Argued not for any one "correct leadership style" but for the style that each situation requires. Great leaders require the use of nearly every leadership style: one must apply the correct style to meet the situation. Farr terms this "Conscious Leadership".
"Conscious Leadership" consists of the art and science of leading change from a self-aware perspective, with clarity of purpose and an acute insight into others' perspectives and state of mind. This fully-aware state uniquely allows leaders to properly inspire motivation in others and to choose the most appropriate course of action both to solve pressing problems and to effectively achieve long-term organizational goals.
Futurist John Renesch has written extensively on conscious leadership, which he advocates for everyone — not only those in positions of authority or holding designated titles. As he wrote in early 2001:
Conscious leaders don't tolerate conditions or processes where people feel the need to compromise their values — to "sell their souls" for the task at hand. Conscious leadership includes conscious discernment, a principle that demands performance, integrity, competence and a noncalloused form of spiritual toughness. The conscious leader does not sit with his or her head in the clouds, dreaming of utopian schemes and professing New Age idealism. The conscious leader walks in the spiritual and physical domains concurrently, remaining simultaneously grounded and comfortable in both.
Says a leader must be aware of, and modify their own behavior as well as influence the behavior of a group to affect a “Leadership Enriched” Organizational Culture.
In numerous Group Dynamic Disciplines such as “Directive Communication” and theories like “The ripple effect” by Sigal Barsade, leadership is a product of awareness and command of the reactions and influences of a group on the individual.
In Mr. Carmazzi’s studies of over 218 leaders and the organizational cultures they create through their influence, as well as his own experience in running organizations, from.
Leadership is NOT about changing the mindset of the group, but in the cultivation of an environment that brings out the best and inspires the individuals in that group…
It is NOT the ability to influence others to do something they are not committed to, but rather to nurture a culture that motivates and even excites individuals to do what is required for the benefit of all.
It is NOT carrying others to the end result, but setting the surrounding for developing qualities in them to so they may carry each other.
Each individual has various environments that bring out different facets from their own Identity, and each facet is driven by emotionally charged perceptions within each environment…
To lead, one must create a platform through education and awareness where individuals fill each others emotional needs and become more conscious of when and how they might be taking away the emotional gratifications. This is accomplished by knowing Why people may react favorably to a situation in environment A, but get frustrated or disillusioned in environment B and that is what Directive Communication provides.
Wrote that a study of the definition of the word leadership revealed 130 definitions. However, several generally-accepted variations on the definition appear in the management and leadership literature.
Burns concluded by presenting five characteristics of leadership, namely:
Leadership is collective. James Burns regards the notion of one-person leadership as “a contradiction in terms”, because both leaders and followers must exist. Also, an organization may have multiple leaders all acting in consort with one another.
Leadership is dissension. Burns claims that leadership coexists with dissent. Indeed, much of the growth of any organization centers on the management/leadership of dissent – except in times of war.
Leadership is causative. True Burnsian leadership affects the motives of individuals and groups of peoples and alters the course of the organizational history. It causes positive change.
Leadership is morally purposeful. Burns sees leadership as goal-oriented, with leaders and followers pointing the way to some future state of the organization with plans about how those goals might be met.
Transforming leadership is elevating. Engagement between leaders and followers takes place on a moral – but not a moralistic - plane, as both leaders and followers rise to live more principled lives