Leadership

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282650972

Leadership

Chapter · January 2012

DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199928309.013.0022

CITATIONS

62 READS

1 author: David V. Day University of Western Australia

96 PUBLICATIONS 11,785 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

9,546

22

David V. Day

Leadership

Abstract

Issues related to leadership theory, research, and practices within the field of industrial/organizational (I/O) psychology are examined. Several special circumstances with regard to leadership are first considered, including the varied domains in which leadership is relevant, its multilevel nature, the multiple sources of origin for leadership, and the multiple outcomes in terms of leader emergence and effectiveness. Various leadership theories and frameworks are reviewed, organized around classical theories (evolutionary, trait, behavior, and contingency), bridging theories (charismatic/ transformational, leader-member exchange, and leadership perceptions), and emerging approaches (team, shared, and capacity approaches). Future directions in terms of leadership theory, research, and practice are proposed, concluding with a summary of what I/O psychologists know about leadership and speculation as to what has yet to be learned.

Keywords: Leadership, evolution, traits, behaviors, contingency, charisma, transformational, leader-member exchange, leadership perceptions, shared leadership

Introduction

Leadership has a long and checkered history in industrial/organizational (I/O) psychology. Despite its longevity, the leadership field has been characterized as “curiously unformed” (Hackman & Wageman, 2007, p. 43). The pessimistic sentiment stems from factors such as the lack of a standard operational definition of the construct, an overly narrow focus of study, and the tendency to theorize about leadership in ways that make it too esoteric to understand (Locke, 2003; Schriesheim, 2003). These criticisms have raised concerns that perhaps leadership is not a scientific construct at all. In a well-known quote about the many different ways that leadership has been conceptualized and defined, Bass (1990) noted that “there are almost as many definitions of leadership as there are persons who have attempted to define the concept” (p. 11). Indeed, early applied psychologists did not consider

leadership to be a relevant scientific construct and it was not until the 1940s that leadership began to be covered consistently in industrial psychology textbooks (Day & Zaccaro, 2007). Some of the criticisms leveled against the field of leadership are justified; however, one difficulty with attempting to provide a concise leadership definition is that it invariably leaves something out or otherwise oversimplifies a complex, dynamic, and evolving process.

A good place to begin when attempting to review and make sense of the leadership field is with this notion of process, which can be defined as a series of actions or operations conducing to an end or desired outcome. What makes the leadership process especially difficult to define and study cleanly is that leadership is “a complex interaction between the leader and the social and organizational environment” (Fiedler, 1996, p. 241). This view includes

the followers as part of the social environment. It is evident from this perspective that leadership is not just about the leader, which reflects an entity rather than process perspective (Uhl-Bien, 2006); however, that is how leadership has tended to be conceptualized and studied in I/O psychology. Although the field attempted to move away from this limited perspective with contingency theories, more recent attention on charismatic and transformational leadership have brought the focus of research squarely back on the leader.

This brief introduction illustrates one of the historical and yet continuing challenges in the field of leadership, which is to “ . . . distinguish it as a process from the leader as a person who occupies a central role in that process” (Hollander & Julian, 1969, p. 388, italics in original). A primary goal of this chapter is to trace the development of the leadership field from one that is highly heroic and “leadercentric” (i.e., all about the leader as an entity) to one that recognizes leadership as a more inclusive process with regard to followers and factors in the broader social and organizational environment. In accomplishing this objective, it is necessary to keep in mind that leadership, ultimately, is a process and not a person (Hollander, 1992).

It is not just leadership research that continues to mature; the construct itself is evolving (see Drath et al., 2008, for a good example of this ongoing construct evolution). This is a source of irritation and frustration to some I/O psychologists who would prefer a set, agreed upon, and universal definition of leadership (e.g., Locke, 2003). Despite this hardnosed scientific perspective, it is an unreasonable expectation, given that leadership is dynamic, interpersonal, multifunctional, and multilevel in nature. It is also the case that the advances in our conceptual frameworks and analytical tools have contributed to changes in the way that I/O psychologists think about and study leadership.

Another important force behind these changes is the increasingly complex challenges that require leadership. No matter how smart or experienced, leaders are more often and more quickly reaching their limits in terms of being able to figure things out and provide ready solutions (Bennis, 2007). One of the more provocative assertions made in the leadership field is that organizations not only need more highly developed leaders to address these complex challenges, but that they need more leaders, period. Indeed, there have been calls to develop everyone as a leader. Critics have countered: If everyone is a leader, then who will follow?

Unfortunately, this demonstrates a very narrow understanding of leadership because leadership is a highly dynamic process that is not restricted to a particular person or position. Someone who is leading at one point in time by influencing others on the team may take on a role of follower subsequently while being influenced by someone else on the team. This is not a new perspective, but it is one that has been widely overlooked. Everyone needs to be prepared as fully as possible to contribute to effective leadership processes when those leadership moments arrive. Complex challenges now and in the future are unlikely to be addressed successfully by any one leader. For these reasons, successful leadership will likely require a more inclusive orientation (Hollander, 2009).

Before reviewing specific theories of leadership in tracing the development of the field and the corresponding construct evolution, this chapter will address several issues that contribute to leadership as a somewhat unique construct within I/O psychology. These include the varied domains in which leadership is relevant, its multilevel nature, the multiple sources of origin for leadership, and the multiple outcomes in terms of leader emergence and effectiveness. To better prepare the background for understanding the various theories that will be presented, a brief introduction to each of these issues is provided.

Domains of Leadership

I/O psychology is a discipline that is guided by a focus on both science and practice (Koppes & Pickren, 2007). Because of this dual focus, I/O psychologists are considered to be scientist-practitioners. This is a particular point of relevance when the focal topic is leadership because the domains in which leadership is practiced are so varied. Leadership is relevant in business, politics, military, sports, education, and religion, among other contexts. But what it takes to be a successful leader or to bring about effective leadership may vary considerably across contexts. Put into somewhat more technical terms, the particular domain may serve as a boundary condition to the research findings that seek to enhance understanding and be of practical value in improving leadership in a given context (Johns, 2006).

An area of long-standing research interest concerns what it takes to be perceived as a leader (i.e., leader emergence). This is considered to be of importance both theoretically and practically, because being seen as a leader provides someone with extra power and

influence, especially in situations in which a leader emerges informally in a group rather than being formally appointed. A perceiver is more likely to allow influence from another if that person is seen to have certain characteristics associated with a stored impression of a leader (called a prototype). That is, the degree that someone matches a prototype of a leader, the more likely that person will be allowed by others to emerge as a leader and to exercise influence over them (Lord, Foti, & Phillips, 1982).

Research in the topic area of leadership perceptions has shown that there is some degree of commonality across the various context domains in terms of the prototype that people hold in memory about a leader (defined in terms of leader traits); however, there are also important differences (Lord, Foti, & De Vader, 1984). This has practical implications for a leader who may want to move across career domains from business to politics or military to education. What it takes to be perceived as a leader in terms of personal characteristics will be different to some extent across different context domains, and this includes cultural contexts. Because leadership is relevant across so many different contexts, it is important to keep this potential boundary condition in mind. Context matters, especially with leadership.

As another example—or perhaps caveat is the more appropriate word—pertains to a distinction between leader and boss (or supervisor). Is there one? The question may appear to be trivial, but there is a continuing controversy about the difference between leaders and managers, and between leadership and management. Most people would recognize that someone could be a manager without being a leader, or be a leader without exercising sound management. But what is the difference between a leader and a manager? The ongoing debate about this difference will not be resolved here, but that is not the point. Rather, in evaluating the research that has been conducted purportedly about leadership, it is sobering to see just how many of these studies have actually sampled managers or other study participants in positions of authority and management and have assumed that the results apply to leaders and leadership (Bedeian & Hunt, 2006). This may, or may not, be an appropriate inference. As informed consumers of leadership research, readers have a responsibility (along with reviewers and editors) to critically evaluate such potential boundary conditions, rather than assuming, based on researchers’ own claims, that they are actually studying leadership.

Multilevel Focus

The study and application (science/practice) of leadership often requires a multilevel lens (Zyphur, Barsky, & Zhang, 2012). It is true that a great deal of leadership research is focused at the level of the individual leader (e.g., attempting to identify the traits or behaviors of effective leaders); however, there are other approaches to leadership that have conceptualized it as a leader-member dyadic exchange (LMX; Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995), as group or team processes (Carson, Tesluk, & Marrone, 2007; Day, Gronn, & Salas, 2004; Kozlowski, Watola, Jensen, Kim, & Botero, 2009; Pearce & Conger, 2003b), or even at the organization level of analysis (O’Connor & Quinn, 2004). It is inappropriate to assume that any construct—including leadership—that is conceptualized and measured at one level of analysis would be identical in meaning to a construct at a different level in terms of content or process (Chan, 1998; Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). What is needed is clear thinking and empirical evidence of the appropriate composition model across levels (Lord & Dinh, 2012), as well as the analytical tools to handle this extra complexity. For example, when followers are nested within leaders, as in the typical LMX approach (i.e., multiple followers report to the same leader), the resulting data are likely to be non-independent. This violates one of the basic assumptions regarding the appropriate use of inferential statistics regarding independence of observations.

What has helped to spur the evolution of leadership theory and research in recent years has been the significant advances in multilevel modeling. Leadership can be thought of as inherently multilevel in that it involves leaders, followers, and situations (context) and can range from individual to organizational levels of analysis and anything between, including multiteam systems (DeChurch & Marks, 2006). Furthermore, the target of leadership processes can be directed at the level of the organization, the group or team, or individual follower(s). This opens the possibility for cross-level effects, especially if it is assumed that leaders do not treat all followers identically. Multilevel modeling techniques now allow researchers to test the underlying assumptions directly and to model their effects more accurately. Also, in terms of leadership development, there are issues of within-person and between-person changes that can be addressed using multilevel growth modeling procedures (Day & Lance, 2004). Multilevel approaches to leadership

help to build more intricate and realistic pictures of leadership causes and effects in organizations.

Another levels issue pertains to the impact or “reach” of a leader. Much of the leadership research examines the downward influence that the leader has on followers in terms of attitudes, behavior, or performance. But those leaders at middle levels and above in organizations often have more than one level of followers as direct reports. They also have indirect reports two or more levels below that can also be affected by the leader’s actions (e.g., Dvir, Eden, Avolio, & Shamir, 2002). Studies have also examined the effects of top-level (e.g., CEO) leadership on organizational performance (Barrick, Day, Lord, & Alexander, 1991; Day & Lord, 1988), as well as upward influence by those lower in the organization directed toward those at higher levels (Mowday, 1978; Schilit & Locke, 1982). These are all relevant approaches to understanding the potential effects of leadership, but it is important to always keep in perspective the appropriate target and degree of leadership reach and to make sure that it matches the theoretical and analytical tools that are used.

Multiple Origins

Where does leadership come from? This is a deceptively tricky question because it goes to some of the fundamental assumptions about the nature of leadership. Far and away the most commonly researched source of leadership in I/O psychology is the individual leader (Day & Zaccaro, 2007). This is not surprising, given the attention paid to individual differences in the field of psychology. In particular, researchers have studied leadership with an eye toward understanding what personality traits, behaviors, and decision-making characteristics are associated with effective leaders. Each of these particular origins will be discussed in more detail in the chapter section that reviews various leadership theories. But even without being completely familiar with the theory, it is possible to appreciate how leadership is conceptualized differently by considering these various origins.

Given that many prominent scholars consider the ultimate source of leadership to be social influence (Hollander & Julian, 1969; Katz & Kahn, 1978), the early research on the personality traits of effective leaders (i.e., “Great Man” [sic] theory) approached leadership in terms of which personal characteristics were likely to be associated with influential individuals. As a result, the focus of the personality approach to leadership was and is tightly

on the individual leader. From this perspective, the essence of leadership resides with an individual leader, and the direction in which leadership flows is only from leader to follower. This is interesting because one of the most prominent of these personal characteristics—charisma—was originally proposed by Max Weber ([1924] 1947) as more of a sociological factor relating to how different societies preferred to be governed or led. It was only later that charisma was reconceptualized as an individual difference related to leadership (House, 1977).

An important implication of this perspective is that if leadership is thought to reside with the traits, behaviors, or cognitions of leaders, then the best way to develop more effective leadership is to focus on developing individual leaders (Day, 2000). But this also reveals one of the weaknesses of this line of thinking: Without followers, associates, or other people in the equation, how can there be any leadership? Leadership involves at least one other person in a mutually shared situation. Thus some of the more recent leadership approaches have widened the lens to consider sources beyond the individual leader.

A modest increment over a completely leadercentric focus is to include the possibility of reciprocal influence between a leader and follower, which was originally framed in terms of how the two parties mutually define the subordinate’s role (Dansereau et al., 1975; Graen & Cashman, 1975). This perspective has been developed subsequently to consider the relationship between a leader and a follower (or member) as an important source of leadership in organizations (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Uhl-Bien, 2006). Specifically, it is thought that relationships generate resources that help to forge mutual respect, commitment, trust, and loyalty (Dienesch & Liden, 1986; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). In this way, it is the resources that are embedded in the shared relationship that are important for leadership, rather than the actions of any one particular individual.

An even more inclusive approach to leadership views it not just as input to getting things done, but as an outcome of effective social processes and structure (Gibb, 1954; Salancik, Calder, Rowland, Leblebici, & Conway, 1975). At the group or team level, such processes serve to build teamwork among members, which enhances overall team learning, and ultimately develops team leadership capacity (Day et al., 2004). From this perspective, leadership is not the property of any single individual but is an emergent property within the system of the group (Hollander & Julian, 1969). When leadership is

conceptualized in this manner, effectiveness in leadership becomes more of a product of the connections or relationships among members of the system than the result of any one part of that system (O’Connor & Quinn, 2004).

This illustrates another interesting and perhaps unique aspect of leadership, which is that it can originate from an individual, a dyad, or a broader set of relationships, and can even be possibly replaced by other factors in the social environment (Kerr & Jermier, 1978). The goal from a theoretical and research standpoint is to help illustrate ways in which these various perspectives link together— maybe through the use of multilevel modeling frameworks—rather than to try to identify which is the right approach. They all have merit and work in concert with each other as part of a high-performing system.

Multiple Criteria

There are two key ways in which leadership is operationalized as a criterion construct in research. The first and most prevalent way is in terms of leader emergence, or the extent to which someone is perceived as a leader (Lord, De Vader, & Alliger, 1986). The second way is in terms of leader effectiveness, with regard to a leader’s effect on performance (Hogan, Curphy, & Hogan, 1994). Lord et al. (1986) stressed that much of the early work evaluating the linkages between personality and leadership was misinterpreted as pertaining to effectiveness when it was actually addressing the relationship between personality traits and leader emergence (i.e., perceptions).

Conceptually, there is a clear distinction between leader emergence and leader effectiveness, but when these different criterion variables are typically operationalized in leadership research, the distinction becomes muddled (House & Podsakoff, 1994). Both emergence and effectiveness variables tend to be based on others’ ratings. Leader emergence refers to the degree to which a target individual is viewed as a leader by others, whereas leader effectiveness is usually based on ratings made by the leader’s supervisor, peers, or subordinates. The point is that these ratings of leader effectiveness are likely contaminated by the raters’ perceptions of that person as a leader (Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002). It is impossible to disentangle leader emergence from leader effectiveness when both are based on the perceptually based ratings of observers. Although it might be argued that it would be more desirable to use objective measures of performance instead

of ratings, classic work in the field of performance appraisal has argued that objective performance measures (e.g., quantity, frequency) tend to be deficient as criteria, especially when used as measures of managerial performance (Landy & Farr, 1980). There is also a host of issues that can contaminate objective performance measures by including irrelevant information that potentially bias the data. For example, in assessing the relationship between executive leadership and organizational performance, it is unrealistic to expect immediate results following a change in top leadership. Indeed, it was shown that a three-year lag time (as compared with no lag) demonstrated more than double the effects of executive leadership on the performance outcome of profit margins (Day & Lord, 1988).

The issue is important because it goes to the construct validity of the criterion measures used in the majority of leadership research. Without a clear distinction between emergence and effectiveness, it is difficult to infer from the results of research efforts whether a given predictor variable is related primarily to how an individual is perceived as a leader or to his or her respective level of effectiveness as a leader. These are very different concerns. This is further complicated by research on implicit leadership theories, which suggest that effectiveness is an important factor in shaping whether someone is perceived as a leader or not (Binning, Zaba, & Whattam, 1986; Eden & Leviathan, 1975; Epitropaki & Martin, 2004; Lord et al, 1984). It is difficult to be perceived as a leader—especially over time—if the leader is associated with ineffective outcomes. As other authors have noted (House & Podsakoff, 1994), the use of perceptual measures of leadership has blurred the distinction between leader emergence and effectiveness, even though they appear to be conceptually distinct.

Similar confusion has been noted in the literature on organizational effectiveness. Therefore, it might make sense in assessing the criteria used for judging leadership to consider the guidelines recommended for mapping the construct space of effectiveness at the macro or organizational level (Cameron & Whetten, 1983), which include addressing questions such as: (a) From what perspective is effectiveness being judged? (b) On what domain of activity is the judgment focused? (c) What level of analysis is being used? (d) What is the purpose of judging effectiveness? (e) What time frame is being used? (f) What types of data are being used for judgments of effectiveness? and (g) What is the referent against which effectiveness is judged? To be clear, this is not

suggesting that the outcome of leadership always be represented in terms of individual, group, or organizational effectiveness; leadership can often shape other important outcomes that deserve consideration in research and theory (Podolny, Khurana, & Hill-Popper, 2005). But when used as guidelines, these questions can help to clarify what is meant by leadership effectiveness in general and how it differs from leadership perceptions and leader emergence.

All of the issues discussed above (process orientation, multidisciplinary domains, multilevel focus, multiple origins, and multiple criteria) contribute to the unique positioning of leadership as a construct within I/O psychology. These issues also contribute significantly to the complexity that continues to challenge leadership researchers. But this does not mean that we are ignorant about leadership from a scientific and empirical standpoint—quite the contrary. As noted by certain leadership scholars (Avolio, Sosik, Jung, & Berson, 2003):

We have learned an enormous amount about what constitutes leadership, where it comes from, how it can be measured, what contributes to it being ethical or unethical, how people see it differently and why, how the context alters its interpretation, and what happens when it is substituted or replaced. (p. 277)

In this spirit, the purpose of this chapter is to review and summarize what it is that we do know about leadership. Evidence from various theoretical approaches will be reviewed and organized around three theoretical themes: classical, bridging, and emerging. The chapter will close with a look to future theoretical, research, and practical directions, summarizing what we know about leadership and speculating on what we have yet to learn. The overall goal is to foster an eventual synthesis of the evidence; as such, it is the first step in effective use of scientific evidence in promoting an evidence-based approach (Rousseau, Manning, & Denyer, 2008) to leadership in I/O psychology.

Classical Leadership Theories/Frameworks Evolutionary Perspectives on Leadership

A question that is as old as the field of psychology is how much of human behavior is due to nature (inherited characteristics) and how much is due to nurture (environment and learning). A similar question that is as old as the field of leadership is whether leaders are born or made. Unfortunately, these are not very interesting questions because the clear answer is that it is some combination of one’s personal makeup and what has been learned. This

position was espoused even by the early pioneers of I/O psychology (Bingham, 1927). The empirical evidence supports an “and/both” rather than “either/or” perspective with regard to the importance of both nature and nurture in the development of leaders.

Using a sample of fraternal (n = 178) and identical (n = 214) female twins, it was estimated that 32% of the variance in leadership role occupancy was associated with heritability or nature (Arvey, Zhang, Avolio, & Krueger, 2007). Furthermore, another 10–15% of the variance was attributable directly to work and life experiences, and the remaining 50% “is as yet undiscovered” (p. 704). A previous study by some of these same authors demonstrated similar results—approximately 30% of the variance in leadership role occupancy could be accounted for by genetics—among a sample of fraternal (n = 188) and identical (n = 238) male twins (Arvey, Rotundo, Johnson, Zhang, & McGue, 2006). These results illustrate an important point with regard to leadership development: everyone has the potential for leadership, but some will need to work harder to develop it than others.

Ilies, Gerhardt, and Huy (2004) also investigated the extent to which leader emergence could be explained by genetic differences between individuals (i.e., heritability). Rather than comparing fraternal and identical twins directly, the researchers estimated the relationship between personality traits and intelligence with leader emergence, and the relative influence of heritability on personality and intelligence, using previously published estimates of the various components. The results indicated that approximately 17% of the variance in leader emergence could be explained by genetic effects, which are mediated by personality traits and intelligence. Again, these results support the conclusion that some amount of leadership (or emergence as a leader) is due to genetic factors, but the majority of the variance is shaped by non-genetic (e.g., environmental) influences.

There have even been empirical studies of the relationship between inherited physical characteristics (i.e., height) and career outcomes, including the ascendance into leadership (Judge & Cable, 2004). Across a meta-analysis and four large-sample studies, height was shown to be correlated significantly with leader emergence and work performance as well as annual earnings. It is a somewhat remarkable finding that, regardless of sex or occupation, height was positively and significantly related to annual pre-tax earnings. A theoretical model proposed and tested by the authors suggested that height is positively

related to self- and social-esteem, which enhances both objective and subjective performance, which in turn contributes to career success in terms of ascendancy into leadership positions and superior job earnings. The authors chose to forgo an evolutionary explanation for their results, but it is clear that the perceptions of other people play an important role in leader emergence, and those individuals who are tall are more likely to be salient and potentially better suited to protect the group by virtue of their physical presence.

Rather than focus on the nature/nurture issue in attempting to estimate the extent that leadership is attributable to each of these sources, others have taken a more intentional and explicit evolutionary perspective on the topic of leadership. It should be noted that evolutionary psychology is an approach to understanding a given psychological construct and not a field of study on its own (Cosmides & Tooby, 1997). It is also helpful to consider that one of the guiding principles of evolutionary psychology is that the neural circuits in human brains were designed by natural selection to solve problems that human ancestors faced during the species’ evolutionary history. Thus, from the perspective of evolutionary psychology, a relevant question to consider is: Why is leadership important?

The interrelationship between leadership, followership, and evolution was recently examined. Among the conclusions drawn from their analyses, Van Vugt, Hogan, and Kaiser (2008) assert that leading and following were adaptive strategies for dealing with social coordination problems in early group life, such as group movement, as well as conflict and competition within and between groups. But in order to capitalize on the benefits of leadership for social adaptation, it is necessary for individuals to recognize and identify leadership potential, which is something that “humans possess in abundance” (p. 184).

Although it is important from an evolutionary perspective to be able to identify potential leaders in a group, it is less clear why people would willingly put themselves in a subordinate follower position. Given the fitness and reproductive benefits associated with social status, leaders are generally better off than followers in those important evolutionary ways. The answer to the riddle appears to be that, although followers are generally less well-off than leaders, they are better off than individuals in poorly led groups. Nonetheless, the relationship between leaders and followers is “inherently ambiguous”

(p. 182) due to followers’ vulnerability and potential exploitation by leaders.

Perhaps most revealing of all in this evolutionary analysis are the insights gleaned about the evolution of leadership throughout history. Beginning with pre-human society and a leadership structure based on “alpha leaders” in dominance-oriented hierarchies, leadership has evolved through prestigebased “big men” (tribal leadership) to formalized and hereditary-based leadership (chiefs, kings, and warlords) to a centralized but democratic leadership structure that is hierarchical but also participatory (state and business leadership). What is particularly interesting about these various leadership structures is the mismatch hypothesis, which posits on the possible lack of fit between the evolved leadership psychology of present-day humans and the way in which leadership is practiced in many modern organizations (Van Vugt, 2012; Van Vugt, Johnson, Kaiser, & O’Gorman, 2008). This hypothesis might help to explain why leaders become abusive or why leadership practices revert to more primal forms in times of crises.

What has been learned from taking an evolutionary perspective on leadership is that heredity plays a role, but the environment and learning play even larger roles in shaping leaders. It also illustrates the role that dominance plays in leadership, emerging as the earliest leadership structure in pre-human society, but that aspects of dominance (e.g., height) may still today partly influence who ascends into leadership roles. Furthermore, the leadership structure of modern organizations may be poorly matched at times to “our advanced leadership psychology, which might explain the alienation and frustration of many citizens and employees” (Van Vugt, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2008, p. 182).

Trait-based Perspectives on Leadership

The question of how leaders might be different— which has usually meant superior—to followers has been of long-standing interest to researchers and practitioners in the field of leadership. The initial approaches that addressed this question were greatly influenced by heritability perspectives on exceptional individuals (e.g., Galton, 1869), focusing on personality traits as innate or heritable qualities of leaders and followers (Zaccaro, 2007). But rather than continuing to be confined to innate and immutable personality characteristics, the meaning of the term trait has evolved away from purely heritable qualities.

Leader traits have been defined as “relatively stable and coherent integrations of personal characteristics that foster a consistent pattern of leadership

performance across a variety of group and organizational situations” (Zaccaro, Kemp, & Bader, 2004, p. 104). From this perspective, traits can be considered more broadly to include any type of a stable individual difference, including personality, affect, motives, cognitive abilities, skills, and expertise.

The first empirically based treatment of the personal characteristics thought to be associated with leadership was published in 1925; it proposed 15 qualities that were inductively determined through interviews conducted with 110 successful business executives (Craig & Charters, 1925). Another early book that was grounded in industrial psychology (and dedicated to Walter Van Dyke Bingham) listed 10 desirable leader qualities, including enthusiasm, integrity, decisiveness, intelligence, and faith (Tead, 1935). It is difficult to argue with such a list, but that was part of the problem. Lists of plausible leader traits became increasingly prevalent and lengthy. Stogdill (1948) listed 32 personal factors associated with leadership, whereas Bird (1940) listed 70 potential leader attributes. Coupled with a lack of psychometrically sound measures for many of these proposed attributes, the field became mired in trying to deal with the sheer number of plausible leader traits.

The field reached a tipping point of sorts when several prominent researchers began examining the empirical evidence for the trait-based perspective of leadership. Stogdill (1948), Gibb (1947), and Mann (1959) all seemed to provide pessimistic assessments of the field and were widely quoted in subsequent textbooks as “sounding the death knell for the leader trait perspective” (Zaccaro, 2007, p. 10). Other approaches based on leader behaviors and situational contingencies began to emerge and replace the leader trait perspective.

What transpired to revive the leader trait perspective is largely attributable to advances in research methodology and statistical analysis. One of Stogdill’s (1948) criticisms of the leader trait field concerned the lack of evidence for the crosssituational consistency of leadership. Specifically, he stated that “ . . . persons who are leaders in one situation may not necessarily be leaders in other situations” (p. 65). A study designed to test this assertion (Barnlund, 1962) apparently supported Stogdill’s much-quoted conclusion that leaders in one group situation did not emerge as leaders in other group situations. Later still, these data were reanalyzed using more sophisticated statistical models and were shown to support an entirely different perspective: Between 49% and 82% of the variance in leader

emergence could be attributed to stable leader attributes (Kenny & Zaccaro, 1983).

The other methodological advance that brought about a reconsideration of the role of personality traits and leadership was meta-analysis. A now well-known limitation of trying to aggregate findings across studies to reach some overall estimate of effect size is that these estimates can be biased due to sampling error associated with small sample sizes, as well as measurement error due to imperfect reliability among other artifacts (Hunter & Schmidt, 1990). As a result, merely averaging effects or trying otherwise to ascertain their consistency across studies is biased unless procedures are taken to adjust for these potential problems. Meta-analysis revolutionized I/O psychology and reenergized a number of areas of study, including that of leader traits, which had been written off as a result of weak findings using traditional narrative or other flawed review approaches.

Some of the first researchers to apply metaanalytic procedures to leadership studies were Lord and colleagues (Lord et al., 1986). These researchers noted a least two major weaknesses with the previous reviews of the relationship between personality traits and leadership (e.g., Mann, 1959; Stogdill, 1948). The first was that inferior methods were used in reaching these previous conclusions, and the second was that this previous research had been misinterpreted as applying to a leader’s effect on performance (i.e., effectiveness), when the criteria in most of the studies in these reviews pertained to leadership emergence. Lord et al. (1986) subsequently reanalyzed the studies reviewed by Mann (1959) via meta-analysis and found that the traits of intelligence, masculinity-femininity, and dominance were significantly related to leadership perceptions (i.e., emergence). These effects held, even after updating their database with studies published subsequent to Mann’s (1959) review.

Additional meta-analytic work has further supported the general conclusion that personality traits matter when it comes to leadership. A qualitative and quantitative review of the relationship between personality and leadership focused on the five-factor model of personality (Judge et al., 2002). The so-called Big Five personality model was another advance that sparked resurgent interest in personality research in I/O psychology. The analyses were based on 222 correlations from 73 independent samples and demonstrated an overall multiple correlation of .48 between the Big Five personality factors and leadership. Results from the individual

meta-analyses on the specific trait factors showed that extraversion was the most consistent correlate of leadership across settings and relevant criteria (emergence and effectiveness). Conscientiousness, openness, and neuroticism (reversed) all demonstrated non-zero relationships with leadership. Only the Big Five factor of agreeableness was shown to be unrelated to leadership. From these generally robust results, Judge et al. (2002) concluded that their findings “provide strong evidence in favor of the trait approach . . . ” (p. 776) and urged future researchers to develop process models to help illuminate the dispositional source of leadership.

In yet another application of meta-analysis, researchers examined the relationships between the personality factor of self-monitoring and a number of work-related outcomes including leadership (Day, Schleicher, Unckless, & Hiller, 2002). Self-monitoring personality pertains to individual differences in the extent to which people observe, regulate, and control the public appearances of self that they display (Snyder, 1987). The meta-analytic results indicated an overall correlation between self-monitoring and leadership outcomes across 23 samples (N = 2,777) to be .21 corrected only for sampling and measurement error. These results suggest that those individuals who tend to monitor and control the images that they present to better fit with the social environment around them (i.e., high self-monitors) are more likely to be seen as leaders and to be rated more effectively than individuals who tend to be true to themselves and display more consistent behaviors across situations. Although several explanations have been offered with regard to this finding, it remains the source of ongoing debate (Bedeian & Day, 2004). Specifically, if high self-monitors are social chameleons, as some have suggested (Kilduff & Day, 1994), then why would they make for better leaders than the more consistent and principled low self-monitors?

What is needed is a framework or process model that might help to better understand the dispositional approach to leadership. Zaccaro et al. (2004) offered one such model of leader attributes and leader performance, positing that more distal attributes (traits) such as personality, motive values (e.g., motivation to lead; Chan & Drasgow, 2001), and cognitive abilities directly influence more proximal attributes such as problem-solving skills, social appraisal skills, and expertise. The proximal attributes serve as input to leadership processes at the next stage operating in a leader’s environment, which ultimately influence leader emergence,

effectiveness, and advancement. This general framework offers researchers a way to conceptualize and then examine how combinations of traits and attributes, integrated in meaningful ways, are likely to better predict leadership outcomes than are the independent contributions of multiple traits (Foti & Hauenstein, 2007; Zaccaro, 2007).

In summary, the trait-based approach to leadership has seen a resurgence of research interest in the early part of the twenty-first century. Although it is one of the oldest systematic approaches to leadership, and had fallen out of favor following several critical reviews of the available evidence in the midtwentieth century, the consolidating influence of the five-factor personality model, along with the use and acceptance of meta-analysis, have contributed significantly to this interest.

Behavioral Perspectives on Leadership

Beginning in the 1950s and continuing through to the present, there has been strong research interest in leadership behavior. The focal question from this approach is: What is it that effective leaders do that distinguishes them from less effective leaders or from followers? This shift in perspectives from leader traits to behaviors corresponds roughly with the ascendancy of behaviorism as the dominant theoretical voice in psychology. Rather than consider unobservable dispositional motive forces, the proponents of behaviorism maintained that only observable variables were worthy of scientific study. Ralph Stogdill is often credited with being a driving force behind the abandonment of the trait approach in favor of the leader behavior movement, even though accounts from a former student and collaborator (Ed Fleishman) suggest that Stogdill never intended for his 1948 review to be a rejection of trait approaches; rather, his conclusions were widely misinterpreted in an overly pessimistic manner by other leadership researchers (Day & Zaccaro, 2007).

One factor that had a profound effect on the rise of the behavioral approach to leadership was the widespread acceptance of survey research in the social sciences and psychology in particular. As noted by one prominent leadership scholar: “Survey research with questionnaires is by far the most common method to study the relationship between leadership behavior and various antecedents . . . or outcomes of this behavior” (Yukl, 2006, p. 57). But questions remain as to whether a construct with such phenomenological origins such as leadership (Calder, 1977) can be legitimately studied using

questionnaires. What do the resulting data actually reflect? This is a question without a clear answer, even today.

Ohio State and Michigan Studies

The leader behavior approach was radical for its time because it was the first such research program to rely on a statistical technique. The approach taken by a team of researchers at Ohio State University (led by Stogdill) compiled a list of around 1,800 specific leadership behaviors, ultimately reduced to 150 examples of important behaviors for effective leaders. Ratings from civilian and military personnel were gathered whereby respondents rated their respective supervisors (who were assumed to also be leaders) on these behavioral items, which were then subjected to a relatively new statistical procedure called factor analysis. The procedure is used to explain the variability of relationships among observed variables in terms of a smaller number of unobserved dimensions or factors. From these 150 observed behaviors, factor analytic techniques were used to derive (through hand calculations) two broad categories of leader behavior: consideration (concern for people) and initiating structure (concern for task accomplishment; Halpin & Winer, 1957). The resulting questionnaire went through several revisions before being published as the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire, Form XII or LBDQ XII (Stogdill, Goode, & Day, 1962). It is probably one of the most famous—or infamous—survey measures in the field of leadership.

Around this same time, researchers at the University of Michigan were also investigating leadership behaviors. In addition to task-oriented and relations-oriented behavior, the Michigan researchers also identified participative leadership and peer leadership as significant factors for group effectiveness (Bowers & Seashore, 1966). These are important additions in that they recognized the role of peer leadership in addition to supervisor-based leadership behavior. As such, participative and peer leadership were precursors to forms of shared leadership that are gaining interest with contemporary leadership researchers (Pearce & Conger, 2003a). The Michigan group authored their own leader behavior questionnaire called the Survey of Organizations (Taylor & Bowers, 1972), which measured multiple aspects of task- and relations-oriented behavior enacted by supervisors and peers.

It is difficult to overestimate the influence of the factors of consideration and initiating structure on the leadership field. The dimensions reappear in a

number of other leadership theories across the years (e.g., contingency theories, transformational leadership) and have generated scores of research studies.

A recent meta-analysis on the validity of consideration and initiating structure in leadership research (Judge, Piccolo, & Ilies, 2004) identified 159 and 163 correlations with leadership outcomes, respectively, for the factors. Furthermore, results indicated that across all criteria evaluated (e.g., follower job satisfaction, follower satisfaction with leader, follower motivation, leader job performance, group/ organization performance, leader effectives) the average sample-weighted correlation was .41 for consideration and .24 for initiating structure, with credibility and confidence intervals excluding zero for both constructs. Because of the surprising strength of these results, Judge et al. (2004) referred to these classic leadership factors as the “forgotten ones” (p. 36) and argued “that it is inadvisable, at this point, to abandon Consideration and Initiating Structure in leadership research” (p. 47).

Limitations with Leadership Questionnaires

Despite this cautionary advice from Judge et al. (2004), there are serious concerns associated with the use of leadership questionnaires, which is how these factors are typically measured. One of the assumptions underpinning the use of questionnaires to measure leader behavior is that the respondents completing those behavioral ratings store in memory and recall observed behaviors. The research evidence suggests that this is an erroneous assumption. When forming impressions of another, observers tend to quickly categorize and characterize (i.e., attach trait labels) to observed behaviors and then go back and correct those trait-based inferences in an effortful manner if there are adequate cognitive resources to do so (Gilbert, 1998). An important implication of this aspect of person perception is that behaviors consistent with an impression of a target person will be endorsed (i.e., rated favorably) even if they never occurred (Sulsky & Day, 1992). Researchers are fooling themselves if they believe that responses to questionnaires accurately reflect observed leader behavior and only leader behavior.

Another factor that has been shown to influence questionnaire ratings of leader behavior is related to a reverse causality issue. Psychology students are trained from their earliest university days to understand that correlation does not mean causation. An assumption with using leadership surveys is that the rated leader behaviors are the cause of individual,

group, or organizational outcomes. Unfortunately, most of the questionnaire-based leadership research has used cross-sectional designs, making an alternative inference that performance causes the ratings impossible to rule out (not to mention third variable confounds).

This is not just speculation. Research going back to the 1970s has shown that group members who received bogus group performance feedback distorted their group process ratings in the direction of that feedback (Downey, Chacko, & McElroy, 1979; Staw, 1975). More squarely in the leadership domain, individuals who were told that the videotaped group they had watched was either one of the best or one of the worst of all the groups studied were later shown to provide LBDQ ratings of the group leader biased in the direction of that performance cue feedback—despite seeing identical leader behaviors (e.g., Lord, Binning, Rush, & Thomas, 1978; Mitchell, Larson, & Green, 1977). Put simply, raters infer effective leadership from good group performance and ineffective leadership from poor performance, regardless of what they actually see.

The notion that there are behaviors that distinguish effective from ineffective leaders or leaders from followers has merit. Unfortunately, any such insights about leader behavior have been undermined by the predominantly cross-sectional, questionnaire-based research methodology. Given the dynamic nature of leadership and the various factors that can bias how raters see and evaluate it, there are serious concerns that should be taken into account before attempting to draw any meaningful causal conclusions from research conducted in this manner using survey questionnaires (Antonakis, Bendahan, Jacquart, & Lalive, 2010). All of the evidence suggests that it may be unrealistic to assume that we can measure leadership with a questionnaire. But there is one thing about leadership questionnaires that appears to be beyond dispute: design a brief, easy-to-administer survey questionnaire and researchers will use it. Nonetheless, we should not lose sight of the fact that a map is not the territory, and simply labeling a survey questionnaire a “leadership measure” does not mean that it actually measures leadership.

Situational and Contingency Approaches to Leadership

The next wave of leadership research focused on factors in the situation that might alter the effects of a leader’s behavior on relevant outcomes. In other words, the most appropriate leadership “style”

(e.g., behavior, decision-making approach, or other action) was thought to be contingent on situational factors. The motivation behind the rise of contingency leadership theories was the conflicting results with regard to whether consideration or initiating structure (or a combination) was the preferred leadership style. Although the approach appears to be straightforward in its origins, it ultimately did not have long-standing influence, mainly because the factors that can be used to describe any situation are so varied and difficult to measure—especially with a questionnaire.

The situational or contingency approach is built on the assumption that leadership depends on the situation (Fiedler, 1996; Vroom & Jago, 2007); however, much of the evidence that the effects of leadership vary with the situation was gathered prior to the development of contemporary metaanalytic techniques. And, as noted previously, relatively recent meta-analytic findings have suggested that the predictive validity of the “forgotten ones” of consideration and initiating structure might be more robust than earlier researchers had concluded (Judge et al., 2004). Despite this reassessment of the robustness of these leader behaviors, the contingency movement helped to bring attention to the role of the situation in leadership processes, if only to demonstrate the difficulties of such endeavors.

The overall goal of contingency theories is to optimally match the source of leadership with particular aspects of the situation in order to enhance desired outcomes, such as follower satisfaction or performance. Although there are a number of different theories from this perspective, the classic contingency theories can be generally classified into those that focused on matching leader traits and those that focused on fitting leader behavior with aspects of the situation (Ayman & Adams, 2012). Situational variables have been conceptualized around a variety of factors, including the quality of leader-member relations, task structure, and position power (Fiedler’s contingency theory); stress associated with the boss, coworkers, and the task (cognitive resource theory); availability of information, team support and cohesion, available time, and other factors (normative decision model); as well as subordinate characteristics such as needs, values, and ability (path-goal theory) and follower maturity level (situational leadership theory).

Brief descriptions of each of these five contingency theories (or models) are presented next, including an overall assessment of the respective research support for each. But this is not an exhaustive overview

of leadership contingency theories. There are others, such as the multiple linkage model (Yukl, 1971) and substitutes for leadership (Kerr & Jermier, 1978); however, the five discussed below have garnered the most research attention.

Fiedler’s Contingency Theory

Fiedler (1964, 1967) is credited with formulating the first theory combining leader traits with situational variables. Leaders were thought to manifest either a task-motivated or relationshipmotivated style, which was measured by the least preferred coworker (LPC) scale. Scale respondents were instructed to think of their least preferred coworker (the person with whom the respondent least preferred to work) and to rate this person on a set of bipolar adjectives. Those who described their least preferred coworker in more positive terms were thought to have a high level of relationship motivation (desire to have close coworker relations), whereas those using more negative terms were classified as holding a high task motivation (desire to achieve task objectives).

The model predicted that relationship-oriented or high LPC leaders would be more effective in situations that were moderately favorable for the leader, whereas task-oriented or low LPC leaders would be more effective in either highly unfavorable or highly favorable situations. The degree of situational favorableness was defined in terms of leader-member relations (good/poor), position power (strong/weak), and task structure (structured/unstructured). Considering all the possible situational combinations provides eight levels, or octants, of favorability.

There was considerable research activity around Fiedler’s contingency theory, most of it conducted by Fiedler and his students, resulting in three published meta-analyses (Peters, Hartke, & Pohlmann, 1985; Schriesheim, Tepper, & Tetrault, 1994; Strube & Garcia, 1981), each using different analytic techniques and yielding somewhat different results. Although the overall results have suggested some cautious support for the model, there are lingering concerns with the fundamentals of the LPC measure—specifically, what exactly it might be measuring (Schriesheim & Kerr, 1977)—as well as the amount of empirical support that there is across all of the situational octants.

There is a final point with regard to this contingency approach, and that has to do with a traitbased perspective on the leaders. Given that traits are thought to be generally stable across time, Fiedler

did not believe that leaders could alter their style of leadership. Instead, leaders should be selected for situations that fit with their style, or they should diagnose and engineer the job situation to better fit with their particular style. The foundation of this approach is based on the concept of leader match (Fiedler, Chemers, & Mahar, 1976), which has been heavily criticized. The most serious of the critics argued that Fiedler’s contingency theory, on which the leader match concept is based, suffers from a number of serious inadequacies that “ . . . render the concept meaningless at best, at worst, downright dangerous” (Hosking & Schriesheim, 1978, p. 498), in that some leaders could suffer serious career harm as a result of its application.

In an ironic twist, subsequent meta-analyses of various managerial training interventions concluded that the results of leader match generalize across situations and because of its demonstrated effectiveness and utility that “ . . . compared with . . . other leadership training programs, this method of leadership training is encouraged” (Burke & Day, 1986, p. 242). Despite this recommendation, neither Fiedler’s theory nor the leader match concept is the focus of much research or practice today.

Cognitive Resource Theory (CRT)

This is an extension of sorts of Fiedler’s earlier work on contingency theories of leadership effectiveness. CRT examines the interaction of leader intelligence and experience in conjunction with the amount of stress in a given situation (Fiedler & Garcia, 1987). Specifically, CRT proposed that when under stress the leader’s effectiveness will be positively related to his or her experience and negatively related to intelligence. The reverse was predicted for low-stress situations: intelligence rather than experience predicts effectiveness. Although research has provided some support for these contingency hypotheses (e.g., Gibson, Fiedler, & Barrett, 1993; Potter & Fiedler, 1981), CRT has not attracted much of a research following, other than Fiedler and his students.

Normative Model of Leadership Decision Making

This approach conceptualizes leadership entirely in terms of leaders’ decision making (Vroom & Jago, 1988; Vroom & Yetton, 1973). In particular, it focuses on the amount of decision-making participation or involvement that a leader extends to subordinates. This is a prescriptive model in that by following a set of decision rules, a leader can be advised of a

recommended feasible set of process orientations for a given decision (Vroom & Jago, 2007). The types of prescribed decisions range on a continuum of subordinate involvement from fully autocratic (no involvement) to consultative (moderate) to full group participation (high involvement). Within the model there are various decision heuristics that characterize the situation around four possible decision criteria: (a) improve the decision quality, (b) enhance subordinate involvement, (c) reduce decision-making time, and (d) develop subordinates.

Research conducted on the model has shown general support for it, especially when the data regarding the ultimate decision outcomes in terms of quality, involvement, time, and subordinate development are collected from the leader’s perspective (Field & House, 1990). It is an open question as to whether this model is used much by practicing leaders to enhance their decision-making effectiveness. It does not appear to be the case.

Path-Goal Theory

The focus of this theory is on how leaders can help motivate subordinates to better reach their goals (Evans, 1970; House, 1971). The theoretical foundation is based on the expectancy theory of motivation. The functions of the leader include increasing extrinsic rewards to subordinates for achieving work goals, clarifying the paths to these rewards, removing obstacles that impede goal attainment, and increasing opportunities for subordinate satisfaction. Path-goal theory is a contingency model because it proposes that the effects of the leader on subordinate outcomes are moderated by situational variables, of which there are two kinds: (a) environment, and (b) subordinate characteristics (House & Mitchell, 1974). The gist of the model is that leaders need to adapt their behavioral style to fit with the situation in order to maximize subordinates’ motivation (effort) to attain the desired outcomes. There are four classes of leader behavior: (a) supportive (showing consideration), (b) directive (setting direction and providing structure), (c) participative (consulting with subordinates), and (d) achievementoriented (setting challenging goals for subordinates and showing confidence in their success).

Leadership style influences subordinate motivation and effort through a number of different channels. Supportive leadership is thought to reduce subordinate boredom, increase self-confidence, and lower anxiety, which increases the intrinsic value of the job and the effort-performance expectancy. Directive leadership reduces role ambiguity,

increases incentives, and strengthens reward contingencies, which increases the effort-performance and performance-reward expectancies, and enhances the reward valence for task success. Participative leadership is hypothesized to increase role clarity with unstructured tasks, which increases subordinate effort and satisfaction but has little effect when the task is structured. Achievement-oriented leadership is thought to increase subordinates’ self-confidence and the effort-performance expectancy when the task is unstructured, but will have little effect with simple and repetitive tasks.

Most of the conceptual and empirical work has been conducted on supportive and directive leadership using subordinate questionnaires and crosssectional designs, which makes it difficult to fully evaluate the theory or interpret results of research testing the theory. A published meta-analysis evaluated the evidence for over 30 hypotheses stemming from path-goal theory across 120 studies (Wofford & Liska, 1993). Support for the theory was mixed, but the overall conclusion was that many of the studies designed to test aspects of the theory were seriously flawed, precluding a conclusive evaluation of the merits of the theory.

A conceptual weakness of path-goal theory is its foundation in the expectancy theory of motivation, which is overly complex and perhaps too rational as a human decision-making model (Yukl, 2006). A subsequent reformulation of the theory attempted to address some of these concerns by making the theory more comprehensive (House, 1996); however, with the resulting 10 classes of leader behavior, subordinate individual differences, and task moderator variables organized around 26 different propositions, the enhanced comprehensiveness appears to come at a cost of reduced parsimony. In addition, the evidence is fairly weak for the overall validity of the model (Schriesheim, Castro, Zhou, & DeChurch, 2006). The conclusion of researchers who conducted a thorough review of the purported moderators of leader behavior (Podsakoff, MacKenize, Ahearne, & Bommer, 1995) was that: “ . . . we find the lack of support for the moderating effects predicted by path-goal . . . leadership models both shocking and disappointing. It is hard to believe that so much research, by so many . . . over such a long period of time, could have produced such meager results” (p. 465).

Situational Leadership Theory (SLT)

This approach proposes that the appropriate type of leader behavior (task- or relationship-oriented)

depends on the level of follower maturity, conceptualized in terms of ability and self-confidence (Hersey & Blanchard, 1969a, 1969b). As subordinates develop from immature (low ability and low confidence) to fully mature (high ability and high confidence), the amount of task-oriented leader behavior decreases in a linear function from high to low. On the same developmental continuum, relationship-oriented leader behavior is proposed to demonstrate an inverted-U function in which the most support and concern on the part of the leader is provided around the middle of the developmental continuum (high ability and low self-confidence, or low ability and high confidence). When dealing with fully mature subordinates, the prescribed leadership approach is delegation. Leadership style is assessed with a self-report instrument called the Leadership Effectiveness Adaptability Description (LEAD), although many researchers have used the LBDQ XII (Stogdill et al., 1962).

The SLT model is intuitively appealing and was at one time very popular with leadership development consultants (Graeff, 1983); however, empirical support for the approach is weak. An examination of the assumptions underlying SLT suggested little support for the theoretical foundations of the theory (Blank, Weitzel, & Green, 1990). Specifically, there was little evidence that subordinate performance and satisfaction were significantly predicted by the interaction between leader behavior (task and relationship) and follower maturity. Despite the positive aspects of the theory—in theory—such as the focus on follower development and that followers need to be treated differently depending on their maturity levels, there is only a weak empirical foundation for it, and its use in leadership development programs appears to have waned.

Conclusions

The general contingency theory proposition that leadership is a function of the leader (traits and behaviors), followers, and the situation makes good conceptual sense; however, the research support for the various theories is modest at best and generally mixed. Why is there such a disconnection between what at one level appears to be sound theory and at another provides little evidence-based direction? Part of the problem has to do with the difficulties associated with trying to parse a complex and multifaceted construct, such as the situation, into a core set of measurable variables. Invariably, there is some (probably large) degree of criterion deficiency in which potentially important aspects of the situation are overlooked.

There are also basic measurement problems and the overuse of weak research designs that preclude the ability to make strong causal inferences (Korman & Tanofsky, 1975). Another problem is the overreliance on testing statistical interactions (cross-product or moderator variables) based on correlational data collected using cross-sectional designs. It may also be that researchers are conceptualizing the situation in overly micro ways and that they might be better conceptualized as meso-level constructs that influence leader-follower effects in a cross-level fashion. This would call for the use of multilevel research designs and analytical tools such as hierarchical liner modeling (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002), which would make sense given that multiple followers are nested typically within leaders who are nested in situations. It is possible that the entire contingency theory approach is based on an inappropriate consideration of these important multilevel issues.

Finally, there has been the tendency to overcomplicate all leadership theory (Schriesheim, 2003) and contingency theories in particular. Even if stronger empirical support were readily available for some of the predictions from various contingency theories, would practicing managers use them? It seems unlikely that the average manager would be able to put into place or act on something that requires such extensive deliberation. Remember that I/O psychology is grounded in the scientist-practitioner model, so the development of theories that would be of little applied relevance to practitioners—even if scientifically valid—is at odds with the core values of the field.

As indicated by the publication dates of many of the references in this section, the classical models of leadership originated in the 1940s or slightly before and reached their heyday in the 1980s. The possible exception is leadership trait theories, which are experiencing resurgent interest. It is also evident that many contingency theories were influenced by the Ohio State factors of consideration (concern for people and relationships) and initiating structure (concern for task and goal accomplishment). Unfortunately, the vast amount of research directed at finding under what conditions each leadership factor would be most effective failed to provide robust and clear-cut answers. And as suggested by recent meta-analytic findings (Judge et al., 2004), the evidence suggests that the main effects of consideration and initiating structure on relevant leadership outcomes may be worthy of reconsideration.

The next set of leadership theories to be reviewed began their ascendancy around the last quarter of the twentieth century and bridge with those just emerging in the first decade of the twenty-first century. For that reason, these are termed bridging theories, although they could have just as easily been labeled post-classical theories

Bridging Leadership Theories Charismatic/Transformational Leadership

The term charisma has been used to describe a particular type of inspirational leadership, thanks primarily to the work of sociologist Max Weber ([1924] 1947). Bass (2008) provides a detailed overview on the origins of charisma in the leadership literature. But it was through the efforts of Robert House and colleagues (House, 1977; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993) that a fully formed, psychologically based theory of charismatic leadership was developed. Around this same time, James MacGregor Burns published a best-selling book on political leadership in which he compared transforming leadership, based on higher moral values for social reform, with transactional leadership, based on self-interest and the exchange of benefits (Burns, 1978). Bernard Bass and colleagues further developed the theory with an emphasis on leadership in settings other than politics, such as business, government, and military organizations (Bass, 1985; Bass & Riggio, 2006). Further advances were made with the integration of transformational, charismatic, and visionary theories of leadership (House & Shamir, 1993), but what really propelled the theory forward in terms of attracting researchers to the topic was the development of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ; Bass & Avolio, 2000).

Taken together, the emergence of charismatic, transformational, and visionary leadership theories collectively define what some have termed the New Leadership School (Bass, 2008; Bryman, 1992), representing a potential paradigm shift in the field of leadership theory and research (Hunt, 1999). The leadership field was on the verge of scholarly collapse and practical irrelevance prior to the development of these streams of thinking. What the approaches added to the study of leadership was an emphasis on important and overlooked aspects of inspiration, identification, and vision. Most leadership scholars today discuss charisma and transformational leadership together, in large part to the influence of Bass, who incorporated it into a multidimensional theory of transactional and transformational leadership,

as well as to the integrative focus of House and Shamir (1993). Before reviewing the components of this theory and summarizing the research findings to date, it is of historical interest to note that Bass was a former graduate student of Ralph Stogdill at Ohio State.

The most recent conceptualization of transformational leadership theory is as the full range leadership model (Avolio, 1999, 2004; Bass & Riggio, 2006). A foundation for leadership is set with transactional factors such as contingent reward (CR) and management-by-exception (MBE; active/ passive), which some have attributed more to management than leadership. According to Bass (1985), world-class leadership transcends these transactional factors to also address aspects of idealized influence (II; serving as role models that enhance trust, respect, and identification, which includes attributed charisma), inspirational motivation (IM; behaving in ways that motivate and inspire others), intellectual stimulation (IS; stimulating creativity and innovation in the thinking of others), and individualized consideration (IC; paying attention to the special needs of each follower). A non-leadership dimension of laissez-faire leadership (LF; avoidant or inactive leadership) describes a dimension in which leadership responsibilities are ignored, actions are delayed, and decisions go unmade.

It is important to emphasize that world-class leaders are thought to go beyond the use of transactional leadership to also exemplify the various components of transformational leadership, which has been termed the augmentation effect (Bass & Avolio, 1993). From a research perspective, this means that the effects of transformational leadership should be examined incrementally to determine what is explained by the transactional leadership components. Thus it would be theoretically inappropriate to examine only the effects of the transformational leadership factors without first determining what was predicted by transactional leadership. Bass has even gone on record in stating directly that “the best leaders are both transformational and transactional” (Bass, 1999, p. 21).

As mentioned, a notable feature of the theory is the development of the MLQ for use in measuring the various theory components. Typically, subordinates rate various leadership “behaviors” of their leader or supervisor that are indicative of the different dimensions. The following are example items for each of the components, beginning with the most ineffective and progressing to the so-called 4Is

of transformational leadership (from Bass & Riggio, 2006, pp. 6–9):

LF: The leader avoids getting involved when important issues arise.

MBE-passive: The leader takes no action until complaints are received.

MBE-active: The leader directs attention toward failures to meet standards.

CR: The leader makes clear what one can expect to receive when performance goals are achieved.

II: The leader emphasizes the importance of having a collective sense of mission.

IM: The leader articulates a compelling vision of the future.

IS: The leader gets others to look at problems from many different angles.

IC: The leader spends time teaching and coaching.

The typical measurement approach is to have one or more subordinates rate the leader on his or her behavioral style using the MLQ. As such, it is not a direct rating of leader behavior as much as it is the overall evaluation on the various subcomponents of each leadership factor. Early meta-analytic work on 39 published and unpublished studies using the MLQ, designed around an earlier version of the theory, demonstrated overall positive and generalizable relationships with effectiveness outcomes for every component except for MBE (Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramanian, 1996). Indeed, the average corrected (i.e., true score) correlation with effectiveness outcomes was .73 across the transformational leadership dimensions. Despite these encouraging results, there were concerns regarding the potential effects of same-source ratings biases inflating the primary study correlations with effectiveness, in that subordinates tended to provide the leadership as well as the outcome ratings. Also, Lowe et al. were unable to test for the hypothesized augmentation effects because insufficient numbers of studies had adopted this research approach.

A subsequent meta-analysis on transformational and transactional leadership was able to address both of these issues. Across 626 correlations from 87 sources, it was shown that transformational leadership had an overall validity (corrected for statistical artifacts) of .44, whereas CR showed an average corrected validity of .39, LZ leadership correlated on average -.37 with outcomes, and the MBE components were inconsistently related to the criteria (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Nonetheless, the average validity for transformational leadership was substantially lower than that found in the Lowe et al.

(1996) meta-analysis, possibly reflecting the use of more rigorous research designs as the theory gained wider acceptance over the years. Indeed, moderator analyses examining the influence of using independent data sources showed substantial divergence in effects when comparing same-source with differentsource ratings. In tests of the augmentation effect, transformational leadership was shown to have overall significant incremental effects over what was predicted by the transactional and LF leadership components, as well as for the components of follower motivation and satisfaction with the leader, leader effectiveness, but not for leader job performance.

On a somewhat more troubling note, the transactional leadership component of CR was found to relate to overall transformational leadership at an exceptionally high level (corrected true correlation of .80). LF leadership was also strongly correlated with transformational leadership (true correlation of -.65). Both of these findings illustrate potential concerns about the conceptual independence of transformational leadership from some of the other factors in the theory, and empirically it “makes it difficult to separate their unique effects” (Judge & Piccolo, 2004, p. 765).

In conclusion, transformational-transactional leadership theory has had a substantial influence on leadership research and practice over the past two decades. Part of this influence is no doubt due to the compelling features of the theory and the gaps that it filled relative to earlier leadership theories. But this influence is also attributable to the development of a questionnaire measure that can be used to measure “leadership” in a fairly easy and straightforward manner. Despite its prominence in the leadership field, it remains to be seen what the future holds for transformational leadership theory. With the death of Bass in 2008 and Avolio’s current focus on different leadership issues, transformational leadership theory will need to continue without two of its pioneering champions. In addition, the theory will need to develop a longitudinal research focus that transcends the predominant use of single-shot, cross-sectional survey designs in demonstrating unequivocally that transformational leaders actually transform individuals and organizations (Antonakis, 2012). In short, charismatic and transformational leadership theory is at a crossroads, and the next few years will be telling in terms of whether the theory will continue its dominance of the field or will fall by the wayside, like so many other leadership theories before it.

Leader-Member Exchange (LMX)

This theoretical approach to leadership focuses on the quality of the exchange relationship that develops between a leader and a particular follower. It was first introduced into the literature as the vertical dyad linkage theory of leadership (Dansereau et al., 1975; Graen, Cashman, Ginsburgh, & Schiemann, 1977), which is descriptive of the focus on the leader-follower (supervisor-subordinate) dyad. The theory developed beyond the dyadic linkage to more deeply explore the role-making processes between a leader and different followers (Graen & Cashman, 1975). One of the fundamental tenets of LMX theory is that leaders develop potentially different exchange relationships with their respective subordinates and develop high-quality exchanges with just a few. As such, the theory avoids addressing a leader’s overall style or behavioral orientation because that style will vary across followers. Thus, a leader’s average leadership style is the incorrect unit of analysis in leadership because the leader-follower dyad, not the leader or follower alone, is the appropriate unit of leadership.

At the core of LMX theory is the role-making process that is negotiated between a leader and a follower. Over time, it is thought that their relationship quality can develop from that of a stranger to an acquaintance to a mature partnership (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Any relationship has the potential to develop to maturity, but not every relationship does. The exact reasons behind these differences in the quality of exchanges that develop are unknown, although it may have partly to due with the leader’s limited temporal, social, and affective resources that restrict the number of followers who can be accorded “in-group” status (high-quality LMX relationship). This shapes an orientation that attempts to maximize limited resources by investing them into only the most promising associates. Those relationships that fail to develop into a mature partnership are relegated to some degree of “out-group” status.

Research has been conducted on both the predictors of LMX quality as well as the outcomes. In a longitudinal study across the first six months of employment, it was found that perceived similarity and liking from both the leader’s and follower’s perspectives predicted LMX quality across time periods (Liden, Wayne, & Stilwell, 1993). Demographic similarity was found to have no significant effects on LMX development. Follower performance and competence have also been shown to be related to LMX quality, although the findings of Liden et al.

suggest that it is less important than were affective variables.

Several meta-analyses have been published examining various LMX issues and outcomes. In the first published meta-analysis of LMX correlates across 85 independent samples (Gerstner & Day, 1997), the strongest relationships with LMX were found for follower job performance, satisfaction (overall and supervisory), commitment, role perceptions, and turnover intentions. It was also noted that the average leader-member agreement in LMX ratings was estimated to be only .29 (average sample-weighted correlation). This is somewhat perplexing, given that both parties supposedly are rating their shared experience, although it is clear from these findings that the meaning of mutually shared events and situations is not necessarily the same. The surprising lack of agreement is something that has been of interest to researchers for decades (Graen & Schiemann, 1978) with little real understanding, even today. A recent meta-analysis and primary study focusing on leader-member agreement in LMX ratings (Sin, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2009) concluded, based on data from 64 independent samples (N = 10,884 dyads), that longer relationship tenure and ratings on affectively oriented relationship dimensions were associated with greater levels of agreement. The primary study conducted across 98 matched dyads also showed that the extent of LMX agreement increased as a positive function of the intensity of dyadic interaction. These are promising insights into potential sources of leader-member (dis)agreement; however, it is an area where more research is needed.

Another published meta-analysis focused on the relationship between LMX quality and the citizenship behaviors of followers (Ilies, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007). Results were analyzed across 50 independent samples, suggesting a moderately large and positive relationship between LMX and follower citizenship behavior. Also as hypothesized, LMX predicted individual-targeted citizenship behaviors significantly more strongly than organizational-targeted behaviors.

Taken together, the results of these meta-analytic studies suggest that LMX is significantly related to a number of organizationally relevant outcomes. Nonetheless, there have been criticisms of the theory across the years. One review of the LMX literature concluded that many different definitions of LMX and scales used to measure it have clouded the overall picture as to the meaning of the construct (Schriesheim, Castro, & Cogliser, 1999). Others have noted that much is still unknown about the

evolution of LMX and how the role-making process actually occurs (Yukl, 2006), although there has been some recent progress in understanding how personality and performance influence the development of LMX relationships over time (Nahrgang, Morgeson, & Ilies, 2009). Despite these concerns—or maybe because of them—LMX continues to be the focus of research interest more than 30 years after its introduction into the leadership literature. There are several reasons for this long-lived interest, including: (a) the dynamic and developmental nature of LMX; (b) the focus on the relationship between a leader and follower, which has spurred interest in broader theories of relational leadership (Uhl-Bien, 2006; Uhl-Bien, Maslyn, & Ospina, 2012), and especially for I/O psychologists; (c) the importance of followers’ relationships with their respective leaders “as a lens through which the entire work experience is viewed” (Gerstner & Day, 1997, p. 840).

There is one final methodological note with regard to LMX. Because, in most studies, followers are nested within leaders (i.e., multiple followers report to the same leader), there are potential problems with non-independent data. One of the basic assumptions of the inferential statistics often used by I/O psychologists is that observations are independent; thus, if that assumption is violated, then the resulting significance tests are in question. Fortunately, there are multilevel analytical techniques (e.g., HLM; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002) that can be used with these types of non-independent data. Although appropriate analytic techniques exist, researchers do not always use them, or use them appropriately (Antonakis et al., 2010). Furthermore, the kind of theory that is needed to understand higher level (i.e., supervisor) effects on followers’ LMX perceptions has lagged behind other research investigating the correlates and outcomes associated with LMX.

Leadership Perceptions

Some researchers have approached leadership as mainly a socio-perceptual phenomenon. In other words, leadership is in the eye of the beholder. Lord and Maher (1991) even defined leadership as “the process of being perceived by others as a leader” (p. 11), although it might be legitimately argued that this is too extreme and overlooks important aspects of what a leader does in terms of behaviors and other goal-related activities. But what makes this perceptual approach compelling in terms of its influence on the leadership field is its recognition of

the essential role that followers play in the leadership process. It is ultimately through follower reactions and behaviors that leadership succeeds or fails (Lord & Brown, 2004), and being perceived as a leader by others enhances the likelihood that the leader will be allowed to exercise appropriate influence over others (Lord et al., 1982). It was the first systematic approach to redirect the leadership field from a leader-centric to more of a follower-centric perspective (Brown, 2012), first introduced through the work of Hollander and colleagues (Hollander, 1992; Hollander & Julian, 1969; Hollander & Webb, 1955).

The role of perceptions in leadership has evolved since it was first proclaimed that leadership “exists only as perception” (Calder, 1977, p. 202, italics in original). Calder’s point was that leadership is primarily a phenomenological construct, and as such, it is difficult to study scientifically but extremely important as naïve psychology. What has occurred over the years is greater attention to, and advances in, the field of social cognition and the subdiscipline of person perception. Contrary to Calder’s assertions, it has been demonstrated that perceptual processes (including leadership perceptions) can be studied scientifically and that there are at least two socio-cognitive routes to seeing someone as a leader.

Attributions and Leadership Categorization Theory

One approach, summarized in the thinking of Calder (1977), Pfeffer (1977), and Meindl (Meindl & Ehrlich, 1987; Meindl, Ehrlich, & Dukerich, 1985), portrayed leadership as a type of attributional error or perceptual bias resulting from individuals’ needs to easily explain observed outcomes. In this manner, something like organizational performance is attributed to either good or bad leadership, depending on the level of that performance. Leadership is a convenient causal label used to make sense of what is seen and experienced in the world.

Building on research from the fields of information processing and social cognition, Lord and colleagues offered another possible way that people are perceived and labeled as leaders. Based in personality research showing that traits were not very good predictors of behavior across situations but that they are important constructions of perceivers in making sense of social situations (e.g., Mischel, 1973), leadership categorization theory was proposed and tested (Lord et al., 1982, 1984). The theory demonstrated that perceivers hold in memory

trait-based leadership prototypes that are used to guide whom they are likely to see as a leader. The extent to which behavior could be characterized in ways that matched attributes of the perceiver’s implicit prototype for a leader (e.g., honest, intelligent, determined), the greater the chance that the target individual would be perceived as leader-like.

Subsequent work by Lord and Maher (1991) demonstrated how both kinds of processing are used in shaping leadership perceptions. When first encountering a potential leader, perceivers use relatively spontaneous and effortless prototype-matching processes in coming to some initial impression regarding how leader-like the target individual appears. This is a type of “bottom-up” or recognition-based process in which perceived leader attributes (traits) are matched against an implicitly held leadership prototype. The better the prototype match the stronger the leadership perception. A second way in which perceptions are shaped is through more effortful and attribution-based reasoning. This is more of a “top-down” process in which perceivers reason backward from some outcome (successful team performance) to a possible cause (effective leadership). It is important to note that this mode of processing occurs only when there are adequate cognitive resources available and the motivation exists to better understand why something occurred (i.e., to infer causality). In this manner, someone who does not fit the prototype of a leader can still be perceived as one if he or she is associated with successful outcomes. Success is a core feature of the implicit leadership theories that people hold about the nature of leadership (Epitropaki & Martin, 2004; Rush, Thomas, & Lord, 1977). Simply put, it is difficult to maintain the perception of a leader if you continue to be unsuccessful—even if you look the part.

Project GLOBE

One of the questions raised by the work of Lord and others in the area of leadership perceptions is to what degree such perceptions might vary as a function of societal culture (Den Hartog & Dickson, 2012). At least one early study addressed this issue directly, finding that leadership prototypes differed in ways that would be expected based on presumed cultural values (Gerstner & Day, 1994). One limitation of this study, however, was that it was based on a sample of college students from different cultures who were studying at a university in the United States (i.e., convenience sample). Despite the interesting study findings, the sampling issues raised

potential concerns regarding the extent to which responses were biased as a function of familiarity with U.S. culture. What would be preferable are respondent samples from various cultures that had little or no firsthand exposure to the United States.

Around the time that the Gerstner and Day (1994) study was published, House was bulding a team of researchers to study issues of culture, leadership, and organizations. What resulted from this initial organizing activity was a coordinating team of 10 researchers overseen by House that coordinated the research activities of approximately 170 country co-investigators across 62 societies. Ultimately, this became the Project GLOBE study, a 10-year research program on Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (i.e., GLOBE; House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004). The project can be described as a multimethod, multiphase research program with the goals of conceptualizing, operationalizing, testing, and validating a cross-level theory of the relationships among culture and societal, organizational, and leadership effectiveness (House & Javidan, 2004). It was described by pioneering culture researcher Harry Triandis in the foreword to the Project GLOBE book as “the Manhattan Project of the relationship of culture to conceptions of leadership” (p. xv).

Project GLOBE examined culture as practices (how things are done) and values (how things should be done) with regard to leadership. The research team tested a number of hypotheses linking culture with various outcomes, using data collected from 17,300 managers across 951 different organizations. Measurement scales were developed, translated, and back-translated to ensure equivalence in meaning across cultures, and the resulting psychometric properties of these measures were subjected to rigorous scrutiny (see Hanges & Dickson, 2004). Given the scope of such a large, longitudinal study, it is difficult to summarize it or its substantial impact on the field in a concise manner. Therefore, I will focus on just one aspect of this immense study: leadership perceptions across societal cultures.

House and colleagues devised the term of culturally endorsed implicit leadership theories (CLT) that were characterized through six global leader behaviors identified in preliminary analyses: (a) charismatic/values-based leadership, (b) team-oriented leadership, (c) participative leadership, (d) humaneoriented leadership, (e) autonomous leadership, and (f) self-protective leadership. The CLT offered ways to potentially differentiate among cultural values and practices and ways in which leadership was

perceived in a respective culture. The CLT measure was very much a type of leadership prototype measure that was used to compare perceptions across societal cultures.

The results found some similarities across cultures, as well as specific and hypothesized differences. In general, it was found that cultural values (how things should be done) but not practices (how things are done) were related to the CLT leadership dimensions listed above. There were 22 different leadership attributes that were found to be universally desirable (e.g., decisiveness, foresight), eight leadership dimensions identified as universally undesirable (e.g., irritable, ruthless), and many others that were culturally contingent in that they were desirable in some cultures and undesirable in others (e.g., ambitious, elitist). Overall, the Project GLOBE researchers were able to conclude that “members of cultures share common observations and values concerning what constitutes effective and ineffective leadership” (Javidan, House, & Dorfman, 2004), p. 40). Put somewhat differently, they were able to establish that there are culturally based shared conceptions (i.e., prototypes) of leadership.

Project GLOBE was a landmark study in the examination of the relationships between culture and leadership. A third phase of the project has focused on gathering more detailed qualitative and quantitative information about culture-specific aspects of leadership at the organizational level. There is still apparently much to learn from this very ambitious global project. Of course, it is easy to criticize some aspects of the research, such as how it is possible to represent very large and diverse countries, such as China and India, with relatively small samples. Nonetheless, Project GLOBE represents a major stride forward in better understanding leadership from a cross-cultural or global perspective.

Emerging Leadership Theories

The next section focuses on those leadership theories and approaches that have begun to set the future direction for research and practice. Given that these are relatively new additions to the leadership literature, there is less research available to evaluate their respective contributions as compared with classical and bridging theories. Thus, these approaches represent various degrees of works in progress.

If there is an overarching perspective on these emerging leadership approaches, it is around the notion of enhancing more inclusive forms of leadership. As

witnessed with the previous description of so-called bridging theories of leadership, there was a widening of the theoretical lens to consider the important role that followers and followership (Hollander & Webb, 1955) play in leadership processes. The emerging leadership approaches go even further in terms of legitimizing leader as well as follower roles as necessary and important to effective leadership (Riggio, Chaleff, & Lipman-Blumen, 2008). As noted by Hollander (2009):

The major point . . . is to show how followers can be included actively in leadership, with a role in the mutual process. The overarching goal is to improve the understanding and practice of effective leadership. Leaders usually do have greater initiative, but followers are vital to success, and they too can become leaders. Leadership benefits from active followers, in a unity, including “upward influence” on a two-way rather than a one-way street. . . . (p. 3)

The notion of reciprocal influence was mentioned with the bridging theory of leader-member exchange (LMX). Whereas LMX adopts mainly a dyadic focus, the emerging approaches consider the entire work group or team. It should be noted that one particular trend in LMX theory and research is in refocusing it away from dyads to more fully consider the effects of the entire social network represented in the group or organization (Graen & UhlBien, 1995; Sparrowe & Liden, 1997, 2005). This illustrates how a particular theory can evolve and contribute to the next generation of emergent leadership theories. In terms of getting a broader perspective with regard to other emerging approaches to leadership, this section will review the contributions to date of team leadership, shared leadership, and leadership capacity and adaptive capability that, taken together, provide more of a team-based perspective on leadership processes.

Team Leadership

It has been observed that, despite the large literatures available with respect to the separate fields of leadership and teams, there is relatively little known about team leadership as compared with leadership in broader organizations (Kozlowski, Gully, McHugh, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 1996; Zaccaro, Rittman, & Marks, 2001). In particular, Kozlowski et al. (1996) noted that it is difficult to apply the prescriptions from general leadership research to teams due to the complex and dynamic environments in which teams typically operate. What has transpired in recent years, however, is nothing short of remarkable.

Through integrative reviews, meta-analyses, and other approaches to synthesize what is known about leadership and team effectiveness, a robust picture has begun to emerge. As noted by some researchers, “[T] eam leadership as a discipline appears to be on the cusp of some truly significant breakthroughs” (Day, Gronn, & Salas, 2006, p. 211).

In one notable example, Kozlowski and Ilgen (2006) reviewed over 50 years of psychological research that examined various factors influencing the processes that underlie team effectiveness. The authors concluded that, regarding team leadership, “emerging theory and empirical findings support leaders as a key leverage point for enhancing team effectiveness” (p. 110). In particular, the available research indicates that leaders are instrumental in the specific activities of enhancing team coordination, cooperation, and communication; helping to enhance and otherwise develop team member competencies; and playing a pivotal role in team regulation, performance dynamics, and team adaptation.

Underpinning much of the research in this area is the notion of team functional leadership. Specifically, the primary responsibility of team leaders from this perspective is to identify what role functions are missing or are not being handled adequately in the team and either do it or arrange for it to be done by others (Fleishman et al., 1991; Hackman & Walton, 1986; McGrath, 1962; Zaccaro et al., 2001). From this perspective, team leadership is seen as the ongoing process of team need satisfaction (Morgeson, DeRue, & Peterson, 2010).

The available empirical evidence appears to support the merits of this perspective. A meta-analysis of 231 published and unpublished studies revealed that both task- and person-focused functional leadership behaviors were related to perceived team effectiveness and team productivity (Burke et al., 2006). The subgroup analyses revealed an interesting finding: leader empowerment behaviors accounted for approximately 30% of the variance in team learning. This is an especially important finding when considered along with the conclusions of Kozlowski and Ilgen (2006) that team learning is instrumental to fostering team effectiveness.

A recent review of the team leadership literature from a functional perspective (Morgeson et al., 2010) has proposed an organizing framework for better understanding leadership structures and processes in teams. Specifically, Morgeson et al. (2010) identified 15 different team leadership functions organized around different cycles of goal-directed team activity (Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001):

a transition phase in which teams engage in evaluation or planning activities, and an action phase in which teams perform work activities that contribute directly to goal accomplishment. In the transition phase, important team leadership functions include composing the team, defining the mission, establishing expectations and goals, structuring and planning, training and developing the team, sense making, and providing feedback. In the action phase, important team leadership functions include monitoring the team, managing team boundaries, challenging the team, performing the team task, solving problems, providing resource, encouraging team self-management, and supporting the team social climate.

Despite its many contributions to better understanding team leadership, the functional approach adopts an implicit assumption that leaders and their respective teams agree on which needs of the team must be fulfilled. Contrary to this assumption, recent research has promoted the importance of considering leader-team perceptual distance and the role that it plays in shaping team effectiveness (Gibson, Cooper, & Conger, 2009). The concept is defined as differences between a leader and a team in how they respectively perceive the same social stimulus. Results from a sample of 104 teams, incorporating 813 members from five different companies, indicated that leader-team perceptual distance in the areas of goal accomplishment and constructive conflict had a nonlinear relationship with team performance such that greater perceptual distances were associated with larger decreases in team performance. Furthermore, these effects were stronger when the team’s perceptions were more positive, as compared with those of the leader. An important implication of these findings for the functional approach to team leadership is that the alignment or congruence of leader-team perceptions regarding the needs of the team could moderate the relationship between what functions are provided by a leader and the team’s ultimate performance and effectiveness. Thus, an important team leader function might be working to align perceptions of the team with those of the leader in terms of what the core needs of the team are. Although an interesting and promising possibility, future research is needed to empirically test these ideas.

The functional approach to team leadership also has been expanded recently to include multiteam systems or teams of teams (DeChurch & Marks, 2006). In this research, functional multiteam leadership was defined as actions taken by formally

appointed leaders “that enable and direct teams in collectively working together” (p. 313). The specific leader functions of strategizing and coordinating were examined as potential influences on multiteam system performance. Training interventions were designed and implemented to examine their effects on the processes and performance of multiteam systems. Leader training was found to improve the multiteam processes as well as performance, as hypothesized. An interesting additional finding was that the leader training was found to have no effect on the team’s process or performance, only on the multiteam system. Of course it is risky to attempt to interpret null findings. Nonetheless, taken together, the results from this research suggest that leadership functions in multiteam systems differ from those found in single-team settings. In summary, the functional leadership approach has provided numerous process and performance insights across various levels involving individuals, teams, and even multiteam systems. The approach has truly come a long way from its origins as McGrath’s (1962) mimeographed report written at the request of the U.S. Civil Service Commission (Hackman & Walton, 1986).

Although this and other work has helped to clarify what we know about how leaders shape and develop effective teams, it also highlights a pervasive bias in the literature that leadership flows from a given leader to followers or team members of lower status. In other words, the traditional perspective is that leaders serve to enhance the leadership of teams by acting on followers. A different approach that is at the forefront of the next generation of leadership theory is based on the leadership in a team, specifically in terms of how leaders act with followers in creating team leadership. One particular type of within-team leadership that is helping to shape the future of leadership theory and research is shared leadership.

Shared Leadership and Self-Managed Work Teams

Shared leadership is defined as a “dynamic, interactive influence process among individuals in groups for which the objective is to lead one another to the achievement of group or organizational goals or both” (Pearce & Conger, 2003a, p. 1). The influence processes involved in shared leadership can involve any combination of upward, downward, or lateral (i.e., peer) influence attempts. It is important to note that whereas this particular form of leadership is gaining in popularity among researchers and other leadership scholars, it is not an altogether new

perspective. Pearce and Conger (2003a) trace the roots of shared leadership back to the early twentieth century and the influence of Mary Parker Follet (1924), who is an icon in the fields of management and I/O psychology. We also saw a version of peer leadership included with the behavioral approach to leadership under the auspices of the University of Michigan studies (Bowers & Seashore, 1966).

Despite its historical roots, shared leadership had not attracted much consistent scholarly attention until recently. Part of the reason is attributable to the historical emphasis on studying the leader (i.e., entity and leader-centric approaches), which includes the recent ascendancy of charismatic and transformational leadership. One of the motivating forces for the resurgent interest in shared leadership is the focus on teams as a preferred organizational form for accomplishing work-related goals. Along with the greater use of teams come requisite changes in the division of labor, with new patterns of interdependence and coordination emerging (Gronn, 2002). There is strong interest in studying teams in the field of I/O psychology, and this includes various forms of team-based leadership. Shared leadership is especially relevant for one particular team form, the self-managed work team (SMWT).

The SMWT literature grew originally from theory and research on self-management and personal control (Manz & Sims, 1980; Mills, 1983) that was grounded in the principles of operant conditioning (Luthans & Davis, 1979). This is ironic because, in perhaps its truest form, the SMWT consists of peers who operate without a formally appointed leader. As a result, the leadership responsibilities are shared among all group members or are possibly distributed in systematic ways across members. A more typical approach, however, is to appoint someone to act as the group’s leader or to have the traditional supervisor continue in some manner as an external leader who advises the team and intervenes when circumstances dictate, such as when novel or disruptive events occur (Morgeson, 2005; Morgeson & DeRue, 2006). The paradox of this approach regarding SMWT leadership is that the team becomes less “self-managed” and increasingly resembles a traditional work group (Manz & Sims, 1987). In such cases, team leadership reverts back to some form of the classic functional approach. Having a truly self-managed team requires a different way of thinking about and enacting leadership, which can be an obstacle to implementing a shared approach to leadership in some contexts. From this literature it is clear that, at minimum, a distinction

must be made between the external and internal leadership processes of SMWT.

Zaccaro and colleagues have proposed that individual leaders in team-based leadership systems can be conceptualized in three ways: (a) internal leaders, (b) external leaders, and (c) executive coordinators (Zaccaro, Heinen, & Shuffler, 2009). Internal leaders often can be found in teams where leadership functions are distributed among members. There is a need for organizational accountability, even when most of the leadership processes occur in a distributed or shared manner. External leaders typically have more distant connections to the team than internal leadership; however, external leaders are thought to focus a good deal of their attention on managing team boundaries, including seeking information from outsiders and obtaining support from external stakeholders (Druskat & Wheeler, 2003). Executive coordinators provide broad strategic direction to teams and help secure necessary staffing and other operational resources needed for success (Kozlowski et al., 1996), but they leave most of the internal team structuring and leadership processes to team members.

There is a tendency to think about these emerging forms of leadership as “either/or” propositions— either there is something like shared leadership or a traditional vertical approach with a formally appointed leader. Contrary to this “either/or” leadership mentality, some of the most compelling research findings to date on shared leadership suggest that the most effective approach in terms of enhancing performance is to use both shared and vertical leadership. In evaluating performance across change management (Pearce & Sims, 2002) as well as new venture teams (Ensley, Hmielski, & Pearce, 2006), it was found that the most effective leadership forms incorporated both a vertical form of leadership stemming from the formal leader (e.g., transformational leadership of the CEO) as well as shared leadership originating from within the team. Other researchers have noted similar findings with student project teams (Avolio, Jung, Murry, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996), along with yet other research demonstrating that shared leadership is positively related to team performance (Carson et al., 2007; Hiller, Day, & Vance, 2006; Taggar, Hackett, & Saha, 1999). These studies provide promising evidence of the value-added of shared leadership with regard to team performance, and that its contribution can be in addition to, not in place of, more traditional forms of vertical leadership.

A relevant question to ask with regard to these research findings is: How is it possible to have both

forms of leadership simultaneously within a team? The answer can be found within the history and evolution of leadership theory. Kozlowski and Ilgen (2006) noted the importance of the leader as a key leverage point in terms of enhancing team effectiveness. Thus, there is little doubt that having an effective leader can help facilitate effective team performance. But it is also the case that what is now called shared leadership has its historical roots in related areas such as social exchange theory, participative decision making, leader-member exchange, followership, empowerment, and shared cognition (Pearce & Conger, 2003a). This illustrates an important but often overlooked point: leadership is inherently eclectic, both theoretically and practically. The focus of leadership theory, research, and practice therefore should not be on attempting to prove what the “right” theory is, but rather on building effective leadership practices based on what is known from the empirical evidence. From this perspective, not only can the individual team leader and shared leadership perspectives coexist, but they must coexist in order to maximize team performance potential.

Shared leadership represents a natural theoretical evolution that has emerged because of the greater emphasis on team-based work (Wuchty, Jones, & Uzzi, 2007) and also because of the limits that are reached in relying on a single leader for direction and guidance (Bennis, 2007). As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, the challenges being faced by groups and organizations are becoming increasingly complex, requiring the application of more and different human and social capital resources to make sense of them and to act adaptively. As the saying goes, none of us is as smart as all of us. And if you believe some of the most vocal proponents of the theory, “shared leadership will not merely be another blip on the radar screen of organizational science. . . . Its time has arrived” (Pearce & Conger, 2003a, p. 14).

Leadership Capacity and Dynamic Team Leadership

Another perspective on team leadership takes the least leader-centric approach of all. From this perspective, leadership is thought to emerge through the patterned interactions of group members, instead of flowing from a solitary leader to a team or a set of individual team members. In this way, leadership “exists” as an outcome of effective social processes and structures (Gibb, 1954; Salancik et al., 1975), rather than solely as an input from the individual

leader helping a team perform more effectively. This form of team leadership capacity is conceptualized as an emergent state that develops over time; is dynamic in nature (i.e., continually evolving or devolving); and varies as a function of team inputs (e.g., team member resources and capabilities), processes (e.g., teamwork), and outcomes (e.g., team learning; Day et al., 2004; Kozlowski & Bell, 2008). This is shared leadership in its purest form, in that there is no single recognized leader. Leadership is located in the connections and interrelationships among team members rather than with the actions or behaviors of any one individual (also see Carson et al., 2007). In this manner, leadership serves as a resource that is drawn from the team to address complex challenges requiring adaptability, learning, or different forms of sense making (O’Connor & Quinn, 2004).

Among the advantages of having a developed level of team leadership capacity is that it frees up the formal leader to focus on other things such as identifying external threats and opportunities, and it also broadens the overall leadership repertoire of a team. Members of the team are no longer dependent on a single leader to solve their problems or to set the direction for the team. Enhanced team leadership capacity should therefore also contribute to the resiliency of teams under conditions that contribute to disorganization and the collapse of sense making (Weick, 1993).

In the model of team leadership capacity proposed by Day et al. (2004), individual team member resources in the form of knowledge, skills, and abilities shape the level of teamwork that develops, depending on available leader resources and opportunities for formal team training and development activities. Teamwork is subsequently influential in the development of team learning, which in turn, helps to enhance team leadership capacity in the form of shared, distributed, and connective processes. This capacity is then available as an input for the team in handling the leadership challenges being faced. Although this model is in line with the evolution of team theory away from relatively simplistic input-process-output models to those that are more sophisticated and recognize ongoing feedback loops (Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson, & Jundt, 2005), it awaits empirical scrutiny.

In a related area of investigation, Kozlowski and colleagues have advanced a comprehensive and integrative framework for understanding team leadership and team development. The approach is grounded in the observation that it is difficult to apply

prescriptions from existing leadership research to teams operating in complex and dynamic decisionmaking environments (Kozlowski et al., 1996). Beginning with the initial theory and guidelines for application offered in 1996, the research team has provided additional conceptual insight regarding the processes associated with team development (Kozlowski, Gully, Nason, & Smith, 1999), has empirically examined the effects of feedback on the regulation of individual and team performance across multiple goals and multiple levels (DeShon, Kozlowski, Schmidt, Milner, & Wiechmann, 2004), and has further integrated team development and adaptation with team learning as emergent group phenomena (Kozlowski & Bell, 2008). Their most recent contribution has elaborated more specifically on the role of the leader in the team development process (Kozlowski et al., 2009) in terms of helping the team move from relatively novice to expert status and beyond, building adaptive capability in the team. In these latter stages of team development, the team takes on more responsibility for its learning, leadership, and performance. Taken together, this work provides an impressive theoretical and empirical foundation for understanding team leadership and, in particular, how something like adaptive capability—or leadership capacity—develops in teams.

Summary and Conclusions

This section on emerging theories focused on those approaches that have taken broader and typically more inclusive perspectives on leadership. The three approaches reviewed in this section adopt an explicit focus on the team, but vary in terms of how the core construct of leadership is conceptualized. The functional team leadership approach takes the most traditional perspective in primarily considering the contributions of an individual leader in shaping team effectiveness. Shared leadership offers a more inclusive picture in proposing an alternative to traditional, top-down leadership. From this theoretical vantage point, leadership is viewed as a dynamic, ongoing, mutual influence process in which leadership can be initiated by anyone in the team. Another way that this approach has been characterized is as the “serial emergence” of formal as well as informal leaders (Pearce, 2004, p. 48). This indeed represents a more inclusive form of team leadership but is a natural evolution of the functional approach.

The third way in which leadership was considered in this section was as an overall capacity or adaptive capability of the team to work together,

learn, and adjust to significant challenges faced as part of their shared experiences. This approach changes the focus from being on any single individual (leader or so-called follower) to the networked connections of those individuals engaged in shared work. Leadership is therefore not only more inclusive in focus but is considered to operate at a different, more aggregate level of analysis than the traditional leadership approaches. Team leadership capacity is an especially important resource for the team when complex adaptive challenges are experienced in which no single individual is sufficiently smart, experienced, or otherwise capable of guiding the team out of the challenge. Under such conditions, it is thought that team leadership capacity can provide the team with the resources needed to be resilient and adaptive, even under the most trying of circumstances.

Future Directions for Leadership Theory, Research, and Practice Future Theoretical Directions

A prevalent theme in this chapter has been the ongoing evolution of the leadership field in terms of theory, research, and practice. An important trend has been in moving away from traditional “leadercentric” approaches that focus tightly on the personal characteristics and attributes of the leader to more “follower-centric” approaches. This is a welcome trend, given that the follower has been an underexplored factor in the advancement of a more complete understanding of leadership processes. Another way of characterizing this trend is that of moving from an exclusionary focus, in which leaders are seen as exceptional individuals and leadership is a scarce organizational resource, to one that is more inclusive and that recognizes the role that everyone plays in the leadership process (Hollander, 2009). From this latter perspective, it is not that leadership is scarce in organizations but rather that it has been wasted by focusing on formal leaders as the only source of leadership.

Another way in which leadership resources have been wasted historically is through a traditional emphasis on manager (or leader) as male. Across studies and different historical time periods, it was found that men in general were described as more similar to successful managers than women in general (Heilman, Block, Martell, & Simon, 1989; Schein, 1973). Holding entrenched sex stereotypes that disfavor women as successful managers or effective leaders can be manifested in ways that perpetuate both overt as well as covert sex

bias (Butler & Geis, 1990). Such biases hinder organizations from fully developing and accessing their entire portfolios of human capital. But the good news is that some researchers have pointed to changes such as the increase in the proportion of women holding managerial positions, as well as increases in the percentage of women in corporate officer and CEO positions, as indicators of a potential emerging shift to a female leadership advantage (Carli & Eagly, 2012; Eagly & Carli, 2003). Although not everyone is convinced that the trend is real (Vecchio, 2002, 2003), there do appear to be changes in leadership roles and organizational practices, as well as broader cultural shifts, that have resulted in greater gender inclusiveness when it comes to leadership, including a decrease in the endorsement of a masculine construal of leadership (i.e., leader stereotypes; Koenig, Eagly, Mitchell, & Risitikari, 2011).

There has also been a call for promoting more integrative strategies for theory-building in the field of leadership. Specifically, Avolio (2007) argues that leadership has reached a developmental plateau and that it needs to move to the next level of integration by more fully considering the dynamic interplay between leaders and followers, as well as taking more fully into account the context in which these interactions occur. Another way of thinking about this proposed integrative strategy is in terms of inclusiveness. For far too long, leadership theory mainly has been about the leader, with some notable exceptions (e.g., Hollander & Julian, 1969; Hollander & Webb, 1955; Lord & Brown, 2004). More integrative theories recognize that the leadership landscape includes leaders, followers, and the situational context as essential ingredients in this dynamic interaction.

Future theoretical direction: Develop integrative theory-building strategies that extend beyond leadercentric approaches to those that include all of the basic ingredients in leadership processes (i.e., leader, follower, and situational context).

Another area of future theoretical interest is in moving toward more integrative and inclusive leadership theories of a different kind. The point has been made repeatedly in this chapter that leadership is a dynamic, evolving process. As such, it incorporates behaviors, perceptions, decision making, and a whole host of other constructs. In short, leadership by nature is an eclectic phenomenon, and attempting to conceptualize and study it from any one theoretical perspective (e.g., motivational, emotional, behavioral) will yield, at best, limited

results. What are needed are more inclusive and integrative perspectives that cut across any number of theoretical domains. For example, in the related area of leader development, an integrative theoretical approach has been proposed linking the otherwise apparently disparate domains of adult development, identity and self-regulation, and expertise acquisition (Day, Harrison, & Halpin, 2009). Leadership theory will advance by integrating across multiple domains and disciplines in a more eclectic fashion.

Future theoretical direction: Develop integrative theory-building strategies that connect different domains and scholarly disciplines in advancing more eclectic or integral approaches to leadership.

Leadership is a dynamic process, which inherently involves the consideration of time. Despite the need to consider time as part of leadership theory, there are relatively few attempts to do so. Although some researchers have suggested a minimum of a three-year lag in accurately estimating the effects of formal leadership changes at top (i.e., executive) levels on organizational performance (Day & Lord, 1988), this type of specification when it comes to time and leadership is the exception rather than the rule. The point is that, regardless of level or intended outcome, it is unreasonable to expect that leadership of any sort (e.g., traditional or shared) would have an immediate effect on relevant outcomes. Better theories of leadership processes are needed that explicitly address time and the specification of when things happen. As noted by Mitchell and James (2001), a likely way to “enrich our theories and subject them to falsification is to be more precise theoretically, and methodologically, about when events occur” (p. 543).

Future theoretical direction: Integrative theorybuilding strategies are needed to more fully consider the role of time in leadership processes and theoretically grounded specifications of when leadership effects are likely to occur.

Future Research Directions

Leadership is a dynamic, multilevel, and multidisciplinary construct. Thus, the research methods used to study it should also reflect these basic features. One particular area to encourage additional research is in the use of multilevel modeling approaches (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). Especially as more inclusive leadership theories are developed, researchers will need to adopt research designs and analytical tools that capture the multilevel nature of more inclusive forms of leadership (individuals

nested within teams that are nested within broader organizational entities).

Future research direction: More inclusive forms of leadership will involve the multilevel consideration of leaders and followers within teams, which are further nested within broader organizational contexts.

Leadership also unfolds over time in a dynamic manner. The timing of leadership effects is something in particular that needs greater research attention. One example can be found in LMX theory, in which the life cycle of leadership making specifies that the leader-follower relationship evolves from stranger to acquaintance and then possibly to maturity (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Although time is a fundamental driver of the evolution of this leadership making, there is a general lack of empirically based research exploring the explicit role of time in these developmental processes. Similar concerns exist with shared leadership. It is unrealistic to think that shared leadership emerges fully formed in a team at its inception. Rather, it is likely to take some time to develop and will benefit from factors such as adopting a learning orientation within the team (Edmondson, Bohmer, & Pisano, 2001). But again, little is known about the role of time in the development of shared leadership.

Future research direction: Longitudinal methods are encouraged in leadership research, especially in terms of better understanding how and when developmental processes unfold with regard to individuals, teams, and organizations.

The point was raised that leadership theorists and researchers need to better account for the role of context in leadership. This may stipulate a change to different forms of research methods (Zyphur et al., 2012). Typical quantitative or measurement-based leadership approaches generally seek to provide results that can generalize across different contexts. But, as noted at the beginning of this chapter, the type of leadership that occurs in a business context may be quite different from that associated with effective outcomes in a military context where a great deal of personal danger exists. Indeed, some have argued that leadership cannot be fully understood apart from its context (Biggart & Hamilton, 1987).

To more fully understand contextual influences on leadership may require greater use of qualitative research methods such as case studies and designs based on interview data (Bryman, Stephens, & a’ Campo, 1996). In order for qualitative studies to add value to the leadership literature, they need to be designed in ways to address questions especially

with regard to context. Merely adding more qualitative studies without consideration of the appropriateness of the approach to answer the research question at hand is unlikely to provide much insight. But also unlikely to provide much insight are future studies based on leadership questionnaires used in single-session, cross-sectional designs.

Future research direction: The use of qualitative methods is encouraged to better understand the relationships between leadership and the context in which it occurs or develops.

Future Practice Directions

The field of I/O psychology is grounded in the scientist-practitioner model; thus, suggestions for future practice directions are also needed. It is ironic in some ways that leadership per se is not something that attracts a lot of practice attention, but leadership development is a key concern to many organizations. Indeed, there is an entire industry devoted to developing leaders, and this interest appears to cut across business, education, military, and other private and public domains.

Despite the interest and the sheer number of leadership development providers working in the private and public sectors, one recent report claimed that “leadership development is going nowhere fast” (Howard & Wellins, 2008, p. 4). Specific areas that were identified as troublesome include a lack of satisfaction with regard to the development offerings in organizations, that confidence in leaders has declined steadily over the previous eight years, and that on average 37% of those who fill leadership positions fail (i.e., either by leaving the position or failing to achieve the objectives of the position). This last observation is not new. Drucker (1985) noted some time ago: “At most one-third of such [executive selection] decisions turn out right; one-third are minimally effective; and one-third are outright failures” (p. 22). Thus, even though leadership development is a strategic human capital concern of many organizations, data suggest that it is not being done very effectively.

An issue that has challenged the effectiveness of leadership development initiatives is the focus on relatively short-term, episodic-based thinking in terms of how development occurs. Traditional thinking about leadership development has viewed it as a series of unconnected, discrete programs with little assistance in integrating across these developmental episodes (Vicere & Fulmer, 1998). Contemporary thinking about leadership development views it as continuous and ongoing throughout the adult lifespan (Day et al., 2009). In short, just about any

experience has the potential to contribute to development to the extent that it includes aspects of assessment, challenge, and support (McCauley, Van Velsor, & Ruderman, 2010).

Future practice direction: Development of leaders and leadership is best considered as an ongoing and continuous process that is most effective when it is connected to the overall strategy of the organization

Most of what has been portrayed as so-called leadership development would be more accurately called leader development (Day, 2000). Although this might seem to be a fairly trivial distinction, it has important developmental implications. The typical focus of most developmental efforts is on developing the individual leader, using practices such as assessment, feedback, coaching, and job assignments/rotation. The focus is on developing individual leader skills; however, there is no certainty that better leadership will result. After all, leadership requires some dynamic social interaction within a specified situational context. Leadership development would likely require intervention at a more macro group, team, or organizational level. But it is not an “either/or” proposition; rather, stateof-the-art practices involve determining how to link leader development with more aggregate leadership development to enhance the overall leadership capacity in a collective (Day et al., 2004).

Future practice direction: The most effective development initiatives link leader development with leadership development in enhancing an overall capacity for leadership.

Conclusions

The leadership field may appear to be curiously unformed to some commentators (Hackman & Wageman, 2007); nonetheless, there is a good deal that we do know about leadership as a result of 100 years of research. The chapter will conclude with a brief listing of what we have learned about leadership over the years and speculation on what we have yet to learn.

What We Have Learned

Leadership requires a social interaction • between people—traditionally labeled as leaders and followers—within a situational context. Focusing on the leader(s), or follower(s), or situation(s) exclusively and in isolation of each other will provide at best an imperfect picture of the leadership process. All three forces must be considered in forging a more complete picture of that process.

There is no right or wrong leadership theory. • Some theories have more support than others, but most have a modicum of empirical support. Rather than attempting to sort out which is the best of the lot, a more fruitful approach will be in developing more integrative theories that combine the best aspects of the most strongly supported approaches with emerging perspectives on the evolving nature of leadership.

Taking a static approach to leadership • is unlikely to provide much, if any, valuable insight. The essence of leadership is its dynamic and process-based nature. Single-shot, crosssectional, and survey-based approaches to studying leadership have increasingly limited value.

Leadership can originate from those • designated as formal leaders, from individuals who emerge as informal leaders, from those considered to be followers, or from the overall aggregate collective (e.g., team leadership capacity). Leadership is an inclusive rather than exclusive phenomenon.

Leaders develop through experience, and • it appears that the most potent developmental experiences are those that happen on the job (i.e., in context). Key to using developmental experiences effectively is in enhancing a learning focus with regard to the lessons learned from experience.

What We Have Yet to Learn

How do we disentangle the leadership criteria • of emergence from effectiveness? This has proved to be a sticking point in leadership research when both forms of criteria are measured using perceptually based ratings.

How does organizational context shape • the prevailing leadership processes? As noted, individual leaders and followers are nested within teams and organizations, but we have little understanding of how the higher level context shapes the lower level leadership processes.

The timing of leadership effects is virtually • unknown. Although some researchers have demonstrated that agreement between leaders and followers increases over time (Sin et al., 2009) there is little in the way of specific timing on these or other effects of leadership. The question of interest is: What is the relationship between leadership and time?

Although we have some grounding in • understanding how leaders develop, there is relatively little understanding of how leadership

develops. For example, it has been shown that shared leadership adds predictive value over vertical or traditional leadership forms, but there is little understanding of how shared leadership develops within a team.

How does leadership emerge in a grassroots • or bottom-up manner? Using new forms of study such as complexity theory (Hazy, Goldstein, & Lichtenstein, 2007) may hold particular promise for better understanding emergent leadership from what appear to be random or chaotic conditions.

In conclusion, leadership has endured a rocky history in I/O psychology due to challenges with underlying theory, cross-sectional questionnairebased research approaches, and the lack of evidencebased practices. Despite these challenges, we have discovered a great deal about the nature of leadership and its evolving character, and the good news is that we have much yet to learn.

References

Antonakis, J. (2012). Transformational and charismatic leadership. In D. V. Day & J. Antonakis (Eds.), The nature of leadership (2nd ed., pp. 256–288). Los Angeles: Sage.

Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P., & Lalive, R. (2010). On making causal claims: A review and recommendations. Leadership Quarterly, 21, 1086–1120.

Arvey, R. D., Rotundo, M., Johnson, W., Zhang, Z., & McGue, M. (2006). The determinants of leadership role 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 of leadership role occupancy among women. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 693–706.

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

Avolio, B. J. (2004). Examining the Full Range Model of leadership: Looking back to transform forward. In D. V. Day, S. J. Zaccaro, & S. M. Halpin (Eds.), Leader development for transforming organizations: Growing leaders for tomorrow (pp. 71–98). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

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

Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., Murry, W., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Building highly developed teams: Focusing on shared leadership processes, efficacy, trust, and performance. Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams, 3, 173–209.

Avolio, B. J., Sosik, J. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Leadership models, methods, and applications. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 277–307). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Ayman, R., & Adams, S. (2012). Contingencies, context, situation, and leadership. In D. V. Day & J. Antonakis (Eds.), The nature of leadership (2nd ed., pp. 218–255). Los Angeles: Sage.

Barnlund, D. C. (1962). Consistency of emergent leadership in groups with changing tasks and members. Speech Monographs, 29, 45–52.

Barrick, M. R., Day, D. V., Lord, R. G., & Alexander, R. A. (1991). Assessing the utility of executive leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 2, 9–22.

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

Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 9–32.

Bass, B. M. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership: A response to critiques. In M. M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions (pp. 49–80). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). MLQ: Multifactor leadership questionnaire (2nd ed.). Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.

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

Bedeian, A. G., & Day, D. V. (2004). Can chameleons lead? Leadership Quarterly, 15, 687–718.

Bedeian, A. G., & Hunt, J. G. (2006). Academic amnesia and vestigial assumptions of our forefathers. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 190–205.

Bennis, W. (2007). The challenges of leadership in the modern world. American Psychologist, 62, 2–5.

Biggart, N. W., & Hamilton, G. G. (1987). An institutional theory of leadership. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 23, 429–441.

Bingham, W. V. (1927). Leadership. In H. C. Metcalf (Ed.), The psychological foundations of management (pp. 244–260). Chicago: A. W. Shaw.

Binning, J. F., Zaba, A. J., & Whattam, J. C. (1986). Explaining the biasing effects of performance cues in terms of cognitive categorization. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 521–535.

Bird, C. (1940). Social psychology. New York: Appleton-Century.

Blank, W., Weitzel, J. R., & Green, S. G. (1990). A test of situational leadership theory. Personnel Psychology, 43, 579–597.

Bowers, D. G., & Seashore, S. E. (1966). Predicting organizational effectiveness with a four-factor theory of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 11, 238–263.

Brown, D. J. (2012). In the minds of followers: Follower-centric approaches to leadership. In D. V. Day & J. Antonakis (Eds.), The nature of leadership (2nd ed., pp. 331–362). Los Angeles: Sage.

Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organizations

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Bryman, A., Stephens, M., & a’ Campo, C. (1996). The importance of context: Qualitative research and the study of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 7, 353–370.

Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Halpin, S. M. (2006). What type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 288–307.

Burke, M. J., & Day, R. R. (1986). A cumulative study of the effectiveness of managerial training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 232–245.

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

Butler, D., & Geis, F. L. (1990). Nonverbal affect responses to male and female leaders: Implications for leadership evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 48–59.

Calder, B. J. (1977). An attribution theory of leadership. In B. M. Staw & G. R. Salancik (Eds.), New directions in organizational behavior (pp. 179–204). Chicago: St. Clair Press.

Cameron, K. S., & Whetten, D. A. (1983). Some conclusions about organizational effectiveness. In K. S. Cameron & D. A. Whetten (Eds.), Organizational effectiveness: A comparison of multiple models (pp. 261–277). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Carli, L. L., & Eagly, A. H. (2012). Leadership and gender. In D. V. Day & J. Antonakis (Eds.), The nature of leadership (2nd ed., pp. 437–476). Los Angeles: Sage.

Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., & Marrone, J. A. (2007). Shared leadership in teams: An investigation of antecedent conditions and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1217–1234.

Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234–246.

Chan, K.-Y., & Drasgow, F. (2001). Toward a theory of individual differences and leadership: Understanding motivation to lead. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 481–498.

Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1997). Evolutionary psychology: A primer. Santa Barbara, CA: Center for Evolutionary Psychology.

Craig, D. R., & Charters, W. W. (1925). Personal leadership in industry. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Dansereau, F., Jr., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46–78.

Day, D. V. (2000). Leadership development: A review in context. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 581–613.

Day, D. V., Gronn, P., & Salas, E. (2004). Leadership capacity in teams. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 857–880.

Day, D. V., Gronn, P., & Salas, E. (2006). Leadership in teambased organizations: On the threshold of a new era. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 211–216.

Day, D. V., Harrison, M. M., & Halpin, S. M. (2009). An integrative approach to leader development: Connecting adult development, identity, and expertise. New York: Routledge.

Day, D. V., & Lance, C. E. (2004). Understanding the development of leadership complexity through latent growth modeling. In D. V. Day, S. J. Zaccaro, & S. M. Halpin (Eds.), Leader development for transforming organizations: Growing leaders for tomorrow (pp. 41–69). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Day, D. V., & Lord, R. G. (1988). Executive leadership and organizational performance: Suggestions for a new theory and methodology. Journal of Management, 14, 453–464.

Day, D. V., Schleicher, D. J., Unckless, A. L., & Hiller, N. J. (2002). Self-monitoring personality at work: A meta-analytic investigation of construct validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 390–401.

Day, D. V., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2007). Leadership: A critical historical analysis of the influence of leader traits. In L. L. Koppes (Ed.), Historical perspectives in industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 383–405). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

DeChurch, L. A., & Marks, M. A. (2006). Leadership in multiteam systems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 311–329.

Den Hartog, D. N., & Dickson, M. W. (2012). Leadership and culture. In D. V. Day & J. Antonakis (Eds.), The nature of leadership (2nd ed., pp. 393–436). Los Angeles: Sage.

DeShon, R. P., Kozlowski, S. W. J., Schmidt, A. M., Milner, K. R., & Wiechmann, D. (2004). A multiple-goal, multilevel model of feedback effects on the regulation of individual and team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1035–1056.

Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development. Academy of Management Review, 11, 618–634.

Downey, H. K., Chacko, T., & McElroy, J. C. (1979). Attribution of the “causes” of performance: A constructive, quasi-longitudinal replication of the Staw study (1975). Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 24, 287–299.

Drath, W. H., McCauley, C. D., Palus, C. J., Van Velsor, E., O’Connor, P. M. G., & McGuire, J. B. (2008). Direction, alignment, commitment: Toward a more integrative ontology of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 635–653.

Drucker, P. F. (July/August, 1985). How to make people decisions. Harvard Business Review, 63(4), 22–25.

Druskat, V., & Wheeler, J. V. (2003). Managing from the boundary: The effective leadership of self-managing work teams. Academy of Management Review, 46, 435–457.

Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 735–744.

Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2003). The female leadership advantage: An evaluation of the evidence. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 807–834.

Eden, D., & Leviathan, U. (1975). Implicit leadership theory as a determinant of the factor structure underlying supervisory behavior scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 736–741.

Edmondson, A., Bohmer, R., & Pisano, G. (2001, October). Speeding up team learning. Harvard Business Review, 79(9), 125–132.

Ensley, M. D., Hmielski, K. M., & Pearce, C. L. (2006). The importance of vertical and shared leadership within new venture top management teams: Implications for the performance of startups. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 217–231.

Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2004). Implicit leadership theories in applied settings: Factor structure, generalizability, and stability over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 293–310.

Evans, M. G. (1970). The effects of supervisory behavior on the path-goal relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 5, 277–298.

Fiedler, F. E. (1964). A contingency model of leadership effectiveness. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 1, 149–190.

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

Fiedler, F. E. (1996). Research on leadership selection and training: One view of the future. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 241–250.

Fiedler, F. E., Chemers, M. M., & Mahar, L. (1976). Improving leader effectiveness: The Leader Match concept. New York: Wiley.

Fiedler, F. E., & Garcia, J. E. (1987). New approaches to effective leadership effectiveness: Cognitive resources and organizational performance. New York: Wiley.

Field, R. H. G., & House, R. J. (1990). A test of the VroomYetton model using manager and subordinate reports. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 95–102.

Fleishman, E. A., Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Levin, K. Y., Korotkin, A. L., & Hein, M. B. (1991). Taxonomic efforts in the description of leader behavior: A synthesis and functional interpretation. Leadership Quarterly, 2, 245–287.

Follett, M. P. (1924). Creative experience. New York: Longmans Green.

Foti, R. J., & Hauenstein, N. M. A. (2007). Pattern and variable approaches in leadership emergence and effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 347–355.

Galton, F. (1869). Hereditary genius. New York: Appleton.

Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1994). Cross-cultural comparison of leadership prototypes. Leadership Quarterly, 5, 121–134.

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

Gibb, C. A. (1947). The principles and traits of leadership. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 42, 267–284.

Gibb, C. A. (1954). Leadership. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 877–920). Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Gibson, C. B., Cooper, C. D., & Conger, J. A. (2009). Do you see what we see? The complex effects of perceptual distance between leaders and teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 62–76.

Gibson, F. W., Fiedler, F. E., & Barrett, K. M. (1993). Stress, babble, and the utilization of the leader’s intellectual abilities. Leadership Quarterly, 4, 189–208.

Gilbert, D. T. (1998). Ordinary personology. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 89–150). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Graeff, C. L. (1983). The situational leadership theory: A critical review. Academy of Management Review, 8, 285–291.

Graen, G. B., & Cashman, J. F. (1975). A role making model of leadership in formal organizations. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership frontiers (pp. 143–165). Kent, OH: Kent State University.

Graen, G. B., Cashman, J. F., Ginsburgh, S., & Schiemann, W. (1977). Effects of linking-pin quality on the quality of working life of lower participants. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 491–504.

Graen, G. B., & Schiemann, W. (1978). Leader-member agreement: A vertical dyad linkage approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 206–212.

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219–247.

Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 423–451.

Hackman, J. R., & Wageman, R. (2007). Asking the right questions about leadership. American Psychologist, 62, 43–47.

Hackman, J. R., & Walton, R. E. (1986). Leading groups in organizations. In P. S. Goodman & Associates (Eds.), Designing effective work groups (pp. 72–119). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Halpin, A. W., & Winer, B. J. (1957). A factorial study of the leader behavior descriptions. In R. M. Stogdill & A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description and measurement

(pp. 39–51). Columbus: Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University.

Hanges, P. J., & Dickson, M. W. (2004). The development and validation of the GLOBE culture and leadership scales. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 122–151). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hazy, J. K., Goldstein, J. A., & Lichtenstein, B. B. (Eds.). (2007). Complex systems leadership theory: New perspectives from complexity science on social and organizational effectiveness. Mansfield, MA: ISCE Publishing.

Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., Martell, R. F., & Simon, M. C. (1989). Has anything changed? Current characterizations of men, women, and managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 935–942.

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1969a). Life cycle theory of leadership. Training and Development Journal, 2, 6–34.

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

Hiller, N. J., Day, D. V., & Vance, R. J. (2006). Collective enactment of leadership roles and team effectiveness: A field study. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 387–397.

Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about leadership: Effectiveness and personality. American Psychologist, 49, 493–504.

Hollander, E. P. (1992). The essential interdependence of leadership and followership. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 71–75.

Hollander, E. P. (2009). Inclusive leadership: The essential leaderfollower relationship. New York: Routledge.

Hollander, E. P., & Julian, J. W. (1969). Contemporary trends in the analysis of leadership processes. Psychological Bulletin, 71, 387–397.

Hollander, E. P., & Webb, W. B. (1955). Leadership, followership, and friendship: An analysis of peer nominations. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 50, 163–167.

Hosking, D., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1978). Review of “Improving leadership effectiveness: The Leader Match concept.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 496–505.

House, R. J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 321–338.

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

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

House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

House, R. J., & Javidan, M. (2004). Overview of GLOBE. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 9–28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

House, R. J., & Mitchell, T. R. (1974). Path-goal theory of leadership. Journal of Contemporary Business, 3, 81–97.

House, R. J., & Podsakoff, P. M. (1994). Leadership effectiveness. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: The state of the science (pp. 45–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

House, R. J., & Shamir, B. (1993). Towards an integration of transformational, charismatic, and visionary theories of

leadership. In M. M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership: Perspectives and research directions (pp. 81–107). New York: Academic Press.

Howard, A., & Wellins, R. S. (2008). Global leadership forecast 2008/2009: Overcoming the shortfalls in developing leaders Pittsburgh, PA: Development Dimensions International.

Hunt, J. G. (1999). Transformational/charismatic leadership’s transformation of the field: An historical essay. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 129–144.

Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, J. (2005). Teams in organizations: From I-P-O models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517–543.

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

Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Leadermember exchange and citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 269–277.

Javidan, M., House, R. J., & Dorfman, P. W. (2004). A nontechnical summary of GLOBE findings. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 29–50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31, 386–408.

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

Judge, T. A., & Cable, D. M. (2004). The effect of physical height on workplace success and income: Preliminary test of a theoretical model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 428–441.

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

Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Ilies, R. (2004). The forgotten ones? The validity of consideration and initiating structure in leadership research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 36–51.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

Kenny, D. A., & Zaccaro, S. J. (1983). An estimate of variance due to traits in leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 678–685.

Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22, 375–403.

Kilduff, M., & Day, D. V. (1994). Do chameleons get ahead? The effects of self-monitoring on managerial careers. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1047–1060.

Koenig, A. M., Eagly, A. H., Mitchell, A. A., & Risitkari, T. (2011). Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 616–642.

Koppes, L. L., & Pickren, W. (2007). Industrial and organizational psychology: An evolving science and practice. In L. L. Koppes (Ed.), Historical perspectives in industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 3–35). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Korman, A. K., & Tanofsky, R. (1975). Statistical problems of contingency models in organizational behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 393–397.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2008). Team learning, development, and adaptation. In V. I. Sessa & M. London (Eds.), Work group learning: Understanding, improving & assessing how groups learn in organizations (pp. 15–44). New York: Erlbaum.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., McHugh, P. P., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (1996). A dynamic theory of leadership and team effectiveness: Developmental and task contingent leader roles. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 4, 253–305.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., Nason, E. R., & Smith, E. M. (1999). Developing adaptive teams: A theory of compilation and performance across levels and time. In D. R. Ilgen & E. D. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of work performance: Implications for staffing, personnel actions, and development (pp. 240–292). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams (Monograph). Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 77–124.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 467–511). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., Watola, D. J., Jensen, J. M., Kim, B. H., & Botero, I. C. (2009). Developing adaptive teams: A theory of dynamic team leadership. In E. Salas, G. F. Goodwin, & C. S. Burke (Eds.), Team effectiveness in complex organizations: Cross-disciplinary perspectives and approaches (pp. 113–155). New York: Routledge.

Landy, F. J., & Farr, J., L. (1980). Performance rating. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 72–107.

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on the early development of leader-member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 662–674.

Locke, E. A. (2003). Foundations for a theory of leadership. In S. E. Murphy & R. E. Riggio (Eds.), The future of leadership development (pp. 29–46). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lord, R. G., Binning, J. F., Rush, M. C., & Thomas, J. C. (1978). The effect of performance cues and leader behavior on questionnaire ratings of leadership behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 21, 27–39.

Lord, R. G., & Brown, D. J. (2004). Leadership processes and follower self-identity. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lord, R. G., De Vader, C. L., & Alliger, G. M. (1986). A metaanalysis of the relation between personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity generalization procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 402–409.

Lord, R. G., & Dinh, J. E. (2012). Aggregation processes and levels of analysis as organizing structures for leadership theory. In D. V. Day & J. Antonakis (Eds.), The nature of leadership (2nd ed., pp. 29–65). Los Angeles: Sage.

Lord, R., G., Foti, R. J., & De Vader, C. L. (1984). A test of leadership categorization theory: Internal structure, information processing, and leadership perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 343–378.

Lord, R. G., Foti, R. J., & Phillips, J. S. (1982). A theory of leadership categorization. In J. G. Hunt, U. Sekaran, & C. Schriesheim (Eds.), Leadership: Beyond establishment views (pp. 104–121). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University.

Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1991). Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions and performance. Boston: Unwin Hyman.

Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramanian, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review. Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385–425.

Luthans, F., & Davis, T. (1979). Behavioral self-management (BSM): The missing link in managerial effectiveness. Organizational Dynamics, 8, 42–60.

Mann, R. D. (1959). A review of the relationships between personality and performance in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 241–270.

Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1980). Self-management as a substitute for leadership: A social learning theory perspective. Academy of Management Review, 5, 361–367.

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

Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356–376.

McCauley, C. D., Van Velsor, E., & Ruderman, M. N. (2010). Introduction: Our view of leadership development. In E. Van Velsor, C. D. McCauley, & M. N. Ruderman (Eds.), The Center for Creative Leadership handbook of leadership development (3rd ed., pp. 1–26). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

McGrath, J. E. (1962). Leadership behavior: Some requirements for leadership training. Washington, DC: U.S. Civil Service Commission, Office of Career Development.

Meindl, J. R., & Ehrlich, S. B. (1987). The romance of leadership and the evaluation of organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 90–109.

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

Mills, P. K. (1983). Self-management: Its control and relationship to other organizational properties. Academy of Management Review, 8, 445–453.

Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality. Psychological Review, 80, 252–283.

Mitchell, T. R., & James, L. R. (2001). Building better theory: Time and the specification of when things happen. Academy of Management Review, 26, 530–547.

Mitchell, T. R., Larson, J. R., Jr., & Green, S. G. (1977). Leader behavior, situational moderators, and group performance: An attributional analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 18, 254–268.

Morgeson, F. P. (2005). The external leadership of self-managing teams: Intervening in the context of novel and disruptive events. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 497–508.

Morgeson, F. P., & DeRue, D. S. (2006). Event criticality, urgency, and duration: Understanding how events disrupt teams and influence team leader intervention. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 271–287.

Morgeson, F. P., DeRue, D. S., & Peterson, E. (2010). Leadership in teams: A functional approach to understanding leadership structures and processes. Journal of Management, 36, 5–39.

Mowday, R. T. (1978). The exercise of upward influence in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 137–156.

Nahrgang, J. D., Morgeson, F. P., & Ilies, R. (2009). The development of leader-member exchanges: Exploring how personality and performance influence leader and member relationships over time. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 256–266.

O’Connor, P. M. G., & Quinn, L. (2004). Organizational capacity for leadership. In C. D. McCauley & E. Van Velsor (Eds.), The Center for Creative Leadership handbook of leadership development (2nd ed., pp. 417–437). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pearce, C. L. (2004). The future of leadership: Combining vertical and shared leadership to transform knowledge work. Academy of Management Executive, 18(1), 47–57.

Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003a). All those years ago: The historical underpinnings of shared leadership. In C. L. Pearce & J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership (pp. 1–18). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (Eds.). (2003b). Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (2002). Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of change management teams: An examination of aversive, directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6, 172–197.

Peters, L. H., Hartke, D. D., & Pohlmann, J. T. (1985). Fiedler’s contingency theory of leadership: An application of the metaanalysis procedures of Schmidt and Hunter. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 274–285.

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

Podolny, J. M., Khurana, R., & Hill-Popper, M. (2005). Revisiting the meaning of leadership. Research in Organizational Behavior, 26, 1–36.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenize, S. B., Ahearne, M., & Bommer, W. H. (1995). Searching for a needle in a haystack: Trying to identify the illusive moderators of leadership behaviors. Journal of Management, 21, 422–470.

Potter, E. H., & Fiedler, F. E. (1981). The utilization of staff member intelligence and experience under high and low stress. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 361–376.

Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Riggio, R. E., Chaleff, I., & Lipman-Blumen, J. (Eds.). (2008). The art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Rousseau, D. M., Manning, J., & Denyer, D. (2008). Evidence in management and organizational science: Assembling the field’s full weight of scientific knowledge through syntheses. Academy of Management Annals, 2, 475–515.

Rush, M. C., Thomas, J. C., & Lord, R. G. (1977). Implicit leadership theory: A potential threat to the internal validity of leader behavior questionnaires. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 20, 756–765.

Salancik, G. R., Calder, B. J., Rowland, K. M., Leblebici, H., & Conway, M. (1975). Leadership as an outcome of social structure and process: A multidimensional analysis. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership frontiers (pp. 81–101). Kent, OH: Kent State University.

Schein, V. E. (1973). The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 95–100.

Schilit, W. K., & Locke, E. A. (1982). A study of upward influence in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 304–316.

Schriesheim, C. A. (2003). Why leadership research is generally irrelevant for leadership development. In S. E. Murphy & R. E. Riggio (Eds.), The future of leadership development (pp. 181–197). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., & Cogliser, C. C. (1999). Leader-member exchange (LMX) research: A comprehensive 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 and transformational leadership theory predictions at the individual level of analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 21–38.

Schriesheim, C. A., & Kerr, S. (1977). Theories and measures of leadership: A critical appraisal. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 9–45). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University.

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

Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4, 577–594.

Sin, H.-P., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2009). Understanding why they don’t see eye-to-eye: An examination of leader-member exchange (LMX) agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1048–1057.

Snyder, M. (1987). Public appearances, private realities: The psychology of self-monitoring. New York: W. H. Freeman.

Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Process and structure in leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Review, 22, 522–552.

Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. (2005). Two routes to influence: Integrating leader-member exchange and social network perspectives. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 505–535.

Staw, B. M. (1975). Attribution of the “causes” of performance: A general alternative interpretation of non-sectional research on organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 414–432.

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

Stogdill, R. M., Goode, O. S., & Day, D. R. (1962). New leader behavior description subscales. Journal of Psychology, 54, 259–269.

Strube, M. J., & Garcia, J. E. (1981). A meta-analytic investigation of Fiedler’s contingency model of leadership effectiveness. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 307–321.

Sulsky, L. M., & Day, D. V. (1992). Frame-of-reference training and cognitive categorization: An empirical investigation of rater memory issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 501–510.

Taggar, S., Hackett, R., & Saha, S. (1999). Leadership emergence in autonomous work teams: Antecedents and outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 52, 899–926.

Taylor, J., & Bowers, D. (1972). The survey of organizations: A machine-scored standardized questionnaire instrument. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research.

Tead, O. (1935). The art of leadership. New York: McGraw-Hill.

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

Uhl-Bien, M., Maslyn, J., & Ospina, S. (2012). The nature of relational leadership: A multitheoretical lens on leadership relationships and processes. In D. V. Day & J. Antonakis

(Eds.), The nature of leadership (2nd ed., pp. 289–330). Los Angeles: Sage.

Van Vugt, M. (2012). The nature in leadership: Evolutionary, biological, and social neuroscience perspectives. In D. V. Day & J. Antonakis (Eds.), The nature of leadership (2nd ed., pp. 141–175). Los Angeles: Sage.

Van Vugt, M., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2008). Leadership, followership, and evolution: Some lessons from the past. American Psychologist, 63, 182–196.

Van Vugt, M., Johnson, D. D. P., Kaiser, R. B., & O’Gorman, R. (2008). Evolution and the social psychology of leadership: The mismatch hypothesis. In C. Hoyt, G. R. Giethals, & D. R. Forsyth (Eds.), Leadership at the crossroads: Leadership and psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 267–282). London: Praeger.

Vecchio, R. P. (2002). Leadership and gender advantage. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 643–671.

Vecchio, R. P. (2003). In search of gender advantage. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 835–850.

Vicere, A. A., & Fulmer, R. M. (1998). Leadership by design. Boston: Harvard Business School.

Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (1988). The new leadership: Managing participation in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (2007). The role of the situation in leadership. American Psychologist, 62, 17–24.

Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and decision making. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh.

Weber, M. (1924/1947). The theory of social and economic organization (T. Parsons & A. M. Henderson, Trans.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Weick, K. E. (1993). The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 628–652.

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

Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in the production of knowledge. Science, 316, 1036–1038.

Yukl, G. (1971). Toward a behavioral theory of leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6, 414–440.

Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in organizations (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Zaccaro, S. J. (2007). Trait-based perspectives of leadership. American Psychologist, 62, 6–16.

Zaccaro, S. J., Heinen, B., & Shuffler, M. (2009). Team leadership and team effectiveness. In E. Salas, G. F. Goodwin, & C. S. Burke (Eds.), Team effectiveness in complex organizations: Cross-disciplinary perspectives and approaches (pp. 83–111). New York: Routledge.

Zaccaro, S. J., Kemp, C., & Bader, P. (2004). Leader traits and attributes. In J. Antonakis, A. T. Cianciolo, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of leadership (pp. 104–124). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Zaccaro, S. J., Rittman, A. L., & Marks, M. A. (2001). Team leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 12, 451–483.

Zyphur, M. J., Barsky, A. P., & Zhang, Z. (2012). Advances in leadership research methods. In D. V. Day & J. Antonakis (Eds.), The nature of leadership (2nd ed., pp. 66–107). Los Angeles: Sage.