Research Spotlight: Where Leadership Theories Converge

Racha Zeitoun’s 2026 doctoral dissertation at the University of La Verne asks what becomes visible when several influential leadership traditions are placed side by side. Rather than treating transformational, adaptive, connective, and servant leadership as isolated schools of thought, Zeitoun compares them with the Actualized Leadership Profile, known as the ALP, to identify areas of convergence and distinction.

We spoke with Racha Zeitoun, a Doctor of Education graduate of the LaFetra College of Education at the University of La Verne, to learn more about what this comparison means for leadership research and practice.

Leadership research contains many frameworks that can appear to compete for attention. For researchers, educators, and organizational leaders, the practical challenge is not simply choosing one theory, but understanding what each framework highlights, what it leaves in the background, and where different models may be describing similar leadership capacities in different language.

Zeitoun’s comparison matters because it makes those relationships explicit. By tracing how the ALP connects with theories centered on transformation, adaptation, relationships, and service, the study provides a more integrated way to discuss leadership development without claiming that the theories are interchangeable.

Zeitoun explained why that integration matters in practice: “The most important practical reason for comparing these leadership models is that in reality leaders do not necessarily function within the boundaries of a single theory. Comparing these theories helps us understand where they overlap, where they differ, and how they might work together in real-world leadership development. In particular, the ALP adds a unique perspective on the underlying motives and potential shadow side of leadership, which can help explain why a leader may express these different leadership behaviors under different circumstances.”

The dissertation’s comparative mapping points to three major contributions, each grounded in the way the ALP was read against the four theoretical traditions.

• Different theories converge on distinct parts of the ALP. The study reports that transformational leadership corresponds with vision, inspiration, self-mastery, and intellectual stimulation, while adaptive leadership aligns with resilience, flexibility, systems thinking, and iterative reflection. This suggests that the ALP captures both the capacity to mobilize people toward change and the capacity to adjust when conditions are uncertain.
• Relational and ethical leadership are central to the comparison. Connective leadership intersects with relational intelligence, inclusivity, hybrid style, and collaborative engagement. Servant leadership shows strong convergence with ethical orientation, stewardship, empathy, and a focus on developing others. Together, these comparisons position leadership as more than personal influence, because relationships, responsibility, and follower development also matter.
• The study opens a wider research agenda rather than closing the debate. Zeitoun recommends extending the comparison to authentic, self, and distributed leadership, examining the shadow side alongside destructive leadership theories, and using mixed-methods and longitudinal designs. The dissertation also calls for follower perspectives and research across cultures, sectors, and demographic groups, which signals that the proposed intersections still need empirical testing in varied contexts.

Asked which overlap or distinction surprised her most, Zeitoun described what emerged from the mapping process: “I was surprised by the amount of overlap there was overall. When learning about each theory you think they are separate and expect that they have clearer boundaries, but characteristics like self-awareness, adaptability, relationships, and concern for others appeared across several of the models. When comparing all the theories with the ALP, what stood out to me was that although the characteristics appear in the ALP, they are approached differently. The ALP looks more at the underlying motives and how leadership behaviors can shift under stress. So rather than competing with the four theories, I started to see the ALP as potentially providing an additional layer of understanding.”

This was a qualitative, theory-based comparative study rather than a participant-based empirical study. Zeitoun analyzed foundational literature for transformational, adaptive, connective, and servant leadership, then mapped the ALP’s assessment structure and nine leadership attributes against the core elements of those theories.

The analytical challenge was conceptual rather than numerical. Each leadership tradition uses its own vocabulary, assumptions, and emphasis, so the work required careful comparison of constructs that may overlap without being identical. The dissertation describes the approach as qualitative comparative analysis and does not report a quantitative component.

Evidano is designed to support this kind of textual research through codebook-based analysis, thematic and content analysis, cross-document comparisons, and document chat. Used appropriately, those capabilities can help researchers organize evidence across large bodies of text while the researchers retain responsibility for the codebook, interpretation, theoretical framing, and final scholarly claims.

Zeitoun’s perspective adds useful nuance to the broader conversation about research technology: “I see AI-assisted analysis as a useful support tool rather than a substitute for scholarly judgment. It can help identify patterns, organize data, and generate potential coding suggestions, but the researcher has to determine whether those patterns are actually supported by the theory and the data. In my study, AI helped identify a potential connection between the ALP and a leadership theory, but I had to evaluate that connection against the theoretical literature and make the final coding decision. Maintaining a transparent coding process and documenting those decisions is important for preserving scholarly judgment.”

For leadership researchers, the study suggests that comparison across theories can reveal shared constructs while preserving important differences in purpose and emphasis. That can sharpen construct definitions, improve the interpretation of leadership assessments, and help future studies design questions that test where conceptual convergence translates into similar outcomes in real organizations.

For educators and organizational practitioners, the comparison offers a vocabulary for discussing development in a more integrated way. A leader may need vision in one moment, adaptive reflection in another, connective capacity across relationships, and servant-oriented stewardship throughout.

Zeitoun offered this takeaway for leadership scholars and practitioners: “The one takeaway I hope scholars and practitioners carry from this study is that leadership should not be viewed through a single theoretical lens. The study showed me that although the ALP and the four leadership theories have significant areas of overlap, they also offer different ways of understanding leadership. For practitioners, I think the most important piece is self-awareness — understanding not just what you do as a leader, but what may be driving your behavior, especially under stress. I hope this study encourages leaders to look at leadership more holistically rather than relying on one leadership model. At the end of the day, effective leadership is not just about the style a leader uses but also about understanding the person behind the leadership.”

The broader value of Zeitoun’s dissertation lies in resisting a false choice between leadership models. Its contribution is to show that established theories can be compared systematically, that overlap can be informative without erasing difference, and that a richer account of leadership may emerge when multiple traditions are placed in conversation with one another.