Paper

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 requires 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 various 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.
WORLDVIEWS AND
LEADERSHIP: THINKING
AND ACTING THE BIGGER
PICTURES
JOHN VALK, STEPHAN BELDING, ALICIA CRUMPTON,
NATHAN HARTER, AND JONATHAN REAMS
54
JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES, Volume 5, Number 2, 2011
©2011 University of Phoenix
View 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 of
an overriding homogeneous and uniform worldview
embraced by all.
At this point the concept of worldview is often used
interchangeably with terms such as mental models, paradigms, organizing devices, contexts, and operating systems
(Beck & Cowan, 1996; Klenke, 2008). A worldview is
seen as serving a particular function, encompassing
deeply held beliefs about reality that shape and influence how individuals think and act. Worldviews determine priorities and reinforce one’s view of reality and
of what is true and right (Barrett, 2006; Ciulla, 2000;
Hames, 2007). Yet, where it has focused specifically on
worldviews, leadership study has confined it largely to
religious and spiritual worldviews as applied to individuals and groups or organizations (Hicks, 2003;
Lindsey, 2007). It has left numerous secular worldviews largely unexamined.
The concept of worldview does surface within leadership development. It is recognized that a person’s life
context shapes how one develops—altering one’s
life context alters one’s course of development (Luthans &
Avolio, 2003). Further, each person interprets and assigns significance of meaning to different events, which
in turn become a lens through which we view the world
around us (Avolio, 2005). These are what Gadamer,
Weinsheimer, and Marshall (2004) called prejudices:
points of view that define our immediate horizon of understanding. Self-awareness, or learning to identify and
understand one’s own worldview, becomes a cornerstone
of leadership, for a leader’s worldview impacts an organization and those that operate within it. From the
perspective of leaders as change agents, this becomes
particularly important. Leaders assist others in creating
and 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 worldviews
in leadership study, some may ask whether the concept
itself is sufficiently robust at this point for leadership study.
Setting aside for the time being the particular content of a
worldview, as well as the degree of one’s commitment to a
The Concept of Worldviews in
Leadership Studies
Multiple ways of knowing and cross-cultural literacy are
goals of leadership. As such, leadership study requires
broad awareness in order to build bridges of understanding. It necessitates worldview literacy and the ability to
communicate in plural and diverse settings. Essentially,
it encourages awareness of one’s own view or vision of
life as a means to better engage with others. Awareness
of diverse views or perspectives is necessary so people
can engage in common cause in a multifaceted world
(Drath, 2001).
Worldview is a concept that requires an interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, and perhaps even transdisciplinary approach to fully understand its tenets and
application. It is overtly and robustly defined in certain
disciplinary areas—religious studies, philosophy, and
anthropology—but is only slowly surfacing in leadership study (Crumpton, 2010). Here, it is used with limited clarity and consensus, with only some semblance
and points of agreement.
Lack of worldview definitional clarity and precision
within leadership study should not be surprising given
that leadership study has undergone significant paradigm shifts. Leadership study emerged within the context of modernity and its emphasis on objective
rationality. But it came to be influenced by postmodernity and its emphasis on multiple ways of knowing,
and language and knowledge construction. Today,
much of leadership study embraces what is often referred to as glocalism, an emphasis on thinking globally and acting locally (Antonakis, Cianciolo, &
Sternberg, 2004; Burke, 2008; Northouse, 2010;
Schwandt & Szabla, 2007). Leadership study recognizes that increasing cultural and racial diversity have
been brought on by globalism. Further, technology has
opened the door for alternative ways of viewing the
world and the necessity of new leadership practices
such as global or cross-cultural leadership and intercultural communication (Chhokar, Brodbeck, & House,
2009; Rondinelli & Heffron, 2009). As such, the importance of exploring similarities and differences between worldviews has surfaced. With it comes fostering
self-awareness (what is my worldview?) and the understanding 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 automatically
imply understanding; that they make sense to someone
else. Our powers of comprehension or even inference
are not infallible.
A worldview is also dynamic—it changes over time.
Jaspers characterized “the construction of worldviews
as a continuous, lifelong process stimulated by the experience of disturbance” (cited in Webb, 2009, p. 15).
What one believes and values today can be quite different tomorrow. Measuring something that does not hold
still is difficult (Aerts et al., 2007). Kegan refers to these
as “a succession of holding environments” (cited in
Webb, 2009, p. 50). Aerts et al. (2007) maintain that
any worldview is “fragile” (p. 10). Broekaert (1999) employs the more optimistic term openness—every worldview is open to revision or even replacement.
Worldviews are dynamic; they can evolve (Vidal, 2007).
Webb (2009) credited Jaspers with insisting that a
worldview is indefinite and fluid, a work in progress.
Woodrow Wilson (1952) wrote about leadership
as an academic administrator. But did the same thoughts
and attitudes prevail in his mind later during his years in
public office? We know certain leaders change their
views because they attest to that change and lead differently thereafter as a result. In other situations, of
course, the change might be subtle or even unconscious.
But do changes in some of the views one holds entail a
wholesale change in the worldview one holds?
Many people today are unaware of or have doubts
about their own worldviews. Sociologists refer to this
as anomie, based on the Latin, “being without coherent
wholeness” (Webb, 2009, p. 1). Some seem not to care
whether or not they have a worldview. Noonan (1990)
alleges that U.S. President Ronald Reagan was quite
oblivious to his own worldview. Henry Adams (1999)
said much the same thing about President Ulysses
Grant. Neither man was known for being particularly
introspective. Yet each president in his own way was a
leader. Is awareness of one’s own worldview, therefore,
a precondition for leadership?
It can, nonetheless, be argued that everyone has a
worldview of some sort (Webb, 2009). Worldviews are
socially constructed over time (Vidal, 2007). The communities to which people belong—religious, social, educational, and political—influence what they espouse
(Smith, 2003; Wacquant, 2006). Yet, just as no two
given worldview, a question remains as to whether the
very idea of discussing or incorporating “worldviews” enhances leadership study (Webb, 2009). An investigation
into worldviews might begin with an epistemic question
regarding the detection and examination of a worldview.
Can one infer the presence of worldviews? If so, what
can be inferred based on the evidence?
Laing (1967) concluded that the study of the experiences of others will indeed be based on inferences since
no one has direct access to the minds of others. Nevertheless, in ordinary experience, people do believe there
is something there, which suggests there is something
there to interpret. People seem to have reasons for what
they do, even if those reasons turn out to be difficult to
establish. Reasons for action are linked to worldviews.
Dennett (2005) impugns folk psychology, wondering how anyone can know what somebody else might be
thinking—or whether they are thinking at all. He maintains that it is next to impossible to really know someone else’s worldview. Even if one does claim to have a
worldview, he or she may well be mistaken as to its
structure and content. He or she may also not necessarily act in light of it.
Dennett’s claims notwithstanding, perhaps most obvious to the notion that a person has a worldview is
what he or she might say about it. Friedrich Nietzsche
(1887/1956), among others, speculated that humans
give reasons for their behavior not because those reasons did in fact lead to particular decisions, but because
of the desire to rationalize behavior after the fact. Do
people admit to a worldview to avoid the truth about a
basis for action they would prefer to disguise or disavow? Might avowals of a worldview be evasions or rationalizations, disguising what really goes on in the
human mind? Nietzsche was quite suspicious of people’s testimony. In fact, Lansky once referred to the
“doubting of surface rationalization that so dramatically
characterizes virtually all of Nietzsche’s work” (1999,
p. 179). The suspicion is that reference to one’s worldview might be a smokescreen of self-justification,
whether conscious or unconscious. In other words, assuming to know someone’s worldview based solely on
what is reported about it can be problematic.
Language itself can be a barrier to effective understanding of the worldviews of others (Aerts et al., 2007). This
holds 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 exceeding
any one individual’s powers of explanation. Understanding worldview complexity becomes another challenge for
leadership study (Aerts et al., 2007; Webb, 2009).
There may be more challenges. What role, for instance, do factors such as lust, pride, or greed play in
determining worldviews? We know they can play a
formative role in leadership action, but how constitutive
are they in determining beliefs and values? Do they contribute to worldview incoherence, or even worldview
schizophrenia, potentially creating discrepancies between espoused belief and concrete action? These factors
may be internal to the individual but nonetheless influence and shape external behavior.
Worldviews and Their Implications
for Leadership
It was the Cheshire Cat in Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland who said, “If you don’t know where you are
going, any road will get you there.” To rephrase only
slightly, if you do not know your own beliefs and values,
any will do, as will any road or virtual highway. But
thoughtful minds are more discerning. A Lutheran
“Here I stand” or a Gandhian “Be the change that you
want to see in the world” requires careful reflection in
order to achieve the world we need or want, for the
world we need or want is crucially linked to our worldview—our beliefs and values. Leadership for action requires reflection on our worldviews.
In light of the challenges posed in regard to use of
the concept of worldview in leadership study, worldview development, or “know thyself” as the Oracle of
Delphi decreed, is crucial for studying the past, assessing the present, and planning for the future. Worldview
development, however, must also be linked to comparative religionist Max Muller’s dictum, “He who knows
one, knows none”: knowledge of one’s own worldview
cannot be accomplished without some knowledge of
those of others (cited in Sharpe, 1975, p. 36).
G. K. Chesterton argued that “the most practical and
important thing about a man is his view of the universe”
(1986, p. 41). According to Parks (1991), humans have
an inherent desire to make sense of their universe: we are
meaning-makers. We need and desperately want to make
sense 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 likemindedness, there will always be at least some variation
(Webb, 2009). Further, worldviews are not ascribed exclusively to individuals; a community can also be defined by a particular worldview (Aerts et al., 2007;
Webb, 2009). Thus, one can speak of a collective worldview influencing individual worldviews and that individual worldviews can also influence a collective
worldview.
In all of this, worldviews require interpretation. Here,
two challenges present themselves. First, any interpretation of a worldview will be filtered through the worldview of the interpreter (Klüver, 1926). An investigator
must recognize and take into account that he or she,
too, has a worldview. That worldview serves as a lens or
framework through which the worldview of another is
interpreted and described. The existence, character, and
content of one’s own worldview do not imply anything
similar in regard to that of another person. One is ill
advised to jump too quickly from the content of one’s
own mind to inferences about the content of another.
Second, worldviews can often be fundamentally incoherent, inconsistent, and unclear (Aerts et al., 2007).
They may be tattered, makeshift constructs that make
some sense of daily life, but may also be little more than
evolutionary truces or temporary versions of an adopted
worldview, as Kegan (1982) inferred. Worldviews may
be partial—comprised of bits and pieces that lack apparent connection. They may be filled with unresolved
contradictions and may change over time. A person’s
worldview may resemble a patchwork of evolving subworldviews and not something coherent and complete,
a notion consistent with the pluralistic imagery espoused by James (1909/1996).
Yet, any concept is an abstraction from lived reality
and certain features will be included and others excluded. No worldview is so elaborate as the reality it attempts to depict. That is impossible, and misses the
point of worldview construction (Whitehead, 1938,
1951). Worldviews, however articulate or inarticulate,
coherent or incoherent, complete or incomplete, are abstractions of the world in which we live. But worldview
development is the very act of overcoming inarticulateness, 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 come
with totalizing narratives: assertions or explanations of
“the way the world is” as seen from a particular perspective. But all perspectives require interpretation, for reality and a particular view of it are not synonymous. No
one stands at the mountaintop. For this reason, our
worldview is necessarily a “leap of faith” about the nature of reality, which requires at minimum a small measure of humility and a great deal of interpretation.
Perhaps it has been the reluctance to distinguish reality from its interpretations that has led postmodernism
to reject the totalizing or meta-narratives often implied
or assumed in worldviews, arguing that these narratives,
if not the worldviews themselves, need to be deconstructed for what they really are—struggles for power,
control, and domination. History is replete with such
worldview struggles, and the current era is no different.
Yet, it would be an oversimplification to assert that all
attempts to understand one’s own worldview or those of
others automatically translate into struggles for or presumptions of moral, religious, cultural, and economic
superiority. In leadership studies a genuine desire to understand “the other,” in order to better know the self,
might be more appropriate as we come increasingly to
recognize 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 particular kinds of directives and actions that result from
them—is important in the academic training of leaders, especially when postmodern fears of distinguishing
differences will lead to pursuits of power, attitudes of
superiority, or false notions of what is real and true.
That became apparent in issues surfacing at the 1993
World Parliament of Religions held in Chicago. Ingham
(1997) mentions that leading scientists stated, in a surprising turn of events, that solutions to the world’s
biggest challenges lay not in more political action, better
technology, or increased economic initiatives. Solutions,
they argued, lay rather in guidance from some of the
world’s most respected spiritual leaders. Tapping into
the 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 experiences
that speak to some of the deepest realities of our lives.
The result is “worldview construction”—creating meaning in a world that can appear confusing and meaningless (McKenzie, 1991; Naugle, 2002). Worldviews are
thus meaningful visions of life.
Worldviews are also ways of life. Everyone has a conscious or subconscious way of acting and behaving in
the world based on particular beliefs and values. These
may be known, articulated, or discerned by individuals or groups to greater or lesser degrees. Achieving consistency and congruency in our visions and ways of life
is challenging: We all readily profess one thing and do
another. Beliefs can be loosely adhered to, incompatible,
or in tension, leading to inconsistent or contradictory
action: “talking our walk” does not always match “walking our talk” (Olsen et al., 1992; Olthuis, 1985). This
may readily reflect human weakness but does not erode
the need to be anchored in some coherent sense of the
reality we experience.
The reality that we experience does, of course,
change. As our reality changes, so does our understanding of ourselves, others, and the world we inhabit. In
some cases, our worldview changes dramatically but
more often than not it is aspects of our worldview that
are expanded and deepened. Core philosophical, ontological, or epistemological aspects are seldom discarded
or abandoned. Further, giving articulation to our worldviews is not easy. Often, philosophers, theologians, or
poets express what others may only feel or believe intuitively. As such, they become spokespersons, leaders,
or individuals of great influence, of which Socrates,
Martin Luther King Jr., or Vaclav Havel are but a few
examples.
When we hear and read of perceptions of the world
expressed by persons of great influence, or even others,
we come to recognize that those perceptions or perspectives can be considerably different. The worldview perspectives of a Richard Dawkins, Donald Trump, or Karl
Marx, for example, differ radically from those of a
Desmond Tutu, Chief Seattle, or the Dalai Lama: They
are simply not the same and we know it. We also see
them 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 greatest
challenges. It has been noted, sadly, however, that the
depths of wisdom offered by many of the world’s traditional religious worldviews, each accustomed to asking life’s so-called “ultimate or existential questions,”
are accessed by only a very small percentage of leaders
today (Valk et al., 2010).
Asking these big questions in regard to business developments, political action, international relations, and
concern for the environment might well, however, lead
to some startling discussions and revelations. Incorporating worldview study into leadership study might, for
example, change our notions and understandings of
wealth and wealth creation. The capitalistic drive to generate wealth might lead from a narrow focus on maximizing profit to a broader one that includes living wages
for workers, healthy families, and sustainable environments. Engaging multiple perspectives or worldviews
can enhance dialogue as debates of intense public interest play out in the public square.
It is also in engaging multiple perspectives in the public square that we need to increase our critical awareness of the different perspectives that are part of our
plural society. Fixating on “Christianity lite” or “Buddhism lite” renders only dumbed-down and distorted
versions crafted for media sound bites or scoring points
in public debates. In-depth leadership study must avoid
cheapened versions, opting rather to plumb the depths
of various perspectives to extract wisdom so desperately
needed in our society today.
Critical awareness is also required to achieve balance.
Careful scrutiny is needed in discerning when, for example, consumer capitalism’s desire to generate wealth
throughout the world digresses to little more than a
dominant strategy to increase world market share and
seek cheap labor in order to maximize profits (Wexler,
2006), or when religious worldviews focused exclusively
on the spiritual neglect the impoverished reality of their
devotees. Open dialogue and discernment involving
multiple perspectives will assist in distinguishing true
human needs and longings from those that are contrived, truncated, and insatiable. Discussions also should
not be confined to national boundaries or single disciplines: economic issues are at the same time environmental, cultural, spiritual, religious, scientific, and
political.
As we deal with the challenges of the 21st century,
clearer senses of purpose and direction are required—in
essence, clearer visions linked to specific actions. Investigating the bigger pictures—worldviews of self and
others—will give guidance and direction to leaders in
new or unique ways. We live in a global world. Challenges and issues confronted by one organization, region, or nation invariably become global challenges and
issues. Just as leadership must extend beyond the narrow
confines of one’s own organization, it must also extend
beyond the narrow confines of one’s own perspective.
As well, it must dissuade giving prominent voice to
those with worldviews that dominate and distort, distain and detract, impede and restrict. Rather, opportunities ought to be created for those with visions that
strive for balance, have concern for the common good,
are understanding of others, and discern paths needed
to create the world we truly need or want. This becomes
most relevant as dynamics unfold at a larger national
and international scale. Those dynamics are beginning
to shape individual and collective worldviews in ways
not previously experienced, and the changes are impacting some generations more than others.
Worldviews and Generational
Change
Winston Churchill once said that “the longer you can
look back, the farther you can look forward” (Langworth,
2008, p. 577). Amidst the current global economic crisis there is a need to examine and learn from the past
mistakes of the global consumer capitalist worldview in
order not to perpetuate those mistakes in the future. Ignoring the past and looking only to the future may be
a human tendency, but it is fraught with shortsightedness. Can a people, nation, or organization truly move
forward without continually examining its presuppositions and paradigms?
According to Strauss and Howe (1991, 1997) and
Howe and Nadler (2010), we are living in a period of
“civic crisis.” The West is confronted with environmental devastation, economic downturns, social upheavals,
housing crises, civic unrest, and political polarization
in a manner not seen for some time. While most of this
turmoil 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, and
worldview 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 weakening or collapsing of public support mechanisms. Relationships of intergenerational trust are emphasized and
strengthened, with less focus on materialism and money as
primary drivers. Finally, diversification, which nets knowledge and fluency in languages, cultures, and technology,
is stressed. A generalist with survival skills may have an
edge over specialists with focused skills (Strauss & Howe,
1997).
Strauss and Howe (1997) make the case that the
worldviews of Millennials are more globally focused, a
shift from the individual to the community. Social networking takes them outside national borders to the
global stage, where technology provides open channels
for communication and information sharing to all parts
of the world. They exhibit a common willingness to collaborate among all nationalities, working together to
help solve societies problems in ways that will benefit
all (Bradley, 2010; Hernandez, 2008; Howe & Strauss,
2007).
Franklin Roosevelt once remarked that the objectives
of his generation of young people had changed away
from “a plethora of riches” to one of a “sufficiency of
life”—an advancement “along a broad highway on
which thousands of your fellow men and women are
advancing with you” (Roosevelt & Hardman, 1944,
p. 243). For the Millennials, this highway is the virtual
one, the World Wide Web that has facilitated communication in real time across the globe. Its ability to reach
the far corners of our world has seen a transformation
that bodes well for the Millennials as they spread their
community-based leadership and action across our
world, in essence, as they spread their worldview.
Conclusion
There is an extensive if not diverse use of the concept of
worldview in scholarly literature. That use has also
slowly begun to emerge in the leadership literature. The
need to link this literature and get beneath the casual
uses of the concept becomes paramount. The foregoing begins a process of laying out the parameters necessary to link worldviews and leadership in a scholarly
manner.
played out on the world stage are today visible in our
very living rooms. But according to Strauss and Howe,
they impact different generations in different ways.
They have formative influence on the worldview development of younger generations and increasingly so.
Generational scholars have characterized the large
postwar Baby Boom generation as predominantly selffocused—inward-looking to fulfill individual needs
(Dychtwald, 2005; Howe & Nadler, 2010; Strauss &
Howe, 1991, 1997). The Baby Boom generation has
been privileged with tremendous social mobility, economic growth, political liberty, and individual freedom
of the last half-century. But they have also witnessed
environmental devastation, fiscal implosions, democratic disengagement, and poverty in the midst of affluence (Howe & Strauss, 2000). The result is that a
younger generation now considers upward mobility, increased wealth, and improved lives—a sense of generational progression—illusions of a generation past.
Further, new generations—Millennials, “13ers”—may
be required to act as “repair generations,” “fixing the
messes and cleaning up the debris of others” (Strauss &
Howe, 1997, p. 326).
The worldview of the young Millennial generation
will be more globally encompassed because we now live
in a global world. This will have a great impact on leadership as a new generation takes the reins and attempts
to remain upbeat about the future of their world. Several factors, some new and some not so new, influence
and shape their worldview formation. First, emphasis
on the virtues of honesty and integrity, on reputation
and trust building, is again important (Howe & Nadler,
2010). These virtues have been integral to traditional
religious or spiritual worldviews but have become absent in growing individualistic, secular, and consumer
worldviews (Martinsons & Ma, 2009). Second, connectedness to a community comprised of worldview diversity rather than worldview homogeneity has become
the norm (Bartley, Ladd, & Morris, 2007). But that diverse community also has its eyes on government to
meet society’s basic needs. Barack Obama, the United
States’ first president of color, was proactive in bringing together diverse groups for common cause (AlexAssensoh, 2008). Third, personal relationship building
and teamwork is paramount. While some of this comes
with 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 requires certain depth and complexity in understanding
worldviews. Constructing a deeper understanding of
worldviews requires certain mindfulness, not least
of which is the degree to which our own worldview may
filter our perceptions of others. Awareness of one’s own
perspective requires scrutiny while engaging that of another.
Worldview construction is complex. One’s view of the
world is initially shaped by the immediate context out of
which one emerges—family, community, social, and cultural environments. But there are also other factors at
play. As our larger world increasingly impinges upon us,
global factors also begin to shape our worldviews. This
becomes evident especially with generational differences,
where a balance of factors internal and external to our
immediate contexts begins to play a larger role.
Nonetheless, the nature of leadership reveals that great
leaders take action in the world from a clear place: they
are anchored in a particular view of the world.
Humans are meaning makers, and when leaders assist
others in making sense of the world through a clearly
articulated and coherent worldview, solid action can follow. Thus, while we need to be cognizant of the diversity
of worldviews and the diversity of uses of the concept, we
also need to recognize that particular visions of life and
ways of life can be powerful and compelling. The challenge to leadership is to find ways to more explicitly map
out these worldviews, discerning those that tend to impede and restrict from those that seek to enhance and
expand the world we truly need or want.
References
Adams, 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 fragmentation to integration. Originally published in 1994 by VUB
Press. Retrieved from http://www.vub.ac.be/CLEA/ pub/books/
worldviews.pdf
Alex-Assensoh, Y. M. (2008). Change and the 2008 presidential
election. Politicka Misaq, XLV(5), 235–243.
Antonakis, J., Cianciolo, A. T., & Sternberg, R. J. (2004). Leadership: Past, present, and future. In J. Antonakis, A. T. Cianciolo, &
R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of leadership (pp. 3–16). Thousand 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 whole
system approach to cultural transformation. Boston, MA: ButterworthHeinemann.
Bartley, S. J., Ladd, P. G., & Morris, M. L. (2007). Managing the
multigenerational workplace: Answers for managers and teams.
CUPA-HR Journal, 58(1), 28–34.
Beck, D., & Cowan, C. C. (1996). Spiral dynamics: Mastering values, leadership, and change: Exploring the new science of memetics.
Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Business.
Bennis, W. (2009). On becoming a leader. New York, NY: Basic
Books.
Bonzo, M., & Stevens, M. (2009). After worldview: Christian higher
education in postmodern worlds. Sioux Centre, IA: Dordt College Press.
Bordas, J. (2007). Salsa, soul, and spirit: Leadership for a multicultural age. San Franciso, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Bradley, A. (2010). The time has come to embrace millennial perspectives. American Society for Training and Development, 64(8), 22.
Broekaert, J. (1999). World views: Elements of the Apostelian and
general approach. Foundations of Science, 3, 235–258.
Burke, W. W. (2008). Organization change: Theory and practice (2nd
ed.). 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 leadership across the world. London, UK: Routledge.
Ciulla, J. B. (2000). The working life: The promise and betrayal of
modern work. New York, NY: Times Books.
Crumpton, A. D. (2010). An exploration of the concept of worldview within leadership studies literature. International Leadership
Association 12th Annual Global Conference, Leadership 2.0: Time for
Action. Prague, Czech Republic.
Dennett, D. (2005). Sweet dreams: Philosophical obstacles to a science 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 of
leadership. 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 development. 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 of
America.
Martinsons, M. G., & Ma, D. (2009). Sub-cultural differences in
information ethics across China: Focus on Chinese management
generation 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 spiritualism
and 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 of
morals: An attack. New York, NY: Doubleday Anchor.
Noonan, P. (1990). What I saw at the revolution. Victoria, BC: Ivy
Books.
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 the
world 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 for
meaning, 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 leadership
effectiveness. 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). Truth
and 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: Harvard 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 change
corporate culture. Caribbean Business, 36(43), 48–49.
Hicks, D. A. (2003). Religion and the workplace: Pluralism, spirituality, 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: Life
Course Associates.
Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials rising: The next great
generation. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2007). The next twenty years: How customer and workplace attitudes will evolve. Harvard Business Review,
85(7/8), 41–52.
Ingham, M. (1997). Mansions of the spirit: The gospel in a multifaith world. Toronto, Ontario: Anglican Book Centre.
James, W. (1909/1996). A pluralistic universe. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Jules, F. (1999). Native Indian leadership. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 23(1), 40–56.
Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University 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: How
to 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 five
religions. 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 collection
of 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 destiny: 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: New
perspectives from complexity science on social and organizational effectiveness (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 human
beliefs. New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Smith, C. (2003). Moral, believing animals: Human personhood and
culture. 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 in
the public square. Marburg Journal of Religion, 14(1), 1–16.
Valk, J. (2010). Worldviews of today: Teaching for dialogue and
mutual 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 of
worldviews. Journal of Leadership Studies, 4(3), 66–91.
Vidal, C. (2007). An enduring philosophical agenda: Worldview
construction as a philosophical method. Center Leo Apostel. Retrieved
from 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 psychological 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: Discovering
order 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.). Princeton, 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. John
can be reached at [email protected]
Stephan Belding teaches at the Universities of Phoenix and
Marylhurst. He has an MBA from the University of Phoenix.
He is currently working on his doctorate at Capella University. Stephan can be reached at [email protected]
Alicia Crumpton is the director of the Center for Global Studies and teaches Leadership Studies at Johnson University. She
received her doctorate from Gonzaga University. Alicia can be
reached at [email protected]
Nathan Harter is professor of Leadership and American Studies at Christopher Newport University. He received his juris
doctor (JD) at Indiana University School of Law. Nathan
can be reached at [email protected].
Jonathan Reams (Ph.D.) is associate professor in the Department of Education at the Norwegian University of
Science and Technology. Jonathan can be reached at Jonathan@
Reams.com