Standard Article

Leadership
2024, Vol. 0(0) 1–19
Advancing the democratization © The Author(s) 2024

of work: A new intellectual Article reuse guidelines:

history of transformational sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/17427150241232705

leadership theory journals.sagepub.com/home/lea

Lauren Eaton, Todd Bridgman, and Stephen

Cummings
School of Management, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington,
New Zealand

Abstract
Amidst growing demands for more democratic forms of organizing, we argue that better un-
derstanding the origins of transformational leadership theory offers a way forward. Trans-
formational leadership theory, originally developed by American political scientist James MacGregor
Burns in the late 1970s, is the best-known and most influential leadership theory in management
studies. Transformational leaders are visionaries who engage with followers’ higher-level needs and
inspire them to deliver extraordinary outcomes for their organizations. Democracy was at the core
of Burns’ conception of transformational leadership: voters selected their leaders and voted them
out if they failed to deliver on their visions. However, this was overlooked by those who introduced
the theory to management studies. Using intellectual history, we contrast the conventional rep-
resentation of transformational leadership theory in business with Burns’ original conception. We
explore how and why the democratic foundation of the theory was lost, why this matters, and what
can be done to recover it.

Keywords
Leadership, transformational leadership, management and organizational history, management
education

Calls for more democratic forms of organizing have grown louder in recent years to address en-
vironmental destruction and social inequalities, which corporations have contributed to through their

Corresponding author:
Lauren Eaton, School of Management, Victoria University of Wellington, 23 Lambton Quay, Pipitea, Wellington 6011, New
Zealand.
Email: lauren.eaton@vuw.ac.nz
2 Leadership 0(0)

single-minded pursuit of profits (Amis et al., 2020; Battliana et al., 2022; Tomaskovic-Devey and
Avent-Holt, 2019; Wright and Nyberg, 2017). Drawing on lessons learnt from the Covid-19
pandemic about the vital role played by essential (and largely low-wage) workers, Harvard Business
School professor Julie Battilana and colleagues Isabelle Ferreras and Dominique Méda launched an
initiative to reorganize the economy on three dimensions: democratizing firms, decommodifying
labor, and decarbonizing the environment (Ferreras et al., 2020). Democratizing firms means in-
volving employees in decisions. Ferreras et al. (2020) call for work councils, which have existed in
Europe since the 1940s, to be granted similar rights to boards of directors, with chief executives
requiring the approval of both for major decisions including strategic direction, profit distribution,
and even the selection of CEOs: “A personal investment of labor – that is, of one’s mind and body,
one’s health, one’s very life – ought to come with the collective right to validate or veto these
decisions”.
Even before Covid-19, pressures for a stronger voice for employees were building. The US
Business Roundtable’s redefinition of the purpose of a corporation to promote “an economy that
serves all Americans” (Business Roundtable, 2019) was heralded as the end of shareholder primacy,
the view that maximizing shareholder value should be the primary objective of corporations.
However, an analysis of corporate documents from 128 companies that joined the statement
concluded that it was “mostly for show” and the companies “did not intend it or expect it to bring
about any material changes in how they treat stakeholders” (Bebchuk and Tallarita, 2022: 1031).
Rather than benefit stakeholders, the main effect of the Roundtable’s statement was to release
pressure for regulation to protect stakeholders. Consistent with this argument, Raghunandan and
Rajgopal (2020) found that signatories of the statement spent more on lobbying policymakers than
companies who were not signatories. Workplace democracy advocates argued that if the Roundtable
was serious that companies exist for the benefit of all stakeholders, including employees, then
employees must be given greater control over them (Rodgers, 2019). As Dewey (1937: 218) noted,
democracy requires that “all those who are affected by social institutions must have a share in
producing and managing them”.
The view that employees should elect their leaders is a significant challenge to prevailing
mainstream thinking on corporate leadership. Since the 1980s, transformational leadership, orig-
inally developed by American political scientist James MacGregor Burns, has been one of the most
studied areas of leadership (Spector, 2016; van Knippenberg and Sitkin, 2013). Burns (1978), in
analyzing American politics, concluded the nation needed ‘transforming leaders’ with visions of
a better future, rather than ‘transactional leaders’ who engaged in pork barrel politics, exchanging
campaign promises for votes. His idea was subsequently translated into management studies by
Bernard Bass and others as a theory that conceived of leaders as heroic, inspirational figures whose
visions of the future inspire and galvanize employees, resulting in employees working harder, being
more committed to the organization and ultimately generating higher levels of performance. Bass
(2008) developed four key factors to characterize transformational leadership:

- Idealized influence relates to charisma and outlines the way a leader performs that makes
a follower want to identify with them
- Inspirational motivation is the stimulating vision, goals, and high standards that the leader
sets for the followers and the organization
- Intellectual stimulation describes the leader’s ability to invite followers to question and
challenge assumptions
- Individual consideration characterizes the leader’s skill in appealing to the individuality of
each follower by treating them as special and important.
Eaton et al. 3

One such ‘transformational leader’ celebrated in business is Facebook creator and CEO Mark
Zuckerberg. Zuckerberg’s leadership is regarded as a key contributor to his phenomenal success as
an entrepreneur: his passion, sense of purpose, fostering a culture of empowerment, and his
commitment to innovation (Walter, 2013). Stephen Robbins, the world’s best-selling management
textbook author describes Zuckerberg as an example of a transformational leader who has “im-
measurable influence on shaping the culture of their organization” (Robbins et al., 2015: 98).
Robbins et al. note that in his early days Zuckerberg “would end employee meetings by pumping his
fist in the air and leading employees in a chant of ‘domination’” (p. 100).
The glow surrounding Zuckerberg’s transformational leadership has faded dramatically in recent
years. Facebook has been caught up in numerous controversies over the privacy of the data it collects
on users. The highest profile case, in 2018, involved Cambridge Analytica, a political consulting
which collected data and used it to advise candidates running for office, including Donald Trump.
Cambridge Analytica got hold of the personal data of 87 million Facebook users via a quiz app
developed by Aleksandr Kogan, a data scientist at University of Cambridge. Kogan’s app, This is
Your Digital Life, collected data not just from those who agreed to take the quiz but all the people in
their Facebook network. Facebook was criticized for acting too slowly when they became aware of
the breach and for not taking data privacy more seriously.
Recently, Facebook’s biggest shareholders expressed anger at Zuckerberg’s pledge to continue
investing heavily in his vision of an embodied internet, the metaverse, reflected in the rebranding of
his social media company as Meta. Despite a 75% fall in Facebook’s share price, Zuckerberg
doubled down on the vision, projecting even bigger losses in the year ahead (Waters and Agnew,
2022). Shareholders were upset but were powerless to stop him since he owns 13% of the equity of
the company, and controls 54% of the votes through a special class of shares (Waters and Agnew,
2022). According to Naughton (2021), “Facebook is a dictatorship entirely controlled by its founder,
Mark Zuckerberg”.
The capture of a corporation by a transformational leader who ignores criticism and doggedly
pursues their vision at enormous cost confirms the worst fears of critics of transformational
leadership theory. Dennis Tourish has been writing about this ‘dark side’ of transformational
leadership for more than 20 years (Tourish, 2013; Tourish and Pinnington, 2002). Tourish’s target
has not so much been leaders themselves, but business schools for their uncritical promotion of
transformational leadership theory and slavish worship of celebrity CEOs, starting with General
Electric’s Jack Welch in the 1980s.
We share Tourish’s concerns about the dangers of transformational leadership theory. And we
agree with him that one “cannot separate the practice of leadership from how it is taught” (2013: 97),
making it important to reflect on how leadership is taught in business schools. However, unlike
Tourish, who sees transformational leadership theory as incompatible with more democratic or-
ganizations, we suggest that it can be part of the solution. To make this argument, we return to the
origins of the theory, developed by Burns. Democratic mechanisms and institutions were crucial for
Burns, but when the theory was brought into management studies by Bass and others, this
democratic foundation was lost.
We are not the first to have spotted differences between Burns’ and Bass’ conceptualizations of
transformational leadership theory (Burnes and By, 2012; Carey, 1992; Denhardt and Campbell,
2006; Khanin, 2007; Simola et al., 2010; Yukl, 1999). While the democratic component is generally
overlooked, it has been noted by some (Allix, 2000; Burnes et al., 2016; Wilson, 2016). Wilson sees
the potential of transformational leadership theory to enhance workplace democracy, noting that
“perhaps now is a good time to recapture this [democratic] ideal and try to put it to work properly”
(2016: 217). We concur, and seek to advance this agenda by exploring this forgotten past of
4 Leadership 0(0)

transformational leadership. Drawing on Burns’ original conception, we develop an alternative to

the dominant understanding of the theory within management studies, including within management
textbooks. Our alternative representation has implications for how leadership is taught and practiced.
If students can see that transformational leadership theory, in its original form, can be a means for
democratizing work, there is hope that leadership might be practiced differently in the future.
We begin in the next section with a brief review of intellectual history, the methodological
approach we employ to look more deeply and more critically at the origins of transformational
leadership theory.

Methodology
Our methodological approach in this study is intellectual history, defined by Gordon (2012: 1) as
“the study of intellectuals, ideas, and intellectual patterns over time”. In intellectual history, un-
derstanding the social, economic, cultural, and political context in which an idea arises is critical
(Higham, 1961).
The deployment of intellectual history within the study of leadership has been led by Bert
Spector. His book Discourse on Leadership: A Critical Appraisal (2016) is a wide-ranging critical
analysis of how the concept of leadership has developed over time. The central premise of Spector’s
work is that ideas have consequences. By understanding that ideas are powerful and subjective
forces that can either change or reinforce the status quo, researchers explore how and why ideas
occur when they do (Higham, 1961; Spector, 2014, 2016). In studying leadership, Spector examines
how the idea has been “articulated, studied, and debated by academics as well as practitioners,
journalists, and those who sought to influence the thoughts of others” (Spector, 2016: 1). To ef-
fectively engage in a critical historical examination using intellectual history, the researcher should
follow the literature trail wherever it takes them (Spector, 2016).
Spector’s work in this regard builds on a growing body of research aimed at the critical in-
vestigation of the origins of management and organization ideas, a body that has been termed
a ‘historic turn’ (Clark and Rowlinson, 2004), or an increased ‘sensitivity to history’ (Suddaby,
2016), that recognizes the importance of historical context and processes (Coraiola et al., 2021; Mills
et al., 2014; Rowlinson et al., 2014). One stream of this body, termed the ‘uses of the past’, focuses
on how organizational actors produce and use history in the present (Lubinski, 2018; Paludi et al.,
2021). A second stream focuses on how management studies uses the past to project pathways into
the future, and it is this stream that we seek to contribute to.
Central to both streams is the distinction between the past and history. As Jenkins (1991: 14)
notes, the production of history is always a subjective process, and “no matter how verifiable, how
widely acceptable or checkable, history remains inevitably a personal construct, a manifestation of
the historian’s perspective as a ‘narrator’”. This challenges the objectivist view of the historian as an
impartial observer who conveys the ‘facts’ of the past (Munslow, 1997). For Jenkins, the writing of
history always has a purpose, it is always for someone, or something.
A recurring feature of the second stream of work in management studies’ historical turn has been
shining a light on the crafting of a sanitized, ideologically conservative narrative of the field’s past
(Cooke, 1999). Cooke’s historiographical review of the subfield of change management highlighted
that its “very construction has been a political process which has written the left out and shaped an
understanding of the field as technocratic and ideologically neutral” (Cooke, 1999: 81). In a similar
vein, Cummings et al. (2016) concluded that Kurt Lewin’s foundational ‘change as three steps’
model (unfreeze-change-refreeze) is a later construction by others rather than by Lewin himself, and
legitimizes a top-down, managerialist conception of planned change within organizations. Others
Eaton et al. 5

have highlighted how past events – slavery, African American, Latino, and other ‘minorities’
contributions, the role of female thought-leaders – have been forgotten or absented from man-
agement history (Cooke, 2003; Desmond, 2019; O’Connor, 2000; Prieto and Phipps, 2019;
Rosenthal, 2018; Wanderley et al., 2021; Williams and Mills, 2017).
Highlighting the misrepresentations of foundational theories in management studies, and im-
portant omissions from our field’s history in this way, is not an end-in-itself. Cavanagh et al. (2023:
9) advocate ‘historical sensibility’, defined as “sensitivity to and appreciation of possible pasts in
future, action-oriented decision-making”, as a means of stimulating critical and innovative thinking.
As Bridgman & Cummings argue, “if we can think about theory differently, there is a possibility we
can act differently too” (2021: 122).
Our research investigations began with an analysis of Burns’ development of trans-
formational leadership theory in the book Leadership (1978). Monographs are helpful because
they are lengthy and detailed, and because they provide insight into the author’s state of mind.
We then focused on the scholars who brought Burns’ ideas into management studies and
argued that powerful transformational leaders would rescue organizations from economic
decline by establishing compelling visions to inspire their workforces (Bennis and Nanus,
1985; Tichy and Devanna, 1986; Tichy and Ulrich, 1984). In particular, we focused on the
work of Bernard Bass, the researcher most associated with transformational leadership theory
in management studies. A founding editor-in-chief of Leadership Quarterly, Bass is the most
cited leadership scholar.
From here, we dug deeper into the context around transformational leadership theory’s adaptation
by paying attention to those Bass was citing and acknowledging for their intellectual contributions.
These were primarily books, monographs, and journal articles – the typical outputs of academic
study. We supplemented this academic literature with interviews, news articles, obituaries, and
organization websites.
Finally, we drew on management textbooks as cultural artefacts that both mirror and shape
organizational practices, reflecting the practical concerns of both scholars and current and future
organizational participants (Calás and Smircich, 1989). Textbooks are “intrinsically important to the
constitution and maintenance of a discipline” (Lynch and Bogen, 1997: 663) and the primary
instrument for students engaging in management studies (Stambaugh and Trank, 2010). By con-
structing an understanding of what management is, textbooks reinforce and legitimize established
dominant logics, socializing students as to how they will be managed and what is expected of them
as future managers (Cameron et al., 2003; Cavanagh et al., 2023; Cummings et al., 2017; Williams
and Mills, 2019). In addition to analyzing transformational leadership theory’s representation in
a variety of leading management textbooks, we analyze 18 editions of Robbins’ Organizational
Behavior. Notably, Robbins published the first edition only 1 year after Burns published Leadership
(1978), but transformational leadership theory was not included until the fourth edition published in
1989, shortly after Tichy, Ulrich, Bass, and Devanna introduced the theory to management studies.
Following the editions of this same textbook, allowed us to analyze how the theory’s representation
was altered by changing contexts over time.
Through this approach, our paper offers an alternative history of transformational leadership
theory. We explore how the theory has come to be represented in management studies, contrast this
representation with the origins of the theory in political science, and provide explanations for what
might explain the differences. Instead of dismissing transformational leadership, as many now do,
rethinking its history in this way can make it possible to practice leadership differently too. Indeed,
rather than being the enemy of greater workplace democracy, we argue that recovering the origins of
the theory can help us advance it in practice.
6 Leadership 0(0)

James Macgregor Burns’ transforming leadership theory

“Ultimately the moral legitimacy of transformational leadership, and to a lesser degree transactional
leadership, is grounded in conscious choice among real alternatives”

(Burns, 1978: 36, emphasis in original)

Burns’ Leadership (1978) is regarded as a seminal text, gained a Pulitzer Prize, boasts more than
40,000 citations on Google Scholar, and changed how people thought about leadership theory. Burns
distinguished between transactional and transforming leadership. In transactional leadership
“leaders approach followers with an eye to exchanging one thing for another: jobs for votes, or
subsidies for campaign contributions” (p. 4). Transforming leadership, he argued, is more complex
and more potent: “the transforming leader looks for potential motives in followers, seeks to satisfy
higher needs, and engages the full person of the follower” (p. 4). Transforming leadership has
a transformative effect on both leaders and followers: “it raises the level of human conduct and
ethical aspiration of both leader and led” (p. 20). Burns’ exemplar was Mahatma Gandhi, “who
aroused and elevated the hopes and demands of millions of Indians and whose life and personality
were enhanced in the process” (p. 20).
Transforming leadership was, for Burns, moral leadership, that resulted not just in higher levels of
motivation, but higher levels of morality too. Burns explained in three distinct points what moral
leadership meant to him (Burns, 1978). First, leaders and followers need to have a relationship built
on mutual needs, aspirations, and values beyond brute power. For Burns, brute power is comparable
to a dictatorship where leaders use a title or force to lead or ‘rule’. Second, followers must be aware
of different leaders and programs and be able to choose amongst these alternatives, as reflected by
the quotation at the head of this section. For Burns, a political scientist, the capacity to choose
amongst alternative leaders and programs meant voting for a democratically elected political
representative. In election campaigns, followers must be “exposed to the competing diagnoses,
claims and values of would-be leaders” (1978: 36) so that followers can determine their own true
needs. These true needs are defined by their motives, values, and goals. Burns (1978) believed that
leaders should be opposed and contested by followers and other leaders and that competition and
conflict are central to leadership. This process is what makes leadership moral. The third aspect of
moral leadership is that leaders must take responsibility for their promises and commitments.
Thus, for Burns, for leadership to be moral, there needed to be democratic institutions and
mechanisms. He wanted to create distance between his theory of leadership and the leadership of
dictators and tyrants. In 2001, when asked whether his thinking on leadership had evolved since his
1978 book, Burns was even “more impressed by the role of conflict, which tends to be downplayed
in much of the literature by people who are more interested in consensus” (Bailey and Axelrod,
2001: 115). Burns highlighted and dismissed the tendency of leadership scholars to favour con-
sensus over conflict, identifying “the notions of competition and conflict, leaders and followers, the
reciprocal process, mobilization” as crucial elements of leadership (Bailey and Axelrod, 2001: 115).
Burns reiterated the connection between leadership and democracy in his 2003 book Transforming
Leadership: A Pursuit of Happiness. When leaders empower followers, there is a chance that
followers’ beliefs and confidence might sow the seeds of conflict: “Followers might outstrip leaders.
They might become leaders themselves. That is what makes transforming leadership participatory
and democratic” (Burns, 2003: 26). Burns’ belief in the importance of conflict in the leader-follower
relationship made him wary of charismatic leaders. Charisma disrupts the empowerment process
Eaton et al. 7

between leader and followers, resulting in obedient followers with no mechanism or desire to give
feedback to their leader. Burns regarded charismatic leadership as confusing and undemocratic at
best and tyranny at worst.
There can be no doubt, therefore, that democratic processes were central to Burns’ theorizing of
transforming leadership. The view that followers should vote for their leaders, judge them on their
ability to deliver their promises, and remove them from office when they fail to do so is un-
remarkable, given that Burns’ theory is developed in the context of democratic politics of a nation-
state. In the next section, we explore what happened when Burns’ theory of transforming leadership
was picked up by management writers.

The transformation of transforming leadership theory

This section proceeds in three stages: the state of management studies before Burns’ publication of
Leadership; the social, economic, and political context during the translation of the theory that
shaped its evolution within management studies; and what happened (and did not happen), after the
translation that obscured important elements of Burns’ theorizing, especially those related to
democratic processes.

Before: Management studies in the 1970s

The 1970s were a difficult time for the American people. In 1971 President Richard Nixon re-
sponded to increasing inflation by implementing wage and price freezes. Two years later, the price of
oil increased dramatically and tipped the economy into a recession. It was a turbulent time in US
labor history, with militant picket lines and industry-wide strikes a response to employer attempts to
erode gains won by unions.
The intellectual ideas circulating at the time reflected what was happening on the ground. One
representation of this is the Google Ngram in Figure 1, which shows phrases that have occurred in
a corpus of books over different timeframes. Interest in industrial democracy was high during the
1970s, just as it had been in the tumultuous period of employer-labor relations from 1910 to 1930.
A related idea, also reaching new heights in the 1970s, was participation in management. One
scholar at the forefront of this idea was Bernard Bass (Bass et al., 1979; Bass and Shackleton, 1979).
Bass and Shackleton (1979) compared and synthesised American and European representations of
participative management and industrial relations. Industrial democracy was more formal and had
a legal element, while participative management was more informal. Industrial democracy was
suited to organized worker representation, and participative management was a more face-to-face
collaborative approach between managers and employees. Bass & Shackleton were enthusiastic
about the future of shared decision-making in organizations, concluding “it is unlikely that the trend
toward industrial democracy and participative management is a passing fad” (1979: 402) and that “in
the coming years, we expect increasing attention to be paid to industrial democracy and participative
management” (1979: 403).
These predictions did not prove to be correct, because the context shifted in ways that were
unfavourable for greater involvement by employees in decision-making. Neoliberalism, which had
fallen out of favour following the Second World War, began regaining popular support, culminating
in the election of Ronald Reagan as US President in 1981 following a period of stagflation. Its
intellectual leader, Milton Friedman who served as an advisor to Reagan, advocated a free market
economic system with minimal government intervention. Friedman’s 1962 book, Capitalism and
Freedom, was a best-seller, but his most well-known contribution is his 1970 article in The New York
8 Leadership 0(0)

Figure 1. Google Ngram.

Times, where he stated that ‘the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits’. With the
role of business within neoliberalism being maximizing shareholder value, the push for industrial
democracy and participative management subsided.
The poor performance of the US economy was also of great concern to management writers.
Hayes and Abernathy’s 1980 article in Harvard Business Review warned readers that corporate
America was managing its way to economic decline. American organizations lacked technical
competitiveness and growth compared to other countries, and they blamed management rather than
external forces like inflation, government regulation, and tax policy: “modern management prin-
ciples may cause rather than cure sluggish economic performance” (1980: 67). Other writers
wondered why the Japanese economy was performing so much better, and their search for ideas that
could rescue the US economy led to widespread interest in Japanese management practices.
Japanese companies were extolling the importance of having shared values, moving away from
mechanistic views of organizations, and focusing on shared beliefs, behavior, knowledge, values,
and goals (Ouchi, 1981; Pascale and Athos, 1982).
Another link in the chain was psychoanalyst Abraham Zaleznik’s Harvard Business Review article
published in 1977, which introduced the idea that leaders and managers were different. Managers were
impersonal, passive, risk-averse, anxious people who could tolerate mundane work, and whose work is
primarily an enabling process that conserves and regulates the existing order. In contrast, leaders were
personable, active, risk seekers and takers, who developed fresh approaches to problems. Zaleznik
lamented that conditions of society, including business organizations, favoured the development of
managers and were stifling to leaders who exhibited creativity and imagination (Zaleznik, 1977).
This was a clarion call for leadership, but within management studies, research on leadership had
stagnated. In Robbins’ first three editions of his Organizational Behavior textbook (1979, 1983,
1986), before the first inclusion of transformational leadership theory, Robbins described the state of
leadership research as voluminous, confusing, and contradictory. Leadership research was primarily
focused on individual and group behavior, and scholars lacked a grand idea to establish the study of
leadership (Spector, 2016).
A struggling US economy, the rise of neoliberalism, and the inability of existing leadership ideas
to provide a compelling solution to the problems of the day, was fertile ground for the seeding of
Burns’ theory of transforming leadership within management studies. The publication of Leadership
(1978) turned attention to “the statesmen who moved and shook the world” (Bass, 1993: 375). By
connecting leadership theory to leaders at the top, Burns unknowingly created an exciting and
seemingly much-needed shift for management scholars to refresh their focus.
Eaton et al. 9

During: Translating transforming leadership theory

Tichy and Ulrich (1984), writing in Sloan Management Review, were the first to make the connection
to Burns and express enthusiasm for the potential of transformational leaders. They laid the blame
for the continued decline of American corporations on “transactional managers” (p. 59) who lacked
a compelling vision of the future and clung to the status quo. The key to revitalising large cor-
porations like General Motors, AT&T, and General Electric was a “new brand of leadership” (p. 59),
a “solid corporate example of what Burns referred to as a transforming leader” (p. 60).
Tichy and Ulrich’s personification of transformational leadership in action was Lee Iacocca,
chairperson of Chrysler Corporation, who “provided the leadership to transform a company from the
brink of bankruptcy to profitability” (1984: 59). Tichy and Ulrich (1984: 63) outlined “three
identifiable programs of activity associated with transformational leadership”: create a vision,
mobilize commitment, institutionalize change. Creation of the vision is the responsibility of the
transformational leader, not something to be delegated to others. Iacocca “developed a vision
without committee work or heavy staff involvement”, relying instead on his “intuitive and directive
leadership, philosophy, and style” (p. 64). Mobilizing commitment occurs when “the organization,
or at least a critical mass of it, accepts the new mission and vision and makes it happen (p. 64).
Iacocca mobilized large factors of employees to his vision “while simultaneously downsizing the
workforce by 60,000 employees” (p. 59). The institutionalization of change requires trans-
formational leaders to “transmit their vision into reality” through changes in communication,
decision-making, and corporate culture. Iacocca used internal communication to signal his vision,
appeared in Chrysler’s ads to be the face of change, and transformed the internal culture “to that of
a lean and hungry team looking for victory” (p. 60).
Spector (2014) concluded that Iacocca was little more than a ‘macho bully’ and Tichy and
Ulrich’s use of him as the “embodiment of the transformational leadership construct” was, “at best,
highly romanticized” and at worst “misleading and disingenuous” (2014: 361). However, it is easy
to see elements of Burns’ theory that were appealing to management scholars. It could be moulded to
a narrative that the decline of corporate America could only be reversed by heroic, daring CEOs with
visions of a more prosperous future. It could also be drawn on to promote the view that leadership
and organizational change are inextricably linked, thereby providing support for a new sub-field of
change management that was taking shape at the start of the 1980s. For Tichy and Ulrich, leaders
were people who transformed organizations. Their three elements of transformational leadership
closely resemble Kotter’s (1995) eight steps for transforming organizations, and a range of other
models developed in this period (Cummings et al., 2016). Less appealing to Tichy, Ulrich, and other
management writers were Burns’ ideas on morality and democracy.
While Bass was not the first to draw on Burns’ theory for a management audience, he would
become the person most associated with transformational leadership theory within our field. In his
book Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations (1985a), Bass listed ways his con-
ceptualisation differed from Burns. Burns (1978) wanted to reserve transforming leadership for the
forces of good and believed that Hitler exemplified everything he believed leadership was not. Bass
dismissed Burns’ argument that transformation must be ‘elevating’, arguing that while Hitler was an
immoral and brutal leader, he was transformational in the sense that he created change and
transformed Germany. Thus, he dismissed Burns’ grounding of transforming leadership in morality,
at the same time strengthening the association of the theory with transformational change.
Bass’ stance on the morality of leadership shifted in an article Ethics, Character, and Authentic
Transformational Leader Behavior (1999), co-authored with Paul Steidlmeier. They argued that
genuine transformational leadership must be grounded in moral foundations (Bass and Steidlmeier,
10 Leadership 0(0)

1999). When leaders act consciously or unconsciously in bad faith, this is inauthentic or pseudo-
transformational leadership. Pseudo-transformational leaders are less likely to listen to conflicting
views and are intolerant of differences of opinion between them and their followers. Bass retracted
his earlier claim that transformational leaders could be ‘virtuous or villainous’ by stating that he was
mistaken (Bass and Steidlmeier, 1999).
However, this article also makes clear Bass’ thinking on worker voice and participation in
business decisions. Remember, in the 1970s Bass was a leading promoter of participation in
management and shared decision-making. In addressing critics of transformational leadership who
argued the theory “is antithetical to organizational learning and development involving shared
leadership, equality, consensus and participative decision-making” (Bass and Steidlmeier, 1999:
192–3) Bass and Steidlmeier (1999: 202–3) responded:

“For human relationists, the coming together of the values of the leader and followers is morally ac-
ceptable only if it comes about from participative decision-making pursuing consensus between leaders
and followers. Whether a leader is participative or directive, however, is not a matter of morality. It is
a matter of the naiveté or experience of the followers and many other contextual considerations. In many
cases, directive leadership is more appropriate and acceptable to all concerned”.

What is striking in reading the work of Bass and other management writers who translated Burns’
theory for a management audience is that there is no consideration that Burns was writing about
politicians and voters. If readers were not aware of this, it could easily be assumed that Burns was
writing about corporate America. We found no explicit critical reflection on the parallels and
differences between the contexts of democratic politics and business. Rather, key differences are
assumed – the business world does not operate according to democratic principles, employees do not
vote for their leaders, the role of leaders is to drive change from the top-down to improve orga-
nizational performance, and participation, dissent, and questioning of leaders’ visions are welcome
only when it strengthens the proposed change. Burns chose to overlook Burns’ essential democratic
foundation of transforming leadership theory – despite his earlier interest in industrial democracy
and participative management.

After: Burns’ response to transformational leadership theory

The 1980s saw a great tidal wave of interest in transformational leadership, depicted in Figure 1. As
it grew in influence, interest in industrial democracy and participative management waned. As we
have seen, the theory of transformational leadership that emerged within management studies was
quite different to that developed by Burns in political science. In this section, we investigate Burns’
response to those developments.
Burns was certainly aware of how Bass and others were shaping his theory. The foreword of
Transformational Leadership, published in 2006 by Bass and Ronald Riggio, describes a meeting of
leadership scholars at the University of Maryland nearly a decade earlier. The topic for debate was
whether Hitler was a transformational leader. As noted earlier, Bass initially took the view that
transformational leaders were those who created transformational change, irrespective of their moral
values. The foreword, signed off by Burns and Georgia Sorenson of the Burns Academy of
Leadership, states that “after 3 days of intense debate, Burns, the scholar, took a bold stand: from his
perspective, the term ‘leadership’ should be reserved for the forces of good” (2006: viii). While
Burns staunchly defended the essence of his theory being grounded in morality, there is no mention
of the democratic underpinnings of his notion of moral leadership.
Eaton et al. 11

Why didn’t Burns defend the democratic component of transforming leadership? Perhaps Burns,
a political scientist, shared Bass’ view that business was an area where democratic principles did not
apply. More likely, based on an interview Burns had with Bailey and Axelrod (2001), he felt it was
not his place to comment on management scholars’ development of his theory. Burns was asked
what it takes to be a great organizational leader and to comment on the challenges business leaders
face. He responded: “I do not pretend to be an authority, or even deeply informed, on organizational
leadership aside from reading some of the work that has been done in this area” (Bailey and Axelrod,
2001: 116). Burns was complimentary toward Bass and his associates and expected they would be
remembered as great leadership theorists (Bailey and Axelrod, 2001).
Another possible explanation is that Burns was grateful to Bass and other management scholars
for popularizing his work. Political theorists have neglected the issue of leadership because of
greater concern for democratic government and ideas of ‘equality, justice, and community’ (Peele,
2005). Tintoré and Güell (2015) analyzed the 100 most-cited leadership articles in politics, business,
and education. They found that “transformational” was the most commonly occurring word (beyond
the words “leadership” and school”). However, “transformational” was not mentioned in any of the
political science articles – all the occurrences were in business and education articles. It would be
misleading to suggest Burns had no impact on political science. A Center for Political Leadership
and Participation opened in 1981 at University of Maryland and in 1997 this was renamed The James
Macgregor Burns Academy of Leadership. However, in 2017 its official home became the Møller
Centre, an executive education provider in Cambridge, reflecting the influence of Burns’ thinking in
business. Perhaps this made it easier for Burns to ignore the democratic deficit in the translation of
his theory.

Recovering the democratic origins of transformational leadership

Why does it matter that Burns’ democratic underpinning of transformational leadership theory was
ignored by management scholars who popularised his theory? In this section, we put forward three
reasons. First, it matters because transformational leadership theory remains influential, evidenced
by its continued appearance in executive education programmes, management textbooks, and
discussions of leadership in business and the popular press. Second, it matters because there is an
opportunity provided by our alternative history of transformational leadership theory to change how
we teach it to business students. Third, it matters because if we teach the theory differently and in
a way that is closer to Burns’ original thinking, alternative approaches to leadership can emerge that
can contribute to the democratization of work.
Returning to the origins of transformational leadership theory and tracing its evolution matters
because the theory remains influential. The theory was included in all mainstream and critical
management textbooks that we sampled (Buchanan and Huczynski, 2019; Clegg et al., 2019;
Griffin, 2019; King and Lawley, 2019; McShane et al., 2019; Robbins et al., 2022; Schermerhorn
et al., 2020; Williams, 2022). All outline the conventional understanding, namely Bass’ repre-
sentation of transformational leaders as visionaries who drive organizational change by inspiring
their followers to go beyond their own self-interest and perform above expectations. Some ac-
knowledge the essential moral element of transformational leadership that Bass came to accept later
in his career (Schermerhorn et al., 2020; Williams, 2022). Moreover, some explore the ‘dark side’ of
transformational leadership (Buchanan and Huczynski, 2019; Clegg et al., 2019; King and Lawley,
2019; McShane et al., 2019). But none deal with the democratic origins of the theory developed by
Burns and therefore none explore the possibility of how the theory might be applied to promote
workplace democracy.
12 Leadership 0(0)

The second reason why exploring the evolution of transformational leadership theory matters is
because it reminds us that foundational theories of management are not set in stone. As histori-
ography teaches us, the production of history is always a subjective process – a necessary selection
by the historian of people, places, and events as important, and others as unimportant. So it is with
the construction of management theories. We have examined how influential management writers
crafted transformational leadership theory for their audience, in response to the context they in-
habited at the start of the 1980s – the decline of America as the global economic powerhouse, a lack
of trust between managers and workers, and a feeling that management had become impotent. Bass
and his contemporaries took from Burns the importance of individual leaders, the centrality of
a vision, the need to mobilize the commitment of followers, and the idea of transformational change.
They used these ideas to craft a new management manifesto for corporate America. As we have seen,
these writers also looked past important elements of Burns’ theory which were not helpful for their
agenda – the essential morality of transforming leadership and, most importantly from our per-
spective, that moral leadership requires followers to choose their leaders.
Just as Burns’ transforming leadership theory was transformed by management writers in the
1980s, so it can be transformed again for the very different context we face today – alarming climate
change, growing social and economic inequalities, an expectation on corporations to address them,
and growing calls for the democratization of work. Nothing is stopping us from refashioning
transformational leadership for today’s challenges, in a way that is closer to Burns’ original thinking.
Table 1 presents the conventional representation of transformational leadership theory, generated
from our analysis of management textbooks, and alternative representation drawn from our his-
torical analysis. The table was inspired by Burnes et al. (2016) who reimagined organizational
change leadership by revisiting the seminal work of Burns and Kurt Lewin.
For Burns, democracy shaped all four elements of morality, power, conflict, and the role of
followers. Transforming leadership is only moral if followers select their leaders. Opposition and
conflict between leaders and followers are essential and act as mechanisms to prevent leaders from
accruing excessive power. After selecting their leaders, the role of followers is to hold them ac-
countable for their performance.

Table 1. Two representations of transformational leadership theory.

Conventional representation Alternative representation

Morality Transformational leadership theory is grounded Transforming leadership theory is only moral
in moral foundations, and leaders must act in if followers can select their leader from
good faith (Bass and Riggio, 2006; Bass and several options (Burns, 1978).
Steidlmeier, 1999).
Power Power is necessary for transformational leaders Power is not leadership, and mechanisms must
to have the ability to make changes (Bennis exist to reduce the power of leaders (Burns,
and Nanus, 1985). 1978, 2003).
Conflict Transformational leaders should listen to views Opposition and contestation from other
that conflict with theirs to benefit the vision potential leaders and followers are essential
(Bass and Steidlmeier, 1999). (Bailey and Axelrod, 2001; Burns, 1978,
2003).
Role of To be inspired to look past their self-interest and To make informed choices about who they
followers go above and beyond for their organization want their leaders to be and hold them
(for example Robbins, 1989, 1991). accountable (Burns, 1978).
Eaton et al. 13

In contrast, the conventional representation is silent on these democratic elements. While trans-
formational leaders should act with morality and in good faith, they are not accountable to followers in
the way that Burns envisaged. It is leaders’ responsibility to develop a vision for the organization and
to inspire employees to look past their self-interest, buy into that vision and help make that vision
a reality. Transformational leaders are encouraged to listen to views that conflict with their own, but
only in ways that benefit the vision and organizational performance. In the conventional represen-
tation, transformational leadership theory has an instrumental purpose – to enhance the performance of
the organization rather than the broader social outcomes that Burns articulated.
The third reason why looking again at the origins of transformational leadership and how it was
translated for a management audience matters is that if management students were taught trans-
formational leadership in a way closer to Burns’ conception, the theory could contribute to democratizing
work. To be sure, there are arguments against giving employees a vote on who leads them: employees
usually do not have an ownership stake in the business and might therefore vote for leaders who will give
them pay raises or go easy on them, rather than for leaders with the best interests of the organization at
heart. Or it might be argued that conducting votes on leaders and other key decisions would paralyze
organizations and make them too unresponsive to a rapidly changing business environment. We do not
pretend that the idea of more democratic structures in organizations is straightforward. But we do believe
the issue warrants more serious consideration and debate given the challenges we face today. Textbooks
presenting our alternative representation of transformational leadership theory, alongside the conven-
tional representation, would stimulate that debate. We acknowledge that this might be a challenge for
best-selling management textbooks, which predominantly reflect a unitarist, managerialist worldview. At
the very least, we would welcome management textbooks with a critical orientation to consider our
alternative representation for inclusion.
This is not an abstract debate about how theory is represented. The practical implications are real
and important. Earlier we discussed the case of Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, celebrated in
management textbooks as a visionary and the inspiration behind the company’s extraordinary
success (Robbins et al., 2015), but more recently blamed for its fall from grace, the company
a dictatorship controlled by its founder who cannot see past his grand vision of the metaverse
(Naughton, 2021). Facebook is not an isolated example. Amazon’s Jeff Bezos was featured in the
sixteenth edition of Organizational Behavior as an exemplar of a successful leader (Robbins and
Judge, 2015). However, not mentioned is Amazon’s notorious reputation for underpayment of
workers, extreme physical exertion in fulfilment centres, brutal corporate culture, and a series of
fatalities in the workplace. How we teach leadership and management theory to students socializes
them into how they should behave as employees and how they should operate as managers (Calás
and Smircich, 1989; Cavanagh et al., 2023; Stambaugh and Trank, 2010). If we teach theory
differently, there is the possibility that organizations will be led differently in the future.

Conclusion
The case of transformational leadership is another example of Cooke’s (1999) writing the left out of
management theory. An obituary of Burns mentions his politics were left-wing (Weber, 2014). He
ran for Congress as a Democrat in 1958 and commented that another party’s supporters attacked him
for being an “atheistic communist, etc” (Bailey and Axelrod, 2001: 114). Burns was passionate
about democracy and concerned about the abuse of power. These concerns influenced his work and
can be identified throughout his seminal book Leadership (1978). The moral element of trans-
forming leadership is what concerned him most. This morality, he explained, is defined by whether
followers have “conscious choice amongst real alternatives” (Burns, 1978: 36).
14 Leadership 0(0)

The democratic component of transforming leadership theory that was crucial to Burns was
unimportant to those who introduced it to management studies. His work was co-opted by man-
agement theorists to further their interests in top-down, transformational change. Bass, formerly an
advocate of employee participation in management decision-making, became enamoured with the
idea of powerful, heroic leaders and their grand visions for organizational transformation. He
actively dismissed critics’ concerns about the lack of checks on transformational leaders and argued
that, in most cases, directive leadership is more appropriate (Bass and Steidlmeier, 1999).
Looking deeper into the origins of transformational leadership theory matters because it remains
influential. While Figure 1 shows interest might have peaked, its leader-centrism means it shares
a strong family resemblance to other popular approaches to leadership today, including authentic,
responsible, ethical, servant, and positive leadership theories (Alvesson and Einola, 2019; Robbins
and Judge, 2018; Spector, 2014). It also remains influential outside of academic circles, including in
the popular press, with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky (Fox, 2022) and former New
Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern recently described as transformational leaders (Grant, 2021).
The field of transformational leadership research is not without problems. In a damning review of
25 years of transformational leadership research, van Knipperberg and Sitkin (2013: 45) concluded “it
is a body of research riddled with major problems”: a flawed construct, no definition of the theory
independent of its effects, and no explanation of how the dimensions of the theory can be differentiated
from other aspects of leadership. While they argue that transformational leadership, as a concept,
should be “dropped from scientific inquiry”, they also accept that their call “is decidedly not to say that
we should abandon all ideas and insights from research in charismatic-transformational leadership”
(van Knipperberg and Sitkin, 2013: 45–6.) We agree that although the science is deeply flawed, there is
value in exploring the theory in new ways, as we propose in this article.
We are conscious that at present, there appears little enthusiasm amongst critical management
scholars for transformational leadership theory. Tourish (2013) worries the theory breeds cultish
organizations. Cults typically have a charismatic leader and a compelling vision. Followers are
rewarded for compliance and penalized for dissent. Followers are encouraged to believe the leader
has their best interests at heart and a common culture is seen to be necessary for the group to succeed,
making dissent or critique even less likely. However, this is a criticism of the conventional rep-
resentation, and in particular, Bass’ conception of idealized influence which relates to followers
identifying more readily with charismatic leaders. As explained earlier, charisma was not a pre-
requisite for Burns’ transforming leaders. In fact, he was wary of charismatic leaders for exactly the
reason that Tourish is.
Tourish (2013) prefers Burns’ pluralist notion of transactional leadership – the idea of leaders
recognising that followers might have different interests and objectives and therefore engaging in
some ‘give and take’ around that. We believe this can be accommodated within Burns’ conception,
since he makes it clear that opposition and contestation from other followers and leaders are essential
to transforming leadership. Tourish’s other suggestion is to consider more democratic processes in
organizations. This is where we encourage Tourish and those promoting workplace democracy to
look again at the potential of transformational leadership. Remember, Burns believed that the ability
of followers to elect their leaders was a necessary safeguard against the threat of transformational
leaders going rogue. What if employees were given the right to choose who leads them, as well as the
power to replace them?
We acknowledge that transformational leadership can be seen as more of the same – a theory of
individual leadership with a binary relationship between leader and followers – which means we fail
to recognise the potential of collective leadership (Currie and Lockett, 2007; Raelin, 2018). While
we welcome the development of collective approaches, in many organizations this is not a realistic
Eaton et al. 15

alternative for now. For this to occur there needs to be greater democratization of work. Trans-
formational leadership theory, in its original, democratic form, is a useful step along that path.
We also acknowledge this paper only looks at a narrow aspect of transformational leadership
theory, the lost democratic component. Some may be critical of our favoring of Burns’ concep-
tualization of the theory when he was silent on other aspects like gender and race, which are
important parts of any discussion of leadership (Ladkin and Patrick, 2022). Other narratives are still
possible, and we encourage future research in this regard.
In exploring the origins of transformational leadership theory, we build on and seek to contribute
to, critical historical research within management studies. We also contribute to developing
a business education that is more aware of the historical origins and evolution of theories for the
purpose of cultivating critical, reflexive practitioners (Cavanagh et al., 2023; Cunliffe, 2016;
Tcholakian et al., 2023). We do not claim to have the answers to the challenges facing business and
society today. We do suggest that looking again at Burns and reflecting critically on how the
democratic context in which he developed his ideas might be applied to the workplace is
a worthwhile undertaking. The advantages of pursuing this, as well as the limitations and potential
problems, are all issues of worthy debate in our business schools.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD
Lauren Eaton  https://orcid.org/0009-0008-9151-4248

References
Allix N (2000) Transformational leadership: democratic or despotic? Educational Management & Adminis-
tration 28(1): 7–20.
Alvesson M and Einola K (2019) Warning for excessive positivity: authentic leadership and other traps in
leadership studies. The Leadership Quarterly 30(4): 383–395.
Amis JM, Mair J and Munir KA (2020) The organizational reproduction of inequality. Academy of Management
Annals 14(1): 195–230.
Bailey J and Axelrod R (2001) Leadership lessons from mount rushmore: an interview with James MacGregor
Burns. The Leadership Quarterly 12(1): 113–121.
Bass B (1985a) Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations. New York: The Free Press.
Bass B (1993) A seminal shift: the impact of James Burns’ leadership. The Leadership Quarterly 4(3): 375–377.
Bass B (2008) The Bass Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Application. 4th edition. New York: Free Press.
Bass B and Riggio R (2006) Transformational Leadership. 2nd edition. New York: Psychology Press.
Bass B and Shackleton V (1979) Industrial democracy and participative management: a case for a synthesis. The
Academy of Management Review 4(3): 393–404.
Bass B and Steidlmeier P (1999) Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. The
Leadership Quarterly 10(2): 181–217.
Bass B, Shackleton V and Rosenstein E (1979) Industrial democracy and participative management: what’s the
difference? Applied Psychology 28(2): 81–92.
16 Leadership 0(0)

Battilana J, Yen J, Ferreras I, et al. (2022) Democratizing work: redistributing power in organizations for
a democratic and sustainable future. Organization Theory 3(1): 1–21.
Bebchuk L and Tallarita R (2022) Will corporations deliver value to all stakeholders? Vanderbilt Law Review
75: 1031–1091.
Bennis W and Nanus B (1985) Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge. 1st edition. New York: Harper & Row.
Bridgman T and Cummings S (2021) A Very Short, Fairly Interesting and Reasonably Cheap Book about
Management Theory. California: Sage Publications.
Buchanan D and Huczynski A (2019) Organizational Behaviour. 10th edition. Harlow: Pearson.
Burnes B and By R (2012) Leadership and change: the case for greater ethical clarity. Journal of Business Ethics
108(2): 239–252.
Burnes B, Hughes M and By R (2016) Reimagining organisational change leadership. Leadership 14(2):
141–158.
Burns JM (1978) Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Burns JM (2003) Transforming Leadership: A New Pursuit of Happiness. New York: Grove Press.
Business Roundtable (2019) Business Roundtable redefines the purpose of a corporation to promote ‘an economy
that serves all Americans’. Available at: https://www.businessroundtable.org/business-roundtable-redefines-
the-purpose-of-a-corporation-to-promote-an-economy-that-serves-all-americans (accessed 9 January 2023).
Calás M and Smircich L (1989) Using the F word: feminist theories and the social consequences of orga-
nizational research. Academy of Management Proceedings 1989(1): 355–359.
Cameron K, Ireland R, Lussier J, et al. (2003) Management textbooks as propaganda. Journal of Management
Education 27(6): 711–729.
Carey M (1992) Transformational leadership and the fundamental option for self-transcendence. The Lead-
ership Quarterly 3(3): 217–236.
Cavanagh A, Croy G, Wolfgram Cox J, et al. (2023) Developing and harnessing historical sensibility to
overcome the influence of dominant logics: a pedagogical model. Academy of Management Learning &
Education 22(4): 595–620.
Clark P and Rowlinson M (2004) The treatment of history in organization studies: towards an ‘historic turn.
Business History 46(3): 331–352.
Clegg S, Kornberger M, Pitsis T, et al. (2019) Managing & Organizations: An Introduction to Theory and
Practice. 5th edition. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Cooke B (1999) Writing the left out of management theory: the historiography of the management of change.
Organization 6(1): 81–105.
Cooke B (2003) The denial of slavery in management studies. Journal of Management Studies 40(8):
1895–1918.
Coraiola D, Barros A, Maclean M, et al. (2021) HISTÓRIA, memória E passado em estudos organizacionais E
de gestão. Revista de Administração de Empresas 61(1): 1–9.
Cummings S, Bridgman T and Brown KG (2016) Unfreezing change as three steps: rethinking Kurt Lewin’s
legacy for change management. Human Relations 69(1): 33–60.
Cummings S, Bridgman T, Hassard J, et al. (2017) A New History of Management. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Cunliffe A (2016) “On becoming a critically reflexive practitioner” redux: what does it mean to be reflexive?
Journal of Management Education 40(6): 740–746.
Currie G and Lockett A (2007) A critique of transformational leadership: moral, professional and contingent
dimensions of leadership within public services organizations. Human Relations 60(2): 341–370.
Denhardt J and Campbell K (2006) The role of democratic values in transformational leadership. Adminis-
tration & Society 38(5): 556–572.
Desmond M (2019) In order to understand the brutality of American capitalism, you have to start on the
plantation. New York Times. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/14/magazine/
slavery-capitalism.html (Accessed: 9 January 2023).
Eaton et al. 17

Dewey J (1937) Democracy and educational administration. Later Works 11: 217–218.
Ferreras I, Battilana J and Méda D (2020) Let’s democratize and decommodify work. Boston Globe, 15 May.
Available at: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/05/15/opinion/lets-democratize-decommodify-work/
(Accessed: 9 January 2023).
Fox E (2022) Ukraine’s Zelensky is the master of transformational leadership. Forbes, 19 March. Available at:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericaarielfox/2022/03/19/ukraines-zelensky-is-the-master-of-
transformational-leadership/ (Accessed: 16 May 2022).
Friedman M (1962) Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Friedman M (1970) September 13) The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York
Times Magazine 122–126.
Gordon P (2012) What is intellectual history? A frankly partisan introduction to a frequently misunderstood
field. The Harvard Colloquium for Intellectual History. Available at: https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/
harvardcolloquium/pages/what-intellectual-history (Accessed: 11 November 2022).
Grant D (2021) Jacinda Ardern Is a truly transformational leader. Stuff, 4 July. Available at: https://www.stuff.
co.nz/national/politics/opinion/300348036/jacinda-ardern-is-a-truly-transformational-leader (Accessed: 16
May 2022).
Griffin R (2019) Fundamentals of Management. 10th edition. Australia: Cengage.
Hayes R and Abernathy W (1980) Managing our way to economic decline. Harvard Business Review 58(4):
67–77.
Higham J (1961) American intellectual history: a critical appraisal. American Quarterly 13(2): 219–233.
Jenkins K (1991) Rethinking History. New York: Routledge.
Khanin D (2007) Contrasting Burns and Bass: does the transactional – transformational paradigm live up to
Burns’s philosophy of transforming leadership? Journal of Leadership Studies 1(3): 7–25.
King D and Lawley (2019) Organizational Behaviour. 3rd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kotter J (1995) Leading change: why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review 73(2): 59–67.
Ladkin D and Patrick CB (2022) Whiteness in leadership theorizing: a critical analysis of race in Bass’
transformational leadership theory. Leadership 18(2): 205–223.
Lubinski C (2018) From ‘history as told’ to ‘history as experienced’: contextualizing the uses of the past.
Organization Studies 39(12): 1785–1809.
Lynch M and Bogen D (1997) Sociology’s asociological ‘core’: an examination of textbook sociology in light
of the sociology of scientific knowledge. American Sociological Review 62(3): 481–493.
McShane S, Olekalns M, Newman A, et al. (2019) Organisational Behaviour: Emerging Knowledge, Global
Insights. Asia-Pacific Edition. 6th edition. Australia: McGraw Hill Education.
Mills AJ, Weatherbee TG and Durepos G (2014) Reassembling Weber to reveal the-past-as-history in
management and organization studies. Organization 21(2): 225–243.
Munslow A (1997) Deconstructing History. London: Routledge.
Naughton J (2021) Has Mark Zuckerberg’s total control of Facebook turned into a liability? The Observer, 25
September. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/25/mark-zuckerberg-
facebook-senate-hawley-thiel-cambridge-analytica (Accessed: 9 January 2023).
Ouchi W (1981) Theory Z: How American Business Can Meet the Japanese Challenge. Reading: Addison-
Wesley.
O’Connor ES (2000) Integrating follett: history, philosophy and management. Journal of Management History
6(4): 167–190.
Paludi MI, Mills JH and Mills AJ (2021) Histórias corporativas E a ideia da AMÉRICA latina. Revista de
Administração de Empresas 61(1): 1–14.
Pascale RT and Athos AG (1982) The Art of Japanese Management. New York: Penguin.
Peele G (2005) Leadership and politics: a case for a closer relationship? Leadership 1(2): 187–204.
Prieto LC and Phipps ST (2019) African American Management History: Insights on Gaining a Cooperative
Advantage. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited.
18 Leadership 0(0)

Raelin JA (2018) What are you afraid of? Collective leadership and its learning implications. Management
Learning 49(1): 59–66.
Raghunandan A and Rajgopal S (2020) Do socially responsible firms walk the talk? SSRN. Available at: https://
ssrn.com/abstract=3609056.
Robbins S (1979) Organizational Behavior: Concepts and Controversies. 1st edition. New Jersey: Prentice
Hall.
Robbins S (1983) Organizational Behavior: Concepts, Controversies, and Applications. 2nd edition. New
Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Robbins S (1986) Organizational Behavior: Concepts, Controversies, and Applications. 3rd edition. New
Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Robbins S (1989) Organizational Behavior: Concepts and Controversies. 4th edition. New Jersey: Prentice
Hall.
Robbins S (1991) Organizational Behavior: Concepts and Controversies. 5th edition. New Jersey: Prentice
Hall.
Robbins S and Judge T (2015) Organizational Behaviour. 16th edition. New Jersey: Pearson.
Robbins S and Judge T (2018) Organizational Behaviour. 18th edition. New Jersey: Pearson.
Robbins S, Bergman R, Stagg I, et al. (2015) Management7. Melbourne: Pearson.
Robbins S, Coulter M, DeCenzo D, et al. (2022) Management: The Essentials. 5th edition. Australia: Pearson.
Rodgers B (2019) Democracy in the firm and the workplace. Boston Review, 1 October. Available at: https://
www.bostonreview.net/forum_response/brishen-rogers-democracy-firm-and-workplace/ (Accessed: 9
January 2023).
Rosenthal C (2018) Accounting for Slavery: Masters and Management. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Rowlinson M, Hassard J and Decker S (2014) Research strategies for organizational history: a dialogue between
historical theory and organization theory. Academy of Management Review 39(3): 250–274.
Schermerhorn J, Davidson P, Woods P, et al. (2020) Management. Asia-Pacific edition. 7th edition. Australia:
Wiley.
Simola SK, Barling J and Turner N (2010) Transformational leadership and leader moral orientation: con-
trasting an ethic of justice and an ethic of care. The Leadership Quarterly 21(1): 179–188.
Spector B (2014) Flawed from the “get-go”: Lee Iacocca and the origins of transformational leadership.
Leadership 10(3): 361–379.
Spector B (2016) Discourse on Leadership: A Critical Appraisal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stambaugh J and Quinn Trank C (2010) Not so simple: integrating new research into textbooks. Academy of
Management Learning & Education 9(4): 663–681.
Suddaby R (2016) Toward a historical consciousness: following the historic turn in management thought. M@
n@gement 19: 46–60.
Tcholakian L, Khapova S and van de Loo E (2023) Historical consciousness in executive education programs:
engaging with transgenerational collective traumas. Academy of Management Learning & Education 22(3):
459–480.
Tichy N and Devanna MA (1986) The Transformational Leader. New York: Wiley.
Tichy N and Ulrich D (1984) SMR forum: the leadership challenge–A call for the transformational leader. Sloan
Management Review 26(1): 59–68.
Tintoré M and Güell C (2015) Leadership today: politics, business and education in the web of science. In:
International Conference on Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences, Paris, FR, 25–26 November 2015.
Emirates Research Publishing, 333–339.
Tomaskovic-Devey D and Avent-Holt D (2019) Relational Inequalities: An Organizational Approach. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Tourish D (2013) The Dark Side of Transformational Leadership: A Critical Perspective. London: Routledge.
Tourish D and Pinnington A (2002) Transformational leadership, corporate cultism and the spirituality par-
adigm: an unholy trinity in the workplace? Human Relations 55(2): 147–172.
Eaton et al. 19

Van Knippenberg D and Sitkin SB (2013) A critical assessment of charismatic-transformational leadership

research: back to the drawing board. Academy of Management Annals 7: 1–60.
Walter E (2013) Think like Zuck: The Five Business Secrets of Facebook’s Improbably Brilliant CEO Mark
Zuckerberg. New York: McGraw Hill.
Wanderley S, Alcadipani R and Barros A (2021) Re-centering the global south in the making of business school
histories: dependency ambiguity in action. Academy of Management Learning & Education 20(3): 361–381.
Waters R and Agnew H (2022) Meta shareholders vent anger at Zuckerberg’s spending binge. Financial Times,
31 October. Available at: https://www.ft.com/content/0f4c676c-56a6-4b5e-850f-ddb78f9feb40 (Accessed:
9 January 2023).
Weber B (2014) James MacGregor Burns, scholar of presidents and leadership dies at 95. New York Times, 15
July. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/16/us/james-m-burns-a-scholar-of-presidents-and-
leadership-dies-at-95.html (Accessed: 27 July 2022).
Williams C (2022) MGMT. 12th edition. Boston: Cengage.
Williams KS and Mills AJ (2017) Frances Perkins: gender, context and history in the neglect of a management
theorist. Journal of Management History 23(1): 32–50.
Williams KS and Mills AJ (2019) The problem with women: a feminist interrogation of management textbooks.
Management & Organizational History 14(2): 148–166.
Wilson S (2016) Thinking Differently about Leadership. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Wright C and Nyberg D (2017) An inconvenient truth: how organizations translate climate change into business
as usual. Academy of Management Journal 60(5): 1633–1661.
Yukl G (1999) An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories.
The Leadership Quarterly 10: 285–305.
Zaleznik A (1977) Managers and leaders: are they different? Harvard Business Review 55(3): 67–78.

Author biographies
Lauren Eaton (lea.bhl@cbs.dk) is a PhD Fellow at the Department of Business Humanities and
Law at Copenhagen Business School, Denmark. Her research leverages history as a lens to critically
examine the present and to think creatively about the future, particularly in the areas of leadership,
entrepreneurship, and society.

Todd Bridgman (PhD, University of Cambridge; todd.bridgman@vuw.ac.nz) is Professor of

Management Studies at Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand, and Emeritus Editor of
Management Learning. His research interests lie at the intersection of management history,
management education, and critical management studies.

Stephen Cummings (PhD, University of Warwick; stephen.cummings@vuw.ac.nz) is Professor of

Strategy at Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand, and former chair of the Academy of
Management’s CMS division. His research examines how conventional views of history can limit
innovation.