140219 ldp-leadership - current th eories, research, and future direction (avolio, walumbwa, &...

7/22/2019 140219 LDP-Leadership - Current Th Eories, Research, And Future Direction (Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber)

1/30

University of Nebraska - Lincoln

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln

Management Department Faculty Publications Management Department

1-1-2009

Leadership: Current eories, Research, andFuture Directions

Bruce AvolioUniversity of Nebraska - Lincoln, [email protected]

Fred WalumbwaArizona State University, [email protected]

Todd J. WeberUniversity of Nebraska - Lincoln, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: hp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/managementfacpub

Part of the Management Sciences and Quantitative Methods Commons

is Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Management Department at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has

been accepted for inclusion in Management Department Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of

Nebraska - Lincoln.

Avolio, Bruce; Walumbwa, Fred; and Weber, Todd J., "Leadership: Current eories, Research, and Future Directions" (2009).Management Department Faculty Publications. Paper 37.hp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/managementfacpub/37
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fmanagementfacpub%2F37&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/managementfacpub?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fmanagementfacpub%2F37&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/managementdept?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fmanagementfacpub%2F37&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/managementfacpub?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fmanagementfacpub%2F37&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/637?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fmanagementfacpub%2F37&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/managementfacpub/37?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fmanagementfacpub%2F37&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/managementfacpub/37?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fmanagementfacpub%2F37&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/637?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fmanagementfacpub%2F37&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/managementfacpub?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fmanagementfacpub%2F37&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/managementdept?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fmanagementfacpub%2F37&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/managementfacpub?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fmanagementfacpub%2F37&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fmanagementfacpub%2F37&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages


2/30

Published inAnnual Review of Psychology60 (2009), pp. 421-449;doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163621 Copyright 2009 by Annual Reviews.

Used by permission. http://psych.annualreviews.org

Leadership: Current Theories, Research, and

Future Directions

Bruce J. Avolio,1Fred O. Walumbwa,2and Todd J. Weber3

1 Department of Management, University of NebraskaLincoln,Lincoln, NE 68588-0491; email: [email protected]

2 Department of Management, The Arizona State University,Glendale, Arizona 85306-4908; email: [email protected]

3 Department of Management, University of NebraskaLincoln,Lincoln, NE 68588-0491; email: [email protected]

Abstract

This review examines recent theoretical and empirical developments in the leadership literature,beginning with topics that are currently receiving attention in terms of research, theory, andpractice. We begin by examining authentic leadership and its development, followed by workthat takes a cognitive science approach. We then examine new-genre leadership theories,complexity leadership, and leadership that is shared, collective, or distributed. We examine therole of relationships through our review of leader member exchange and the emerging workon followership. Finally, we examine work that has been done on substitutes for leadership,servant leadership, spirituality and leadership, cross-cultural leadership, and e-leadership. Thisstructure has the benet of creating a future focus as well as providing an interesting way to

examine the development of the eld. Each section ends with an identication of issues to beaddressed in the future, in addition to the overall integration of the literature we provide at theend of the article.

Keywords: authentic leadership, cognitive leadership, complexity leadership, cross-culturalleadership, new-genre leadership, shared leadership

Contents

Introduction .................................................................................................. 422Overview of Authentic Leadership ............................................................423 Authentic Leadership Dened........................................................... 423 Future Focus Required ........................................................................424Authentic Leadership Development ..........................................................424 Heritability and Leadership ............................................................... 425 Examining Evidence for Positive Leadership Interventions ........ 425 Future Focus Required ....................................................................... 425Cognitive Psychology and Leadership .................................................... 426 Emerging Cognitive Constructs .........................................................426 Prototypical Abstractions of Leadership ......................................... 427 Future Focus Required ........................................................................428 421


3/30

422 AVOL IO, WAL UMB WA, & WEBER IN ANNUALREVIEWOFP SYCHOLOGY60 (2009)

Introduction

One of our goals for this integrative re-view is to examine the ways in which the

eld of leadership is evolving and the conse-quences of its evolutionary path for the mod-els, methods, and populations examined. Forexample, at the outset of the eld of leader-ship, the primary focus was on studying anindividual leader, who was most likely amale working in some large private-sector

organization in the United States. Today, theeld of leadership focuses not only on theleader, but also on followers, peers, supervi-sors, work setting/context, and culture, in-

cluding a much broader array of individualsrepresenting the entire spectrum of diver-sity, public, private, and not-for-prot orga-nizations, and increasingly over the past 20years, samples of populations from nationsaround the globe. Leadership is no longersimply described as an individual character-

New-Genre Leadership ................................................................................428 New-Genre Versus Traditional Leadership .................................... 428 Boundary Conditions for New-Genre Leadership ..........................429 Future Focus Required ....................................................................... 429Complexity Leadership ............................................................................... 430

Complexity and Traditional Leadership Theory ............................ 430 Future Focus Required ....................................................................... 431Shared, Collective, or Distributed Leadership .........................................431 Shared Leadership Dened .................................................................431 Research Evidence . ..............................................................................432Leader-Member Exchange ...........................................................................433 Extensions to LMX .............................................................................. 433 Future Focus Required ........................................................................434Followership and Leadership .................................................................... 434 Romance of Leadership ....................................................................... 434 Updates on Follower-Centric Views .................................................435 Future Focus Required ....................................................................... 435Substitutes for Leadership ......................................................................... 436 Future Focus Required ....................................................................... 436Servant Leadership ..................................................................................... 436 Future Focus Required ....................................................................... 437Spirituality and Leadership .........................................................................437 Future Focus Required ........................................................................437Cross-Cultural Leadership .........................................................................438 Project GLOBE ..................................................................................... 438 Global Leadership ................................................................................ 438 Comparative Leadership ................................................................... 439 Future Focus Required ........................................................................ 439E-Leadership ................................................................................................. 439 Common Questions with E-Leadership .......................................... 440 Group and Virtual Tea .........................................................................441Closing Comments and Integration ...........................................................441

IJ


4/30

LE ADE R SH IP: CUR R E N TTH E OR IE S, RE SE AR C H, AN D FUT UR ED IR E C T ION S 423

istic or difference, but rather is depicted invarious models as dyadic, shared, relational,strategic, global, and a complex social dy-namic (Avolio 2007, Yukl 2006).

We organize our examination of howleadership is evolving by discussing signif-

icant areas of inquiry that represent currentpillars in leadership research, some under-standably taller than others. We highlightthe current state of each particular area ofinquiry, and discuss what we know, whatwe dont know, and what remains interest-ing possibilities to pursue in future research.Given our space limitations, we focus moreon the current state of these respective ar-eas in terms of advances in theory, research,and practice, including the criticisms andboundaries of theories, models, and meth-ods wherever appropriate. From this analy-

sis, we offer some recommendations for fu-ture directions that the science of leadershipcould pursue, and we discuss the potentialimplications for leadership practice.

Looking back over the past 100 years,we cannot imagine a more opportune timefor the eld of leadership studies. Neverbefore has so much attention been paid toleadership, and the fundamental questionwe must ask is, what do we know and whatshould we know about leaders and leader-ship? We begin addressing these questionsnot by going back to the earliest work in

leadership, but rather by focusing on whatis most current in the eld. We then exam-ine other areas from which the current workhas emerged, rather than examining lead-ership material covered in recent reviews(Gelfand et al. 2007, Goethals 2005) or pro-viding a comprehensive historical review ofthe eld that is better left to the Handbook ofLeadership (Bass & Bass 2008; see also Yukl& Van Fleet 1992).

Overview of Authentic Leadership

One of the emerging pillars of interest inthe eld of leadership has been called au-thentic leadership development. As dis-cussed in a special issue [edited by Avolio& Gardner (2005)] of the Leadership Quar-terlyon this topic and in an earlier theoret-

ical piece by Luthans & Avolio (2003), theadvent of work on authentic leadership de-velopment came as a result of writings ontransformational leadership, in which au-thors such as Bass & Steidlmeier (1999) sug-gest that there are pseudo versus authentic

transformational leaders.Luthans & Avolio (2003) also introduced

the concept of authentic leadership devel-opment into the literature with the goal ofintegrating work on (Luthans 2002) positiveorganizational behavior with the life-spanleadership development work of Avolio(1999). Their main purpose was to examinewhat constituted genuine leadership devel-opment including what worked and didntwork to develop leaders and leadership, aswell as to bring to the foreground some ofthe recent work in positive psychology as

a foundation for examining how one mightaccelerate the development. Luthans andAvolio reasoned that using some of the the-oretical work in positive psychology such asFredricksons (2001) broaden-and-build the-ory, they could offer a more positive wayfor conceptualizing leadership develop-ment. According to Fredrickson, those in-dividuals who have more positive psycho-logical resources are expected to grow moreeffectively or to broaden themselves andbuild out additional personal resources toperform. Luthans and Avolio report that to

a large extent, the prior leadership develop-ment work was based on a decit-reductionmodel strategy, where one discovered whatwas wrong with a leader and then workedto correct decits in terms of focusing onthe leaders development (also see Avolio &Luthans 2006).

Authentic Leadership DenedFirst and foremost, the concept of au-

thenticity has been around for a long time,as reected in many philosophical discus-

sions of what constitutes authenticity (Har-ter et al. 2002). George (2003) popularizedauthentic leadership in the general practicecommunity when he published his book onthe topic, as did Luthans & Avolio (2003)for the academic community. Luthans &Avolio (2003, p. 243) dened authentic lead-

Authentic leader-ship:a pattern oftransparent and eth-ical leader behav-ior that encouragesopenness in sharinginformation needed

to make decisionswhile accepting fol-lowers inputs

Transformationalleadership: leaderbehaviors thattransform and in-spire followers toperform beyond ex-pectations whiletranscending self-interest for the goodof the organization

Positive organi-zational behav-ior:literature thatis focusing on pos-itive constructssuch as hope, re-siliency, efcacy,optimism, happi-ness, and well-be-ing as they apply toorganizations

Broaden-and-buildtheory: suggestspositive emotionsexpand cognitionand behavioral ten-dencies, and en-courage novel,varied, and explor-atory thoughts andactions


5/30


ership as a process that draws from bothpositive psychological capacities and ahighly developed organizational context,which results in both greater self-awarenessand self-regulated positive behaviors onthe part of leaders and associates, fostering

positive self-development. This denitionand subsequent work on authentic leader-ship was dened at the outset as multilevelin that it included the leader, follower, andcontext very specically in the way it wasconceptualized and measured. This ad-dressed a typical criticism in the leadershipliterature summarized by Yammarino et al.(2005, p. 10) who concluded, relatively fewstudies in any of the areas of leadership re-search have addressed levels-of-analysis is-sues appropriately in theory, measurement,data analysis, and inference drawing.

At the same time, several scholars (e.g.,Cooper et al. 2005, Sparrowe 2005) expressedconcerns with Luthans & Avolios initialdenition of authentic leadership. The ini-tial conceptual differences notwithstanding,there appears to be general agreement in theliterature on four factors that cover the com-ponents of authentic leadership: balancedprocessing, internalized moral perspective,relational transparency, and self-awareness.Balanced processing refers to objectivelyanalyzing relevant data before making a de-cision. Internalized moral perspective re-

fers to being guided by internal moral stan-dards, which are used to self-regulate onesbehavior. Relational transparency refersto presenting ones authentic self throughopenly sharing information and feelingsas appropriate for situations (i.e., avoidinginappropriate displays of emotions). Self-awareness refers to the demonstrated un-derstanding of ones strengths, weaknesses,and the way one makes sense of the world.These four constructs were further oper-ationally dened by Walumbwa and col-leagues (2008). Walumbwa et al. (2008) pro-

vided initial evidence using a multisamplestrategy involving U.S. and non-U.S. partic-ipants to determine the construct validityof a new set of authentic leadership scales.Specically, they showed the four compo-nents described above represented unique

scales that were reliable. These four scalesloaded on a higher-order factor labeled au-thentic leadership that was discriminantlyvalid from measures of transformationalleadership (e.g., Avolio 1999) and ethicalleadership (e.g., Brown et al. 2005) and was

a signicant and positive predictor of orga-nizational citizenship behavior, organiza-tional commitment, and satisfaction withsupervisor and performance.

Future Focus RequiredWork on dening and measuring au-

thentic leadership is in the very early stagesof development. Future research will needto offer additional evidence for the con-struct validity of this measure or other mea-sures, and it will also need to demonstrate

how authentic leadership relates to otherconstructs within its nomological network.This would include constructs such as moralperspective, self-concept clarity, well-being,spirituality, and judgment. Moreover, thereis a need to examine how authentic lead-ership is viewed across situations and cul-tures and whether it is a universally pre-scribed positive root constructmeaning itrepresents the base of good leadership re-gardless of form, e.g., participative, direc-tive, or inspiring. In the next section, weturn our attention to the second major focus

on authentic leadership, which incorporatesthe term development.

Authentic Leadership Development

Up until very recently, one would behard-pressed to nd in the leadership litera-ture a general model of leadership develop-ment (Luthans & Avolio 2003). Even moredifcult to nd is evidence-based leader-ship development. Specically, what ev-idence is there to support whether leaders

or leadership can be developed using oneor more specic theories of leadership? Thisquestion led to a concerted effort to explorewhat was known about whether leaders areborn or made, as well as the efcacy of lead-ership interventions.

Ethical leadership:

the demonstra-tion of normativelyappropriate con-duct through per-sonal actions andinterpersonal re-lationships, andthe promotion ofsuch conduct tofollowers

Nomological net-work:a representa-tion of a construct,its observable man-ifestation, and therelationship be-tween the two


6/30


Heritability and LeadershipOne avenue of research that has explored

whether leaders are born versus made hasinvolved studying identical and fraternaltwins. Preliminary evidence using a behav-ioral genetics approach has shown that ap-proximately 30% of the variation in leader-ship style and emergence was accounted forby heritability; the remaining variation wasattributed to differences in environmentalfactors such as individuals having differ-ent role models and early opportunities forleadership development (Arvey et al. 2007).Because identical twins have 100% of thesame genetic makeup and fraternal twinsshare about 50%, this behavioral geneticsresearch was able to control for heritabilityto examine how many leadership roles thetwins emerged into over their respective ca-reers. In this and subsequent research forboth men and women across cultures, sim-ilar results were obtained. The authors con-ducting this research conclude that the lifecontext one grows up in and later worksin is much more important than heritabilityin predicting leadership emergence acrossones career.

Examining Evidence for Positive LeadershipInterventions

Lord & Hall (1992, p. 153) noted, too

much research in the past has attempted toprobe the complex issues of leadership us-ing simple bivariate correlations. It seemsfair to say that although most models ofleadership have causal predictions, a rela-tively small percentage of the accumulatedliterature has actually tested these predic-tions using controlled leadership interven-tions, especially in eld research settings(Yukl 2006).

To determine whether experimental in-terventions actually impacted leadershipdevelopment and/or performance, a qual-

itative and quantitative review of the lead-ership intervention (i.e., studies where a re-searcher overtly manipulated leadership toexamine its impact on some specic inter-mediate process variables or outcomes) lit-erature was undertaken (see Avolio & Lu-

thans 2006, Avolio et al. 2009, Reichard &Avolio 2005). The focus of this meta-ana-lytic review was unique in that up to thatpoint, more than 30 meta-analyses had beenpublished on leadership research, none ofwhich had focused on leadership interven-

tions and more than one model of leader-ship. For each study, the leadership inter-vention examined was categorized into sixtypes: training, actor/role-play, scenario/vignette, assignments, expectations, others.Reichard & Avolio (2005) reported that re-gardless of the theory being investigated,results showed that leadership interven-tions had a positive impact on work out-comes (e.g., ratings of leader performance),even when the duration of those interven-tions was less than one day. In terms of util-ity, participants in the broadly dened lead-

ership treatment condition had on averagea 66% chance of positive outcomes versusonly a 34% chance of success for the com-parison group.

Future Focus RequiredRelatively little work has been done over

the past 100 years to substantiate whetherleadership can actually be developed. In-deed, based on the meta-analysis ndingsreviewed above, only 201 studies were iden-tied that t the intervention denition. Ofthose 201 studies, only about one third fo-cused on developing leadership as opposedto manipulating it for impact through roleplays or scripts to test a particular proposi-tion in one of the various models.

One of the emerging areas of interest inleadership research, which we have dedi-cated more attention to in its own section,concerns the linkages between cognitive sci-ence and how leaders perceive, decide, be-have, and take action (Lord & Brown 2004).For example, to develop leadership, it isimperative that we examine how a lead-

ers self-concept and/or identity is formed,changed, and inuences behavior (Swann etal. 2007). This raises a key question regard-ing what constitutes leaders working self-concept and/or identity with respect to howthey go about inuencing others (Swann et


7/30


al. 2007). For example, does an authenticleader have a different working self-con-cept than someone who is described by fol-lowers as transformational or transactional,and how do these differences develop in theleader over time?

We know from previous literature thatalthough a leaders working self-conceptis constructed in the current moment, it isalso based on more stable self-concepts andidentities stored in the individuals long-term memory. Avolio & Chan (2008) indi-cate there are certain trigger events that ac-tivate the leaders working self-concept.These trigger events induce self-focusedattention, self-assessment, and activate aleaders working self-concept. These triggermoments can occur naturally as the leaderinteracts with others during leadership ep-

isodes or they can be induced through for-mal training exercises and self-reection(Roberts et al. 2005).

Another very promising area of researchthat has not received sufcient attention inthe leadership literature focuses on under-standing what constitutes an individualslevel of developmental readiness or onescapacity or motivational orientation to de-velop to ones full potential. Prior authorshave dened developmental readiness as be-ing made up of components such as onesgoal orientation (Dweck 1986) and motiva-

tion to develop leadership (Maurer & Lipp-streu 2005). In this literature, the authors ar-gue that leaders who are more motivated tolearn at the outset and who have higher mo-tivation to lead will more likely embrace trig-ger events that stimulate their thinking abouttheir own development as an opportunity toimprove their leadership effectiveness.

In sum, a great deal of energy and inter-est is emerging in the leadership develop-ment literature that suggests there will be alot more activity in trying to discover whatimpacts genuine leadership development at

multiple levels of analysis, from cognitivethrough to organizational climates. This lit-erature will no doubt link to the life-spandevelopment and cognitive psychology lit-eratures to fuel further work in this area.

Cognitive Psychology and Leadership

The cognitive science leadership litera-ture is an area of research and theory con-taining a wide range of approaches that areunited by their focus on explaining the wayleaders and followers think and process in-formation. This literature includes a broadrange of topics such as self-concept theory,meta-cognitions, and implicit leadershiptheory (e.g., Lord & Emrich 2000), whichare addressed in more detail below.

One of the more recent developmentsin the literature has been an attempt to de-velop models of leadership cognition. Lord& Hall (2005) developed a model of lead-ership development that emphasized theleaders cognitive attributes or abilities. Asecond model was developed by Mumfordet al. (2003) and examined the way sharedthinking contributed to leader creativity.These two approaches illustrate a funda-mental way in which views of leadershipcognitions vary, with the former focusingon activities with the individual leader andthe latter focusing on interactions that occurbetween individuals (Mumford et al. 2007).We examine several of the key emergingconstructs within this literature, beginningwith the self-concept.

Emerging Cognitive ConstructsRecent literature on what constitutes the

self-concept has distinguished between thestructure of the self-concept and its contents(Altrocchi 1999). The content refers to theevaluations one makes of oneself as well asself-beliefs. The structure refers to ways inwhich the self-concept content is organizedfor processing. In a study on the structure ofthe self-concept, Campbell et al. (2003) ex-amined the competing arguments that onebenets from having either unity in self-concept or pluralism. Although the litera-ture tends to treat the two as opposite ends

of a continuum, their study showed they arenot necessarily related to each other. Thisstudy further showed that two measures ofpluralism (self-complexity and self-conceptcompartmentalization) were not related to

Cognitive leader-ship:a broad rangeof approaches to

leadership empha-sizing how lead-ers and followersthink and processinformation


8/30


each other and that multiple measures ofself-concept unity, such as self-concept dif-ferentiation, self-concept clarity, and self-discrepancies, were moderately related toeach other and that each had implicationsfor leader development.

Lord & Brown (2001) presented a modelexamining two specic ways that leaderscan inuence the way followers choose tobehave in terms of the motivations they useto regulate actions/behaviors. The rst wayrelates to values (e.g., achievement) and em-phasizes making specic values (or patternsof values) salient for the follower to moti-vate him or her to action. The second relatesto the followers self-concept, whereby theleader activates a specic identity to whichfollowers can relate, creating a collectiveidentity that the follower ultimately em-

braces as his or her own. Both values andself-concept are viewed as mediating thelinkage between the leaders actions and thebehavior of the follower.

Because there are a range of peripheraland core identities that could be salient toan individual at any one point in time, thequestion of which identities are activated atany time is relevant to research on leader-ship and its impact on followers. The idea ofa working self-concept refers to the identity(or combination of identities) that is salientin the moment, and it consists of three types

of components: self-views, current goals,and possible selves (Lord & Brown 2004).The self-view relates to the current workingmodel or view of oneself, whereas the pos-sible selves may represent the ideal modelan individual may be striving for and some-thing that could be leveraged by the leaderto motivate and develop followers into bet-ter followers or leaders themselves. Overall,the working self-concept has the potentialto provide insight into the challenging is-sue of how salient ones identity is and howleadership can enhance its salience, though

its use within the leadership literature hasbeen somewhat limited so far.

One of the essential building blocks inthe cognitive leadership literature is theidea of a schema, which is a broad organiz-

ing framework that helps one understandand make sense of a given context or ex-perience. One notable example of the useof schemas with respect to leadership re-search is the work of Wofford et al. (1998),who proposed a cognitive model to explain

the way transformational and transactionalleaders view work with followers. In theireld study, Wofford et al. examined sche-matic processes (e.g., vision, follower, self)and scripts (behaviors associated with aschema), arguing that transformational andtransactional leadership use different sche-mas to interpret events, which then resultsin the choice of different leadership behav-iors/actions in response to those events.Support was found for transformationalleader cognitions being related to the lead-ers choice of acting transformationally.

Mixed support was found for the relation-ships between transactional leader schemasand behaviors and actions chosen.

Prototypical Abstractions of LeadershipThe leadership research on social iden-

tity formation has also focused heavily onwhat constitutes prototypicality, which hasshown that followers may be more drawnto leaders who are exemplars of groupsthey belong to or want to join. Early re-search conceptualized prototypes as be-

ing relatively static and applicable in manysituations. Recent work has contested thatview, arguing that prototypes are dynamicand can be applied and adapted based onthe existing constraints or challenges beingconfronted by leaders (Lord et al. 2001).

Subsequent research has also focusedon the relationship between implicit lead-ership theories and several relevant per-formance outcomes (Epitropaki & Martin2005). We note that for more than 25 years,a great deal of the work on cognitive psy-chology and leadership focused on how im-

plicit theories and prototypes affected theperceptions of leaders and followers, gener-ally examining how it disadvantaged or bi-ased them in views of others. More recenttrends in this literature coincide nicely with

Transactional lead-ership: leadershiplargely based on

the exchange of re-wards contingenton performance


9/30


emphasis now being placed on authenticleadership development. Specically, re-search is now attempting to link how lead-ers think about events, choose to behave,and/or develop.

Future Focus RequiredCognitive approaches to investigating

leadership draw heavily on several litera-tures described above. This broad stream ofresearch has potential for enhancing exist-ing theories of leadership in terms of help-ing to explain how leaders and followers at-tend to, process, and make decisions anddevelop. Additional work linking self-con-cept and meta-cognitive theories to researchon leadership will no doubt contribute toour understanding of how leaders and fol-lowers actually develop. For example, if aleader has low self-concept clarity, to whatextent can we expect that same leader to beself-aware? What are the implications forenhancing a leaders self-concept clarity orworking self-concept about what consti-tutes the roles of effective leadership in de-veloping that leaders self-awareness andperformance?

New-Genre Leadership

Although prior authors have focusedon what constitutes charismatic, inspira-tional, and visionary leadership as far backas the early 1920s, much of the attentionin the literature on these newer theories ofleadership has come about over the past25 years. Burns (1978) and Bass (1985) sig-naled the need to shift the focus of leader-ship research from predominantly examin-ing transactional models that were based onhow leaders and followers exchanged witheach other to models that might augmenttransactional leadership and were labeled

charismatic, inspirational, transformational,and visionary. The early work of Bass andBurns set the stage for distinguishing whatBryman (1992) referred to as more tradi-tional theories of leadership versus whatthey termed new-genre leadership theories.

New-Genre Versus Traditional LeadershipBryman (1992) commented, There was

considerable disillusionment with leader-ship theory and research in the early 1980s.Part of the disillusionment was attributed tothe fact that most models of leadership andmeasures accounted for a relatively smallpercentage of variance in performance out-comes such as productivity and effective-ness. Out of this pessimism emerged a num-ber of alternative approaches, which sharedsome common features, collectively re-ferred to as the new leadership (Bryman1992, p. 21). Unlike the traditional leader-ship models, which described leader be-havior in terms of leader-follower exchangerelationships, setting goals, providing direc-tion and support, and reinforcement behav-iors, or what Bass (1985) referred to as beingbased on economic cost-benet assump-tions (p. 5), the new leadership modelsemphasized symbolic leader behavior; vi-sionary, inspirational messages; emotionalfeelings; ideological and moral values; indi-vidualized attention; and intellectual stim-ulation. Emerging from these early works,charismatic and transformational leadershiptheories have turned out to be the most fre-quently researched theories over the past 20years (Avolio 2005, Lowe & Gardner 2000).

The theory of charismatic/transforma-

tional leadership suggests that such lead-ers raise followers aspirations and activatetheir higher-order values (e.g., altruism)such that followers identify with the leaderand his or her mission/vision, feel betterabout their work, and then work to per-form beyond simple transactions and baseexpectations (e.g., Avolio 1999, Bass 1985,Conger & Kanungo 1998). Accumulated re-search (see Avolio et al. 2004a for a sum-mary of this literature), including a series ofmeta-analytic studies (e.g., Judge & Piccolo2004), has found that charismatic/trans-

formational leadership was positively as-sociated with leadership effectiveness anda number of important organizational out-comes across many different types of orga-nizations, situations, levels of analyses, andcultures such as productivity and turnover.

New-genre lead-ership: leadershipemphasizing charis-matic leader behav-ior, visionary, in-spiring, ideologicaland moral values,as well as transfor-mational leadershipsuch as individu-alized attention,and intellectualstimulation


10/30


Over the past decade, a lot of researcheffort has been invested in understandingthe processes through which charismatic/transformational leaders positively inu-ence followers attitudes, behaviors, andperformance. For example, a number of

studies have examined different processesthrough which transformational leadershipeffects are ultimately realized in terms ofperformance outcomes. These processes in-clude followers formation of commitment;satisfaction; identication; perceived fair-ness (e.g., Liao & Chuang 2007, Walumbwaet al. 2008); job characteristics such as vari-ety, identity, signicance, autonomy andfeedback (e.g., Piccolo & Colquitt 2006);trust in the leader (e.g., Wang et al. 2005);and how followers come to feel aboutthemselves and their group in terms of ef-

cacy, potency, and cohesion (e.g., Bass etal. 2003, Bono & Judge 2003, Schaubroecket al. 2007).

Boundary Conditions for New-GenreLeadership

After establishing the positive links be-tween transformational leadership and theintervening variables and performance out-comes, more recent research has examinedthe boundary conditions in which transfor-mational leadership is more (or less) effec-tive in predicting follower attitudes and be-haviors. For example, several studies havefocused on identifying and understand-ing contextual variables (e.g., idiocentrism)that mediate or moderate the relationshipof charismatic/transformational leadershipwith followers level of motivation and per-formance at the individual, team or group,and organizational levels (e.g., De Cremer& van Knippenberg 2004, Keller 2006, Wa-lumbwa et al. 2007). Additional researchhas focused on examining the moderatingeffects of follower dispositions such as ef-

cacy (Dvir & Shamir 2003, Zhu et al. 2008),physical and structural distance (e.g., Avo-lio et al. 2004b), perceived environmen-tal uncertainty (e.g., Agle et al. 2006), so-cial networks (e.g., Bono & Anderson 2005),technology to support group decision-mak-

ing (e.g., Sosik et al. 1997), and cultural ori-entations such as collectivism (e.g., Wa-lumbwa & Lawler 2003).

Future Focus RequiredAlthough signicant progress has been

made in studying charismatic/transforma-tional leadership, a number of areas stilldeserve further attention. First, despite theimportant and positive contributions madeby charismatic or transformational lead-ership in practice, questions remain as towhat determines or predicts charismatic ortransformational leadership, or why someleaders engage in charismatic or transfor-mational leadership behavior and oth-ers do not. Limited research has examinedleaders biographies or the role of follow-ers (Howell & Shamir 2005) as predictorvariables.

Second, despite signicant progressin understanding how and when charis-matic and transformational leadership be-haviors are more effective, further researchis needed that explores the process andboundary conditions for charismatic andtransformational leadership with benecialwork behaviors. For example, althoughscholars who have investigated charismaticand transformational leadership have dis-cussed motivational constructs as centralcomponents in their frameworks, gener-ally speaking, few have paid any attentionto the underlying psychological processes,mechanisms, and conditions throughwhich charismatic and transformationalleaders motivate followers to higher lev-els of motivation and performance (Kark &Van Dijk 2007).

Yukl (1999) has called for a more con-certed effort to understand both the moder-ating and mediating mechanisms that linkcharismatic/transformational leadership tofollower outcomes. To date, only a few pre-

liminary studies have simultaneously ex-amined mediated moderation or moderatedmediation (e.g., De Cremer & van Knippen-berg 2004, Walumbwa et al. 2008).

Third, other areas that deserve researchattention include examining how to link

Mediated moder-ation: a moderat-ing relationship thatis mediated by an-other variable

Moderated medi-ation:a mediatingrelationship that ismoderated by an-other variable


11/30


charismatic/transformational leadershipto the emerging literature on emotions andleadership. Although all of these newer the-ories emphasize the emotional attachmentof followers to the leader, there has been adearth of conceptual and empirical research

on examining the relationships betweenthese new leadership theories and follow-ers affective states (Bono & Ilies 2006).

Fourth, research on charismatic and trans-formational leadership at the organizationalor strategic level has generally lagged be-hind all other areas of leadership research ex-cept perhaps the focus on leadership devel-opment (Waldman & Yammarino 1999), andthe results thus far have been mixed (Agleet al. 2006). For example, Waldman and col-leagues (Tosi et al. 2004, Waldman et al.2001) found that the charisma of the chief ex-

ecutive ofcer (CEO) was not related to sub-sequent organizational performance as mea-sured by net prot margin and shareholderreturn or return on assets, respectively. Onthe other hand, Agle et al. (2006) and Wald-man et al. (2004) reported that CEO charismawas associated with subsequent organiza-tional performance. Clearly, more research isneeded that focuses on potential mediatingand moderating variables such as externalstakeholders while examining the relation-ship between CEO charismatic or transfor-mational leadership and rm performance.

Finally, although cross-cultural researchpertaining to charismatic/transformationalleadership generally supports the relation-ships reported for the United States andother Western cultures, it is important tonote that these studies largely involve sur-vey-based designs. We recommend that re-searchers incorporate a number of alter-native research designs, including but notlimited to experimental designs, longitudi-nal designs, and qualitative designs, as wellas the use of multiple sources and mixedmethods studies.

Complexity Leadership

Many previous models of leadershiphave been designed to accommodate more

traditional hierarchical structures of orga-nizations. To the degree that organizationsare hierarchical, so too are leadership mod-els (Uhl-Bien et al. 2007). Yet, there has beena growing sense of tension in the leadershipliterature that models of leadership that

were designed for the past century may notfully capture the leadership dynamic of or-ganizations operating in todays knowledge-driven economy (Lichtenstein et al. 2007).Applying the concepts of complexity the-ory to the study of leadership has resultedin what has been referred to as complexityleadership (Uhl-Bien & Marion 2008). Basedon this framework, leadership is viewed asan interactive system of dynamic, unpre-dictable agents that interact with each otherin complex feedback networks, which canthen produce adaptive outcomes such as

knowledge dissemination, learning, innova-tion, and further adaptation to change (Uhl-Bien et al. 2007). According to complex sys-tems leadership theory, leadership can beenacted through any interaction in an orga-nization leadership is an emergent phe-nomenon within complex systems (Hazyet al. 2007, p. 2).

In line with leadership tting the needsof the situation or challenges in which it op-erates, complexity leadership posits that toachieve optimal performance, organizationscannot be designed with simple, rational-

ized structures that underestimate the com-plexity of the context in which the organi-zation must function and adapt (Uhl-Bien etal. 2007). Simply viewing the leader and fol-lower in a simple exchange process wonty in terms of explaining the full dynamicsof leadership.

Complexity and Traditional Leadership TheoryIn traditional leadership theory, the unit

of analysis is oftentimes the leader, theleader and follower, the leader and group,

and so forth. The fundamental unit of anal-ysis in complexity leadership is referred toas a complex adaptive system, or CAS (Uhl-Bien et al. 2007). The CAS has its roots inthe physical sciences and is composed of in-terdependent agents that can operate simul-

CAS:complexadaptive system

CLT:complexityleadership theory


12/30


taneously on the basis of certain rules andlocalized knowledge that governs the CAS,while also being able to adapt and emergebased on feedback from the system (Plow-man & Duchon 2008). Complexity leader-ship theory (CLT; Uhl-Bien et al. 2007) has

been developed as an overarching explana-tion of how CAS operates within a bureau-cratic organization, and it identies threeleadership roles to explore: adaptive (e.g.,engaging others in brainstorming to over-come a challenge), administrative (e.g., for-mal planning according to doctrine), andenabling (e.g., minimizing the constraints ofan organizational bureaucracy to enhancefollower potential).

Future Focus RequiredOne of the core propositions of complex-

ity leadership theory is that much of lead-ership thinking has failed to recognize thatleadership is not merely the inuential actof an individual or individuals but ratheris embedded in a complex interplay of nu-merous interacting forces (Uhl-Bien et al.2007, p. 302). How should one then studythis form of leadership? Dooley & Lichten-stein (2008) describe several methods forstudying complex leadership interactions,including by focusing on (a) micro, dailyinteractions using real-time observation,(b) meso interactions (days and weeks) us-ing social network analysis, where one ex-amines a set of agents and how they arelinked over time, and (c) macro interac-tions (weeks, months, and longer) throughevent history analysis. Finally, agent-basedmodeling simulations (i.e., computer sim-ulations based on a set of explicit assump-tions about how agents are supposed tooperate) are also being used as a means tostudy complexity leadership.

In sum, the complexity leadership eldclearly lacks substantive research. We sus-

pect this is a result of the difculties in as-sessing this type of emergent constructwithin a dynamically changing context.However, substantive research is neededif this area of leadership research is to ad-vance beyond conceptual discussions.

Shared, Collective, or DistributedLeadership

Similar to our discussion above aboutcomplexity leadership, we see more evi-dence for shared or collective leadershipin organizations as hierarchical levels aredeleted and team-based structures are in-serted. In describing shared and team lead-ership, it is important to point out that theseforms of leadership are typically viewed asdifferent streams of research. For example,team leadership research has typically fo-cused on the role of an individual leadingthe team. In contrast, those authors examin-ing shared leadership generally view it as aprocess versus a person engaging multiplemembers of the team. In this section, we re-fer to the terms shared leadership, dis-tributed leadership, and collective lead-ership interchangeably, paralleling theirusage in the leadership literature.

Shared Leadership DenedAccording to Day et al. (2004), team and

shared leadership capacity is an emergentstatesomething dynamic that developsthroughout a teams lifespan and that var-ies based on the inputs, processes, and out-comes of the team. It produces patterns ofreciprocal inuence, which reinforce anddevelop further relationships between teammembers (Carson et al. 2007). The mostwidely cited denition of shared leadershipis that of Pearce & Conger (2003): a dy-namic, interactive inuence process amongindividuals in groups for which the objec-tive is to lead one another to the achieve-ment of group or organizational goals orboth. This inuence process often involvespeer, or lateral, inuence and at other timesinvolves upward or downward hierarchicalinuence (p. 1). The term shared leader-ship overlaps with relational and complex-ity leadership, and differs from more tra-ditional, hierarchical, or vertical models ofleadership (Pearce & Sims 2002).

Highly shared leadership is broadly dis-tributed within a group or a team of individ-uals rather than localized in any one indi-

Shared leadership:an emergent state

where team mem-bers collectively

lead each other


13/30


vidual who serves in the role of supervisor(Pearce & Conger 2003). More specically,shared leadership is dened as a team-leveloutcome (Day et al. 2004) or as a simulta-neous, ongoing, mutual inuence processwithin a team that is characterized by serial

emergence of ofcial as well as unofcialleaders (Pearce 2004, p. 48). Similar to whatweve described with respect to complexityleadership, when shared leadership can beviewed as a property of the whole system,as opposed to solely the property of indi-viduals, effectiveness in leadership becomesmore a product of those connections or re-lationships among the parts than the resultof any one part of that system (such as theleader) (OConnor & Quinn 2004, p. 423).

Research EvidenceAlthough a number of authors [be-

ginning with Mary Parker Follett (1924)]have discussed the idea of shared leader-ship, it has only gained attention in the ac-ademic leadership literature recently, andrelatively few studies have tried to mea-sure shared leadership. One exception isthe work by Avolio & Bass (1995). In theirstudy, instead of raters evaluating the indi-vidual leader, the target of ratings was theteam itself. Avolio & Bass (1995) report thatthe team-level measures of transformationaland transactional leadership positively pre-dicted performance similar to the individ-ual-level measures in previous research.

Future Focus RequiredOne of the criticisms of research on

shared leadership involves the lack of agree-ment on its denition (Carson et al. 2007).For example, should there be a generic def-inition of shared leadership that is qualiedby such terms as transactional or transfor-mational shared leadership?

Other potential areas that have yet to be

explored involve certain boundary condi-tions, mediators, and moderators that havebeen recommended as a focus for future re-search. For example, Pearce & Conger (2003)noted that future research was needed to ex-amine potential moderators such as the dis-

tribution of cultural values, task interdepen-dence, task competence, task complexity,and the team life cycle. Carson et al. (2007)proposed that greater attention be paid tolevels of task competence in the team, com-plexity of tasks, and task interdependence

in terms of examining how teams functionwhen using shared leadership. These au-thors have also recommended that futureresearch focus on the teams life cycle.

Another area that has not received muchresearch attention involves the environmentin which teams function. For example, Carsonet al. (2007) proposed that future research ex-amine the type of team environment that en-ables shared leadership, suggesting that theenvironment consists of three highly inter-related and mutually reinforcing dimen-sions: shared purpose, social support, and

voice. These authors described several organi-zational climate factors that could potentiallysupport more shared leadership in teams, in-cluding (a) shared purpose, which existswhen team members have similar under-standings of their teams primary objectivesand take steps to ensure a focus on collectivegoals; (b) social support, described as teammembers efforts to provide emotional andpsychological strength to one another. Thishelps to create an environment where teammembers feel their input is valued and appre-ciated; and (c) voice, which is the degree to

which a teams members have input into howthe team carries out its purpose (p. 1222).

Future research also needs to examinehow external team leaders affect the teamsability and motivation to be self-directedand share in leadership (Carson et al. 2007).Hackman & Wageman (2005) suggest thatan external leader to the team can helpteam members make coordinated and task-appropriate use of their collective resourcesin accomplishing the teams task (p. 269).

In a nutshell, the time for examiningshared leadership may be upon us to the

extent that organizations are moving into aknowledge driven era where rms are dis-tributed across cultures. This suggests thatindividual-based heroic models of leader-ship may not be sustainable in and of them-selves (Pearce 2004).


14/30


Leader-Member Exchange

Unlike shared leadership, which has fo-cused on groups, leader-member exchange(LMX) theory has focused on the relation-ship between the leader and follower (Cog-liser & Schriesheim 2000). The central prin-ciple in LMX theory is that leaders developdifferent exchange relationships with theirfollowers, whereby the quality of the re-lationship alters the impact on importantleader and member outcomes (Gerstner &Day 1997). Thus, leadership occurs whenleaders and followers are able to developeffective relationships that result in mutualand incremental inuence (Uhl-Bien 2006).

This literature has evolved from focus-ing exclusively on the consequences of theLMX relationship to focusing on both an-tecedents and consequences. For example,Tekleab & Taylor (2003) assessed leaderand follower levels of agreement on theirmutual obligations and their psychologicalcontract with each other. In a recent meta-analysis reported by Ilies et al. (2007), theauthors reported that a higher-quality LMXrelationship not only predicted higher levelsof performance, but also organizational cit-izenship behaviors. Some additional areasof focus in terms of high- versus low-qual-ity LMX relationships have been the con-text in which those relationships have de-veloped. Kacmar et al. (2007) examined theconditions under which leaders and follow-ers in low-quality exchanges exerted moreeffort in examining how the situation inter-acted with the impact of supervisors. Usingcontrol theory, the authors tried to explainhow perceptions of supervisor competence,centralization, and organizational politicsinuenced their willingness to exert efforton the job beyond what would be typicallyexpected in a less-than-effective exchangerelationship.

Additional research on the nature of the

relationship and how it is formed has fo-cused on the use of impression manage-ment tactics and its impact on the qualityof the LMX relationship. Colella & Varma(2001) investigated how a followers per-ceived disability and use of ingratiation re-

lated to LMX quality. By using ingratia-tion tactics, the individuals with disabilitieswere able to increase the quality of the re-lationship between the leader and follower.Similar results were reported by Sparroweet al. (2006), who showed that downward-

inuence tactics used by the leader affectedthe quality of the LMX relationship.

Extensions to LMXThe original work produced by Graen

& Uhl-Bien (1995) on the role-making androle-taking processes has been extendedby Uhl-Bien and colleagues (2000) to exam-ine how leader-follower dyads transformfrom individual interest to shared interestbased on the development of trust, respect,and obligations to each other. Similar workalong these lines has examined the effects ofgoal congruence on the quality of the LMXrelationship. This work suggests that to theextent that goals are similar or mutually re-inforcing, one would expect to produce ahigher-quality LMX relationship.

Additional LMX research on individualdifferences has examined the impact of gen-der on the quality of the LMX relationship,although these ndings have been mixed.For instance, Adebayo & Udegbe (2004) re-ported that followers in opposite-sex dyadsperceived a better LMX quality in compari-son with those from same-sex dyads.

Recent research has moved beyond ex-amining LMX in terms of antecedents andconsequences and has examined the qual-ity of the leader and follower relationshipas a moderator and/or mediator of perfor-mance. For example, Sparrowe et al. (2006)reported that the quality of the relationshipmoderated the relationship between down-ward-inuence tactics and helping behav-iors. Martin et al. (2005) reported that LMXeither fully or partially mediated the rela-tionship between locus of control and sev-

eral work-related outcomes such as job sat-isfaction, work-related well-being, andorganizational commitment.

In an extension of the linkages betweensocial network theory and LMX, Graen(2006) put forth a recent transformation

LMX: leader-mem-ber exchange


15/30


of LMX theory that he refers to as the newLMXMMX theory of sharing network lead-ership. Accordingly, both Uhl-Bien (2006)and Graen (2006), building on earlier LMXresearch, now view organizations as sys-tems of interdependent dyadic relationships,

or dyadic subassemblies, and advocate theimportance of both formal and informal in-uences on individual, team, and networkows of behavior.

Future Focus RequiredOver the years, LMX theory and research

have been targets of criticism. One pervasivecriticism of this literature revolves aroundmeasurement. For example, many differentmeasures of LMX have been developed andused since the theory was rst proposed(Yukl 2006). Schriesheim et al. (1999, p. 100)argued, LMX scales seem to have beendeveloped on ad hoc, evolutionary basis,without the presentation of any clear logicor theory justifying the changes which weremade. LMX research has also been criti-cized for failing to conceptualize the socialcontext in which leaders and followers areembedded. With a few exceptions, the ma-jority of research is, quite explicitly, locatedat the dyadic level, with very little theo-rizing or empirical work examining LMXwork at the group level (Hogg et al. 2004,p. 22). In other words, theory and researchon LMX have focused on the leader-fol-lower relationship without acknowledgingthat each dyadic relationship occurs withina system of other relationships (Cogliser &Schriesheim 2000, Yukl 2006). LMX theoryand research also tend to assume that peo-ple simply evaluate their own LMX rela-tionship in an absolute sense. According toHogg et al. (2004), this is an oversimplica-tion of how people judge relationships. Theauthors argue that it is much more likelythat followers evaluate the quality of their

LMX relationship not only in the absolutesense (i.e., low versus high), but also withreference to their perception of others LMXrelationships. Another criticism of the LMXliterature is that most of it is based on corre-lation designs. This was a central criticism

made by Cogliser & Schriesheim (2000) re-garding the lack of causal results reportedin the extensive stream of research associ-ated with LMX research.

LMX research has also been criticized fornot including more objective measures of

performance (Erdogan & Liden 2002). Fre-quently, research in this area has collectedperformance outcomes that were generatedby the leader or supervisor. It is now timeto extend this research by collecting inde-pendent outcome measures that logicallywould be inuenced by the quality of LMXrelationship.

Another promising area for future re-search is to extend work on LMX theoryacross cultures. Specically, what are theimplications of national culture for the for-mation and development of an LMX qual-

ity relationship, and in turn how would thatlink to key organizational outcomes? Pre-liminary research addressing this questionacross cultures has produced some interest-ing results. For example, Chen et al. (2006)reported that regardless of whether the man-ager was American or Chinese, the qualityof the LMX relationship was related to co-operative goal setting or interdependence.

Followership and Leadership

Perhaps one of the most interestingomissions in theory and research on leader-ship is the absence of discussions of follow-ership and its impact on leadership. Lead-ership researchers treat follower attributesas outcomes of the leadership process asopposed to inputs, even though there havebeen a number of calls over the years to ex-amine the role that followers play in theleadership process (e.g., Shamir 2007).

Romance of LeadershipOur examination of follower-centricviews begins with a focus on what the lead-

ership literature describes as the romance ofleadership. Meindl et al. (1985) proposed asocial constructionist theory to describe therelationship between leadership and fol-


16/30


lowership. They argued that leadership issignicantly affected by the way followersconstruct their understanding of the leaderin terms of their interpretation of his or herpersonality, behaviors, and effectiveness.

Accumulated research on the romance

of leadership has produced mixed ndings.Schyns et al. (2007) conducted a meta-anal-ysis to determine whether they could teaseout the effects controlling for such thingsas measurement error and sampling biaswhile focusing on whether followers had atendency to romanticize their perceptionsof transformational/charismatic leadership.Their results revealed a modest relationshipbetween the romance of leadership and per-ceptions of transformational/charismaticleadership, accounting for approximately5% of the variance in leadership ratings. In

another study, Kulich et al. (2007) examinedthe relevance of the romance of leadershiptheory through an experiment that com-pared how the performance of a male and afemale leader was viewed by allowing par-ticipants to choose how much of a bonus toallocate to the leader. Their results showedthat the male CEOs bonus differed sub-stantially depending on the companys per-formance, whereas no differences were re-ported for the female CEO.

Bligh et al. (2007) found that follow-ers negative views of their work environ-

ment were overly attributed to their lead-ers in that they viewed the leader as moreresponsible for these negative outcomesand situations than was warranted. Alongthe same lines, Weber et al. (2001) reportedthat group success and failure were overlyattributed to the leader. However, these au-thors also reported that attributions of fail-ure to the leader may have had more sig-nicant negative repercussions, with thefailing team consistently voting to replacetheir leaders when the situation was moreof the cause for the teams failure.

Updates on Follower-Centric ViewsHowell & Shamir (2005) put forth some

important theoretical propositions regard-ing how follower traits and characteris-

tics might inuence leader and follower re-lationships (also see Dvir & Shamir 2003).Specically, they identied followers self-concept clarity and collective identity as im-portant factors in determining how follow-ers form charismatic relationships with their

leader. Howell & Shamir (2005) then sug-gested that followers, who have a personal-ized relationship with a charismatic leader,may be more likely to show blind loyalty,obedience, and deference.

Carsten et al. (2007) examined how in-dividuals hold divergent social construc-tions of followership that seem to coalescearound levels of passivity or proactivity,which followers believe could lead to effec-tiveness in their role. Thus, like leaders, notall followers are created equal in the mindsof followers. This pattern was reected in

the work of Kelley (1992), who conceptu-alized followers as falling into quadrants,based on their being active or passive fol-lowers as well as whether they were criticalor noncritical thinkers.

Future Focus RequiredShamir (2007) suggested that leader-

ship effectiveness is just as much a prod-uct of good followers as it is of good lead-ers. Shamir (2007) made some specicrecommendations for future work on fol-lower-centered research, including exam-ining how followers needs, identities, andimplicit theories affect leader selection andemergence as well as leader endorsementand acceptance; how follower interactions/social networks inuence the emergence ofleadership and effectiveness; how follow-ers expectations, values, and attitudes de-termine leader behavior; how followers ex-pectations affect the leaders motivation andperformance; how followers acceptance ofthe leader and their support for the leaderaffect the leaders self-condence, self-ef-

cacy, and behavior; how followers charac-teristics (e.g., self-concept clarity) determinethe nature of the leadership relationshipformed with the leader; and how followersattitudes and characteristics (e.g., level ofdevelopment) affect leader behavior.


17/30


In addition, more work needs to be doneexamining how followership is construedacross different industries and cultures. It ispossible that in more advanced and newlyforming industries, the concept of follower-ship may be construed and enacted differ-

ently than what we might nd in more es-tablished industries with long histories oftreating leaders and followers in a particu-lar way (Schyns et al. 2007).

Substitutes for Leadership

The substitutes-for-leadership theory fo-cuses on situational factors that enhance,neutralize, and/or totally substitute for lead-ership. For example, a group of people en-gaged in electronic brainstorming usingtechnology, such as a group decision sup-port system, may operate as though therewas a participative leader who was leadingthe group, but in fact, leadership comes fromthe operating rules for using the system toengage. Kerr & Jermier (1978) proposed thesubstitutes-for-leadership theory to addresssome of the romance effects described above.This research stream focuses on a range ofsituational/organizational and followercharacteristics that might inuence the lead-ership dynamic (Howell et al. 2007).

Since this theory was originally proposed,a considerable amount of research has beencompleted to determine whether there aresubstitutes for leadership with respect to im-pacts on performance. A number of authorshave concluded that evidence is not suf-cient to support the main propositions in thetheory (Dionne et al. 2002, Keller 2006). Forexample, Dionne et al. (2002) tested the mod-erating effects of task variability, organiza-tion formulation, organization inexibility,and lack of control on the relationship be-tween leadership behavior and group effec-tiveness. However, the authors found little

support for the moderating effects proposedby the substitutes-for-leadership theory. Thislack of support may be attributable to prob-lems in measuring these substitutes for lead-ership. Yet, revisions to the scale and its usein subsequent research have not providedany further support for this theory.

Future Focus RequiredVilla et al. (2003) recommended that fu-

ture research consider including multi-ple moderators that may interact with eachother to impact performance that might beerroneously attributed to the leader. Dionneet al. (2005) suggested that future researchconsider testing the ve possible condi-tions linking leader behavior, leadershipeffectiveness, and other situational vari-ables (e.g., substitutes), which include (a) aleadership main effects model, (b) a substi-tutes main effect model, (c) an interactive orjoint effects model, (d) a mediation model,wherein the substitutes mediate leadershipimpact versus moderate, and (e) the origi-nally proposed moderated model. Futureresearch should also focus more on the na-ture of the samples to be included in testsof substitutes for leadership. For example,one might focus on the cultural backgroundas well as quality of ones followers by sam-pling professional workers who function inhighly independent roles, as a possible sam-ple for studying the boundary conditionsfor the effects of substitutes for leadership(Howell et al. 2007).

Finally, to evaluate fairly the substitutesfor theory propositions will require morelongitudinal research designs. For exam-ple, leaders who are more transformational

will develop followers over time to take onmore leadership roles and responsibilities.The way such leaders structure the contextto develop followership and the follower-ship itself may ultimately substitute for theleaders inuence (Keller 2006).

Servant Leadership

Building on the work of Greenleaf(1991), Spears (2004) listed ten character-istics representing a servant leader: (a) lis-

tening, (b) empathy, (c) healing, (d) aware-ness, (e) persuasion, (f) conceptualization,(g) foresight, (h) stewardship, (i) commit-ment, and (j) building community. Rus-sell & Stone (2002) reviewed the literatureon servant leadership, distinguishing suchleadership into two broad categories: func-


18/30


tional and accompany attributes. Functionalattributes include having vision, being hon-est, trustworthy, service oriented, a rolemodel, demonstrating appreciation of oth-ers service, and empowerment. In terms ofaccompany attributes, servant leaders are

described as good communicators and lis-teners, credible, competent, encouraging ofothers, teachers, and delegators. In general,the limited empirical research on servantleadership has shown that it is positively re-lated to follower satisfaction, their job sat-isfaction, intrinsic work satisfaction, caringfor the safety of others, and organizationalcommitment. Joseph & Winston (2005) ex-amined the relationship between employeeperceptions of servant leadership and orga-nizational trust, and reported a positive re-lationship with both trust in the leader as

well as trust in ones organization. Wash-ington et al. (2006) examined the relation-ship between servant leadership and theleaders values of empathy, integrity, com-petence, and agreeableness, and reportedthat followers ratings of leaders servantleadership were positively related to fol-lowers ratings of leaders values of empa-thy, integrity, and competence (p. 700).

Future Focus RequiredOne major tenet of servant leadership

proposed by Greenleaf (1991) was that fol-lowers of servant leaders would be expectedto become healthier, wiser, freer, more au-tonomous and more likely to become ser-vants themselves (Barbuto & Wheeler2006, p. 321). This suggests that future re-search could take a more follower-centricapproach in looking at the well-being offollowers of servant leaders and the waysin which their well-being affects the abil-ity of the leader and followers to perform.As with LMX, the measurement of servantleadership is problematic. Already many

different measures of servant leadershiphave been proposed with scales and itemsvarying based on problems with its deni-tion. Future research needs to examine howthe personal values of servant leaders differfrom those of other leadership styles, suchas transformational (Russell & Stone 2002).

Spirituality and Leadership

One might ask leaders the question, Doyou feel there is something missing in thework that you do and the way you leadothers? Many authors have referred to that

void and have attempted to examine how agreater sense of spirituality in the workplacemay be fostered. The research on workplacespirituality also now includes a focus onspiritual leadershipdened as compris-ing the values, attitudes, and behaviors thatare necessary to intrinsically motivate onesself and others so that they have a sense ofspiritual survival through calling and mem-bership (Fry 2003, p. 711).

Dent et al. (2005) examined how spiritu-ality and leadership was dened in the liter-ature and concluded, The eld of study is

marked by all of the typical characteristicsof paradigm development including a lackof consensus about a denition of work-place spirituality (p. 626). Fry (2003) con-tends that spiritual leadership adds to theexisting leadership literature componentsthat have been explicitly missing, such as asense of calling on the part of leaders andfollowers as well as the creation of organi-zational cultures characterized by altruisticlove whereby leaders and followers expressgenuine care, concern, and appreciationfor both self and others. Fry (2003) states,

The ultimate effect of spiritual leadershipis to bring together or create a sense of fu-sion among the four fundamental forces ofhuman existence (body, mind, heart, andspirit) so that people are motivated for highperformance, have increased organizationalcommitment, and personally experience joy,peace, and serenity (p. 727).

Future Focus RequiredPart of the challenge in this area of lead-

ership research is simply dening what

spirituality means without necessarily tyingit to one particular religion or philosophicalbase. Dent et al. (2005) summarized a num-ber of denitions of spirituality that high-light some of the challenges in building the-ory and research in this area. The authorsconcluded that a wide array of concepts/


19/30


constructs is included in the denition ofspirituality, but some of the common ele-ments are a search for meaning, reection,an inner connection, creativity, transforma-tion, sacredness, and energy.

Fry (2005) denes spiritual leadership

as comprising the values, attitudes, andbehaviors that are necessary to intrinsi-cally motivate self and others to enhance asense of spiritual survival through callingand membership. Yet, some authors criti-cize Frys model as well as other models ofspirituality and leadership for not provid-ing a sufcient understanding of what con-stitutes spirituality and the ways in whichit ties to leadership. For example, Bene-el (2005) criticized the work on spiritual-ity and leadership, stating that it inadver-tently draws upon outdated, discredited, or

shallow approaches to spirituality; they re-invent the wheel; they dip into credible the-ories of spirituality but then dont fully de-velop them or resolve the conicts amongthem. While these theories are comprehen-sive and creative in the context of leader-ship studies, a more robust, up-to-date, andsophisticated understanding of spiritualityis needed if theories of spiritual leadershipare to stand up under scrutiny and be takenseriously in the wider academy (p. 727).Finally, there still seem to be two schools ofthought in this area of leadership research:

In one school, a set of scholars discuss spir-ituality in the theological sense (Whitting-ton et al. 2005), whereas in the other school,the focus is more on understanding the in-ner motivation and drive a leader creates infollowers to enhance workplace spirituality(Fry 2005). Until a denition of what consti-tutes spirituality and leadership is agreedupon, it will be difcult to conceptualizeand measure these constructs.

Cross-Cultural Leadership

Although most leadership researchand theory has been developed and testedwithin a Western context, a growing inter-est in research and theory focuses on therole of leadership across cultural contexts.

This interest is driven in part by the glo-balization of organizations that encourageand, at times, require leaders to work fromand across an increasingly diverse set of lo-cations. The result is an increased focus oncross-cultural leadership research (Gelfand

et al. 2007, House et al. 2004). Extensive re-views also exist for cross-cultural researchthat is more tangentially linked to leader-ship (Hofstede 2001, Kirkman et al. 2006,Leung et al. 2005).

Project GLOBEAlthough there have been numerous cri-

tiques and discussions of work in this area(see Journal of International Business Studies,Vol. 37, No. 6), the work of Project GLOBE(global leadership and organizational be-havioral effectiveness) constitutes one of themore ambitious and inuential cross-cul-tural leadership studies. The study, as de-tailed in an edited book (House et al. 2004),involved a group of more than 160 research-ers working in 62 societies. Research in-cluded a mix of quantitative and qualitativeinvestigations. The study was designed toaddress a number of goals, the rst of whichwas to develop cultural dimensions at boththe organizational and societal level of anal-ysis, building upon the work of Hofstede(2001). A second major goal of the projectwas to examine the beliefs that different cul-tures had about effective leaders. Althoughmany of the leadership attributes and be-haviors examined varied by culture, the re-search did determine that certain implicitleadership theories (e.g., charisma/trans-formational, team-oriented) had universalendorsement. A third phase of the researchinvolved ethnographies of individual coun-tries based largely on qualitative data.

Global LeadershipThe goal of identifying leaders who are

able to effectively lead across a variety ofcultures has great appeal and has been thefocus of numerous articles in both the ac-ademic (Mobley et al. 1999) and popularpress (Goldsmith 2003, Green et al. 2003,

Cross-cultural lead-ership:the exami-nation of leadershipin multiculturalcontexts

GLOBE:global

leadership and or-ganizational behav-ioral effectiveness


20/30


Lane 2004). However, substantial differ-ences and approaches remain in how globalleadership is conceptualized and dened.One approach primarily focuses on inter-national experience, implying that leadersmust spend time living in different cultures

in order to be prepared to lead (Van Dyne &Ang 2006). A second approach emphasizesthe competencies a leader needs to have inorder to lead effectively and successfullyacross cultures (Mendenhall 2001). This ap-proach emphasizes having a broad set ofexperiences and competencies that allowleaders to manage across cultures ratherthan focusing on a deep knowledge of oneor two specic cultures. This approach is re-ected in the related work on global mind-set (Boyacigiller et al. 2004, Clapp-Smith etal. 2007) and cultural intelligence (Earley et

al. 2007, Thomas 2006).

Comparative LeadershipComparative research on the effective-

ness of leadership in different cultures wasthe basis of early work in this eld and con-tinues to be a major area of research (Dicksonet al. 2003, Dorfman 2004, Gelfand et al. 2007,Kirkman et al. 2006). Such research com-pares leadership in two or more cultures, ex-amining the degree to which a practice thatwas developed in one culture applies to oth-ers. A common approach examines the di-rect impact a cultural dimension has on lead-ership. For example, one major cross-culturalstudy examined the impact of cultural val-ues on the selection of sources of guidancefor dealing with work events that managersare likely to face in 47 countries (Smith et al.2002). This study identied which sources ofguidance were correlated with specic cul-tural dimensions using several major cul-tural value dimension frameworks.

Another common strategy examines theindirect inuence of culture as it moderates

the relationship between leadership prac-tice and relevant performance outcomes.Walumbwa et al. (2007) examined the effectof allocentrism (collective orientation) andidiocentrism (individual orientation) on therelationships among leadership (transfor-mational and transactional) and both or-

ganizational commitment and satisfactionwith supervisor. Allocentrics were foundto react more positively to transformationalleaders, whereas idiocentrics had a morepositive reaction to transactional leaders.

Future Focus RequiredAlthough signicant progress has been

made in the cross-cultural leadership liter-ature, several important issues need to beaddressed. For example, the term cultureitself refers to a complex set of constructsaround which there is ongoing debate. Notsurprisingly, the attempt to examine the ef-fect that culture has on leadership bringswith it the associated conceptual and meth-odological challenges that are already as-sociated with cross-cultural research (Vande Vijver & Leung 2000). Despite improve-ments made over the years, a need re-mains for future research to focus on levelsof analysis when conducting cross-culturalleadership research. This applies to the de-velopment of explicitly cross-level theoreti-cal models as well as the use of appropriatestatistical techniques. Although the rele-vance of levels is widely recognized, the im-plications of cross-level analysis are oftennot reected in the research design in thisliterature, particularly when it comes to in-suring a sufcient number of cultures areincluded to conduct the analysis. Many re-searchers assume they can use the countryas a convenient substitute for measuringculture, which may be an erroneous level ofanalysis given the diversity of cultures rep-resented in most countries. Large-scale col-laborations such as the GLOBE (House etal. 2004) study and the 47-nation study ofSmith et al. (2002) are likely to be requiredto develop the types of samples needed forsuch analytical approaches.

E-Leadership

Leading virtually involves leading peo-ple from different departments, organiza-tions, countries, and sometimes even com-petitor companies (Avolio et al. 2001). Invirtual teams, challenges are more likely to


21/30


occur when distributed work occurs in dif-ferent time zones, when local communica-tion and human infrastructures fail, whenteam members hardware and softwareplatforms are different, or when local workdemands require the immediate attention of

collocated managers and workers, therebycreating pressure to pursue local prioritiesover the objectives of distant collaborators(A. Weisband 2008b, p. 6).

Zigurs (2003) suggested that traditionalleadership models built on a foundation offace-to-face interactions may not fully ex-plain how virtual leadership and teamswork. Specically, how one provides feed-back, encouragement, rewards, and motiva-tion needs to be re-examined where leader-ship is mediated through technology. Zigurs(2003) suggests that the continuing develop-

ment in technology such as increased band-width, wireless networks, integrated hand-held devices, voice input, built-in video,video walls, and automatic translation willno doubt have a signicant impact on howvirtual teams communicate and how lead-ership is manifested in such teams. To date,a great deal of the work on e-leadership fo-cuses on either leadership in virtual workteams or groups interacting in what arecalled group decision support systems.For example, Zaccaro & Bader (2003) pro-vided an overview of the similarities and

differences between face-to-face teams ande-teams. They specically focused on theimpact of leadership functions such as com-munication building, role clarication, teamdevelopment, and effective task execu-tion and how they differed when mediatedthrough technology. Other authors have fo-cused on the effects of structural factorssuch as distance and multiple locations one-leadership and virtual team effectiveness(e.g., Cascio & Shurygailo 2003).

Common Questions with E-LeadershipSome of the common questions or hy-

potheses suggested to guide research one-leadership and virtual teams have beensummarized by Avolio et al. (2001), Barelka(2007), as well as Ahuja & Galvin (2003) and

include the following: How does the natureand structure of technology impact howleadership style inuences follower motiva-tion and performance? What effect will lead-ership mediated through technology haveon trust formation? Will the nature of the

technology such as its richness or transpar-ency be a factor in building trust in virtualteams? How will the leadership and locationof teams and technology connecting mem-bers affect the quality and quantity of theircommunication? How will the nature of thetask and its complexity inuence how lead-ership affects virtual team performance?

Group and Virtual Teams ResearchA number of studies have examined e-

leadership and virtual teams. For exam-ple, Kahai & Avolio (2008) investigatedthe effects of leadership style and anonym-ity on the discussion of an ethical issue inan electronic system context. Kahai & Avo-lio examined how groups discussed an eth-ical issue by manipulating the leadershipstyle of the target e-leader and whether thegroup members were anonymous or identi-ed. They reported that frequency of groupmember participation in discussing how toaddress the ethical issue was greater whenleadership style was transactional versustransformational.

Xiao et al. (2008) conducted a eld exper-iment focusing on surgical teams operatingin a real-life trauma center. In their study,the team leader either was placed in theroom with the surgical team or interactedwith them virtually. The authors reportedthat when the team leader was in the nextroom, the leader had greater inuence oncommunications between the senior mem-ber in the room and other team members.However, when the senior leader was col-located, the amount of communication be-tween the team leader, the senior member,

140219 ldp-leadership - current th eories, research, and future direction (avolio, walumbwa, &...

Documents