Leadership: Individualism to Collectivity - A Comprehensive Review

This essay provides a comprehensive review of the evolution of leadership, transitioning from individualistic approaches to collectivist models. The study explores three key themes: distributed leadership, millennial leadership, and the dark side of leadership. The introduction sets the stage by highlighting the evolving nature of leadership in response to the challenges of a rapidly changing world, emphasizing the need for leaders to balance various aspects such as perspective, motivation, planning, and renewal. The theoretical framework establishes the foundation for understanding the shift from individual to collective leadership, including the impact of globalization and cultural dimensions. The essay delves into each theme, analyzing the dynamics of distributed leadership, which emphasizes workplace collaboration and the sharing of expertise. Millennial leadership is explored for its focus on organizational advancement, while the dark side of leadership examines how certain behaviors can lead to organizational destruction. Theoretical and empirical papers are utilized to analyze the methodologies and implications of each theme, with a conclusion summarizing the overall review and its significance in the current leadership landscape. The paper also presents real-world examples to illustrate the tension between individualism and collectivism in different cultural contexts, such as the example of McDonald's in India.

Leadership: Individualism to collectivity
Abstract
The review and the mapping evaluate the increasing literature of Leadership:
Individualism to collectivity. The field is started by introducing its importance and
emergence in the leadership context. The topic is elaborated with three subject and that
are Distributed Leadership, Millennial Leadership and The dark side of leadership.
Furthermore the review is structured on the basis of these perceptions. Each subject is
explored with the in-depth research and is interconnected with the research topic. The
distributed leadership highlights the workplace power while working together whereas
the millennial leadership focuses on the organizational advancement in every perspective
and finally the dark side of the leadership focuses on how the behavior can lead the
organization to destruction. Both the theoretical and empirical papers are utilized and
then the methodologies have been analyzed. The implication of the literature review is
discussed and concluded with summarizing the over all review.
1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION __________________________________ 3 - 5
THEORITICAL FRAMEWORK _______________________ 5
DISTRIBUTED LEADERSHIP ________________________ 6 - 8
METHODOLOGY ___________________________________ 9 - 10
MILLENNIAL LEADERSHIP _________________________ 10 - 13
METHODOLOGY___________________________________ 13 - 14
THE DARK SIDE OF LEADERSHIP ____________________ 14 - 17
METHODOLOGY ____________________________________ 17 - 18
IMPLICATION _______________________________________ 18 - 20
CONCLUSION _______________________________________ 20 - 21
REFERENCE _________________________________________ 22 - 26
2

Introduction
Leadership is the ways towards persuading the behavior of others in order to willingly
and enthusiastically do the work for achieving the targeted goals. Leadership might also
be seen regarding the relation between a leader and his followers (individuals / groups)
that emerges from their functioning for the common objectives. As the world is having
advancement everyday in every sector, leadership also has been evolving with time.
Starting with the understanding of leadership it is noted that in all sectors and at all levels
leaders today face an extraordinarily high level and pace of change (Oustan, 2006). These
are driven by four forces and in order to respond leaders must strike a balancing act in
four areas that are perspective, motivation, planning and renewal. These balancing act are
believed to be critical not just for the success of their teams and the organization but also
for their own sustainability of the leaders energies and passions (Loing et al, 2012).
The survey was done from the world of philosophy, politics, and literature where it was
found out that the challenges leaders face today is framed with two numbers. The first
number is 50% where it is said that 50% of the companies on S&P 500 will disappear
with in 20 years and the pace at which they will disappear is accelerating. Past
institutional greatness is no guarantee of future relevance (CDIP, 2017). The second
number is 40 % where it is indicated that 40% of the newly hired or promoted leaders fail
in their roles within 18 months. When managers think of the amount of resources and
energy that go into recruiting new leaders at all levels, that is an astonishingly high
number. Past experience and qualifications at an individual level offer no guarantee of
future success (Truss et al, 2006). Globalization creates an enormous opportunity but as
talent and capital become more mobile competition can come from anywhere and not just
rom where you are located. External stakeholders are incredibly important because
leaders in any organization and government at tan NGO dealing with the external stake
holders that are not the customers is not just a job for their communication or external
affairs departments but it is a critical job description for the person as a leader.
Moving on, there has always been a huge amount of debate and confusion with respect to
what constitute leadership. Every organization has culture and every culture carries
3

values along them. In considering cultural dimension or attributes, individualism is a
preference for independence and self-reliance. Culture that focuses on individualism,
celebrate the accomplishment of a person rather than a group. On the other hand
organization following collectivist culture feel a strong association to groups including
family and work unit rather than any particular individual receiving all the praise or
blame. People in collectivist culture s tend to work toward collective rather than the
personal goals and are responsible to the group for their actions. The success or the
failure tends to be shared among the work Leadership is commonly referred and looked
as the only right of the individual actor, where a particular leader determines leadership
through their behavior, own attributes and how they carry it and act upon.
Leadership perspective is culturally lucid; individuals westernized understanding where
society is seen as a conglomeration of people (Luke, 1998). Leadership is therefore
considered inside the quintessential literature as a technique centered on social relations
and interactions between the people (Burgoyne, 2003). It cannot exist merely within an
individual, as more than one person is needed in order to have enactment in leadership. It
is considered as a relationship concerning the individual plus the follower who
implements leadership. This does not mean that the influence and activity of those
individuals who showcased the leadership qualities such as Nelson Mandela, Mahatma
Gandhi, and Steve Jobs etc. are being neglected. Many theorist claims that leadership
should be collective, starting with (Senge, 1990) where he defines leadership as a
collective competence in order to create beneficial things furthermore (Collinson, 2006)
states that it is a consequences and the property of the community rather than the
consequences and property of an individual.
Certainly with new generations coming through and more interconnected and global
world, leadership has to come from all levels. The organizations are slowly realizing the
speed of the dynamic environment and moving from individualism to collectivism.
Collectivism is committed to what is best for the group family or the community and all
the decisions are made with the consideration of the communal welfare. Leading with an
example in China there is a term known as Guanxi, which implies that, the consensus of
4

the company or the group must take primacy over that of the individual (Phillips, 2016).
At work collectivistic culture value, training, physical conditions, skills and the core
rewards of mastery. Furthermore adding up with another vivid example of the tension
that exist in these two polarities could be found in the experience of MC Donald, when
they took their franchise to India which follows a very collectivistic culture.
MC Donald’s had previously operated the individualist competitive and personal
achievement work well for profitability and productivity. They held employees of the
week contest, which did not motivate the employees in India in fact it was not considered
a healthy thing to be singled out. Such an intended congestive proved to be a
demotivation. Working with different groups with out knowledge of the culture and
without taking opinions from all level of organization only invades failure. It is a mistake
to assume that most culture and organization success is individualistic. The paper will be
stretching the perspective of leadership by dividing them into three themes that are
distributed leadership, millennial leadership and dark side of the leadership. It will also
highlight the empirical studies that help to analyze the topic in more detailed manner.
Figure 1: Theoretical Framework
LEADERSHIP
Indivisualism
Collectivism
Distributed
Leadership:
Shared leadership
Team work
Dark Side of
Leadership:
Narcassim Charsima
Millennial Leadership:
Globalization Advancement
5

Distributed Leadership
People deal with leadership weather it is in the role of leader or in the role of the
follower. Here distributed leadership however offers a more flexible model. Not everyone
is a leader at a same time; members exert influence when they have the specific expertise
or experience that is required for specific task or problem in the given situation. This can
only happen when the members have clear understandings of each other’s skills and
capabilities and ambitions. Consequently, someone can claim leadership and colleagues
and grant roles to each other further more accepting the person’s guidance. This flexible
model does require members to be able to both lead and follow furthermore supporting
each other in their work. Every individual in the work place is expected to take initiative
and to take on leadership. As the experience and the expertise are such critical ingredients
of distributed leadership, all members need to keep developing themselves and continue
to make an effort to learn. The topic has come to be a admired post heroic representation
of leadership that have been stimulating alteration from the behaviors and attributes of
the leader who is individualist to additional systematic evaluation whereby leadership is
regarded as a collective process rising through the collaboration of numerous followers or
people (Bein, 2006).
However, this evaluation led to an argument that distributed leadership is not a system
where works are done by one individual to others or a set of singular actions by which the
employee makes contribution to a team or the organization but it plays a role of a team
endeavor that works inside and through the relationship, moderately than a singular act
(Bennett, 2013). Distributed leadership from (Gronn, 2002) perspective states a new
analysis unit through which management or leadership may want to be comprehended in
terms of a holistic experience rather than the accumulation of the individual influences.
Furthermore (Gronn, 2002) states the above leadership dimension as the concretive action
as it is contrasted with the numeral action and further with the support of the three
alternative forms of engagement that are intuitive working relationship, spontaneous
collaboration and institutionalized practices he exemplified his argument. Each of these
three forms of engagement could be regarded as the demonstration of conjoint agency.
6

With the aim of setting out the argument (Gronn, 2000) called for reframing the
leadership in a fundamental manner. Conversely, it is then suggested that leadership is
appropriately more understood as emergent and fluid rather than understood as a fixed
phenomenon. More over, it is a call that has been received enthusiastically by the
practitioners and scholars alike.
In essence distributive leadership might be considered to be an analytical emphasis to
leadership, which requires priorities and choices to be done keeping the operations in
mind. This creates varying concrete forms and types of the distributed leadership. This is
the reason for the importance of acknowledging the concern on (Gronn, 2000) that, as the
distributed leadership turns out to be a preferred approach to the management amid
public procedure makers, there should be crucial attention its benefits as well as the
possible disadvantages. Moving on with the discussion of the major variable in the
distribution leadership, which is autonomy/control. In some manifestations and the
conception, there is a prominence on the working framework of the organization or the
pressure coming from the top levels in the pyramid. Through the leaders who are
responsible directly to the outsiders for the organizations performance, certain values are
set and are even seen as non –flexible (Graetz, 2000). It analogizes with an emphasis of
autonomy on a greater degree for those who provide to the leadership, such as the ability
to possibly amend and review supporting objectives and values (Keyes et al. 1999).
However, this does not lead to assume that no- negotiable objectives and values are
constantly inappropriate.
Nonetheless it is consistent in saying that these dependably emanate since the choices
about priorities, values and are no givens ultimately. Secondly highlighting
organizational structure and agency that carries diverse emphases. Some approaches in
order to deal with the study and practice of distributed leadership focuses on the
organizational configuring of the leadership re than the motives, point of view and the
theories being used of individuals or the other way around. With the means of comparing
the studies of (Spillane et al. 2001), (Harris, Chapman, 2002) and (Goodman et al., 2001)
this differences was witnessed. With the aim of providing an impetus to the distributed
7

leadership, structural change might be proper. From the broad-spectrum terminologies,
holding to a bound viewpoint on one or the other side of the agency/structure dualism is
confining.
Moving on to another context that is social and cultural that contains a huge bearing on
distributed leadership. With support of an example where it says that the cultural and the
social may have chances to act positively in order to sustain and create the conditions for
the distributed leadership to prosper as stated by (Kinght, Trowler, 2001) furthermore
which was then acknowledged by (Bryant, 2003). The examination of these authors
draws attentiveness towards the importance of cultural, external social and wider context,
highlighting of which there can be question on till what level distributive leadership can
be achieved in the hierarchical and directive society. At the equivalent interval, the inner
hierarchical culture applies its individual impact .The organization cultural history is
significant. The impact of sustained culture of non- cooperation which can therefore
result in inactiveness when doors are opened for new participative is been highlighted by
(Brytting, 2000). The idea of developing new culture in the organization, where a
supplementary distributed leadership style is being empowered, for instance the values
such as commitment to enquiry and truth (Ayas, 2001) further more trust are
exceptionally vital components of a culture that in order encourages distributed
leadership. Lastly talking about source of change where it can be said that the force in
order to develop distributive leadership may emerge from different levels and varieties of
sources. Referring to (Bickmore, 2001) who indicate that issues of the policy or the ideas
external to the organizations formal member can give a boost for examining leadership
again.
Throughout all it proposes that a second impetus that led towards the advancement of the
distributed leadership structure or style might be found in a top down initiative state from
a strong leader. From the number of studied that is examined, it gave a clear insight as to
what distributive leadership actual mean. It therefore links with the topic that again
clarifies the reason for organization moving from individualistic approach to the
collective one.
8

Methodology
A broad analysis of the literature was made starting with the analysis of Bennett et al,
2006) as the preliminary goal was taking after the similar strategy. However the concept
of distributed leadership has been evolving with time and has gained considerable
measures of prominence and exceptional autonomy (Bolden, 2011). Subsequently, the
increased number of studies was conducted in distributed leadership between 2000 to
2013, as it was the interval of time where there was a fundament change in the particular
context. Though (Bennett et al, 2003) embraced most findings that were being published
at that time but it was obliged to select the one, which related the most for this review.
The empirical study examined in this review is of (Gronn et al .2002) where the
arguments and data put forward are suggestive rather than conclusive. The review also
contains two major distributed leadership conceptual discussion by (Spillane et al, 2001)
a data of a small amount, that is in the shape of three vignettes which is drawn in his
research where as (Gronn, 2002) does the reanalysis of most of the studies to test the
utility of his theorization. The reviews of the empirical studies in this theme are in the
form of qualitative studies.
The publication that contained pages that was less than five was rejected from the
selection. With the elimination of small articles, it was easy to identify that the authors
represented with numerous publications on the list. With the visual scanning of the dates
and titles it directed towards the assortment of one publication from each author. There
was a limitation in the key words and it gave this theme sixteen citation for examination.
The methodology used in (Bennett et al , 2003) review and the argument that include in
the same review by different authors , there was five step where the first step contained a
detailed literature search with the use of four key words that was connected with each
other and these were :
 Delegated Leadership
 Dispersed Leadership
9

 Democratic Leadership
 Distributed Leadership
The aim of second step was to find the publication was representative at its best.
And for this determination the attention was changed from articles to journals; both
Journal of Educational Administration (JOEA) and Education Resource Information
Centre (ERIC) were used in order to identify the peer-reviewed journals. The third step
was to analyze weather these journals and articles was published between 2007 to 2013
where as fourth step was to examine that the key words titles gathered by sixteen articles
was dealt with the topic and the final step was to confine the arguments and review of the
authors and gather different perspective and view of the individual topic.
Millennial Leadership
Many companies realize that younger generations millennial bring a distinct set of skills
to their operation, skills that matter most in this changing world. (Brousell, 2015) states
that these generations do not focus on the rewards, hierarchy and legacy but are instead
aspired to be empowering, collaborative and transformational leaders. The recent survey
by (Altman, 2017) shows that millennial are also the key factor for the organization
focusing on the collective culture rather than individual culture as millennial have the
ability to challenge todays traditional business practices.
Millennial believe that the traditional leaders tend to give prioritization or emphasis to the
individual over the entire group. It shows cased that these kinds of leaders follow
individualist culture, which are oriented around their selves. With the survey examined
by (Karp, Sirias, 2017) on the millennial it demonstrated that half one the organization
with the individualist culture focuses on being independent instead of being identified
with a group mentality besides they see each other as only loosely linked and value
personal goals over group interest. They carry such unique aspects of communication as
being a low power distinct culture and having a low context communication style. The
survey has also tallied that high individualist culture where millennia face problem are
10

Australia, Canada., Great Britain , the Netherlands. (Essinger, 2010) discusses that
millennial leaders lead towards collectivism as they feel a strong association to groups
including family and work units. Here, millennial tend to follow the culture of working
collectively rather than focusing on personal goals. It is believed that success or failure
tends to be divided or shared among the work units rather than any other co-workers of
top levels receiving all the praise.
Millennial confidentially challenges traditional business practices that are still followed
by the maximum organizations so it’s not that surprising that they are also disrupting
corporate leadership. As mentioned above these generations are not likely to get attracted
with the recognition or rewards related with the position of the leadership but instead they
aim to be leaders who can inspire others, walk step by step tackling the dynamic
environment and making a difference by working collectively as a team therefore leading
the company that focuses on taking care about more than a bottom line as per the study
from (Virtuali, Work trends, 2017). Almost 50% of the 412 millennial surveyed by
(Dempsey, 2010) articulates that they get highly motivated to be leaders as they like
observing the different culture and explore new ideas while 10 percent of the people
concentrates on legacy and 5 percent wanted to be leaders to earn heavy profit and
rewards.
Organizations are eager for innovation and to retain promising talent but the millennial
now the majority of the work force often holds unfavorable views on the business
environment. First and fore most millennial are choosing organization based on purpose
and want to experience in their organization their work and their impact . (Gordon, 2012)
identifies that two out of three Millennial also states that their organizations purpose is a
reason why they chooses to work there and purpose can be a critical component for
engaging millennial, only one out of five millennial and the organizational with out
perceived purposes are satisfied at work. They also expect their organization to have the
technology to innovate, collaborate and fit work within their lives to ultimately blend
work with purpose.
11

Further, the Pew Research Centre (2017) gives a thorough overview that eighty percent
of these generations agree that as technology develops additional work will be more
fulfilling and only twenty eight percent of them feel their organization are making full
use of their skills. In addition to the skills they bring millennial also want to share new
ideas challenge what’s been done in the past but often find leadership to be a barrier.
Only 23 percent said their senior leadership team prioritizes developing new and
innovative products and services. Millennial are not going to sacrifice their life for their
work, they view work and life as integrated and overlapping and value flexibility as an
integral part of the their experience at work.
(Myers, Sadaghiani, 2010) claims that millennial say work life balance and collectivity is
the key factor for organization to improve retention. The millennial majority is here and
shifting business cultures, they challenges how and where the work gets done. Sixty three
percent of millennial leadership believes in transforming which can be linked to the
transformational theory (Burns, 1978). They believe that traditional generations suggest
the transactional leadership theory where they only aim in making today better by
rewarding good performances. In contrast, transformational leaders are focused on
making tomorrow better where as twenty two percent of these generations follows the
democratic leadership style which can be defined as sharing decision making with the co
workers and only one percent was found out to be interested in being autocratic leaders
that executed rigorous mechanism over procedures and policies.
(Abram, Luther, 2004) identifies diversity, innovation, collectivism, and collaboration as
the characteristics that holds millennial leadership success factor of the 21ST century.
(Luther, 2004) elaborates talking about diversity that with the dynamic environment,
growing age of the organization as well as the workers in it, they seek for the millennial
to lead. The authors believe that these generations are further ethically diverse for
meeting the old age and they can bring the most creative ideas that the organization have
been thriving for. Corporations are realizing that they are been driven by globalization
and diversity is much needed. (Lynn, 2008) here argues that age is just a number and it
12

does not effect the working of the organizational until and unless the leaders have the
resilience to adapt to the change.
Moving on to other characteristics where it is explained that a recent study by (Delotie,
2016) analyses that most of the millennial are frustrated by the incompetence plus
ineffective within the organization to innovate and respond quickly to the problems.
Talking about collectivism as discussed above millennial are the key that led the
organizations to be collectivist and lastly the evident from the corporation of startup such
as Lyft, Airbnb and Uber are having emerging economic paradigm collaboration as these
generations have to idea on how share ideas and resources and understand the power of
collaboration. Over all, as per (Deloite, 2016) the world today thrives for the flexibility
speed and the capability to tackle uncertain situations.
Methodology
The study by (Altman et al, 2017) on ‘Leaders Of Today ‘ assimilated survey from 670
millennial individuals working in the organization from around which were in different
hierarchal levels. The probability of men respondents comprised of 335 and female
respondents of 335 as well and the age was between 18 to 28. With the real time
sampling, the respondents were recruited in the real time by the networks of prescreened
websites. The survey showed +/-2.31 points of the margin of errors.
(Altman et al, 2017) in his review did the sampling with the collaboration of Human
Capital Institute and The International Coach Federation (ICF) with the aim of finding
the latest data.
Altogether twenty five journals and articles was finalized from where out of the many
publications ten publications of the researcher was selected which contained the
sufficient sampling and latest review. This led to give citation in the theme with the
access at the Coachfederation.org/ coaching culture the researcher was able to create a
13

final report. Survey and the sampling responded with the result that out of hundred eighty
percent of the organization seek for the millennial.
Moving on in the qualitative research the purpose was to explore the experience of the
millennial employees and its relationship with the organization. Criticism has been made
from the surveys of the authors and has provided in-depth theoretical comparison. Over
all, the author gave the clear insight on the complexity and the benefits of the millennial
leadership comprising of the sufficient data need for the review.
Dark Side Of Leadership
The term leadership can turn out to be a corresponding connection amongst the follower
and leader, where the leader utilizes social influence with the aim of convincing
individuals to set aside their own particular interest with a specific end goal to achieve
the organizational objectives (Kaiser, Hogan, 2005). Over the past five decades the
leadership vast majority has been concentrating on observing and analyzing the qualities
of effective or good leadership (Higgs, 2009) that led towards the romanticisation of
leadership. However, in the time of crisis in the organization, leaders are the one who are
often seen as saviors or the hero. Indeed, (Burns, 2003) contends that leadership is
basically good and this argument led to ignore the likelihood of the leadership dark side
in which leadership is not really valuable organizational purposes. Similarly it ignores the
behavior of leadership, which may lead the organization to a state of decline.
Nevertheless, recently there has been an increase in focusing on the dark side of
leadership, its causes, characteristics and its outcome particularly in the wake of unethical
leadership and the advanced corporate calamities. Dark side of the Leadership arises
when the things go wrong and the organizational workers don’t want to discuss the un
discussable. There seem to be two sides to the dark side of the leadership, first is
personality and second is system. The personality side is when charisma goes wrong. A
charismatic personality is basically someone who exudes some motivational force that
14

people like and there then to be two point of view on the either the individual is a great
communicator or actually what the individual have is very weak followers and second the
system because if the organization conducts the ethics that only benefits the top level, and
collectivism is not followed it caused the dark phase.
(AshForth, 1994) contends that the leaders who engage frequently in a range of behaviors
such as putting down of followers, Lack of considering other view point, discouraging
initiative, self magnification can led to undermining of followers well being and
organizational objectives. As per the recent study done by (Schilling, 2017) where it
highlight the fact that these leaders additionally showed behaviors that were focused on
achieving the personal rather that the organizational objectives. Analogously, four kinds
of themes was found by (Higgs, 2009) which included abuse of power, breaking the rules
to satisfy the personal needs, imposing damage on others and so on. The leaders who
demonstrate these behaviors are seen as overly ambitious and untrustworthy but its not
just leaders whose behavior showcases the dark side, the behaviors of followers also has
its contribution.
The issue with the numerous definition of dark side of leadership is that they aim on
considering narrow theoretical position and neglects the multidimensional part of the
leadership that fuses environmental dynamics and the followers. For instance, (Einarsen,
2007) insinuate destructive leadership definition as, the repeated and deliberate by the
manager or leaders who violates the organizations legitimate interest by destabilizing the
objectives, motivation, effectiveness, resources and task of the organization. The
researcher also highlights practices of leadership as the essential impact over results for
the followers and the organization but this definition fails to address the four aspects of
leadership. Firstly, it neglects the situational or environmental factors that have been
shown in order to influence the practices such as increased market competition and
hierarchal practices (Kellerman, 2004). Secondly the particular definition does not
consider any traits or personality factors (Hogan, 2005); third it is ignoring the power
motives and power relationship (Ginnett, 2008) and lastly it neglects the likelihood that
certain features such as charisma and narcissism related with the leadership dark side
15

may exist on a range from the destructive to constructive behaviors, which contains both
negative and positive result for the organization (Mulvey, 2008).
Perhaps the definition also considers multiple advantages. To start with it considers the
followers contribution towards the processes of leadership. Here it stresses the point that
individualism is not the way towards successful leadership as it elaborates that leadership
is difficult to survive without followership and followership denotes to working
collectively. Collectivism is necessary for the execution of the organization. Here in the
case of dark side of leadership working collectively can help the followers to contribute
to the administration negative outcomes through dynamic undermining of the leader
(Padilla, 2007).
Consequently, it notes the situational factors that have been shown to impact on the
behaviors of the leaders. Thirdly, both followers plus leaders self interest furthermore the
mishandlings of energy is understood and also this stands out from (Padill a, 2007) idea
that the followers are defenseless. Followers or the employees are the pillars of the
organization and if the idea of working collectively is implied in any organization then
the flowers can actively contribute to meet the organizations goal (Spector, 2017).
Talking about the ineffective leadership (Kellerman, 2016) argues that the leaders who
are incompetent carries a cautionary approach for the growth of the administration and
led to fail in delivering positive changes. Further he argues that these kinds of leaders do
least damage. In any case, significant destruction may come from the inactivity that got
built inside the administration where the respond is not adequate to the external force.
Similarly, like the incompetent or ineffective leadership, there is a term called laissez-
faire leadership portrayed by the transformational leadership theory as unresponsive
leadership can be a kind in nature as focus of the success of leadership is the
demonstration of the transformational styles or behaviors (Antonakis, 2003). However
the evidence gathered from the recent studies states that laissez- faire leadership behavior
was connected with the role ambiguity, conflict amid the workers which me encourage
the bullying behavior.
16

However, this discussion altogether demonstrates the need to shift from the individualism
to collectivism. It showcases that working collectively with the co- workers and
discussing everyone’s perspective aiming the similar goal may led to remove the negative
chaos from the organization and also it demonstrates the need to have more closer look
on the dark side of the leadership. Inspite of the fact that it may instinctually come into
realization of what is the dark side of the leadership, it also stretches out the fundamental
reason as to why leaders are more engaged in these kind of behaviors whilst
contemplating the interchange concerning the follower, environmental factor, leader and
power.
Methodology
In the review for this research there was a use of mixed method study, which comprised
of qualitative data and quantitative data in order to draw a strong result in a singe study.
From the quantitative data Ash Forth, 2010 has made the use of orientation furthermore
statistical modeling in the discussion of the dark side of the leadership scales and in
understanding the perceptions of the leaders. The review determines the relationship of
workplace spirituality, destructive leadership furthermore empirically analyze the
correlation relationship amid studies. The experimental approach has also been taken
incorporating methods from the economic fields as well. Survey methodology has also
been given attention. There contains most empirical studies, which have used
longitudinal interpretive case study approach as well. (Ash Forth, 2010) also makes the
use of case study, which is in depth, however two forth of the review in this theme was
used by a single case. The reason for use longitudinal in- depth is that it helps in
increasing the internal validity of the research.
From the qualitative data the research includes a multitude research techniques where it
includes case studies, grounded theory, interviews, literature criticism and ethnogry. It
highlights the negative behavior leaders demonstrations concerning the experiences. With
17

the reflection of an explorative nature of this review, it includes the pursuit of descriptive
and detailed data on the destructive side of the leadership behavior contented by (Ash
Forth, 2010) and it also includes the traits and that had led to an argument with different
authors. The approach was also aligned with the reasonable research philosophy that and
approach that helps to promote the methods and the questions of the research in order to
create knowledge that is practically meaningful.
Clarification of the key words was also carried out that appeared to be more related and
that are dark personality, dark traits, leadership, narcissistic leadership. With the wide-
ranging search on the article, case study and the news journals and articles, there was a
gathering of thirteen online resources where six reviewed on the behavior of the
leadership and six newsletters gathered the example of the company that had to go
through the dark leadership phase. The accesses on the Sage Journal helped in analyzing
the resources of (Ash Forth, 2010) and broaden up the perspective of the dark side of the
leadership and the behavior traits by comparing with different journals.
Finally, the researchers analysis and the papers that were read was tallied came to the
conclusion that the samplings and the theories added by the author in his research and
finding was not enough as the research needed help from other articles and newsletters
ass well to open up the discussions.
Implications
The aim of Leadership: Individualism to collectivity research was to endure an in-depth
understanding of the diverse events making the best way possible for the studies to be
capable of underlying the patterns of action. This review helps us analyze how the power
of an individual and power of a group works. It helps us see the difference of which one
gives a heavier in sight on the way to the succession of leadership. The paper helps to
identify the effectiveness is not the ultimate outcome. The definition given in the above
review tries to elaborate that leadership is the expansion of group capacity to be effective
in leadership roles and processes. It is understood that the focus is given on the
18

enhancing, expanding and developing the capacity of the organization and shifting
towards the collectivist culture. The review sheds a light on leadership and how it is
moving from individualism to collectivity linking it with the distributed leadership,
millennial leadership and also gives an insight on the dark side of the leadership. It is
understood that though the topic is divided but it interlinks with each other.
The review gives an understanding that organizations utilize the power of collectivity, the
power of teamwork. This helps the organization offering the support mechanisms within
the offices, improves output and provide healthy competitions. The review elaborates
leadership it’s functioning and the power of unity from the perspective of firstly
distributed leadership where it is observed that for the organization to grow dividing
work equally to add different ideas, secondly it talks about millennial leadership where it
provides the concept of modernization in the organization, not just the technology and the
system but with the ideas and young people who carries freshness and energy in the work
place. Lastly, the dark side of leadership can be understood as the unawareness of truth,
behavioral patter that is obstinate and the erroneous perception about the reality. It
therefore leads to contribution to the destructive mindset of the leader. It is clear that
those leaders have a view of narrowing things on their own perspective and continuously
pass wrong information, which leads to spread confusion that results into chaotic
situations.
The review helps to endure that interdependent teams built by individuals with common
specialization, preference, goals, attitude, taste and headed by self driven and dedicated
leaders can make things happen better than any thing else in an organization. The
outcomes often come out much better when employees work in teams rather than
individually. The emergence of a new, more human, paradigm has made the world
experience a different revolutionary change. In the old paradigm, individuals were merely
workers and made minimum contributions to organizational outputs. However, the new
paradigm has made organizations realize that its human potential is what makes the
organization what it is. Working collectively is what creates the culture, the leadership
and ultimately the satisfaction. The result is increasing relevancy and competitiveness.
19

The responsibility is on the organization to foster and nurture this new paradigm to create
a cohesive atmosphere and the feeling of solidarity by the leaders among its employees to
enable to enable them to give their best.
Overall, in the above research what is notices that building of more theory and the
generation of hypotheses is important. Further, the sampling and data provided in the
methodology section helps in connecting the situations with the present work and how it
is working. The qualitative and quantitative analysis helps the organization to meet the
goals clearly.
Conclusion
The literature review above is structured by surrounding it with three core elements of
leadership as Distributed, Dark Side and Millennial leadership. Correspondingly, the
literature review also analyses and deliberates the methodologies as well as the
implications of the analysis for the policy and the managerial practice. The first section of
the paper helps the managers and the organization to understand the working of the
leadership and the radical difference in the working of the organization while
implementing the individualistic culture or the collectivistic culture (Luke, 1998). It is
found that the definition of leadership is infinite but in all those the most common
characteristic is that the leadership involves a process whereby one person exerts
intentional influence over the other people (Yukl, 2006). In the present world where
dynamic environment has seem to be a normal case due to the advancement in every
sector, it gave an insight that why most of the organization now seek to move from the
individualism to collectivity. It resulted that collective leadership are more successful
while implementing the strategy (Senge, 1990).
Similarly, the second of the leadership talks about the distributed leadership, which gave
the managers and the organization a realization that leadership is not the preserve of the
person on the top of the organization further the research claims that the person carrying
such idea is just an illusion because leadership is simply understood as the distributed
20

phenomenon. It is stated clear that the leadership is the outcome of the group dynamics
and not just the actions of the person designated as a leader (Groon, 2002). The review
over all also elaborates that if the organization wants to understand of the group or the
administration, it has to consider the whole pattern of action and interactions that is
taking place. It is found that every person in the organization influences what it feels like
to be in the particular organization keeping in mind its culture, performance and lastly the
thing that it holds the most or least important that is its values (Bein, 2006).
Moving on the third section of the paper takes the topic into the leadership with more
energy, freshness and showering of the new ideas and that all comes from the millennial
leadership. This review explores that the future of the organization is not just dependent
in the collectivism and having distributed leadership but there is also a need of adapting
people who seek to have advancement in terms of everything such as technology, cultural
understanding, advancement in the ideas and the creativity level (Karp, Sirias, 2017)). It
also gave the leaders an insight collectivism plays a huge role in millennial too as without
the collectivist culture people would not believe in those leaders and never offer
opportunities. Finally, the fourth section of the paper goes in depth and focuses on the
dark side of the leadership and how it is created .It is found that the behaviors and the
attitudes in the workplace can lead to either benefit the organization or can play a
destructive role (Ashforth, 2002). Generally, the moral justification, euphemistic labeling,
comparison, narcissism that led to the cause of the dark side of the leadership is
elaborated in the review.
In conclusion, the review of the leadership: individuality to collectivism has been able to
deliver the clear understanding of the elements with the use of but the theoretical and the
empirical fields. The agenda of the research contains the capacity to stretch the
understanding of what is the meaning of the leadership and how is it processed. Further
the quantitative analysis consequently will stretch the field of the leadership and the
management research.
Reference
21

 Elverson, M. and Spicer, A. (2012) ‘Critical leadership studies: The case for
critical performativity’. Human Relations, 65(3): 367-390.
 Ensued. 2018. Ensued. [Online]. [20 February 2018]. Available from:
https://www.mnsu.edu/activities/leadership/distributed_leadership.pdf
 Sexton, J. (2006) ‘The Safety Attitudes questionnaire: Psychometric properties,
benchmarking data, and emerging research’. Available online:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/6/44 [accessed 25th January 2018]
 Jacques, E. and Clement, S. (1994) ‘Executive leadership: A practical guide to
managing complexity’. Cambridge, MA: Carson-Hall.
 Conferenceconz. 2018. Conferenceconz. [Online]. [18 January 2018]. Available
from: http://www.conference.co.nz/files/docs/darksideofleadership2.pdf
 Ash forth, B. Leadership. . Organizational development. [Online]. [15 January
2018].
 Katz, D. (1955) ‘Social psychology of organisations’. New York, NY: John
Wiley.
 CDIP. 2017. COLLECTIVISM. [Online]. [10 March 2018]. Available from:
https://www.acmaweb.org/leadership_net/2017_Leadership_and_PA_Brochure.p
df
 Truss, H. 2014. Employee engagement. [Online]. [10 March 2018]. Available
from: https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/JOEPP-04-2014-0017?
src=recsys&mobileUi=0&fullSc=1&journalCode=joepp
 Luke, T. 1998. Globalization And The Mass Media. [Online]. [1 March 2018].
Available from: http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/5542/1/mass media
entryglobalization.pdf
 Burgoyne, W. 2003. Burgoyne. [Online]. [4 March 2018]. Available from:
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/000134551306700302?
journalCode=aaxa
 Benson, M. and Hogan, R. (2008) ‘How Dark Side Leadership personality
destroys trust and degrades organisational effectiveness’. Organisations and
People, 15(3): 10-18.
22

 Stogdill, R. (1950) ‘Leadership, membership and organisation’. Psychological
Bulletin, 47: 1-14.
 Tannenbaum, R. Weschler, I. and Massarik, F. (1961) ‘Leadership and
organisation’. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
 Senge, P. 2012. Leadership Effectiveness. [Online]. [3 March 2018]. Available
from: http://scindeks-clanci.ceon.rs/data/pdf/2334-9638/2012/2334-
96381202057M.pdf
 Gronn. 2012. Perception of Distributed Leadership. [Online]. [3 March 2018].
Available from: https://digscholarship.unco.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1114
 Kotter, J. (1990) ‘What leaders really do’. Harvard Business Review, 68: 103-
111.
 Graetz. 2000. Learning through engagement and authentic practice. [Online]. [6
March 2018]. Available from: http://www.unco.edu/leap/
 Bennett. 2003. Distributed Leadership. [Online]. [21 March 2018]. Available
from: https://www.mnsu.edu/activities/leadership/distributed_leadership.pdf
 Altman. 2017. A New Generation Employee. [Online]. [21 March
2018]. Available from: https://iveybusinessjournal.com/publication/the-
millennials-a-new-generation-of-employees-a-new-set-of-engagement-policies/
 Badaracco, Joseph L. (2002a) ‘The Anything-But Unremarkable Lessons of the
Quiet Leader’. Ivey Business Journal (May–June): 16–21.
 Badaracco, J. L. (2002b) Leading Quietly: An Unorthodox Guide to Doing the
Right Thing. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
 Buchanan, D. Addicott, R. Fitzgerald, L. Ferlie, E. and Baeza, J. (2007) ‘Nobody
in charge: Distributed change agency in healthcare’. Human Relations, 60: 1065-
1090.
 Kotter, J. (1999). John P. Kotter on what leaders really do. Boston: Harvard
Business School Press.
 Coleman, M. and Earley, P. (2005). Leadership and management in education.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 Kaiser & Hogan. 2005. Dark Side Of Leadership. Dysfunctional
Leadership. 5(12), pp. 35.
23

 Dempsey. 2010. New Age. Millennial Leadership. 14(18), pp. 35.
 Burns. 2013. Leadership Gone Bad. International Conflictions. 3(8), pp. 1- 15.
 Kellerman. 2004. Misuse of power. Dark side of Leadership. 44(12), pp. 1-19.
 Essinger. 2010. Youth. Millennial Leadership. 20(18), pp. 1-10.
 Gordon. 2012. Gaining Trust. Making Millennial into work. 16(10), pp. 16.
 Abram & Luther. 2004. Innovation. Understanding Globalization and
Innovation.6 (13), pp. 10.
 Delotie. 2016. UNDERSTANDING CHANGE AND CHANGE
MANAGEMENT PROCESSES. [Online]. [3 March 2018]. Available from:
http://www.canberra.edu.au/researchrepository/file/81c02a90-6a15-91ae-c7a2-
ff44c96d60b2/1/full_text.pdf
 Wheniworkcom. 2015. When I Work. [Online]. [21 March 2018]. Available from:
https://wheniwork.com/blog/millennials-in-the-workplace/
 Deloittecom. 2018. Deloittecom. [Online]. [21 March 2018]. Available from:
https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/us/Documents/about-deloitte/us-
millennial-majority-will-transform-your-culture.pdf
 Virtual. 2005. Seven Transformations of leadership. [Online]. [2 January 2018].
Available from: https://hbr.org/2005/04/seven-transformations-of-leadership
 Brytting. 2000. Leading Multi Generational Work Place. [Online]. [10 March
2018]. Available from:
https://assets.aarp.org/www.aarp.org_/articles/money/employers/leading_multige
nerational_workforce.pdf
 Knight & Trowler. 2001. Shared Leadership. Working as one. 12(2), pp. 16.
 Keyes. 1999. Team Building. Power of unity. 14(7), pp. 18.
 Bickmore. 2001. Effective Workplace. Effectiveness in Leadership. 14(6), pp. 30.
 Maxwell. 2013. The 5 levels of Leadership. [Online]. [10 March 2018]. Available
from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPwXeg8ThWI
 Kuenkel. 2015. Collective Leadership for Sustainability. [Online]. [8 March
2018]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEeAwoNTUwo
 Torres. 2014. What it takes to be a good leader. [Online]. [4 March
2018]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUYSDEYdmzw
24

 Stein. 2015. The inner journey to leadership. [Online]. [11 March
2018]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaEqRFe1jsg
 Trimble. 2006. Culture and leadership. [Online]. [6 March 2018]. Available from:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuHj3jsBdKE
 Keith. 2015. 21st Century Leadership. [Online]. [1 March 2018]. Available from:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMKz8h1dywE
 Sinew. 2013. Responsibility and leadership. [Online]. [18 February
2018]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ4zl6G_Td4
 Heifetz, R. (1994) ‘Leadership without easy answers’. Harvard, CT: Harvard
University Press.
 Hersey, P. And Blanchard, K. (1977) ‘Management of Organisational
Behaviour’. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
 House, R. (1971) ‘A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness’. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 16: 321-338.
 Simnick. 2016. Great Leaders Need Authenticity. [Online]. [11 March 2018].
Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch? V=9D8rurK4fzQ
 Gillivan. 2003. Embracing Your Authentic Self. [Online]. [10 March
2018]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wa9LmKL7tJ8
 Sutherland, N. Land, C. and Bohme, S. (2013) ‘Anti-leadership in social
movement organisations: The case of autonomous grassroots groups’.
Organisation, 0(0): 1-23.
 Tepper, B. (2000) ‘Consequences of abusive supervision’. Academy of
Management Journal, 43(2): 178-190.
 Thomas, D. (2010) ‘Narcissism: Behind the Mask’. New York, NY: Book Guild
Publishing.
 Weick, K. (2007) ‘Romancing, following and sense making: James Meindl’s
legacy’. ‘Follower-centred perspectives on leadership: A tribute to the memory of
James R. Meindl’. Charlotte, NC: Information Age: 287-301
25

26