Equifinality and the Key Role it Plays in Understanding the Future of Leadership
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.58315/jcld.v10.282Keywords:
Equifinality, Pathways, Leadership, CIP, DiversityAbstract
As organizations continue to increase in diversity across a range of demographic, value-based, and attitudinal variables, there can be a natural tension around differing styles and approaches to leading. We offer that these differences need not necessarily serve as a source of conflict if organizations are able to embrace the principle of equifinality. Equifinality, applied to leadership, represents the notion that there is more than one pathway to leading successfully. By focusing on equifinality as a core principle, stylistic differences can add to the fabric of organizational life rather than being a source of tension in it. We offer an example of an equifinality based approach to leading, the charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic (CIP) model to illustrate equifinality successfully applied as a core principle. We conclude by offering practical guidance on how to effectively apply an equifinality approach to leadership in organizations.
Downloads
References
Allen, J. B., Lovelace, J. B., Hunter, S. T., & Neely, B. H. (2020). Foundations of the CIP theory: An overview. In Extending the Charismatic, Ideological, and Pragmatic Approach to Leadership (pp. 22–47). Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351017152-2
Andenoro, A. C., & Skendall, K. C. (2020). The national leadership education research agenda 2020–2025: Advancing the state of leadership education scholarship. Journal of Leadership Studies, 14(3), 33–38. https://doi.org/10.1002/jls.21714
Ashmos, D. P., & Huber, G. P. (1987). The systems paradigm in organization theory: Correcting the record and suggesting the future. Academy of Management Review, 12(4), 607–621. https://doi.org/10.2307/258067
Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(90)90061-S
Bedell-Avers, K. E., Hunter, S. T., & Mumford, M. D. (2008). Conditions of problem-solving and the performance of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders: A comparative experimental study. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(1), 89–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.12.006
Department of Homeland Security. (2020). DHS inclusive diversity strategic plan for fiscal years 2021–2024. https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/20_1230_ochcoJournal%20_dhs-inclusive-diversity-strategic-plan_fy21-24_1_1.pdf
Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2003). The female leadership advantage: An evaluation of the evidence. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(6), 807–834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.09.004
Gresov, C., & Drazin, R. (1997). Equifinality: Functional equivalence in organization design. Academy of Management Review, 22(2), 403–428. https://doi.org/10.2307/259328
Hackman, J. R., & Wageman, R. (2007). Asking the right questions about leadership: Discussion and conclusions. American Psychologist, 62(1), 43–47. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.1.43
Hackman, J. R., & Wageman, R. (2007). Asking the right questions about leadership: Discussion and conclusions.
Harackiewicz, J. M., & Linnenbrink, E. A. (2005). Multiple achievement goals and multiple pathways for learning: The agenda and impact of Paul R. Pintrich. Educational Psychologist, 40(2), 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4002_2
Hunt, J. G. (1999). Transformational/charismatic leadership’s transformation of the field: An historical essay. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00015-6
Hunter, S. T., Bedell-Avers, K. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2009). Impact of situational framing and complexity on charismatic, ideological and pragmatic leaders: Investigation using a computer simulation. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 383–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.03.007
Hunter, S. T., Cushenbery, L. D., & Jayne, B. (2017). Why dual leaders will drive innovation: Resolving the exploration and exploitation dilemma with a conservation of resources solution. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(8), 1183–1195. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2195
Hunter, S. T., Cushenbery, L., Thoroughgood, C., Johnson, J. E., & Ligon, G. S. (2011). First and ten leadership: A historiometric investigation of the CIP leadership model. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(1), 70–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.008
Hunter, S. T., & Lovelace, J. B. (2022). There is more than one way to lead: The Charismatic, Ideological, and Pragmatic (CIP) theory of leadership. Cambridge University Press.
Hunter, S. T., & Lovelace, J. B. (Eds.). (2020). Extending the charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic approach to leadership: Multiple pathways to success. Routledge.
Jehn, K. A., Greer, L. L., & Rupert, J. (2008). Diversity and conflict. In: A Brief (Ed.), Diversity at work (pp. 166–219). Cambridge University Press.
Ligon, G. S., Hunter, S. T., & Mumford, M. D. (2008). Development of outstanding leadership: A life narrative approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(3), 312–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.03.005
Ligon, G. S., Logan, M. K., & Derrick, D. C. (2020). Malevolent charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders. In S. T. Hunter & J. B. Lovelace (Eds.), Extending the Charismatic, Ideological, and Pragmatic Approach to Leadership (pp. 143–172). Taylor Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351017152-6
Lindsay, D. R., & Friesen, K. L. (2020). Interdisciplinary leadership: Collectively driving the field forward: Priority 7 of the National Leadership Education Research Agenda 2020–2025. Journal of Leadership Studies, 14(3), 78–81. https://doi.org/10.1002/jls.21715
Lovelace, J. B., Neely, B. H., Allen, J. B., & Hunter, S. T. (2019). Charismatic, ideological, & pragmatic (CIP) model of leadership: A critical review and agenda for future research. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(1), 96–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.08.001
Miles, R. E., Snow, C. C., Meyer, A. D., & Coleman, Jr. H. J. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure, and process. Academy of Management Review, 3(3), 546–562. https://doi.org/10.2307/257544
Mumford, M. D. (2006). Pathways to outstanding leadership: A comparative analysis of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders. Psychology Press.
Musser, C. (2019, Nov 27). Why leaders should add equifinality to their vocabulary. Gallup. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/268508/why-leaders-add-equifinality-vocabulary.aspx
Porter, M. E. (1980). Industry structure and competitive strategy: Keys to profitability. Financial Analysts Journal, 36(4), 30–41. https://doi.org/10.2469/faj.v36.n4.30
Post, C., Latu, I. M., & Belkin, L. Y. (2019). A female leadership trust advantage in times of crisis: Under what conditions? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 43(2), 215–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684319828292
Rosette, A. S., & Tost, L. P. (2010). Agentic women and communal leadership: How role prescriptions confer advantage to top women leaders. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(2), 221. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018204
Saab, R., Tausch, N., Spears, R., & Cheung, W. Y. (2015). Acting in solidarity: Testing an extended dual pathway model of collective action by bystander group members. British Journal of Social Psychology, 54(3), 539–560. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12095
Salahuddin, M. M. (2010). Generational differences impact on leadership style and organizational success. Journal of Diversity Management (JDM), 5(2), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.19030/jdm.v5i2.805
Von Bertalanffy, L. (1950). The theory of open systems in physics and biology. Science, 111, 23–29. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.111.2872.23
Weber, M. (1924). The theory of social and economic organizations. Free Press.
Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organizations. Translated by T. Parsons. Free Press.
Published
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Sam Hunter, Austin C. Doctor, Matthew Allen, Gina S. Ligon
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors contributing to Journal of Character & Leadership Development agree to publish their articles under the terms of the Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 License. Authors retain copyright of their work, with first publication rights granted to the JCLD.
