Leadership is about ideas and actions. Put simply, it is about implementing new ideas into creative
actions to achieve desired results. Doing so, however, is far from simple. We know leadership re-
quires considerable skills and abilities. It requires knowledge and insight—about one’s organization
or entity, its people, goals, strengths and market niche. Yet, something more is needed. Leadership
also requires a kind of awareness beyond the immediate, an awareness of the larger pictures—of
paradigms that direct us, beliefs that sustain us, values that guide us and principles that motivate us,
our worldviews.
This article will, first, briefly examine how the concept of worldviews is used in leadership study
and the contexts in which it arises. Second, it will critically look at worldviews, recognizing that they
are not always coherent and that our belief systems are often fragmented and incomplete. Third, it
will argue for the relevance of the concept worldview in leadership study as a way to explore vari-
ous visions of life and ways of life that may be helpful in overcoming the challenges we face today.
Fourth, it will examine how national and global issues impact worldview construction, especially
among the millennial generation. Our conclusions set some directions for leadership action in light
of worldview issues.
W O R L D V I E W S A N D
L E A D E R S H I P : T H I N K I N G
A N D A C T I N G T H E B I G G E R
P I C T U R E S
JOHN VALK, STEPHAN BELDING, ALICIA CRUMPTON, NATHAN HARTER, AND JONATHAN REAMS
54
JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES, Volume 5, Number 2, 2011©2011 University of PhoenixView this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com • DOI:10.1002/jls.20218
JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 5 • Number 2 • DOI:10.1002/jls 55
as well as the effect of dispelling earlier assumptions ofan overriding homogeneous and uniform worldviewembraced by all.
At this point the concept of worldview is often usedinterchangeably with terms such as mental models, par-adigms, organizing devices, contexts, and operating systems(Beck & Cowan, 1996; Klenke, 2008). A worldview isseen as serving a particular function, encompassingdeeply held beliefs about reality that shape and influ-ence how individuals think and act. Worldviews deter-mine priorities and reinforce one’s view of reality andof what is true and right (Barrett, 2006; Ciulla, 2000;Hames, 2007). Yet, where it has focused specifically onworldviews, leadership study has confined it largely toreligious and spiritual worldviews as applied to indi-viduals and groups or organizations (Hicks, 2003;Lindsey, 2007). It has left numerous secular world-views largely unexamined.
The concept of worldview does surface within lead-ership development. It is recognized that a person’s lifecontext shapes how one develops—altering one’s life context alters one’s course of development (Luthans &Avolio, 2003). Further, each person interprets and as-signs significance of meaning to different events, whichin turn become a lens through which we view the worldaround us (Avolio, 2005). These are what Gadamer,Weinsheimer, and Marshall (2004) called prejudices:points of view that define our immediate horizon of un-derstanding. Self-awareness, or learning to identify andunderstand one’s own worldview, becomes a cornerstoneof leadership, for a leader’s worldview impacts an or-ganization and those that operate within it. From theperspective of leaders as change agents, this becomesparticularly important. Leaders assist others in creatingand making sense of their experience and in so doing“reconstruct reality” and “recompose truths” (Drath,2001, pp. 144, 147).
How Robust Is the Idea of“Worldviews”?As scholars begin to incorporate the idea of worldviewsin leadership study, some may ask whether the conceptitself is sufficiently robust at this point for leadership study.Setting aside for the time being the particular content of aworldview, as well as the degree of one’s commitment to a
The Concept of Worldviews inLeadership StudiesMultiple ways of knowing and cross-cultural literacy aregoals of leadership. As such, leadership study requiresbroad awareness in order to build bridges of understand-ing. It necessitates worldview literacy and the ability tocommunicate in plural and diverse settings. Essentially,it encourages awareness of one’s own view or vision oflife as a means to better engage with others. Awarenessof diverse views or perspectives is necessary so peoplecan engage in common cause in a multifaceted world(Drath, 2001).
Worldview is a concept that requires an interdiscipli-nary, multidisciplinary, and perhaps even transdiscipli-nary approach to fully understand its tenets andapplication. It is overtly and robustly defined in certaindisciplinary areas—religious studies, philosophy, andanthropology—but is only slowly surfacing in leader-ship study (Crumpton, 2010). Here, it is used with lim-ited clarity and consensus, with only some semblanceand points of agreement.
Lack of worldview definitional clarity and precisionwithin leadership study should not be surprising giventhat leadership study has undergone significant para-digm shifts. Leadership study emerged within the con-text of modernity and its emphasis on objectiverationality. But it came to be influenced by postmoder-nity and its emphasis on multiple ways of knowing,and language and knowledge construction. Today,much of leadership study embraces what is often re-ferred to as glocalism, an emphasis on thinking glob-ally and acting locally (Antonakis, Cianciolo, &Sternberg, 2004; Burke, 2008; Northouse, 2010;Schwandt & Szabla, 2007). Leadership study recog-nizes that increasing cultural and racial diversity havebeen brought on by globalism. Further, technology hasopened the door for alternative ways of viewing theworld and the necessity of new leadership practicessuch as global or cross-cultural leadership and intercul-tural communication (Chhokar, Brodbeck, & House,2009; Rondinelli & Heffron, 2009). As such, the im-portance of exploring similarities and differences be-tween worldviews has surfaced. With it comes fosteringself-awareness (what is my worldview?) and the under-standing of others (what is another person’s worldview?),
56 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 5 • Number 2 • DOI:10.1002/jls
Knowledge of words spoken does not automaticallyimply understanding; that they make sense to someoneelse. Our powers of comprehension or even inferenceare not infallible.
A worldview is also dynamic—it changes over time.Jaspers characterized “the construction of worldviewsas a continuous, lifelong process stimulated by the ex-perience of disturbance” (cited in Webb, 2009, p. 15).What one believes and values today can be quite differ-ent tomorrow. Measuring something that does not holdstill is difficult (Aerts et al., 2007). Kegan refers to theseas “a succession of holding environments” (cited inWebb, 2009, p. 50). Aerts et al. (2007) maintain thatany worldview is “fragile” (p. 10). Broekaert (1999) em-ploys the more optimistic term openness—every world-view is open to revision or even replacement.Worldviews are dynamic; they can evolve (Vidal, 2007).Webb (2009) credited Jaspers with insisting that aworldview is indefinite and fluid, a work in progress.
Woodrow Wilson (1952) wrote about leadership as an academic administrator. But did the same thoughtsand attitudes prevail in his mind later during his years inpublic office? We know certain leaders change theirviews because they attest to that change and lead dif-ferently thereafter as a result. In other situations, ofcourse, the change might be subtle or even unconscious.But do changes in some of the views one holds entail awholesale change in the worldview one holds?
Many people today are unaware of or have doubtsabout their own worldviews. Sociologists refer to thisas anomie, based on the Latin, “being without coherentwholeness” (Webb, 2009, p. 1). Some seem not to carewhether or not they have a worldview. Noonan (1990)alleges that U.S. President Ronald Reagan was quiteoblivious to his own worldview. Henry Adams (1999)said much the same thing about President UlyssesGrant. Neither man was known for being particularlyintrospective. Yet each president in his own way was aleader. Is awareness of one’s own worldview, therefore,a precondition for leadership?
It can, nonetheless, be argued that everyone has aworldview of some sort ( Webb, 2009). Worldviews aresocially constructed over time (Vidal, 2007). The com-munities to which people belong—religious, social, ed-ucational, and political—influence what they espouse(Smith, 2003; Wacquant, 2006). Yet, just as no two
given worldview, a question remains as to whether thevery idea of discussing or incorporating “worldviews” en-hances leadership study (Webb, 2009). An investigationinto worldviews might begin with an epistemic questionregarding the detection and examination of a worldview.Can one infer the presence of worldviews? If so, whatcan be inferred based on the evidence?
Laing (1967) concluded that the study of the experi-ences of others will indeed be based on inferences sinceno one has direct access to the minds of others. Never-theless, in ordinary experience, people do believe thereis something there, which suggests there is somethingthere to interpret. People seem to have reasons for whatthey do, even if those reasons turn out to be difficult toestablish. Reasons for action are linked to worldviews.
Dennett (2005) impugns folk psychology, wonder-ing how anyone can know what somebody else might bethinking—or whether they are thinking at all. He main-tains that it is next to impossible to really know some-one else’s worldview. Even if one does claim to have aworldview, he or she may well be mistaken as to itsstructure and content. He or she may also not neces-sarily act in light of it.
Dennett’s claims notwithstanding, perhaps most ob-vious to the notion that a person has a worldview iswhat he or she might say about it. Friedrich Nietzsche(1887/1956), among others, speculated that humansgive reasons for their behavior not because those rea-sons did in fact lead to particular decisions, but becauseof the desire to rationalize behavior after the fact. Dopeople admit to a worldview to avoid the truth about abasis for action they would prefer to disguise or dis-avow? Might avowals of a worldview be evasions or ra-tionalizations, disguising what really goes on in thehuman mind? Nietzsche was quite suspicious of peo-ple’s testimony. In fact, Lansky once referred to the“doubting of surface rationalization that so dramaticallycharacterizes virtually all of Nietzsche’s work” (1999, p. 179). The suspicion is that reference to one’s world-view might be a smokescreen of self-justification,whether conscious or unconscious. In other words, as-suming to know someone’s worldview based solely onwhat is reported about it can be problematic.
Language itself can be a barrier to effective understand-ing of the worldviews of others (Aerts et al., 2007). Thisholds even when two people speak the same language.
JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 5 • Number 2 • DOI:10.1002/jls 57
increasingly elaborate and complex—arguably exceedingany one individual’s powers of explanation. Understand-ing worldview complexity becomes another challenge forleadership study (Aerts et al., 2007; Webb, 2009).
There may be more challenges. What role, for in-stance, do factors such as lust, pride, or greed play indetermining worldviews? We know they can play aformative role in leadership action, but how constitutiveare they in determining beliefs and values? Do they con-tribute to worldview incoherence, or even worldviewschizophrenia, potentially creating discrepancies be-tween espoused belief and concrete action? These factorsmay be internal to the individual but nonetheless in-fluence and shape external behavior.
Worldviews and Their Implicationsfor LeadershipIt was the Cheshire Cat in Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Won-derland who said, “If you don’t know where you aregoing, any road will get you there.” To rephrase onlyslightly, if you do not know your own beliefs and values,any will do, as will any road or virtual highway. Butthoughtful minds are more discerning. A Lutheran“Here I stand” or a Gandhian “Be the change that youwant to see in the world” requires careful reflection inorder to achieve the world we need or want, for theworld we need or want is crucially linked to our world-view—our beliefs and values. Leadership for action re-quires reflection on our worldviews.
In light of the challenges posed in regard to use ofthe concept of worldview in leadership study, world-view development, or “know thyself ” as the Oracle ofDelphi decreed, is crucial for studying the past, assess-ing the present, and planning for the future. Worldviewdevelopment, however, must also be linked to compar-ative religionist Max Muller’s dictum, “He who knowsone, knows none”: knowledge of one’s own worldviewcannot be accomplished without some knowledge ofthose of others (cited in Sharpe, 1975, p. 36).
G. K. Chesterton argued that “the most practical andimportant thing about a man is his view of the universe”(1986, p. 41). According to Parks (1991), humans havean inherent desire to make sense of their universe: we aremeaning-makers. We need and desperately want to makesense of our world: to compose/dwell in some conviction
people are the same, so no two worldviews are the same.No matter how thick the spirit of homonoia or like-mindedness, there will always be at least some variation(Webb, 2009). Further, worldviews are not ascribed ex-clusively to individuals; a community can also be de-fined by a particular worldview (Aerts et al., 2007;Webb, 2009). Thus, one can speak of a collective world-view influencing individual worldviews and that indi-vidual worldviews can also influence a collectiveworldview.
In all of this, worldviews require interpretation. Here,two challenges present themselves. First, any interpreta-tion of a worldview will be filtered through the world-view of the interpreter (Klüver, 1926). An investigatormust recognize and take into account that he or she,too, has a worldview. That worldview serves as a lens orframework through which the worldview of another isinterpreted and described. The existence, character, andcontent of one’s own worldview do not imply anythingsimilar in regard to that of another person. One is illadvised to jump too quickly from the content of one’sown mind to inferences about the content of another.
Second, worldviews can often be fundamentally inco-herent, inconsistent, and unclear (Aerts et al., 2007).They may be tattered, makeshift constructs that makesome sense of daily life, but may also be little more thanevolutionary truces or temporary versions of an adoptedworldview, as Kegan (1982) inferred. Worldviews maybe partial—comprised of bits and pieces that lack ap-parent connection. They may be filled with unresolvedcontradictions and may change over time. A person’sworldview may resemble a patchwork of evolving sub-worldviews and not something coherent and complete,a notion consistent with the pluralistic imagery es-poused by James (1909/1996).
Yet, any concept is an abstraction from lived realityand certain features will be included and others ex-cluded. No worldview is so elaborate as the reality it at-tempts to depict. That is impossible, and misses thepoint of worldview construction ( Whitehead, 1938,1951). Worldviews, however articulate or inarticulate,coherent or incoherent, complete or incomplete, are ab-stractions of the world in which we live. But worldviewdevelopment is the very act of overcoming inarticulate-ness, incoherence, and incompleteness (McKenzie,1991). What is constructed will invariably become
58 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 5 • Number 2 • DOI:10.1002/jls
academic disciplines attempt to understand, identify,and describe larger patterns of thinking and/or acting,frequently employing the term worldview in the process(Foltz, 2003; Kriger & Seng, 2005; Sire, 2004).
These larger patterns of thinking or worldviews comewith totalizing narratives: assertions or explanations of“the way the world is” as seen from a particular perspec-tive. But all perspectives require interpretation, for real-ity and a particular view of it are not synonymous. Noone stands at the mountaintop. For this reason, ourworldview is necessarily a “leap of faith” about the na-ture of reality, which requires at minimum a small meas-ure of humility and a great deal of interpretation.
Perhaps it has been the reluctance to distinguish real-ity from its interpretations that has led postmodernismto reject the totalizing or meta-narratives often impliedor assumed in worldviews, arguing that these narratives,if not the worldviews themselves, need to be decon-structed for what they really are—struggles for power,control, and domination. History is replete with suchworldview struggles, and the current era is no different.Yet, it would be an oversimplification to assert that allattempts to understand one’s own worldview or those ofothers automatically translate into struggles for or pre-sumptions of moral, religious, cultural, and economicsuperiority. In leadership studies a genuine desire to un-derstand “the other,” in order to better know the self,might be more appropriate as we come increasingly torecognize ourselves as citizens of a global world.
Reflection on our visions of life and our ways of life—on what we believe and value and why, and the partic-ular kinds of directives and actions that result fromthem—is important in the academic training of lead-ers, especially when postmodern fears of distinguishingdifferences will lead to pursuits of power, attitudes ofsuperiority, or false notions of what is real and true.That became apparent in issues surfacing at the 1993World Parliament of Religions held in Chicago. Ingham(1997) mentions that leading scientists stated, in a sur-prising turn of events, that solutions to the world’sbiggest challenges lay not in more political action, bettertechnology, or increased economic initiatives. Solutions,they argued, lay rather in guidance from some of theworld’s most respected spiritual leaders. Tapping intothe wisdom of the past, understanding its relevance for the present, and allowing it to guide us into the
of what is ultimately true (Peterson, 2001). In the process, we create things, ideas, stories, and experiencesthat speak to some of the deepest realities of our lives.The result is “worldview construction”—creating mean-ing in a world that can appear confusing and meaning-less (McKenzie, 1991; Naugle, 2002). Worldviews arethus meaningful visions of life.
Worldviews are also ways of life. Everyone has a con-scious or subconscious way of acting and behaving inthe world based on particular beliefs and values. Thesemay be known, articulated, or discerned by individu-als or groups to greater or lesser degrees. Achieving con-sistency and congruency in our visions and ways of lifeis challenging: We all readily profess one thing and doanother. Beliefs can be loosely adhered to, incompatible,or in tension, leading to inconsistent or contradictoryaction: “talking our walk” does not always match “walk-ing our talk” (Olsen et al., 1992; Olthuis, 1985). Thismay readily reflect human weakness but does not erodethe need to be anchored in some coherent sense of thereality we experience.
The reality that we experience does, of course,change. As our reality changes, so does our understand-ing of ourselves, others, and the world we inhabit. Insome cases, our worldview changes dramatically butmore often than not it is aspects of our worldview thatare expanded and deepened. Core philosophical, onto-logical, or epistemological aspects are seldom discardedor abandoned. Further, giving articulation to our world-views is not easy. Often, philosophers, theologians, orpoets express what others may only feel or believe in-tuitively. As such, they become spokespersons, leaders,or individuals of great influence, of which Socrates,Martin Luther King Jr., or Vaclav Havel are but a fewexamples.
When we hear and read of perceptions of the worldexpressed by persons of great influence, or even others,we come to recognize that those perceptions or perspec-tives can be considerably different. The worldview per-spectives of a Richard Dawkins, Donald Trump, or KarlMarx, for example, differ radically from those of aDesmond Tutu, Chief Seattle, or the Dalai Lama: Theyare simply not the same and we know it. We also seethem played out. We come to know that Capitalism,Communism, and Confucianism differ from one another both as visions of life and ways of life. Various
JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 5 • Number 2 • DOI:10.1002/jls 59
future may greatly assist us in overcoming our greatestchallenges. It has been noted, sadly, however, that thedepths of wisdom offered by many of the world’s tra-ditional religious worldviews, each accustomed to ask-ing life’s so-called “ultimate or existential questions,”are accessed by only a very small percentage of leaderstoday (Valk et al., 2010).
Asking these big questions in regard to business devel-opments, political action, international relations, andconcern for the environment might well, however, leadto some startling discussions and revelations. Incorpo-rating worldview study into leadership study might, forexample, change our notions and understandings ofwealth and wealth creation. The capitalistic drive to gen-erate wealth might lead from a narrow focus on maxi-mizing profit to a broader one that includes living wagesfor workers, healthy families, and sustainable environ-ments. Engaging multiple perspectives or worldviewscan enhance dialogue as debates of intense public in-terest play out in the public square.
It is also in engaging multiple perspectives in the pub-lic square that we need to increase our critical aware-ness of the different perspectives that are part of ourplural society. Fixating on “Christianity lite” or “Bud-dhism lite” renders only dumbed-down and distortedversions crafted for media sound bites or scoring pointsin public debates. In-depth leadership study must avoidcheapened versions, opting rather to plumb the depthsof various perspectives to extract wisdom so desperatelyneeded in our society today.
Critical awareness is also required to achieve balance.Careful scrutiny is needed in discerning when, for ex-ample, consumer capitalism’s desire to generate wealththroughout the world digresses to little more than adominant strategy to increase world market share andseek cheap labor in order to maximize profits (Wexler,2006), or when religious worldviews focused exclusivelyon the spiritual neglect the impoverished reality of theirdevotees. Open dialogue and discernment involvingmultiple perspectives will assist in distinguishing truehuman needs and longings from those that are con-trived, truncated, and insatiable. Discussions also shouldnot be confined to national boundaries or single disci-plines: economic issues are at the same time environ-mental, cultural, spiritual, religious, scientific, andpolitical.
As we deal with the challenges of the 21st century,clearer senses of purpose and direction are required—inessence, clearer visions linked to specific actions. Inves-tigating the bigger pictures—worldviews of self and others—will give guidance and direction to leaders innew or unique ways. We live in a global world. Chal-lenges and issues confronted by one organization, re-gion, or nation invariably become global challenges andissues. Just as leadership must extend beyond the narrowconfines of one’s own organization, it must also extendbeyond the narrow confines of one’s own perspective.As well, it must dissuade giving prominent voice tothose with worldviews that dominate and distort, dis-tain and detract, impede and restrict. Rather, opportu-nities ought to be created for those with visions thatstrive for balance, have concern for the common good,are understanding of others, and discern paths neededto create the world we truly need or want. This becomesmost relevant as dynamics unfold at a larger nationaland international scale. Those dynamics are beginningto shape individual and collective worldviews in waysnot previously experienced, and the changes are impact-ing some generations more than others.
Worldviews and GenerationalChangeWinston Churchill once said that “the longer you canlook back, the farther you can look forward” (Langworth,2008, p. 577). Amidst the current global economic cri-sis there is a need to examine and learn from the pastmistakes of the global consumer capitalist worldview inorder not to perpetuate those mistakes in the future. Ig-noring the past and looking only to the future may bea human tendency, but it is fraught with shortsighted-ness. Can a people, nation, or organization truly moveforward without continually examining its presupposi-tions and paradigms?
According to Strauss and Howe (1991, 1997) andHowe and Nadler (2010), we are living in a period of“civic crisis.” The West is confronted with environmen-tal devastation, economic downturns, social upheavals,housing crises, civic unrest, and political polarizationin a manner not seen for some time. While most of thisturmoil is not new on the human stage, what is new is the extent of its reach in the information age. Crises
60 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 5 • Number 2 • DOI:10.1002/jls
networking occurring across cultural, national, andworldview divides on a scale never witnessed before.Fourth, family is again seen as the ultimate safety net,largely out of economic necessity in light of a weaken-ing or collapsing of public support mechanisms. Rela-tionships of intergenerational trust are emphasized andstrengthened, with less focus on materialism and money asprimary drivers. Finally, diversification, which nets knowl-edge and fluency in languages, cultures, and technology,is stressed. A generalist with survival skills may have anedge over specialists with focused skills (Strauss & Howe,1997).
Strauss and Howe (1997) make the case that theworldviews of Millennials are more globally focused, ashift from the individual to the community. Social net-working takes them outside national borders to theglobal stage, where technology provides open channelsfor communication and information sharing to all partsof the world. They exhibit a common willingness to col-laborate among all nationalities, working together tohelp solve societies problems in ways that will benefitall (Bradley, 2010; Hernandez, 2008; Howe & Strauss,2007).
Franklin Roosevelt once remarked that the objectivesof his generation of young people had changed awayfrom “a plethora of riches” to one of a “sufficiency oflife”—an advancement “along a broad highway onwhich thousands of your fellow men and women areadvancing with you” (Roosevelt & Hardman, 1944, p. 243). For the Millennials, this highway is the virtualone, the World Wide Web that has facilitated commu-nication in real time across the globe. Its ability to reachthe far corners of our world has seen a transformationthat bodes well for the Millennials as they spread theircommunity-based leadership and action across ourworld, in essence, as they spread their worldview.
ConclusionThere is an extensive if not diverse use of the concept ofworldview in scholarly literature. That use has alsoslowly begun to emerge in the leadership literature. Theneed to link this literature and get beneath the casualuses of the concept becomes paramount. The forego-ing begins a process of laying out the parameters neces-sary to link worldviews and leadership in a scholarlymanner.
played out on the world stage are today visible in ourvery living rooms. But according to Strauss and Howe,they impact different generations in different ways.They have formative influence on the worldview devel-opment of younger generations and increasingly so.
Generational scholars have characterized the largepostwar Baby Boom generation as predominantly self-focused—inward-looking to fulfill individual needs(Dychtwald, 2005; Howe & Nadler, 2010; Strauss &Howe, 1991, 1997). The Baby Boom generation hasbeen privileged with tremendous social mobility, eco-nomic growth, political liberty, and individual freedomof the last half-century. But they have also witnessedenvironmental devastation, fiscal implosions, demo-cratic disengagement, and poverty in the midst of af-fluence (Howe & Strauss, 2000). The result is that ayounger generation now considers upward mobility, in-creased wealth, and improved lives—a sense of genera-tional progression—illusions of a generation past.Further, new generations—Millennials, “13ers”—maybe required to act as “repair generations,” “fixing themesses and cleaning up the debris of others” (Strauss &Howe, 1997, p. 326).
The worldview of the young Millennial generationwill be more globally encompassed because we now livein a global world. This will have a great impact on lead-ership as a new generation takes the reins and attemptsto remain upbeat about the future of their world. Sev-eral factors, some new and some not so new, influenceand shape their worldview formation. First, emphasison the virtues of honesty and integrity, on reputationand trust building, is again important (Howe & Nadler,2010). These virtues have been integral to traditionalreligious or spiritual worldviews but have become ab-sent in growing individualistic, secular, and consumerworldviews (Martinsons & Ma, 2009). Second, con-nectedness to a community comprised of worldview di-versity rather than worldview homogeneity has becomethe norm (Bartley, Ladd, & Morris, 2007). But that di-verse community also has its eyes on government tomeet society’s basic needs. Barack Obama, the UnitedStates’ first president of color, was proactive in bring-ing together diverse groups for common cause (Alex-Assensoh, 2008). Third, personal relationship buildingand teamwork is paramount. While some of this comeswith an expected loss of personal freedoms, there is
JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 5 • Number 2 • DOI:10.1002/jls 61
Making the concept robust for leadership study re-quires certain depth and complexity in understandingworldviews. Constructing a deeper understanding ofworldviews requires certain mindfulness, not least of which is the degree to which our own worldview mayfilter our perceptions of others. Awareness of one’s ownperspective requires scrutiny while engaging that of an-other.
Worldview construction is complex. One’s view of theworld is initially shaped by the immediate context out ofwhich one emerges—family, community, social, and cul-tural environments. But there are also other factors atplay. As our larger world increasingly impinges upon us,global factors also begin to shape our worldviews. Thisbecomes evident especially with generational differences,where a balance of factors internal and external to ourimmediate contexts begins to play a larger role.
Nonetheless, the nature of leadership reveals that greatleaders take action in the world from a clear place: theyare anchored in a particular view of the world. Humans are meaning makers, and when leaders assistothers in making sense of the world through a clearlyarticulated and coherent worldview, solid action can fol-low. Thus, while we need to be cognizant of the diversityof worldviews and the diversity of uses of the concept, wealso need to recognize that particular visions of life andways of life can be powerful and compelling. The chal-lenge to leadership is to find ways to more explicitly mapout these worldviews, discerning those that tend to im-pede and restrict from those that seek to enhance andexpand the world we truly need or want.
ReferencesAdams, H. (1999). The education of Henry Adams. New York, NY:Oxford University Press.
Aerts, D., Apostel, L., de Moor, B., Hellemans, S., Maex, E., van Belle, H., & van der Veken, J. (2007). World views: From frag-mentation to integration. Originally published in 1994 by VUBPress. Retrieved from http://www.vub.ac.be/CLEA/ pub/books/worldviews.pdf
Alex-Assensoh, Y. M. (2008). Change and the 2008 presidentialelection. Politicka Misaq, XLV(5), 235–243.
Antonakis, J., Cianciolo, A. T., & Sternberg, R. J. (2004). Leader-ship: Past, present, and future. In J. Antonakis, A. T. Cianciolo, &R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of leadership (pp. 3–16). Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Avolio, B. J. (2005). Leadership development in balance: Made/born.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Barrett, R. (2006). Building a values-driven organization: A wholesystem approach to cultural transformation. Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Bartley, S. J., Ladd, P. G., & Morris, M. L. (2007). Managing themultigenerational workplace: Answers for managers and teams.CUPA-HR Journal, 58(1), 28–34.
Beck, D., & Cowan, C. C. (1996). Spiral dynamics: Mastering val-ues, leadership, and change: Exploring the new science of memetics.Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Business.
Bennis, W. (2009). On becoming a leader. New York, NY: BasicBooks.
Bonzo, M., & Stevens, M. (2009). After worldview: Christian highereducation in postmodern worlds. Sioux Centre, IA: Dordt College Press.
Bordas, J. (2007). Salsa, soul, and spirit: Leadership for a multi-cultural age. San Franciso, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Bradley, A. (2010). The time has come to embrace millennial per-spectives. American Society for Training and Development, 64 (8), 22.
Broekaert, J. (1999). World views: Elements of the Apostelian andgeneral approach. Foundations of Science, 3, 235–258.
Burke, W. W. (2008). Organization change: Theory and practice (2nded.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Chesterton, G. K. (1986). The collected works of G. K. Chesterton(Vol. 1). San Francisco, CA: Ignatius.
Chhokar, J., Brodbeck, F., & House, R. (2009). Culture and lead-ership across the world. London, UK: Routledge.
Ciulla, J. B. (2000). The working life: The promise and betrayal ofmodern work. New York, NY: Times Books.
Crumpton, A. D. (2010). An exploration of the concept of world-view within leadership studies literature. International LeadershipAssociation 12th Annual Global Conference, Leadership 2.0: Time forAction. Prague, Czech Republic.
Dennett, D. (2005). Sweet dreams: Philosophical obstacles to a sci-ence of consciousness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
DePree, M. (2004). Leadership is an art. New York, NY: Crown Business.
Drath, W. H. (2001). The deep blue sea: Rethinking the source ofleadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Dychtwald, K. (2005). Ageless aging: The next era of retirement.Futurist, 39(4), 16–21.
Foltz, R. C. (2003). Worldviews, religion, and the environment: A global anthology. Toronto, Ontario: Wadsworth.
62 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 5 • Number 2 • DOI:10.1002/jls
Lansky, M. (1999). Commentary: Perspectives on perspectivism.Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology, 6(3):179–180.
Lindsey, M. (2007). Faith in the corridors of power. New York, NY:Oxford University Press.
Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. (2003). Authentic leadership develop-ment. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline(pp. 241–261). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Marshall, P., Griffioen, S., & Mouw, R. (Eds.) (1989). Stained glass:Worldviews and social science. Landham, MD: University Press ofAmerica.
Martinsons, M. G., & Ma, D. (2009). Sub-cultural differences in information ethics across China: Focus on Chinese managementgeneration gaps. Journal of the Association for Information Systems,10(11), 816–833.
McKenzie, L. (1991). Adult education and worldview construction.Malabar, FL: Krieger.
Nadesan, M. H. (1999). The discourses of corporate spiritualismand evangelical capitalism. Management Communication Quarterly,13(1), 3–42.
Naugle, D. (2002). Worldviews: History of a concept. Grand Rapids,MI: Eerdmans.
Nietzsche, F. (1887/1956). (F. Golffing, Trans.). The genealogy ofmorals: An attack. New York, NY: Doubleday Anchor.
Noonan, P. (1990). What I saw at the revolution. Victoria, BC: IvyBooks.
Northouse, P. G. (2010). Leadership: Theory and practice (5th ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Olsen, M. E., Lodwick, D. G., & Dunlap, R. E. (1992). Viewing theworld ecologically. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Olthuis, J. (1985). On worldviews. Christian Scholars Review, 14(2),155–165.
Parks, S. (1991). The critical years: Young adults and the search formeaning, faith and commitment. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Peterson, G. (2001, March). Religion as orienting worldview. Zygon,36(1), 5–19.
Reave, L. (2005). Spiritual values and practices related to leadershipeffectiveness. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 655–687.
Rondinelli, D., & Heffron, J. (2009). Leadership for development:What globalization demands of leaders fighting for change. Sterling,VA: Kumarian Press.
Gadamer, H. G., Weinsheimer, J., & Marshall, D. G. (2004). Truthand method (2nd rev. ed.). New York NY: Continuum.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2002). Primal leadership:Realizing the power of emotional intelligence. Cambridge, MA: Har-vard Business School Press.
Hames, R. D. (2007). The five literacies of global leadership: What authentic leaders know and you need to find out. San Francis,CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hernandez, G. M. (2008). New generation of workers set to changecorporate culture. Caribbean Business, 36(43), 48–49.
Hicks, D. A. (2003). Religion and the workplace: Pluralism, spiritu-ality, leadership. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Howe, N., & Nadler, R. (2010). Millennials in the workplace:Human resources strategies for a new generation. Great Falls, VA: LifeCourse Associates.
Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials rising: The next greatgeneration. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2007). The next twenty years: How cus-tomer and workplace attitudes will evolve. Harvard Business Review,85(7/8), 41–52.
Ingham, M. (1997). Mansions of the spirit: The gospel in a multi-faith world. Toronto, Ontario: Anglican Book Centre.
James, W. (1909/1996). A pluralistic universe. Lincoln, NE: Uni-versity of Nebraska Press.
Jules, F. (1999). Native Indian leadership. Canadian Journal of Na-tive Education, 23(1), 40–56.
Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni-versity Press.
Klenke, K. (2008). Qualitative research in the study of leadership.Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.
Klüver, H. (1926, January). M. Weber’s “ideal type” in psychology.Journal of Philosophy, 23(2), 29–35.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2002). The leadership challenge: Howto keep getting extraordinary things done in organizations. San Franciso,CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kriger, M., & Seng, Y. (2005). Leadership with inner meaning: A contingency theory of leadership based on the worldviews of fivereligions. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 771–806.
Laing, R. D. (1967). The politics of experience. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
Langworth, R. (2008). Churchill by himself: The definitive collectionof quotations. New York, NY: Public Affairs.
JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 5 • Number 2 • DOI:10.1002/jls 63
Roosevelt, F. D., & Hardman, J. B. S. (1944). Rendezvous with des-tiny: Addresses and opinions of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. New York,NY: Dryden Press.
Schwandt, D. R., & Szabla, D. B. (2007). Systems and leadership:Coevolution or mutual evolution. In J. K. Hazy, J. A. Goldstein, &B. B. Lichtenstein (Eds.), Complex systems leadership theory: Newperspectives from complexity science on social and organizational effec-tiveness (pp. 35–60). Mansfield, MA: ISCE.
Sharpe, E. (1975). Comparative Religion: A History. London, UK:Duckworth.
Sire, J. W. (2004). Naming the elephant: Worldview as a concept.Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
Smart, N. (1983). Worldviews: Cross-cultural explorations of humanbeliefs. New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Smith, C. (2003). Moral, believing animals: Human personhood andculture. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Strauss, W., & Howe, N. (1991). Generations: The history of America’s future, 1584 to 2069. New York, NY: William Morrow.
Strauss, W., & Howe, N. (1997). The fourth turning: What the cycles of history tell us about America’s next rendezvous with destiny.New York, NY: Broadway Books.
Valk, J. (2009, May). Religion or worldview: Enhancing dialogue inthe public square. Marburg Journal of Religion, 14(1), 1–16.
Valk, J. (2010). Worldviews of today: Teaching for dialogue andmutual understanding. In K. Sporre & J. Mannberg (Eds.), Values,religions and education in changing societies. Dordrecht, Netherlands:Springer.
Valk, J., Harter, N., Jones, M., Mir, A., Ncube, L., & Reams, J.(2010). Symposium—leadership for transformation: The impact ofworldviews. Journal of Leadership Studies, 4(3), 66–91.
Vidal, C. (2007). An enduring philosophical agenda: Worldviewconstruction as a philosophical method. Center Leo Apostel. Retrievedfrom http://homepages.vub.ac.be/~clvidal/writings/Vidal_2007-EPA.pdf
Wacquant, L. (2006, May). “Pierre Bourdieu.” In R. Stones (Ed.).Key contemporary thinkers. Macmillan. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi�10.1.1.120.148&rep�rep1&type�pdf
Wallace, J. R. (2007). Servant leadership: A worldview perspective.International Journal of Leadership Studies, 2(2), 114–132.
Webb, E. (2009). Worldview and mind: Religious thought and psy-chological development. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press.
Wexler, M. (2006). Leadership in context: Four faces of capitalism.Williston, VT: Edward Elgar.
Wheatley, M. (1999). Leadership and the new science: Discoveringorder in a chaotic world. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Whitehead, A. N. (1938). Modes of thought. New York, NY: Free Press.
Whitehead, A. N. (1951). The philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead(P. Schilpp, Ed.). Chicago, IL: Open Court.
Wilson, W. (1952). Leaders of men (T. H. Vail Motter, Ed.). Prince-ton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
John Valk is associate professor of worldview studies at Renaissance College, University of New Brunswick, Canada.He received his doctorate from the University of Toronto. Johncan be reached at [email protected]
Stephan Belding teaches at the Universities of Phoenix andMarylhurst. He has an MBA from the University of Phoenix.He is currently working on his doctorate at Capella Univer-sity. Stephan can be reached at [email protected]
Alicia Crumpton is the director of the Center for Global Stud-ies and teaches Leadership Studies at Johnson University. Shereceived her doctorate from Gonzaga University. Alicia can bereached at [email protected]
Nathan Harter is professor of Leadership and American Stud-ies at Christopher Newport University. He received his jurisdoctor (JD) at Indiana University School of Law. Nathancan be reached at [email protected].
Jonathan Reams (Ph.D.) is associate professor in the De-partment of Education at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Jonathan can be reached at [email protected]
Testimonials
