007) 427441www.elsevier.com/locate/humres Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 706 419 1664; fax: +1 706 820 2165.The recent rash of high-profile corporate failures has raised many questions. Chief among them is the question ofleadership effectiveness. In short, what happened with the individuals in leadership positions in these failedorganizations? Were they simply devotees of agency theory (cf., Jensen &Meckling, 1976), narrowly focused on doingwhatever possible to ensure the best possible quarterly results and related stock performance for their firms, includingengaging in questionable or even illegal activities as necessary? Were these individuals simply acting in accord with theleadership training they had received via corporate education or business school curricula? Were they operating inaccordance with perceived norms among executives across industries? We propose that the contemporary climatedemands a consideration of these questions, as well as a renewed focus on the means through which effective leadersare developed and effective leadership practices ensured. Bennis (2005), Mintzberg (2004), and Ghoshal (2005) areAbstract

Leadership development and practice have traditionally been quite narrow, with a decided focus on the analytical realm ofleadership. However, the contemporary climate of corporate scandal and resultant loss of societal confidence, coupled with theevolving demands, needs, and expectations of employees, point to the potential need for a more holistic approach to leadership.Thus, this article proposes how management education and leadership development programs can develop holistic leaders that areadept at operating in the analytical, conceptual, emotional, and spiritual domains of leadership practice. An integrated model forholistic leadership development and practice that addresses all four of these domains is proposed, and grounded in both establishedand emerging leadership development theory. Additionally, a leadership development classification scheme is proposed based onclassroom, job, and organizational contexts. 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Leadership development; Management education; Strategic human resource managementDeveloping holistic leaders: Four domains for leadershipdevelopment and practice

Scott A. Quatro a,, David A. Waldman b,1, Benjamin M. Galvin c, 2

a Department of Business Administration, Covenant College, 14049 Scenic Highway, Lookout Mountain, GA 30750, USAb School of Global Management and Leadership, Arizona State University, P.O. Box 37100, Phoenix, AZ 85069, USA

c W. P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University, P.O. Box 874006, Tempe, AZ 85287-4006, USAE-mail addresses: quatro@covenant.edu (S.A. Quatro), waldman@asu.edu (D.A. Waldman), benjamin.galvin@asu.edu (B.M. Galvin).1 Tel.: +1 602 543 6231; fax: +1 602 543 6221.2 Tel.: +1 480 727 3431; fax: +1 480 965 8314.

1053-4822/$ - see front matter 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2007.08.003

just three of the many authors calling for such investigation, all soundly criticizing management education anddevelopment, be it corporate or through a business school, as conduits through which misguided leaders are oftentimesproduced. It appears that there is a clear call for reform of leadership development and management education.

1.1. ACES a model for holistic leadership development and practice

In this vein, we propose that leadership development programs and initiatives may need to be holistic in theirscope, explicitly addressing the Analytical, Conceptual, Emotional, and Spiritual (ACES) domains of leadershippractice and development. Such leadership development programs can help ensure that corporate leaders will assumeroles as stewards of scarce societal resources and architects of business organizations that under-gird secure civilsociety. The four distinct, yet interrelated, domains of holistic leadership development and practice are furtherdelineated below:

Analytical Developing leaders who are adept at understanding and managing discrete complexity. Traditionally,this has indeed been the primary focus of both corporate leadership development and business school educationprograms. Analytically-skilled leaders understand and manage the individual trees in the forest quite well. Forexample, calculation of the break-even point for a new product development project requires a leader to employstrong analytical abilities.

Conceptual Developing leaders that are adept at both understanding and managing interrelated complexity andfostering creativity. Traditionally, this has been at most a tangential focus of both corporate leadership developmentand business school education programs. Leaders with strong conceptual skills understand and manage the forestwithin which the individual trees are growing. As an example, designing and managing a project plan for a newproduct development project requires a leader to demonstrate advanced conceptual skills.

EmotionalDeveloping leaders who are attuned to emotional issues. Traditionally, this has not been a strong focusof either corporate leadership development or business school education programs. Highly attuned emotionalleaders are skilled at understanding and managing human emotion as an inevitable phenomenon in a corporatesetting, and leveraging it as a source of energy and shaping influence on follower behavior. For example, aligningemployees around an exciting vision for a new product development project team requires a leader to employ well-developed emotional skills.

Spiritual Developing enlightened leaders who recognize the value of spirituality. This last domain has alsotraditionally not been a focus of either corporate leadership development or business school education programs.Spiritually enlightened leaders enable their followers to connect both individual tasks and the mission of the largerfirm to deeply held moral and ethical values. As an example, a leader with advanced spiritual leadership skillsopenly considers and discusses the normative spiritual beliefs and values of the employees assigned to a biotechproject team dealing with cloning technology. S/he also considers the greater moral implications for society as awhole.

Given these definitions of the four ACES domains it becomes clear that each is uniquely different and independentlycritical to leadership effectiveness, as further illustrated in Table 1.

The representative leadership skills and behaviors outlined in the Table 1 delineate the unique leadership challengesassociated with the four domains. However, we posit that it is in the conjoining of the four that truly represents holisticleadership. We propose that the most effective leaders recognize the critical interdependencies that exist among each ofthe four domains, and demonstrate leadership practices that reflect this recognition. Clearly, the largest and most naturaloverlapping occurs between the analytical and conceptual domains, and between the emotional and spiritual domains,as reflected in Fig. 1. Nevertheless, we argue that the most effective leaders intentionally strive to integrate all fourdomains into a truly holistic approach.

As a prime example, consider the development and championing of corporate mission statements, a task that hasbeen solidly established as a mandate for contemporary corporate leaders. Such statements clearly delineate both theindustry and customer segments to be served by the firm, as well as the core competencies to be leveraged in so doing.Accordingly, they will reflect both the analytical and conceptual domains of leadership practice. Yet this is where manycorporate mission statements appear to stop short. Holistic leaders strive to ensure that such statements engage

428 S.A. Quatro et al. / Human Resource Management Review 17 (2007) 427441employees at an emotional and even spiritual level, either explicitly or implicitly.

1.2. An introductory word about the spiritual domain

As posited above, leadership development programs and management education have traditionally focused on theanalytical domain and secondarily on the conceptual domain. While these are important and certainly necessary areasof development, we propose that the addition of the emotional and spiritual domains is particularly noteworthy.

Table 1Leadership skills and behaviors across the four ACES domains

Leadership domain Key skills Representative behavioral examples

Analytical Quantitative analysis Calculating a break-even pointLogical reasoning Developing a decision treeDecisiveness Choosing one alternative over another

Conceptual Qualitative analysis Weighing and balancing the needs of multiple stakeholder groupsCreativity Developing a new productCuriosity Facilitating a brainstorming session

Emotional Persuasive communication Aligning employees around a visionEmpathic understanding Actively listening to an employee grievanceSelf-monitoring Avoiding an unnecessary confrontation with a customer or employee

Spiritual Self-reflection Self-assessing a poor decision or behaviorIntegrity Assessing personal/organizational values congruenceMeditative thinking Deeply considering the environmental impact of a new production process

429S.A. Quatro et al. / Human Resource Management Review 17 (2007) 427441Attention to these domains is not only warranted, but may be mandated, given the relatively low level of confidencethat currently exists in society at large with regard to corporate management and the apparent track record ofmanagement failures. As will be described in more detail below, the emotional domain is increasingly being addressedin leadership models. However, many people may still view the spiritual domain in particular as somewhat far removedfrom the practice of corporate leadership, and even inappropriate for such inclusion. We question this view.

The last two decades have witnessed a tremendous advancement in the fundamental nature of the world economy. Inshort, globalization is increasingly driven by services-based and technology-based industries and firms (Downes &Heap, 2002; Farrell, 2003) that require a more highly educated and evolved workforce than at any other point in history.Concurrent with this pattern has been a significant increase in the relative affluence of the citizens and employees in theworld's most developed nations. As a result, many employees are no longer motivated by lower-order needs alone, butFig. 1. The ACES model of holistic leadership.

Table 2

430 S.A. Quatro et al. / Human Resource Management Review 17 (2007) 427441rather operate as a workforce in search of aggregate self-actualization (Abramson & Inglehart, 1995). As such, they areincreasingly desirous of reconciling their daily work lives with their higher-order, spiritual, or religious beliefs (Herman& Schaefer, 2001; Neal, 2000; Quatro, 2004).

Nevertheless, many leaders, and the management development and education programs that train them, are stilllargely resistant to the idea of embracing the spiritual domain of leadership practice and development (aside from thosecorporations and institutions that have an explicitly spiritual or religious mission). This is ostensibly for fear ofbecoming entangled in a web of philosophical, theological, and even religious differences. We propose that, in reality,there is a great deal of philosophical and even doctrinal harmony among the varied spiritual and religious traditions,especially as those doctrinal elements relate to management and leadership practice, as demonstrated in Table 2. Thenormativity of belief and morality expressed by the passages shown in Table 2, each attributed to either a major worldreligion or an emerging or humanistic spiritual philosophy, is clear. It is also clearly applicable to embrace thesespiritual and religious beliefs in conjunction with the spiritual domain of leadership development and practice, as manyfollowers strive to connect their individual and corporate work lives to such moral imperatives.

Lastly, from a pragmatic standpoint, it may be sobering for leaders and institutions that continue to resist the spiritualdomain of leadership practice and development to reflect on the fact that fully 78% of the world's population claim tobe adherents of the five world religions referenced in Table 2, 95% of Americans consider themselves to be spiritual,and 80% of Americans desire to experience spiritual integration and growth in conjunction with their daily work lives.3

Thus, continued resistance to the spiritual domain and to the herein proposed holistic model for leadership practice anddevelopment may be unfounded. This resistance may be based upon the assumption that most employees/followers arenot religious or spiritual, or the further assumption that employees/followers do not view the corporate workplace as anappropriate setting for living out their religious or spiritual beliefs. We question these assumptions.

Accordingly, each of the four domains of leadership development and practice is now addressed in detail, andanchored in both established and emerging leadership development theory and research. In a later section of this article,we provide a leadership development classification scheme to guide the potential development of the leadershipdomains specified by the ACES model.

2. Theoretical and conceptual foundation for the ACES model

The normativity of the golden rule

Good people proceed while considering what is best for others is best for themselves. (Hitopadesa, Hinduism).Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. (Leviticus 19:18, Judaism).By embracing spiritual transformation and kindness, we wind up in a personal universe of Blessed. As this spiritual revolution of Kabbalah increasesin the world, a critical mass will be achieved, and the chaos of life will vanish forever like a long-forgotten dream. Therefore, love thy neighbor asthyself. All the rest is mere commentary. Now go and learn. (Yehuda Berg, Kabbalah).

Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them. (Matthew 7:12, Christianity).When you become detached mentally from yourself and concentrate on helping other people with their difficulties, you will be able to cope with yourown more effectively. Somehow, the act of self-giving is a personal power-releasing factor. (Norman Vincent Peale, Humanism).

Hurt not others with that which pains yourself. (Udanavarga 5:18, Buddhism).No one of you is a believer until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself. (Traditions, Islam).The classification of managerial and leadership requirements has long been a goal of theorists and writers. Theserequirements have been framed using a variety of terminology, including roles (Mintzberg, 1973), skills (Katz & Kahn,1978; Mann, 1965), and behaviors and practices (Yukl, 2002). Obviously, there is an overlap between the variousclassification schemes that have evolved over time, and indeed, we view the understanding of leadership and itsrequirements as a moving target that can change with time.

We propose that the classification scheme outlined in this article reflects thinking that has evolved into the 21st century,and yet is concurrently anchored in seminal leadership theory (see Table 3). As introduced above,we view the key elementsof leadership development and practice to include analytical, conceptual, emotional, and spiritual (ACES) domains. Thefirst domain, analytical, can be traced to such theories as scientific management (Taylor, 1911), theorymanagement

3 These statistics were derived from several sources, including the International Database (IDB) developed by the U.S. Census Bureau, theUniversal Almanac, and the Gallup Organization.

(McGregor, 1960), and agency theory (Jensen & Meckling, 1976). The conceptual domain can be viewed as beinganchored in such theories as cooperative systems (Barnard, 1938), organizational social psychology-based systems (Katz&Kahn, 1978), and systems thinking and organizational learning (Senge, 1990a). The third domain, namely the emotionaldomain, can be traced to such theories and research as the Hawthorne studies conducted by Mayo (as described byRoethlisberger &Dickson, 1966), transformational leadership (Bass, 1985, 1997; Burns, 1978), and emotional intelligence(Goleman, 1995). Lastly, the spiritual domain can be viewed as being anchored in such theories as self-actualization in theworkplace (Maslow, 1965), institutional theology and servant leadership (Greenleaf, 1970), and values-based leadership(House & Aditya, 1997).

It is interesting to note that while the emotional and spiritual domains are arguably more contemporary, and to alarge extent still emerging in the leadership and management literature, all four domains are supported by long-standingleadership theory and research (as delineated in Table 3). With this representative theory and research overviewprovided, we now proceed to further clarify each of these domains as reflected in the leadership literature at large.

2.1. Analytical domain

The analytical domain of the ACES model has long been considered. Indeed, of the four domains, leadershipdevelopment literature has been most devoted to it (Mintzberg, 2004; Pitcher, 1997). Yukl (2006) discusses a number ofpractices that represent the analytical domain, including planning and organizing, problem solving, monitoringperformance and trends, and clarifying roles and objectives. To a large extent, the pathgoal model of leadership is

Table 3Representative theoretical and research bases of the ACES model

Leadership domain Theoretical and research bases

Analytical Scientific management (Taylor, 1911)Theorymanagement (McGregor, 1960)Agency theory (Jensen & Meckling, 1976)

Conceptual Cooperative systems (Barnard, 1938)Organizational social psychology-based systems (Katz & Kahn, 1978)Systems thinking and organizational learning (Senge, 1990a)

Emotional Hawthorne studies (Mayo, as described by Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1966)Transformational leadership (Bass, 1985, 1997; Burns, 1978)Emotional intelligence (Goleman, 1995)

Spiritual Self-actualization in the workplace (Maslow, 1965)Institutional theology and servant leadership (Greenleaf, 1970)Values-based leadership (House & Aditya, 1997)

431S.A. Quatro et al. / Human Resource Management Review 17 (2007) 427441based on the effective use of such practices (House, 1996). The pathgoal leader is able to clarify follower roles andobjectives through the effective planning and organizing of their work. Further, by monitoring their work, they are ableto clarify deficiencies that might prevent followers from attaining organizational and personal goals.

The analytic domain obviously stresses cognitive abilities and skills of leaders. For example, planning and problemsolving requires the processing of information in a systematic manner to deal with the causes of problems, as well aspotential solutions. Early on, Katz and Kahn (1978) recognized such abilities and skills in terms of the technical andsubsystem perspective skills of leaders. In essence, they suggested that lower- and middle-level leaders need to possessthe technical knowledge and cognitive abilities to understand and organize work within a relatively narrow subsystemof an organization. However, the analytic domain does not take into account the higher-level systems thinking thatrequires the integration of various aspects of a system and its environment.

2.2. Conceptual domain

The conceptual domain of the ACES model also reflects cognitive abilities and skills, but at a more systems level ofanalysis. Locke (2003) lamented that although the intellectual aspect may be the most important domain of leadership,it is also the most neglected one in the literature. It is interesting how similar concerns were expressed by Katz andKahn (1978) a quarter of a century previously. Locke's (2003) characterization of the intellectual aspect focused on

abilities and skills analogous to inductive reasoning, including creatively putting together information from theenvironment in order to get at the heart of complex, systemic issues and problems. We consider such abilities and skillsto be the essence of the conceptual domain of our model. Although they share a cognitive basis with analytical abilitiesand skills, the conceptual realm of leadership is obviously broader and more inductive and, in the case of leadership,more future-oriented.

The conceptual domain is not altogether absent from the leadership literature. For example, Bass (1985) referred tointellectual stimulation when considering the cognitive side of transformational leadership. Intellectual stimulationinvolves leader actions geared toward the arousal and change in problem awareness and problem solving on the part offollowers, as well as beliefs and values (Bass, 1985). Intellectually stimulating leaders help followers to question oldassumptions and beliefs so they can view complex problems and issues in more innovative ways (Bass, 1997). Theincreasing relevance of intellectual stimulation at more strategic leadership levels has been considered in the literature.For example, Wortman (1982) described the importance of top-level executives engaging themselves and subordinatesin the intellectual task of conceptualizing and articulating a firm's broader environmental context, as well the threatsand opportunities posed by that context. More recently, Boal and Hooijberg (2001) also emphasized the importance ofthe intellectual or cognitive aspects of strategic leadership.

Stratified systems theory (SST) can shed light on how the conceptual domain may be relevant to effectiveleadership, especially at strategic levels. SST focuses on the cognitive side of leadership and strategy, and it stressesthat effective versus ineffective leaders can be distinguished in terms of their level of conceptual capacity (Jacques &Clement, 1991; Lewis & Jacobs, 1992). Conceptual capacity involves the ability to think abstractly and integratecomplex information, providing an antecedent to leadership action. SST emphasizes that conceptual capacity is mostrelevant in terms of how the leader structures an understanding of the strategic environment. As such, the theory is inline with the work of Conger and Kanungo (1998), as well as Locke (2003), who stressed the leader's ability torecognize both opportunities and constraints in the environment, and they noted how the ability to do so varies widelyamong leaders.

Lewis and Jacobs (1992) stressed that conceptual capacity allows for leaders to have insight and construct visionsover long time horizons using their own judgment processes unconstrained by the boundaries, values, beliefs, or pointsof view of others. Conceptual capacity also allows leaders to demonstrate intellectual stimulation to help followers getat the heart of complex problems. The intellectually stimulating leader will use conceptual capacity to scan and thinkbroadly about the environmental context and the manner in which a wide variety of organizational stakeholders may beserved. They will possess complex mental maps that contain a systematic view of the external forces that impact theorganization. Their mental maps include a dynamic picture of how the various external forces interact with each otherand as a result, present a richer perspective of firm performance and competitive advantage that, for example, goesbeyond simple cost leadership or product differentiation (Porter & Kramer, 2002). Intellectually stimulating leaderswith high conceptual capacities realize that success in such an environment requires a strong understanding of, andrelationships with, a variety of key stakeholders.

2.3. Emotional domain

The issue of leadership vision introduced above in Table 1 provides a good example of how conceptual and emotionaldomains may be inextricably linked in any consideration of leadership and its development. We define vision as a future-oriented articulation or image of an organization's purpose and direction that inspires enthusiasm and is ambitious, butwithin a latitude of acceptance on the part of followers (Berson, Shamir, Avolio,&Popper, 2001;Conger&Kanungo, 1998;House, 1977; Nanus, 1992). Further, as compared to strategic goals, visions tend to be less concrete, encompass a broadertime span, and contain a higher content of idealistic values, beliefs, and purpose, as opposed to business-oriented content.

In an attempt to further delineate vision, Boal and Hooijberg (2001) separated the affective and cognitive domains.As argued in more detail below, the affective domain makes a direct, emotional appeal to the personal values andbeliefs of followers and, as such, is in line with most previous considerations of the nature of leadership vision (e.g.,Nanus, 1992; Sashkin, 1988). However, as noted by Boal and Hooijberg (2001), the cognitive domain is also importantbecause it influences the information that is sought out and used in vision formation. Although Bass (1985) originallyconceived intellectual stimulation to be separate from more affective domains of visionary and charismatic leadership,subsequent empirical work has found them to be highly intercorrelated, thus suggesting that affective and cognitive

432 S.A. Quatro et al. / Human Resource Management Review 17 (2007) 427441domains of vision may be highly bound together (Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996).

The emotional domain of leadership can be largely understood by considering how leadership visions becomeshared with followers. We define a vision as shared when there is commitment to carrying it out by the preponderanceof followers to whom the vision pertains. To a large extent, there is an assumption in the literature that a vision willbecome shared because of a combination of visionary behaviors on the part of leaders and favorable attributions towardthe leader on the part of followers (Conger & Kanungo, 1998; Shamir, 1991). For example, if the leader presents avision that seems insightful and exciting, followers will have confidence in the leader and naturally coalesce around hisor her vision in unison (i.e., share the vision). This, however, seems overly simplistic. We argue, on the other hand, thatit is quite possible for a leader to articulate a vision that does not become widely shared among followers.

According to Senge (1990b), a leader's vision becomes shared when it builds upon a desire on the part of followersto pursue a common important undertaking, and when it connects emotionally to their personal values and visions.Shamir, House, and Arthur (1993) put forth a theory of charismatic leadership that was based on the self-concepts offollowers and emotional attachment to the vision of a leader. The essence of their work was that such leaderscommunicate or symbolize messages that contain many references to values and moral justifications. They are able tohave motivational effects on followers by presenting goals or a vision in terms of the values that they represent, thusgenerating an emotional response. Subsequently, the intrinsic valence of effort and goals, and the follower's self-concept, become linked to values, resulting in value internalization on the part of the follower (Lord & Brown, 2001,2004).

Effective leaders deal not only with the emotional needs and responses of others; they also deal with their ownemotions in order to achieve effectiveness. That is, they are able to maintain their emotional intelligence. There is someevidence that a leader's emotional abilities and understandings (i.e., emotional intelligence) can play a key role intransformational leadership and the attribution of charismatic qualities to a leader (Megerian & Sosik, 1996; Shamir,1991). But how exactly does emotional intelligence come into play for such leaders? We wish to emphasize two issues.First, the emotionally intelligent leader is able to stimulate emotional contagion by maintaining balance and keepingthemselves positive and motivated, thereby inspiring others around him or herself (Hatfield, Cacioppo, & Rapson,1994). Emotional contagion can, in turn, foster collective efficacy and unity (Van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003).Second, effective leaders are able to manage negative emotions, such as anxiety and fear, thereby showing courage.They do so through accepting responsibility, occasional nonconformity, stating potentially unpopular beliefs, andacting as moral leaders (Daft, 2005).

2.4. Spiritual domain

As noted previously, the last domain of our model is the one that is least developed in leadership taxonomies andtheory. Moreover, to some degree, it may be the most controversial. At its core, this domain involves an understandingof how the needs of followers to connect to higher-order, spiritual purposes are relevant to effective leadership in worksettings. As such, moral leadership is closely connected to the spiritual domain. We define moral leadership asdistinguishing right from wrong in one's leadership role, and then taking steps to ensure justice, honesty, and helpingfollowers to connect to a higher-order, spiritual purpose.

Transformational leadership theory may be particularly relevant to the spiritual domain. Burns (1978) originallyadvanced the argument that transformational leadership is tantamount to moral leadership, and that both followers andleaders progress to the highest levels of moral development (Kohlberg, 1976) as a result of such leadership. That is,transformational leaders are able to progress to the post-conventional stage of development, in which they act in anindependent and ethical manner, regardless of the expectations of other individuals or the norms of society.Subsequently, other theorists have also considered how transformational leaders develop deeply-held values andstandards, such as those pertaining to integrity, justice, and maintaining the societal good (Bass and Steidlmeier;Kuhnert, 1994; Kuhnert & Lewis,1987). Turner, Barling, Epitropaki, Butcher, and Milner (2002) present recentevidence of an empirical relationship between transformational leadership and higher stages of moral development.Along similar lines, Kanungo (2001) and Mendonca (2001) argued that charismatic leadership, a key element oftransformational leadership, is often rooted in strong ethical values. The essence of this argument is that such leadersmay be guided by morally altruistic principles that reflect a helping concern for others even at considerable personalsacrifice or inconvenience (Mendonca, 2001; 268).

We should caution that as noted by previous authors (e.g., Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999; Howell & Avolio, 1992;

433S.A. Quatro et al. / Human Resource Management Review 17 (2007) 427441Waldman & Yammarino, 1999), not all leaders with charismatic appeal will have strong moral values, and indeed some

may have motives leaning more toward personal power and self-aggrandizement. Thus, it may be necessary to delineatetwo types: (1) socialized charismatic leadership, and (2) personalized charismatic leadership. The socialized charismaticwill have a strong commitment to socially-based goals that benefit the larger entity of which s/he is a part, or evensociety in general, since he or she has an authentic sense of moral or ethical values (Avolio, Gardner, Walumbwa,Luthans, & May, 2004; House & Howell, 1992). In turn, the socialized charismatic is likely to encourage followers toalso engage in moral pursuits as a means of meeting their own spiritual needs, as opposed to proselytizing them.

In contrast, the personalized charismatic uses power for personal gain, is exploitative or manipulative of others, andnarcissistic (Maccoby, 2004). The personalized charismatic might have some interest in pursuing socially-based goals(i.e., corporate social responsibility) simply as a means of building a positive image for the leader, the firm, or both(Gardner & Avolio, 1998; Kets de Vries, 1993). However, his or her interest in, and commitment to, such goals is likelyto be marginal and purely calculative, rather than authentic. Moreover, the personalized charismatic is more likely toattempt to proselytize followers, as opposed to encouraging followers to simply live out their own spiritual beliefs inthe workplace.

2.5. Putting it all together

The ACES classification of domains paints a very involved picture of leadership effectiveness. In addition to theoften considered analytical domain, we have presented three other domains that are still emerging in the leadershipliterature: conceptual, emotional, and spiritual. It is clear that while it is possible to consider these domains individually,they are inextricably linked. Thus, we posit that development efforts will need to take into account the variousconnections between the domains. For example, the maximum development of visionary leadership capabilities will beassociated with efforts designed to link conceptual/creative thinking, emotional appeal, and morality/spirituality. Wenow turn our attention to a leadership development classification scheme that we propose to be relevant to the ACESmodel.

3. A classification scheme for leadership development

A broad classification scheme of leadership development that provides a comprehensive, holistic view has yet to beestablished. The leadership development literature primarily uses the formal and informal development classifications(Clarke, 2004; Enos, Kehrhahn, & Bell, 2003). Formal development activities are limited to the classroom, whileinformal activities include development outside of the classroom experience (Clarke, 2004). Yukl (2006) provides aframework that enables a more involved look at informal activities by delineating the informal into two separatecategories: self-help activities, and developmental activities. His classification scheme consists of these two categoriesas well as the formal training category, and provides a more precise scheme to use when classifying development andtraining activities. There are other classification schemes that appear in the literature that take a similar approach anduse alternative terms to the formal and informal development classifications such as off-the-job, on-the-job, incidental,work-based, and classroom-based, to describe approaches toward leadership development (Ready & Conger, 2003;Woodall, 2000). The underlying theme among these classification schemes is that development mechanisms are part ofthe classroom/formal context or the workplace/informal context.

3.1. ACES leadership development and a three-category classification scheme

Classifying leadership developmental mechanisms into the classroom/formal or the workplace/informal cate-gories works well with many activities, but these classifications do not readily accommodate the organizationalmechanisms that can have an important impact, especially on the emotional and spiritual domains of leadership.We propose that there are developmental mechanisms that do not fit into the existing models. As shown inFig. 2, we have taken the leadership development categories of the classroom and job context and added a thirdcategory, the organizational context, to formulate a classification scheme that enables a more holistic view ofleadership development. The addition of the third category allows us to take into account important organi-zational mechanisms that are largely left out of existing leadership development schemes. Aspects of leadershipdevelopment such as organizational culture and related core values, as well as HR strategies and policies that

434 S.A. Quatro et al. / Human Resource Management Review 17 (2007) 427441exist at the organizational level fit into this third category. Thus, in total we propose that the majority of

435S.A. Quatro et al. / Human Resource Management Review 17 (2007) 427441leadership development mechanisms can be classified within a framework that includes the classroom, job, andorganizational contexts.

Leadership development strategies may need to employ all three contexts of the development process to establish asolid foundation for long-term and comprehensive development. Further, the three leadership development categoriesshown in Fig. 2 may be differentially efficacious for leader development across the four ACES domains. We haveindicated the proposed effectiveness of respective categories by the number of plus marks, with one mark representingsome degree of applicability, while two marks represent substantial applicability. With this underlying premise, we putforth the below discussion in the pursuit of mechanisms to most fully cultivate the four core domains of the ACESmodel in aspiring leaders. It is important to note that this is clearly not an exhaustive discussion of all availableleadership development mechanisms. Rather, it is posed as a representative framework for considering the efficacy ofvarious contexts for developing leaders across the four ACES domains.

3.2. Classroom context

We posit that the classroom context is particularly effective for leadership development in relationship to theanalytical domain. The classroom context encompasses activities that are formal in their nature and take place in eitheran indoor or outdoor classroom setting. It is interesting to note that historically, the classroom setting has been thepredominant venue of choice for leadership development and educational activities, and therefore a possible driver ofthe preponderance of analytically-focused leaders, as discussed above. Although it has been established that theclassroom alone is insufficient for leadership development to occur, it should still play an important role in leadershipdevelopment (Yukl, 2005). Classroom training should be strategically relevant, powerful, and well-timed in order tobe effective (McCall, 2004, 129). In short, the classroom has the potential to play an important role in helping the leaderdevelop, especially with regard to necessary analytical skills.

Many people in leadership positions in organizations have had extensive classroom training as students inundergraduate and/or graduate programs of business. As such, they have already had some experience with classroom

Fig. 2. A classification typology for leadership development across the ACES domains.

techniques such as the case study and simulations approach, especially in the instance of MBA program graduates. Theuse of case studies and simulations are viable methods for developing the analytical capacity associated withleadership, as well as, to some degree, conceptual abilities (Yukl, 2005). For example, case studies allow for a risk-freeenvironment that can encourage calculated risk-taking as well as creativity in approaching problems. However, the casestudy approach alone cannot completely replicate on-the-job experience or fully develop the emotional capacity neededto succeed when real life challenges appear (James & Arroba, 2005).

Another classroom context mechanism that allows for leader development is the outdoor challenge in this case, aclassroom without four walls. These development activities help build self-confidence, self-control, trust, andcooperation (Yukl. 2005). Outdoor challenges represent an approach that provides the opportunity for a limited level ofemotional and spiritual development for the aspiring leader. These outdoor classrooms have the potential to elicitemotions and feelings that may be hard to draw out in a four-walled classroom, but that are necessary for individuals todevelop in the spiritual and emotional domains.

3.3. Job context

The job context includes activities that are experiential, have a less formal structure, and are tied to the actual jobperformance of the individual. The job context is a key developmental setting for aspiring leaders (McCall, 2004), andas shown in Fig. 2, a context within which all four domains of the ACES model are at least modestly addressed. That is,the varying aspects of the individual can be developed during the experiences provided by job-context activities.Further, in the job context, aspiring leaders have the opportunity to apply the principles and tools they learn in theclassroom. On-the-job leadership development represents an opportunity to alleviate bad habits and develop newstrengths through practice and application (Goleman, 1998).

For example, job design or redesign represents an approach that can ensure that an aspiring leader is beingchallenged and getting opportunities for growth. He or she may be strong analytically, but also needs more helpdeveloping conceptual capacity or emotional strength. Specific responsibilities can be added to the individual's currentresponsibilities to facilitate the development of underdeveloped areas (Yukl, 2005). The use of job rotation represents agood opportunity for an aspiring leader to get out of his or her comfort zone and be exposed to new situations andindividuals who provide opportunities to develop not only analytical and conceptual skills, but also emotional andspiritual maturity. However, if job rotation is used for leadership development, it must be done strategically so as toprovide those experiences that the aspiring leader needs, rather than a random assortment of positions that end uphindering their progress (McCall, 1992).

Executive retreats represent another mechanism that enables aspiring leaders to develop relative to the conceptual,emotional, and spiritual domains. Retreats allow them to step back from their day-to-day activities and think about theconceptual and strategic aspects of their role. Retreats present a likely situation for self-analysis and contemplation ofthe big picture of their organizational role. They help individuals measure their current performance versus their visionof what they have the potential to contribute to the organization. Leaders can also use these opportunities to reviewgoals and objectives that they have set to focus their strategies and objectives. Lastly, people can be encouraged duringthese retreats to connect with other colleagues on an appropriately emotional level, and also to investigate how theirown spiritual and moral values fit with those of their colleagues and their organization as a whole.

Youngdahl, Waldman, and Anders (1998) provided an account of how the general manager of Goodyear Mexico,Hugh Pace, used an executive retreat to help build the conceptual thinking of his top management team, as well asdemonstrate shared values and vision. Specifically, Pace introduced a new vision that would take the subsidiary frombeing a producer devoted to the local Mexican market, to being an exporter operating globally. He then subsequentlyused a shared leadership approach (cf., Pearce & Conger, 2003) that allowed the top management team at GoodyearMexico to reshape his initial vision, based on agreement concerning commonly-held values. The larger vision was, inturn, rolled out to include visions of the top management team at lower, sub-unit levels that were aligned with the largervision of the organization.

3.4. Organizational context

The organizational context represents a heretofore under-represented category to be considered for the potential

436 S.A. Quatro et al. / Human Resource Management Review 17 (2007) 427441development of leadership. The organizational context can include mechanisms and activities that exist or take place at

the organizational level that are outside the classroom and do not fit into the job context, such as culture, core values,existing vision, and HR strategies. As shown in Fig. 2 and described below, we propose that the organizational contextrepresents the category within which the spiritual domain is most effectively addressed, while concurrently playing anoverarching role in the leadership development process across all of the ACES domains. For example, organizationalculture and values send strong messages to developing leaders about the importance the organization places on theanalytical, conceptual, emotional, and spiritual domains of leadership (Kotter & Heskett, 1992; Schein, 1996). If anorganizational culture fails to reinforce any one of the four domains, aspiring leaders are likely to neglect that aspect oftheir development. As an example, when a culture stresses shared beliefs, values, and norms suggesting adherence tomorality and ethics in all pursuits of the organization's members, we would expect to see aspiring leaders selected,rewarded, and developed to embody such a culture.

Core values that are written and reinforced, as well as mission and vision statements, also contribute to thedevelopment of leadership. Such mechanisms, when reinforced by high-level executives, can shape a range ofleadership domains, especially the emotional and spiritual domains. These mechanisms create a framework of theorganization's orientation towards such areas as organizational purpose, teamwork, performance, ethical behavior, andrewards (Kabanoff, Waldersee, & Cohen, 1995). A clear framework of the core values, mission, and vision helps theaspiring leader shape his or her development. For example, by understanding that the company values teamwork, theaspiring leader can concentrate on the team's goals, rather than on individual achievement. As such, the individualdevelopment of the leader will be focused on those domains that are important to being able to lead a team, such asemotional maturity, rather than on individual pursuits. Likewise, a written organizational value of ethical behavior willallow for spiritual development by avoiding ethical compromises in leader decision-making.

AES corporation, one of the largest energy firms in the world, provides an interesting example in this vein.Individuals in leadership positions at AES are acculturated to believe that the firm is less about generating anddistributing power, and more about serving the larger society within which AES operates. That is, they are developed tobelieve that the literal mission or enduring purpose of AES is to live out their four key corporate values (Bakke, 2005).These values are integrity (AES and AES employees act with wholeness, or completeness), fairness (AES ensures thatall stakeholders, including employees, are treated equitably), social responsibility (AES benefits society and mitigatesthe potentially negative consequences of the firm's activities), and fun (AES fosters a work environment that isrewarding, exciting, and creative). For AES leaders, these values dictate that, for example, moral and spiritualcomponents of leadership will be operative and reinforced in the workplace. For example, due to the shared commitmentto integrity, AES executives are not only encouraged to make their spiritual values operative in the workplace, they areexpected to do so. Further, these values suggest that the organization (and its leaders) will engage employees at anemotional level by emphasizing fairness and societal benefit. AES appears to be so firmly committed to the primacy ofthese values that the firm publicly states in its investor prospectus that if the Company perceives a conflict betweenthese values and profits, the Company will try to adhere to its values even though doing so might result in diminishedprofits and foregone opportunities (Bakke, 2005: 39). In sum, through the clear designation and reinforcement of suchvalues, we view AES as an example of a firm committed to the continuous development of emotional and spiritualdomains on the part of leaders via mechanisms that fit into the organizational context category herein proposed.

Similarly, HR policies have the potential to play an important role in facilitating the development of aspiring leadersby helping identify behaviors and performance outcomes that are important to the organization (Becker & Gerhart,1996). Policies oriented towards long-term employment can foster commitment from the aspiring leader toward his orher development (Delery & Doty, 1996). Organizational mechanisms such as employment policies can create securityand allow for the development of skills and areas that take longer to develop, such as the conceptual, emotional andspiritual domains (Delery & Doty, 1996). Thus, policies that promote the development of leaders, in secureenvironments that are focused on long-term results, allow aspiring leaders to develop holistically by being involved indevelopmental processes that are part of long-term HR strategies (Delery & Doty, 1996).

Organizational strategy-setting provides an opportunity for development as well. When leaders are challenged to alignHR and organizational strategies, they are likely to develop their capacities to work through complex situations at theorganizational level. By developing the capacity to work through the difficult process of linking strategies at theorganizational level (e.g. aligning a rewards systemwith an organizational strategy such as a quality program), individualsdevelop conceptual and possibly emotional abilities (Youndt, Snell, Dean, & Lepak, 1996). Accordingly, aspiring leadersare afforded the opportunity to develop conceptual, systems-thinking skills, while concurrently increasing emotional

437S.A. Quatro et al. / Human Resource Management Review 17 (2007) 427441maturity as they navigate difficult organizational challenges, such as employee resistance to change.

Leaders are also developed through specific HR practices or programs. For example, the use of multi-sourcefeedback represents a practice that can ensure that an aspiring leader develops in a well-balanced manner, includingaspects of emotional, and even spiritual development. In the process of receiving feedback, the individual has thechance to learn about himself or herself, as well as opportunities for growth (Atwater, Waldman, & Brett, 2002). It isimportant to help the aspiring leader learn through these situations, while they review the feedback of others, wherethere are opportunities to balance emotion and manage negative emotion. Further, multi-source feedback represents an

438 S.A. Quatro et al. / Human Resource Management Review 17 (2007) 427441opportunity for the individual to look at the spiritual domain and assess how others view the extent of their moral orethical behavior, as well as how they reward/punish such behavior when shown by others.

Thus, the effective use of multi-source feedback can lead to strides in the development process and potentiallychange behavior and the effectiveness of leaders (e.g., Atwater, Waldman, Atwater, & Cartier, 2000). As noted by Yukl(2006), such feedback may need to be coupled with follow-up and additional coaching and support after the aspiringleader has a chance to make progress in the areas upon which the feedback pertains (Yukl, 2006). It is also interesting tonote that as expressed by Atwater et al. (2002), multi-source feedback is most likely to have positive effects onleadership development in organizational cultures stressing openness, change, and development and where suchcore values are made known. As such, various aspects of the organizational context (i.e., HR strategies, organizationalculture, and core values) may work together in the leadership development process.

General Electric (GE) is an example of a firm that has used multi-source feedback, as well as other performancemanagement strategies, to reinforce leader behavior in line with the firm's core values. GE has specifically employedmulti-source feedback to determine a leader's ability to energize others (e.g., inspire and incite passion within others),as well as their ability to demonstrate sustained energy (e.g., the level of personal inspiration and passion demonstratedby the leaders themselves). GE has further developed a leader typology focused on identifying individuals in leadershippositions that do not effectively practice leadership in the emotional and spiritual domains of the ACES model, andthereby fail to demonstrate authentic energy or to holistically energize others. Such a Type 4 leader forcesperformance out of people, rather than inspires it (Welch & Byrne, 2001: 188). When identified, such individuals arefirst provided opportunities within GE designed to foster development across the emotional and spiritual leadershipdomains. If these developmental efforts fail, the Type 4 leaders either voluntarily or involuntarily leave the firm.

In sum, utilizing all three contexts helps to ensure holistic leadership development. When leadership development isconceptualized in terms of the gamut of classroom, job, and organizational contexts, individuals stand the best chanceof maturing in all four domains of the ACES model. As previously noted, the above outlined discussion of leadershipdevelopment mechanisms is by no means an exhaustive one. However, as summarized in Table 4, it does portray arepresentative mix of several leadership development mechanisms as conceptualized into our proposed three-categorytypology, in addition to providing some indication of proposed efficacy for several specific mechanisms relative to thefour ACES domains.

We should note that while we have focused our discussion of the three-category classification scheme delineatedabove primarily on leadership development in corporate settings, our framework may also be useful in formalmanagement education settings (such as in a business school-based, MBA program). In this vein, it may be desirablethat MBA programs consider requiring students to participate in activities that can be categorized across the threedevelopment contexts and four ACES domains shown in Fig. 2, as well as employing the specific mechanismssummarized in Table 4. The classroom context is clearly already the norm in formal business school managementeducation, but this is where such leader development efforts often stop. It may be advantageous to also employmechanisms and activities aligned with job and organizational contexts. For example, multi-source feedback fromMBA program peers, as well as from peers and subordinates in a student's current job context, could accompanybehavioral MBA courses such as seminars devoted to leadership and its development. In addition, MBA programs canrequire that students complete all core curricular requirements on a rotational and cross-disciplinary or cross-functional

Table 4Representative leadership development mechanisms across the ACES domains

Leadership domain Classroom context Job context Organizational context

Analytical Case studyConceptual Job design Alignment of HR and organizational strategiesEmotional Executive retreat 360-degree feedback

Spiritual Culture/core values

basis, allowing students to develop the conceptual domain of leadership described earlier. Moreover, to address theemotional and spiritual domains, MBA programs can task all students with the development of core value statementswhile further employing multi-source feedback to evaluate student behavior vis--vis the articulated core values.Lastly, community-based or social responsibility projects and activities could be used to further develop leadershipskills relative to the emotional and spiritual domains.

4. Conclusions

We caution against leadership development activities that may create narrowly-focused leaders. In contrast, we haveput forth arguments here for the development of people in leadership positions that are consistent with the ACESmodel, thereby reinforcing leadership effectiveness in not just the analytical domain, but the conceptual, emotional, andspiritual domains as well. Such leaders are holistic in their leadership approach and are likely to be better suited to theleadership demands of today's evolving business environment.

We have also argued that each of the three contexts of leadership development proposed herein may, to some degree,be relevant to each of the four domains of leadership included in the ACES model. However, formal classroom trainingwould seem to be applied best to the analytic domain. Conceptual and emotional domains are more likely to bedeveloped through job context. A further contribution of this article is to recognize the growing relevance of thespiritual domain of leadership and how it might best be developed by directing our attention to more macro-level, firminfrastructure (including culture, mission, and core values) and related HR strategies or practices (e.g., performanceappraisal and multi-source feedback). As a result, we suggest that the general construct of leadership development mayneed to be reframed as something much larger than discrete formal training programs, thereby embracing theorganizational context category for leadership development that we have proposed here.

This last point may be particularly salient given the continuing evolution of HR as a corporate function.Traditionally, the HR function of a firm has stewarded leadership training and development as an area of activity, butsuch activity has been inconsistently reinforced via other HR practices. Progressively, the HR function in many firmshas evolved into a more far-reaching driver of corporate direction and behavior. As the HR function takes on thisbroader role as a strategic partner, it becomes an asset that offers a source of hard to imitate, competitive advantage(Becker & Gerhart, 1996). As such, traditionally isolated HR practices such as leadership training and development,compensation administration, job analysis and design, and performance management, have become more tightlyintegrated into a coherent force that collectively can shape employee behavior in conjunction with clearly articulatedstatements of organizational core values, vision, and mission (Delery & Doty, 1996). In sum, we propose that thosefirms that have adopted this sort of strategic view of the role of the HR function are more capable of developing the typeof holistic leaders described in this article.

References

Abramson, P. R., & Inglehart, R. (1995). Value change in global perspective. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Atwater, L. E., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, D., & Cartier, P. (2000). An upward feedback field experiment: Supervisors' cynicism, follow-up, and

commitment to subordinates. Personnel Psychology, 53, 275297.Atwater, L. E., Waldman, D. A., & Brett, J. F. (2002). Understanding and optimizing multisource feedback. Human Resource Management, 41,

193208.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 behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 801823.Bakke, D. W. (2005). Joy at work: A revolutionary approach to fun on the job Seattle, WA: PVG.Barnard, C. I. (1938). Functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American

Psychologist, 52, 130139.Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 181217.Becker, B., & Gerhart, B. (1996). The impact of human resource management on organizational performance: Progress and prospects. Academy of

Management Journal, 39, 779801.Bennis, W. G. (2005). How business schools lost their way. Harvard Business Review, 83(5), 96104.Berson, Y., Shamir, B., Avolio, B. J., & Popper, M. (2001). The relationship between vision strength, leadership style, and context. Leadership

439S.A. Quatro et al. / Human Resource Management Review 17 (2007) 427441Quarterly, 12, 5373.Boal, K. B., & Hooijberg, R. (2001). Strategic leadership research: Moving on. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 515549.

440 S.A. Quatro et al. / Human Resource Management Review 17 (2007) 427441Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper Row.Clarke, N. (2004). HRD and the challenges of assessing learning in the workplace. International Journal of Training and Development, 8(2),

140156.Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Daft, R. L. (2005). The leadership experience, 3rd ed. Cincinnati,OH: South-Western.Delery, J. E., & Doty, D. H. (1996). Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource management: Tests of universalistic, contingency, and

configurational performance predictions. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 802835.Downes, H., & Heap, J. (2002). World productivity congress. Management Services, 46(1), 811.Enos, M. D., Kehrhahn, M. T., & Bell, A. (2003). Informal learning and the transfer of learning: How mangers develop proficiency. Human Resource

Development Quarterly, 14(4), 369387.Farrell, D. (2003). The real new economy. Harvard Business Review, 81(10), 104112.Gardner, W. L., & Avolio, B. J. (1998). The charismatic relationship: A dramaturgical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 23, 3258.Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4,

7592.Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.Goleman, D. (1998). What makes a leader? Harvard Business Review, 76(6), 93102.Greenleaf, R. K. (1970). The leader as servant. Indianapolis. The Robert K. Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership.Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. (1994). Emotional contagion. New York: Cambridge University Press.Herman, S. W., & Schaefer, A. G. (2001). Spiritual goods: Faith traditions and the practice of business. Charlottesville, Virginia: Philosophy

Documentation Center.House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt, & L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge: 189207 Carbondale,

IL: Southern Illinois University Press.House, R. J. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy and a reformulated theory. Leadership Quarterly, 7, 323352.House, R. J., & Aditya, R. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of Management, 23, 409474.House, R. J., & Howell, J. M. (1992). Personality and charismatic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 3, 81108.Jacques, E., & Clement, S. D. (1991). Executive leadership: A practical guide to managing complexity. Arlington, VA: Cason Hall.James, K. T., & Arroba, T. (2005). Reading and carrying. Management Learning, 36(3), 299316.Jensen, M., & Meckling, W. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behaviour, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial

Economics, 3, 305360.Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 89, 755768.Kabanoff, B., Waldersee, R., & Cohen, M. (1995). Espoused values and organizational change themes. Academy of Management Journal, 38,

10751104.Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations, 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley.Kanungo, R. N. (2001). Ethical values of transactional and transformational leaders. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 18, 257265.Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1993). Leaders, fools, and imposters. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive-developmental approach. In T. Likona (Ed.), Moral development and behavior:

Theory, research, and social issues (pp. 3153). Austin, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Kotter, J. P., & Heskett, J. L. (1992). Corporate culture and performance. New York: Free Press.Kuhnert, K. W., & Lewis, P. (1987). Transactional and transformational leadership: A constructive/developmental analysis. Academy of Management

Review, 12, 648657.Lewis, P., & Jacobs, T. O. (1992). Individual differences in strategic leadership capacity: A constructive/developmental view. In R. L. Phillips, & J. G.

Hunt (Eds.), Strategic leadership: A multiorganizational-level perspective (pp. 121137). Westport, CT: Quorum Books.Locke, E. A. (2003). Foundations for a theory of leadership. In S. E. Murphy, & R. E. Riggio (Eds.), The future of leadership development

(pp. 2946). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Lord, R. G., & Brown, D. J. (2001). Leadership, values, and subordinates self-concepts. Leadership Quarterly, 12, 133152.Lord, R. G., & Brown, D. J. (2004). Leadership processes and follower self-identity. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-

analytic review of the MLQ literature. Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385425.Maccoby, M. (2004). Narcissistic leaders: The incredible pros, the inevitable cons.Harvard Business Review, 82, 92101 (January).Mann, F. C. (1965). Toward an understanding of the leadership role in formal organization. In R. Dubin, G. C. Homans, F. C. Mann, & D. C. Miller

(Eds.), Leadership and productivity (pp. 68103). San Francisco: Chandler.Maslow, A. H. (1965). Eupsychian management. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.McCall, M. W., Jr. (1992). Executive development as a business strategy. Journal of Business Strategy, 13(1), 2531.McCall, M. W., Jr. (2004). Leadership development through experience. Academy of Management Executive, 18(3), 127130.McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.Megerian, L. E., & Sosik, J. J. (1996). An affair of the heart: Emotional intelligence and transformational leadership. Journal of Leadership Studies, 3(3),

3148.Mendonca, M. (2001). Preparing for ethical leadership in organizations. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 18, 266276.Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York: Harper & Row.Mintzberg, H. (2004). The MBA menace. Fast Company, 83, 3132.

Nanus, B. (1992). Visionary leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Neal, J. A. (2000). Work as a service to the divine: Giving our gifts selflessly and with joy. Applied Behavioral Scientist, 43(8), 116133.Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). All those years ago: The historical underpinnings of shared leadership. In C. L. Pearce, & J. A. Conger (Eds.),

Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership (pp. 118). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Pitcher, P. (1997). The drama of leadership. New York: Wiley.Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2002). The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harvard Business Review, 80, 5669.Quatro, S. A. (2004). New age or age old: Classical management theory and traditional organized religion as underpinnings of the contemporary

organizational spirituality movement. Human Resource Development Review, 3, 228249.Ready, D. A., & Conger, J. A. (2003). Why leadership development efforts fail. Sloan Management Review, 44(3), 8388.Roethlisberger, F. J., & Dickson, W. J. (1966). Management and the worker. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Sashkin, M. (1988). The visionary leader. In J. A. Conger, & R. N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational

effectiveness (pp. 122160). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Schein, E. H. (1996). Culture: The missing concept in organizational studies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 229240.Senge, P. M. (1990). The leader's new work: Building learning organizations. Sloan Management Review, 31(3), 3345.Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.Shamir, B. (1991). The charismatic relationship: Alternative explanations and predictions. Leadership Quarterly, 2, 81104.Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization

Science, 4, 577594.Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. New York: Harper and Brothers.Turner, N., Barling, J., Epitropaki, O., Butcher, V., & Milner, C. (2002). Transformational leadership and moral reasoning. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 87, 304311.Van Knippenberg, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2003). A social identity model of leadership effectiveness in organizations. Research in Organizational

Behavior, 25, 243295.Waldman, D. A., & Yammarino, F. J. (1999). CEO charismatic leadership: Levels-of-management and levels-of-analysis effects. Academy of

Management Journal, 24, 266285.Welch, J. F., & Byrne, J. (2001). Jack: Straight from the gut. New York: Warner Business Books.Woodall, J. (2000). Corporate support for work-based management development. Human Resource Management, 10(1), 1831.Wortman, M. S. (1982). Strategic management and changing leader-follower roles. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 18, 371383.

441S.A. Quatro et al. / Human Resource Management Review 17 (2007) 427441Youndt, M. A., Snell, S. A., Dean, J. W., Jr, & Lepak, D. P. (1996). Human resource management, manufacturing strategy, and firm performance.Academy of Management Journal, 39, 836866.

Youngdahl, W., Waldman, D. A., & Anders, G. (1998). Leading the total quality transformation at Goodyear-Oxo, Mexico: An interview with HughPace. Journal of Management Inquiry, 7, 5965.

Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in organizations, 6th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Developing holistic leaders: Four domains for leadership development and practiceIntroductionACES a model for holistic leadership development and practiceAn introductory word about the spiritual domain

Theoretical and conceptual foundation for the ACES modelAnalytical domainConceptual domainEmotional domainSpiritual domainPutting it all together

A classification scheme for leadership developmentACES leadership development and a three-category classification schemeClassroom contextJob contextOrganizational context

ConclusionsReferences