HTML

ePub

PDF

Introduction

The growing demand for competitive and flexible organizational models raises recurrent questions about new roles and leadership profiles today, as well as new ways of developing them. Such leaders are required to deal with increasingly uncertain and dynamic environments that have impacted the functioning of organizations and that bring environmental and organizational changes with which leaders assume the role of managing (Ramsey, Rutti, Lorens, Barakat, Sant'Anna, 2017; D'ávila, Oliveira, Diniz, Sant’Anna, 2020; Mendes et al., 2020; Silva, Filippim & Sant’Anna, 2020).

As examples of such changes is possible to highlight the crisis of the classic management model and the emergence of industry 4.0; the disengagement of leadership as an exclusive activity of management and the notion of a more shared/distributed leadership; the need for new organizational structures more organic and flexible; the emergence of new forms of bonding subject-labour-organizations; the changes in the generation and profile of workers in the XXI (Ramsey et al., 2017).

At the practical level, such changes generate a demand for new roles and leadership profiles capable of dealing with all this complexity and at the theoretical level, an understanding of the phenomenon of leadership considering more contemporary perspectives, which received little attention in research conducted until the 2000s (Sant'Anna & Nelson, 2014).

Despite the fact that leadership is a much debated topic in the field of management, particularly in the area of organizational behavior, research in the area signals some issues that still need more attention and deepening, as is the case of more recent approaches around the transformational and relational leadership (Osborn, Uhl-Bien & Milosevic, 2014; Endres & Weibler, 2017; Cleary, 2018; Mendes et al., 2020; Silva, Filippim & Sant’Anna, 2020); as well as the performance of leaderships in contexts of complexity and chaos; or even studies that combine different theoretical approaches to the field of leadership (the theory of traits, the behavioral approach, the situational, the transformational and the relational, among others) (D'ávila et al., 2020).

In addition, research on leadership has still presented obstacles to its proofing and generalization. Although there is a common core between the various definitions - the ability to influence people, groups and communities -, a consistent theoretical elaboration on the repercussion of this phenomenon in the organizational environment and beyond the organizational boundaries, is not yet a reality (Seters & Field, 1990; Gofee & Jones, 2000; Steers, Sanchez-Runde & Nardon, 2012; Rickards, 2015; Ulh-Bien, 2006; Ramsey et al., 2017).

In this sense, a critical understanding of these theories of leadership is important in the current context in which environmental and organizational factors demand new profiles of leaders, especially in peculiar contexts such as the environment investigated in this study: a peace mission of the Brazilian army in Haiti. In this environment, leaders assume a leading role in stimulating, influencing, supporting, and directing soldiers submitted to a chaotic environment (marked by violence, poverty, chaos, the suffering of the Haitian people, life threatening situations). Therefore, the challenge of leading people under such conditions of complexity is expanded (D'ávila et al., 2020).

Based on the above, the objective of this paper is to analyze the roles and profiles of military leaders required in the context of the Brazilian Army's peacekeeping mission in Haiti. To this end, it was necessary to: i) understand the perception of the leaders interviewed about the meaning of leadership; ii) analyze the recommended characteristics for a leadership in the context of the peace mission; iii) analyze the need for a differentiated leadership profile due to the context investigated.

In methodological terms, qualitative research based on the case study method is applied in the context of the "United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti – MINUSTAH", based on nineteen interviews with Brazilian Army military personnel who served in the mission.

As for its relevance, the study aims to contribute to the advancement of studies on leadership, particularly when considering more contemporary approaches on the topic such as transformational leadership, distributed leadership, authentic leadership, relational leadership (Seters & Field, 1990; Gofee & Jones, 2000; Ulh-Bien, 2006; Steers, Sanchez-Runde & Nardon, 2012; Rickards, 2015; Ramsey et al., 2017).

Widely disseminated in the business context, these approaches in military organizations request more scientific analysis. It is appropriate to better investigate in which extension these models and approaches widespread are assimilated in contemporary scenarios of the army military. In the transition to the digital economy and society new challenges arising in military circles, including changing the nature of conflicts, more oriented to the doctrine of maneuvering warfare than to classic direct conflits (Leonhard, 1991; Wheeler & Morris, 2002; Braga, Lopes, Gagliano, Oliveira, 2002; Ferreira-Silva, 2009). As well as in the business environment, the role of the army in the context of expanding maneuver warfare strategies point to the demand for ambidexty in the management of institutional, organizational, and professional competencies that articulate fundamental principles - such as discipline and hierarchy - and simultaneously the development of leadership skills oriented to deal with contextual uncertainties; to the capacity of building and sustaining personal, organizational and interorganizational relations; innovation; emotional and social intelligences; communication; and more systematic analysis of highly complex contexts (Goldstein, Hazy, Lichtenstein, 2010; Ulh-Bien & Arena, 2018).

In this sense, the paper extends to the fields of studies on organizational behavior and even to social psychology, possibilities of expanding, also in the current context, inter-relationships with the military context, given the importance and broad tradition of the sector in studies and scientific research on the theme of leadership

Furthermore, it adopts a theoretical look that goes beyond leadership as a phenomenon limited to the leader-subordinate dyad, considering that the exercise of leadership also involves organizational and environmental dimensions. Finally, the research can contribute to generating relevant findings by investigating leadership in a case marked by high instability and complexity: the context of the MINUSTAH.

In relation to its structure, the paper involves into five sections: in addition to the introduction, the next section includes a theoretical review of the central "construct" of the work: the movement around leadership. Next, the methodological choices of the empirical research conducted in the context of MINUSTAH are presented. Subsequently, the paper contemplates the analysis of empirical data and concludes with the main conclusions of the study.

Theoretical Framework

The Evolution of Leadership Thought: From Trait Theory to Relational Leadership

In a recent literature review on the subject, Oliveira, Sant’Anna, Diniz, Carvalho Neto (2015) reported that the attempt to understand the phenomenon of leadership constitutes an ancient human endeavor and attributed to the Egyptians, in 2,300 B.C., the first written record on the subject. Such a register points to leadership as something transcendental to the human being and that designates superior qualities (D'ávila et al., 2020).

Today, leadership has been one of the constructs of organizational behavior on which more articles and books are produced. From this universe, there are some important movements on this theme both at the academic and business levels: i) the theory of traits (Stogdill, 1948); ii) the behavioral approach (Likert, 1961; McGregor, 1966); iii) the situational/contingential approach (Fiedler, 1967); iv) studies on transactional and transformational leadership (Burns, 1978); Bass, 1985) and multidimensional and multilevel leadership (Yammarino, Dansereau, & Kennedy, 2001), and, more recently, v) relational leadership or collective leadership (Uhl-Bien, 2003, 2006; Day & Harrison, 2007; Gittell, 2011; Ospina, Kersh, & Quick, 2014; Harms & Han, 2016; Ruppert Winkel, 2018; Cleary, 2018; Mendes et al., 2020; Silva, Filippim & Sant’Anna, 2020).

The first stream, the Trace Theory, focuses on identifying the personality characteristics of great leaders to identify attributes that distinguished leaders from other "ordinary" individuals and that, once developed, would increase the potential of leadership. Therefore, the studies are oriented to the identification of characteristics of "great personalities", which would serve as a model for the actions of formation of new leaders (Seters & Field, 1990).

Bergamini (1994) observes that numerous studies are developed under this perspective in the period between the two great world wars (1920-1950), with emphasis on aspects of intelligence and personality, seeking to distinguish characteristics of the leader in a universalist perspective, regardless of the situation in which they were inserted. This approach, however, is questioned by subsequent studies that point out that there are no universal leadership traits valid for any situation (Stodgill, 1974).

In view of this, the following studies, initially led by Kurt Lewin (1944), are aimed at understanding the dynamics of "behavior" of leaders through the study of individuals in leadership positions. The assumption is that effective leadership behaviors are known, it would be possible to train and develop people to manifest such behaviors (Bergamini, 1994; Horner, 1997).

Along these lines, the study by Likert (1961) proposes two leadership styles called "employee orientation" and "production orientation". For this author, greater effectiveness would be associated with the first style of leadership, given that it presupposes the involvement of people in the decision-making process and the promotion of greater satisfaction in the workplace, thus assuming a clear inclination to a "democratic" leadership (Bergamini, 1990).

Also, with an emphasis on organizational reality and leadership behaviors, McGregor (1966) develops the so-called "Theory X and Y". Based on the assumption that people are competent and creative (Theory Y), the author proposes a management model that provides space for individual development and the creation of more participatory organizational environments.

Broadening this perspective, the works of Fiedler (1967), as well as Hersey and Blanchard (1969), point to the continental/situational character of leadership, in which not only the leader, but the led and the situation are variables that influence the process of leadership (Duarte & Papa, 2011). The issue becomes, therefore, to identify the most effective style for a given situation, rather than the best leadership style. After all, "a leader who performs well in one group or under one set of conditions may not do well in other groups, in other tasks or under other conditions" (Fiedler, 1967, p. 16). In this sense, a study by Duarte and Papa (2011) indicate that the use of situational leadership represents a strategic differential for organizations.

In addition to the characteristics of personality and behaviors oriented to task or people, Fiedler (1967) highlights another important variable in the process, which he calls "favorability", which is associated with the degree to which a given situation allows the leader to exercise his influence over his group. Three aspects seem to define if a given situation is favorable to leaders: i) the personal relationships between him and his team; ii) his position of power (hierarchical position of the leader); iii) nature of the task.

Based on studies of political leaders, Burns (1978) proposes another perspective to the field of leadership by emphasizing "sensitivity to people" as a key aspect of leadership and by understanding it as a process of mutual influence between leader and follower (and not as a unilateral action of one person over another).

In this direction, Burns (1978) suggests the existence of two types of leaders, the "transformational" and the "transactional", an approach that came to have great influence in other studies developed at the end of the twentieth century, among them that of Bass (1985) and Bennis and Nanus (1988). While transactional leadership emphasizes the transactions that occur when leaders give rewards to their employees in exchange for certain types of behaviors, transformational leadership involves the transformation of attitudes, motivations and behaviors of both leaders and followers by creating a social/emotional bond between them (McDowelle, 2009; Ramsey et al., 2017).

Transactional leadership is in an exchange between leader and followers with rewards to the followers for achieving better performance in the tasks. The exchange may be of an economic, political, or psychological nature, but without a concern to establish a lasting social connection between the parties. A fundamental mechanism in transactional leadership is the use of rewards and punishments to encourage employees to achieve the stipulated goals and to control undesirable behavior, making the relationship between leader and employee an instrumental exchange. In this sense, there is no great concern with the emotional/intellectual development of the followers, and, for this reason, it is a model that emphasizes the immediate needs of people (Bass, 1985).

Transformational leadership, on the other hand, has as a reference the sensitivity to one's own needs, as well as to the wishes and expectations of others, even without a clear conscience, as Burns (1978) states: "But the fundamental process, a little broader, is, on a large scale, to make conscious what remains unconscious in one's followers". Thus, transformational leadership goes beyond the exchange of incentives and presupposes the self-development and intellectual stimulation of followers so that they transcend individual interests in favor of collective goals (Howell & Avolio, 1993; Abelha et al., 2018). Such an approach presupposes the establishment of a strong and more lasting link between the leader and the followers allowing a process of mutual influence, where the authority of the leadership comes more from the ability of the interaction than from the formal power related to the occupied position. The leader's performance derives from the possibility of influencing his followers, as well as accepting their influence (Burns, 1978; Hardy et al., 2010; Ramsey et al., 2017; Abelha et al., 2018).

The Bass (1985) model, classic in the literature on transformational leadership, is based on four main elements: i.) idealized influence, represents the ability to influence followers through an ideal and shared values; ii.) inspirational motivation, encourages the collaborator to seek efforts beyond what is expected; iii.) intellectual stimulation, refers to the ability that the leader has to provoke reflection; iv.) individualized consideration, consists of individual support by the leader to subordinates, encouraging them to promote self-development (Bass, 1985; McDowelle, 2009).

Although some studies treat the transformational style and the transactional style as opposites, Howell and Avolio (1993) suggest that there are leaders who have characteristics of both types, which can complement each other.

Since the first initiative, different expressions have been linked to the notion of transformational leadership, such as charismatic leadership and visionary leadership (Vizeu, 2011). In this perspective, the proposals emerging from 1978 onwards were brought together in a new paradigm, called neo-charismatic leadership. Although each study presents peculiarities, they have in common the search for the investigation of the attributes associated with transformational leadership, such as the charisma, the visionary capacity and the importance attributed to collective values. In addition, these researches are interested in the emotional side of the relationship between leader and led and consider that the organizations managed by transformational people manage to obtain a positive change both in the group members and in the overall performance (Podsakoff; Mackenzie & Bommer, 1996; Scott & Bozeman, 2003).

Nevertheless, some critics suggest that the studies on transformational leadership focused on examining the impact of leadership on individual and organizational performance, disregarding the role of external and environmental variables (Howell & Avolio, 1993; Scott & Bozeman, 2003).

In the context of organizations of the 21st century, the study of the leadership process indicates the diversity and quantity of variables to which the figure of the leader is submitted. Therefore, Yammarino, Dansereau and Kennedy (2001) propose an approach that comprises several levels of analysis: the individual, the leader-leader, the group and the collective. The individual level (Person) comprises the factors that explain the differences in the way each individual position himself in front of the phenomenon of leadership. At the leader follower dyad level (Dyad), the distinction between the leader and each follower stands out: "each of the interpersonal relationships of the dyad is unique and does not depend on other relationships in the group or team" (Yammarino et al., 2001). Group level refers to the treatment of the leader in relation to his team, considered as a unit. At the Collective level, in turn, is the notion that the collective is formed by several groups that are structured hierarchically into larger groups.

Reflect on the various variables of leadership action systematized by Yammarino et al. (2001) allows us to see that leadership development requires a continuous effort of self-knowledge, knowledge of other people, the internal environment and society in its surroundings. A contemporary approach to the literature on leadership that considers this connection between the dimensions of the individual, the organization and society is relational (Uhl-Bien, 2003, 2006). This approach assumes that leadership occurs in different spheres (in addition to unidirectional relationships between leader/follower), encompassing organizational, social and environmental aspects, as well as formal and informal leaders (Uhl-bien, 2006; Day & Harrison, 2007; Gittell, 2011; Mendes et al., 2020; Silva, Filippim & Sant’Anna, 2020).

One of the great precursors of this approach is Uhl-Bien (2003, 2006), who considers relational leadership as a process of social influence, through which the social order and behaviors are constantly constructed and reproduced. Therefore, leadership is a human social construction that emanates from the rich connections between its members, organizations, and their contexts. According to the author, the central issue that guides such research would be: what are the relational (social) processes through which leadership emerges and operates? (Uhl-Bien, 2006; Gittell, 2011; Harms & Han, 2016; Ruppert-Winkel, 2018; Mendes et al., 2020; Silva, Filippim & Sant’Anna, 2020).

Therefore, unlike approaches that are oriented to the investigation of traits, individual attributes or effective behaviors to leadership, mostly centered on the individual or, at most, on the leader-follower dyad, relational leadership emphasizes the relationships through which leadership is built, activated, exercised and reconfigured. In other words, the relational perspective considers the organization as a network of people and complex and continuous relationships that change over time and space. The emphasis, then, shifts from the individual to the dynamics of the collective, starting from the premise that leadership is emerging and inseparable from the context in which it is exercised (Osborn, Uhl-Bien & Milosevic, 2014; Endres & Weibler, 2017; Cleary, 2018; Mendes et al., 2020; Silva, Filippim & Sant’Anna, 2020).

Endres and Weibler (2017) suggest that the term “relational” can be used in leadership studies to name different phenomena. That is, it can be related to the context where leadership is exercised, to the collective dimension or to be associated with the quality of relationships between individuals / teams. In this direction, Osborn et al. (2014) present the relational leadership as a new possibility of analysis, focusing on the analysis of the contextual and social influences of the exercise of leadership, where the subordinate starts to act as co-responsible for the process, ceasing to be treated as a passive receiver.

For Uhl-Bien (2003), although different definitions of relational leadership can be identified, both in studies in which the current meaning was not considered, and in the works produced more contemporaneously, two terms emerge as recurring to the various attempts at conceptualization: influence and change. The relational leadership, therefore, understood as an influence mobilized for the promotion of changes within a context of internal and external relations.

Uhl-Bien (2003) also identifies four central assumptions to relational leadership: i.) leadership occurs when individuals use their influence to generate change; ii.) leadership is a behavior and not a formal position; iii.) leadership generates change through effective relationships; iv.) leadership effectiveness is enhanced by the ability of the individual to build and sustain relationships with others.

By relations, Uhl-Bien (2003, 2006) understands the communicative connections and subject to multiple meanings since they are produced and disseminated in interdependent but distinct contexts. Thus, from a relational perspective, the process of interaction and conversation is emphasized. Dialog, understood as a dialectical movement and mutual influence between individuals, groups, non-human artifacts and devices, through which the meaning emerges in the "space between" such elements (Quick, 2014; Harms & Han, 2016; Ruppert-Winkel, 2018; Mendes et al., 2020; Silva, Filippim & Sant’Anna, 2020).

In 2007, Day and Harrison (2007) define relational leadership as a shared property of a social system, which assumes interdependencies between individuals, teams, organizations, and society. In this sense, it constitutes a phenomenon that belongs to the sphere of the collective, involving the creation of a system of shared meanings that provides the basis for actions. Still according to the authors, as leaders develop, their identities expand from the individual focus to the interpersonal and collective levels. From this perspective, leadership development actions are suggested that incorporate a "collective lens" that goes beyond the emphasis on the individual leader, favoring the development of social capital (Day & Harrison, 2007).

For Gittell (2011) two elements are common to the various approaches around relational leadership: i) the notion of decentralized and collective leadership; ii) the notion of leadership detached from hierarchical positions. Furthermore, in terms of their development, they emphasize: i) the exercise of an intuitive mind capable of perceiving the complex and unique forces that influence the construction of collective meanings; ii). the capacity for analytical thinking for understanding complex situations and problems; ii) the ability to integrate uncertainty into the environment.

In Brazil, particularly, it is worth mentioning studies developed by Sant'Anna, Nelson, Carvalho (2015) and Oliveira et al. (2015). For these authors, relational leadership focuses on the nature, distribution and quality of the social ties that are established in the dynamics that lead the individual to establish a relationship of influence and change. Thus, the importance of building effective social ties is emphasized.

Another recent Brazilian study is that of Mendes et al. (2020) who investigated relational leadership in law firms and found a significant presence of attributes associated with the relational leadership style in the context studied. Therefore, research results suggest the presence of a more collective and distributed leadership as opposed to a style centered on command-control and task-oriented orientation instead of people. (Cleary, 2018; Mendes et al., 2020).

Despite its potential contributions, relational leadership is a relatively recent issue. Bibliometric study by Faqueti et al. (2018) reveals that the use of the expression “relational leadership” is relatively recent in the academic environment with the highest concentration of research since 2006.The authors also suggest that studies in the area are expanding in the international context and that there are theoretical gaps to be explored in Brazil (Faqueti et al., 2018). Therefore, its meaning and implications are still open to different interpretations. Figure 1 summarizes the theoretical approaches on Leadership identified in the researched literature.

Important to stress the relevance of the literature review above realized considering the complementarity of leadership approaches as well as the articulations between classic and contemporary approaches particularly whereas the empirical data of this paper is associated with military organizations which values are strongly based on classical principles such as hierarchy and discipline.

Method

Considering the general objective of the research (to analyze the perception of military leaders on the roles and profiles of leaders in the military context), it was opted to conduct qualitative research based on the case study method (Yin, 2005).

The selection of the case is a crucial decision since it has direct implications on the relevance of the results of the study. Such choice, therefore, cannot be random, but intentional, oriented to the wealth with which the phenomenon presents itself (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2005). Based on this premise, it was decided to investigate the phenomenon of leadership in the case of the MINUSTAH because it represents a rare context and, in general, difficult access to researchers, which enabled, in some way, the generation of empirical and theoretical insights relevant to the phenomenon in question (D'ávila et al., 2020).

MINUSTAH is a milestone for the Brazilian participation in peacekeeping operations. Among the main characteristics that underpin Brazil's engagement in MINUSTAH are the uninterrupted exercise of Brazilian command of the mission, a fact unprecedented in other UN peacekeeping operations; the largest deployment of national troops since the Second World War; Brazil's longer history of contributing to peacekeeping operations; and the presence of South American countries as the largest contributors of personnel to MINUSTAH.

The Brazilian military contingent was divided into three military units: An Infantry Battalion (BRABAT), a Marine Operating Group (BRAMAR) and a military engineering company (BRAENGCOY). Over thirteen years, 26 contingents and 37,500 Brazilian soldiers passed through Haiti.

From the arrival of MINUSTAH in Haiti until its end in October 2017, the country held three democratic presidential elections and was supported by the mission to overcome the critical humanitarian emergency after the 2010 and post-earthquake 2016 earthquakes. From the security point of view, the mission was successful in containing the action of criminal groups that previously operated in the capital, Port-au-Prince, especially in the neighborhoods of Belair, Cité Soleil and Cité Militaire.

In addition to making a military contribution to MINUSTAH, Brazil has intensified technical and humanitarian cooperation with Haiti, with a view to the country's development. The Brazilian military engineering company has undertaken rapid impact projects, which included drilling artesian wells, building bridges and dams, containment of slopes, road construction and repair - in addition to acting in civil defense missions, especially after the 2010 earthquake and the 2016 hurricane.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2350 (2017) established the transition from MINUSTAH to the United Nations Mission to Support Justice in Haiti (MINUJUSTH) in 2017. MINUJUSTH has no military component and its objective is to support political dialogue and the strengthening of Haiti's National Police, judicial and penal institutions, and the human rights situation in the country (D'ávila, Oliveira, Fraga, 2018; D'ávila et al., 2020).

Regarding the data collection instruments, in-depth interviews and document analysis were preferably used (Eisenhardt, 1989; Soy, 2005; Yin, 2005). With regard to the first instrument, 19 (nineteen) in-depth interviews were conducted (from December 2012 to December 2014) with Brazilian Army military personnel who served in MINUSTAH, which generated 40 hours of audio recording that went through a process of literal transcription of all the content. Interviews were conducted with officials in leadership and advisory positions during their time in Haiti.

Among the main positions held by the officers, the following could be highlighted: Commanders and Sub-Commanders of Peace Force Battalions, General Staff Officer at Minustah level and Peace Force Battalion level, Commanders and Sub-Commanders of Operational Subunits, English Interpreter, Logistics and Operations Officer, and Legal Advisor.

The interview guide included different research questions related to leadership roles and profiles in the MINUSTAH context, especially: i) the reality experienced by leaders in the Peace Mission for the Stabilization of Haiti; ii) the perception of leaders interviewed about the meaning of leadership; iii) the recommended characteristics for a leader in the peace mission context; iv) the need for a differentiated leadership profile due to the context investigated (D'ávila et al., 2020).

With regard to documentary analysis, a number of documents were consulted, including reports on the preparation and employment of troops in Haiti conducted by the Brazilian Army's Center for the Preparation of Peace Missions and reports arising from the application of questionnaires on the organizational climate at MINUSTAH conducted by psychologists from the Center for Personnel Studies (D'ávila et al., 2018; D'ávila et al., 2020). It is also worth noting that the combined use of more than one source of evidence (interviews and documents) enabled the comparison of data obtained from each source, providing greater reliability to the results.

For the treatment of the collected data, the method of content analysis by category was used (Bardin, 2011). This methodology consisted of the use of systematization techniques, interpretation, and description of the content of the information collected, to understand the discourse, deepen its characteristics and extract important details. With this, it was possible to examine several dimensions of the interviewees' reports and build inferences from them. To facilitate content analysis, Flick (2009) suggests the development of analysis categories based on literature and reviewed considering the research evidence.

Based on Flick (2009), to facilitate the analysis of the data of this study, categories of analysis were created based on the purposes of research, which were reviewed considering empirical evidence (Eisenhardt, 1989). In this direction and considering the purpose and objectives outlined for the research, the main categories investigated were: reality of MINUSTAH; roles of leaders in the context of the peace mission; leadership profiles in MINUSTAH; contingential (i.e. mission size, mission structure, mission uptime, among others)/situational (i.e. contextual, behavioral, and local specificities) leadership in MINUSTAH (D'ávila et al., 2018; D'ávila et al., 2020).

Finally, it is noteworthy that the data will be organized and systematized by means of the software for qualitative treatment of data N-vivo.

Findings

This section includes discussion of the main findings obtained in empirical research in the context of MINUSTAH, comparing them with the concepts discussed in the theoretical review. To this end, the chapter was structured into three major themes: i) perception of the leaders interviewed about the meaning of leadership; ii) recommended characteristics for a leadership in the context of the peace mission; iii) the need for a differentiated leadership profile due to the situation investigated, i.e., the existence (or not) of a contingential/situational leadership.

The first category of analysis is related to the interviewees' perception of the concept of leadership to understand how the leaders of the Brazilian army perceive this phenomenon in the military context. The findings suggest that there is a strong consensus around the definition of the leader as a subject capable of articulating people (Burns, 1978; Yammarino et al., 2001), mobilizing and influencing their behaviors towards the fulfillment of the mission (Interviews 2, 4, 6, 8, 9 and 12):

Leadership is the capacity that the commander must unite, not only by example, but through planned actions, to create a unity of purpose for the troops. That all there understand their mission and really follow the common goal (Interview 4).

The leader must really have his subordinates aware of his mission, knowing that there is at stake not only the fate of a population, but the image of the country he represents (Interview 4).

Leadership is the ability to get people involved in their tasks in an organized way, in a synergistic way and with maximum commitment, with maximum coordination. The leader is the man who can signalize the objectives, signalize the ways to achieve this goal. In other words, he is a charmer of people (Interview 9).

It is important to note some aspects discussed in the theoretical framework: i) how strong is the notion of the leader as someone who rescues the collective purpose, i.e., who mobilizes people in favor of collective goals and values, placing, in the background, the individual goals of each of the military at the disposal of the Army (Howell & Avolio, 1993); ii) the figure of the leader oriented to people, that is, his important role tied to the management of human capital (Fiedler, 1967).

With regard to the first point cited, it is worth resuming the theoretical model of Bass (1985) which signals that the leader must exercise the "idealized influence", related to his capacity to influence his followers through an ideal and shared values. The second result cited converges with the studies of Burns (1978) on Transformational Leadership and Yammarino et al. (2001) about multilevel leadership. Such authors emphasize the sensitivity to people as a key aspect of the exercise of leadership, an attribute considered fundamental in the context of the investigated peace mission.

The expression "example" was recurrently mentioned in the interviews as a central behavior when thinking of military leaders (Interviews 2, 4, 11 and 13). The leader was considered the individual who sets an example through his attitudes, which tend to influence and direct the behavior of his subordinates. This result adds a new dimension in the leadership literature, as the studies analyzed in this article do not draw attention to the importance of the example of the leader as an aspect of influence in the exercise of leadership. Hence the importance of leadership presenting a coherent posture throughout the mission, as indicated in the reports below:

Being a leader is summed up in one word, it is the example, it is righteousness. I consider leader the one who possesses correct attitudes and presents positive attributes that manages to motivate the subordinate, not only the subordinate, but the peers and even convince the superiors in a positive direction (Interview 2).

I told my officers a lot not to command simply because I was a captain or lieutenant, but out of respect. I think this is the best way to drive (Interview 13).

The excerpt above suggests that, although the military context is marked by a high respect for hierarchy, leadership is more easily exercised if the team trusts the skills and behaviors of the leader and if the military effectively believes in the paths and decisions indicated by superiors. As points out by transformational authors leadership is more associated with a behavior or style of being than with a formal position (Bruns, 1978; Bass, 1985; McDowelle, 2009).

The results also show that the concept of leadership is linked to the appreciation of the human dimension and the concern with the development of the subordinate, a finding that converges with the notion of transformational leadership (Bruns, 1978; Bass, 1985; McDowelle, 2009)). Among other roles, the leader is the individual who listens, understands, motivates, and emotionally supports his subordinates, especially in the context of MINUSTAH, where different personal needs arise, as shown in the reports below:

I think the main thing is not to leave the military helpless. That is the main one. If he is seeing that he is having a backup, you can control it. You can do it one way or the other, with a word or an action, you can comfort him, and he sees that he is not alone. And he can have peace of mind so he can get through that moment. (Interview 12).

Human beings are extremely sensitive and must, in this environment, give up some vanities, some personal interests for the collective. In other words, he is an enchanter of people, he is the guy who develops the subordinate (Interview 9).

Thus, in the military context investigated, there are indications that leaders played a "transformational" role by being sensitive

to the needs/expectations of subordinates, as well as by being concerned with the emotional development of their followers (Bruns, 1978; Bass, 1985). Once again, the notion of “sensitivity” as an important element of leadership was reinforced in the empirical data (Burns, 1978; Yammarino et al., 2001). In addition to the "meaning" of leadership, respondents were also asked about the characteristics desirable to a leader in the military context and the data reveal strong consensus around one attribute: his relational and communicative capacity (Interviews 1, 5, 7, 8 and 9), corroborating studies about relational leadership (Osborn, Uhl-Bien & Milosevic, 2014; Endres & Weibler, 2017; Cleary, 2018; Mendes et al., 2020; Silva, Filippim & Sant’Anna, 2020).

The data reveal that the leader's role consists in exercising leadership based on dialogue and interpersonal relationship, seeking to strengthen social bonds with subordinates and ensure the emotional climate of the troops, since they are inserted in an environment of pressure and distant from family life, as illustrated in the reports below:

The other part of the leadership is the maintenance of the emotional climate of the combatant under stress conditions, maintaining a good relationship, well-being and a good climate so that the troops can maintain themselves without discipline problem in an emotional climate favorable to the accomplishment of the missions. It is these two parts that I observe leadership: fulfilling the mission and maintaining the appropriate emotional climate (Interview 1).

Personal qualities that favor teamwork, cooperation, spirit of cooperation, ability to work, tact, tact is especially important. Leadership is always needed to avoid shocks between people (Interview 8).

Some respondents also drew attention to the importance of leadership that makes the work environment healthy, friendly, and collaborative, which contributes to minimizing the difficulties and adverse situations that troops have dealt with in the context of Haiti, result that corroborates the notion of situational leadership, that is, the leadership profile depends on the environment where it is exercised (Fiedler, 1967; Hersey & Blanchard, 1969). Missions of this nature demand, in fact, a leader with high emotional appeal and who attaches great importance to the human dimension (Interviews 10 and 13), as shown in the following reports:

Leadership, within this context now, because my vision of leadership has changed a lot. In a mission like this, which you have there almost eight hundred men in a very adverse circumstance, is a different country, the climate that many people do not like the heat, with precarious sanitary conditions, the soldier had to interact in this context. The role of the leader at this moment is precisely to make the environment as light as possible, so that these factors, which in this case would stress the troop, do not become so stressful (Interview 10).

You must be very tactful. Because in various situations I could have applied our regulation. But I saw that it was more necessary to talk, to bring the military to me, to understand his problem, than simply to punish (Interview 13).

These findings corroborate two elements discussed in the theoretical review, one linked to the notion of transformational leadership and the other associated with the concept of relational leadership, respectively: i) leadership is exercised more effectively when the leader establishes a social/emotional bond with his followers (McDowelle, 2009); ii) the importance of collective dynamics, starting from the premise that leadership is inseparable from the context in which it is exercised (Uhl-Bien, 2006; Gittell, 2011; Mendes et al., 2020; Silva, Filippim & Sant’Anna, 2020). And, once again, the notion of a people-oriented leader instead of a production-oriented leader emerges in the empirical data (Likert, 1961, Burns, 1978; Yammarino et al., 2001), as the following account suggests: "Leadership is personal contact. You lead men, you do not lead paper or machine" (Interview 7)

The findings also reveal that this relational and social capacity of the leadership must endure throughout the mission, because the length of stay of the military abroad (distant from the family and dealing with social and war problems), shake their emotional state and may impair their motivation and commitment to the mission. Thus, the leader must continuously seek dialogue with subordinates, understand their needs, present consistent behaviors during the process and give examples of loyalty to the collective purpose. This implies following very closely the work of the teams and the emotional state of each subordinate (Mcdowelle, 2009; Vizeu, 2011; Ramsey et al., 2017), these are two attributes that are very much required in the military context (Interviews 5, 8 and 9). The interviews illustrate this discussion:

You have to set an example all the time, you can't spare yourself. The second is motivation. You must always be motivated, polite, smiling, together with the troops, in a good mood. The relationship there is very important. But sometimes the military man that day was not well. And you must have this feeling to realize this (Interview 5).

The time you get into a routine and spend six months with a troop abroad, ie no weekend, we get Christmas, New Year, Carnival, Easter. So, you really must have real leadership. It cannot be that one for the English to see. And the military will stop believing what you say. So, I guess that would be the big differential. Working every battalion together, leadership is fundamental, and it must be true (Interview 8).

Another category of research analysis is whether the context investigated in this research requires a special type of leadership in order to corroborate (or not) the contingential/situational character of leadership, in which not only the leader, but the led and the situation are variables that influence the leadership process (Fiedler, 1967; Hersey & Blanchard, 1969). In relation to the followers, the findings discussed above reinforce that, in the investigated context, the "sensitivity" of leaders and their relational/social capacity become much required leadership attributes in the studied environment (being able to say that at higher levels if we compare with the organizational problems that the companies normally deal with).

In particular, in the context of the peace mission, the military faced problems related to the absence from family life for a considerable period of time and psychological imbalances generated by the chaotic environment of Haiti (marked by poverty, suffering of the Haitian people, chaos, violence, risk situations, chaotic traffic) (Interviews 1, 2, 4, 6, 10 and 13). Such characteristics of the external environment (as described in the report below) represented factors that shaken the emotional state of the military, requiring a leadership profile based on the strengthening of the social bond and the relationship between leaders and followers, as already evidenced in previous studies, such as those by Mcdowelle (2009), Vizeu, (2011), Ramsey et al. (2017), who point out that transformational leadership requires the creation of a social and emotional bond between leaders and followers. The interviews illustrate this discussion:

The perception during the performance of Brazilian patrols of much poverty, extreme violence, often with torn bodies, placed in a very depressing situation. And this performance of the Brazilian military, during the mission, was really 24 hours, 7 days a week. The Brazilian soldier only went out in uniform, wearing a helmet, vest, in extreme condition of attention, vigilance, at risk of life, ready to react at any time (Interview 1).

I believe that there in Haiti, you end up feeling responsible for those men who are with you. You begin to think, is that everything I am doing is being for the good, both mission and the team (Interview 12).

It can be inferred, therefore, that the findings indicate that MINUSTAH requires a differentiated type of leadership due to the context experienced by the military, reinforcing the contingential/situational character of leadership (Fiedler, 1967; Hersey & Blanchard, 1969). It should be noted that, at the level of command occupied by the leaders interviewed, there was a strong demand for results both from the organizational authorities linked to the Army and from the international organizations linked to the HAITI Peace Mission for Stabilization (MINUSTAH).

In addition to the context and emotional state of the followers, empirical findings indicate that some particularities of MINUSTAH demanded a differentiated profile of leadership with some main characteristics, including: i.) being able to deal with and articulate different expectations, cultures and interests of countries/bodies involved in the mission; ii.) knowing the local Haitian culture; iii.) understanding the rules of the UN and the international agencies involved, which are characteristics demanded specifically for the studied military context that may not be so relevant in other organizational environments.

With regard to the first aspect, the data reveal that it was fundamental that MINUSTAH commanders had the flexibility and wisdom to deal with different expectations, cultures and interests involved (the UN, the Haitian government, the national police, the Haitian population, NGOs, among other agents). In this sense, the mission demanded a profile of a leader capable of interacting, articulating, and negotiating with different bodies within and outside the Brazilian army, once again calling the importance to a relational leadership style (Uhl-Bien, 2006; Gittell, 2011; Mendes et al., 2020; Silva, Filippim & Sant’Anna, 2020). The interviews illustrate this discussion:

I would like to guide our military personnel, so that all their actions have legal support. In both national and Haitian legislation and UN legislation (Interview 11).

So, the success of the mission depends on whether you can integrate all these different components in a common direction, make them work together, efficiently, for the common good. You have a battalion from one country, it must work with a company from another country, this only in the military component. So, there you have the cultural differences, differences in work. And this is important for you to get this teamwork. All these differences are understood and if possible because it is the following, often no matter how much you do not like it, 'ah, I don't like the troops of a certain country'. But sometimes you must work with her. That is why this spirit of cooperation must emerge, so that you can live with these cultural and procedural differences, so that you can work efficiently and achieve success in your mission (Interview 16).

The knowledge of culture, habits and the local context was another element considered fundamental for the performance of leaders in the context of MINUSTAH. In other words, it was necessary to understand the particularities of the region/country in which the leader was inserted in order to avoid that any measure hurt and disrespect the legal rules and local customs (Interviews 3, 4, 6 and 13) and compromise the achievement of the objectives of the peace mission:

Cultural knowledge of the operational environment. Without it you also do not know how to apply the knowledge you are bringing from Brazil to apply there (Interview 3).

We were concerned about conquering the population, talking, and doing work in the community. And we realized that at the end of the mission we began to win even more this issue of respect for the population, more and more (Interview 13).

Another competence required of commanders in the context of the emerging MINUSTAH empirical data was a broad knowledge of the rules of the UN and the international agencies involved (Interview 1, 3, 4, 5, 11). There are several reports that point to the complexity of the United Nations' legislation and its "rules of engagement". And since these documents regulated MINUSTAH's operation, it was necessary for the leaders to be able to interpret these rules and guarantee their compliance in all instances of the operation, as illustrated by the following reports:

Like every organization, the improvement of an organization, that is, what makes an organization evolve, is not only the fact that all its members comply with the rules, it is to comply with the rules with commitment and create opportunities for it to improve processes, improve mechanisms, improve performance index, expand knowledge. I think commitment is a little broader (Interview 4).

I clearly understood in the conduct of the mission by the commander, subcommander and G3, who issued orders to subordinate elements and these in turn always carried out them as a team, each with his own role, aware of his responsibilities, committed to the mission, to keep the environment safe and stable in Haiti. With this, the rules of engagement, the international treaties were complied with, and the investigative procedures were conducted to prove that the troop acted in accordance with the law (Interview 11).

Thus, MINUSTAH demanded leadership profiles capable of dealing with all the complexity inherent in a peace mission in the UN context.

Conclusions

This paper aims to analyze the roles and profiles of military leaders required in the context of the Brazilian Army's peacekeeping mission in Haiti, based on a qualitative study. The results of the study reveal, firstly, a concern of the leaders in managing real situations of extreme difficulty and risk, with the sensitivity of dealing with individuals who are far from their country of origin, without the coexistence of their families and defending a humanitarian cause of high international responsibility. Such specific characteristics of the investigated context indicate, on the one hand, the need for a sensitive and people-oriented leadership profile and, on the other hand, the importance of the profile of the leader to be appropriate to the environment where this agent is inserted.

In this sense, the findings of the research indicate that it is essential that leaders are able to understand the demands of subordinate military personnel, manage crises, influence people and, above all, manage their own emotions and feelings in order to fulfill the mission, that is, achieve operational, administrative and organizational results through and with the members of Brazilian troops in Haiti.

Regarding the perception of leaders interviewed about the meaning of leadership, the results reveal how strong is the figure of a leader oriented to people, that is, sensitive to social, human and emotional problems that recurrently emerge in Peace Missions, as well as a leadership capable of mobilizing individuals towards a collective purpose that exceeds individual interests. Therefore, no matter how much the military environment is commonly characterized by a high respect for hierarchy, leadership tends to be more easily exercised if the leader builds a relationship of mutual support in which authority derives more from the ability of social interaction than from formal power related to the position occupied. Such findings may indicate, therefore, that the military context studied demands attributes associated with the style of relational leadership where the effectiveness of the leader is more associated with his sensitivity and ability to rescue the collective than a relationship based on command-control and orientation to tasks (Cleary, 2018; Uhl-Bien, 2006).

Consequently, the military context investigated (Peace Missions) suggest a type of leadership with high relational and communicative capacities, as the empirical data itself confirm. The role of the leader is related, then, to the exercise of leadership based on negotiation, dialogue and interpersonal relationship, seeking to strengthen social bonds with his team and watch over the emotional climate of the troops, as the concept of relational leadership itself presupposes (Uhl-Bien, 2006; Gittell, 2011). Relationship approaches also seem equally important in doctrines geared to new types of conflict, based on maneuver warfare rather than on the armed conflicts (Leonhard, 1991; Wheeler & Morris, 2002; Braga et al., 2002; Ferreira-Silva, 2009). New research, therefore, are relevant for deepening the potential of relational approaches in the military army.

The findings also reveal that the investigated context requires a special type of leader corroborating the contingential/situational character of leadership, in which not only the leader, but the led and the situation are variables that influence the leadership process. In other words, the "sensitivity" of leaders and their relational/social capacity become much-needed leadership attributes in the studied environment characterized by high levels of pressure, violence, poverty, chaos, and suffering.

In relation to its contribution, the study provides insights into contemporary research on Relational Leadership, adopting a look that goes beyond leadership as a phenomenon limited to the leader-subordinate dyad, considering that the exercise of leadership also involves organizational and environmental dimensions. In addition, this is study represents an advance in the literature on the subject by drawing attention to the relevance of a leader profile, in this case a relational style, which is not traditionally discussed in the military environment, where characteristics such as command, hierarchy, subordination and discipline are more emphasized than relational characteristics, people orientation and sensitivity. Finally, the application of the empirical study in the military context brings relevant findings when investigating leadership in a peculiar case marked by an environment of high instability and complexity: the context of Peace Missions of the Brazilian Army.

As a limitation, the study reports, only, the vision of organizational leaders taking as reference the military who exercised the command function in MINUSTAH and may represent a narrow perception of the phenomenon investigated. On the other hand, it is suggested that, in future studies, the view of subordinates on the exercise of leadership in UN Peace Missions be considered, as well as research that adopts quantitative methods for a more statistical understanding of the phenomenon investigated.

References

Abelha, D. M., Carneiro, P. C. C., & Cavazotte, F. S. C. N. (2018). Liderança Transformacional e Satisfação no Trabalho: Avaliando a Influência de Fatores do Contexto Organizacional e Características Individuais. Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios, 20(4), 516-532.

Bardin, L. (2011) Analysis of content. Lisboa: Edições 70.

Braga, C. C.; Lopes, M. J. F; Gagliano, W. S.; & Oliveira, S. R. D. (2002) Peculiarities of the maneuver warfare and its applicability in the Brazilian Navy. Rio de Janeiro: Escola de Guerra Naval.

Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.

Bergamini, C. W. (1994). Leadership: management of meaning. São Paulo: Atlas.

Bonoma, T. V. (1985). Case-research in marketing: problems and opportunities and a process. Journal of Marketing Research, XXII, 199-208.

Burns, J. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Cleary, S. (2018) Enabling relational leadership in primary healthcare settings: lessons from the dialhs, C. Health Policy and Planning, v. 33, n. 2, p. 65-74.

Cunliffe, A. L. & Eriksen, M. (2011). Relational leadership. Human Relations, 64(11), 14251449.

D'ávila, P. R., Oliveira, F. B., & Fraga, V. F. (Orgs.). (2018). Leadership and quality of social relations: relevance to the commitment to peace missions. Curitiba: Appris.

D’ávila, P. R., Oliveira, F. B., Diniz, D. M., & Sant'Anna, A. S. Papeis e estilos de liderança em missão da ONU no Haiti: o que pensam as lideranças do exército brasileiro? In: VII Encontro de Gestão de Pessoas e Relações de Trabalho – EnGPR, 2020: ANPAD, 2020.

Day, D. V., & O’connor, P. M. G. Leadership development: Understanding the process. In: Murphy, S. E. & Riggio, R. E. (Eds.). (2003) The future of leadership development. London: Taylor & Francis.

Day, D. V., & Harrison, M. M. (2007). A multilevel, identity-based approach to leadership development. Human Resource Management Review, 17, 360-373.

Endres, S.& Weibler, J. (2017). Towards a three-component model of relational social constructionist leadership: a systematic review and critical interpretive synthesis. International Journal of Management Reviews, 19, 214-236.

Faqueti, M. F., Krause, M. G., & Cunha, C. J. C. de A. (2018). Liderança Relacional: Um Estudo Bibliométrico: Um Estudo Bibliométrico. Anais Do Congresso Internacional De Conhecimento E Inovação – Ciki, 1(1). Recuperado de https://proceeding.ciki.ufsc.br/index.php/ciki/article/view/454

Ferreira-Silva, A. (2009) Marine corps and the maneuver warfare today: the contribution of the leadership. Rio de Janeiro: Escola de Guerra Naval.

Goldstein, J.; Hazy, J. K.; & Lichtenstein, B. B. (2010) Complexity and the nexus of leadership: leveraging nonlinear science to create ecologies of innovation. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Eisenhardt, K. M. B. (1989) Theories from case study research. Stanford University. Academy of Management Review, n. 4, v. 14.

Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Flick, U. (2009). Introduction to qualitative research. Porto Alegre: Artmed.

Gittell, J. H. (2011). Relational leadership: new developments in theory and practice. Waltham, MA: Brandeis University.

Godoy, A. S. (1995). Introduction to qualitative research and its possibilities. Revista de Administração de Empresas, São Paulo, 35, (2), 57-63.

Gomes, A. R., & Cruz, J. (2007). Charismatic and transformational approach: conceptual models and quotations for the exercise of leadership. Psychology USP, São Paulo, 18(3), 143161. (September).

Hardy, L.; Arthur, C.; Jones, G.; Shariff, A.; Munnoch, K.; Isaacs, I.; & Adrian, J. A. (2010). The relationship between transformational leadership behaviors, psychological: and training outcomes in elite military recruits. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(1), 20-32.

Harms, P. D.; & Han, H. G. (2016). Do positive and negative forms of relational leadership have a nonlinear relationship with creativity? Journal of Leadership Studies, 10(1), 51-52.

Hersey, P.; & Blanchard, K. H. (1969). Management of organizational behavior. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Horner, M. (1997). Leadership theory: past, present and future. Team Performance Management, 3(4), 270-287.

Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993) Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated business-unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 891-902.

Leonhard, R. (1991) The art of maneuver warfare: theory and airland battle. Novato, CA: Presidio.

Lewin, K. (1944). A research approach to leadership problems. Journal of Educational Sociology, 17 (7), 392-398.

Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York: McGraw-Hill.

McGregor, D. (1966). Leadership and motivation. Cambridge: MIT Press.

McDowelle, J. O. (2009). A contemporary consideration of transformative leadership. Journal of Curriculum And Instruction, v. 3(2),1-24.

Mendes, L., Sant'Anna, A. S, & Diniz, D. M. (2020). Liderança e Modernidade Organizacional em Escritórios de Advocacia. In: VII Encontro de Gestão de Pessoas e Relações de Trabalho – EnGPR, 2020: ANPAD, 2020.

Oliveira, F. B.; Sant'Anna, A. S.; Diniz, D. M., & Carvalho Neto, A. M. (2015). Leaderships in Urban Contexts of Diversity and Innovation: The Porto Maravilha Case. BAR - Brazilian Administration Review, 12(3), 268-287.

Osborn, R., Uhl-Bien, M., & Milosevic, I. (2014). The contexto and leadership. In D. Day (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Leadership and Organizations (pp. 589-612). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ospina, S. M.; Kersh, R., & Quick, K. S. (2014). Taking a relational turn in leadership studies. Public Administration Review, 74(4), 542-544.

Podsakoff, P. M.; Mackenzie, S. B.; & Bommer, W. H. (1996). Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 22, 259-298.

Quick, K. S. (2014). Taking a Relational Turn in Leadership Studies. Public Administration Review, 74(4), 542-544.

Ramsey, J. R.; Rutti, R. M.; Lorenz, M. P.; Barakat, L.; & Sant’Anna, A. S. (2017). Developing global transformational leaders. Journal of World Business, 2017, 52(4), 461-473.

Ruppert-Winkel, C. (2018). Leaders, networks and the social context: A relational leadership approach to regional renewable energy self-sufficiency. Journal of Cleaner Production, 193(20), 811-832.

Rickards, T. (2015). Dilemmas of leadership. Manchester: Routledge.

Sant'Anna, A. S., Nelson, R. E., & Carvalho, A. M., Jr. (2015). Fundamentals and dimensions of relational leadership. DOM - Revista da Fundação Dom Cabral, 9(1), 16-21.

Sant'Anna, A. S.; Nelson, R. E. (2014). Leadership to new forms of leadership: movements and trends beyond mainstream. Reuna, 19(4), 5-20.

Scott, B.; & Bozeman, M. (2003). The role of transformational and transactional leadership in creating contexts: sharing and exploiting organizational knowledge. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 1(9), 32-44.

Seters, D. A.; & Field, R. H. G. (1990) Leadership. Journal of Organizational Change Management, v. 3, Issue 3, p. 29.

Silva, E. T. da, Filippim, E. S., & Sant’Anna, A. de S. (2020). Liderança relacional em rede do setor de transportes brasileiro. RACE - Revista De Administração, Contabilidade e Economia, 19(3), 567-592. https://doi.org/10.18593/race.22627.

Steers, R. M.; Sanchez-Runde, C.; & Nardon, L. (2012). Leadership in a global context: new directions in research and theory development. Journal of World Business, 47 (4), 479-482.

Smith, B. N.; Montagno, R. V.; & Kuzmenko, T. N. (2004). Transformational and servant leadership: Content and contextual comparisons. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 10(4), 80-91.

Soy, A. K. (2005) The case study as research method. University of Texas. http: www.gslis.utexas.edu?~ssoy/useusers/1391d1b.htm (Access: July 23, 2020).

Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature. Journal of Psychology, 25, 35-71.

Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership. New York: MacMillan/Free Press.

Uhl-Bien, M.; & Arena, M. (2018) Leadership for organizational adaptability: a theoretical synthesis and integrative framework. The Leadership Quarterly, 29, p. 89-104.

Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 654-676.

Uhl-Bien, M. (2003). Relationship development as a key ingredient for leadership development. The Future of Leadership Development, 129-147.

Vizeu, F. (2011). An approach between transformational leadership and the Theory of Communicative Action. RAM - Revista de Administração Mackenzie, 12(1), 53-81.

Wheeler, M.; Morris, G. (2002) A note on maneuvering in war and negotiation. Harvard Business School Background Note, 902-157.

Yammarino, F. J., Dansereau, F., & Kennedy, C. J. (2001). A multiple-level multidimensional approach to leadership: viewing leadership through an elephant’s eye. Organizational Dynamics, 29(3), 143-163.

Yin, R. K. (2005). Case study: planning and methods. Porto Alegre: Bookman.

IR