Relational leadership: Foundational for nonhierarchical leadership theory

Relational leadership is based on a simple yet powerful principle: strong interpersonal connections are key to effective leadership. By fostering a culture of collaboration, mutual respect and shared responsibility, this approach helps create a flexible and adaptive environment. This flexibility is especially valuable in non-hierarchical organizations, where roles and responsibilities can change based on the situation. 

When leaders build trust-based relationships, they can better navigate these dynamic structures more effectively, promoting open communication and collective problem-solving. 

Relational leadership, with its emphasis on strong interpersonal connections and inclusive, collaborative atmospheres, enhances various leadership styles by promoting trust, empathy and mutual respect within diverse teams and organizations. 

This article reviews the literature on relational leadership theory and highlights key contributors to its development, as well as major advantages of relational leadership and potential challenges. It concludes with a personal account of transitioning from a hierarchical leadership style to one centered on relationships.

Theory of relational leadership 

Northouse (2019) defines leadership as a process involving an action-oriented shared event between the leader and followers, where the influence of an individual helps achieve a group’s shared goal.¹ Relational leadership is the process of people working together to accomplish change or benefit the common good by making a difference using the values of inclusivity and fostering ethical relationships and decision-making.² As Cunliffe and Eriksen note:

• Relational leadership requires a way of engaging with the world in which the leader holds herself/himself as always in relation with, and therefore morally accountable to others; recognizes the inherently polyphonic and heteroglossic nature of life; and engages in relational dialogue.³

Komives, Lucas and McMahon (1998) share five factors they believe are the foundation of relational leadership: inclusivity, empowerment, purposefulness, ethics and process orientation. Like Northouse’s definition of leadership, this approach involves all members with varying viewpoints, driven by socially responsible values and standards, empowering each other and those around them to make a purposeful path forward through process changes.⁴ 

Leaders who have influenced the theories of relational leadership include Mary Uhl-Bien, George Graen, Jean Lipman-Blumen, James MacGregor Burns, Barbara Kellerman, Robert Greenleaf, Edgar Schein and Bill George. Uhl-Bien is widely known for her work on complexity leadership theory and relational leadership theory; her research focuses on how organizations can be more creative and adaptable through relational processes.⁵ Recognizing that many current leadership studies are focused on the individual or outcomes that are believed to be straightforward, Uhl-Bien takes the approach that the world is full of complex networks that are interdependent on one another through relationships amid environments of constant change.⁶ 

Similarly, Graen is well known for his Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory, which highlights the significance of the dyadic relationship between leaders and followers.⁷ LMX theory differentiates itself by focusing on exchanges between leaders and followers rather than focusing on the leader’s skills, style and approach or the follower.⁸ 

Studies on LMX show that when leaders and followers have strong, quality interactions, everyone benefits. High-quality exchanges lead to fewer resignations, improved performance evaluations, more promotions, greater organizational engagement, better alignment of work tasks and faster professional advancement.^9,10,11,12 Graen & Uhl-Bien (1991) believe that the leader progresses through three phases with a follower: 

1. Stranger
2. Acquaintance
3. Mature partnership, which can be used for leadership making.¹³

Leadership making is a prescriptive approach that encourages leaders to develop high-quality exchanges with all their followers rather than just a few. This approach ensures that everyone feels included and valued, avoiding the unfairness and negative effects of being in creating an “out-group.”¹⁴ A leader creates an inclusive environment where all followers can be engaged by combining leadership-making and phasing with all team members. 

Many leadership theories structurally include relational leadership. Jean Lipman-Blumen’s work on connective leadership emphasizes the importance of leaders in connecting with others and understanding the complex interdependencies in modern organizations.¹⁵ 

James MacGregor Burns introduced the concept of transformational leadership, which is inherently relational; His work focuses on the connections between leaders and followers and how they can elevate each other.¹⁶ Transformational leadership includes followers’ motivations and considers their fundamental desires to help move them from followers to accomplish more than initially predicted.¹⁷ Research shows that transformational leadership leads to committed followers, loyalty to the leader and organization, and satisfaction in their work.¹⁸ 

• Barbara Kellerman’s work on followership argues that leadership is not just about the leaders but also about the followers and the context in which they interact.¹⁹ 
• Robert Greenleaf’s concept of servant leadership, which emphasizes the leader’s role in serving others, aligns closely with relational leadership principles.²⁰ As Northouse notes, “at its core, helping followers grow and succeed is about aiding these individuals to become self-actualized, reaching their fullest human potential.”²¹ 
• Edgar Schein’s work on organizational culture and leadership highlights the importance of relational dynamics in shaping organizational behaviors and outcomes.²² 
• A final example of a leadership theory shaped by relational leadership is authentic leadership. Bill George developed the authentic leadership approach, which included relationships as one of five dimensions that helped shape his leadership theory.²³

Advantages of relational leadership

Relational leadership offers numerous advantages for leaders and organizations when applied effectively. Four central advantages of relational leadership include enhanced team cohesion and morale, increased employee engagement and satisfaction, promotion of a positive organizational culture, and improved communication and collaboration. As we continually seek after relationships and pursue others with gratitude, contempt for others has no room to exist.²⁴

Enhanced team cohesion and morale. Studies show that relational leadership improves team dynamics and positive relationships at work that improves morale. Dutton and Ragins, through their positive relationship at work (PRW) theory, surmise that positive work relationships can be defined in terms of generative processes, relational mechanisms/ experiences and positive outcomes. Traditionally, relationships took a backseat to organizational life, ignoring the importance of office relationships, though they are central to creating authentic relationships and answering, “What makes life worth living?”²⁵ 

Jerald Greenberg gives an example of the regenerative cycle that positive relationships depend on at work using organizational justice. When individuals promote positive organizational justice, fellow team members recognize it through having positive psychological feelings, which causes the fellow team members to promote positive organizational justice.²⁶ 

Another opportunity to build morale is through perspective-taking. This involves processing another person’s thoughts and feelings with intellectual and sensitive processes. Effectively engaging in perspective-taking improves team morale, including empathy and concern for one another, where members recognize each other achievements. As Dutton and Ragins note: 

"When people engage in perspective-taking, they are also less likely to stereotype others, because they perceive more commonalities between how they see themselves and how they see others."²⁷

Nietzsche (1968) encouraged the re-evaluation of established values and norms. In relational leadership, this can translate into questioning and revising traditional leadership practices and norms, fostering an environment where new ideas and approaches are valued. Engaging employees individually can develop specific relationships that bring higher satisfaction and greater team morale.²⁸ 

Hooks’ emphasis on community and the need for empathy and caring aligns with the relational leadership approach. She believed in the power of empathy to create bonds of understanding and to challenge systems of oppression.²⁹ This aligns with the relational leadership focus on building strong, empathetic relationships and fostering a sense of belonging among team members. Frankl’s (1988) experiences and insights into human resilience in the face of extreme adversity can be a guiding principle for leaders.³⁰ High-quality relationships allow those involved to build a relationship built on connection and mutual feelings for one another that can withstand threats.³¹ Commitment to one another helps develop a resilient organizational culture that can effectively navigate challenges.  

Increased employee engagement and satisfaction. Research where organizations created climates of empowerment and autonomy while including collaboration and allowing followers to be proactively involved in problem-solving yielded higher job satisfaction and overall performance.³² 

Hooks’ work, mainly focusing on intersectionality, empathy, and community-building, aligns well with the principles of relational leadership. She advocated for understanding how power and oppression intersect in people’s lives, which is crucial for relational leaders to understand the diverse experiences and needs within their teams or communities.³³ As Hooks noted, “through giving to each other we learn how to experience mutuality.”³⁴ 

Nietzsche’s (1968) emphasis on individualism and authenticity can be applied to leadership by encouraging leaders and followers to be true to themselves. In relational leadership, this means recognizing and valuing the unique contributions of everyone within the group.³⁵

Logotherapy focuses on the individual’s unique experience and enables individuals to find their own path to meaning.³⁶ In a relational leadership context, this translates to leaders recognizing and valuing the individuality of each team member, thus fostering a culture of respect and inclusion. Doing so empowers team members to take initiative, make decisions that are meaningful to them, and align with organizational goals.

Promotion of a positive organizational culture. When you have a hierarchical or bureaucratic organizational culture, the company can be power-driven and unthoughtful to its employees.³⁷ Hooks (2000) describes how jobs dishearten the spirit and reduce self-esteem. When we invest in the power of relationships and “bring love into the work environment,” we can transform the workplace so employees can express their best selves and nurture their growth.³⁸ Healthcare must move away from old impersonal leadership styles, especially as the job market becomes more diverse. Ferch described the need for organizations to develop communities that embrace diversity and individuality, allowing employees greater autonomy and overall health.³⁹ With a competitive job market, employees seek an organizational culture that includes career development that will train them in new work skills, where leaders pay particular attention to their ideas while involving them in making decisions.⁴⁰ 

Hooks’ work on community-building and collaboration is relevant to relational leadership. She often stressed the importance of working together towards shared goals and viewing leadership as a collaborative rather than a top-down process.⁴¹ This reflects relational leadership’s emphasis on collaboration, shared leadership, and fostering community within a group. Frankl’s belief that life’s primary motivational force is the search for meaning aligns well with relational leadership.⁴² Leaders can foster an environment where team members find meaning in their work, enhancing motivation and engagement.

Improved communication and collaboration. Uhl-Bien and Maslyn (2003) completed reference studies on how relational leadership fosters open communication and found intercorrelations between subordinates and managers based on the quality of the relationship, improving mutual interest and, therefore, organizational support and selflessness.⁴³ Through relationships and building community, communication or “dialogue is necessary and represents the will to listen and evoke listening, the will to build a mutually influential conversation from which all parties emerge changed for good.”⁴⁴ Through improved communication and collaboration, leaders and followers develop mutual trust, commitment to each other and the organization, and respect for all involved.⁴⁵

Frankl’s emphasis on ethical values and moral responsibility aligns with the ethical dimension of relational leadership. Leaders are encouraged to act ethically and to promote a value-based approach in their teams. Frankl’s openness about his experiences and vulnerabilities can inspire leaders to be more authentic and vulnerable.⁴⁶ This authenticity can strengthen the bonds within a team, an essential aspect of relational leadership. 

Criticisms of relational leadership

Critics of relational leadership include the potential for favoritism and bias; the theory’s not being fully developed, and the overemphasis on relationships impacting organizational efficiency. 

Potential for favoritism and bias. 

Throughout life, people are taught to treat everyone equally, believing it leads to equality. The business world has numerous examples of intersectionality discrimination. As Northouse noted, “although not designed to do so, it supports the development of privileged groups in the workplace.”⁴⁷ 

Favoritism and bias argument.

Cunliffe & Eriksen (2011) argue that relational leadership is inherently morally responsible because leaders work out what is meaningful for the individual since they recognize the interconnected web nature of relationships.⁴⁸ Graen and Uhl-Bien believe relational leaders wouldn’t create in-groups versus out-groups, instead creating unique relationships with all followers.⁴⁹ Northouse, as stated above, recommends using the leadership-making model to create trust and build the respect desired by all group members.⁵⁰ 

The theory is not fully developed.

One key point to relational theory, or leader-member exchange, is how a leader creates high-quality exchanges, which isn’t well explained, though the theory depends on it.⁵¹ Northouse believes that although the model promotes common attributes like other leadership theories, including creating trust and respect between the leader and follower, it doesn’t explain how those aspects are developed in relationships.₅₂ 

Theory is not fully developed argument.

Although relational leadership has only been around since the late 20th century, it has gained more attention with 20 years of studies examining numerous associations and applications of relationships within organizations.⁵³ As pointed out, research studies continue to be conducted on many unanswered aspects of relational theory. 

Overemphasis on relationship impacting organizational efficiency.

Overemphasis on relationships in the workplace can lead to various negative organizational outcomes. For instance, Rachel Morrison and Terry Nolan (2007) found that those with at least one negative relationship at work were significantly less satisfied, reported less organizational commitment, were part of less cohesive workgroups, and were significantly more likely to be planning to leave their job. Where trust doesn’t exist, instead of an environment where relationships are its foundation, employees prefer to work in a structured and controlled environment for security and fairness.⁵⁴

Overemphasis on relationship impacting organizational efficiency argument. 

Graen and Uhl-Bien’s study exhibited that high-quality relationships and interactions between leaders and members reach beneficial organizational and personal leader goals.⁵⁵ Many researchers found that these relational exchanges resulted in greater organizational commitment, lower turnover, greater employee engagement, and overall organizational commitment.^56,57,58

Self-assessment and relational leadership

Introversion 

Only my wife and children genuinely know that I am an anxiety-induced introvert who has difficulty holding small talk. Early in my career, I believed relationships must be strictly business and impersonal. As an introvert, this relational approach in business aligned and reinforced my desire to be unnoticed and not seek to know others at any interpersonal depth. 

When leading individuals and teams, I found success despite being reserved (think first and discuss later). My actions ended up producing a calm confidence in those around me. In her book The Introverted Leader, Jennifer Kahnweiler presents how introverted leaders can turn what are typically considered weaknesses in Type A business roles into strengths.⁵⁹ As she describes, I unknowingly used my apprehension toward socializing in large groups to open an opportunity for me to cultivate trust and collaborate with individual team members, fostering one-on-one connections that facilitated clear communication and trust-building. I succeeded in leadership roles and was promoted early and often. After reading Good to Great by Jim Collins, I clung to what he refers to as “Level 5 leadership,” which does not need to be over the top or attention grabbing but rather accompanied by a strong will and humility.⁶⁰

Another study by Adam Grant, Francesca Gino and David Hofmann demonstrated that less extraverted leaders aren’t as interested in status and power, allowing employees with proactive behaviors to be more involved and engaged in their work, allowing them to create greater efficiencies and successful systems together.⁶¹ A similar study found that: 

"[L]eaders position themselves more strongly in the service of their followers and while these tactics are still effective, they are less dependent by the leader directing their followers’ but rather gaining their trust and sympathy through the personal connection that is representative of a sociable personality."⁶²

I was drawn to situational leadership — a more hierarchical leadership style — because it was intuitive and allowed me to support the needs of individuals based on their desire to develop and by identifying their competence level. The model helped me determine their development level, so I didn’t over or under-manage them.⁶³ This continued to allow me to be supportive and focus on business while being somewhat impersonal. While I continued my leadership journey, I realized I failed to develop deeper, more authentic relationships with followers. I began focusing on getting out of my comfort zone and becoming more of a relational leader. My goal is to continue to develop into someone whom Bill George calls an authentic leader by developing the five traits he proposed:

1. They have a strong sense of purpose.
2. They have strong values about the right thing to do.
3. They establish trusting relationships with others.
4. They demonstrate self-discipline and act on their values
5. They are sensitive and empathetic to the plight of others.⁶⁴ 

As I continue to develop as a leader, I look forward to further studying how developing proactive team members aligns with my introverted nature, allowing for team and organizational success.

Future directions and conclusion

Relational leaders promote a sense of belonging and empowerment among followers by valuing diverse perspectives and encouraging active participation. This inclusivity enhances decision-making quality and contributes to developing more democratic and just organizational cultures.

Empirical studies in diverse organizational contexts demonstrate that relational leadership positively influences organizational outcomes.^65,66,67 By fostering trust, collaboration and a strong sense of community, relational leaders can cultivate environments conducive to innovation, resilience, and adaptability.⁶⁸ Furthermore, this approach resonates with contemporary organizational challenges, such as navigating complexity, embracing diversity and sustaining ethical conduct.

At the same time, it is important to acknowledge the challenges and limitations associated with implementing relational leadership.⁶⁹ These include the potential for ambiguity in leader-follower roles, the complexity of managing diverse relational dynamics, and the need for leaders to possess high emotional and social intelligence levels.⁷⁰ 

Relational leadership offers a solid framework that aligns with contemporary organizational needs and societal values. It underscores the importance of relationships, collaboration and context in leadership. Future research should continue to explore the nuances of relational dynamics, including how the use of AI, technology and global trends might shape the evolution of this leadership approach. As organizations navigate increasingly complex and interconnected environments, the principles of relational leadership stand as fundamental guidance for effectual and moral leadership. 

Notes

1. Northouse P. (2019). Leadership: Theory and Practice (8th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
2. Komives SR, Lucas N, McMahon TR. (1998). Exploring leadership: For college students who want to make a difference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
3. Cunliffe AL, Eriksen M. (2011). “Relational leadership.” Human Relations. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726711418388.
4. Komives.
5. Uhl-Bien M. (2006). “Relational Leadership Theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing.” Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 654-676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.007.
6. Uhl-Bien M, Ospina SM. (Eds.). (2012). Advancing relational leadership research: A dialogue among perspectives. IAP Information Age Publishing.
7. Graen GB, Schiemann WA. (2013) “Leadership-motivated excellence theory: an extension of LMX.” Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28(5), 452-469.
8. Northouse.
9. Graen GB, Uhl-Bien M. (1995). “Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level, multi-domain perspective.” Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219-247.
10. Buch R, Kuvaas B, Dysvik A, Schyns B. (2014). “If and when social and economic leader-member exchange relationships predict follower work effort.” Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 35(8), 725-739.
11. Liden RC, Wayne SJ, Stilwell D. (1993). “A Longitudinal study on the early development of leader-member exchange.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 662-674.
12. Malik M, Wan D, Ishfaq Ahmad M, Akram Naseem M, Rehman R. (2015). “The Role Of LMX In Employees Job Motivation, Satisfaction, Empowerment, Stress And Turnover: Cross Country Analysis.” Journal of Applied Business Research (JABR), 31(5), 1897–2000. https://doi.org/10.19030/jabr.v31i5.9413.
13. Graen GB, Uhl-Bien M. (1991). “The transformation of professionals into self-managing and partially self-designing contributions: Toward a theory of leadership making.” Journal of Management Systems, 3(3), 33-48.
14. Northouse, p. 144.
15. Lipman-Blumen J, (2000). Connective Leadership: Managing in a changing world. Oxford University Press, USA.
16. Burns JM. (2004). Transforming leadership: A new pursuit of happiness. Grove Press/Atlantic Monthly Press.
17. Northouse.
18. Bass BM, Riggio RE. (2006). Transformational Leadership (2nd Edition). Psychology Press.
19. Kellerman B. (2008). Followership: How Followers Are Creating Change and Changing Leaders. Harvard Business Review Press.
20. Greenleaf RK. (2002). Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness 25th Anniversary Edition. Paulist Press.
21. Northouse.
22. Schein EH. (2010). Organizational Culture and Leadership (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
23. George B. (2003). Authentic leadership: Rediscovering the secrets to creating lasting value. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
24. Ferch SR. (2012). Forgiveness and power in the age of atrocity. Lexington Books.
25. Dutton JE, Ragins BR. (2007). Exploring Positive Relationships at Work (Organization and Management Series). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
26. Greenberg J. (2007). Positive Organizational Justice: From Fair to Fairer - and Beyond.
27. Dutton, Ragins, p. 37.
28. Nietzsche F. (1968). The will to power (W., Kaufman, Ed.) (W. Kaufman & R.J. Hollingdale, Trans.). Vintage Books.
29. hooks b. (1984). Feminist Theory: from Margin to Center. South End Press.
30. Frankl VE. (1988). The Will to Meaning: Foundations and Applications of Logotherapy (Expanded ed.). New York, NY: Meridian.
31. Eby LTdT, Allen TD. (2012). Personal Relationships : the Effect on Employee Attitudes, Behavior, and Well-being. Taylor & Francis.
32. Seibert SE, Silver SR, Randolph AW. (2004). “Taking empowerment to the next level: A multiple-level model of empowerment, performance, and satisfaction.” Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 332-349.
33. hooks (1984).
34. hooks b. (2000). All About Love: New Visions. HarperCollins.
35. Nietzsche.
36. Frankl.
37. Carsten MK, Uhl-Bien M, West BJ, Patera JL, McGregor R. (2010). “Exploring social constructions of followership: A qualitative study” Leadership Institute Faculty Publications, 20, 543-562.
38. hooks, 2000, p. 65.
39. Ferch SR. (2020). “Servant-Leadership, Forgiveness, and Social Justice.” In Song J, Tran DQ, Ferch SR. Servant-leadership and forgiveness: How leaders help heal the heart of the world. (pp. 119-132). SUNY Press.
40. Spears L. (2002). “Tracing the past, present, and future of servant-leadership.” In L.C. Spears & M. Lawrence (Eds.), Servant Leadership: Developments in theory and research. (pp 11-24). New York, NY: Wiley.
41. hooks (1984).
42. Frankl.
43. Uhl-Bien M, Maslyn JM. (2003). “Reciprocity in Manager-Subordinate Relationships: Components, Configurations, and Outcomes.” Journal of Management.
44. Ferch (2012).
45. Northouse.
46. Frankl.
47. Northouse.
48. Cunliffe, Eriksen.
49. Graen GB, Uhl-Bien M. (1995).
50. Northouse.
51. Anand S, Hu J, Linden RC, Vidyarthi PR. (2011) “Leader-Member Exchange: Recent Research Findings and Prospects for the Future.” The Sage Handbook of Leadership, 309-323.
52. Northouse.
53. Maritsa E, Goula A, Psychogios A, Pierrakos G. (2022). “Leadership Development: Exploring Relational Leadership Implications in Healthcare Organizations.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(23), https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192315971.
54. Morrison RL, Nolan T. (2007). “Negative relationships in the workplace: a qualitative study.” Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 4(3), 203–221.
55. Graen GB, Uhl-Bien M. (1995).
56. Buch, et al.
57. Grean GB, Uhl-Bien M. (1995).
58. Liden, et al.
59. Kahnweiler JB. (2013) The Introverted Leader: Building on Your Quiet Strength. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
60. Collins J. (2001). Good to great. Random House Business Books.
61. Grant AM, Gino, F., Hofmann D. (2011). “Reversing the Extraverted Leadership Advantage: The Role of Employee Proactivity.” Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 528-550.
62. Liegl, S., & Furtner, M. R. (2023). “Introverted and yet effective? A faceted approach to the relationship between leadership and extraversion.” Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1185271. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1185271.
63. Northouse.
64. George B.
65. Uhl-Bien (2006).
66. Graen GB, Uhl-Bien M. (1995).
67. Kellerman (2008).
68. Northouse.
69. Morrison, Nolan.
70. Anand, et al., 2011.