183

C H A P T E R 7

LEADERSHIPJulian Barling, Amy Christie, and Colette Hoption

Leadership is a fascinating and controversial topic,about which much is known and much remains to belearned. Leadership has long captivated the attentionof scholars, practitioners, and the public. For that rea-son, numerous journals are devoted to the topic ofleadership, such as Leadership Quarterly, Leadershipand Organization Development Journal, Journal ofLeadership Studies and Leader to Leader. Nonetheless,some questions remain unresolved, such as: Are lead-ers born or made? Can we teach leadership in organi-zations? Can leaders be as influential as we mighthope? Can leaders wreak as much harm as we mightfear? Not only are these questions intriguing, buttheir answers also contribute substantially to ourunderstanding of, and have implications for, thepsychology of both leaders and their followers andbehavior in organizations more generally. In thischapter, we address these and other questions. Indoing so, we provide a review of what is known andwhat remains to be understood about leadership.

Throughout this chapter, we follow what is nowreferred to as an evidence-based approach (Pfeffer &Sutton, 2006; Rousseau, 2006). Broadly speaking, theevidence-based approach mandates that managementpractices should be based on the best available empir-ical data, whenever such data exist. In a similar man-ner, we believe that the development of knowledgeabout leadership must also rest on the best availableempirical evidence. Although this approach is by nomeans new—there were earlier indications that eval-uating the effects of organizational interventions onthe basis of “soft” versus “hard” outcomes would lead

to different conclusions (Bass, 1983; Terpstra,1981)—concerns about methodological rigor inleadership research remain (e.g., Hunter, Bedell-Avers, & Mumford, 2007). Following from thisevidence-based approach, the chapter includes dis-cussions of leadership theories that have been sub-ject to empirical scrutiny (e.g., leader–memberexchange theory [LMX], transformational leader-ship) and excludes those that have largely escapedsuch scrutiny (e.g., Covey’s principle-centered leader-ship; Greenleaf’s servant leadership). We also choosethis approach because the sheer number of leader-ship theories precludes the possibility of discussingthem all. The remainder of this chapter presents anoverview of the leadership literature guided by theevidenced-based approach, beginning with a reviewof leadership theories, then summarizing key findingswithin the field, and concluding with a path forfuture leadership research.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF LEADERSHIP THEORIES

As the topic of scholarly debate for centuries andthe subject of systematic theoretical and empiricalresearch for much of the past 100 years, leadershiphas a long tradition in the social sciences. Not surprisingly, with such an extensive history, theleadership literature has demonstrated ebbs andflows of prevailing wisdom. Although many ideasof the past have fallen from popular favor, the evo-lution of leadership perspectives is both reflected

Writing of this chapter was supported by grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

11819-07_Ch07_rev2.qxd 3/30/10 11:50 AM Page 183

in and critical to the understanding of the domi-nant leadership theories of the present day. In thispreliminary section we provide a brief history ofthe progression of leadership theories that form thefoundation of current thinking and research in thefield of leadership today. To complement this sec-tion, a visual depiction of leadership trends over thepast quarter of a century is provided in Table 7.1,which we will reflect on in greater detail at the endof this section.

Trait Theories of LeadershipThe very first theories of leadership sought to identifythe physical characteristics or psychological traits thatdifferentiated leaders from nonleaders or good leadersfrom poor leaders (House & Aditya, 1997). Some ofthe traits identified and studied included height(for a review, see Judge & Cable, 2004) and physicalappearance (e.g., Cherulnik, Turns, & Wilderman,1990), gender (for a review, see Eagly & Karau,1991), authoritarianism (e.g., Tarnopol, 1958),intelligence (for a review, see Judge, Colbert, & Ilies,2004), and self-confidence (e.g., Richardson &Hanawalt, 1952). Although selected evidence sup-ported the notion that traits could be used to predictleadership emergence, and numerous studies showeda link between intelligence and leadership emergenceand effectiveness (e.g., see Judge et al., 2004), mostresults lacked consistency across time, setting, andstudies. Thus, even though the majority of leadershipresearch conducted during the 1940s was devoted tounderstanding leader traits, by the 1950s very littleconsistent or conclusive empirical support emergedfor any universal traits that could predict leaderemergence and effectiveness.

Research then progressed toward the identifica-tion of effective leader behaviors (Stogdill, 1950)—an endeavor that continues today. Nevertheless, arenewed interest in trait theories of leadershipemerged in the 1970s when evidence for complextheories and measures of personality traits (e.g., theBig Five) emerged within the field of psychology,providing the leadership literature with better theo-ries and measures with which to investigate potentialleadership traits (House & Aditya, 1997). Based onthese advances, more conclusive evidence has beenfound for the existence of personality traits that char-

acterize leaders, a topic that will be discussed inmore detail later in this chapter.

Early Behavioral Theories of LeadershipSimilar to trait perspectives of leadership, earlybehavioral approaches attempted to uncover and ver-ify leadership behaviors that were universally effec-tive. The most extensively studied behaviors in theseearly endeavors were two dimensions identified inthe Ohio State studies: Initiating Structure andConsideration. These two behaviors broadly repre-sent task-focused and people-focused leadershipbehaviors, respectively. Initiating Structure describesleadership behaviors that create clear guidelines andprocedures to facilitate the achievement of specifiedgoals (e.g., Kerr, Schriesheim, Murphy, & Stogdill,1974). Accordingly, three items from the LeaderBehavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ), theinstrument often used to measure Initiating Structure,include “[My leader] maintains definite standardsof performance,” “[My leader] encourages the useof uniform procedures,” and “[My leader] schedulesthe work to be done.” Whereas Initiating Structurefocuses on what today might be more consistent withperformance appraisal, Consideration depicts leader-ship behaviors that are centered on reciprocal trust,respect, and a concern for the welfare of followers(e.g., Kerr et al., 1974), and is represented by LBDQitems such as “[My leader] helps people in the workgroup with their personal problems” and “[My leader]backs up what people under him/her do.”

Originally, leadership scholars hypothesized thatthe ideal leadership style, the one that would mostpositively affect follower attitudes and performance,would incorporate high levels of both InitiatingStructure and Consideration (see Kerr et al., 1974, fora review). Such a leader would be able to guide fol-lowers toward the accomplishment of organizationalgoals and provide them with the emotional supportnecessary to help them perform at the highest level.Researchers concluded that Initiating Structurebehaviors would have a stronger positive relationshipwith follower performance, whereas Considerationbehaviors would be more closely related to fol-lower attitudes, such as satisfaction and morale(see Judge, Piccolo, & Illies, 2004, for a review).Nevertheless, meta-analytic evidence suggests that

Barling, Christie, and Hoption

184

11819-07_Ch07_rev2.qxd 3/30/10 11:50 AM Page 184

185

TA

BL

E 7

.1

Freq

uenc

ies

Wit

h W

hich

Lea

ders

hip

The

orie

s H

ave

Bee

n St

udie

d, 1

980–

2007

1980

19

82

1984

19

86

1988

19

90

1992

19

94

1996

19

98

2000

20

02

2004

20

06

Lead

ersh

ip th

eory

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

Tota

l

Cons

ider

atio

n-in

itiat

ing

stru

ctur

e an

d 8

47

105

63

34

20

33

058

lead

ersh

ipSi

tuat

iona

l lea

ders

hip

theo

ry2

52

34

43

03

71

00

337

Path

–goa

l the

ory

23

21

12

02

20

00

04

19Su

bstit

utes

for l

eade

rshi

p0

01

42

23

48

14

37

140

Lead

er–m

embe

r exc

hang

e or

ver

tical

dya

d1

38

56

1110

1223

2724

2435

5724

6lin

kage

Tran

sfor

mat

iona

l Lea

ders

hip

00

00

10

12

711

3052

7510

528

4Ch

aris

mat

ic L

eade

rshi

p0

22

23

78

88

2215

1228

1813

5Ro

man

ce o

f lea

ders

hip

11

13

814

Impl

icit

lead

ersh

ip th

eorie

s1

20

00

00

01

16

26

726

Prot

otyp

ical

ity0

00

00

00

02

14

04

516

Follo

wer

ship

03

10

21

31

21

42

25

27Sh

ared

lead

ersh

ip0

14

01

30

12

24

57

1949

Auth

entic

lead

ersh

ip8

715

Leadership

11819-07_Ch07_rev2.qxd 4/30/10 4:30 PM Page 185

the correlation between Initiating Structure andConsideration is .17 and that sometimes they are,in fact, negatively correlated with each other,depending on the measurement instrument used(see Judge et al., 2004). Thus, although highInitiating Structure and high Consideration may bethe optimal expression of these behaviors from a the-oretical perspective, this combination may not accu-rately capture patterns of leader behavior inorganizations.

The inconclusive relationship between InitiatingStructure and Consideration was not the only chal-lenge to the Ohio State leadership framework; thetheory was also criticized for its inability to gener-ate consistent and reliable results across multiplesamples during the 1950s and 1960s. In somecases, studies found negative relationships betweenInitiating Structure and follower satisfaction andbetween Consideration and performance (see Kerret al., 1974). Although a later study, using robuststatistical techniques to summarize the approxi-mately 100 empirical studies examining these behav-iors, showed that inconsistencies were largely theresult of methodological contradictions (Judge et al.,2004), researchers in the 1950s and 1960s turned tosituational moderators to explain discrepanciesbetween studies and, ultimately, to identify the situa-tions in which Initiating Structure and Considerationwould be most effective. This pursuit began with afocus on organizational context, such as time pres-sures and physical demands, and characteristics offollowers, such as intrinsic motivation and role ambi-guity. By doing so, the leadership literature evolvedfrom seeking the discovery of universally successfulleadership behaviors to acknowledging that effectiveleadership behaviors may be situation-specific andthen to examining the interaction between leadershipbehavior, situational contingencies, and leader effec-tiveness. (The progression toward perspectives thatemphasized the importance of situational constraintson leadership is discussed in the following section.)

Although Initiating Structure and Considerationwere largely abandoned and deemed conceptuallyand methodologically invalid by the 1970s, there hasbeen renewed interest in the Ohio State leadershipdimensions. Judge et al. (2004) argued that desertingthese two leadership dimensions was premature,

calling them the “forgotten ones.” In Judge et al.’s.meta-analytic review, they showed a significantrelationship (all corrected for unreliability of mea-sures and measurement error) between InitiatingStructure (average r ≈ .29) and Consideration (aver-age r ≈ .48), and job satisfaction (Initiating Structurer = .22; Consideration r = .46), satisfaction with theleader (Initiating Structure r = .33; Considerationr = .78), follower motivation (Initiating Structure r = .40; Consideration r = .50), leader job performance(Initiating Structure r = .24; Consideration r = .25),group-organization performance (Initiating Structurer = .30; Consideration r = .28), and leader effective-ness (Initiating Structure r = .39; Consideration r = .52). Furthermore, as expected, Considerationshowed a stronger relationship with attitudinal out-comes (e.g., satisfaction with leader, job satisfac-tion) than did Initiating Structure; on the otherhand, Initiating Structure related more to group-organization performance than did Consideration.These findings suggest that despite the disappearanceof the Ohio State leadership dimensions from theliterature, more research attention is still needed toverify their contribution to our understanding ofleadership, especially because researchers (e.g.,Keller, 2006) have argued that they may be largelyindependent of the behavioral theory that dominatescontemporary leadership research—transformationalleadership theory.

Contingency Theories of LeadershipSituational or contingency approaches to leadershipbuild on the early behavioral theories previouslydescribed. Situational theories contend that the effec-tiveness of leadership traits or behaviors is depen-dent on characteristics of the situation, includingfeatures of the organization, the workplace, and thefollowers. The next sections discuss three situationaltheories of leadership that have received consider-able theoretical and empirical attention: Fiedler’scontingency theory, the path–goal theory of leader-ship, and substitutes for leadership.

Fiedler’s contingency theory. Fiedler’s (1967) theory is often credited as the first true contingency theory of leadership. The theory categorizes leadersas either task-motivated or relationship-motivated.

Barling, Christie, and Hoption

186

11819-07_Ch07_rev2.qxd 3/30/10 11:50 AM Page 186

These categories are similar to Initiating Structureand Consideration, respectively, but Fiedler’s theorygoes further by suggesting that the effectiveness ofeach varies by situation. In particular, contingencytheory draws attention to three dimensions that maycharacterize a situation: (a) leader–follower relations,(b) performance goal clarity, and (c) formal author-ity or power. Each dimension influences the extentto which leaders are afforded a sense of control overtheir jobs. For example, regarding authority, leadersare more likely to feel a sense of control when theyhave the formal authority to make decisions, andless likely when they don’t. Fiedler created eight“situations” based on the various combinations ofthese three dimensions, which ranged on a contin-uum from the most favorable situation (i.e., strongleader–follower relations, high task clarity, and highpower) to the least favorable situation (i.e., weakleader–follower relations, low task clarity, and lowpower). Fiedler assumed that leadership behaviorswere more difficult to change than were situations;consequently, he stipulated that optimal outcomesare a result of a correspondence between the leader’sexisting behaviors and the situation.

A central tenet of Fiedler’s contingency theory isthat task-motivated leaders are more effective inextreme situations (i.e., very favorable or unfavor-able situations), whereas relationship-motivatedleaders are more effective in moderately favorablesituations. To illustrate, a task-motivated leader washypothesized to respond best during times of crisisor disaster, which are often chaotic and character-ized by little formal structure in terms of the taskand authority, while working closely with unfamil-iar others (i.e., a very unfavorable situation). Arelationship-motivated leader may become dis-tracted and feel overwhelmed by the needs of others, whereas a task-motivated leader may haveless difficulty acting quickly and decisively. On theother hand, in some situations or organizations,more moderate situational constraints are common,as is the case in creative industries, in which theleader–follower relationship often is strong and thetask and formal authority structure is looselydefined. In these cases, relationship-oriented leadersexcel because they are more considerate of follow-ers’ individual needs and foster followers’ creative

inputs, whereas task-motivated leaders are likely toundermine followers’ creativity by failing to ade-quately appreciate the flexibility that they require.

Despite a considerable amount of research, theevidence supporting Fiedler’s contingency theory ismixed. A number of meta-analytic reviews of theliterature (e.g., Peters, Hartke, & Pohlmann, 1985;Schriesheim, Tepper, & Tetrault, 1994) have sup-ported the notion that leadership style and situa-tion interact, such that task-motivated leaders and relationship-motivated leaders excel in different situ-ations. However, these results were strongest whentested in laboratory settings (Ayman, Chemers, &Fiedler, 1995). For instance, Peters et al. found thatin laboratory studies (r ranging from an absolutemagnitude of .01 to .33, corrected for samplingerror), the more effective leadership style was cor-rectly predicted in six of the eight contingency theorysituations, compared to only half of the situations forfield studies (r ranging from an absolute magnitude of.01 to .50, corrected for sampling error). The less per-suasive findings in field settings could derive fromimproper measurement techniques. Thus, althoughthe predictions of contingency theory are promising,advances in the theory are still needed to understandwhy discrepancies emerge between laboratory andfield settings if it is to regain prominence in the cur-rent leadership literature.

Path–goal leadership theory. A second contingencytheory of leadership, path–goal leadership theory(House, 1971), also emerged in response to the dis-appointing findings of the Ohio State studies. Similarto Fiedler’s contingency theory, path–goal leadershiptheory had two objectives: (a) identify the role andbehaviors of effective leaders, and (b) explore the sit-uational contingencies that modify those behaviors.

First, the theory posits that a leader’s role is toalign the goals of followers with those of the organi-zation. Next, a leader must facilitate the achievementof those goals. This is accomplished by helping fol-lowers realize that they have the capabilities to meettheir goals, clarifying the path between the effort thatthey exert and goal attainment, and ensuring that thegoals are valuable to followers.

Unlike the Ohio State model (i.e., InitiatingStructure and Consideration), path–goal leadership

Leadership

187

11819-07_Ch07_rev2.qxd 3/30/10 11:50 AM Page 187

theory identifies four categories of leadership behav-iors that motivate followers to achieve their goals(House & Mitchell, 1974). Participative leadershipbehavior involves including followers in decisionmaking and soliciting follower feedback. Consistentwith the focus on participation in decision makingthat was already prevalent in the 1970s (e.g., Alutto& Belasco, 1972), this leadership behavior washypothesized to enhance motivation by fosteringoverlap between follower and organizational goals andby providing followers with more appreciation and understanding of the pathway between effortand goal achievement. Directive path–goal-clarifyingleadership behavior mimics Initiating Structure,motivating followers by providing task structure,feedback, and procedures that reduce role ambigu-ity, linking follower effort to performance and goalattainment, and communicating the rewards contin-gent on performance. By contrast, supportive leader-ship behavior is similar to Consideration, wherebyleaders demonstrate their concern for the needs andbest interests of followers and, by doing so, removesome of the potential obstacles that may preventfollowers from obtaining their goals. The finalleadership behavior identified in the theory isachievement-oriented leadership behavior, whichinvolves creating challenging and high-standardperformance goals and expressing confidence infollowers’ abilities to meet such challenges. Followersshould then respond with greater self-efficacy andeffort toward goal attainment.

Path–goal leadership theory’s second focus is onsituational factors that render leadership behaviorsmore or less effective. These factors relate to theorganizational environment, job design, and followercharacteristics. However, empirical tests have notyielded conclusive support for the situational fac-tors. For example, in a meta-analysis of 120 studies,Wofford and Liska (1993) found support for only 6 of 16 moderation hypotheses predicted by path–goal leadership theory (zr ranged from .31 to .51corrected for unreliability of measures and samplingerror). Schriesheim and Neider’s (1996) qualitativesummary of the empirical literature suggested thatthe most consistent results for the situational focusof the theory have been for the relationship betweendirective clarifying behavior (most often measured

using the LBDQ Initiating Structure scale) and fol-lower satisfaction when task characteristics (e.g.,autonomy, task variety, and feedback) promoteintrinsic motivation. We found the relationshipsbetween the remaining categories of leadershipbehaviors and the performance outcomes far lessconclusive. It has been suggested that impropermeasurement and incomplete or inappropriatelyspecified testing may account for the theory’sempirical shortcomings, as a result of which futureresearch should fairly test the tenets of path–goalleadership theory (Schriesheim, Castro, Zhou, &DeChurch, 2006). Nonetheless, the complexity ofthe model may inhibit the possibility of subjectingthe theory to an omnibus test.

Substitutes for leadership. Kerr and Jermier’s(1978) substitutes for leadership theory furtherextends the situational perspective of leadership, inparticular path-goal leadership theory, by illuminat-ing additional situational contingencies of leader-ship behaviors (House, 1996). Specifically, Kerr andJermier identified numerous situational variablesthat influence the relationship between leadershipand its outcomes. These variables fit within one oftwo primary categories: neutralizers and substitutes.Neutralizers of leadership are situational factors thatblock the effects of leadership, rendering leadershipbehaviors inconsequential. One example of a neutra-lizer of leadership is spatial distance between theleader and the follower. By contrast, substitutes forleadership both neutralize leadership and positivelyinfluence attitudinal and performance outcomes.Examples of leadership substitutes include the fol-lower’s intrinsic interest in the task, ability, training,and experience. These are substitutes because theyrelate positively to follower satisfaction, morale, andperformance and therefore eliminate the need forleadership.

Because the substitutes for leadership theory hasintuitive appeal, the inadequate substantiating evi-dence for the theory across multiple rigorous studydesigns and samples remains a surprise (e.g., Dionne,Yammarino, Atwater, & James, 2002). Most pastresearch suggests that substitutes for leadership havean additive effect; that is, they influence importantoutcomes irrespective of leadership behaviors with-out diminishing or negating the influence of leader-

Barling, Christie, and Hoption

188

11819-07_Ch07_rev2.qxd 3/30/10 11:50 AM Page 188

ship itself (Keller, 2006; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, &Bommer, 1996). Accordingly, substitutes for leader-ship theory has largely disappeared from currentleadership research.

Emergence of a Relational Theory of LeadershipFiedler’s contingency theory, path–goal leadershiptheory, and substitutes for leadership theory allemphasize the importance, if not the primacy, of situ-ational factors. However, by the late 1970s and 1980s,focus shifted to a relational perspective of leadershipas evidenced by the solidification of LMX (e.g.,Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Gerstner & Day,1997). LMX is a theory of neither leader nor followertraits or behaviors; instead, it focuses primarily on theleader–follower dyad. Proponents of LMX argue thatmost leadership theories assume that there is uni-directional influence flowing from leader to followerand, furthermore, that a leader’s behaviors andeffectiveness are both consistent across followers(e.g., Schriesheim, Castro, & Cogliser, 1999). Toaddress these assumptions, LMX studies the uniqueleader–follower relationships that are fosteredthrough leadership behaviors. These dyadic relation-ships are inherently unique because LMX contendsthat leaders develop different exchange relationshipswith different followers and, furthermore, that mutualinfluence occurs within each dyad (Gerstner & Day,1997). In addition, LMX examines the quality ofleader–follower relationships and in turn posits thathigher quality relationships between leaders and fol-lowers will result in more positive organizational out-comes than lower quality relationships.

High-quality LMX relationships are defined bymutual support, trust, liking, provision of latitude,attention, and loyalty (Schriesheim et al., 1999). Itfollows that the opposite qualities, such as downwardinfluence, role distinctions, social distance, contrac-tual obligations, and distrust, have been used todefine low-quality LMX. These are general definitionsof good and poor LMX, but realistically the compo-nents that constitute the good or poor quality of arelationship are likely to vary between individuals(House & Aditya, 1997). Accordingly, defining andmeasuring (universally) high- or low-quality LMX ischallenging.

Nonetheless, based on the generalized features ofhigh-quality LMX relationships provided above,research has revealed that high-quality LMX enjoys anumber of positive implications for organizations.For instance, high-quality LMX has been positivelyassociated with follower satisfaction, commitment,role clarity, and performance and negatively associ-ated with follower turnover intentions and role con-flict, across numerous empirical studies (see Gerstner& Day, 1997, for a review). Traditionally, there hasbeen a concentrated focus on the positive effects ofhigh-quality LMX, and it is implied that low-qualityLMX simply fails to produce those positive effects.However, Townsend, Phillips, and Elkins (2000)showed that low-quality LMX may be more harmfulthan previously appreciated. These authors showedthat high-quality LMX relationships lead to superiorfollower performance and increased organizationalcitizenship behaviors, whereas low-quality LMXrelationships were not only unconnected to theseoutcomes but were also linked to retaliatory behav-iors from followers.

LMX theory has helped to advance our under-standing of the leadership literature by consideringnot only the leader but also the leader–follower rela-tionship within the leadership process. However,although the aim of LMX theory is to understandleader–follower relationships, it has been critiquedfor its inability to adequately capture the dyadicnature of these relationships. A meta-analytic reviewof numerous published studies showed only a mod-erate correlation (r = .37 corrected for measurementunreliability and sampling error) between leaders’perceptions of LMX quality and followers’ percep-tions of LMX quality (Gerstner & Day, 1997), a dis-appointing finding given LMX theory’s presumptionof dyadic associations. Furthermore, LMX theory hasattracted criticism for its minimal attention to practi-cal applications; the theory predicts associationsbetween high-quality LMX and positive organiza-tional outcomes, but it reveals little about how lead-ers can differentially generate these relationshipswith followers. Despite its shortcomings, LMX theorycontinues to be studied in current leadership researchand has contributed greatly to our appreciation of and progression toward relational notions ofleadership.

Leadership

189

11819-07_Ch07_rev2.qxd 3/30/10 11:50 AM Page 189

In summary, over the course of almost a centuryof research, the leadership literature has evolvedfrom differentiating leaders from nonleaders on thebasis of personal traits to recognizing the intricaciesof leadership behaviors, situational contingencies,leader–follower relationships, and mutual, dyadicinfluences. As indicated throughout this section,some of these theories of leadership continue toattract scholarly attention today. However, we nowturn our attention to the theory that undoubtedlydominates the leadership literature, namely, trans-formational leadership theory (e.g., Judge & Bono,2000).

The Transformational LeadershipFrameworkAlthough it is often difficult to pinpoint the intel-lectual origins of a theory, two seminal books standout in the development of transformational leader-ship. First, Burns (1978) laid the groundwork formuch subsequent thinking about transformationalleadership in differentiating transformationalleadership from other forms of leadership. Second,Bass (1985) further conceptualized the transforma-tional framework (which includes both transforma-tional and transactional leadership behaviors) andextended its focus to the organizational context.Both Burns and Bass stimulated others to conductresearch on transformational leadership around theworld; Bass himself was a major figure in empiricalresearch on transformational leadership until hisdeath in 2007.

It is now generally accepted that four differentbehaviors (idealized influence, inspirational moti-vation, intellectual stimulation, and individualizedconsideration) constitute transformational leader-ship, whereas laissez-faire, management-by-exception,and contingent reward fall under the rubric oftransactional leadership. We first discuss the latterthree behaviors involved in transactional leadershipand then move on to a discussion of the four behav-iors involved in transformational leadership. Indoing so, we note that our descriptions are based ondiscussions of these behaviors presented exten-sively elsewhere (e.g., Avolio, 1999a; Bass, 1985;Bass & Riggio, 2006) and that we limit our descrip-tions accordingly.

Transactional leadership. Transactional leader-ship comprises three different behaviors. First, astyle of nonmanagement and nonleadership charac-terizes laissez-faire leader behaviors. These behav-iors include avoiding and denying responsibility andneglecting to take any action even in dire situations.In its most extreme form, laissez-faire managers donothing most of the time.

Second, active management-by-exception takesplace when leaders focus vigorously on followers’mistakes and failures to meet standards. These lead-ers consistently look for errors at the expense of,rather than in addition to, a focus on positive events.Upon encountering these errors, leaders are likely toyell at, embarrass, punish, or discipline followers fortheir mistakes. Kelloway, Sivanathan, Francis, andBarling (2005) suggested that this negative focus,coupled with punitive action by the leader, results inemployees experiencing active management-by-exception as abusive.

In contrast to active management-by-exceptionstyle, passive management-by-exception alsodescribes managers who focus on errors. However,these managers do not actively monitor for mis-takes; instead, they wait until the mistakes are ofsuch consequence that they can no longer beignored. Therefore, passive management-by-exception is closer in nature to laissez-faire thanactive management-by-exception behaviors, and italso results in similar outcomes (Avolio, 1999b;Bass & Riggio, 2006).

Third, while laissez-faire reflects the absence ofmanagement, and management-by-exception reflects“poor” management, contingent reward reflects“good” management. Contingent reward involvesmanagers setting goals, providing feedback, andensuring that employee behaviors have conse-quences, both positive and negative. As the namesuggests, these leaders make rewards contingent onfollowers’ meeting a specified performance target.Nonetheless, the meaning of contingent reward issomewhat ambiguous, because in some analyses(e.g., the factor intercorrelations in Bycio, Hackett, & Allen’s [1995] study; their Table 3),contingent reward is significantly more highly cor-related with elements of transformational leader-ship (such as charismatic leadership, intellectual

Barling, Christie, and Hoption

190

11819-07_Ch07_rev2.qxd 3/30/10 11:50 AM Page 190

stimulation, individualized consideration) than withmanagement-by-exception (rs of .79, .81, and .83,respectively, vs. −.26).

To summarize Judge and Piccolo’s (2004) recentmeta-analytic findings, active management-by-exception is related to follower satisfaction with theleader (r = .24), follower motivation (r = .14), leaderjob performance (r = .13), group or organizationalperformance (r = −.09; 90% confidence intervalincludes zero), and leader effectiveness (r = .21). Theoverall relationships between passive management-by-exception and laissez-faire leadership and variousleadership criteria are negative: specifically, passivemanagement-by-exception is negatively related to fol-lower satisfaction with the leader (r = −.14; 90% con-fidence interval includes zero), follower motivation(r = −.27), group or organizational performance (r = −.17), and leader effectiveness (r = −.19), whilelaissez-faire leadership is negatively related to job sat-isfaction (r = −.28), follower satisfaction with theleader (r = −.58), follower motivation (r = −.07; 90%confidence interval includes zero), leader job perfor-mance (r = −.01; 90% confidence interval includeszero), and leader effectiveness (r = −.54). By contrast,contingent reward has been associated positively withvarious criteria for leader effectiveness, such as jobsatisfaction (r = .64), satisfaction with the leader (r =.55), follower motivation (r = .59), leader job perfor-mance (r = .45), group or organizational performance(r = .16), and leader effectiveness (r = .55; all corre-lations corrected for measure unreliability, mea-surement error, and sampling error; Judge &Piccolo, 2004).

Upon review of the transactional leadershipframework, the term transactional leadership could beseen as an oxymoron because the behaviors (i.e., con-tingent reward and management-by-exception) areresponses to employees’ behaviors and are based onthe formal power accorded to managers. In contrast,leadership transcends situational needs and is basedmore on informal than formal sources of power. Thismight lead to the conceptualization of transactionalleadership as consistent with “management” ratherthan leadership (Bass & Riggio, 2006).

Transformational leadership. At the conceptuallevel, transformational leadership comprises fourseparate behaviors (see Bass & Riggio, 2006).

Idealized influence centers on leaders’ behaviors thatare motivated by what is best for the organizationand its members, rather than what is easy and expe-dient; these behaviors include providing a vision forthe future and creating a collective sense of mission.Leaders who exhibit idealized influence are guidedby their moral commitment to their followers andthe collective good; they go beyond self-interest.Leaders who manifest idealized influence are able toresist organizational pressures for short-term finan-cial outcomes and instead focus their efforts onthe long-term well-being of their employees, them-selves, and their organizations. Thus, a hallmarkof idealized influence is that these leaders act withintegrity. In this respect, Burns (1978) insistedthat transformational leadership extends beyondMaslow’s (1965) self-actualization theory because aself-oriented focus is eschewed.

Transformational leadership theory posits thatleaders who manifest inspirational motivation encour-age their employees to achieve more than what wasthought possible, either by themselves or by thosearound them. They do so by setting high but realisticstandards, which they transmit through interpersonalinteractions; they tell stories and use symbols. Theseleaders inspire employees to surmount psychologicalsetbacks and external obstacles, and they instill inemployees the belief that they can confront and over-come current and future hurdles. Inspirationallymotivating leaders’ interactions with subordinatesreflect the self-fulfilling prophecy, as they help fos-ter resilience and self-efficacy in their followers.

Intellectual stimulation is the third facet of transfor-mational leadership behavior. Earlier understandingsof leadership assumed the technical expertise of theleader who could answer all questions posed by sub-ordinates. In contrast, leaders who display intellectualstimulation encourage employees to think for them-selves, question their own commonly held assump-tions, reframe problems, and approach matters ininnovative ways. Given the encouragement andopportunity to develop their own personal strategiesto tackle setbacks, employees become more confi-dent and adept in work-related and personal issues.

Fourth and finally, individualized considerationcharacterizes leaders who pay special attention toemployees’ personal needs for achievement and

Leadership

191

11819-07_Ch07_rev2.qxd 3/30/10 11:50 AM Page 191

development and act as mentors. These leadersprovide the necessary caring, compassion, andempathy that influence employees’ well-being, and their instrumental and emotional supporthelps employees develop their potential and skills.In doing so, leaders establish a relationship withfollowers.

The majority of the studies on transformationalleadership use the Multi-factor Leadership Question-naire (MLQ) to assess its four components, a mea-surement tool that we discuss more in depth laterin this chapter. Although the four dimensions oftransformational leadership are presented as con-ceptually distinct, it has become apparent frommeta-analyses (Bycio et al., 1995; Tepper & Percy,1994) that measurement issues make assessing themseparately rather difficult. The recent developmentof several new scales (e.g., Alimo-Metcalfe & Alban-Metcalfe, 2001; Herold, Fedor, Caldwell, & Liu,2008; Rafferty & Griffin, 2004) offers some promisefor future research to answer remaining questionsabout whether the presence of all four behaviors isnecessary for leadership to qualify as “transforma-tional” or whether some of the four behaviors aremore critical than others (Mackenzie, Podsakoff, &Jarvis, 2005). This issue is discussed in more detaillater in this chapter.

Charismatic Leadership TheoryThe theory of charismatic leadership represents amajor attempt to explain leadership. Initially pro-posed by the sociologist Max Weber (1947), charismawas characterized by followers’ belief that the leaderpossessed unusual and exceptional qualities. Thereare now several interpretations of this theory, withthe two most prominent emphasizing either attribu-tions that followers make about the leader (Conger& Kanungo, 1998) or actual leadership behaviors(House, 1977). These explanations of charismaticleadership evolved around the same time as transfor-mational leadership theory (House, 1977). Althoughauthors debate whether charismatic leadership andtransformational leadership are interchangeableconstructs, most suggest that the differencesbetween the theories are minor (e.g., Conger &Kanungo, 1998; House & Podsakoff, 1994), whichis in part evidenced by their similar or equivalent

measurement instruments (see Judge, Woolf, Hurst,& Livingston, 2008, for a review).

One notable feature distinguishing the theories istheir differential emphasis on follower attributions ofleader behavior; the charismatic leadership traditionoften argues that leadership exists “in the eyes of fol-lowers” (Conger, 1999, p. 153). What distinguishescharismatic leaders from other leaders is their abilityto act in ways that encourage followers to perceivethem and their visions as extraordinary. Specifically,charismatic leadership is attributed to leaders whochallenge the status quo, inspire followers arounda collective-focused vision of the future, show sensi-tivity to the needs of followers, and take personalrisks to achieve their vision.

Several general issues concerning transformationaland charismatic leadership warrant comment at thisstage. First, Judge and Bono (2000) noted that trans-formational and charismatic leadership attractedmore research during the decade of the 1990s than allother theories of leadership combined. To understandthe relative status of leadership theories today, weconducted a similar analysis of leadership topics from1980 to 2007 using PsycINFO to search for the num-ber of articles related to each topic. The results of thisanalysis appear in Table 7.1. The results for each ofthe theories discussed in this chapter illustrate theflux of empirical attention to leadership theories overtime. Based on these data, several conclusions areappropriate. First, transformational leadershipremains the most widely researched theory, withLMX and charismatic leadership the second and thirdmost studied, respectively. Second, together, thesethree theories account for 63% of all leadershipresearch between 1980 and 2007. However, recentyears have also seen increasing devotion to theories ofleadership that accentuate the role of followers in theleadership process; these theories are discussed indetail later in this chapter.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF LEADERSHIP: ARE LEADERS BORN OR MADE?

As we have already noted, leadership has longattracted attention. Still, one of the most enduringsocial questions remains: Are leaders born or made?A search of scholar.google.com (on May 4, 2009)

Barling, Christie, and Hoption

192

11819-07_Ch07_rev2.qxd 3/30/10 11:50 AM Page 192

yielded at least 182 articles relating to this question.Understanding how leadership develops will haveprofound social, theoretical, and managerial implica-tions. In this section, we address several differentways in which empirical research has confronted thisquestion, by considering studies on genetic influenceson leadership emergence, early family influences onleadership behavior, and executive development orleadership training.

Before embarking on this discussion, we mustdraw a distinction between leadership emergence orrole occupancy on the one hand, and leadershipbehaviors on the other. Leadership emergence reflectswhether individuals become leaders by either occupy-ing formal leadership roles or informally arising as aleader, whereas, traditionally, leadership behaviorscenter on how people actually behave once they haveassumed a leadership role, or perhaps even whenthey are not in formal leadership positions (a topicdiscussed later in this chapter). As such, leadershipemergence and leadership behaviors remain separateconstructs. Despite the importance of understandingleadership development that reflects both leadershipemergence and leadership behaviors, very littleempirical research has addressed these critical issues.

Leadership Emergence“Some people are born to move and shake the world.Their blessings: high energy, exceptional intelligence,extreme persistence, self-confidence and a yearningto influence others” (Avolio, 1999a, p.18). Althoughmuch of the discussion in this chapter focuses on theissue of leadership behaviors and effectiveness, pre-cisely which individuals attain positions of leadershipin the first instance is of equal intrigue. As sug-gested by Avolio (1999a), one possibility is thatsome individuals are naturally predisposed tobecome leaders. Consistent with recent advances inthe burgeoning field known as social neuroscience(Cacioppo et al., 2007), the notion that genetic andbiological factors play an important role in the devel-opment of leadership should not be unexpected.Nevertheless, well-controlled studies on possiblegenetic and/or biological effects on leadershipdevelopment remain scant.

Empirical research on the role of genetic factors inbehavior was initially stimulated by the classic studies

conducted by Bouchard and his colleagues onidentical twins reared apart (see Bouchard, Lykken,McGue, Segal, & Tellegen, 1990). In a series ofstudies, they identified the extent to which geneticfactors influence cognitive ability, personality, anti-social behavior, and psychopathology (e.g., Baker,Jacobson, Raine, Lozano, & Bezdijan, 2007; Bouchardet al., 1990; McGue & Bouchard, 1998). Researchusing the identical-twins-reared-apart paradigm hasshown that, even controlling for job characteristicsand physical demands, approximately 30% of thevariance in intrinsic job satisfaction was a function ofgenetic factors (Arvey, Bouchard, Segal, & Abraham,1989). Arvey and his colleagues have subsequentlyconducted several studies using this paradigm toinvestigate leadership emergence, operationalized asleadership role occupancy. Leadership role occu-pancy is a type of leadership emergence that reflectswhether people actually hold positions of leadershipwithin organizations and can also reflect an individ-ual’s position in the organizational hierarchy (Ilies,Gerhardt, & Le, 2004).

In the first of these later studies, Arvey, Rotundo,Johnson, Zhang, and McGue (2006) studied 110 iden-tical twin pairs and 94 nonidentical twins, all males,from the Minnesota Twin Registry. Leadership roleoccupancy was indicated by the number of leadershiproles that each twin held within work-related profes-sional associations and the hierarchical level of thetwins’ current leadership positions in their respectiveorganizations. The results support a genetic influenceon leadership role occupancy: At a descriptive level,if one twin held leadership positions in professionalorganizations and associations, the second was morelikely to do so as well. Their heritability analyses wentfurther to show that, after controlling for two person-ality variables (social potency and achievement),30% of the variance in leadership role occupancywas explained by genetic factors, with the remainingvariance, 70%, accounted for by environmental fac-tors. In addition, the two personality variables thatpredict leadership role occupancy (i.e., achievementand social potency) were shown to share an importantgenetic component (accounting for 24% and 42% ofthe variance, respectively). Nonetheless, contrary tothe authors’ predictions, personality did not mediateany genetic effects on role occupancy.

Leadership

193

11819-07_Ch07_rev2.qxd 3/30/10 11:50 AM Page 193

In a second study, Arvey, Zhang, Avolio, andKrueger (2007) intended to extend earlier findingswith the inclusion of additional environmental pre-dictors of leadership role occupancy, and they inves-tigated 214 identical and 178 nonidentical femaletwins from the Minnesota Twin Registry. They againshowed that heritability accounted for a significantproportion of the variance in leadership role occu-pancy (in this case, 32% of the variance), and theirfindings showed that work experience explained anadditional 17% of the total variance in leadershiprole occupancy. A second environmental predictor,early family experiences, did not significantly relateto subsequent leadership role occupancy. However,it is possible that their three-item measure of familyexperience was not sufficiently comprehensive andtherefore could not be fairly compared to the effectsof work experiences on leadership role occupancy.These findings should remind organizational practi-tioners (and leaders alike) that there are aspects ofleadership role occupancy that lie beyond their con-trol; yet, the amount of variance accounted for byenvironmental factors in leadership role occupancystill provides organizations with substantial oppor-tunities for involvement and potential influence.Furthermore, although intriguing, understandingmore about genetic influences on leadership roleoccupancy offers very little in terms of selectingfuture leaders. Although these studies have begun toisolate the heritability influence on leadership roleoccupancy, it remains for future research to isolategenetic influences on leadership behaviors.

Early Family InfluencesThe notion that early developmental influencesaffect leadership emergence and behavior are neithernew nor implausible (see Bass, 1960; Karnes &D’Ilio, 1989). Elder (1974) noted that childrenwhose fathers were unemployed during the GreatDepression had to deal with external challenges at ayoung age. However, later in life, these children hadachieved more educationally (they did better atschool and were more likely to pursue higher educa-tion) and were more satisfied with their lives.Similarly, Cox and Cooper’s (1989) retrospectiveanalysis demonstrated that a disproportionate num-ber of successful British CEOs had experienced early

familial adversity (either loss of a parent or separa-tion from parents). As a result of such adversity, theylearned to take responsibility for themselves from anearly age. Certainly the Cox and Cooper study justi-fies further research on early family influences onsubsequent leadership emergence and behaviors.

There has been interest in the specific nature ofthe early environment that might influence subse-quent leadership. Generally, studies have shown thatparents’ warmth and acceptance and their achieve-ment demands predict predispositions to leadershipbehaviors in 10th-grade adolescents and in boys aged16.5 years and girls aged 15.6 years (Bronfenbrenner,1961, and Klonsky, 1983, respectively). Similarly,Towler (2005) showed that young adults (18–25 years of age) with fathers who exercised high lev-els of psychological control were less likely to exhibitcharismatic leadership. Hartman and Harris (1992)also showed that college students who subsequentlyheld management positions modeled the leadershipof individuals whom they admired early in theirlives; most of these individuals were their parents.

A more recent study of 196 pairs of twins whowere part of the ongoing Minnesota Twin FamilyStudy (Avolio, Rotundo, & Walumbwa, 2009)refines our understanding of the role of early experi-ences on later leadership role occupancy in severalimportant ways. First, Avolio et al. (2009) focusedon Baumrind’s (1971) notion of authoritative parent-ing, which is a combination of psychological auton-omy, acceptance, and supervision, reflects positiveparenting, and is not to be mistaken for authoritarianparenting. Avolio et al. (2009) showed that authori-tative parenting was associated with lower levels ofpre–high school children’s modest (delinquency andfamily/school offenses) and serious (serious crime,drug use) rule-breaking behavior. Second, modestand serious rule-breaking behaviors predicted sub-sequent leadership role occupancy differently:Specifically, modest rule-breaking behavior was posi-tively, and serious rule-breaking behavior negatively,associated with leadership role occupancy. Avolioet al. (2009) suggested that early experiences withrule breaking (a) enable parents to guide their chil-dren to learn from these experiences and (b) reflectthe same qualities necessary for leadership role occu-pancy. In contrast, just as early diagnoses of conduct

Barling, Christie, and Hoption

194

11819-07_Ch07_rev2.qxd 3/30/10 11:50 AM Page 194

problem disorders predict subsequent counter-productive behaviors in organizations (Roberts,Harms, Caspi, & Moffitt, 2007), early contact withthe law and drug use are unlikely to result in positiveorganizational outcomes.

Recent research conducted within the context ofsports teams provides additional information aboutthe early development of leadership. Zacharatos,Barling, and Kelloway (2000) studied high schoolsports teams and assessed whether perceptions ofparents’ behaviors influenced athletes’ leadershipbehaviors during sports events. This study was espe-cially interested in the extent to which parents mod-eled transformational leadership in the home. Theauthors showed that adolescents’ perceptions of par-ents’ transformational parenting behaviors predictedtheir own enactment of these behaviors as rated bytheir coaches and peers. However, other findings(e.g., Hartman & Harris, 1992; Harris, 1995; Tucker,Turner, Barling, & McEvoy, 2008) suggested thatresearch needs to focus on multiple social influencessimultaneously.

In summary, leadership behaviors may belearned during adolescence, the “impressionableyears” (Krosnick & Alwin, 1989), or between theages of 18 and 25, the period of emerging adulthood(Arnett, 2000), and they can be linked to subse-quent leader behavior, making this a fertile issue forfuture research.

Executive and Leadership DevelopmentHaving discussed early influences on leader develop-ment, we now turn our attention to the question ofwhether leadership can be taught. However, if we areto answer this question and be consistent with ourevidence-based approach, there need to be rigorousexperimental evaluations of the effects of leadershipinterventions using interpretable experimental orquasi-experimental designs (Cook & Campbell,1979). Without methodological rigor, unstableconclusions are likely to be drawn. In an area inwhich experimental rigor is not the norm, our lit-erature search uncovered four published studiesthat exemplify the importance of rigorous control,inasmuch as they used control group designs, con-ventional statistical testing, random assignment ofparticipants to groups or treatments to groups, and/or

pretest/posttest measurement. As such, these four studies used interpretable designs (Cook &Campbell, 1979) and satisfied most of Terpstra’s(1981) criteria. This is important if valid inferencesare to be drawn: An analysis of 52 articles on organi-zational interventions with varying levels of method-ological sophistication showed that positive resultswere more likely with weaker methodological designs,whereas disconfirming evidence was more probablewith methodologically rigorous designs (indicated bythe use of census or representative samples, more than 30 participants, pretest—posttest control groupdesigns with random assignment, and conventionalsignificance testing; Terpstra, 1981; Bass, 1983)—a situation that potentially characterizes currentleadership research (Hunter at al., 2007).

In the first experimental study of the effects oftransformational leadership training in a field setting,Barling, Weber, and Kelloway (1996) randomlyassigned 9 branches of a regional bank to the experi-mental group and 11 to the wait-list control group.The managers of the nine branches then received 1 full day of transformational leadership training(Kelloway & Barling [2000] provide a more detaileddescription of the group-based training). A day afterthe training, leaders in the experimental group metindividually with a coach, who provided the leaderswith individual feedback based on a recently com-pleted 360-degree exercise of transformational lead-ership. Based on this feedback, goals were set formaking improvements to their transformational lead-ership behaviors. Individual meetings between thecoach and each of the nine managers were held eachmonth for the next 3 months, both to review perfor-mance and to boost the transformational leadershiptraining.

Barling et al.’s (1996) findings support the notionthat transformational leadership can be taught: First,following the full training program, there were sig-nificant differences in transformational leadershipratings (as reported by subordinates) between theexperimental and control groups. Second, levels oforganizational commitment were significantly higheramong subordinates who were led by leaders in theexperimental training than among subordinateswho were led by leaders in the control group, whohad not received any training. Third, banks run by

Leadership

195

11819-07_Ch07_rev2.qxd 3/30/10 11:50 AM Page 195

managers who had received transformational leader-ship training sold significantly more personal loansand credit cards—two indices of special relevance tothe banks—in comparison to the banks run by man-agers in the control group. The generalizability ofthis phenomenon is supported: Kelloway, Barling,and Helleur (2000) showed that transformationalleadership could be taught to a sample of managersof a health care facility.

Dvir, Eden, Avolio, and Shamir (2002) alsofocused on the development of transformationalleadership in their study of infantry soldiers. Sevenindividuals were randomly assigned to the trans-formational leadership condition, which included 5 days of training, consisting of role playing exercises,simulations, video presentations, and group, peer,and trainer feedback. Akin to the booster sessionsdescribed in Barling et al.’s (1996) study, the leadersparticipated in a 3-hour session prior to a leadershipassignment to reinforce the lessons of leadershiptraining. Although the specific effects of transforma-tional leadership in this context are discussed laterin this chapter, it is important to note here that thetraining was effective: Both knowledge of transfor-mational leadership theory and transformationalleadership behaviors rated by subordinates weresignificantly enhanced by the training, whereasthere were no such changes in the control group.Methodologically, it is also worth noting thatalthough the Barling et al. (1996), Dvir et al. (2002),Kelloway et al. (2000), and Mullen and Kelloway(2009) studies focused on fewer than 30 leaders, alltheir evaluations were based on samples of morethan 30 individuals (employees) per group, therebyfulfilling one of Terpstra’s (1981) criteria for a rigor-ous evaluation.

Most recently, following the earlier studies show-ing that transformational leadership behaviors can bedeveloped through training and that safety-specifictransformational leadership predicted employeesafety behaviors (Barling, Loughlin, & Kelloway,2002), Mullen and Kelloway (2009) conducted anexperiment and showed that safety-specific transfor-mational leadership could be developed in leaders.Leaders’ attitudes toward safety were influenced bythe training, as were employees’ safety behaviors.More intriguingly, Mullen and Kelloway also

included a group that received general transforma-tional leadership training, and no significant effectson safety emerged for this group, raising the ques-tion of how specific leadership training needs to bein order to influence desired subordinate outcomes.It also remains to be seen whether safety training byitself would yield the same results as those from thesafety-specific transformational leadership training;if not, then stronger support for the effectiveness oftransformational leadership would result.

Skarlicki and Latham (1996, 1997) directed theirtraining toward meeting the specific demands thatleaders in their sample faced, such as enhancing citizenship behavior within a union. In these studies,leaders (union shop stewards) in the experimentalgroup were provided with four 3-hour sessionsfocused on training behaviors that influence followerperceptions of procedural and interactional justice.The results strongly supported the effectiveness ofthe leadership training. Perceptions of union fairnesswere higher among union members whose shopstewards had attended the training. Evidence for a“downstream effect” was also found in both studies:Changes in the shop stewards’ behaviors resulted inincreases in rank-and-file members’ citizenshipbehaviors on behalf of the union.

A possible opportunity lost in executive and lead-ership development deserves mention. Training inorganizations has long been studied, with robustlessons learned from decades of research (Aguinis &Kraiger, 2009; Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001). Todate, however, executive and leadership developmentinitiatives have largely failed to benefit from the liter-ature on training. One consequence of this is that, asis apparent from the prior discussion, the research onexecutive and leadership development interventionshas not considered the types of issues considered cen-tral within training, such as needs assessment, differ-ent delivery modes, and the transfer of training.Similarly, any potential indirect benefits of leadershipdevelopment (e.g., leader self-efficacy, commitment;Tannenbaum, Mathieu, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers,1991) have also been ignored. Parenthetically, thetraining literature has perhaps not devoted sufficientattention to leadership development. It is likely thatour understanding of executive and leadership devel-opment and the effectiveness of intervention initia-

Barling, Christie, and Hoption

196

11819-07_Ch07_rev2.qxd 3/30/10 11:50 AM Page 196

tives would be enhanced in the future by a greaterrapprochement between the two.

To summarize what is known about leadershipdevelopment, we not only considered the role ofgenetic factors and early family influences but alsodiscussed several studies showing that leadership canbe taught. It is also imperative that we pause toacknowledge that timing is important to leader devel-opment. Even when holding a leadership position,leaders need time to adopt, learn, and demonstrateleader behaviors (Day, Sin, & Chen, 2004), even afterrelatively brief leadership development initiatives(Barling et al., 1996; Mullen & Kelloway, 2009). Howlong outcomes take to emerge, and how long trainingeffects last, are just two inquiries worthy of furtherattention. The dearth of studies on the developmentof leadership means that we have only scratched thesurface of the question, Are leaders born or made?

SOME CORRELATES OF LEADERSHIP

Other topics in leadership research have simultane-ously attracted empirical attention. Research con-ducted on leadership over the past several decadeshas tended to emphasize topics that were of substan-tial importance within the social sciences in general.As a result, much is known about the intersectionsof leadership and personality, gender, and ethnicand cross-cultural differences.

Personality and LeadershipIn the search for answers to the fundamental ques-tions raised in thinking about leadership (e.g., whysome people emerge as leaders, why some people aremore effective than others in leadership roles), therole of personality looms large. In this section, weextend our earlier discussion of trait approaches toleadership by discussing three ways in which person-ality pertains to leadership. First, we consider person-ality and leader emergence and effectiveness; second,we explore the relationship between personality andtransformational leadership behaviors; and third, weexamine how follower personality influences percep-tions and evaluations of leadership. (See also Vol. 2,chap. 5, this handbook.)

Personality and general leadership. Two centralquestions are traditionally asked to identify “leader-

ship”—who emerges as a leader and who is an effec-tive leader—and research has focused on whether andhow personality influences both leadership emergenceand effectiveness. For example, individuals are morelikely to occupy leadership roles or be perceived asleaders when they are achievement-oriented andsocially potent, meaning that they are hard-workingand thrive when they are in charge of others (Arveyet al., 2006). Self-monitoring behaviors also predictemergent leadership, particularly because high self-monitors are more likely to exhibit task-orientedbehaviors in groups (Eby, Cader, & Noble, 2003).Furthermore, results from two meta-analyses review-ing the accumulated empirical studies link personalitytraits to leadership. First, Lord, de Vader, and Alliger(1986) showed that leader intelligence (r = .52), mas-culinity-femininity (r = .34), and dominance (r = .17)predicted perceptions of leadership (correlations cor-rected for unreliability of measures, sampling error,and range restriction). Second, researchers Judge,Bono, Ilies, and Gerhardt (2002) showed that theBig Five model of personality (i.e., extraversion,agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, andopenness to experience) explained 28% and 15% ofthe variance in leader emergence and leader effective-ness, respectively. These reviews suggest that person-ality trait perspectives of leadership emergence andeffectiveness offer considerable credibility.

In a refined analysis of the intersection betweenpersonality and leadership, Judge et al.’s (2002) quan-titative review showed that of the Big Five personalitytraits, openness to experience and extraversion weresignificantly related (all correlations corrected foraverage reliability of measures and measurementerror) to both leadership emergence (r = .24 and r = .33, respectively) and effectiveness (r = .24 and r = .24, respectively), while conscientiousness wassignificantly related to leadership emergence (r = .33)and neuroticism significantly related to leadershipeffectiveness (r = −.22). Openness to experience isdefined by creativity and risk-taking, which theauthors argue are relevant to both leader selection andperformance, and extraverts are social, energetic, anddominant and therefore may more easily hold others’attention and have social influence (Judge et al.,2002). Similarly, conscientious individuals character-istically demonstrate discipline in and diligence

Leadership

197

11819-07_Ch07_rev2.qxd 3/30/10 11:50 AM Page 197

toward their work (McCrae & John, 1992); it fol-lows that conscientious personalities are likely tobe selected for leadership roles. Likewise, the rela-tive insecurity and emotional instability of individ-uals high on neuroticism can limit their leadershipeffectiveness.

Despite knowledge about average tendencies, littleis known about the processes through which leaderpersonality traits influence organizational outcomes.Peterson, Smith, Martorana, and Owens (2003)offered one explanation, showing that CEO personal-ity affects team dynamics at the senior-managementlevel. For example, dynamics such as corrupt behav-iors, risk-taking propensity, flexibility, and cohesive-ness are affected by CEO personality and that each ofthese dynamics relates to organizational performance.

Personality and transformational leadership behav-iors. As the popularity of the transformationalleadership framework persists (see Table 7.1), exten-sive research has been invested into understandingthe connections between personality and transforma-tional leadership behaviors. A meta-analysis analyz-ing 384 correlations from 26 samples (Bono & Judge,2004) showed consistent relationships (correlationscorrected for measure reliability and measurementerror) between transformational leadership andextraversion (r = .22) and neuroticism (r = −.17).Individuals who were outgoing and optimistic (i.e.,extraverted personality) tended to display more ideal-ized influence and inspirational motivation behaviors.Conversely, those who were distressed, anxious, andprone to insecurities (i.e., neurotic personality) wereunlikely to have the confidence needed to take ontransformational roles. There were, however, incon-sistent findings between agreeableness and opennessto experience and the transformational leadershipbehaviors, and the authors also reported a relativelyweak relationship between personality and transac-tional leadership, which was unexpected. The authorsdid not predict a link between conscientiousness andtransformational leadership because, as they noted,“There is no particular reason to expect that consci-entious individuals will exhibit vision, enthusiasm, orcreativity” (Bono & Judge, 2004, p. 903).

Overall, the associations established in Bonoand Judge’s (2004) study were relatively modest–

specifically, the Big Five explain twice as much vari-ance in leadership emergence as in leader charisma,and almost five times more in emergence than inintellectual stimulation and individualized consider-ation. The leader development section of this chapterhighlights the malleability of leadership behaviors,and thus leadership training may partially explainthis discrepancy (Bono & Judge, 2004); leadershipbehaviors may be less stable than personality charac-teristics. Consequently, personality traits can tell usmore about who is likely to attain leadership posi-tions than how individuals might lead once theymust fulfill those roles.

The Big Five are not the only characteristics asso-ciated with transformational behaviors. Proactivepersonality (Crant & Bateman, 2000), histrionic per-sonality (Khoo & Burch, 2008), secure attachmentstyle (Popper, Mayseless, & Castelnovo, 2000), andpositive affectivity (Rubin, Munz, & Bommer, 2005)are also positive correlates of transformational leader-ship. Of particular interest in recent years is the relationship between narcissism (defined as immenseself-love; Judge, LePine, & Rich, 2006) and transfor-mational leadership. Judge et al.’s study confirmedthat narcissistic personalities possess inflated self-evaluations as evidenced by their high self-ratings oftransformational leadership; importantly, Judge et al.’sstudy also demonstrated that followers rated nar-cissistic leaders lower on transformational leadershipthan did the leaders themselves. These results high-light the role of perceptions of leadership—a topicof growing interest. Accordingly, our discussionnow shifts to the topic of followers’ personalities andhow those personalities might determine followers’perceptions of leadership.

Follower personality and leadership. Any discus-sion of leadership and personality would be incom-plete without accounting for the personality offollowers. A growing research interest suggests thatfollower personality is integral to the leadershipprocess. For example, Bernerth, Armenakis, Feild,Giles, and Walker (2007) related perceptions of LMXto both follower and leader dimensions of the BigFive—leaders’ conscientiousness and agreeableness,and followers’ conscientiousness, extraversion, open-ness, and neuroticism were associated with follower

Barling, Christie, and Hoption

198

11819-07_Ch07_rev2.qxd 3/30/10 11:50 AM Page 198

perceptions of LMX. Schyns and colleagues’ workhas been particularly helpful to our understanding offollower personality and transformational leadership.These authors have shown that followers high onagreeableness (Schyns & Felfe, 2006), conscientious-ness, neuroticism, honesty/humility (Schyns &Sanders, 2007), and particularly, extraversion (Felfe& Schyns, 2006) tend to perceive leaders as moretransformational. Furthermore, follower personalityhas been shown to predict leader preferences:Ehrhart and Klein (2001) showed that followers withhigher self-esteem and achievement orientation pre-ferred charismatic leaders to noncharismatic leaders.

All of these studies suggest that follower personal-ity influences perceptions of leadership; what remainsto be seen is whether or not follower personalitydirectly affects leadership behavior, which wouldoccur if leaders adjust their behaviors to better suitthe personalities of their followers. By contrast, lead-ership style may predict personality. Hofmann andJones (2005) showed that transformational leadershippredicted collective personality; collective-level agree-ableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, and open-ness to experience were all positively related totransformational leadership and negatively related topassive leadership across 68 collectives and 448employees. One cannot rule out the possibility, how-ever, that transformational leaders may select follow-ers with distinct personality traits.

Our knowledge about the relationship betweenpersonality and leadership is enhanced with refinedanalyses, such as studies showing that personality ismore strongly linked with leader emergence thanbehavior and that some personality dimensions (e.g.,conscientiousness) might not be expected to predictcertain leadership behaviors (e.g., charisma; Bono &Judge, 2004). Our knowledge also stands to beenriched by answering questions about how follow-ers’ personalities in tandem with leaders’ personali-ties influence the leadership process. Exploring theseissues will be of importance to future research.

Gender and LeadershipAs perhaps the most apparent individual difference,gender has captured the attention of scholars in

numerous domains, and leadership is no exception.The topic of gender inequalities in prominent leader-ship roles has been actively debated in the publicdomain and thoroughly explored by researchers. Weneed look no further than the 2008 DemocraticConvention, which highlighted the role of gender inleadership as Senator Hillary Clinton aimed for thenomination to be the first female U.S. president. Themedia raised numerous gender issues that apply toorganizational research, such as masculinity in lead-ership (e.g., Romano, 2007) and the interactionbetween follower and leader gender, in frequentlyquestioning whether women would be more support-ive of a female president than would men (Sullivan,2008). These and other issues have fueled muchresearch in this area.

Many gender-based discussions in leadershiprevolve around the question of whether men andwomen are, or can be, equally effective leaders.Certainly, no shortage of research exists asking thisquestion. In a quantitative review of the literature,Eagly, Karau, and Makhijani (1995) found thatoverall leadership effectiveness is not dependent onleader gender, but men and women perform differen-tially better or worse under certain conditions. Maleleaders were more effective (effect sizes corrected forunreliability) when their role was regarded as more“masculine” (β = .19),1 when the majority of theirsubordinates were male (β = .22), and in military set-tings (d = .42). In contrast, women performed betteras leaders in roles that were defined as more “femi-nine” (e.g., required interpersonal ability; β = .20).On aggregate, men were only marginally favored asleaders in terms of leadership evaluations (e.g., in56% of the studies comparing men to women, menwere rated more favorably than women, a percentagenot significantly different from the hypothesized50%), yet when women used stereotypically mascu-line leadership styles (e.g., autocratic leadership; d = .30), were in male-dominated positions (d = .09),or were evaluated by men (d = .15), this imbalancewas much greater and in favor of men (all effect sizescorrected for unreliability; Eagly et al., 1995).

Past research has also explored the predictivevalue of gender on differential leadership behaviors.

Leadership

199

1The effect size statistics reported in this section on gender are positive when in favor of males and negative when in favor of females.

11819-07_Ch07_rev2.qxd 3/30/10 11:50 AM Page 199

Meta-analytic results have suggested that women havea tendency to demonstrate more democratic and lessautocratic leadership behaviors (d = .27 corrected forunreliability; Eagly & Johnson, 1990) and were per-ceived by followers as slightly more transformational(d = −.10) and less transactional (d = .12 for manage-ment by exception active, d = .27 for management byexception passive; Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, & vanEngen, 2003) than their male counterparts. Yet, whencomparing senior-level leaders, men reported higherlevels of emotional expression (which pertains tocharismatic leadership [Conger, 1989]) than women.Thus, although some evidence suggests that men andwomen are perceived differently on various leadershipstyles, extending this line of research will be necessaryif any strong conclusions are to be reached.

Despite the seemingly similar performance offemale and male leaders, men remain far more likelyto hold leadership positions in organizations, whereaswomen are stereotyped to have a lower aptitude forleadership (see Ryan & Haslam, 2007, for a review).In leaderless groups, men emerge as the leader moreoften than do women (e.g., for direct task leadership,d = .37; Eagly & Karau, 1991). What is also notable isthat women may emerge as “social leaders” more sothan men (e.g., for direct social leadership, d = −.12;Eagly & Karau, 1991), and that gender role identitymay be a stronger predictor of emergent leadershipthan biological sex (Kent & Moss, 1994). Althoughsome evidence suggests that the stereotype of womenbeing less effective leaders is beginning to change(Duehr & Bono, 2006), gender inequality in manage-ment roles remains prevalent.

Numerous explanations for this disparity havebeen offered. Women may hit “glass ceilings” thatprevent their rise to high-level management posi-tions, whereas men ride “glass escalators,” quicklyadvancing through the organizational hierarchy (e.g.,Maume, 1999). More recently, Ryan and Haslam(2007) proposed that as women begin to occupymore prominent managerial roles, they are now morelikely to fall over the “glass cliff.” From this perspec-tive, women are most often selected for high-levelleadership positions when those positions are asso-ciated with greater risk, thereby setting women upto be unsuccessful. To illustrate, initial empiricalevidence shows that women are preferred leadership

candidates for projects that have failed in the past orare projected to fail in the future (see Ryan & Haslam,2007, for a review). Unfortunately, inequality begetsfurther inequality because such failure is easily used tolegitimize the women-as-less-effective-leaders stereo-type. It is also possible that gender biases in organiza-tions are learned or modeled. Phillips (2005) showedthat in a sample of Silicon Valley law firms, if the firmfounders had parent firms with few women in promi-nent leadership positions, then the firm founderswere less likely to place women in leadership roles inthe new firm, and vice versa.

Another reason for the scarcity of women in theupper echelons of the organizational hierarchy maybe women’s own motivation to fulfill those roles.Eagly, Karau, Miner, and Johnson’s (1994) meta-analysis of 51 studies concluded that although thedifference was slight, men were more motivated toobtain management roles (d = .22 corrected forunreliability). Stereotype threat may be one explana-tion for this finding. Stereotype threat occurs whenknowledge of a salient negative stereotype (e.g.,women are not very good leaders) causes the stig-matized individual to fear confirming the stereotype,creating anxiety and lowering expectations and/orperformance (Steele & Aronson, 1995). Indeed,Davies, Spencer, and Steele (2005) showed thatstereotype threat limited women’s aspirations tobecome leaders. In two experiments, women wereexposed to gender stereotypical television commer-cials (subtly displaying traditional female stereo-types); in both studies, those women were unwillingto take on leadership roles during a task. However,removing the stereotype threat by telling the womenthat there were no gender differences associatedwith the task restored their motivation. Field evi-dence also suggests that women are less likely todraw on these stereotypical beliefs about women’sleadership abilities when they are more frequentlyexposed to women in counterstereotypical leader-ship positions (Dasgupta & Asgari, 2004). In lightof the growing number of women who are obtainingprominent leadership roles in organizations (Ryan& Haslam, 2007), it is possible that downwardbiases on women’s interest in leadership positionsand potential performance within leadership posi-tions, may be minimized in the future.

Barling, Christie, and Hoption

200

11819-07_Ch07_rev2.qxd 3/30/10 11:50 AM Page 200

Topics in gender and leadership will no doubtcontinue to attract the interest of management, orga-nizational researchers, and society at large. Certainly,although gender differences in leadership emergenceand behaviors have been identified, no consensushas been reached as to why gender inequalities inleadership prevail or how they should be addressed.However, the changing demographics of the work-force suggest that these questions will be of increas-ing importance to organizations and to organizationalscholars. To extend our knowledge, and in light ofKent and Moss’s (1994) finding (noted earlier), com-paring the predictive value of gender role identity tobiological sex on leader emergence is one promisingavenue for future inquiry.

Cross-Cultural Leadership and EthnicityWith broad-based pressures for social equality andthe rush to globalization of the past two decades, itcomes as no surprise that researchers have turnedtheir attention to how leadership and culture,nationality, and ethnicity intersect; among these,culture has received the most attention. As definedby Hofstede (2001), culture defines members of anation, region, or group in a way that determinesmembers’ core values. In his classic research,Hofstede distinguished national cultures along thedimensions of power distance, uncertainty avoid-ance, individualism/collectivism, masculinity/femininity, and future orientation. Many organiza-tional psychologists adopted Hofstede’s frameworkto understand intercultural relations in the work-place, and in this section we review some of thatresearch as it pertains to leadership.

To begin, we describe the Global Leadershipand Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE)project that has spearheaded a great deal of cross-cultural research in the field. The GLOBE projectinvolves researchers from all over the world anddiverse cultures, all of whom seek to understand theinterplay between leadership and culture (House,Javidan, Hanges, & Dorfman, 2002). Specifically, forthis 10-year research program, quantitative data werecollected from 17,000 managers in 951 organizationsacross 62 different societies (House, 2004), a mam-moth undertaking. As testaments to the project’seffectiveness, many research studies have used

GLOBE data, and their varied topics demonstrate thebroad spectrum of research questions spawned fromthe intersection of leadership and culture. For exam-ple, Dickson, Resick, and Hanges (2006) used thesedata to investigate different organizational climatesand organizationally shared leadership prototypes,and Den Hartog and colleagues (1999) used GLOBEdata to study cultural-specific implicit leadershiptheories.

Considerable attention has been given to thecross-cultural validity of transformational leadership.This attention should perhaps not be surprising afterBass (1997) wrote “in whatever the country, whenpeople think about leadership, their prototypes andideals are transformational” (p. 135). In support ofthis view, Singer and Singer’s (1990) studies of policeofficers in New Zealand and Taiwanese employeesboth paralleled results from American samples:Transformational leadership was the preferred lead-ership style in comparison with transactional leader-ship. Furthermore, in that same study, the NewZealand police officers displayed more transforma-tional behaviors than transactional behaviors, andthe Taiwanese sample reported that transformationalleadership behaviors were displayed in their organi-zations. Together with studies discussed throughoutthis chapter demonstrating the utility of transforma-tional leadership in other countries (e.g., Canada,Germany, Israel, Singapore, Tanzania, Turkey), cred-ibility emerges for the notion that transformationalleadership applies to contexts outside of NorthAmerica.

As mentioned, Den Hartog and colleagues (1999)tested whether there were certain leader characteris-tics that were universally endorsed. They foundthat trustworthiness, fairness, honesty, and beingencouraging and positive were some of the univer-sally endorsed characteristics of leaders, and they further rationalized that these universally endorsedcharacteristics reflected transformational/charismaticleadership. However, the application of universal negative leader attributes (e.g., being noncooperativeand nonexplicit) to transformational leadership wasnot discussed, and yet there may be valuable connec-tions. For example, as a consequence of encouragingfollowers to think creatively, leaders may appear non-explicit because they refrain from imposing their own

Leadership

201

11819-07_Ch07_rev2.qxd 3/30/10 11:50 AM Page 201

views on others. Den Hartog and colleagues are notalone in supporting the universal appeal of transfor-mational leadership; the numerous MLQ translations(e.g., Felfe, 2006; Shao & Webber, 2006) are anotherindicator of the cross-national popularity and utilityof transformational leadership.

Nonetheless, conceptually and empirically, thereare reasons to question the universality of transfor-mational leadership theory. Specifically with regardto its applicability in China, Shao and Webber (2006)noted that leaders, “even those who are open toexperience[,] will not exhibit intellectual stimulationbehavior, [because it] is incompatible with highuncertainty-avoidance Chinese culture” (p. 942).Similarly, Fukushige and Spicer (2007) argued thatleadership preferences in Japan are distinct from pref-erences documented in the majority of the leadershipliterature based on Western standards. In their study,Japanese workers preferred contingent-rewardleadership over idealized influence and inspirationalmotivation. The authors argued that inspirationalmotivation elicited skepticism in Japanese followers,and idealized influence demonstrated immodesty.Insights such as these illuminate cultural influenceson leadership perceptions; what is seen as optimismand confidence in one context might be interpreted asinsincerity and immodesty in another.

Not only have there been questions about the cul-tural boundaries of leader preferences, but also cul-tural influences on typical leadership behaviors havespurned research. As Gerstner and Day (1994)argued, “The most characteristic traits of a leader inone culture may be very different from prototypicaltraits in another culture” (p. 123). Their resultsshowed that typical traits of business leaders variedacross countries. For example, in India, the top threetypical traits of business leaders reported were indus-triousness, competitiveness, and determination. Incontrast, in France, “determined,” “open-minded,”and “informed” described the top three typicaltraits of business leaders. Furthermore, Rosette,Leonardelli, and Phillips (2008) concluded thatleader race is critical to that leader’s prototypicalityin the United States. More specifically, being Whitewas significantly associated with a leader role, andthe authors argued that one reason for this is the fre-quent exposure to White leaders in North America.

Collectively, these results have obvious implicationsfor leaders working in a national culture other thantheir own, as leaders need to be constantly mindfulof local employees’ implicit expectations of theirleaders. These results also pertain to dynamicswithin a national culture, because people from differ-ent cultural backgrounds, such as ethnicities, inter-act and therefore may hold different expectations ofeach other.

Supporting the notion that within-nation culturaldifferences also influence leadership and leadershipperceptions, Ah Chong and Thomas (1997) exam-ined two ethnic groups in New Zealand, namely thePakeha (New Zealanders who are predominantly ofEuropean descent) and Pacific Islanders, and theirfindings showed the complexity of cultural differ-ences in leadership. They found support for ethnicdifferences in leadership perceptions and also a sig-nificant interaction between leader ethnicity and fol-lower ethnicity: Pacific Islanders reported moresatisfaction with Pacific Islander leaders than withPakeha leaders.

These studies appear to question Bass’s (1997)statement that people from all countries hold pro-totypes of leadership that are transformational.Gertsner and Day (1994) showed that different cul-tures valued different leader traits, and Ah Chongand Thomas (1997) demonstrated that, even withinthe same national culture, preferences for leader-ship varied as a function of leader and followerethnicity. Such findings raise questions about theuniversality or cross-national validity of transfor-mational leadership.

Nonetheless, one explanation consistent withBass’s (1997) assertion regarding the universality oftransformational leadership is that, despite theseinter- and intracultural differences, ultimately thecharacteristics preferred are associated with transfor-mational leadership. For example, open-mindedness(favored in France) is an expression of intellectualstimulation, and determination (favored in India)contributes to inspirational motivation. Moreover,Bass had suggested that transformational leader-ship behaviors may be manifested differently acrosscultures; for example, in Indonesia, boastfulnesscontributes to inspirational motivation, whereasboastfulness is eschewed in Japan, but this does

Barling, Christie, and Hoption

202

11819-07_Ch07_rev2.qxd 3/30/10 11:50 AM Page 202

not mean the Japanese do not display inspirationalmotivation in other ways. Therefore, with regard toAh Chong and Thomas’s (1997) study, PacificIslanders may have preferred leaders of the sameethnicity because they were more attuned to thoseleaders’ displays of transformational leadershipthan to those of Pakeha leaders. On the other hand,accepting such a flexible conceptualization of trans-formational leadership would mean that a fair test ofits validity would be difficult. Clearly, more researchis needed that seeks to understand the differentialexpression of leadership behaviors and the outcomesof such behaviors, within and across cultures. Atpresent, research tends to focus more on demon-strating the cross-cultural equivalence of transfor-mational leadership.

One problem inherent in all cross-cultural orcross-national research is ensuring measurementequivalence; measures of leader behavior are culture-specific because, as mentioned previously, behaviors(e.g., boastfulness) can take on different meanings indifferent cultures. Indeed, Ayman and Chemers(1983) suggested that Euro-American measures ofleader behavior are not adequate to describe leaderbehavior for Iranians. For example, they added newitems to the LBDQ such as “is like a kind father” toreflect the paternalistic society of Iran, and this itemcontributed to a new factor called BenevolentPaternalism. Therefore, Ayman and Chemers con-cluded that “the use of ‘universal’ measures and con-structs [is] likely to lead to uninterpretable researchfindings” (p. 341). This is a potentially limiting issuebecause, in many cross-cultural or cross-nationalstudies, research instruments measuring leadershipare based on items developed in and for NorthAmerican cultures, hence the numerous transla-tions of the MLQ noted earlier. In addition, mea-surement equivalence is necessary for researchfocused on group differences, such as differencesacross nations and ethnicities; “if one set of mea-sures means one thing to one group and some-thing different to another group, a group meancomparison may be tantamount to comparingapples and spark plugs” (Vandenberg & Lance,2000, p. 9). Certainly, future research on leader-ship across cultures needs to be more sensitive tothis issue.

A second problem concerns the ability to general-ize from cross-cultural studies over time. Thus,although Hofstede’s (2001) work has been fruitfulin guiding many cross-cultural studies of leadership,the characteristics inherent in the national culturesstudied may change over time as a result, for exam-ple, of economic recessions and globalization (e.g.,Ralston, Holt, Terpstra, & Kai-Cheng, 1997). Indeed,Fukushige and Spicer’s (2007) qualitative researchsuggested that Japanese work culture was in theprocess of becoming a meritocracy. To account forthese and other changes, contemporary researchshould take the time to reevaluate Hofstede’s dimen-sions and ensure that the cultures studied are accu-rately depicted in their present-day state.

Finally, a third challenge to cross-culture leader-ship studies is complying with the various nationalethical standards for research. Aguinis and Henle(2002) reviewed some of the studies which describedthe differing ethical standards across countries and,in particular, drew attention to Leach and Harbin’s(1997) research. Although there are some universalethical standards (e.g., privacy, avoiding harm, remu-neration for participations), there are also noticeabledifferences, such as China’s ethics codes beingmost divergent from the American PsychologicalAssociation’s (APA) guidelines, as well as the UnitedStates’ standards for sharing and duplicating data.

OUTCOMES OF LEADERSHIP

Jack Welch is a figurehead in contemporary busi-ness leadership (Amernic, Craig, & Tourish, 2007),and this is largely due to performance outcomesattributed to him. Byrne (1998) suggests that

if leadership is an art, then surelyWelch has proved himself a masterpainter. Few have personified corporateleadership more dramatically. Fewerstill have so consistently delivered onthe results of that leadership. For 17 years, while big companies and theirchieftains tumbled like dominoes in anunforgiving global economy, Welch hasled GE to one revenue and earningsrecord after another. (p. 90)

Leadership

203

11819-07_Ch07_rev2.qxd 3/30/10 11:50 AM Page 203

Undoubtedly, the long-standing interest in leader-ship in organizations derives from the widespreadbelief that leaders like Jack Welch have the poten-tial to affect important organizational outcomes.Numerous studies have demonstrated the beneficialconsequences of positive leadership, and transfor-mational leadership in particular, on follower atti-tudes and states and performance in organizations.More recently, there has also been more interest intoleadership’s effect on follower health, well-being,and safety. In this section of the chapter, we reviewthese leadership outcomes, explore the mechanismsthrough which leadership exerts its effects, and dis-cuss the conditions that moderate these effects (seeFigure 7.1 for an overview). First, however, severalobservations flowing from the tendency to attributeso much success to one leader (e.g., Jack Welch)require elaboration. First, the widespread mythslinking single leaders like Welch to the fate of orga-nizational behemoths like GE, with its operations in

62 countries, derive not from sound empiricalresearch but rather from impressionistic, subjectiveaccounts. Second, such attributions ignore the factthat the success (or failure) of any one organizationwill have multiple determinants. The tendency toattribute success to one leader is consistent with the“romance of leadership” phenomenon (Meindl,1998; Meindl, Ehrlich, & Dukerich, 1985), whichwill be discussed in more detail later in this chapter.

Direct OutcomesNumerous quantitative reviews have now estab-lished that transformational leadership relates tovarious metrics of organizational effectiveness, suchas satisfaction with the leader, job satisfaction, moti-vation, follower perceptions of effective leadership,leader performance, and group-organizational perfor-mance. Judge and Piccolo (2004) showed that across87 studies, transformational leadership (r ≈ .44) waspositively related to these leadership effectiveness

Barling, Christie, and Hoption

204

Prelaunch Phase

Dependent Measures Number and quality of

opportunities identified Capital raised Success in attracting high-

quality partners, employees

Individual-Level

Variables

Group-Level

Variables

Societal-Level

Variables

LaunchPhase

Individual-Level

variables

Group-Level

Variables

Societal-Level

Variables

Dependent Measures Time until first sale Time until “break-even” Time until first employee hiredNumber, strength of patents

acquired

Postlaunch Phase

Group-Level

Variables

Societal-Level

Variables

Dependent Measures Financial Measures (growth in

sales, earnings, number of employees; value of initial public offering)

Success in Obtaining Required Resources

Attitudinal Measures (e.g., personal and life satisfaction)

Measures of Entrepreneurs’ Personal Health and Well-Being

Sample Activities Identification of opportunities Initial opportunity evaluation Assembly of required

resources Gathering pertinent information

Sample Activities Choosing legal form of new

venture Obtaining intellectual property

protection Developing initial business

model and strategies

Sample Activities Building customer base Hiring key employees Improving product design Conducting negotiations Influencing, motivating others

Individual-Level

Variables

FIGURE 7.1. Outcomes, moderators, and mediators of leadership. LMX = leader–member exchange; OCBs = organizational citizenship behaviors.

11819-07_Ch07_rev2.qxd 3/30/10 11:50 AM Page 204

criteria, as was contingent reward leadership (r ≈ .39).These results are in sharp contrast to the validityfound for laissez-faire leadership (r ≈ −.37), and theless consistent correlations between management-by-exception and organizational outcomes (allcorrelations corrected for unreliability of mea-sures, measurement error, and sampling error).Judge and Piccolo’s pattern of findings coincideswith earlier meta-analyses (e.g., Lowe, Kroeck, &Sivasubramaniam, 1996). However, Judge andPiccolo go beyond past research by showing thattransformational leadership relates to effectivenessmeasures even after controlling for the effects oftransactional and laissez-faire leadership behaviors.

Generally, studies have considered leadershipeffectiveness at the level of the follower (includingfollower attitudes and performance), the group, andthe organization. Beyond those examined by Judgeand Piccolo (2004), a number of additional followerattitudes show relationships with transformationalleadership, including trust in the leader (for areview see Burke, Sims, Lazzara, & Salas, 2007),commitment to the organization (e.g., Barling,Weber, & Kelloway, 1996), responsiveness tochange initiatives (Herold, Fedor, Caldwell, & Liu,2008), turnover intentions (e.g., Bycio et al., 1995),psychological safety (Detert & Burris, 2007), cyni-cism (Bommer, Rich, & Rubin, 2005), and identifi-cation with the leader, group, and organization(e.g., Epitropaki & Martin, 2005a; Kark, Shamir, &Chen, 2003).

There is also support for the influence of trans-formational leadership and charisma on followerperformance. For instance, in an experiment using atrained actor to elicit charismatic leader behaviors,Kirkpatrick and Locke (1996) found that charismapositively affected follower task performance.Consistent with the “falling dominoes” analogy(e.g., Avolio, 1999b), Dvir et al.’s (2002) findingsalso suggest that leadership can have indirect perfor-mance effects, such that the transformational leader-ship of higher-level leaders positively influenced theperformance of followers who were not their directreports. Moreover, Bono and Anderson (2005)showed that transformational leaders and their fol-lowers played more central roles in advice and influ-ence networks.

Transformational leadership exerts influence onmore discretionary forms of follower performance aswell. Organizational citizenship behaviors (i.e., posi-tive organizational behaviors that go beyond the for-mal requirements of one’s job) are more commonamong followers of a transformational leader (e.g.,Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006). By enhancing intrinsicmotivation, sparking intellectual stimulation, andenergizing followers, transformational leadershipcan also foster follower creativity and ingenuity(e.g., Shin & Zhou, 2003). Finally, transformationalleadership has been related to the development offollowers in terms of follower morality, motivation,and empowerment (Dvir et al., 2002). As describedearlier, Dvir et al.’s study of leader developmentindicated that leaders who received transformationalleadership training had a stronger influence on fol-lower development, particularly on follower self-efficacy and collective orientation.

Evidence for the relationship between leadershipand performance extends beyond the individual fol-lower to group-level outcomes, as was the case in theBarling et al. (1996) study that found a significantrelationship between transformational leadershiptraining and sales performance in bank branches.Lim and Ployhart (2004) focused specifically ontransformational leadership and performance in ateam setting and also found a significant positiveeffect. Moreover, Bass, Avolio, Jung, and Berson(2003) found a strong relationship between transac-tional leadership and unit performance in army pla-toons, and a positive relationship emerged betweenempowering leader behaviors and team performancein Srivastava, Bartol, and Locke’s (2006) study ofmanagement teams.

Less understood is the relationship betweenCEO charisma and transformational leadership andfirm-level performance, possibly because obtainingleadership ratings of CEOs and top-level managers isdifficult. Of the studies that investigated the effectsof CEO leadership on firm financial performance,findings were inconclusive (see Agle, Nagarajan,Sonnenfeld, & Srinivasan, 2006, for a summary).Agle et al.’s recent study found little support for therelationship between CEO charisma and firm finan-cial performance, even in uncertain market condi-tions. Instead, their findings are more consistent

Leadership

205

11819-07_Ch07_rev2.qxd 3/30/10 11:50 AM Page 205

with a “romance of leadership” approach; CEOsincluded in the study were rated as more charis-matic when prior firm performance was stronger,but CEO charisma did not predict firm performanceprospectively. With mixed support, Waldman,Ramírez, House, and Puranam (2001) reported animportant moderating effect: CEO charisma pre-dicted firm financial performance under conditionsof market uncertainty, when CEO discretion isheightened, thereby increasing the potential forCEO leadership to have an effect. Ling, Simsek,Lubatkin and Veiga’s (2008) findings suggest thatfocusing on the initial effects of CEOs’ transforma-tional leadership on top management teams may beimportant in linking CEO leadership and financialoutcomes.

To summarize, ample evidence suggests thatleadership relates to both follower perceptions ofleader effectiveness and to individual-, group-, andin some cases, firm-level performance criteria. Wenow shift our attention away from outcomes thatevaluate leadership effectiveness based on its rela-tion to performance and toward a focus onemployee safety and well-being as metrics of effec-tual leadership.

Leaders have the opportunity to embrace andimprove the well-being of their followers by promot-ing safe working practices. For example, high-qualityleader–follower relationships have been related tosafety communication and commitment, both ofwhich improve safety behaviors (Hofmann &Morgeson, 1999). In another example, Barling et al.(2002) developed a safety-specific measure of trans-formational leadership, and they found that employ-ees of safety-specific transformational leaders weremore conscious of safety concerns and perceived astronger climate of safety in the organization. In turn,higher safety consciousness and climate were associ-ated with fewer safety-related incidents and occupa-tional injuries. This model was later extended tocontrast transformational leadership with passiveleadership styles (Kelloway, Mullen, & Francis,2006). Results confirmed that transformational lead-ers can effectively communicate safety beliefs andraise safety consciousness and climate, yet safety-specific passive leadership can be detrimental in thatit is negatively related to safety awareness.

Outside of a safety context, there is a growinginterest in the relationship between leadership andfollowers’ psychological well-being. Effective leader-ship may reduce workplace stressors, while enhanc-ing followers’ moods and experiences. Epitropakiand Martin (2005a) found a direct link betweenhigh-quality leader–follower relationships and fol-lower well-being, and van Dierendonck, Haynes,Borrill, and Stride (2004) related leadership to fol-lowers’ work-related and general well-being acrossfour time periods. Support for the transformationaland charismatic leadership framework has also asso-ciated this leadership style with follower well-being,in part through mood contagion. Leader charisma isassociated with more positive and less negative affectin followers (e.g., Cherulnik, Donley, Wiewel, &Miller, 2001; Erez, Misangyi, Johnson, LePine, &Halverson, 2008). Transformational leaders also con-tribute to followers’ psychological well-being byhelping them find meaning in their work (Arnold,Turner, Barling, Kelloway, & McKee, 2007). Thesefindings suggest that meaningful work stimulatesintrinsic reasons for working and, as a result, pro-motes resiliency in the face of challenges, as well ashigher quality of life.

Even in its infancy, this area of leadership studiespresents compelling evidence for the effect of lead-ership not only on followers’ attitudes and behaviorsbut also on their psychological health. Before shift-ing our attention toward mediating effects, it isimportant to note that these outcomes of leadershipare not necessarily static. For example, Shao andWebber (2006) argued that “in the long run, intel-lectual stimulation may produce desirable effects.Yet, in the short run, leaders who continually urgefollowers to search for new and better methods ofdoing things may create ambiguity, conflict, or otherforms of stress in the minds of followers” (p. 937). Itwould be imprudent, then, to assume that eitherpositive or negative effects will surface immediatelyor be enduring.

Mediating Effects: Explaining HowLeadership Affects OutcomesAs reviewed, much is known about the outcomes ofleadership, but less is known about how and whythese effects occur. In response, an emergent body of

Barling, Christie, and Hoption

206

11819-07_Ch07_rev2.qxd 3/30/10 11:50 AM Page 206

literature explores the various means through whichleadership exerts its influence. In general, three cate-gories of mediators have been proposed: those relat-ing to follower perceptions of the leader, ofthemselves, and of the job.

Demonstrative of the first category of mediators,we know that there is a relationship between trans-formational leadership and followers’ positive per-ceptions of their leaders. Arguably, these followersfeel a greater sense of commitment to the leader as a result of those positive perceptions and there-fore demonstrate a willingness to exert effort thatultimately benefits an organization. Wang, Law,Hackett, Wang, and Chen (2005) argued further thatfollowers are more likely to reciprocate transforma-tional behaviors as a mechanism of social exchange.They sampled 162 leader–follower dyads and foundthat followers’ perceptions of high-quality LMX(e.g., mutual respect and consideration) mediatedthe relationship between transformational leadershipand follower performance.

Supporting the notion that followers’ perceptionsof their leaders’ attributes mediate leader effective-ness are studies that show a relationship betweenperceived trust in the leader (e.g., Dirks, 2000;Jung & Avolio, 1999; Pillai, Schriesheim, & Williams,1999), leader fairness (for a review, see vanKnippenberg, De Cremer, & van Knippenberg,2007), and identification with the leader (e.g., Karket al., 2003) and desired follower outcomes. Forexample, transformational leaders empower theirfollowers, invite follower contributions to decision-making, are respectful of followers, and are willingto forgo their own interests for the good of thegroup. As a result, followers of transformationalleaders are more likely to trust that their leaderwill act in good faith and will treat them fairly.Pillai et al. illustrated these relationships in a pathmodel, showing that followers of transformationalleaders perceived greater procedural justice, whichpredicted higher trust in the leader and subsequentorganizational citizenship behaviors on the part ofthe follower. In contrast, followers who do not trusttheir leader are unlikely to accept the leader’svision or commit themselves on the leader’s behalf(Jung & Avolio, 2000). Farmer and Aguinis (2005)echoed these ideas in a conceptual model relating

follower perceptions of leader power to various fol-lower outcomes.

Followers may also be more likely to resist aleader’s vision when they perceive the leader’s valuesto be inconsistent with their own. Jung and Avolio(2000) suggested that through communication andinspirational motivation, transformational leaderstransmit their collective-focused values to followers;thus, followers of transformational leaders will bemore likely to internalize the leader’s mission, align-ing their own values with those of the leader. Theseauthors show that transformational leadership is pos-itively related to value congruence between leadersand followers and that value congruence mediatesthe relationship between transformational leadershipand follower performance. Likewise, Kark et al.(2003) found that transformational leadership waspositively related to identification with the leaderand with the group overall. However, the nature ofthe identification with the leader was critical:Personalized identification with the leader mediatedthe relationship between transformational leadershipand follower dependence on the leader, whereassocialized identification with the work group medi-ated the relationship between transformationalleadership and follower empowerment. Thus, fur-ther research is needed to fully understand the con-ditions under which transformational leadership isrelated to follower development and when followersmay become overly reliant on the leader for guid-ance or motivation.

The second category of mediators prominent inthe leadership literature considers how leaders alterfollower or group internal states. Of particularinterest has been empowerment and efficacy at theindividual and group levels. To illustrate, transfor-mational leaders show intellectual stimulation,encouraging followers to voice their concerns and to“speak up,” by creating an environment of psycho-logical safety (Detert & Burris, 2007). In this way,followers are empowered by transformational lead-ers who stimulate their interest and involve them inorganizational visions. Consequently, psychologicalempowerment plays a role in mediating the relation-ship between transformational leadership and orga-nizational commitment (Avolio, Zhu, Koh, & Bhatia,2004) as well as LMX and follower performance

Leadership

207

11819-07_Ch07_rev2.qxd 3/30/10 11:50 AM Page 207

(Chen, Kirkman, Kanfer, Allen, & Rosen, 2007).Similar findings have been reported at the teamlevel: Team empowerment mediates the effects ofleadership climate on team performance (Chen et al., 2007).

Another example of this second category ofmediators is intrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motiva-tion mediates the relationship between transforma-tional leadership and sports performance (e.g.,Charbonneau, Barling, & Kelloway, 2001).Moreover, empowering leadership behaviors alsoenhance intrinsic motivation and have been linkedto knowledge sharing within teams (Srivastava,Bartol, & Locke, 2006). Srivastava et al. supportedthe presence of a second mediator in their study:team efficacy. Indeed, efficacy and empowermentare intimately intertwined (e.g., Chen et al., 2007;Spreitzer, 1995). Giving followers opportunities toshare their ideas and voice their opinions is just oneway in which leaders can influence followers’ confi-dence in their own abilities, and this may be theroute through which empowering leadership gar-ners such positive outcomes (e.g., Srivastava et al.,2006.). The relationship between follower andgroup efficacy and transformational leadership isstimulated through transformational leaders’ indi-vidualized mentorship and coaching, engagement offollowers in the task and organizational goals, andexpressions of confidence in followers’ abilities toachieve group goals (Schaubroeck, Lam, & Cha,2007). Accordingly, group efficacy has been shownto mediate the relationship between transforma-tional leadership and team performance (Bass et al.,2003; Schaubroeck et al., 2007.).

The final category of mediating mechanisms usedto explain the positive effects of leadership relate tothe way in which followers perceive their jobs. Assuggested previously, transformational leaders caninfluence the meaningfulness that followers find intheir jobs (Arnold et al., 2007). Piccolo and Colquitt(2007) called this phenomenon the “management ofmeaning” and showed that followers of transforma-tional leaders find more meaning in their work asmeasured by core job characteristics: task signifi-cance, autonomy, task variety, task identity, andfeedback. In their study, more meaningful workstimulated intrinsic sources of motivation and goal

commitment, which were directly related to organi-zational citizenship behaviors and task performance.Similar empirical evidence suggests that followers’self-concordance, or “the extent to which activitiessuch as job-related tasks or goals express individu-als’ authentic interests or values,” partially mediatesthe relationship between transformational leader-ship and follower attitudes (Bono & Judge, 2003, p. 556). Future research would benefit from furtherexplaining the ways through which leadership caninfluence follower perceptions of meaningful workand, correspondingly, their attitudes, performance,and well-being.

Moderating Effects: Isolating theBoundary Conditions of Leadership EffectivenessOne question that is frequently asked is whetherleadership matters; Nye (2008) refined this popularquestion, asking not just whether leadership mat-ters, but when it matters—a question of theoreticaland practical importance. Research has identifiedfactors relating to the follower, group, leader–follower relationship, and context that moderatethe relationship between leadership and organiza-tional outcomes. Next we consider these influencesin greater depth and point to areas that warrantfuture research.

At the follower level, leadership effectiveness maybe conditional on followers’ levels of positive andnegative affect. Epitropaki and Martin (2005a)showed that the positive effects of transformationalleadership on follower identification with the organi-zation were dependent on the follower’s positive andnegative affect. Followers with high positive affectand low negative affect reported more favorableimpressions of their work, and, as a result of such apositive outlook, these followers were more likely toidentify with their organization. The reverse was truefor individuals with low positive affect and highnegative affect. However, in this latter circumstance,transformational leaders had a relatively greaterimpact on followers’ identification, perhaps throughthe “management of meaning.” These results suggestthat the followers most likely to benefit from trans-formational leadership are those who need leader-ship the most.

Barling, Christie, and Hoption

208

11819-07_Ch07_rev2.qxd 3/30/10 11:50 AM Page 208

This interpretation is consistent with the findingsof Whittington, Goodwin, and Murray (2004). Intheir study, transformational leadership had astronger effect on follower affective commitmentand performance when followers faced difficult orchallenging goals and thus needed guidance.Conversely, transformational leadership exerted lessinfluence on followers when job enrichment washigh (Whittington et al., 2004.). Similar moderatedeffects were also apparent at the team level whereinclusion of a team leader was more relevant toinformation gathering and performance for teamswith an external locus of control than for thosewith an internal locus of control (Boone, vanOlffen, & Van Witteloostuijn, 2005). Leadership ismore instrumental to external teams who lack teampotency and require greater direction and motiva-tion to be successful.

Leadership effectiveness is contingent on aspectsof the leader–follower relationship. Piccolo andColquitt (2006) proposed that followers are moreopen to and accepting of transformational leader-ship under conditions of higher quality LMX, andthey found that transformational leadership relatedmore strongly to follower performance and citizen-ship behaviors under these circumstances. Positiveleadership behaviors may also be more successfulwhen leaders and followers share a sense of com-mon identity or in situations that highlight theirshared identity (Ellemers, de Gilder, & Haslam,2004). Despite these propositions, conceptualiza-tions of high-quality leader–follower relationshipsas both mediators (as described in the previous sec-tion) and moderators of the leadership processremain to be reconciled.

Research on characteristics of leader–followerrelationships as moderators of leader effectivenesshas also considered proximal relationships betweenleaders and followers, but the findings warrantcautious interpretation. For example, Howell andHall-Merenda (1999) showed that transformationalleadership predicted follower performance over a1-year period for followers within close physicalproximity of the leader but did not have an effectwhen followers were physically distant. To thecontrary, others have argued that structural dis-tance between leaders and followers (i.e., when

leaders have an indirect relationship with followersthrough a middle leader) may enhance the relation-ship between transformational leadership and both performance and commitment (e.g., Avolio et al., 2004; Dvir et al., 2002). To add to the com-plexity, structural and physical distances are typi-cally highly correlated (Avolio et al., 2004). Perhapsacknowledging that leader hierarchical “level” dif-ferentially predicts effectiveness can shed light onthis contradiction. Quantitative reviews of thetransformational and charismatic leadership litera-tures have suggested that transformational leadershigher in the organizational hierarchy are some-what more effective than those at lower levels(Fuller, Patterson, Hester, & Stringer, 1996; Judge& Piccolo, 2004). Thus, future research will be nec-essary to disentangle the relative influences of physi-cal distance, structural distance, and hierarchicallevel on leader effectiveness.

As mentioned, there are suggestions that culturecan direct the effectiveness of leadership (Shamir &Howell, 1999). For instance, experimental evidencesuggests that transactional leaders, who focus onself-directed, short-term goals, elicited stronger per-formance from individualists (Jung & Avolio, 1999).Conversely, collectivists may perform better whentheir leader is transformational because such leadersfocus on the goals of the group and a shared pur-pose. Based on a cross-national study of financial ser-vices teams, Schaubroeck et al. (2007) found resultsat the team level that coincide with those of Jung andAvolio’s (1999) experiment: Transformational leader-ship affected team potency more for groups withshared collectivist values. In addition, shared powerdistance values also enhanced the effects of transfor-mational leadership on team potency. Individualswith strong power distance values have a greaterrespect for leaders and thus are more likely to inter-nalize a transformational leader’s confidence in theteam’s capabilities. However, evidence for the moder-ating effects of culture extends beyond followers’ val-ues to the leaders’ values as well. Spreitzer, Perttula,and Xin (2005), for example, showed that leaders’traditional cultural values moderated the relation-ship between transformational leadership and effec-tiveness. Taken together, these studies suggest thatculture is a significant, yet perhaps underrepresented

Leadership

209

11819-07_Ch07_rev2.qxd 3/30/10 11:50 AM Page 209

and under-explored, component of the leadershipprocess.

The final category of moderators that has gar-nered empirical support relates to organizationalcontext. Shamir and Howell (1999) proposed thatcharismatic leadership emerges more often and hasstronger effects in weak psychological situations,which are characterized by ambiguity, whereas instrong psychological situations, which constrictbehavior, the reverse is true. In contrast is Lim andPloyhart’s (2004) exploration of transformationalleadership in typical and maximum contexts. A max-imum context consists of three components: (a) fol-lowers are aware that their performance is underevaluation, (b) followers are committed to exertingmaximum effort, and (c) the task is short in duration(e.g., SWAT teams). Lim and Ployhart argued thatthe potential of transformational leaders is amplifiedin maximum contexts (which should seemingly be“stronger situations”) and showed that the relation-ship between transformational leadership and perfor-mance is weaker in typical performance contexts ascompared with these maximum contexts.

Another example of a contextual moderator ofleadership stems from Lowe et al.’s (1996) meta-analytic review, which concluded that charisma wassignificantly more highly correlated with effective-ness in public (r = .74) versus private (r = .59) orga-nizations (correlations corrected for unreliability ofmeasures, measurement error, and sampling error).One possible reason for Lowe et al.’s finding is thatpublic-sector organizations tend to be more consul-tative than their private-sector counterparts, whichare more hierarchical in nature.

Sizeable proportions of the employed workforcein virtually all countries are employed within thepublic sector, making the study of leadership in thiscontext more than a mere passing curiosity. Alsomotivating the need for this focus is the frequentstereotype of differences in leadership and motiva-tion between the private- and public-sector environ-ments (e.g., leadership is “better” in the privatesector). Instead of denigrating leadership withinpublic-sector organizations, a more constructiveapproach might be to learn from them. In this case,given the demonstrated effectiveness of transforma-tional leadership, one lesson might be that changing

to a more consultative and less hierarchical naturemight help private-sector organizations enhancetheir transformational leaders’ effectiveness.

The foregoing discussion of contextual modera-tors suggests that the results of charismatic andtransformational leadership in one context may bedifferent in another context. Along the same lines,Judge and Piccolo (2004) showed that transforma-tional leadership validities differed between orga-nizational and military contexts. This result isimportant because many leadership studies takeplace in military contexts, and their findings havebeen used in support of obtaining similar results innonmilitary organizations. Therefore, a moredetailed discussion of these studies and their find-ings is warranted.

First and foremost, unlike business or similarorganizational contexts, military contexts provide anopportunity to understand the nature, development,and consequences of leadership in life-and-death sit-uations. Second, the fact that military personnel whoare often engaged in highly dangerous work could bevolunteers, regular employees, or involuntarily con-scripted provides a rich context in which to test theintersection between leadership effectiveness and fol-lower characteristics. Third, given the norms andprescriptive behavior in the military, leadershipbehaviors may be more evident in individuals whohold relatively high status in the chain of command(Kane, Tremble, & Trueman, 2000).

Two studies based in a military context provideuseful insights. First, Bass et al. (2003) studied thelongitudinal effects of transformational leadership infour different brigades undergoing tactical missionexercises in the United States. Like others, theyshowed that the effects of transformational leader-ship and contingent reward on platoon performancewere not necessarily direct; they were partially medi-ated by the direct effects of leadership on platooncohesion and potency. In addition, their resultsrevealed that passive or laissez-faire leadership styleexerted negative effects on group cohesion, potency,and performance. Second, the implications of Dviret al.’s (2002) findings for the development of leader-ship, discussed earlier in this chapter, were thatcadets’ performance (e.g., knowledge and use of lightweapons and physical performance on an obstacle

Barling, Christie, and Hoption

210

11819-07_Ch07_rev2.qxd 3/30/10 11:50 AM Page 210

course) was highest in the transformational leader-ship group.

Continuing the discussion on moderators ofleadership, an understanding of the labor-unioncontext, in which union officials exercise little formal power and democracy is integral to uniondynamics, would be instructive. Unions differ inmany ways from private- and public-sector organi-zations. Specifically, although membership issometimes mandatory, participation is voluntary.Leadership occurs at all levels of organizations—andunions are no exception; a great deal of research hasfocused on the lowest levels of unions (i.e., on shopstewards; Barling et al., 2002). In addition, becauseobtaining participation from members is critical forunion survival and success, understanding leader-ship in unions is both a means to an end and an endin itself. Beginning in the 1950s, leadership researchemphasized typologies of union leaders’ behavior.Gouldner (1947) first differentiated between unionleaders who were focused on bread-and-butterissues and those who were governed by more pro-gressive priorities. Batstone, Boraston, and Frenkel(1977) extended this model, suggesting four “types”of union leaders, namely, the leader, cowboy, nascentleader, and populist leader.

Later, researchers applied existing leadership the-ories to the unionized context. Consistent with LMXtheory, McClane (1991) initially showed the impor-tance of the interaction between union leaders andtheir members and identified some critical personal-ity factors that moderated this relationship. However,most of the subsequent research has focused ontransformational leadership, showing that transfor-mational leadership influences union attitudes andunion participation (e.g., Catano, Pond, & Kelloway,2001; Fullagar, McCoy, & Shull, 1992; Kelloway& Barling, 1993). Nonetheless, given the democra-tic nature of unions, it remains for research toinvestigate directly just how the unionized contextmight moderate the effects of transformationalleadership.

In summary, although a great deal of knowledgehas emerged from studying the outcomes of leader-ship, further conceptual and empirical attention isneeded to fully appreciate the leadership process,particularly in terms of its mechanisms and contin-

gencies. We hope that this relatively brief reviewstimulates thought toward such endeavors.

EXPLORING THE ROLE OF FOLLOWERS IN LEADERSHIP

So far, we have focused our attention exclusively onleaders and leadership. However, any act of leader-ship requires the active involvement of, and agree-ment by, followers. In this next section, we reversethis bias by introducing followers into our under-standing of leadership. There are many reasons whyfollowers look to their leaders, one of which is to helpthem to make sense of organizational life (Pfeffer,1977). To understand how followers engage in sense-making, we turn our discussion to topics involvingthe social construction of leadership, focusing on twoframeworks: the “romance of leadership” (Meindl et al., 1985) and implicit leadership theories (ILTs;Epitropaki & Martin, 2005b). We then consider thesocial identity analysis of leadership, which relatesboth leader and follower properties to the emergenceand effectiveness of leadership. All of these frame-works help to accomplish our goal of shifting the dis-cussion away from leader behaviors and traits andtoward followers’ perceptions of those behaviors andtraits. Accordingly, this section raises some criticalquestions for future research on followership.

As mentioned earlier in this chapter, an emphasison leader behaviors—or what might appropriately bereferred to as a leader-centric focus—dominates leader-ship studies. Consequently, we know much aboutleader behaviors and how they are associated withfollower performance and satisfaction; in contrast,much less is known about followers’ perceptions ofleader behaviors and how they might be influenced,or be a function of, leaders’ behaviors. Consistentwith a follower-centric focus, in this section we askhow followers perceive and understand leadershipbehaviors.

The “Romance of Leadership”Perhaps nowhere might the concept of the romanceof leadership be better understood than during timesof abject crises. During crises, leadership almostalways induces follower perceptions of leadercharisma; where recovery from the crisis is critical

Leadership

211

11819-07_Ch07_rev2.qxd 3/30/10 11:50 AM Page 211

to the future well-being of followers, such recoveryis often attributed to that leader’s capabilities (Pillai,1996; Pillai & Meindl, 1998).

This process was evident in Rudi Giuliani’s pop-ularity after the attacks of September 11: “He hadcreated ardent critics and foes along the way, but allwere silenced by the stern-jawed competence thatcharacterized the outgoing mayor’s statesmanlikeresponse to the worst tragedy in his city’s history”(Fiorina, 2001, p. 8). Fiorina’s observation illus-trates how a successful response to a grave crisis canoverwrite past “critics and foes,” with much morefavorable leadership perceptions taking their place.Similarly, Bligh, Kohles, and Meindl (2004) wrote ofPresident Bush,

Prior to the events of 9/11, PresidentGeorge W. Bush was generally not seenas a strong, charismatic leader that peo-ple would place their faith in duringtimes of crisis or external threat. . . .the media often characterized thePresident as oratorically challenged. . . .Seemingly overnight, however,Americans embraced the President andhis leadership. Before the terroristattacks, 51% of Americans approved ofBush’s job performance, whereas afterthe attacks, his approval ratings jumpedto 86%. (p. 213)

In both of these cases, one plausible explanation isthat followers are retrospectively romanticizing therole that their leaders played in their recovery,attributing their safety and well-being to the per-ceived extraordinary qualities and behaviors of theirleaders.

The romance of leadership notion has spurredmany research questions that differ significantlyfrom the traditional leader-centric paradigm. Toillustrate: In the traditional focus, ratings of leader-ship (e.g., to what degree the leader exudes powerand confidence) are interpreted as actual accounts of leader behavior; consistent with the romance ofleadership notion, ratings are more likely to be seenas information about followers’ constructions of leadership (Meindl, 1995). Moreover, after gatheringleader ratings from different followers, researchers

typically aggregate those ratings. Aggregation of theratings disregards the uniqueness of each follower’sconstruction of leadership. Inspired by the romanceof leadership notion, researchers would seek toexplain why there are differences or similarities infollowers’ ratings.

Assuming a romance of leadership perspectiveraises several issues. First, formal leadership status,rank, and position in the organization assume lessimportance. When followers’ constructions of leader-ship are critical to a comprehensive understandingof leadership, the importance of informal leaders(e.g., peer leaders) who attract followers’ attentionand commitment increases (e.g., Loughead &Hardy, 2005; Neubert, 1999), even in the presenceof a formal leader (e.g., Manz & Sims, 1987).Evidently, for followers, leadership means morethan official status or ranking in an organization.

Second, although in theory we are all sense-makers, some individuals are more prone to roman-ticizing leadership than others (Felfe, 2005), hencethe development and usefulness of the Romance ofLeadership Scale (RLS; Meindl, 1998). The RLS sug-gests how leader ratings could be over- or under-estimated: Individuals who score high on the RLStend to overestimate leader competencies, whereasthose low on the RLS tend to underestimate leaders(Felfe & Petersen, 2007). These findings shouldprompt researchers and practitioners to interpretfollower ratings of leadership cautiously.

Third, leaders also have romantic notions abouttheir own leadership style and may encourage theromance of their leadership so as to garner followersupport and approval (Gray & Densten, 2007).One way of romanticizing one’s own leadership isto deemphasize one’s faults, which may be doneunconsciously (e.g., leaders deceive themselves intobelieving their own rhetoric) or consciously (e.g.,they deliberately manage a favorable impression;Gray & Densten).

Fourth, the “romance” of leadership does notimply only positive constructions of leadership.

If a positive halo exists, people may seeeven obviously poor performance in asomewhat positive light if they attributeit to the efforts and activities of top

Barling, Christie, and Hoption

212

11819-07_Ch07_rev2.qxd 3/30/10 11:50 AM Page 212

management. But it is more likely thatthe halo is negative when people evalu-ate poor performance—when leader-ship appears to have produced pooroutcomes, observers may view thoseoutcomes in an exaggeratedly negativeway. (Meindl & Ehrlich, 1987, p. 105)

In other words, followers can attribute both organi-zational successes and organizational failures to lead-ers during sense-making (e.g., Bligh, Kohles, Pearce,Justin, & Stovall, 2007; Boeker, 1992; Cameron,Kim, & Whetten, 1987). Therefore, what is beingromanticized is the power of leaders (to bring aboutsuccess or failure), not the leaders themselves.

Implicit Leadership TheoriesImplicit leadership theory (ILT) originates fromleadership categorization theory, which suggests thatexpectations and beliefs about the “ideal leader”serve as standards against which we compare ouractual leaders (Lord & Maher, 1993). ILT researchhas investigated the distinctions among expectationsand beliefs about “ideal leaders,” “leaders in gen-eral,” “effective leaders,” “supervisors,” and “leadersworthy of influence” (e.g., Kenney, Schwartz-Kenney,& Blascovich, 1996; Offermann, Kennedy, & Wirtz,1994). Much of the initial research was conducted inlaboratories, but more recent research has appliedILT to the field. Offermann et al. conducted a seriesof studies using university students and employedadults. The results of these studies yielded eightdimensions that were frequently used to describeleaders: sensitivity, dedication, tyranny, charisma,attractiveness, masculinity, intelligence, andstrength. Ever since these dimensions were identi-fied, subsequent research has asked questions suchas “What are the implications for leaders, leadership,and organizations of matching or not matching a fol-lower’s implicit notions of leadership with specificleaders?” and “Where do these ILTs originate?”

To answer these and other questions, Epitropakiand Martin (2005b) investigated the extent to whichfollowers’ actual leaders matched those followers’ILTs and whether the degree of matching signifi-cantly predicted relationship quality, work attitudes,and well-being. As predicted, closer matches were

significantly related to ratings of leader–followerrelationship quality, and relationship quality relatedto attitudes (e.g., job satisfaction) and well-being.Additionally, Epitropaki and Martin (2005a) col-lected data a year later from the same participants andused cross-lagged modeling analyses to test for thefeedback loop originally proposed by Lord and Maher(1993). If a feedback loop exists, then individualsshould update their ILTs when they are confrontedwith contrary evidence. A research question thattests the feedback loop could be, “What happens tothe structure of one’s ILTs if the characteristic ‘male’ ispart of the ILTs, and yet one’s male leader fails at abusiness venture?” Epitropaki and Martin (2005a)sought to better understand whether the feedbackloop existed and how it worked. However, no sup-port for the feedback loop was found: Followers’perceptions of leaders tended to be stable over timedespite any disconfirming evidence. However,Epitropaki and Martin (2005a) maintained that afeedback loop may still exist; one year of exposure todisconfirming evidence may not have been sufficientto have an effect on follower perceptions. Overall,Epitropaki and Martin’s (2005a) research demon-strated that despite the abstract nature of ILTs, theyhave practical implications for organizations andwork outcomes.

Keller (1999) provided insight into the origin ofILTs. Although Offermann et al.’s (1994) initialresearch specified eight leader dimensions, Keller(1999) related each dimension to the Big Fivedimensions of personality mentioned earlier in thischapter. For example, agreeableness and sensitivitywere correlated. Expanding our understanding ofthe development of leadership, Keller also examinedthe role of parenting style in this study. She con-cluded that an individual’s ideal leader images weresignificantly related to that individual’s perceptionsof his/her parents; if one’s parents were perceived astyrannical, then tyrannical was integral to his/herperception of an ideal leader. Keller’s research goesbeyond understanding the structure of ILTs andtoward understanding the source of them.

As presented here, research on the social con-struction of leadership (whether focusing on theromance of leadership or ILTs) accentuates the roleof follower cognitions in attributing leadership and

Leadership

213

11819-07_Ch07_rev2.qxd 3/30/10 11:50 AM Page 213

identifying leaders. Despite progress in this area,important questions remain. Although the concep-tual role of ILTs is obvious—they influence people’sexpectations about their leaders—empirical researchhas yet to establish how extensive ILTs are in thefirst place. Looking forward, attempts should alsobe made to track the stability of ILTs over time. Inaddition, how much others’ (e.g., parents’, firstsupervisors’, peers’) expectations and beliefs aboutleaders affect one’s own ideal leader traits needs tobe better understood. A rich understanding of followership awaits a social constructionist view of leadership.

PrototypicalityIn the predominant leader-centric tradition, heroicimages of leaders overshadow the role of the groupthat the leader belongs to and leads, yet many leaderbehaviors are targeted toward mobilizing followers,emphasizing group goals, and uplifting group morale(Chemers, 2001). Accordingly, group characteristicsare critical for leader effectiveness. The social identityanalysis of leadership postulates that the congruencebetween group characteristics and leader characteris-tics is critical to understanding evaluations of leadereffectiveness and leader endorsement. The termleader group prototypicality is used throughout this lit-erature to describe the extent to which leaders repre-sent group norms, values, and standards, also knownas group prototypes. Group prototypes are “fuzzy setsof characteristics that in a given context define thegroup” and they “describe and prescribe group mem-bership appropriate attributes and behavior in a spe-cific context” (Giessner & van Knippenberg, 2008,p. 15); this effect is heightened as the salience of thegroup increases (Hogg, 2001). The social identityanalysis of leadership that underlies group prototypi-cality describes the mechanisms through which lead-ers emerge and gain follower endorsement.

Unlike LMX and transformational leadership the-ory, which focus on the nature of leadership, thesocial identity analysis of leadership is concernedwith identifying the features of leaders and followersthat critically define a leader’s emergence and devel-opment (van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg,2005). In addition, unlike implicit leadership theo-ries, which provide a within-person understanding

of leadership, prototypicality addresses relationalissues between followers, groups, and leaders. Thesocial identity analysis of leadership addresses itselfto questions such as “To what extent does groupcomposition relate to leader effectiveness?” “Howdo groups select their leaders?” and “Why do someleaders gain significantly more follower supportthan other leaders?”

A major tenet of the social identity analysis ofleadership is that the group member who most accu-rately embodies the group’s values and norms isthe most likely to emerge as the group’s leader. Oneexample of this derives from the fashion industry,where leadership succession is frequent and groupprototypes are not only readily observable but arealso potential sources for competitive advantage. Inthat industry, successors are pressured to maintain afashion house’s values and standards while simulta-neously injecting their own uniqueness into eachcollection. Valentino Garavani’s announced depar-ture from his fashion house in 2007 led to a searchfor his successor, with Alessandra Facchinettieventually named as his replacement. The CEO ofValentino Fashion Group, Stefano Sassi, remarked,“Facchinetti is the designer who can interpret andcontinue the legacy of Valentino’s core values at theirbest” (Barnett, 2007), suggesting that Facchinetti’ssuccessful emergence as the house’s leader wasbased, at least in part, on her ability to accuratelyrepresent the group prototype (i.e., “Valentino’score values”).

In a second example, after CEO Robert Meersannounced his retirement from the primarilywomen’s clothing retailer Lululemon Athletica Inc.,Christine Day was named his successor in April2008. Clearly expressing an interest in preservingthe group prototype, founder and chairman ChipWilson had said earlier in February, “I have a questnow to turn Lululemon into truly a women’s com-pany. I believe the next CEO will be a woman”(Shaw, 2008, p. FP7). Having a female CEO reflectsand reinforces Lululemon’s interest in women’shealth and lifestyle issues; indeed, Day admitted toparticipating in yoga, Pilates, and running—activitiesto which Lululemon caters with its fitness-brandmerchandise (Constantineau, 2008). Meers furtheraffirmed the importance of Day’s representation of

Barling, Christie, and Hoption

214

11819-07_Ch07_rev2.qxd 3/30/10 11:50 AM Page 214

the organization: “She also happens to be our targetcustomer—she lives and breathes it, and that wasexactly what I was looking for” (Constantineau,2008). Wilson intimated that Day will have a hand in creating “female-friendly policies,” under-scoring how much the organization values being a “strong women’s company” (Shaw). Moreover,being female, Day enhances her leader group proto-typicality, as the majority of the organization’semployees are women.

The social identity analysis of leadership can beapplied to both examples; leader role occupancyand emergence were dependent on the congruencebetween the organization’s and the successor’s val-ues, norms, and standards, thereby enhancingleader group prototypicality. Beyond leader emer-gence (e.g., van Knippenberg, van Knippenberg, & van Dijk, 2000), research findings support thenotion that leader group prototypicality is associ-ated with leader endorsement (e.g., Platow & vanKnippenberg, 2001), ratings of effectiveness (e.g.,Hains, Hogg, & Duck, 1997), and persuasiveness(e.g., van Knippenberg, Lossie, & Wilke, 1994),and it affords prototypical leaders latitude in theiractions (Giessner & van Knippenberg, 2008).Likewise, the effects of leader group prototypicalityare more pronounced when group members stronglyidentify with the group (e.g., Hains et al.; Hogg,Hains, & Mason, 1998; Platow & van Knippenberg).The underlying rationale is that leader group proto-typicality conveys to followers the notion that theleader is aligned with collective interests and is trulya member of the group, and it reinforces the group’sidentity (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, &Wetherell, 1987).

Despite such findings, there is no empiricalsupport for the relationship between leader proto-typicality and objective measures of performance.Nonetheless, group-prototypical leaders fare betterwith respect to evaluations of effectiveness. Giessnerand van Knippenberg (2008) reported that in times offailure, leaders who were prototypical of group normswere judged less harshly than leaders who were lessprototypical of group norms. Leader prototypicality,then, provided a “license to fail.” Similarly, leaderprototypicality also provides what may be thought ofas a “license to eccentricity.” The positive feelings

surrounding a prototypical leader (e.g., who is pre-sumed to have the collective’s interests at heart)could afford the leader leeway in his or her actions(including actions that lead to failure) that shouldextend to that individual’s unconventional or riskybehaviors (van Knippenberg et al., 2000; vanKnippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005).

The situation of low group prototypicality hasalso been studied. Van Knippenberg and vanKnippenberg (2005) found a significant relationshipbetween leader self-sacrifice and evaluations ofleader effectiveness, and this was most pronouncedfor leaders who were low in group prototypicality.This finding suggests that leaders’ self-sacrificingbehaviors may compensate for the lack of group pro-totypicality: Self-sacrificing behavior, not unlike groupprototypicality, signals that a leader is genuinely inter-ested in the collective good. Future directions forresearch may take this a step further and posit situa-tions in which low leader group prototypicality isactually beneficial for followers, such as duringtimes of change or when the group’s culture is counterproductive.

Relatively new to leadership studies, the socialidentity analysis of leadership is predominantly studied in laboratory experiments. It follows that thechallenge is to apply these concepts to real-world sit-uations or to experiments that maximize ecologicalvalidity, where group prototypes and leader proto-typicality may not be as salient as they appear inexperiment designs. In this vein, Hogg and col-leagues (2006) conducted an experiment in whichthe group prototype was not explicit. To create anambiguous group prototype, they manipulated thesalience of either a stereotypically feminine (e.g., cre-ative) or masculine (e.g., rational) group norm ratherthan explicitly stating that the group prototype was“male” or “female.” They also manipulated leadergender and measured participants’ sex-role orienta-tion (i.e., beliefs about female and male behavioralnorms), and they found that even when the groupprototype was ambiguous, male leaders were judgedas more effective when the group prototype wasstereotypically masculine. Similarly, female leaderswere judged as more effective when the group proto-type was stereotypically feminine. It follows that evenunder conditions of inexplicitness the significance

Leadership

215

11819-07_Ch07_rev2.qxd 3/30/10 11:50 AM Page 215

of a group prototype for leadership endorsement isnot diminished.

To further improve upon the generalizability offindings from this area of research, it would be usefulto investigate leader emergence, endorsement, andperceptions in groups without any group prototypes.The absence of a group prototype may be more rep-resentative of the real-world context in which (newand temporary) groups operate. Following the earlierexamples of Valentino and Lululemon, future fieldresearch may also explore the phenomena of leaderemergence on group norms (i.e., Day’s contributionto a “women’s company”) as well as group normscontributing to leader emergence (i.e., Facchinetti’sfit with the established Valentino norms) in tandem.

The social identity analysis of leadership providesa fresh perspective that depicts a relational model ofleadership: The characteristics that support a leader’sendorsement and emergence are specific to the groupbeing led. Reflecting its social identity and self-categorization foundations, the social identity analysisof leadership promotes research where the variables ofinterest are followers’ perceptions, such as their per-ceptions of a leader’s representativeness of the group,and curiosity lies in the cognitive processes in whichfollowers engage to inform their perceptions.

DESTRUCTIVE LEADERSHIP

Until now, we have focused primarily on high-qualityleadership. Unfortunately, not all leadership iseither ethical or productive. In this section, wereview common conceptualizations of undesirableleadership styles, including passive, abusive, andunethical leadership. (See also Vol. 3, chap. 15, thishandbook.)

Neglectful and Abusive LeadershipFor the most part, the effects of passive leadershiphave been compared with those of active leadership(e.g., by comparing laissez-faire with transforma-tional leadership). It is widely held that passive lead-ership fails to produce the positive outcomes ofmore active leadership styles (Skogstad, Einarsen,Torsheim, Aasland, & Hetland, 2007), but it is notnecessarily presumed to result in negative effects.Only rarely has passive leadership been linked to

detrimental results. A meta-analysis of the full-rangemodel of transformational leadership showed thatlaissez-faire leadership was negatively related toleader effectiveness (r = −.54), and that followers oflaissez-faire leaders tended to be dissatisfied withtheir jobs (r = −.28) and leaders (r = −.58; all cor-relations corrected for unreliability of measures,measurement error, and sampling error; Judge &Piccolo, 2004). Skogstad et al. (2004) extendedthese findings to show that passive, indirect leader-ship also predicted role ambiguity, role conflict,conflict with coworkers, bullying behaviors, and,indirectly, psychological distress.

Similarly, passive leadership may also be con-ceptualized as neglectful, particularly with respectto employee safety. Earlier we described how trans-formational leaders may act as role models of safebehaviors, lowering incidents of workplace injuries.Conversely, passive leaders are detached from theirleadership responsibilities and unlikely to beinvolved in promoting safety behaviors (Kellowayet al., 2006). As a result, instead of acting as rolemodels, passive leaders signal that safety is un-important, and such neglect can have adverseeffects on safety outcomes. Kelloway et al. (2006)provided empirical support for this proposition,finding that safety-specific passive leadership negatively predicted safety-related outcomes even after accounting for the positive effects of safety-specific transformational leadership. Morerecently, Hinkin and Schriesheim (2008) showedin a series of four studies that when leaders avoidgiving appropriate rewards and punishment, followerperceptions (satisfaction and perceptions of effective-ness) of the leader are negatively influenced, as aresubordinates’ perceptions of role clarity and supervi-sors’ perceptions of their subordinates’ performance.

Kelloway et al. (2006) made a clear distinctionbetween the passive leadership that they studied anddirectly abusive leadership, suggesting that, in thecase of safety, leaders are more likely to overlooksafety issues than to purposefully or maliciouslyobstruct and compromise the safety of their employ-ees. A separate line of research has clarified thebehaviors of abusive supervision, despite its relativeinfrequency (e.g., Tepper, 2000; Zellars, Tepper, &Duffy, 2002; for a detailed review of the abusive

Barling, Christie, and Hoption

216

11819-07_Ch07_rev2.qxd 3/30/10 11:50 AM Page 216

supervision literature, see Tepper, 2007). Tepper(2000) defined abusive supervisions as “subordinates’perceptions of . . . the extent to which supervisorsengage in the sustained display of hostile verbal andnonverbal behaviors, excluding physical contact” (p. 178, emphasis in original). Example behaviorsinclude criticizing followers in front of others,yelling at followers, belittling followers, lying, andunjustifiably blaming followers for mistakes.

Abusive supervision predicts a host of negativeoutcomes, including follower deviance, poor attitudesand performance, turnover, diminished psychologicalhealth, and poorer work-family functioning (seeTepper, 2007, for a review). Abusive supervision isalso met with greater follower resistance (Tepper,Duffy, & Shaw, 2001). Tepper, Moss, Lockhart, andCarr (2007) reported that followers of abusive super-visors tended to use “regulative maintenance commu-nication tactics” that involved maintaining theleader–follower relationship through avoidance andevasion tactics (e.g., distorting negative reports toprevent a punitive reaction from the leader).Ironically, Tepper et al. (2007) found that such tac-tics actually exacerbate the relationship between abu-sive supervision and follower psychological distress.

Two primary mediators relate abusive supervisionto these dysfunctional outcomes, namely, percep-tions of injustice and lack of control. Followers ofabusive supervisors are likely to feel unfairly treated,explaining both their resultant negative attitudes andstates and also their retaliatory behaviors (e.g.,Tepper, 2000; Zellars et al., 2002). Followers mayretaliate against an abusive supervisor not only torestore equity but also to regain a sense of personalcontrol over the situation. Mitchell and Ambrose(2007) showed that followers of abusive supervisorswere more likely to display deviant behaviors towardtheir supervisor and that this relationship wasstronger when followers held negative, “an eye for aneye,” reciprocity beliefs. In addition, followers actedmore defiantly toward others in the organization aswell, suggesting that their inability to restore justiceand personal control may have initiated displacedaggression.

An equally interesting stream of research hasconsidered how displaced aggression can explainabusive supervision (Tepper, 2007). In a study of

supervisors, followers, and followers’ family mem-bers, Hoobler and Brass (2006) found evidenceconsistent with the notion that supervisors displacedtheir anger on followers, as evidenced by abusivesupervisory behaviors, and that followers displacedtheir aggression onto their family members.Specifically, when supervisors perceived a breach intheir psychological contract with their organizations,then followers were more likely to report abusivesupervisory behaviors; this was particularly the casefor leaders with a hostile attribution bias or the ten-dency to overly blame others. Moreover, familymembers of abused followers reported higher levelsof family undermining committed by the abused fol-lowers. A second empirical study also lends somesupport to the displaced aggression theory of abusivesupervision. In this study, leaders who experiencedinteractional injustice from their immediate super-visors were more likely to be perceived by their fol-lowers as abusive. However, this relationship onlyheld for supervisors with an authoritarian leadershipstyle (Aryee, Chen, Sun, & Debrah, 2007).

Although concern about the predominant nega-tive focus in much of psychology is not new, suchnegativity may be less prevalent in the field of leader-ship, with its strong emphasis on the benefits of posi-tive leadership. In fact, further research is required tomore fully understand the antecedents of abusivesupervision and how follower attributes and behav-iors moderate these relationships (Tepper, 2007).For example, leader depression is one empiricallytested predictor of abusive supervision (Tepper,Duffy, Henle, & Lambert, 2006), while other pro-posed antecedents, such as leader personality andorganizational culture, remain unexplored (Tepper,2007). Perhaps one explanation for the overall lackof studies on negative leadership is that leaders’behaviors are not always consistent; for example,they could be charismatic, yet also display bouts ofhostile behavior (Pfeffer, 2007). Steve Jobs of AppleComputer might reflect this: He has been creditedwith reviving Apple and painted as charismatic in theprocess (e.g., Harvey, 2001), but he also has a repu-tation for “sadistic perfectionism, often without dis-cernible provocation” (Berglas, 1999, p. 29). Thesecomplexities and inconsistencies are difficult tocapture in single studies but must be reflected in

Leadership

217

11819-07_Ch07_rev2.qxd 3/30/10 11:50 AM Page 217

research to avoid simplistic interpretations of “purelyevil” (or “purely good”) leaders.

We now turn our attention to unethical leader-ship, which goes beyond behaviors and spotlightsleaders’ values, beliefs, and morals.

Unethical LeadersDespite considerable concern devoted to this issueby the lay public, the ethics of leadership has all toooften escaped systematic study by organizationalscholars (Brown, Treviño, & Harrison, 2005),although this critical omission is now being reversed.Greater attention is being accorded to ethical issuesin leadership from an array of different approaches,such as personality (e.g., House & Howell, 1992;Judge et al., 2006), values (e.g., Bass & Steidlmeier,1999), moral reasoning (Turner, Barling, Epitropaki,Butcher, & Milner, 2002), moral orientation (Simola,Barling & Turner, in press), generalized ethicalleadership (Brown et al.), follower attributions(Dasborough & Ashkanasy, 2002), and behavioralintegrity (Dineen, Lewicki, & Tomlinson, 2006).

Brown et al. (2005) defined ethical leadership as“the demonstration of normatively appropriate con-duct through personal actions and interpersonalrelationships, and the promotion of such conduct tofollowers through two-way communication, rein-forcement, and decision-making” (p. 120). Theauthors conceptually distinguished this concept ofethical leadership from other similar constructs,such as transformational leadership and leader hon-esty, and showed that ethical leadership was posi-tively associated with follower satisfaction with theleader, job dedication, willingness to speak up aboutproblems, and leader effectiveness.

More frequently, scholarly attention has beendrawn to depictions of leaders as immoral or unethi-cal, which should describe leaders who fail to upholdthe behaviors described by Brown et al. (2005). Oneof the most prominent distinctions is between social-ized charismatic and personalized charismatic lead-ers (e.g., House & Howell, 1992; Howell & Avolio,1992) or, in parallel, transformational, and pseudo-transformational leaders (e.g., Bass & Steidlmeier,1999). Personalized charismatic, or pseudotransfor-mational, leaders offer the illusion of transforma-tional leadership through their strong inspirational

appeal. As Bass described pseudotransformationalleadership, “it looks like a transformational leader, itacts like a transformational leader, but in fact it isnot” (Hooijberg & Choi, 2000, p. 298). In contrastto transformational leaders, these leaders place theirown self-interested goals above the collective good;a typical example, according to Bass, “would be theexecutive who cries crocodile tears when downsiz-ing, but then gives himself a big bonus” (Hooijberg& Choi, 2000, p. 298). Pseudotransformational lead-ership is thought to be especially destructive to fol-lowers because these leaders have a powerful abilityto motivate others, while largely ignoring their wel-fare. They may also select followers who providethem unwavering support: “As one former discipleof Michael Milken, the junk bond king, said, ‘If hewalked off the cliff, everyone in that group wouldhave followed him’ ” (Howell & Avolio, 1992, p. 47).

Related to unethical leadership is self-focusedleadership, as depicted in the study of leader narcis-sism. By nature, narcissism may provoke leaders tooverly attribute organizational successes to their ownvirtues and efforts and accordingly undervalue thecontributions of followers. This is an important issue,as anecdotal evidence suggests that narcissistic indi-viduals may be more likely to emerge as leaders (seeRosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006, for a review). However,Paunonen, Lönnqvist, Verkasalo, Leikas, andNissinen (2006) distinguished between what theydeemed as the more positive elements (i.e., egotismand self-esteem) and the more negative elements (i.e.,impression management and manipulation) of narcis-sism, and they showed that the positive elements ofnarcissism predicted leadership only in the absence ofthe negative elements. Research is needed to explainthe relationship between narcissism and leadershipemergence and thus further understand self-focusedleadership styles.

Resisting the temptation to draw conclusionsabout leadership based on outcomes, this section onthe dark side of leadership clearly describes deleteri-ous leadership based on underlying motivations,intentions, values, and behaviors. Moving forward,research may benefit most from understanding whichconditions are more amenable to destructive leader-ship styles, and why, and whether some individualsare more predisposed to the “dark side” of leadership

Barling, Christie, and Hoption

218

11819-07_Ch07_rev2.qxd 3/30/10 11:50 AM Page 218

(Hogan & Hogan, 2001), as well as ways to mitigateany harmful effects (Sutton, 2007).

MEASURING LEADERSHIP

The typical approach to investigatingleadership is not without its flaws. Moreprecisely, by conducting a study thatfocuses on subordinate perceptionsand uses pre-developed measures andapproaches to leadership, we are makinga number of assumptions—assumptionsthat appear, in many cases, misguided.(Hunter et al., 2007, p. 436)

In a quest for “true meaning, substance, and practi-cal utility” (p. 443), Hunter et al. challenged leader-ship researchers to move away from a number offundamental assumptions, including (a) that leader-ship is equally important for all followers, (b) thatfollowers witness leader behaviors and thereforecan evaluate them, (c) that instruments to measureleadership are psychometrically sound, and (d) thatcurrent leadership instruments capture criticalleader behaviors.

It is tempting to regard Hunter et al.’s observa-tions as a critique of the leadership field, but weregard their insights as directing future research. Inthis vein, the present section reviews select assump-tions and debates about common methods in leader-ship research.

As noted earlier in this chapter, transformationalleadership remains the most widely researchedleadership theory, and to date the most widely usedinstrument to measure transformational leadership isthe MLQ (Bass & Avolio, 1990). The MLQ has alsobeen used to assess transactional leadership andlaissez-faire leadership. Despite its extensive use inorganizational research, many concerns remain, pri-marily relating to the factor structure of the MLQ.Bycio et al. (1995) noted that the four facets of trans-formational leadership are so highly correlated that,in practice, it is unlikely that a leader would scorehigh on one facet and low on the others. Moreover,the high correlation between transactional andtransformational leadership has also been raised,and together these concerns have resulted in much

research on the psychometric properties of the MLQ(e.g., Bycio et al., 1995; Carless, 1998; Den Hartog,Van Muijen, & Koopman, 1997; Heinitz, Liepmann,& Felfe, 2005; Tejeda, Scandura, & Pillai, 2001;Tepper & Percy, 1994).

Interpreting precisely what these findings mean isdifficult. From a practical perspective it is evidentthat it is challenging to separate the four transforma-tional components (Heinitz et al., 2005). The fourbehaviors are held to be conceptually separate, butthe consistent factor analytic findings could point tomeasurement problems (which is frequently the posi-tion taken) or might indicate that the four behaviorsare not conceptually separate after all. To complicatematters further, Bass (1998) himself suggested that“transformational leaders . . . behave in ways toachieve superior results by employing one or more ofthe four components of transformational leadership”(p. 5). If a leader has to use only one component oftransformational leadership to be considered transfor-mational, then despite any conceptual differences, allfour behaviors are equally indicative of transforma-tional leadership, and substitutable. Clearly, researchwill need to isolate the most appropriate conceptual-ization and measurement of transformational leader-ship (MacKenzie et al., 2005).

Accordingly, alternative measures for transfor-mational leadership have been proposed. Carless,Wearing, and Mann (2000) developed the seven-itemGlobal Transformational Leadership scale (GTL; e.g.,“encourages thinking about problems in new waysand questions assumptions,” “communicates a clearand positive vision of the future”) rated on a 5-pointLikert-type scale (e.g., 1 = Rarely or never, 5 = Veryfrequently, if not always). More recently, in Herold at al.’s (2008) study, transformational leadership wasassessed using 22 items (e.g., “I believe my leaderencourages employees to be ‘team players’ ” and “Ibelieve my leader shows respect for individuals’ feel-ings”) that were based on the earlier work of Rubinet al. (2005). In addition, Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe (2001) developed the TransformationalLeadership Questionnaire (TLQ), as well as a specificversion for government employees. The TLQ yieldednine factors, including “genuine concern for others,”“accessible and approachable,” and “encouragescritical and strategic thinking.” The comparative

Leadership

219

11819-07_Ch07_rev2.qxd 3/30/10 11:50 AM Page 219

advantages and disadvantages of all these scales,including the MLQ, need to be investigated further.

To complement this discussion of transforma-tional leadership measures, Table 7.2 contains alist of leadership measures that cover many of theleadership concepts in this chapter. Although notexhaustive, this list illustrates the advance of rela-tional leadership measures (e.g., how the leadertreats the follower). This trend has prompted studieson leader–follower agreement, and it presents anopportunity for the development of a measure ofleadership that requires information from both theleader and the follower to capitalize on the uniqueinformation about the relationship that both mem-bers possess.

Departing from how to measure of leadership,we now turn our attention to the question of whento measure leadership, and this discussion identifiesthree perceptual biases that may significantly affectleadership assessment: (a) honeymoon effect, (b) hangover effect, and (c) halo error.

Honeymoon biases occur at the start of one’s tenurein the organization; the enthusiasm of starting a newjob, combined with the organization putting its bestfoot forward for new hires, may solicit (overly) posi-tive attitudes toward the organization; the hangovereffect describes the decline and eventual stability inpositive attitudes after the honeymoon period(Boswell, Boudreau, & Tichy, 2005). Both of thesebiases could influence leadership ratings, with fol-lowers rating their leaders more highly at the startof their relationship (i.e., during the honeymoonperiod). Over time, perceptions of the leaders maydecline as followers gain more information aboutthe organization, the job, and the leaders’ behaviors(i.e., during the hangover period). It follows that thelength of time that the leader and follower havespent together can influence leadership ratings, andresearchers might be well advised to account for honeymoon and hangover biases.

Approaches based on employees’ ratings of leader-ship rest on the assumption that followers have con-tinued interactions with their leaders. In reality, thatis likely not the case; Hunter et al. (2007) askedresearchers to consider the extent to which followersare actually privy to leader behaviors. One way tosatisfy this query is to study specific incidents or

episodes of leadership. Within this framework, themost appropriate time to measure leader effective-ness would be after an episode of leadership ratherthan relying on retrospective accounts. Self-definedepisodes of leadership may be the most appropriate,given the established role of critical moments in(mis)shaping memories (e.g., Redelmeier, Katz, &Kahneman, 2003); on the other hand, focusing onepisodes may promote a so-called halo effect.

A halo effect results from judgments that arebased on a general impression, thereby neglectingspecific acts that may disconfirm one’s generalimpression, and “[a]s a result of the halo effect, indi-viduals are rated as consistently good or consistentlypoor performers, regardless of their variable strengthsand weaknesses” (Nathan & Lord, 1983, p. 102). Tounderscore the importance of this bias, consider thatmeasures of leadership rely on follower perceptionsand that previous research has established that fol-lower ratings are especially vulnerable to halo error(Frone, Adams, Rice, & Instone-Noonan, 1986).Therefore, when measuring leadership, it is impor-tant to note that followers’ ratings of leadership maycontain followers’ general impressions of the leaderand may not necessarily be based upon what a leaderactually does.

We have concentrated on measurement issues inthis section, but methodological issues in leadershipresearch are also pervasive. Hunter et al. (2007) pro-vided important recommendations to address suchconcerns. These included the need for multiplesources of information about leader behavior, pay-ing equal attention to positive and negative aspectsof leadership, accounting for the context in whichleadership occurs, and engaging in multilevel and/orlongitudinal research. Collectively, confronting themeasurement and methodological challenges thatpervade the field of leadership studies will enablethe further development of comprehensive under-standing of leadership.

LEADERSHIP IN RELATED CONTEXTS

Thus far, we have reviewed the leadership literaturefrom a multitude of contexts and have consideredhow leadership effects can be minimized or maxi-mized in different contexts. In this next section, we

Barling, Christie, and Hoption

220

11819-07_Ch07_rev2.qxd 3/30/10 11:50 AM Page 220

Leadership

221

TA

BL

E 7

.2

Mea

sure

s of

Lea

ders

hip

Styl

es, B

ehav

iors

, and

Per

cept

ions

Cons

truc

tM

easu

reSo

urce

Exam

ple

item

(if a

vaila

ble)

Abus

ive

supe

rvis

ion

Char

ism

atic

lead

ersh

ip

Ethi

cal l

eade

rshi

pFo

llow

er s

tyle

Impl

icit

lead

ersh

ip

Lead

er–m

embe

r exc

hang

eLe

ader

ship

sty

le

Need

for s

uper

visi

on

Rom

ance

of l

eade

rshi

p

Self-

lead

ersh

ipSi

tuat

iona

l lea

ders

hip/

lead

er

adap

tabi

lity

Supe

rvis

ory

cont

rol

Tran

sfor

mat

iona

l lea

ders

hip

Abus

ive

Supe

rvis

ion

Cong

er-K

anun

go (C

-K) s

cale

of c

haris

mat

ic

lead

ersh

ipEt

hica

l Lea

ders

hip

Scal

eFo

llow

ersh

ip Q

uest

ionn

aire

Impl

icit

lead

ersh

ip th

eorie

s

LMX-

7Su

perv

isor

y Be

havi

or D

escr

iptio

nQu

estio

nnai

re (S

BDQ)

Ohio

Sta

te L

eade

r Beh

avio

r Des

crip

tion

Ques

tionn

aire

(LBD

Q)Ne

ed fo

r Sup

ervi

sion

Sca

le

Rom

ance

of L

eade

rshi

p Sc

ale

(RLS

)

Revi

sed

self-

lead

ersh

ip q

uest

ionn

aire

(RSL

Q)Le

ader

ship

Effe

ctiv

enes

s an

d Ad

apta

bilit

yDe

scrip

tion

(LEA

D) in

stru

men

tSu

perv

isor

y Co

ntro

l Ove

r Wor

k Pe

rform

ance

Mul

tifac

tor L

eade

rshi

p Qu

estio

nnai

re (M

LQ)

Glob

al T

rans

form

atio

nal L

eade

rshi

p (G

TL)

“My

boss

tells

me

my

thou

ghts

or f

eelin

gs a

re s

tupi

d.”

“App

ears

to b

e a

skill

ful p

erfo

rman

ce w

hen

pres

entin

g to

agr

oup.

”“D

iscu

sses

bus

ines

s et

hics

or v

alue

s w

ith e

mpl

oyee

s.”

“Are

you

r per

sona

l wor

k go

als

alig

ned

with

the

orga

niza

-tio

n’s

prio

rity

goal

s?”

How

cha

ract

eris

tic is

eac

h tra

it of

a b

usin

ess

lead

er?

(e.g

.,do

min

ant,

sens

itive

)

“How

wel

l doe

s yo

ur le

ader

reco

gnize

you

r pot

entia

l?”

“He

‘nee

dles

’ peo

ple

unde

r him

for g

reat

er e

ffort.

”

“The

regi

on m

anag

er h

as a

mar

ked

influ

ence

on

my

perfo

rman

ce.”

“Whe

n th

e to

p le

ader

s ar

e go

od, t

he o

rgan

izatio

n do

esw

ell;

whe

n th

e to

p le

ader

s ar

e ba

d, th

e or

gani

zatio

ndo

es p

oorly

.”“I

est

ablis

h sp

ecifi

c go

als

for m

y ow

n pe

rform

ance

.”

“My

supe

rvis

or d

oes

not g

ive

me

the

freed

om to

do

thin

gsth

at I

wan

t to

do in

my

wor

k.”

“My

lead

er d

ispl

ays

a se

nse

of p

ower

and

con

fiden

ce.”

“My

lead

er c

omm

unic

ates

a c

lear

and

pos

itive

vis

ion

of

the

futu

re.”

Tepp

er, 2

000

Cong

er a

nd K

anun

go, 1

994

Brow

n, T

revi

ño, a

nd H

arris

on, 2

005

Kelle

y, 1

992

Epitr

opak

i and

Mar

tin, 2

004;

Offe

rman

n, K

enne

dy, a

nd W

irtz

(199

4)Gr

aen

and

Uhl-B

ien,

199

5Fl

eish

man

, 195

3

Stod

gill,

196

3

de V

ries,

Roe

, and

Tai

llieu

, 199

8

Mei

ndl,

1998

; Mei

ndl a

nd E

hrlic

h,19

88

Houg

hton

and

Nec

k, 2

002

Hers

ey a

nd B

lanc

hard

, 198

8

Dupr

é an

d Ba

rling

, 200

6

Bass

and

Avo

lio, 1

990

Carle

ss, W

earin

g, a

nd M

ann,

200

0

11819-07_Ch07_rev2.qxd 3/30/10 11:50 AM Page 221

take a special interest in the studies conducted inthe sports and education contexts. By doing so, weillustrate how organizational leadership frameworksare being applied to other settings and how we canpotentially advance organizational leadership studies.

The Sports ContextSports psychologists have likened coaches to businessleaders (see Kellett, 1999), and as a result the appli-cation of organizational leadership frameworks to asports context has garnered interest. In particular,several empirical tests of the role of transformationalleadership in sports performance exist. For example,Rowold (2006) studied 200 martial arts students andshowed that leaders’ idealized influence, inspira-tional motivation, and individualized considerationpredicted athletes’ extra effort, perceptions ofcoaches’ effectiveness, and satisfaction with thecoach. Inspirational motivation also predicted thefrequency of training each month. Zacharatos et al.’s(2000) study showed the generalizability of thesefindings: Although the average age of Rowold’s sam-ple was 32 years, Zacharatos et al. showed that thesame pattern of results was obtained among adoles-cent athletes. Charbonneau et al. (2001) studied eliteuniversity athletes, finding that the effects of transfor-mational leadership on sports performance were indi-rectly related through intrinsic motivation. Giventhese performance outcomes, it follows that transfor-mational leadership in sports teams may be a compet-itive advantage for sports teams.

Day et al. (2004) did not focus their study on aparticular style of leadership, but they found thatoccupying a leadership role (i.e., team captain) inthe National Hockey League (NHL) was related toperformance—even after controlling for perfor-mance prior to assuming the leadership role. Toour knowledge, there has yet to be an empiricaltest of whether leadership titles in organizationswould yield similar results, and Day et al. alsomade an important distinction between the sportsand organizational contexts. In sports teams, thereare followers—the athletes—and leaders such ascoaches, managers, and team captains, but there issome overlap; that is, a team captain can be consid-ered one of the athletes. In organizations, there is adistinction between leaders and followers—often

defining each role against the other and arguablyplacing more emphasis on hierarchy and status. Thisstructural difference between contexts warrants con-sideration before organizational researchers (or sportspsychologists) transplant leadership frameworksdeveloped for organizations to the sports context.

Revealing another difference between these con-texts, Kellett (1999) interviewed coaches and con-cluded that “leadership” was not an integral part ofcoaches’ self-defined job description, even thoughresearchers are quick to make such a parallel. Kellettwent on to argue that elements of transformationalleadership were rarely referenced in his interviews,yet Kellett also argued that coaches described theirwork as “facilitating the development of others”(p. 165), which is consistent with individualized con-sideration. Furthermore, not confining their analysisto coaches, Hoption, Phelan, and Barling (2007) inter-viewed professional athletes and found evidence oftransformational leadership in sports. To explainsome of the inconsistency, future research mayexplore sports-specific transformational leadership.

EducationThe educational or school context also applies to thestudy of leadership. Intriguingly, effective leadershipin this context may have long-term consequencesfor student attitudes and performance. Whether thefocus is on the influence of principals on teachers oron the influence of teachers on students, many ofthe behaviors under consideration (e.g., student per-formance) are largely discretionary, increasing thepotential influence of leadership.

Like other contexts we have showcased thus far,studies in the education milieu have focused ontransformational leadership, showing, for example,that teachers’ transformational leadership is relatedto students’ perceptions of teacher performanceand students’ involvement in their own studies(Harvey, Royal, & Stout, 2003). Nguni, Sleegers,and Denessen’s (2006) study also highlighted theeffectiveness of transformational leadership but reit-erated that any leadership effects are often indirect.In addition, their results supported the “augmenta-tion hypothesis” (Bass, 1998) demonstrating thatteachers’ transformational leadership providedunique variance after accounting for the effects of

Barling, Christie, and Hoption

222

11819-07_Ch07_rev2.qxd 3/30/10 11:50 AM Page 222

transactional leadership. In another example oftransformational leadership in this context, Sahin’s(2004) study documented the association betweenschool principals’ transformational leadership andschool culture.

Arguably the most comprehensive study in aneducational context is Koh, Steers, and Terborg’s(1995) multilevel study within 89 schools inSingapore. They studied the effects of school princi-pals’ transformational leadership on teachers’ satis-faction, organizational commitment, and citizenshipbehaviors and their students’ academic performance.Their results both replicated and extended otherfindings on transformational leadership. First, theyfound no compelling evidence that transformationalleadership affected student performance directly;instead, like others studying transformational leader-ship and performance, they found evidence for anindirect effect, thereby highlighting the role ofcritical mediating variables (e.g., teacher attitudes).Second, Koh et al.’s data replicated the “augmenta-tion hypothesis”; however, the authors go a stepfurther, showing that transactional leadership didnot account for any significant variance after theeffects of transformational leadership were con-trolled. Third, the importance of cross-culturalnuances is demonstrated in Singaporean contextbecause of one finding that appears to be at oddswith prior research, namely, that principals’ trans-formational leadership did not predict teachers’citizenship behaviors. However, this is consistentwith the notion that many of the teachers’ mea-sured citizenship behaviors were not discretionarybut instead were contractual obligations in theSingaporean context. Last, like findings in the military context (Dvir et al., 2002), Koh et al. wentbeyond this dyadic focus, showing that leaders canindeed affect the performance of the followers oftheir followers.

WHAT WE STILL NEED TO KNOW

As indicated at the outset of this chapter, althoughmuch is known about leadership, much remains to belearned. In this final section of the chapter, we con-sider what we believe are some of the major lessonsthat need to be learned.

FollowershipPerhaps Napoleon Bonaparte said it best: “Soldiersgenerally win battles; generals get credit for them.”The leader-centric studies that dominate research on leadership result in an incomplete knowledgeabout “leadership”; however, advocating an exclusive follower-centric research agenda would result insimilarly unbalanced knowledge. Thus, we advocatea relational view of leadership, one in which leadersand followers together produce leadership. Insertingfollowers into the leadership equation is not novel,but, as reflected in the opening quote to this section,the contribution of followers is underappreciatedand, moreover, often restricted to “obeying orders”and “taking direction” (Baker, 2008).

We join the call for research to combat such apassive stereotype of followers; it diminishes therole of followers in organizational success andleader effectiveness and followers’ ability to moti-vate leadership change (e.g., Deluga, 1987), and bydefault it exaggerates the role and importance ofleaders. Suggestive support for followers as activecontributors to leadership emerged in Dvir andShamir’s (2003) longitudinal study in which lead-ers were rated as less transformational as followersdeveloped their own leadership skills. One possibleexplanation is that with follower development, atransformational relationship emerged, meaning thatthe responsibility to motivate, inspire, stimulate, andnurture are shared between leader and follower.Although the possibility for bidirectional socializationremains to be investigated directly in a leadershipcontext, evidence of such effects exists in other hier-archical relationships, including parent–child rela-tionships (e.g., Glass, Bengtson, & Dunham, 1986).

Developing implicit followership theories (i.e.,expectations and beliefs about followers) might beespecially useful in understanding followership.With expectations on leaders and followers, dyadicdata become essential. Each member of theleader–follower dyad gains meaning from andthrough the other.

Shared LeadershipMoving beyond leader–follower distinctions, whatabout the situation in which many individuals inthe same group demonstrate leadership behaviors?

Leadership

223

11819-07_Ch07_rev2.qxd 3/30/10 11:50 AM Page 223

When this occurs, it is termed shared leadership.Although varied definitions of shared leadershipexist, in general, it is a team property that depictsthe extent to which team members mutually influ-ence each other with or without formal leadership(e.g., Carson, Tesluk, & Marrone, 2007; Ensley,Hmieleski, & Pearce, 2006). Essentially, the pres-ence of shared leadership flattens an organization’shierarchy and harnesses the power of leadership bydistributing it among team members so that peer-to-peer influence flourishes.

Shared leadership is associated with performanceoutcomes in problem-solving groups (e.g., Carson et al., 2007), new ventures (e.g., Ensley et al., 2006),and medical teams (Klein, Ziegert, Knight, & Xiao,2006). In addition to performance, shared leadershipis linked to group cohesion (e.g., Perry, Pearce, &Sims, 1999), collective vision (e.g., Ensley, Pearson,& Pearce, 2003), collective identity (e.g., Shamir &Lapidot, 2003), and creativity and intrinsic motiva-tion (e.g., Hooker & Csikszentmihalyi, 2003).Nonetheless, Perry and colleagues (1999) cautionedagainst the assumption that shared leadership isalways beneficial: “When the inherent benefits ofworking in a [team] are not necessary for the[task], the costs of the shared leadership processmay actually decrease effectiveness” (p. 45).Additionally, Barry (1991) argued that effectiveshared leadership becomes problematic if membersdo not have the skills to demonstrate those behav-iors and if teams are not purposefully composed toaddress a team’s various leadership needs. Equallyimportant, the effectiveness of shared leadershipdepends on team members’ enjoying shared goals(Conger & Pearce, 2003).

Qualitative and conceptual manuscripts outnum-ber the empirical tests of shared leadership. One rea-son for this could be the varied operationalizationsof shared leadership, each of which expresses sharedleadership differently. Conger and Pearce (2003)and Carson et al. (2007) identified aggregation tech-niques, network analysis, and group measures aspossible ways to quantify shared leadership. Eachmethodological approach has its advantages (e.g.,richness of the data) and disadvantages (e.g., com-plicated statistical methods), so it would be helpfulfor future research to compare the use of different

methodological approaches (Conger & Pearce,2003) in empirically advancing our understandingof shared leadership.

Having acknowledged that there are limitations toshared leadership and its operationalization, its bene-fits are still intriguing for many scholars and practi-tioners. The following suggestions have been raisedfor establishing shared leadership: provide feedbackon leader behaviors (Shamir & Lapidot, 2003): offerleadership training for all team members (Houghton,Neck, & Manz, 2003); ensure that the organizationalculture is aligned with team leadership, such asreplacing individual rewards with team-basedrewards (e.g., Hooker & Csikszentmihalyi, 2003);and use an external leader to monitor the rate andprogress of shared leadership (Perry et al., 1999).There is a strong likelihood that team members whoknow each other well will be more likely to engagein shared leadership (e.g., Barry, 1991; Morgan,Salas, & Glickman, 1993; Perry et al., 1999), so it isimportant to keep in mind that shared leadershipemergence requires time and long-term planning.

Authentic LeadershipConsistent with the attention given to some majorethical lapses by leaders, the notion of authenticleadership has attracted much interest since the turnof the century. Following early debate, Avolio andhis colleagues included the following components intheir definition of authentic leadership (see Avolio& Luthans, 2006; Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner,Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008): self-awareness, rela-tional transparency, balanced processing of all rele-vant data in an objective manner before decisionsare made, and finally, an internalized moral perspec-tive. Although the relative newness of this perspec-tive means that few empirical studies have beenreported, Walumbwa et al. have provided a reliableand valid measure, and their data supported ahigher-order multidimensional model of the con-struct. One benefit of these early data is that theywere collected not just in the United States but alsoin Kenya and China (Walumbwa et al., 2008), allay-ing concerns that the concept of authentic leader-ship may be culturally bound.

Important questions remain for this nascent the-ory. On a conceptual level, there are differing views as

Barling, Christie, and Hoption

224

11819-07_Ch07_rev2.qxd 3/30/10 11:50 AM Page 224

to whether authenticity requires a grounding inmoral values (Avolio & Gardner, 2005) or whetherauthenticity requires leaders be true to their valuesand beliefs no matter how socially unacceptable(Shamir & Eilam, 2005). Shamir and Eilam (2005)and Sparrowe (2005) went further, questioning theadvisability of authenticity among leaders who arenarcissistic or who display questionable values.Second, the theory underlying the concept of authen-tic leadership suggests that the four dimensions arerelated but separate, but the available data suggeststrong intercorrelations among the dimensions. Third,given the core characteristics of authentic leadership,it remains for research to demonstrate that it is empir-ically separate from conceptually similar constructs.Fourth, it remains to be seen whether authentic lead-ership can be developed in leaders.

Leadership in Critical MomentsLeadership is often operationalized as the frequencyof leadership behaviors. For example, using the MLQ,followers rate how often their leaders engage intransformational behaviors, and it is assumed thatfollowers construct their ratings by accurately aver-aging those behaviors over a specified time period.However, it may be more likely that leadership hasrelatively greater meaning in times of crisis (Pillai,1996; Pillai & Meindl, 1998) and that followers con-struct their perceptions of leadership in pivotalmoments when leadership is either highlighted orcritical (Tucker, Turner, Barling, Reid, & Elving,2006). Understanding leadership in the midst of thesecritical moments is thus essential to a complete char-acterization of leadership.

How leaders respond to critical moments can bevital. Dutton, Frost, Worline, Lilius, and Kanov(2002) highlighted the need to lead with compas-sion in times of organizational and individual crisis,which could include incidents such as the events ofSeptember 11, a natural disaster, the death of anemployee, or an employee’s unexpected illness.When this occurs, employees are likely to feel agreater sense of commitment to the organization,often enhancing performance. Accordingly, leader-ship behaviors in times of crisis can extend beyondthose critical moments, shaping leader–followerrelationships and the organization into the future.

Supporting this notion is the aforementioned find-ing that leaders’ apologies following transgressionsare related to transformational leadership ratings(Tucker et al., 2006); Tucker et al. argued that apolo-gies are critical moments in the leader–follower relationship and defined such moments as “dis-tinct interactions that, while occurring relativelyinfrequently, serve to punctuate or reinforce thestatus quo” (p. 197).

Similarly, whether or not charismatic leaders aremore likely to emerge in times of crisis has beendebated (for a review. see Shamir & Howell, 1999).Although some studies suggest that charismatic lead-ers emerge in times of crisis (e.g., Roberts & Bradley,1988), evidence to the contrary is not uncommon(e.g., Pillai & Meindl, 1998). Alternatively, it is possi-ble for leaders to frame situations in a way that is per-ceived as critical or extraordinary, suggesting reversecausality (Shamir & Howell, 1999). Nevertheless,recent research suggests that transformational leadersmay be more effective under critical performanceconditions than in more ordinary situations (Lim &Ployhart, 2004). Clarifying these issues is required ifresearchers are to elucidate the role of leadership incritical moments.

Preliminary evidence points to potential differ-ences in leadership behaviors and leadership percep-tions in ordinary versus extraordinary situations.However, many questions remain. Is leadership bestconceptualized as an average frequency of behaviorsover time, or do some situations enhance the salienceof certain leadership behaviors? Do any benefits thataccrue to leaders because of their behaviors during acrisis carry over to an everyday basis? Researchershave the opportunity to provide new knowledge byfocusing on questions such as these.

HumilityOne way to understand leadership is to through thecore role of humility. Morris et al. (2005) definedhumility as “a personal orientation founded on awillingness to see the self accurately and a propen-sity to put oneself in perspective” (p. 1331). Whileacknowledging that other leadership theories alsoaccord a critical role to humility (e.g., level 5 leader-ship; Collins, 2001), the behaviors involved in trans-formational leadership make it as relevant to humility.

Leadership

225

11819-07_Ch07_rev2.qxd 3/30/10 11:50 AM Page 225

Humility has been identified as important to under-standing transformational leadership (Bass & Riggio,2006) in that humility would restrain leaders frombecoming entranced with public adulation andwould influence leaders to be other-focused (Morriset al, 2005). Despite this recognition of the impor-tance of humility in transformational leadership,there has not yet been a focus on how the specifichumility-related behaviors engaged in by leadersunderlie transformational leadership.

Leadership Meets Social NeuroscienceUnquestionably, some of the most substantial andintriguing advances in our understanding of individ-ual behavior over the past 2 decades originated withmerging social and biological knowledge. The fieldof social neuroscience uses broadly based biologicalprocesses to explain social interactions and behav-iors (Cacioppo et al., 2007). This breadth and depthof the knowledge awaits those wishing to expandour understanding of leadership.

As noted earlier in this chapter, an intriguingquestion that continues to bedevil social and behav-ioral scientists is whether leadership is learned orinherited. Several studies based on a behavioralgenetic approach have addressed the relative role ofenvironmental and genetic factors in leadershipemergence (Arvey et al., 2006, 2007). Despite thoseadvances, genetic and biological effects on the devel-opment of leadership behaviors warrant attention androbust empirical examination. For example, testos-terone is consistently linked with behaviors (e.g.,social control and aggression) that characterize nega-tive leadership (e.g., van Honk & Schutter, 2007;White, Thornhill, & Hampson, 2006). There isalso evidence linking counterproductive organiza-tional behaviors to the early emergence of child-hood conduct problem disorders (Roberts et al.,2007). Incorporating leadership into the field ofsocial neuroscience would respond to calls formore integrative theory building with respect toleadership (Avolio, 2007) and open up the field ofleadership development as a viable opportunity forfuture research on social neuroscience (Cacioppoet al., 2007).

Nonetheless, the success of these endeavorsrequires knowledge of the social and the biological

bases of behavior and the research methods underly-ing both. With the majority of leadership researchersbeing trained in the social sciences, collaborationacross fields traditionally seen as unrelated will bea necessity.

HumorAlthough there is some research on humor in theworkplace (e.g., Fleming, 2005; Francis, 1994;Yovetich, Dale, & Hudak, 1990), its prevalence inorganizations is widespread and diverse in nature.Leaders have certainly been exhorted to provide aso-called fun workplace culture (Pfeffer, 1998),including the use of humor (Fleming, 2005). Suchappeals are based on the notion that fun workplacecultures are associated with many benefits, includ-ing increased worker motivation (Crawford, 1994),commitment, and performance (Avolio, Howell, &Sosik, 1999). In this sense, humor is instrumentaland strategic; as explained by Fleming, “humor isultimately a serious business. It is unsurprisinglydriven by very sober corporate motives” (p. 288).

Although humor can sometimes be beneficial,positive outcomes do not always ensue. Avolio andcolleagues (1999) found that the frequent use ofhumor does not always lead to better performance;they speculated that some issues (e.g., setting targetobjectives) were not amenable to humor because oftheir seriousness. Additionally, positive outcomesdepend on the type of humor used. Decker andRotondo (2001) distinguished between negative(e.g., sexual and insult humor) and positive (e.g.,nonoffensive humor) forms of humor and concludedthat leaders who used positive forms of humorreceived more positive leader ratings than leaderswho used negative forms of humor. One questionthat immediately emerges is: Why would leaderschoose to use negative forms of humor?

According to the superiority theory of humor,negative forms of humor (such as insults) reinforcethe hierarchy between leaders and followers(Westwood, 2004). Leaders who want to maintainpower distance may be especially prone to usinghumor in this manner. In contrast, positive forms ofhumor should minimize the distance between leadersand followers (Barsoux, 1996). In essence, humor canbe used to communicate a leader’s values, especially

Barling, Christie, and Hoption

226

11819-07_Ch07_rev2.qxd 3/30/10 11:50 AM Page 226

the type of leader–follower relationship that he or shedesires.

Thus far, we have considered the strategic use ofhumor, but we also acknowledge that humor couldbe an individual difference: People have general ten-dencies when using humor. To this end, Martin,Puhlik-Doris, Larsen, Gray, and Weir (2003) devel-oped an instrument to measure individuals’ humorstyle, the Humor Styles Questionnaire (HSQ). Theydefined four styles of humor usage: affiliative (e.g.,“I enjoy making people laugh”), self-enhancing(e.g., “If I am feeling upset or unhappy I usually tryto think of something funny about the situation tomake myself feel better”), aggressive (e.g., “If I don’tlike someone, I often use humor or teasing to putthem down”), and self-defeating (e.g., “If I am hav-ing problems or feeling unhappy, I often cover it upby joking around, so that even my closest friendsdon’t know how I really feel.”). To our knowledge,empirical investigations into leadership and Martinet al.’s forms of humor have yet to be explored.However, because the HSQ focuses on the joke-teller’s motivations (e.g., to feel better versus to makeothers laugh), it would be useful to explain why lead-ers choose to use some forms of humor over others.

Furthermore, it is possible that leaders use morethan one form of humor, such as both affiliative andaggressive humor, with equal frequency; howwould this impact their leader ratings? It would beinteresting to investigate how followers reconcilethis seeming inconsistency, as well as the situa-tional conditions that may be more (or less) con-ducive to certain forms of humor and the stabilityof humor style over time.

Corporate Social ResponsibilityOrganizations’ attempts to recognize social issues areusually encapsulated within “corporate social respon-sibility” (CSR), which “reflect[s] the organization’sstatus and activities with respect to its perceived soci-etal obligations” (Dacin & Brown, 1997, p. 68). Wewould be remiss if we did not comment on the poten-tial role for leadership in this area, as one might rea-sonably expect that this will become an increasinglyimportant issue for organizations in the future (seeVol. 3, chap. 24, this handbook). In general, mostresearch on CSR has been conducted at the organiza-

tional level (e.g., Bird, Hall, Momentè & Reggiani,2007); it is extremely unusual to encounterresearch on this topic at the individual employeelevel. This remains surprising, as the success orfailure of any CSR initiative presumably restslargely on whether employees identify with the values inherent in the CSR initiative and are willing to go beyond normal job expectations toensure that the initiative succeeds.

Given its value-based focus and empirical researchshowing that it can motivate employees’ discretionarybehaviors, charismatic leadership might be especiallyappropriate in this context. Previous research hashighlighted the effectiveness of charismatic leaders inselling a message and producing rhetoric to justify acause (e.g., Den Hartog & Verburg, 1997; Seyranian& Bligh, 2008), and the societal impact of CSR initia-tives could be consistent with idealized influence’semphasis on the collective good and collectivegoals. In the future, it will be critical for leaders tomove beyond a philanthropic approach to onewhich emphasizes the many ways in which organiza-tion and their members can benefit from organiza-tional responsibility interventions (see Vol. 3, chap.24, this handbook). How organizations respond to,and raise awareness of social issues (e.g., the environ-ment) further illustrates the potential role for andimpact of leadership both within and beyond theorganization.

Leadership SelectionWhile genetic and early family environment influ-ences leadership role occupancy and behaviors,the selection of leaders is in the hands of orga-nizations. To facilitate leadership selection, questionnaires and different assessment tools (e.g., structured interviews; Krajewski, Goffin,McCarthy, Rothstein, & Johnston, 2006) are fre-quently used. Nonetheless, the basic conceptualassumption, that performance on a questionnairecan predict performance “on the battlefield,” isdebatable (Gladwell, 2004, 2008).

Use of personality tests to aid in selecting leadersrests on the premise that certain personality traits areempirically associated with effective (and noneffec-tive; Hogan & Hogan, 2001) leadership behaviors.Perhaps the most widely used personality inventory

Leadership

227

11819-07_Ch07_rev2.qxd 3/30/10 11:50 AM Page 227

for leadership selection is the Myers-Briggs TypeInstrument (MBTI; Gardner & Martinko, 1996;Roush & Atwater, 1992), a self-report measure ofpersonality preferences or “types” developed by themother-and-daughter team of Katharine and IsabelBriggs, that is based on the theory of Carl Jung. Theuse of the MBTI for selection in general, and leader-ship selection in particular, is clouded in consider-able controversy owing to lingering concerns abouttheory, reliability and validity, and appropriateadministration and scoring procedures (e.g., Jackson,Parker, & Dipboye, 1996; Pittenger, 1993). Onestraightforward prediction is that, given the impor-tance of leadership selection and the practical andfinancial efficiency of online questionnaires, therewill be growing pressure to move toward the use ofonline leader selection tools. Nonetheless, practicalproblems need to be confronted, including whetheronline methods can assess the interactive and dynamicfunctions of leadership. The future for leadershipselection tests depends on the availability of reliableand valid tests that can be used appropriately andthat predict the outcomes of interest. It would bepremature to discard leadership selection tests intheir entirety and risk throwing the baby out withthe bathwater (e.g., Paunonen, Rothstein, & Jackson,1999). However, an updated perspective of leader-ship selection and selection tests is warranted. Atthe same time, nontechnological techniques suchas leaderless group tasks (Hooijberg & Choi, 2000)and unstructured interviews might still prove use-ful in leadership selection, and subordinates needto be engaged in the leadership selection process.Moreover, given that a large portion of the leadershipfunction now involves team processes and that teamshold a central role in organizations, team-basedselection will likely be a part of the future of leader-ship selection.

Contrasting Different Leadership TheoriesAs is no doubt evident from the preceding discus-sions, there is clearly no dearth of available leader-ship theories. Although Hunter et al. (2007) havedescribed the content of the typical leadership study,it is also possible to characterize the approach takenwithin the typical leadership study: Specifically,Hunter et al. described research—be it correlational

or experimental, cross-sectional or longitudinal—that tests the central tenets of a single, specific the-ory. One of the ultimate goals of all such researchwould be to make informed judgments about the rel-ative utility and validity of the different leadershiptheories. However, because of the meaningful differ-ences across all these studies—for example, in themeasures used, the outcomes addressed, and thetime needed for interventions to exert any effects—any such judgments would be difficult at best.

Instead, like the research conducted on goal-setting theory some 2 decades ago by Latham, Erez,and Locke (1988) that was designed to disentangleseemingly contradictory findings about the samephenomena from different studies, substantiallymore can be gained at this stage from conductingresearch that a priori sets up fair comparisons(Cooper & Richardson, 1986) between competingleadership theories that can produce “winners” and“losers.” Moreover, the process described by Lathamet al., which engages the theories’ disputants in thedesign of the research, remains underutilized yetextremely promising. The results of such researchwould have the potential to help researchers andpractitioners alike make sense of the existing leader-ship theories and enumerable empirical tests.

CONCLUSION

Our understanding of leadership has come a long waysince physical features such as height and attractive-ness were thought to be prime determining factors ofleadership emergence and effectiveness. Despite thewealth of knowledge that has accumulated, opportu-nities to answer new questions promise to expandour knowledge of leadership to new and differentdirections in the near future. After almost a century ofsocial and behavioral science research on leadership,we stand on the brink of a new and expanded knowl-edge of organizational leadership.

ReferencesAgle, B. R., Nagarajan, N. J., Sonnenfeld, J. A., &

Srinivasan, D. (2006). Does CEO charisma matter? Anempirical analysis of the relationships among organi-zational performance, environmental uncertainty, andtop management team perceptions of CEO charisma.Academy of Management Journal, 49, 161–174.

Barling, Christie, and Hoption

228

11819-07_Ch07_rev2.qxd 3/30/10 11:50 AM Page 228

Aguinis, H., & Henle, C. A. (2002). Ethics in research. InS. G. Rogelberg (Ed.), Handbook of research methods inindustrial and organizational psychology (pp. 34–56).Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training anddevelopment for individuals, teams, organizations andsociety. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 451–474.

Ah Chong, L. M., & Thomas, D. C. (1997). Leadershipperceptions in cross-cultural context: Pakeha andPacific Islanders in New Zealand. LeadershipQuarterly, 8, 275–293.

Alimo-Metcalfe, B., & Alban-Metcalfe, R. J. (2001). Thedevelopment of a new Transformational LeadershipQuestionnaire. Journal of Occupational andOrganizational Psychology, 74, 1–27.

Alutto, J. A., & Belasco, J. A. (1972). A typology for par-ticipation in organizational decision making.Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 117–125.

Amernic, J., Craig, R., & Tourish, D. (2007). The transfor-mational leader as pedagogue, physician, architect,commander, and saint: Five root metaphors in JackWelch’s letters to stockholders of General Electric.Human Relations, 60, 1839–1872.

Amit, K., Popper, M., Gal, R., Miskal-Sinai, M., & Lissak,A. (2006). The potential to lead: The differencebetween “leaders” and “non-leaders.” Megamot, 44,277–296.

Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging childhood: A theory ofdevelopment from the late teens through the twen-ties. American Psychologist, 55, 469–480.

Arnold, K. A., Turner, N. A., Barling, J., Kelloway, E. K.,& McKee, M. (2007). Transformational leadershipand well-being: The mediating role of meaningfulwork. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12,193–203.

Arvey, R. D., Bouchard, T. J., Segal, N. L., & Abraham,L. M. (1989) Job satisfaction: Environmental andgenetic components. Journal of Applied Psychology,74, 187–192.

Arvey, R. D., Rotundo, M., Johnson, W., Zhang, Z., &McGue, M. (2006). The determinants of leadershiprole occupancy: Genetic and personality factors.Leadership Quarterly, 17, 1–20.

Arvey, R. D., Zhang, Z., Avolio, B. J., & Krueger, R. F.(2007). Developmental and genetic determinants ofleadership role occupancy among women. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 92, 693–705.

Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., Sun, L., & Debrah, Y. A. (2007).Antecedents and outcomes of abusive supervision:Test of a trickle-down model. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 92, 191–201.

Avolio, B. J. (1999a). Are leaders born or made?Psychology Today, 32, 18.

Avolio, B. J. (1999b). Full leadership development: Buildingthe vital forces in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications.

Avolio, B. J. (2007). Promoting more integrative strategiesfor leader theory-building. American Psychologist, 62,25–33.

Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leader-ship development: Getting to the root of positiveforms of leadership. Leadership Quarterly (June 2005),16, 315–338.

Avolio, B. J., Howell, J. M., & Sosik, J. J. (1999). A funnything happened on the way to the bottom line: Humoras a moderator of leadership style effects. Academy ofManagement Journal, 42, 219–227.

Avolio, B. J., & Luthans, F. W. (2006). The high impactleader: Authentic, resilient leadership that gets resultsand sustains growth. New York: McGraw Hill.

Avolio, B. J., Rotundo, M., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2009).Early life experiences as determinants of leadershiprole occupancy: The importance of parental influenceand rule breaking behaviour. Leadership Quarterly,20, 324–342.

Avolio, B. J., Zhu, W., Koh, W., & Bhatia, P. (2004).Transformational leadership and organizational com-mitment: Mediating role of psychological empower-ment and moderating role of structural distance.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2, 951–968.

Ayman, R., & Chemers, M. M. (1983). Relationship ofsupervisory behavior ratings to workgroup effective-ness and subordinate satisfaction among Iranian man-agers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 338–341.

Ayman, R., Chemers, M. M., & Fiedler, F. (1995). Thecontingency model of leadership effectiveness: Itslevel of analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 147–167.

Baker, L. A., Jacobson, K. C., Raine, A., Lozano, D. I., &Bezdijan, S. (2007). Genetic and environmental basesof childhood antisocial behavior: A multi-informanttwin study. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 116,219–236.

Baker, S. D. (2008). Followership: The theoretical foun-dation of a contemporary construct. Journal ofLeadership & Organizational Studies, 14, 50–60.

Barling, J., Loughlin, C., & Kelloway, E. K. (2002).Development and test of a model linking safety-specific transformational leadership and occupationalsafety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 488–496.

Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Effectsof transformational leadership training on attitudinaland financial outcomes: A field experiment. Journalof Applied Psychology, 81, 827–832.

Barnett, L. (2007, September 5). Breaking news: AlessandraFacchinetti at Valentino. Retrieved May 15, 2008, fromhttp://www.vogue.co.uk/news/daily/2007–09/070905-

Leadership

229

11819-07_Ch07_rev2.qxd 3/30/10 11:50 AM Page 229

breaking-news-alessandra-facchinetti-at-valentino.aspx

Barry, D. (1991). Managing the bossless team: Lessons indistributed leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 20,31–47.

Barsoux, J. (1996). Why organizations need humor.European Management Journal, 14, 500–508.

Bass, B. M. (1960). Leadership, psychology, and organiza-tional behavior. New York: Harper & Brothers.

Bass, B. M. (1983). Issues involved in relations betweenmethodological rigor and reported outcomes in eval-uations in evaluations of organizational develop-ment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 197–199.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyondexpectations. New York: Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional–transforma-tional leadership paradigm transcend organizationaland national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52,130–139.

Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial,military, and educational impact. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). Manual for the Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA:Consulting Psychologists Press.

Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003).Predicting unit performance by assessing transforma-tional and transactional leadership. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 88, 207–218.

Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character,and authentic transformational leadership behavior.Leadership Quarterly, 10, 181–217.

Batstone, E., Boraston, I., & Frenkel, S. (1977). Shopstewards in action: The organization of workplace con-flict and accommodation. Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental author-ity. Developmental Psychology Monographs, 4, 1–102.

Berglas, S. (1999). What you can learn from Steve Jobs.Inc, 21, 29–31.

Bernerth, J. B., Armenakis, A. A., Feild, H. S., Giles, W. F.,& Walker, H. J. (2007). Is personality associated withperceptions of LMX? An empirical study. Leadership& Organization Development Journal, 28, 613–631.

Bird, R., Hall, A., Momentè, F., & Reggiani, F. (2007).What corporate responsibility activities are valued bythe market? Journal of Business Ethics, 76, 189–206.

Bligh, M. C., Kohles, J. C., & Meindl, J. R. (2004).Charisma under crisis: Presidential leadership,rhetoric, and media responses before and after theSeptember 11 terrorist attacks. Leadership Quarterly,15, 211–239.

Bligh, M. C., & Kohles, J. C., Pearce, C. L., Justin, J. E.,& Stovall, J. F. (2007). When the romance is over:Follower perspectives of aversive leadership.Applied Psychology: An International Review, 56,528–557.

Boeker, W. (1992). Power and managerial dismissal:Scapegoating at the top. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 37, 400–421.

Bommer, W. H., Rich, G. A., & Rubin, R. S. (2005).Changing attitudes about change: Longitudinaleffects of transformational leader behavior onemployee cynicism about organizational change.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 733–753.

Bono, J. E., & Anderson, M. H. (2005). The advice andinfluence networks of transformational leaders.Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1306–1314.

Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Self-concordance atwork: Toward understanding the motivational effectsof transformational leaders. Academy of ManagementJournal, 46, 554–571.

Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Personality andtransformational and transactional leadership: Ameta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89,901–910.

Boone, C., Van Olffen, W., & Van Witteloostuijn, A.(2005). Team locus-of-control composition, leader-ship structure, information acquisition, and financialperformance: A business simulation study. Academyof Management Journal, 48, 889–909.

Boswell, W. R., Boudreau, J. W., & Tichy, J. (2005). Therelationship between employee job change and jobsatisfaction: The honeymoon-hangover effect. Journalof Applied Psychology, 90, 882–892.

Bouchard, T. J., Lykken, D. T., McGue, M., Segal, N. L.,& Tellegen, A. (1990, October 12). Sources ofhuman differences: The Minnesota Study of TwinsReared Apart. Science, 250, 223–228.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1961). Some familial antecedentsof responsibility and leadership in adolescents. In L. Petrullo & B. M. Bass (Eds.), Leadership and inter-personal behavior (pp. 239–271). New York: Holt,Rinehart & Winston.

Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005).Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective forconstruct development and testing. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Processes, 97, 117–134.

Burke, C. S., Sims, D. E., Lazzara, E. H., & Salas, E.(2007). Trust in leadership: A multi-level review andintegration. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 606–632.

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

Bycio, P., Hackett, R. D., & Allen, J. S. (1995). Furtherassessments of Bass’s (1985) conceptualization oftransactional and transformational leadership.Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 468–478.

Barling, Christie, and Hoption

230

11819-07_Ch07_rev2.qxd 3/30/10 11:50 AM Page 230

Byrne, J. A. (1998). Jack: A close-up look at howAmerica’s number 1 manager runs GE. BusinessWeek, 3581 (8 June), 90.

Cacioppo. J. T., Amaral, D. G., Blanchard, J. J., Cameron,J. L., Carter, C. S., Crews, D., et al. (2007). Socialneuroscience: Progress and implications for mentalhealth. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2,99–123.

Cameron, K. S., Kim, M. U., & Whetten, D. A. (1987).Organizational effects of decline and turbulence.Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 222–240.

Carless, S. A. (1998). Assessing the discriminant validityof transformational leader behaviour as measured bythe MLQ. Journal of Occupational and OrganizationalPsychology, 71, 353–358.

Carless, S. A., Wearing, A. J., & Mann, L. (2000). A shortmeasure of transformational leadership. Journal ofBusiness and Psychology, 14, 389–405.

Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., Marrone, J. A. (2007). Sharedleadership in teams: An investigation of antecedentconditions and performance. Academy of ManagementJournal, 50, 1217–1234.

Catano, V. M., Pond, M., & Kelloway, E. K. (2001).Exploring commitment and leadership in voluntaryorganizations. Leadership and OrganizationDevelopment Journal, 22, 256–263.

Charbonneau, D., Barling, J., & Kelloway, E. K. (2001).Transformational leadership and sports performance:The mediating role of intrinsic motivation. Journal ofApplied Social Psychology, 31, 1521–1534.

Chemers, M. M. (2001). Leadership effectiveness: An inte-grative view. In M. Hogg and S. Tindale (Eds.),Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Groupprocesses. (pp. 376–399). Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Chen, G., Kirkman, B. L., Kanfer, R., Allen, D., & Rosen,B. (2007). A multilevel study of leadership, empower-ment, and performance in teams. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 92, 331–346.

Cherulnik, P. D., Donley, K. A., Wiewel, T. S. R., &Miller, S. R. (2001). Charisma is contagious: Theeffect of leaders’ charisma on observers’ affect.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 2149–2159.

Cherulnik, P. D., Turns, L. C., & Wilderman, S. K. (1990).Physical appearance and leadership: Exploring therole of appearance-based attribution in leaderemergence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20,1530–1539.

Clark, P. F., Barling, J., Carroll, A., Fullagar, C., &Gallagher, D. G. (2007). The Influence of Transforma-tional Leadership on Newcomers’ Union Attitudes: ALongitudinal Study. Annual Meeting of the Academyof Management, Philadelphia, PA, August.

Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies makethe leap . . . and others don’t. New York: Harper Collins.

Conger, J. A. (1989). The charismatic leader: Behind themystique of exceptional leadership. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Conger, J. A. (1999). Charismatic and transformationalleadership in organizations: An insider’s perspectiveon these developing streams of research. LeadershipQuarterly, 10, 145–179.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1994). Charismaticleadership in organizations: Perceived behavioralattributes and their measurement. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 15, 439–452.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismaticleadership in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Conger, J. A., & Pearce, C. L. (2003). A landscape ofopportunities: Future research on shared leadership.In C. L. Pearce & J. A. Conger (Eds.) Shared leader-ship: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Constantineau, B. (2008, April 2). Profits soar atLululemon. The Vancouver Sun. Retrieved May 3,2008, from http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/business/story.html?id=7d4a6589-01e7-4d07-bb24-5b324eb651e4&k=62474

Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for fieldsettings. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Cooper, W. H., & Richardson, A. H. (1996). Unfair com-parisons. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 179–184.

Cox, C. J., & Cooper, C. L. (1989). The making of theBritish CEO: Childhood, work experience, personal-ity, and management style. Academy of ManagementExecutive, 3, 353–358.

Crant, J. M., & Bateman, T. S. (2000). Charismatic leader-ship viewed from above: The impact of proactive per-sonality. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 63–75.

Crawford, C. B. (1994). Theory and implications regard-ing the utilization of strategic humor by leaders.Journal of Leadership Studies, 1, 53–67.

Dacin, P. A., & Brown, T. J. (1997). The company andthe product: Corporate associations and consumerproduct responses. Journal of Marketing, 61, 68–84.

Dansereau, F. J., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A verti-cal dyad linkage approach to leadership within formalorganizations: A longitudinal investigation of the rolemaking process. Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Processes, 13, 46–78.

Dasborough, M. T., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2002). Emotionand attribution of intentionality in leader-memberrelationships. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 615–634.

Dasgupta, N., & Asgari, S. (2004). Seeing is believing:Exposure to counterstereotypic women leaders and itseffect on the malleability of automatic gender stereo-typing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40,642–658.

Leadership

231

11819-07_Ch07_rev2.qxd 3/30/10 11:50 AM Page 231

Davies, P. G., Spencer, S. J., & Steele, C. M. (2005).Clearing the air: Identity safety moderates the effectsof stereotype threat on women’s leadership aspira-tions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88,276–287.

Day, D. V., Sin, H., & Chen, T. T. (2004). Assessing theburdens of leadership: Effects of formal leadershiproles on individual performance over time. PersonnelPsychology, 57, 573–605.

Decker, W. H., and Rotondo, D. M. (2001). Relationshipsamong gender, type of humor and perceived leadereffectiveness. Journal of Managerial Issues, 13, 450–465.

Deluga, R. J. (1987). Corporate coups d’état: What happensand why. Leadership and Organization DevelopmentJournal, 8, 9–15.

Den Hartog, D. N., House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., Dorfman, P. W., Abdalla, I. A., etal. (1999). Culturally-specific and cross-culturallygeneralizable implicit leadership theories: Are attrib-utes of charismatic leadership theories universallyendorsed? Leadership Quarterly, 10, 219–256.

Den Hartog, D. N., Van Muijen, J. J., & Koopman, P. L.(1997). Transactional versus transformational leader-ship: An analysis of the MLQ. Journal of Occupationaland Organizational Psychology, 70, 19–34.

Den Hartog, D. N., & Verburg, R. M. (1997). Charisma andrhetoric: Communicative techniques of internationalbusiness leaders. Leadership Quarterly, 8, 355–391.

Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behaviorand employee voice: Is the door really open?Academy of Management Journal, 50, 869–884.

de Vries, R. E., Roe, R. A., & Taillieu, T. C. B. (1998).Need for supervision: Its impact on leadership effec-tiveness. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,34, 486–501.

Dickson, M. W., Resick, C. J., & Hanges, P. J. (2006).Systematic variation in organizationally-shared cogni-tive prototypes of effective leadership based on orga-nizational form. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 487–505.

Dineen, B. R., Lewicki, R. J., & Tomlinson, E. C. (2006).Supervisory guidance and behavioral integrity:Relationships with employee citizenship and deviantbehavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 622–635.

Dionne, S. D., Yammarino, F. J., Atwater, L. E., & James,L. R. (2002). Neutralizing substitutes for leadershiptheory: Leadership effects and common-source bias.Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 454–464.

Dirks, K. T. (2000). Trust in leadership and team perfor-mance: Evidence from NCAA basketball. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 85, 1004–1012.

Duehr, E. E., & Bono, J. E. (2006). Men, women, andmanagers: Are stereotypes finally changing?Personnel Psychology, 59, 815–846.

Dupré, K. E., & Barling, J. (2006). Predicting and pre-venting supervisory workplace aggression. Journal ofOccupational Health Psychology, 11, 13–26.

Dutton, J. E., Frost, P. J., Worline, M. C., Lilius, J. M., &Kanov, J. M. (2002). Leading in times of trauma.Harvard Business Review, 80, 54–61.

Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., Shamir, B. (2002). Impactof transformational leadership on follower develop-ment and performance: A field experiment. Academyof Management Journal, 45, 735–744.

Dvir, T., & Shamir, B. (2003). Follower developmentalcharacteristics as predicting transformational leader-ship: A longitudinal field study. Leadership Quarterly,14, 327–344.

Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen,M. L. (2003). Transformational, transactional, andlaissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis com-paring women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129,569–591.

Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leader-ship style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin,108, 233–256.

Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (1991). Gender and the emer-gence of leaders: A meta-analysis. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 60, 685–710.

Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., & Makhijani, M. G. (1995).Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 125–145.

Eagly, A. H., Karau, S., Miner, J. B., & Johnson, B. T.(1994). Gender and motivation to manage in hierar-chical organizations: A meta-analysis. LeadershipQuarterly, 5, 135–159.

Eagly, A. H., Makhijani, M. G., & Klonsky, B. G. (1992).Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis.Psychological Bulletin, 111, 3–22.

Eby, L. T., Cader, J., & Noble, C. L. (2003). Why do highself-monitors emerge as leaders in small groups? Acomparative analysis of the behaviors of high versuslow self-monitors. Journal of Applied SocialPsychology, 33, 1457–1479.

Ehrhart, M. G., & Klein, K. J. (2001). Predicting follow-ers’ preferences for charismatic leadership: The influ-ence of follower values and personality. LeadershipQuarterly, 12, 153–179.

Elder, G. H. (1974). Children of the Great Depression.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ellemers, N., de Gilder, D., & Haslam, S. A. (2004).Motivating individuals and groups at work: A socialidentity perspective on leadership and group perfor-mance. Academy of Management Review, 29, 459–478.

Ensley, M. D., Hmieleski, K. M., & Pearce, C. L. (2006).The importance of vertical and shared leadershipwithin new venture top management teams:

Barling, Christie, and Hoption

232

11819-07_Ch07_rev2.qxd 3/30/10 11:50 AM Page 232

Implications for the performance of startups.Leadership Quarterly, 17, 217–231.

Ensley, M. D., Pearson, A., & Pearce, C. L. (2003). Topmanagement team process, shared leadership, andnew venture performance: A theoretical model andresearch agenda. Human Resource ManagementReview, 13, 329–346.

Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2004). Implicit leadershiptheories in applied settings: Factor structure, gener-alizability, and stability over time. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 89, 293–310.

Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2005a). From ideal to real: Alongitudinal study of the role of implicit leadershiptheories on leader-member exchanges and employeeoutcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 659–676.

Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2005b). The moderatingrole of individual differences in the relation betweentransformational/transactional leadership percep-tions and organizational identification. LeadershipQuarterly, 16, 569–589.

Erez, A., Misangyi, V. F., Johnson, D. E., LePine, M. A.,& Halverson, K. C. (2008). Stirring the hearts of fol-lowers: Charismatic leadership as the transferal ofaffect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 602–616.

Farmer, S. M. and Aguinis, H. (2005). Accounting forsubordinate perceptions of supervisor power: Anidentity-dependence model. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 90, 1069–1083.

Felfe, J. (2005). Personality and romance of leadership. InB. Schyns & J. R. Meindl (Eds.), Implicit leadershiptheories: Essays and explorations (pp. 199–225).Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Felfe, J. (2006). Validation of a German version of the“Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire” (MLQ Form5x Short) by Bass and Avolio (1995). Zeitschrift fürArbeits und Organisationspsychologie, 50, 61–78.

Felfe, J., & Petersen, L. (2007). Romance of leadershipand management decision making. European Journalof Work and Organizational Psychology, 16, 1–24.

Felfe, J., & Schyns, B. (2006). Personality and the percep-tion of transformational leadership: The impact ofextraversion, neuroticism, personal need for struc-ture, and occupational self-efficacy. Journal of AppliedSocial Psychology, 36, 708–739.

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

Fiorina, C. (2001, December 29). People of the year. TheFinancial Times, p. 8.

Fleishman, E. A. (1953). The description of supervisorybehavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 37, 1–6.

Fleming, P. (2005). Workers’ playtime? Boundaries andcynicism in a “Culture of Fun” program. The Journalof Applied Behavioral Science, 41, 285–303.

Francis, L. E. (1994). Laughter, the best mediation:Humor as emotion management in interaction.Symbolic Interaction, 17, 147–163.

Frone, M. R., Adams, J., Rice, R. W., & Instone-Noonan,D. (1986). Halo error: A field study comparison ofself- and subordinate evaluations of leadershipprocess and leader effectiveness. Personality andSocial Psychology Bulletin, 12, 454–461.

Fukushige, A. & Spicer, D. P. (2007). Leadership prefer-ences in Japan: An exploratory study. Leadership &Organization Development Journal, 28, 508–530.

Fullagar, C., McCoy, D., & Shull, C. (1992). The social-ization of union loyalty. Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, 13, 13–26.

Fuller, J. B., Patterson, C. E. P., Hester, K., & Stringer,D. Y. (1996). A quantitative review of research oncharismatic leadership. Psychological Reports, 78,271–287.

Gardner, W. L. & Martinko, M. J. (1996). Using theMyers-Briggs Type Indicator to study managers: Aliterature review and research agenda. Journal ofManagement, 22, 45–83.

Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1994). Cross-cultural com-parison of leadership prototypes. LeadershipQuarterly, 5, 121–134.

Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analyticreview of leader–member exchange theory:Correlates and construct issues. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 82, 827–844.

Giessner, S. R., & van Knippenberg, D. (2008). “Licenseto fail”: Goal definition, leader group prototypicality,and perceptions of leadership effectiveness afterleader failure. Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Processes, 105, 14–35.

Gladwell, M. (2004, September 20). Personality plus. TheNew Yorker, 42–48.

Gladwell, M. (2008, December 15). Most likely to suc-ceed. The New Yorker, 36–42.

Glass, J., Bengtson, V. L. & Dunham, C. C. (1986).Attitude similarity in three-generation families:Socialization, status inheritance, or reciprocal influ-ence? American Sociological Review, 51, 685–698.

Gouldner, A. W. (1987). Attitudes of “progressive” tradeunion leaders. American Journal of Sociology, 52,389–393.

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-basedapproach to leadership: Development of leader–member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain per-spective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219–247.

Gray, J. H., & Densten, I. L. (2007). How leaders woofollowers in the romance of leadership. AppliedPsychology: An International Review, 56, 558–581.

Leadership

233

11819-07_Ch07_rev2.qxd 3/30/10 11:50 AM Page 233

Hains, S. C., Hogg, M. A., & Duck, J. M. (1997). Self-categorization and leadership: Effects of group proto-typicality and leader stereotypicality. Personality andSocial Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1087–1099.

Harris, J. R. (1995). Where is the child’s environment? Agroup socialization theory of development. Psycho-logical Review, 102, 458–489.

Hartman, S. J., & Harris, O. J. (1992). The role of parentalinfluences on leadership. The Journal of Social Psycho-logy, 132, 153–167.

Harvey, A. (2001). A dramaturgical analysis of charismaticleader discourse. Journal of Organizational ChangeManagement, 14, 253–265.

Harvey, S., Royal, M., Stout, D. (2003). Instructor’s trans-formational leadership: University student attitudesand ratings. Psychological Reports, 92, 395–402.

Heinitz, K., Liepmann, D., & Felfe, J. (2005). Examiningthe factor structure of the MLQ: Recommendationfor a reduced set of factors. European Journal ofPsychological Assessment, 21, 182–190.

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. (1988). Management of orga-nization behavior: Utilizing human resources, 5th ed.,Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Herold, D. M., Fedor, D. B., Caldwell, S., & Liu, Y. (2008).The effects of transformational and change leadershipon employees’ commitment to a change: A multilevelstudy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 346–357.

Hinkin, T. R. & Schriesheim, C. A. (2008). An examina-tion of “nonleadership”: From laissez-faire leadershipto leader reward omission and punishment omission.Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1234–1248.

Hofmann, D. A., & Jones, L. M. (2005). Leadership, col-lective personality, and performance. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 90, 509–522.

Hofmann, D. A., & Morgeson, F. P. (1999). Safety-relatedbehavior as a social exchange: The role of perceivedorganizational support and leader-member exchange.Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 286–296.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparingvalues, behaviors, institutions, and organizations acrossnations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2001). Assessing leadership: Aview from the dark side. International Journal ofSelection and Assessment, 9, 40–51.

Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership.Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 184–200.

Hogg, M. A., Fielding, K. S., Johnson, D., Masser, B.,Russell, E., & Svensson, A. (2006). Demographic cat-egory membership and leadership in small groups: Asocial identity analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 17,335–350.

Hogg, M. A., Hains, S. C., & Mason, I. (1998).Identification and leadership in small groups:

Salience, frame of reference, and leader stereotypical-ity effects on leader evaluations. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 75, 1248–1263.

Hoobler, J. M., & Brass, D. J. (2006). Abusive supervisionand family undermining as displaced aggression.Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1125–1133.

Hooijberg, R., & Choi, J (2000). From selling peanutsand beer in Yankee Stadium to creating a theory oftransformational leadership: An interview withBernie Bass. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 291–306.

Hooker, C., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2003). Flow, creativ-ity, and shared leadership: Rethinking the motivationand structuring of knowledge work. In C. L. Pearce &J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing thehows and whys of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Hoption, C., Phelan, J., & Barling, J. (2007). Transforma-tional leadership in sport. In M. R. Beauchamp &M. A. Eys (Eds.), Group dynamics advances in sport andexercise psychology: Contemporary themes (pp. 45–60).Abingdon, England: Routledge.

Houghton, J. D., & Neck, C. P. (2002). The revised self-leadership questionnaire: Testing a hierarchical factorstructure for self-leadership. Journal of ManagerialPsychology, 17, 672–691.

Houghton, J. D., Neck, C. P., & Manz, C. C. (2003). Self-leadership and superleadership: The heart and art ofcreating shared leadership in teams. In C. L. Pearce& J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframingthe hows and whys of leadership (pp. 123–140).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

House, R., & Howell, J. M. (1992). Personality and charis-matic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 3, 81–108.

House, R., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., & Dorfman, P. (2002).Understanding cultures and implicit leadership theo-ries across the globe: An introduction to projectGLOBE. Journal of World Business, 37, 3–10.

House, R. J. (1971). A path goal theory of leader effective-ness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 321–339.

House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leader-ship. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larsen (Eds.), Leadership:The cutting edge (pp. 189–207). Carbondale, IL:Southern Illinois University Press.

House, R. J. (1996). Path–goal theory of leadership:Lessons, legacy and a reformulated theory. LeadershipQuarterly, 7, 323–352.

House, R. J. (2004). Illustrative examples of GLOBEfindings. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan,P. W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leader-ship and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 soci-eties (pp. 3–8). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The social scientificstudy of leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of Manage-ment, 23, 409–473.

Barling, Christie, and Hoption

234

11819-07_Ch07_rev2.qxd 3/30/10 11:50 AM Page 234

House, R. J., & Mitchell, T. R. (1974). Path-goal theory ofleadership. Contemporary Business, 3, 81–98.

House, R. J., & Podsakoff, P. M. (1994). Leadership effec-tiveness: Past perspectives and future directions forresearch. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behav-ior: The state of the science (pp. 45–82). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1992). The ethics of charis-matic leadership: Submission or liberation? TheExecutive, 6, 43.

Howell, J. M., & Hall-Merenda, K. E. (1999). The tiesthat bind: The impact of leader–member exchange,transformational and transactional leadership, anddistance on predicting follower performance. Journalof Applied Psychology, 84, 680–694.

Ilies, R., Gerhardt, M. W., & Le, H. (2004). Individual dif-ferences in leadership emergence: Integrating meta-analytic findings and behavioral genetics estimates.International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12,207–219.

Hunter, S. T., Bedell-Avers, K. E., & Mumford, M. D.(2007). The typical leadership study: Assumptions,implications, and potential remedies. LeadershipQuarterly, 18, 435–446.

Jackson, S. L., Parker, C. P., & Dipboye, R. L. (1996). Acomparison of competing models underlyingresponses to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.Journal of Career Assessment, 4, 99–115.

Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor model ofpersonality and transformational leadership. Journalof Applied Psychology, 85, 751–765.

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W.(2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative andquantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,765–780.

Judge, T. A., & Cable, D. M. (2004). The effect of physicalheight on workplace success and income: Preliminarytest of a theoretical model. Journal of Applied Psycho-logy, 89, 428–441.

Judge, T. A., Colbert, A. E., & Ilies, R. (2004). Intelligenceand leadership: A quantitative review and test of theo-retical propositions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89,542–552.

Judge, T. A., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2006). Lovingyourself abundantly: Relationship of the narcissisticpersonality to self- and other perceptions of workplacedeviance, leadership, and task and contextual perfor-mance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 762–776.

Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformationaland transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test oftheir relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology,89, 755–768.

Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Ilies, R. (2004). The forgot-ten ones? The validity of consideration and initiating

structure in leadership research. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 89, 36–51.

Judge, T. A., Woolf, E. A., Hurst, C., & Livingston, B.(2008). Leadership. In J. Barling & C. Cooper (Eds.),Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 334–352).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jung, D. I., & Avolio, B. J. (1999). Effects of leadershipstyle and followers’ cultural orientation on perfor-mance in groups and individual task conditions.Academy of Management Journal, 47, 208–218.

Jung, D. I., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). Opening the blackbox: An experimental investigation of the mediatingeffects of trust and value congruence on transforma-tional and transactional leadership. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 21, 949–964.

Kane, T. D., Tremble, T. R., & Trueman, R. (2000).Transformational leadership effects at different levelsof the army. Military Psychology 12, 137–150.

Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two facesof transformational leadership: Empowerment anddependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88,246–255.

Karnes, F. A., & D’Ilio, V. R. (1989). Student leaders’ andtheir parents’ perceptions of the home environment.Gifted Child Quarterly, 33, 165–168.

Keller, R. T. (2006). Transformational leadership, initiat-ing structure, and substitutes for leadership: A longi-tudinal study of research and development projectteam performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91,202–210.

Keller, T. (1999). Images of the familiar: Individual dif-ferences and implicit leadership theories. LeadershipQuarterly, 10, 589–607.

Kellett, P. (1999). Organisational leadership: Lessonsfrom professional coaches. Sport Management Review,2, 150–171.

Kelley, R. E. (1992). The power of followership: How tocreate leaders people want to follow and followers wholead themselves. New York: Doubleday.

Kelloway, E. K., & Barling, J. (1993). Member’s participa-tion in local union activities: Measurement, predic-tion and replication. Journal of Applied Psychology,78, 262–279.

Kelloway, E. K., & Barling, J. (2000). What we havelearned about developing transformational leaders.Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 21,355–363.

Kelloway, E. K., Barling, J., & Helleur, J. (2000).Enhancing transformational leadership: the roles oftraining and feedback. Leadership and OrganizationDevelopment Journal, 21, 145–149.

Kelloway, E. K., Mullen, J., & Francis, L. (2006).Divergent effects of transformational and passive

Leadership

235

11819-07_Ch07_rev2.qxd 3/30/10 11:50 AM Page 235

leadership on employee safety. Journal ofOccupational Health Psychology, 11, 76–86.

Kelloway, E. K., Sivanathan, N., Francis, L., & Barling, J.(2005). Poor leadership. In J. Barling & E. K.Kelloway (Eds.) Handbook of work stress (pp. 89–112).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kenney, R. A., Schwartz-Kenney, B. M., & Blascovich, J.(1996). Implicit leadership theories: Defining leadersdescribed as worthy of influence. Personality andSocial Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1128–1143.

Kent, R. L., & Moss, S. E. (1994). Effects of sex and gen-der role on leader emergence. Academy ofManagement Journal, 37, 1335–1346.

Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. (1978). Substitutes for leader-ship: Their meaning and measurement. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Performance, 22, 375–403.

Kerr, S., Schreisheim, C. A., Murphy, C. J., & Stogdill,R. M. (1974). Toward a contingency theory of leader-ship based upon the consideration and initiatingstructure literature. Organizational Behavior andHuman Performance, 12, 62–82.

Khoo, H. S., & St. J. Burch, G. (2008). The ‘dark side’ ofleadership personality and transformational leader-ship: An exploratory study. Personality and IndividualDifferences, 44, 86–97.

Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1996). Direct and indi-rect effects of three core charismatic leadership com-ponents on performance and attitudes. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 81, 36–51.

Klein, K. J., Ziegert, J. C., Knight, A. P., Xiao, Y. (2006).Dynamic delegation: Shared, hierarchical, and de-individualized leadership in extreme action teams.Administrative Science Quarterly, 51, 590–621.

Klonsky, B. G. (1983). The socialization and developmentof leadership ability. Genetic Psychology Monographs,108, 97–135.

Koh, W. L., Steers, R. M., & Terborg, J. R. (1995). Theeffects of transformational leadership on teacher atti-tudes and student performance in Singapore. Journalof Organizational Behavior, 16, 319–333.

Krajewski, H. T., Goffin, R. D., McCarthy, J. M., Rothstein,M. G., Johnston, N. (2006). Comparing the validity ofstructured interviews for managerial-level employees:Should we look to the past or focus on the future?Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,79, 411–432.

Krosnick, J. A., & Alwin, D. F. (1989). Aging and suscep-tibility to attitude change. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 57, 416–425.

Latham, G. P., Erez, M., & Locke, E. A. (1988). Resolvingscientific disputes by the joint design of crucialexperiments by the antagonists: Application to theErez-Latham dispute regarding participation in goalsetting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 753–772.

Leach, M. M., & Harbin, J. J. (1997). Psychological ethicscodes: A comparison of twenty-four countries.International Journal of Psychology, 32, 181–192.

Lim, B. C., & Ployhart, R. E. (2004). Transformationalleadership: Relations to the five-factor model andteam performance in typical and maximum contexts.Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 610–621.

Ling, Y., Simsek, Z., Lubatkin, M. H., & Veiga, J. F.(2008). Transformational leadership’s role in pro-moting corporate entrepreneurship: Examining theCEO–TMT interface. Academy of ManagementJournal, 51, 557–576.

Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1993). Leadership and informa-tion processing: Linking perceptions and performance.Boston, MA: Rutledge.

Lord, R. G., de Vader, C. L., & Alliger, G. M. (1986). Ameta-analysis of the relation between personalitytraits and leadership perceptions: An application ofvalidity generalization procedures. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 71, 402–410.

Louhead, T. M., & Hardy, J. (2005). An examination ofcoach and peer leader behaviors in sport. Psychologyof Sport and Exercise, 6, 303–312.

Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N.(1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformation andtransactional leadership: A meta-analytic review ofthe MLQ literature. Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385–425.

Mackenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Jarvis, C. B. (2005).The problem of measurement model misspecificationin behavioural and organizational research and somerecommended solutions. Journal of Applied Psychology,90, 710–730.

Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (1987). Leading workers tolead themselves: The external leadership of self-managing work teams. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 32, 106–129.

Martin, R. A., Puhlik-Doris, P., Larsen, G., Gray, J., &Weir, K. (2003). Individual differences in uses ofhumor and their relation to psychological well-being:Development of the Humor Styles Questionnaire.Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 48–75.

Maslow, A. H. (1965). Eupsychian management: A journal.Homewood IL: Dorsey.

Maume, D. J., Jr. (1999). Glass ceilings and glass escala-tors: Occupational segregation and race and sex dif-ferences in managerial promotions. Work andOccupations, 26, 483–509.

McClane, W. E. (1991). The interaction of leader andmember exchange characteristics in the leader–member exchange (LMX) model of leadership. SmallGroup Research, 22, 283–300.

McCrae, R. R & John, O. (1992). An introduction to thefive-factor model and its applications. Journal ofPersonality, 60, 174–214.

Barling, Christie, and Hoption

236

11819-07_Ch07_rev2.qxd 3/30/10 11:50 AM Page 236

McGue, M., & Bouchard, T. J. (1998). Genetic and envi-ronmental influences on human behavioral differ-ences. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 21, 1–24.

Meindl, J. R. (1995). The romance of leadership as a follower-centric theory: A social constructionistapproach. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 329–341.

Meindl, J. R. (1998). Appendix: Measure and assess-ments for the romance of leadership approach. In F. Dansereau & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership:The multiple-level approaches—Part B: Contemporaryand alternative (p. 199–302). Stamford, CT: JAI.

Meindl, J. R., & Ehrlich, S. B. (1987). The romance ofleadership and the evaluation of organizational perfor-mance. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 91–109.

Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. (1985).The romance of leadership. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 30, 78–102.

Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive super-vision and workplace deviance and the moderatingeffects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 92, 1159–1168.

Morris, J. A., Brotheridge, C. M., & Urbanski, J. C.(2005). Bringing humility to leadership: Antecedentsand consequences of leader humility. HumanRelations, 58, 1323–1350.

Morgan, B. B., Jr., Salas, E., & Glickman, A. (1993). Ananalysis of team evolution and maturation. Journal ofGeneral Psychology, 120, 277–291.

Mullen, J., & Kelloway, E. K. (2009). Safety leadership: Alongitudinal study of the effects of transformationalleadership on safety outcomes. Journal of Occupationaland Organizational Psychology, 2, 253–272.

Nathan, B. R., & Lord, R. G. (1983). Cognitive catego-rization and dimensional schemata: A processapproach to the study of halo in performance ratings.Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 102–114.

Neubert, M. J. (1999). Too much of a good thing or themore the merrier? Exploring the dispersion and gen-der composition of informal leadership in manufac-turing teams. Small Group Research, 30, 635–646.

Nguni, S., Sleegers, P., & Denessen, E. (2006).Transformational and transactional leadership effectson teachers’ job satisfaction, organizational commit-ment, and organizational citizenship behavior inprimary schools: The Tanzanian case. SchoolEffectiveness and School Improvement, 17, 145–177.

Nye, J. S. (2008). The powers to lead. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Offermann, L. R., Kennedy, J. K., & Wirtz, P. W. (1994).Implicit leadership theories: Content, structure, andgeneralizability. Leadership Quarterly, 5, 43–58.

Paunonen, S. V., Lönnqvist, J., Verkasalo, M., Leikas, S.,& Nissinen, V. (2006). Narcissism and emergent

leadership in military cadets. Leadership Quarterly,17, 475–486.

Paunonen, S. V., Rothstein, M. G., & Jackson, D. N.(1999). Narrow reasoning about the use of broadpersonality measures for personnel selection. Journalof Organizational Behavior, 20, 389–405.

Perry, M. L., Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1999).Empowered selling teams: How shared leadershipcan contribute to selling team outcomes. Journal ofPersonal Selling and Sales Management, 19, 35–51.

Peters, L. H., Hartke, D. D., & Pohlmann, J. T. (1985).Fiedler’s contingency theory of leadership: An appli-cation of the meta-analysis procedures of Schmidtand Hunter. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 274–285.

Peterson, R. S., Smith, D. B., Martorana, P. V., & Owens,P. D. (2003). The impact of chief executive officerpersonality on top management team dynamics: Onemechanism by which leadership affects organiza-tional performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88,795–808.

Pfeffer, J. (1977). The ambiguity of leadership. Academyof Management Review, 2, 104–112.

Pfeffer, J. (1998). The Human Equation: Building Profits byPutting People First. Boston: Harvard Business SchoolPress.

Pfeffer, J. (2007). In defense of the boss from hell.Business 2.0, 8, 70.

Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2006). Hard facts, dangeroushalf-truths and total nonsense. Cambridge, MA:Harvard Business School Press.

Phillips, D. J. (2005). Organizational genealogies and thepersistence of gender inequality: The case of SiliconValley law firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50,440–472.

Piccolo, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. (2006). Transformationalleadership and job behaviors: The mediating role ofcore job characteristics. Academy of ManagementJournal, 49, 327–340.

Pillai, R. (1996). Crisis and the emergence of charismaticleadership in groups: An experimental investigation.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 543–562.

Pillai, R., & Meindl, J. R. (1998). Context and charisma: A “meso” level examination of the relationship oforganic structure, collectivism, and crisis to charis-matic leadership. Journal of Management, 24, 643–671.

Pillai, R., Schriesheim, C. A., & Williams, E. S. (1999).Fairness perceptions and trust as mediators fortransformational and transactional leadership: Atwo-sample study. Journal of Management, 25,897–933.

Pittenger, D. J. (1993). The utility of the Myers-BriggsType Indicator. Review of Educational Research, 63,467–488.

Leadership

237

11819-07_Ch07_rev2.qxd 3/30/10 11:50 AM Page 237

Platow, M. J., & van Knippenberg, D. (2001). A socialidentity analysis of leadership endorsement: Theeffects of leader ingroup prototypicality and distribu-tive intergroup fairness. Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin, 27, 1508–1519.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H.(1996). Meta-analysis of the relationships betweenJerr and Jermier’s substitutes for leadership andemployee job attitudes, role perceptions, and perfor-mance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 380–399.

Popper, M., Mayseless, O., & Castelnovo, O. (2000).Transformational leadership and attachment.Leadership Quarterly, 11, 267–289.

Rafferty, A. E., & Griffin, M. A. (2004). Dimensions oftransformational leadership: Conceptual and empiri-cal extension. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 329–354.

Ralston, D., Holt, D., Terpstra, R., & Kai-Cheng, Y.(1997). The impact of national culture and economicideology on managerial work values: A study of theUnited States, Russia, Japan, and China. Journal ofInternational Business Studies, 28, 177–207.

Redelmeier, D. A., Katz, J., & Kahneman, D. (2003).Memories of colonoscopy: A randomized trial. Pain,104, 187–194.

Richardson, H. M., & Hanawalt, N. G. (1952). Leadershipas related to the Bernreuter personality measures: V.Leadership among adult women in social activities.Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 141–153.

Roberts, B. W., Harms, P. D., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E.(2007). Predicting the counterproductive employeein a child-to-adult prospective study. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 92, 1427–1436.

Roberts, N. C., & Bradley, R. T. (1988). Limits ofcharisma. In J. A. Conger & R. N. Kanungo (Eds.),Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organiza-tional effectiveness (pp. 253–275). San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Romano, A. (2007). Bracing for the gender neutral test.Newsweek, 150, 13.

Rosenthal, S. A., & Pittinsky, T. L. (2006). Narcissisticleadership. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 617–633.

Rossette, A. S., Leonardelli, G. J., & Phillips, K. W. (2008).The White standard: Racial bias in leader categoriza-tion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 758–777.

Roush, P. E. & Atwater, L. E. (1992). Using the MBTI tounderstand transformational leadership and self-perception accuracy. Military Psychology, 4(1), 17–34.

Rousseau, D. M. (2006). Is there such a thing as “evidence-based management”? Academy of Management Review,31, 256–269.

Rowold, J. (2006). Transformational and transactionalleadership in martial arts. Journal of Applied SportPsychology, 18, 312–325.

Rubin, R. S., Munz, D. C., & Bommer, W. H. (2005).Leading from within: The effects of emotion recogni-tion and personality on transformational leadershipbehavior. Academy of Management Journal, 48,845–858.

Ryan, M. K., & Haslam, S. A. (2007). The glass cliff:Exploring the dynamics surrounding the appoint-ment of women to precarious leadership positions.Academy of Management Review, 32, 549–572.

Sahin, S. (2004). The relationship between transforma-tional and transactional leadership styles of schoolprincipals and school culture. Kuram ve UygulamadaEgitim Bilimleri, 42, 387–396.

Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2001). The science oftraining: A decade of progress. Annual Review ofPsychology, 52, 471–499.

Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S. K., & Cha, S. E. (2007).Embracing transformational leadership: Team valuesand the impact of leader behavior on team perfor-mance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1020–1030.

Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., & Cogliser, C. C. (1999).Leader–member exchange (LMX) research: A com-prehensive review of theory, measurement, and data-analytic practices. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 63–113.

Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., Zhou, X., & DeChurch,L. A. (2006). An investigation of path–goal andtransformational leadership theory predictions at theindividual level of analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 17,21–38.

Schriesheim, C. A., & Neider, L. L. (1996). Path–goalleadership theory: The long and winding road.Leadership Quarterly, 7, 317–321.

Schriesheim, C. A., Tepper, B. J., & Tetrault, L. A.(1994). Least preferred co-worker score, situationalcontrol, and leadership effectiveness: A meta-analysisof contingency model performance predictions.Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 561–573.

Schyns, B., & Felfe, J. (2006). The personality of follow-ers and its effect on the perception of leadership: Anoverview, a study, and a research agenda. SmallGroup Research, 37, 522–539.

Schyns, B., & Sanders, K. (2007). In the eyes of thebeholder: Personality and the perception of leader-ship. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37,2345–2363.

Seyranian, V., & Bligh, M. C. (2008). Presidential charis-matic leadership: Exploring the rhetoric of socialchange. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 54–76.

Shamir, B., & Eilam, G. (2005). “What’s your story?” Alife-stories approach to authentic leadership develop-ment. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 395–417.

Shamir, B., & Howell, J. M. (1999). Organizational andcontextual influences on the emergence and effective-

Barling, Christie, and Hoption

238

11819-07_Ch07_rev2.qxd 3/30/10 11:50 AM Page 238

ness of charismatic leadership. Leadership Quarterly10,257–283.

Shamir, B., & Lapidot, Y. (2003). Shared leadership in themanagement of group boundaries: A study of expul-sions from officers’ training courses. In C. L. Pearce& J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframingthe hows and whys of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Shao, L., & Webber, S. (2006). A cross-cultural test of the‘five-factor model of personality and transformationalleadership.’ Journal of Business Research, 59, 936–944.

Shaw, H. (2008, February 15). The making of Lululemon:Superheroines inspired company’s founder to revolu-tionize women’s yoga wear. National Post, p. FP7.

Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2003). Transformational leader-ship, conservation, and creativity: Evidence fromKorea. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 703–714.

Simola, S., Barling, J., & Turner, N. (in press). Transforma-tional leadership and moral orientation: Contrastingan ethic of justice and an ethic of care. LeadershipQuarterly.

Singer, M. S., & Singer, A. E. (1990). Situational con-straints on transformational versus transactionalleadership behaviour, subordinates’ leadership pref-erence, and satisfaction. Journal of Social Psychology,130, 385–396.

Skarlicki, D. P., & Latham, G. P. (1996). Increasing citizen-ship behavior within a labor union: A test of orga-nizational justice theory. Journal of Applied Psychology,81, 161–169.

Skarlicki, D. P., & Latham, G. P. (1997). Leadershiptraining in organizational justice to increase citizen-ship behavior within a labor union: A replication.Personnel Psychology, 50, 617–633.

Skogstad, A., Einarsen, S., Torsheim, T., Aasland, M. S.,& Hetland, H. (2007). The destructiveness of laissez-faire leadership behavior. Journal of OccupationalHealth Psychology, 12, 80–92.

Sparrowe, R. N. (2005). Authenticity and the narrativeself. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 419–439.

Spreitzer, G. (1995). Psychological empowerment in theworkplace: Dimensions, measurement, and valida-tion. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442–1465.

Spreitzer, G. M., Perttula, K. H., & Xin, K. (2005).Traditionality matters: An examination of the effec-tiveness of transformational leadership in the UnitedStates and Taiwan. Journal of Organizational Behavior,26, 205–227.

Srivastava, A., Bartol, K. M., & Locke, E. A. (2006).Empowering leadership in management teams: Effectson knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance.Academy of Management Journal, 49, 1239–1251.

Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat andthe intellectual test performance of African

Americans. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 69, 797–811.

Stogdill, R. M. (1950). Leadership, membership and orga-nization. Psychological Bulletin, 47, 1–14.

Stodgill, R. M. (1963). Manual for the leader behaviordescription questionnaire. Columbus: Bureau ofBusiness Research, Ohio State University.

Sullivan, A. (2008). Gender bender. Time, 171, 36.

Sutton, R. I. (2007). The no arsehole rule: Building a civi-lized workplace and surviving one that isn’t. New York:Warner Books.

Tannenbaum, S. I., Mathieu, J. E., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (1991). Meeting trainees’ expectations:The influence of training fulfillment on the develop-ment of commitment, self-efficacy, and motivation.Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 759–769.

Tarnopol, L. (1958). Personality differences between lead-ers and non-leaders. Personnel Journal, 37, 57–60.

Tejeda, M. J., Scandura, T. A., & Pillai, R. (2001). TheMLQ revisited: Psychometric properties and recom-mendations. Leadership Quarterly, 12, 31–52.

Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive super-vision. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 178–190.

Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organi-zations: Review synthesis, and research agenda.Journal of Management, 33, 261–289.

Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Henle, C. A., & Lambert, L. S.(2006). Procedural injustice, victim precipitation,and abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 59,101–123.

Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., & Shaw, J. D. (2001).Personality moderators of the relationship betweenabusive supervision and subordinates’ resistance.Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 974–983.

Tepper, B. J., Moss, S. E., Lockhart, D. E., & Carr, J. C.(2007). Abusive supervision, upward maintenancecommunication, and subordinates’ psychological dis-tress. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1169–1180.

Tepper, B. J., & Percy, P. M. (1994). Structural validity ofthe Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Educationaland Psychological Measurement, 54, 734–744.

Terpstra, D. (1981). Relationship between methodologi-cal rigor and reported outcomes in organizationdevelopment evaluation research. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 66, 541–543.

Towler, A. (2005). Charismatic leadership development:Role of parental attachment style and parental psy-chological control. Journal of Leadership andOrganizational Studies, 11(4), 15–25.

Townsend, J., Phillips, J. S., & Elkins, T. J. (2000).Employee retaliation: The neglected consequence ofpoor leader-member exchange relations. Journal ofOccupational Health Psychology, 5, 457–463.

Leadership

239

11819-07_Ch07_rev2.qxd 3/30/10 11:50 AM Page 239

Tucker, S., Turner, N., Barling, J., & McEvoy, M. (inpress). Transformational leadership and children’saggression in team setting: A short-term, longitudi-nal study. Leadership Quarterly.

Tucker, S., Turner, N., Barling, J., Reid, E. M., & Elving,C. (2006). Apologies and transformational leader-ship. Journal of Business Ethics, 63, 195–207.

Turner, N., Barling, J., Epitropaki, O., Butcher, V., &Milner, C. (2002). Transformational leadership andmoral reasoning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,304–311.

Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., &Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the socialgroup: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, England:Blackwell.

Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review andsynthesis of the measurement invariance literature:Suggestions, practices, and recommendations fororganizational research. Organizational ResearchMethods, 3, 4–70.

van Dierendonck, D., Haynes, C., Borrill, C., & Stride, C.(2004). Leadership behavior and subordinate well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9,165–175.

van Honk, J., & Schutter, D. J. L. G. (2007). Testosteronereduces conscious detection of signals serving socialcorrection: Implications for antisocial behavior.Psychological Science, 18, 663–667.

van Knippenberg, D., De Cremer, D., & vanKnippenberg, B. (2007). Leadership and fairness:The state of the art. European Journal of Work andOrganizational Psychology, 16, 113–140.

van Knippenberg, D., Lossie, N., & Wilke, H. (1994).In-group prototypicality and persuasion:Determinants of heuristic and systematic messageprocessing. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33,289–300.

van Knippenberg, B. & van Knippenberg, D. (2005).Leader self-sacrifice and leadership effectiveness: Themoderating role of leader prototypicality. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 90, 25–37.

van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., & van Dijk,E. (2000). Who takes the lead in risky decision mak-

ing? Effects of group members’ risk preferences andprototypicality. Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Processes, 84, 213–234.

Waldman, D. A., Ramírez, G. G., House, R. J., &Puranam, P. (2001). Does leadership matter? CEOleadership attributes and profitability under condi-tions of perceived environmental uncertainty.Academy of Management Journal, 44, 134–143.

Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D., & Chen,Z. X. (2005). Leader–member exchange as a media-tor of the relationship between transformationalleadership and followers’ performance and organiza-tional citizenship behavior. Academy of ManagementJournal, 48, 420–432.

Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic orga-nizations (T. Parsons, Trans.). New York: Free Press.

Westwood, R. (2004). Comic relief: Subversion andcatharsis in organizational comedic theatre.Organization Studies, 25, 775–795.

White, R. E., Thornhill, S., & Hampson, E. (2006).Entrepreneurs and evolutionary biology: The rela-tionship between testosterone and new venture cre-ation. Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses, 100, 21–34.

Whittington, J. L., Goodwin, V. L., & Murray, B. (2004).Transformational leadership, goal difficulty, and jobdesign: Independent and interactive effects onemployee outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 15,593–606.

Wofford, J. C., & Liska, L. Z. (1993). Path–goal theoriesof leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal ofManagement, 19, 857–876.

Yovetich, N. A., Dale, J. A., & Hudak, M. A. (1990).Benefits of humor in reduction of threat-inducedanxiety. Psychological Reports, 66, 51–58.

Zacharatos, A., Barling, J., & Kelloway, E. K. (2000).Development and effects of transformational leader-ship in adolescents. Leadership Quarterly, 11,211–226.

Zellars, K. L., Tepper, B. J., & Duffy, M. K. (2002).Abusive supervision and subordinates’ organizationalcitizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology,87, 1068–1076.

Barling, Christie, and Hoption

240

11819-07_Ch07_rev2.qxd 3/30/10 11:50 AM Page 240