University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln

Management Department Faculty Publications Management Department

1-2009

Leadership: Current Theories, Research, and Future Directions

Bruce Avolio University of Nebraska - Lincoln, [email protected]

Fred Walumbwa Arizona State University, [email protected]

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

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

Part of the Management Sciences and Quantitative Methods Commons

Avolio, Bruce; Walumbwa, Fred; and Weber, Todd J., "Leadership: Current Theories, Research, and Future Directions" (2009). Management Department Faculty Publications. 37. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/managementfacpub/37

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Management Department at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Management Department Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Published in Annual Review of Psychology 60 (2009), pp. 421-449; doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163621 Copyright © 2009 by Annual Reviews. Used by permission. http://psych.annualreviews.org

Leadership: Current Theories, Research, and Future Directions

Bruce J. Avolio,1 Fred O. Walumbwa,2 and Todd J. Weber 3

1 Department of Management, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588-0491; email: [email protected] 2 Department of Management, The Arizona State University, Glendale, Arizona 85306-4908; email: [email protected] 3 Department of Management, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588-0491; email: [email protected]

Abstract This review examines recent theoretical and empirical developments in the leadership literature, beginning with topics that are currently receiving attention in terms of research, theory, and practice. We begin by examining authentic leadership and its development, followed by work that takes a cognitive science approach. We then examine new-genre leadership theories, complexity leadership, and leadership that is shared, collective, or distributed. We examine the role of relationships through our review of leader member exchange and the emerging work on followership. Finally, we examine work that has been done on substitutes for leadership, servant leadership, spirituality and leadership, cross-cultural leadership, and e-leadership. This structure has the benefit of creating a future focus as well as providing an interesting way to examine the development of the field. Each section ends with an identification of issues to be addressed in the future, in addition to the overall integration of the literature we provide at the end of the article. Keywords: authentic leadership, cognitive leadership, complexity leadership, cross-cultural leadership, new-genre leadership, shared leadership

Contents Introduction...... 422 Overview of Authentic Leadership...... 423 Authentic Leadership Defined...... 423 Future Focus Required ...... 424 Authentic Leadership Development...... 424 Heritability and Leadership...... 425 Examining Evidence for Positive Leadership Interventions ...... 425 Future Focus Required ...... 425 Cognitive Psychology and Leadership ...... 426 Emerging Cognitive Constructs ...... 426 Prototypical Abstractions of Leadership ...... 427 Future Focus Required ...... 428 421 422 Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber in Annual Review of Psychology 60 (2009)

New-Genre Leadership...... 428 New-Genre Versus Traditional Leadership ...... 428 Boundary Conditions for New-Genre Leadership ...... 429 Future Focus Required ...... 429 Complexity Leadership...... 430 Complexity and Traditional Leadership Theory ...... 430 Future Focus Required ...... 431 Shared, Collective, or Distributed Leadership ...... 431 Shared Leadership Defined...... 431 Research Evidence ...... 432 Leader-Member Exchange...... 433 Extensions to LMX ...... 433 Future Focus Required ...... 434 Followership and Leadership ...... 434 Romance of Leadership...... 434 Updates on Follower-Centric Views ...... 435 Future Focus Required ...... 435 Substitutes for Leadership ...... 436 Future Focus Required ...... 436 Servant Leadership ...... 436 Future Focus Required ...... 437 Spirituality and Leadership...... 437 Future Focus Required ...... 437 Cross-Cultural Leadership ...... 438 Project GLOBE ...... 438 Global Leadership...... 438 Comparative Leadership ...... 439 Future Focus Required...... 439 E-Leadership...... 439 Common Questions with E-Leadership ...... 440 Group and Virtual Tea...... 441 Closing Comments and Integration...... 441

IJ

Introduction organization in the United States. Today, the field of leadership focuses not only on the One of our goals for this integrative re- leader, but also on followers, peers, supervi- view is to examine the ways in which the sors, work setting/context, and culture, in- field of leadership is evolving and the conse- cluding a much broader array of individuals quences of its evolutionary path for the mod- representing the entire spectrum of diver- els, methods, and populations examined. For sity, public, private, and not-for-profit orga- example, at the outset of the field of leader- nizations, and increasingly over the past 20 ship, the primary focus was on studying an years, samples of populations from nations individual leader, who was most likely a around the globe. Leadership is no longer male working in some large private-sector simply described as an individual character- Leadership: Current Theories, Research, and Future Directions 423 istic or difference, but rather is depicted in ical piece by Luthans & Avolio (2003), the Authentic leader- various models as dyadic, shared, relational, advent of work on authentic leadership de- ship: a pattern of strategic, global, and a complex social dy- velopment came as a result of writings on transparent and eth- namic (Avolio 2007, Yukl 2006). transformational leadership, in which au- ical leader behav- ior that encourages We organize our examination of how thors such as Bass & Steidlmeier (1999) sug- openness in sharing leadership is evolving by discussing signif- gest that there are pseudo versus authentic information needed icant areas of inquiry that represent current transformational leaders. to make decisions pillars in leadership research, some under- Luthans & Avolio (2003) also introduced while accepting fol- standably taller than others. We highlight the concept of authentic leadership devel- lowers’ inputs the current state of each particular area of opment into the literature with the goal of inquiry, and discuss what we know, what integrating work on (Luthans 2002) positive we don’t know, and what remains interest- organizational behavior with the life-span Transformational leadership: leader ing possibilities to pursue in future research. leadership development work of Avolio behaviors that Given our space limitations, we focus more (1999). Their main purpose was to examine transform and in- on the current state of these respective ar- what constituted genuine leadership devel- spire followers to eas in terms of advances in theory, research, opment including what worked and didn’t perform beyond ex- and practice, including the criticisms and work to develop leaders and leadership, as pectations while boundaries of theories, models, and meth- well as to bring to the foreground some of transcending self- interest for the good ods wherever appropriate. From this analy- the recent work in positive psychology as of the organization sis, we offer some recommendations for fu- a foundation for examining how one might ture directions that the science of leadership accelerate the development. Luthans and could pursue, and we discuss the potential Avolio reasoned that using some of the the- implications for leadership practice. oretical work in positive psychology such as Looking back over the past 100 years, Fredrickson’s (2001) broaden-and-build the- Positive organi- zational behav- we cannot imagine a more opportune time ory, they could offer a more positive way ior: literature that for the field of leadership studies. Never for conceptualizing leadership develop- is focusing on pos- before has so much attention been paid to ment. According to Fredrickson, those in- itive constructs leadership, and the fundamental question dividuals who have more positive psycho- such as hope, re- we must ask is, what do we know and what logical resources are expected to grow more siliency, efficacy, should we know about leaders and leader- effectively or to broaden themselves and optimism, happi- ness, and well-be- ship? We begin addressing these questions build out additional personal resources to ing as they apply to not by going back to the earliest work in perform. Luthans and Avolio report that to organizations leadership, but rather by focusing on what a large extent, the prior leadership develop- is most current in the field. We then exam- ment work was based on a deficit-reduction ine other areas from which the current work model strategy, where one discovered what has emerged, rather than examining lead- was wrong with a leader and then worked Broaden-and-build ership material covered in recent reviews to correct deficits in terms of focusing on theory: suggests (Gelfand et al. 2007, Goethals 2005) or pro- the leader’s development (also see Avolio & positive emotions viding a comprehensive historical review of Luthans 2006). expand cognition the field that is better left to the Handbook of and behavioral ten- dencies, and en- Leadership (Bass & Bass 2008; see also Yukl Authentic Leadership Defined courage novel, & Van Fleet 1992). First and foremost, the concept of au- varied, and explor-

thenticity has been around for a long time, atory thoughts and actions as reflected in many philosophical discus- Overview of Authentic Leadership sions of what constitutes authenticity (Har- One of the emerging pillars of interest in ter et al. 2002). George (2003) popularized the field of leadership has been called- au authentic leadership in the general practice thentic leadership development. As dis- community when he published his book on cussed in a special issue [edited by Avolio the topic, as did Luthans & Avolio (2003) & Gardner (2005)] of the Leadership Quar- for the academic community. Luthans & terly on this topic and in an earlier theoret- Avolio (2003, p. 243) defined authentic lead- 424 Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber in Annual Review of Psychology 60 (2009)

ership as “a process that draws from both scales that were reliable. These four scales positive psychological capacities and a loaded on a higher-order factor labeled au- highly developed organizational context, thentic leadership that was discriminantly which results in both greater self-awareness valid from measures of transformational and self-regulated positive behaviors on leadership (e.g., Avolio 1999) and ethical Ethical leadership: the part of leaders and associates, fostering leadership (e.g., Brown et al. 2005) and was the demonstra- positive self-development.” This definition a significant and positive predictor of orga- tion of normatively and subsequent work on authentic leader- nizational citizenship behavior, organiza- appropriate con- duct through per- ship was defined at the outset as multilevel tional commitment, and satisfaction with sonal actions and in that it included the leader, follower, and supervisor and performance. interpersonal re- context very specifically in the way it was lationships, and conceptualized and measured. This ad- Future Focus Required the promotion of dressed a typical criticism in the leadership such conduct to literature summarized by Yammarino et al. Work on defining and measuring au- followers (2005, p. 10) who concluded, “relatively few thentic leadership is in the very early stages studies in any of the areas of leadership re- of development. Future research will need search have addressed levels-of-analysis is- to offer additional evidence for the con- sues appropriately in theory, measurement, struct validity of this measure or other mea- data analysis, and inference drawing.” sures, and it will also need to demonstrate At the same time, several scholars (e.g., how authentic leadership relates to other Cooper et al. 2005, Sparrowe 2005) expressed constructs within its nomological network. concerns with Luthans & Avolio’s initial This would include constructs such as moral Nomological net- definition of authentic leadership. The ini- perspective, self-concept clarity, well-being, work: a representa- tial conceptual differences notwithstanding, spirituality, and judgment. Moreover, there tion of a construct, is a need to examine how authentic lead- its observable man- there appears to be general agreement in the ifestation, and the literature on four factors that cover the com- ership is viewed across situations and cul- relationship be- ponents of authentic leadership: balanced tures and whether it is a universally pre- tween the two processing, internalized moral perspective, scribed positive root construct—meaning it relational transparency, and self-awareness. represents the base of good leadership re- Balanced processing refers to objectively gardless of form, e.g., participative, direc- analyzing relevant data before making a de- tive, or inspiring. In the next section, we cision. Internalized moral perspective re- turn our attention to the second major focus fers to being guided by internal moral stan- on authentic leadership, which incorporates dards, which are used to self-regulate one’s the term development. behavior. Relational transparency refers to presenting one’s authentic self through openly sharing information and feelings Authentic Leadership Development as appropriate for situations (i.e., avoiding inappropriate displays of emotions). Self- Up until very recently, one would be awareness refers to the demonstrated un- hard-pressed to find in the leadership litera- derstanding of one’s strengths, weaknesses, ture a general model of leadership develop- and the way one makes sense of the world. ment (Luthans & Avolio 2003). Even more These four constructs were further oper- difficult to find is evidence-based leader- ationally defined by Walumbwa and- col ship development. Specifically, what ev- leagues (2008). Walumbwa et al. (2008) pro- idence is there to support whether leaders vided initial evidence using a multisample or leadership can be developed using one strategy involving U.S. and non-U.S. partic- or more specific theories of leadership? This ipants to determine the construct validity question led to a concerted effort to explore of a new set of authentic leadership scales. what was known about whether leaders are Specifically, they showed the four - compo born or made, as well as the efficacy of lead- nents described above represented unique ership interventions. Leadership: Current Theories, Research, and Future Directions 425

Heritability and Leadership thans 2006, Avolio et al. 2009, Reichard & Avolio 2005). The focus of this meta-ana- One avenue of research that has explored lytic review was unique in that up to that whether leaders are born versus made has point, more than 30 meta-analyses had been involved studying identical and fraternal published on leadership research, none of twins. Preliminary evidence using a behav- which had focused on leadership interven- ioral genetics approach has shown that ap- tions and more than one model of leader- proximately 30% of the variation in leader- ship. For each study, the leadership inter- ship style and emergence was accounted for vention examined was categorized into six by heritability; the remaining variation was types: training, actor/role-play, scenario/ attributed to differences in environmental vignette, assignments, expectations, others. factors such as individuals having differ- Reichard & Avolio (2005) reported that re- ent role models and early opportunities for gardless of the theory being investigated, leadership development (Arvey et al. 2007). results showed that leadership interven- Because identical twins have 100% of the tions had a positive impact on work out- same genetic makeup and fraternal twins comes (e.g., ratings of leader performance), share about 50%, this behavioral genetics even when the duration of those interven- research was able to control for heritability tions was less than one day. In terms of util- to examine how many leadership roles the ity, participants in the broadly defined lead- twins emerged into over their respective ca- ership treatment condition had on average reers. In this and subsequent research for a 66% chance of positive outcomes versus both men and women across cultures, sim- only a 34% chance of success for the com- ilar results were obtained. The authors con- parison group. ducting this research conclude that the “life context” one grows up in and later works Future Focus Required in is much more important than heritability in predicting leadership emergence across Relatively little work has been done over one’s career. the past 100 years to substantiate whether leadership can actually be developed. In- Examining Evidence for Positive Leadership deed, based on the meta-analysis findings Interventions reviewed above, only 201 studies were iden- tified that fit the intervention definition. Of Lord & Hall (1992, p. 153) noted, “too those 201 studies, only about one third fo- much research in the past has attempted to cused on developing leadership as opposed probe the complex issues of leadership us- to manipulating it for impact through role ing simple bivariate correlations.” It seems plays or scripts to test a particular proposi- fair to say that although most models of tion in one of the various models. leadership have causal predictions, a rela- One of the emerging areas of interest in tively small percentage of the accumulated leadership research, which we have dedi- literature has actually tested these predic- cated more attention to in its own section, tions using controlled leadership interven- concerns the linkages between cognitive sci- tions, especially in field research settings ence and how leaders perceive, decide, be- (Yukl 2006). have, and take action (Lord & Brown 2004). To determine whether experimental in- For example, to develop leadership, it is terventions actually impacted leadership imperative that we examine how a lead- development and/or performance, a qual- er’s self-concept and/or identity is formed, itative and quantitative review of the lead- changed, and influences behavior (Swann et ership intervention (i.e., studies where a re- al. 2007). This raises a key question regard- searcher overtly manipulated leadership to ing what constitutes leaders’ working self- examine its impact on some specific inter- concept and/or identity with respect to how mediate process variables or outcomes) lit- they go about influencing others (Swann et erature was undertaken (see Avolio & Lu- 426 Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber in Annual Review of Psychology 60 (2009)

al. 2007). For example, does an authentic Cognitive Psychology and Leadership leader have a different working self-con- The cognitive science leadership litera- cept than someone who is described by fol- ture is an area of research and theory con- lowers as transformational or transactional, Cognitive leader- taining a wide range of approaches that are ship: a broad range and how do these differences develop in the united by their focus on explaining the way of approaches to leader over time? leaders and followers think and process in- leadership empha- We know from previous literature that formation. This literature includes a broad sizing how lead- although a leader’s working self-concept ers and followers range of topics such as self-concept theory, is constructed in the current moment, it is think and process meta-cognitions, and implicit leadership also based on more stable self-concepts and information theory (e.g., Lord & Emrich 2000), which identities stored in the individual’s long- are addressed in more detail below. term memory. Avolio & Chan (2008) indi- One of the more recent developments cate there are certain trigger events that ac- in the literature has been an attempt to de- tivate the leader’s working self-concept. velop models of leadership cognition. Lord These trigger events induce self-focused & Hall (2005) developed a model of lead- attention, self-assessment, and activate a ership development that emphasized the leader’s working self-concept. These trigger leader’s cognitive attributes or abilities. A moments can occur naturally as the leader second model was developed by Mumford interacts with others during leadership ep- et al. (2003) and examined the way shared isodes or they can be induced through for- thinking contributed to leader creativity. mal training exercises and self-reflection These two approaches illustrate a funda- (Roberts et al. 2005). mental way in which views of leadership Another very promising area of research cognitions vary, with the former focusing that has not received sufficient attention in on activities with the individual leader and the leadership literature focuses on under- the latter focusing on interactions that occur standing what constitutes an individual’s between individuals (Mumford et al. 2007). level of developmental readiness or one’s We examine several of the key emerging capacity or motivational orientation to de- constructs within this literature, beginning velop to one’s full potential. Prior authors with the self-concept. have defined developmental readiness as be- ing made up of components such as one’s Emerging Cognitive Constructs goal orientation (Dweck 1986) and motiva- tion to develop leadership (Maurer & Lipp- Recent literature on what constitutes the streu 2005). In this literature, the authors ar- self-concept has distinguished between the gue that leaders who are more motivated to structure of the self-concept and its contents learn at the outset and who have higher mo- (Altrocchi 1999). The content refers to the tivation to lead will more likely embrace trig- evaluations one makes of oneself as well as ger events that stimulate their thinking about self-beliefs. The structure refers to ways in their own development as an opportunity to which the self-concept content is organized improve their leadership effectiveness. for processing. In a study on the structure of In sum, a great deal of energy and inter- the self-concept, Campbell et al. (2003) ex- est is emerging in the leadership develop- amined the competing arguments that one ment literature that suggests there will be a benefits from having either unity in self- lot more activity in trying to discover what concept or pluralism. Although the litera- impacts genuine leadership development at ture tends to treat the two as opposite ends multiple levels of analysis, from cognitive of a continuum, their study showed they are through to organizational climates. This lit- not necessarily related to each other. This erature will no doubt link to the life-span study further showed that two measures of development and cognitive psychology lit- pluralism (self-complexity and self-concept eratures to fuel further work in this area. compartmentalization) were not related to Leadership: Current Theories, Research, and Future Directions 427 each other and that multiple measures of ing framework that helps one understand self-concept unity, such as self-concept dif- and make sense of a given context or ex- ferentiation, self-concept clarity, and self- perience. One notable example of the use discrepancies, were moderately related to of schemas with respect to leadership re- Transactional lead- each other and that each had implications search is the work of Wofford et al. (1998), ership: leadership for leader development. who proposed a cognitive model to explain largely based on Lord & Brown (2001) presented a model the way transformational and transactional the exchange of re- examining two specific ways that leaders leaders view work with followers. In their wards contingent on performance can influence the way followers choose to field study, Wofford et al. examined sche- behave in terms of the motivations they use matic processes (e.g., vision, follower, self) to regulate actions/behaviors. The first way and scripts (behaviors associated with a relates to values (e.g., achievement) and em- schema), arguing that transformational and phasizes making specific values (or patterns transactional leadership use different sche- of values) salient for the follower to moti- mas to interpret events, which then results vate him or her to action. The second relates in the choice of different leadership behav- to the followers’ self-concept, whereby the iors/actions in response to those events. leader activates a specific identity to which Support was found for transformational followers can relate, creating a collective leader cognitions being related to the lead- identity that the follower ultimately em- ers’ choice of acting transformationally. braces as his or her own. Both values and Mixed support was found for the relation- self-concept are viewed as mediating the ships between transactional leader schemas linkage between the leader’s actions and the and behaviors and actions chosen. behavior of the follower. Because there are a range of peripheral Prototypical Abstractions of Leadership and core identities that could be salient to an individual at any one point in time, the The leadership research on social iden- question of which identities are activated at tity formation has also focused heavily on any time is relevant to research on leader- what constitutes prototypicality, which has ship and its impact on followers. The idea of shown that followers may be more drawn a working self-concept refers to the identity to leaders who are exemplars of groups (or combination of identities) that is salient they belong to or want to join. Early re- in the moment, and it consists of three types search conceptualized prototypes as be- of components: self-views, current goals, ing relatively static and applicable in many and possible selves (Lord & Brown 2004). situations. Recent work has contested that The self-view relates to the current working view, arguing that prototypes are dynamic model or view of oneself, whereas the pos- and can be applied and adapted based on sible selves may represent the ideal model the existing constraints or challenges being an individual may be striving for and some- confronted by leaders (Lord et al. 2001). thing that could be leveraged by the leader Subsequent research has also focused to motivate and develop followers into bet- on the relationship between implicit lead- ter followers or leaders themselves. Overall, ership theories and several relevant per- the working self-concept has the potential formance outcomes (Epitropaki & Martin to provide insight into the challenging is- 2005). We note that for more than 25 years, sue of how salient one’s identity is and how a great deal of the work on cognitive psy- leadership can enhance its salience, though chology and leadership focused on how im- its use within the leadership literature has plicit theories and prototypes affected the been somewhat limited so far. perceptions of leaders and followers, gener- One of the essential building blocks in ally examining how it disadvantaged or bi- the cognitive leadership literature is the ased them in views of others. More recent idea of a schema, which is a broad organiz- trends in this literature coincide nicely with 428 Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber in Annual Review of Psychology 60 (2009)

emphasis now being placed on authentic New-Genre Versus Traditional Leadership leadership development. Specifically, re- Bryman (1992) commented, “There was search is now attempting to link how lead- considerable disillusionment with leader- ers think about events, choose to behave, ship theory and research in the early 1980s. and/or develop. Part of the disillusionment was attributed to the fact that most models of leadership and Future Focus Required measures accounted for a relatively small Cognitive approaches to investigating percentage of variance in performance out- leadership draw heavily on several litera- comes such as productivity and effective- tures described above. This broad stream of ness. Out of this pessimism emerged a num- research has potential for enhancing exist- ber of alternative approaches, which shared ing theories of leadership in terms of help- some common features…, collectively re- ing to explain how leaders and followers at- ferred to as the new leadership” (Bryman tend to, process, and make decisions and 1992, p. 21). Unlike the traditional leader- develop. Additional work linking self-con- ship models, which described leader be- cept and meta-cognitive theories to research havior in terms of leader-follower exchange on leadership will no doubt contribute to relationships, setting goals, providing direc- our understanding of how leaders and fol- tion and support, and reinforcement behav- lowers actually develop. For example, if a iors, or what Bass (1985) referred to as being leader has low self-concept clarity, to what based on “economic cost-benefit assump- extent can we expect that same leader to be tions” (p. 5), the new leadership models self-aware? What are the implications for emphasized symbolic leader behavior; vi- enhancing a leader’s self-concept clarity or sionary, inspirational messages; emotional working self-concept about what consti- feelings; ideological and moral values; indi- tutes the roles of effective leadership in de- vidualized attention; and intellectual stim- veloping that leader’s self-awareness and ulation. Emerging from these early works, performance? charismatic and transformational leadership theories have turned out to be the most fre- quently researched theories over the past 20 New-Genre Leadership years (Avolio 2005, Lowe & Gardner 2000). The theory of charismatic/transforma- Although prior authors have focused tional leadership suggests that such lead- New-genre lead- on what constitutes charismatic, inspira- ers raise followers’ aspirations and activate ership: leadership emphasizing charis- tional, and visionary leadership as far back their higher-order values (e.g., altruism) matic leader behav- as the early 1920s, much of the attention such that followers identify with the leader ior, visionary, in- in the literature on these newer theories of and his or her mission/vision, feel better spiring, ideological leadership has come about over the past about their work, and then work to per- and moral values, 25 years. Burns (1978) and Bass (1985) sig- form beyond simple transactions and base as well as transfor- naled the need to shift the focus of leader- expectations (e.g., Avolio 1999, Bass 1985, mational leadership such as individu- ship research from predominantly examin- Conger & Kanungo 1998). Accumulated re- alized attention, ing transactional models that were based on search (see Avolio et al. 2004a for a sum- and intellectual how leaders and followers exchanged with mary of this literature), including a series of stimulation each other to models that might augment meta-analytic studies (e.g., Judge & Piccolo transactional leadership and were labeled 2004), has found that charismatic/trans- charismatic, inspirational, transformational, formational leadership was positively as- and visionary. The early work of Bass and sociated with leadership effectiveness and Burns set the stage for distinguishing what a number of important organizational out- Bryman (1992) referred to as more tradi- comes across many different types of orga- tional theories of leadership versus what nizations, situations, levels of analyses, and they termed new-genre leadership theories. cultures such as productivity and turnover. Leadership: Current Theories, Research, and Future Directions 429

Over the past decade, a lot of research ing (e.g., Sosik et al. 1997), and cultural ori- effort has been invested in understanding entations such as collectivism (e.g., Wa- the processes through which charismatic/ lumbwa & Lawler 2003). transformational leaders positively influ- ence followers’ attitudes, behaviors, and Future Focus Required performance. For example, a number of Although significant progress has been studies have examined different processes made in studying charismatic/transforma- through which transformational leadership tional leadership, a number of areas still effects are ultimately realized in terms of deserve further attention. First, despite the performance outcomes. These processes in- important and positive contributions made clude followers’ formation of commitment; by charismatic or transformational lead- satisfaction; identification; perceived fair- ership in practice, questions remain as to ness (e.g., Liao & Chuang 2007, Walumbwa what determines or predicts charismatic or et al. 2008); job characteristics such as vari- transformational leadership, or why some ety, identity, significance, autonomy and leaders engage in charismatic or transfor- feedback (e.g., Piccolo & Colquitt 2006); mational leadership behavior and oth- trust in the leader (e.g., Wang et al. 2005); ers do not. Limited research has examined and how followers come to feel about leaders’ biographies or the role of follow- themselves and their group in terms of ef- ers (Howell & Shamir 2005) as predictor ficacy, potency, and cohesion (e.g., Bass et variables. al. 2003, Bono & Judge 2003, Schaubroeck Second, despite significant progress et al. 2007). in understanding how and when charis- matic and transformational leadership be- Boundary Conditions for New-Genre haviors are more effective, further research Leadership is needed that explores the process and After establishing the positive links be- boundary conditions for charismatic and tween transformational leadership and the transformational leadership with beneficial intervening variables and performance out- work behaviors. For example, although comes, more recent research has examined scholars who have investigated charismatic the boundary conditions in which transfor- and transformational leadership have dis- mational leadership is more (or less) effec- cussed motivational constructs as central tive in predicting follower attitudes and be- components in their frameworks, gener- haviors. For example, several studies have ally speaking, few have paid any attention focused on identifying and understand- to the underlying psychological processes, ing contextual variables (e.g., idiocentrism) mechanisms, and conditions through Mediated moder- that mediate or moderate the relationship which charismatic and transformational ation: a moderat- of charismatic/transformational leadership leaders motivate followers to higher lev- ing relationship that with followers’ level of motivation and per- els of motivation and performance (Kark & is mediated by an- formance at the individual, team or group, Van Dijk 2007). other variable and organizational levels (e.g., De Cremer Yukl (1999) has called for a more con- & van Knippenberg 2004, Keller 2006, Wa- certed effort to understand both the moder- lumbwa et al. 2007). Additional research ating and mediating mechanisms that link has focused on examining the moderating charismatic/transformational leadership to effects of follower dispositions such as effi- follower outcomes. To date, only a few pre- cacy (Dvir & Shamir 2003, Zhu et al. 2008), liminary studies have simultaneously ex- physical and structural distance (e.g., Avo- amined mediated moderation or moderated Moderated medi- a mediating lio et al. 2004b), perceived environmen- mediation (e.g., De Cremer & van Knippen- ation: relationship that is tal uncertainty (e.g., Agle et al. 2006), so- berg 2004, Walumbwa et al. 2008). moderated by an- cial networks (e.g., Bono & Anderson 2005), Third, other areas that deserve research other variable technology to support group decision-mak- attention include examining how to link 430 Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber in Annual Review of Psychology 60 (2009)

charismatic/transformational leadership traditional hierarchical structures of orga- to the emerging literature on emotions and nizations. To the degree that organizations leadership. Although all of these newer the- are hierarchical, so too are leadership mod- ories emphasize the emotional attachment els (Uhl-Bien et al. 2007). Yet, there has been of followers to the leader, there has been a a growing sense of tension in the leadership dearth of conceptual and empirical research literature that models of leadership that on examining the relationships between were designed for the past century may not these new leadership theories and follow- fully capture the leadership dynamic of or- ers’ affective states (Bono & Ilies 2006). ganizations operating in today’s knowledge- Fourth, research on charismatic and trans- driven economy (Lichtenstein et al. 2007). formational leadership at the organizational Applying the concepts of complexity the- or strategic level has generally lagged be- ory to the study of leadership has resulted hind all other areas of leadership research ex- in what has been referred to as complexity cept perhaps the focus on leadership devel- leadership (Uhl-Bien & Marion 2008). Based opment (Waldman & Yammarino 1999), and on this framework, leadership is viewed as the results thus far have been mixed (Agle an interactive system of dynamic, unpre- et al. 2006). For example, Waldman and col- dictable agents that interact with each other leagues (Tosi et al. 2004, Waldman et al. in complex feedback networks, which can 2001) found that the charisma of the chief ex- then produce adaptive outcomes such as ecutive officer (CEO) was not related to sub- knowledge dissemination, learning, innova- sequent organizational performance as mea- tion, and further adaptation to change (Uhl- sured by net profit margin and shareholder Bien et al. 2007). According to complex sys- return or return on assets, respectively. On tems leadership theory, “leadership can be the other hand, Agle et al. (2006) and Wald- enacted through any interaction in an orga- man et al. (2004) reported that CEO charisma nization… leadership is an emergent phe- was associated with subsequent organiza- nomenon within complex systems” (Hazy tional performance. Clearly, more research is et al. 2007, p. 2). needed that focuses on potential mediating In line with leadership fitting the needs and moderating variables such as external of the situation or challenges in which it op- stakeholders while examining the relation- erates, complexity leadership posits that to ship between CEO charismatic or transfor- achieve optimal performance, organizations mational leadership and firm performance. cannot be designed with simple, rational- Finally, although cross-cultural research ized structures that underestimate the com- pertaining to charismatic/transformational plexity of the context in which the organi- leadership generally supports the relation- zation must function and adapt (Uhl-Bien et ships reported for the United States and al. 2007). Simply viewing the leader and fol- other Western cultures, it is important to lower in a simple exchange process won’t note that these studies largely involve sur- fly in terms of explaining the full dynamics vey-based designs. We recommend that re- of leadership. searchers incorporate a number of alter- native research designs, including but not Complexity and Traditional Leadership Theory complex CAS: limited to experimental designs, longitudi- adaptive system In traditional leadership theory, the unit nal designs, and qualitative designs, as well of analysis is oftentimes the leader, the as the use of multiple sources and mixed leader and follower, the leader and group, methods studies. and so forth. The fundamental unit of anal- CLT: complexity leadership theory ysis in complexity leadership is referred to as a complex adaptive system, or CAS (Uhl- Complexity Leadership Bien et al. 2007). The CAS has its roots in Many previous models of leadership the physical sciences and is composed of in- have been designed to accommodate more terdependent agents that can operate simul- Leadership: Current Theories, Research, and Future Directions 431 taneously on the basis of certain rules and Shared, Collective, or Distributed localized knowledge that governs the CAS, Leadership while also being able to adapt and emerge Similar to our discussion above about based on feedback from the system (Plow- complexity leadership, we see more evi- man & Duchon 2008). Complexity leader- dence for shared or collective leadership Shared leadership: ship theory (CLT; Uhl-Bien et al. 2007) has in organizations as hierarchical levels are an emergent state been developed as an overarching explana- deleted and team-based structures are in- where team mem- tion of how CAS operates within a bureau- bers collectively serted. In describing shared and team lead- cratic organization, and it identifies three lead each other ership, it is important to point out that these leadership roles to explore: adaptive (e.g., forms of leadership are typically viewed as engaging others in brainstorming to over- different streams of research. For example, come a challenge), administrative (e.g., for- team leadership research has typically fo- mal planning according to doctrine), and cused on the role of an individual leading enabling (e.g., minimizing the constraints of the team. In contrast, those authors examin- an organizational bureaucracy to enhance ing shared leadership generally view it as a follower potential). process versus a person engaging multiple members of the team. In this section, we re- Future Focus Required fer to the terms “shared leadership,” “dis- One of the core propositions of complex- tributed leadership,” and “collective lead- ity leadership theory is that “much of lead- ership” interchangeably, paralleling their ership thinking has failed to recognize that usage in the leadership literature. leadership is not merely the influential act of an individual or individuals but rather Shared Leadership Defined is embedded in a complex interplay of nu- merous interacting forces” (Uhl-Bien et al. According to Day et al. (2004), team and 2007, p. 302). How should one then study shared leadership capacity is an emergent this form of leadership? Dooley & Lichten- state—something dynamic that develops stein (2008) describe several methods for throughout a team’s lifespan and that var- studying complex leadership interactions, ies based on the inputs, processes, and out- including by focusing on (a) micro, daily comes of the team. It produces patterns of interactions using real-time observation, reciprocal influence, which reinforce and (b) meso interactions (days and weeks) us- develop further relationships between team ing social network analysis, where one ex- members (Carson et al. 2007). The most amines a set of agents and how they are widely cited definition of shared leadership linked over time, and (c) macro interac- is that of Pearce & Conger (2003): “a dy- tions (weeks, months, and longer) through namic, interactive influence process among event history analysis. Finally, agent-based individuals in groups for which the objec- modeling simulations (i.e., computer sim- tive is to lead one another to the achieve- ulations based on a set of explicit assump- ment of group or organizational goals or tions about how agents are supposed to both. This influence process often involves operate) are also being used as a means to peer, or lateral, influence and at other times study complexity leadership. involves upward or downward hierarchical In sum, the complexity leadership field influence” (p. 1). The term shared - leader clearly lacks substantive research. We sus- ship overlaps with relational and complex- pect this is a result of the difficulties in as- ity leadership, and differs from more tra- sessing this type of emergent construct ditional, hierarchical, or vertical models of within a dynamically changing context. leadership (Pearce & Sims 2002). However, substantive research is needed Highly shared leadership is broadly dis- if this area of leadership research is to ad- tributed within a group or a team of individ- vance beyond conceptual discussions. uals rather than localized in any one indi- 432 Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber in Annual Review of Psychology 60 (2009)

vidual who serves in the role of supervisor tribution of cultural values, task interdepen- (Pearce & Conger 2003). More specifically, dence, task competence, task complexity, shared leadership is defined as a team-level and the team life cycle. Carson et al. (2007) outcome (Day et al. 2004) or as a “simulta- proposed that greater attention be paid to neous, ongoing, mutual influence process levels of task competence in the team, com- within a team that is characterized by ‘serial plexity of tasks, and task interdependence emergence’ of official as well as unofficial in terms of examining how teams function leaders” (Pearce 2004, p. 48). Similar to what when using shared leadership. These au- we’ve described with respect to complexity thors have also recommended that future leadership, when shared leadership can be research focus on the team’s life cycle. “viewed as a property of the whole system, Another area that has not received much as opposed to solely the property of indi- research attention involves the environment viduals, effectiveness in leadership becomes in which teams function. For example, Carson more a product of those connections or re- et al. (2007) proposed that future research ex- lationships among the parts than the result amine the type of team environment that en- of any one part of that system (such as the ables shared leadership, suggesting that the leader)” (O’Connor & Quinn 2004, p. 423). environment consists of three “highly inter- related and mutually reinforcing” dimen- Research Evidence sions: shared purpose, social support, and voice. These authors described several organi- Although a number of authors [be- zational climate factors that could potentially ginning with Mary Parker Follett (1924)] support more shared leadership in teams, in- have discussed the idea of shared leader- cluding (a) shared purpose, which “exists ship, it has only gained attention in the ac- when team members have similar under- ademic leadership literature recently, and standings of their team’s primary objectives relatively few studies have tried to mea- and take steps to ensure a focus on collective sure shared leadership. One exception is goals”; (b) social support, described as “team the work by Avolio & Bass (1995). In their members’ efforts to provide emotional and study, instead of raters evaluating the indi- psychological strength to one another. This vidual leader, the target of ratings was the helps to create an environment where team team itself. Avolio & Bass (1995) report that members feel their input is valued and appre- the team-level measures of transformational ciated”; and (c) voice, which is “the degree to and transactional leadership positively pre- which a team’s members have input into how dicted performance similar to the individ- the team carries out its purpose” (p. 1222). ual-level measures in previous research. Future research also needs to examine how external team leaders affect the team’s Future Focus Required ability and motivation to be self-directed One of the criticisms of research on and share in leadership (Carson et al. 2007). shared leadership involves the lack of agree- Hackman & Wageman (2005) suggest that ment on its definition (Carson et al. 2007). an external leader to the team can “help For example, should there be a generic def- team members make coordinated and task- inition of shared leadership that is qualified appropriate use of their collective resources by such terms as transactional or transfor- in accomplishing the team’s task” (p. 269). mational shared leadership? In a nutshell, the time for examining Other potential areas that have yet to be shared leadership may be upon us to the explored involve certain boundary condi- extent that organizations are moving into a tions, mediators, and moderators that have knowledge driven era where firms are dis- been recommended as a focus for future re- tributed across cultures. This suggests that search. For example, Pearce & Conger (2003) individual-based “heroic” models of leader- noted that future research was needed to ex- ship may not be sustainable in and of them- amine potential moderators such as the dis- selves (Pearce 2004). Leadership: Current Theories, Research, and Future Directions 433

Leader-Member Exchange lated to LMX quality. By using ingratia- tion tactics, the individuals with disabilities Unlike shared leadership, which has fo- were able to increase the quality of the re- cused on groups, leader-member exchange lationship between the leader and follower. (LMX) theory has focused on the relation- Similar results were reported by Sparrowe LMX: leader-mem- ship between the leader and follower (Cog- et al. (2006), who showed that downward- ber exchange liser & Schriesheim 2000). The central prin- influence tactics used by the leader affected ciple in LMX theory is that leaders develop the quality of the LMX relationship. different exchange relationships with their followers, whereby the quality of the re- Extensions to LMX lationship alters the impact on important leader and member outcomes (Gerstner & The original work produced by Graen Day 1997). Thus, leadership occurs when & Uhl-Bien (1995) on the role-making and leaders and followers are able to develop role-taking processes has been extended effective relationships that result in mutual by Uhl-Bien and colleagues (2000) to exam- and incremental influence (Uhl-Bien 2006). ine how leader-follower dyads transform This literature has evolved from focus- from individual interest to shared interest ing exclusively on the consequences of the based on the development of trust, respect, LMX relationship to focusing on both an- and obligations to each other. Similar work tecedents and consequences. For example, along these lines has examined the effects of Tekleab & Taylor (2003) assessed leader goal congruence on the quality of the LMX and follower levels of agreement on their relationship. This work suggests that to the mutual obligations and their psychological extent that goals are similar or mutually re- contract with each other. In a recent meta- inforcing, one would expect to produce a analysis reported by Ilies et al. (2007), the higher-quality LMX relationship. authors reported that a higher-quality LMX Additional LMX research on individual relationship not only predicted higher levels differences has examined the impact of gen- of performance, but also organizational cit- der on the quality of the LMX relationship, izenship behaviors. Some additional areas although these findings have been mixed. of focus in terms of high- versus low-qual- For instance, Adebayo & Udegbe (2004) re- ity LMX relationships have been the con- ported that followers in opposite-sex dyads text in which those relationships have de- perceived a better LMX quality in compari- veloped. Kacmar et al. (2007) examined the son with those from same-sex dyads. conditions under which leaders and follow- Recent research has moved beyond ex- ers in low-quality exchanges exerted more amining LMX in terms of antecedents and effort in examining how the situation inter- consequences and has examined the qual- acted with the impact of supervisors. Using ity of the leader and follower relationship control theory, the authors tried to explain as a moderator and/or mediator of perfor- how perceptions of supervisor competence, mance. For example, Sparrowe et al. (2006) centralization, and organizational politics reported that the quality of the relationship influenced their willingness to exert effort moderated the relationship between down- on the job beyond what would be typically ward-influence tactics and helping behav- expected in a less-than-effective exchange iors. Martin et al. (2005) reported that LMX relationship. either fully or partially mediated the rela- Additional research on the nature of the tionship between locus of control and sev- relationship and how it is formed has fo- eral work-related outcomes such as job sat- cused on the use of impression manage- isfaction, work-related well-being, and ment tactics and its impact on the quality organizational commitment. of the LMX relationship. Colella & Varma In an extension of the linkages between (2001) investigated how a follower’s per- social network theory and LMX, Graen ceived disability and use of ingratiation re- (2006) put forth a recent transformation 434 Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber in Annual Review of Psychology 60 (2009)

of LMX theory that he refers to as the new made by Cogliser & Schriesheim (2000) re- LMX–MMX theory of sharing network lead- garding the lack of causal results reported ership. Accordingly, both Uhl-Bien (2006) in the extensive stream of research associ- and Graen (2006), building on earlier LMX ated with LMX research. research, now view organizations as sys- LMX research has also been criticized for tems of interdependent dyadic relationships, not including more objective measures of or dyadic subassemblies, and advocate the performance (Erdogan & Liden 2002). Fre- importance of both formal and informal in- quently, research in this area has collected fluences on individual, team, and network performance outcomes that were generated flows of behavior. by the leader or supervisor. It is now time to extend this research by collecting inde- Future Focus Required pendent outcome measures that logically would be influenced by the quality of LMX Over the years, LMX theory and research relationship. have been targets of criticism. One pervasive Another promising area for future re- criticism of this literature revolves around search is to extend work on LMX theory measurement. For example, many different across cultures. Specifically, what are the measures of LMX have been developed and implications of national culture for the for- used since the theory was first proposed mation and development of an LMX qual- (Yukl 2006). Schriesheim et al. (1999, p. 100) ity relationship, and in turn how would that argued, “LMX scales seem to have been link to key organizational outcomes? Pre- developed on ad hoc, evolutionary basis, liminary research addressing this question without the presentation of any clear logic across cultures has produced some interest- or theory justifying the changes which were ing results. For example, Chen et al. (2006) made.” LMX research has also been criti- reported that regardless of whether the man- cized for failing to conceptualize the social ager was American or Chinese, the quality context in which leaders and followers are of the LMX relationship was related to co- embedded. With a few exceptions, “the ma- operative goal setting or interdependence. jority of research is, quite explicitly, located

at the dyadic level, with very little theo- rizing or empirical work examining LMX work at the group level” (Hogg et al. 2004, Followership and Leadership p. 22). In other words, theory and research Perhaps one of the most interesting on LMX have focused on the leader-fol- omissions in theory and research on leader- lower relationship without acknowledging ship is the absence of discussions of follow- that each dyadic relationship occurs within ership and its impact on leadership. Lead- a system of other relationships (Cogliser & ership researchers treat follower attributes Schriesheim 2000, Yukl 2006). LMX theory as outcomes of the leadership process as and research also tend to assume that peo- opposed to inputs, even though there have ple simply evaluate their own LMX rela- been a number of calls over the years to ex- tionship in an absolute sense. According to amine the role that followers play in the Hogg et al. (2004), this is an oversimplifica- leadership process (e.g., Shamir 2007). tion of how people judge relationships. The authors argue that it is much more likely Romance of Leadership that followers evaluate the quality of their LMX relationship not only in the absolute Our examination of follower-centric sense (i.e., low versus high), but also with views begins with a focus on what the lead- reference to their perception of others’ LMX ership literature describes as the romance of relationships. Another criticism of the LMX leadership. Meindl et al. (1985) proposed a literature is that most of it is based on corre- social constructionist theory to describe the lation designs. This was a central criticism relationship between leadership and fol- Leadership: Current Theories, Research, and Future Directions 435 lowership. They argued that leadership is tics might influence leader and follower re- significantly affected by the way followers lationships (also see Dvir & Shamir 2003). construct their understanding of the leader Specifically, they identified followers’ self- in terms of their interpretation of his or her concept clarity and collective identity as im- personality, behaviors, and effectiveness. portant factors in determining how follow- Accumulated research on the romance ers form charismatic relationships with their of leadership has produced mixed findings. leader. Howell & Shamir (2005) then sug- Schyns et al. (2007) conducted a meta-anal- gested that followers, who have a personal- ysis to determine whether they could tease ized relationship with a charismatic leader, out the effects controlling for such things may be more likely to show blind loyalty, as measurement error and sampling bias obedience, and deference. while focusing on whether followers had a Carsten et al. (2007) examined how in- tendency to romanticize their perceptions dividuals hold divergent social construc- of transformational/charismatic leadership. tions of followership that seem to coalesce Their results revealed a modest relationship around levels of passivity or proactivity, between the romance of leadership and per- which followers believe could lead to effec- ceptions of transformational/charismatic tiveness in their role. Thus, like leaders, not leadership, accounting for approximately all followers are created equal in the minds 5% of the variance in leadership ratings. In of followers. This pattern was reflected in another study, Kulich et al. (2007) examined the work of Kelley (1992), who conceptu- the relevance of the romance of leadership alized followers as falling into quadrants, theory through an experiment that com- based on their being active or passive fol- pared how the performance of a male and a lowers as well as whether they were critical female leader was viewed by allowing par- or noncritical thinkers. ticipants to choose how much of a bonus to allocate to the leader. Their results showed Future Focus Required that the male CEO’s bonus differed sub- Shamir (2007) suggested that leader- stantially depending on the company’s per- ship effectiveness is just as much a prod- formance, whereas no differences were re- uct of good followers as it is of good lead- ported for the female CEO. ers. Shamir (2007) made some specific Bligh et al. (2007) found that follow- recommendations for future work on fol- ers’ negative views of their work environ- lower-centered research, including exam- ment were overly attributed to their lead- ining how followers’ needs, identities, and ers’ in that they viewed the leader as more implicit theories affect leader selection and responsible for these negative outcomes emergence as well as leader endorsement and situations than was warranted. Along and acceptance; how follower interactions/ the same lines, Weber et al. (2001) reported social networks influence the emergence of that group success and failure were overly leadership and effectiveness; how follow- attributed to the leader. However, these au- ers’ expectations, values, and attitudes de- thors also reported that attributions of fail- termine leader behavior; how followers’ ex- ure to the leader may have had more sig- pectations affect the leader’s motivation and nificant negative repercussions, with the performance; how followers’ acceptance of failing team consistently voting to replace the leader and their support for the leader their leaders when the situation was more affect the leader’s self-confidence, self-effi- of the cause for the team’s failure. cacy, and behavior; how followers’ charac- teristics (e.g., self-concept clarity) determine Updates on Follower-Centric Views the nature of the leadership relationship Howell & Shamir (2005) put forth some formed with the leader; and how followers’ important theoretical propositions regard- attitudes and characteristics (e.g., level of ing how follower traits and characteris- development) affect leader behavior. 436 Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber in Annual Review of Psychology 60 (2009)

In addition, more work needs to be done Future Focus Required examining how followership is construed Villa et al. (2003) recommended that fu- across different industries and cultures. It is ture research consider including multi- possible that in more advanced and newly ple moderators that may interact with each forming industries, the concept of follower- other to impact performance that might be ship may be construed and enacted differ- erroneously attributed to the leader. Dionne ently than what we might find in more es- et al. (2005) suggested that future research tablished industries with long histories of consider testing the five possible condi- treating leaders and followers in a particu- tions linking leader behavior, leadership lar way (Schyns et al. 2007). effectiveness, and other situational vari-

ables (e.g., substitutes), which include (a) a leadership main effects model, (b) a substi- Substitutes for Leadership tutes main effect model, (c) an interactive or The substitutes-for-leadership theory fo- joint effects model, (d) a mediation model, cuses on situational factors that enhance, wherein the substitutes mediate leadership neutralize, and/or totally substitute for lead- impact versus moderate, and (e) the origi- ership. For example, a group of people en- nally proposed moderated model. Future gaged in electronic brainstorming using research should also focus more on the na- technology, such as a group decision sup- ture of the samples to be included in tests port system, may operate as though there of substitutes for leadership. For example, was a participative leader who was leading one might focus on the cultural background the group, but in fact, leadership comes from as well as quality of one’s followers by sam- the operating rules for using the system to pling professional workers who function in engage. Kerr & Jermier (1978) proposed the highly independent roles, as a possible sam- substitutes-for-leadership theory to address ple for studying the boundary conditions some of the romance effects described above. for the effects of substitutes for leadership This research stream focuses on a range of (Howell et al. 2007). situational/organizational and follower Finally, to evaluate fairly the substitutes characteristics that might influence the lead- for theory propositions will require more ership dynamic (Howell et al. 2007). longitudinal research designs. For exam- Since this theory was originally proposed, ple, leaders who are more transformational a considerable amount of research has been will develop followers over time to take on completed to determine whether there are more leadership roles and responsibilities. substitutes for leadership with respect to im- The way such leaders structure the context pacts on performance. A number of authors to develop followership and the follower- have concluded that evidence is not suffi- ship itself may ultimately substitute for the cient to support the main propositions in the leader’s influence (Keller 2006). theory (Dionne et al. 2002, Keller 2006). For example, Dionne et al. (2002) tested the mod- erating effects of task variability, organiza- Servant Leadership tion formulation, organization inflexibility, and lack of control on the relationship be- Building on the work of Greenleaf tween leadership behavior and group effec- (1991), Spears (2004) listed ten character- tiveness. However, the authors found little istics representing a servant leader: (a) lis- support for the moderating effects proposed tening, (b) empathy, (c) healing, (d) aware- by the substitutes-for-leadership theory. This ness, (e) persuasion, (f) conceptualization, lack of support may be attributable to prob- (g) foresight, (h) stewardship, (i) commit- lems in measuring these substitutes for lead- ment, and (j) building community. Rus- ership. Yet, revisions to the scale and its use sell & Stone (2002) reviewed the literature in subsequent research have not provided on servant leadership, distinguishing such any further support for this theory. leadership into two broad categories: func- Leadership: Current Theories, Research, and Future Directions 437 tional and accompany attributes. Functional Spirituality and Leadership attributes include having vision, being hon- est, trustworthy, service oriented, a role One might ask leaders the question, Do model, demonstrating appreciation of oth- you feel there is something missing in the ers’ service, and empowerment. In terms of work that you do and the way you lead accompany attributes, servant leaders are others? Many authors have referred to that described as good communicators and lis- void and have attempted to examine how a teners, credible, competent, encouraging of greater sense of spirituality in the workplace others, teachers, and delegators. In general, may be fostered. The research on workplace the limited empirical research on servant spirituality also now includes a focus on leadership has shown that it is positively re- spiritual leadership—defined as “compris- lated to follower satisfaction, their job sat- ing the values, attitudes, and behaviors that isfaction, intrinsic work satisfaction, caring are necessary to intrinsically motivate one’s for the safety of others, and organizational self and others so that they have a sense of commitment. Joseph & Winston (2005) ex- spiritual survival through calling and mem- amined the relationship between employee bership” (Fry 2003, p. 711). perceptions of servant leadership and orga- Dent et al. (2005) examined how spiritu- nizational trust, and reported a positive re- ality and leadership was defined in the liter- lationship with both trust in the leader as ature and concluded, “The field of study is well as trust in one’s organization. Wash- marked by all of the typical characteristics ington et al. (2006) examined the relation- of paradigm development including a lack ship between servant leadership and the of consensus about a definition of work- leader’s values of empathy, integrity, com- place spirituality” (p. 626). Fry (2003) con- petence, and agreeableness, and reported tends that spiritual leadership adds to the that “followers’ ratings of leaders’ servant existing leadership literature components leadership were positively related to fol- that have been explicitly missing, such as a lowers’ ratings of leaders’ values of empa- sense of calling on the part of leaders and thy, integrity, and competence” (p. 700). followers as well as the creation of organi- zational cultures characterized by altruistic Future Focus Required love whereby leaders and followers express genuine care, concern, and appreciation One major tenet of servant leadership for both self and others. Fry (2003) states, proposed by Greenleaf (1991) was that fol- “The ultimate effect of spiritual leadership lowers of servant leaders would be expected is to bring together or create a sense of fu- to become “healthier, wiser, freer, more au- sion among the four fundamental forces of tonomous and more likely to become ser- human existence (body, mind, heart, and vants themselves” (Barbuto & Wheeler spirit) so that people are motivated for high 2006, p. 321). This suggests that future re- performance, have increased organizational search could take a more follower-centric commitment, and personally experience joy, approach in looking at the well-being of peace, and serenity” (p. 727). followers of servant leaders and the ways in which their well-being affects the abil- Future Focus Required ity of the leader and followers to perform. As with LMX, the measurement of servant Part of the challenge in this area of lead- leadership is problematic. Already many ership research is simply defining what different measures of servant leadership spirituality means without necessarily tying have been proposed with scales and items it to one particular religion or philosophical varying based on problems with its defini- base. Dent et al. (2005) summarized a num- tion. Future research needs to examine how ber of definitions of spirituality that high- the personal values of servant leaders differ light some of the challenges in building the- from those of other leadership styles, such ory and research in this area. The authors as transformational (Russell & Stone 2002). concluded that a wide array of concepts/ 438 Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber in Annual Review of Psychology 60 (2009)

constructs is included in the definition of This interest is driven in part by the glo- spirituality, but some of the common ele- balization of organizations that encourage ments are a search for meaning, reflection, and, at times, require leaders to work from an inner connection, creativity, transforma- and across an increasingly diverse set of lo- tion, sacredness, and energy. cations. The result is an increased focus on Fry (2005) defines spiritual leadership cross-cultural leadership research (Gelfand as comprising the values, attitudes, and et al. 2007, House et al. 2004). Extensive re- behaviors that are necessary to intrinsi- views also exist for cross-cultural research cally motivate self and others to enhance a that is more tangentially linked to leader- sense of spiritual survival through calling ship (Hofstede 2001, Kirkman et al. 2006, and membership. Yet, some authors criti- Leung et al. 2005). cize Fry’s model as well as other models of spirituality and leadership for not provid- Project GLOBE ing a sufficient understanding of what con- Although there have been numerous cri- stitutes spirituality and the ways in which tiques and discussions of work in this area it ties to leadership. For example, Bene- (see Journal of International Business Studies, fiel (2005) criticized the work on spiritual- Vol. 37, No. 6), the work of Project GLOBE ity and leadership, stating that it “inadver- (global leadership and organizational be- tently draws upon outdated, discredited, or havioral effectiveness) constitutes one of the shallow approaches to spirituality; they re- more ambitious and influential cross-cul- invent the wheel; they dip into credible the- tural leadership studies. The study, as de- ories of spirituality but then don’t fully de- tailed in an edited book (House et al. 2004), velop them or resolve the conflicts among involved a group of more than 160 research- them. While these theories are comprehen- ers working in 62 societies. Research in- sive and creative in the context of leader- cluded a mix of quantitative and qualitative ship studies, a more robust, up-to-date, and investigations. The study was designed to sophisticated understanding of spirituality address a number of goals, the first of which is needed if theories of spiritual leadership was to develop cultural dimensions at both are to stand up under scrutiny and be taken the organizational and societal level of anal- seriously in the wider academy” (p. 727). ysis, building upon the work of Hofstede Finally, there still seem to be two schools of (2001). A second major goal of the project thought in this area of leadership research: was to examine the beliefs that different cul- In one school, a set of scholars discuss spir- tures had about effective leaders. Although ituality in the theological sense (Whitting- many of the leadership attributes and be- ton et al. 2005), whereas in the other school, haviors examined varied by culture, the re- Cross-cultural lead- the focus is more on understanding the in- search did determine that certain implicit ership: the exami- ner motivation and drive a leader creates in nation of leadership leadership theories (e.g., charisma/trans- followers to enhance workplace spirituality in multicultural formational, team-oriented) had universal (Fry 2005). Until a definition of what consti- contexts endorsement. A third phase of the research tutes spirituality and leadership is agreed involved ethnographies of individual coun- upon, it will be difficult to conceptualize tries based largely on qualitative data. and measure these constructs.

Global Leadership

GLOBE: global Cross-Cultural Leadership The goal of identifying leaders who are leadership and or- able to effectively lead across a variety of Although most leadership research ganizational behav- cultures has great appeal and has been the and theory has been developed and tested ioral effectiveness focus of numerous articles in both the ac- within a Western context, a growing inter- ademic (Mobley et al. 1999) and popular est in research and theory focuses on the press (Goldsmith 2003, Green et al. 2003, role of leadership across cultural contexts. Leadership: Current Theories, Research, and Future Directions 439

Lane 2004). However, substantial differ- ganizational commitment and satisfaction ences and approaches remain in how global with supervisor. Allocentrics were found leadership is conceptualized and defined. to react more positively to transformational One approach primarily focuses on inter- leaders, whereas idiocentrics had a more national experience, implying that leaders positive reaction to transactional leaders. must spend time living in different cultures in order to be prepared to lead (Van Dyne & Future Focus Required Ang 2006). A second approach emphasizes Although significant progress has been the competencies a leader needs to have in made in the cross-cultural leadership liter- order to lead effectively and successfully ature, several important issues need to be across cultures (Mendenhall 2001). This ap- addressed. For example, the term “culture” proach emphasizes having a broad set of itself refers to a complex set of constructs experiences and competencies that allow around which there is ongoing debate. Not leaders to manage across cultures rather surprisingly, the attempt to examine the ef- than focusing on a deep knowledge of one fect that culture has on leadership brings or two specific cultures. This approach is re- with it the associated conceptual and meth- flected in the related work on global mind- odological challenges that are already as- set (Boyacigiller et al. 2004, Clapp-Smith et sociated with cross-cultural research (Van al. 2007) and cultural intelligence (Earley et de Vijver & Leung 2000). Despite improve- al. 2007, Thomas 2006). ments made over the years, a need re- mains for future research to focus on levels Comparative Leadership of analysis when conducting cross-cultural Comparative research on the effective- leadership research. This applies to the de- ness of leadership in different cultures was velopment of explicitly cross-level theoreti- the basis of early work in this field and con- cal models as well as the use of appropriate tinues to be a major area of research (Dickson statistical techniques. Although the rele- et al. 2003, Dorfman 2004, Gelfand et al. 2007, vance of levels is widely recognized, the im- Kirkman et al. 2006). Such research com- plications of cross-level analysis are often pares leadership in two or more cultures, ex- not reflected in the research design in this amining the degree to which a practice that literature, particularly when it comes to in- was developed in one culture applies to oth- suring a sufficient number of cultures are ers. A common approach examines the di- included to conduct the analysis. Many re- rect impact a cultural dimension has on lead- searchers assume they can use the country ership. For example, one major cross-cultural as a convenient substitute for measuring study examined the impact of cultural val- culture, which may be an erroneous level of ues on the selection of sources of guidance analysis given the diversity of cultures rep- for dealing with work events that managers resented in most countries. Large-scale col- are likely to face in 47 countries (Smith et al. laborations such as the GLOBE (House et 2002). This study identified which sources of al. 2004) study and the 47-nation study of guidance were correlated with specific cul- Smith et al. (2002) are likely to be required tural dimensions using several major cul- to develop the types of samples needed for tural value dimension frameworks. such analytical approaches. Another common strategy examines the indirect influence of culture as it moderates the relationship between leadership prac- E-Leadership tice and relevant performance outcomes. Walumbwa et al. (2007) examined the effect Leading virtually involves leading peo- of allocentrism (collective orientation) and ple from different departments, organiza- idiocentrism (individual orientation) on the tions, countries, and sometimes even com- relationships among leadership (transfor- petitor companies (Avolio et al. 2001). In mational and transactional) and both or- virtual teams, “challenges are more likely to 440 Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber in Annual Review of Psychology 60 (2009)

occur when distributed work occurs in dif- include the following: How does the nature ferent time zones, when local communica- and structure of technology impact how tion and human infrastructures fail, when leadership style influences follower motiva- team members’ hardware and software tion and performance? What effect will lead- E-leadership: lead- platforms are different, or when local work ership mediated through technology have ership where indi- demands require the immediate attention of on trust formation? Will the nature of the viduals or groups are geographically collocated managers and workers, thereby technology such as its richness or transpar- dispersed and in- creating pressure to pursue local priorities ency be a factor in building trust in virtual teractions are medi- over the objectives of distant collaborators” teams? How will the leadership and location ated by technology (A. Weisband 2008b, p. 6). of teams and technology connecting mem- Zigurs (2003) suggested that traditional bers affect the quality and quantity of their leadership models built on a foundation of communication? How will the nature of the face-to-face interactions may not fully ex- task and its complexity influence how lead- plain how virtual leadership and teams ership affects virtual team performance? work. Specifically, how one provides feed- back, encouragement, rewards, and motiva- Group and Virtual Teams Research tion needs to be re-examined where leader- A number of studies have examined e- ship is mediated through technology. Zigurs leadership and virtual teams. For exam- (2003) suggests that the continuing develop- ple, Kahai & Avolio (2008) investigated ment in technology such as increased band- the effects of leadership style and anonym- width, wireless networks, integrated hand- ity on the discussion of an ethical issue in held devices, voice input, built-in video, an electronic system context. Kahai & Avo- video walls, and automatic translation will lio examined how groups discussed an eth- no doubt have a significant impact on how ical issue by manipulating the leadership virtual teams communicate and how lead- style of the target e-leader and whether the ership is manifested in such teams. To date, group members were anonymous or identi- a great deal of the work on e-leadership fo- fied. They reported that frequency of group cuses on either leadership in virtual work member participation in discussing how to teams or groups interacting in what are address the ethical issue was greater when called “group decision support systems.” leadership style was transactional versus For example, Zaccaro & Bader (2003) pro- transformational. vided an overview of the similarities and Xiao et al. (2008) conducted a field exper- differences between face-to-face teams and iment focusing on surgical teams operating e-teams. They specifically focused on the in a real-life trauma center. In their study, impact of leadership functions such as com- the team leader either was placed in the munication building, role clarification, team room with the surgical team or interacted development, and effective task execu- with them virtually. The authors reported tion and how they differed when mediated that when the team leader was in the next through technology. Other authors have fo- room, the leader had greater influence on cused on the effects of structural factors communications between the senior mem- such as distance and multiple locations on ber in the room and other team members. e-leadership and virtual team effectiveness However, when the senior leader was col- (e.g., Cascio & Shurygailo 2003). located, the amount of communication be- tween the team leader, the senior member, and junior members was more balanced. Common Questions with E-Leadership With high task urgency, the team leader Some of the common questions or hy- was more involved with the senior team potheses suggested to guide research on member in terms of communication regard- e-leadership and virtual teams have been less of location, whereas the communication summarized by Avolio et al. (2001), Barelka between the team leader and junior mem- (2007), as well as Ahuja & Galvin (2003) and bers was reduced. Leadership: Current Theories, Research, and Future Directions 441

Balthazard et al. (2008) examined the tion quality, asynchronous and synchro- mediational role of leadership and group nous communication, task complexity, and member interaction styles in comparing vir- working on multiple virtual teams simul- tual and face-to-face teams. They reported taneously (Kozlowski & Bell 2003, Zaccaro that group members in face-to-face teams & Bader 2003). For example, Watson et al. were generally more cohesive, were more (1993) studied culturally diverse and ho- accepting of a group’s decisions, and exhib- mogenous virtual groups and compared ited a greater amount of synergy than did their interactions over a 17-week period. virtual teams. Face-to-face teams exhibited They found that culturally diverse groups a greater amount of constructive interaction initially suffered in their performance but in comparison with virtual teams, which over time surpassed homogenous groups, scored significantly higher on defensive in- especially in terms of the number of alter- teraction styles. native ideas generated. Malhotra et al. (2007) collected survey, In summary, we expect that the work interview, and observational data on vir- on virtual leadership and team interactions tual teams to identify the leadership prac- will continue to be a growth area for lead- tices of effective leaders of virtual teams. ership research. The fundamental issue for These leadership practices included the leadership scholars and practitioners to ad- ability to (a) establish and maintain trust dress is how technology is transforming the through the use of communication technol- traditional roles of leadership at both indi- ogy, (b) ensure that distributed diversity vidual and collective levels by examining is understood and appreciated, (c) man- “how existing leadership styles and cul- age effectively virtual work-life cycles, (d) tures embedded in a group and/or organi- monitor team progress using technology, zation affect the appropriation of advanced (e) enhance visibility of virtual members information technology systems” (Avolio et within the team and outside the organiza- al. 2001, p. 658). tion, and (f) let individual team members benefit from the team. Closing Comments and Integration Future Focus Required The evolution of this literature points to Hambley et al. (2006) advocate that fu- several important trends. The first trend in- ture research on e-leadership be conducted volves the field of leadership taking a more in field settings. They recommend that vir- holistic view of leadership. Specifically, re- tual teams working on actual problem-solv- searchers are now examining all angles ing tasks and projects be examined to help of leadership and including in their mod- capture the motivational element that may els and studies the leader, the follower, the not exist with ad hoc groups working in the context, the levels, and their dynamic inter- lab. A. Weisband (2008a) argued, “Future action. The second trend involves examin- research may want to consider how we lead ing how the process of leadership actually in environments that lack any central coor- takes place by, for example, integrating the dination mechanism, or how multiple lead- work of cognitive psychology with strate- ers work together to innovate, create, and gic leadership. In this regard, we are wit- help others” (p. 255). nessing greater interest in how the leader E-leadership areas recommended for processes information as well as how the future research by authors of papers on follower does so, and how each affects the the virtual team topic include task owner- other, the group, and organization. More ship, cohesion, media richness (i.e., tech- work is expected on examining the various nology’s capacity for providing imme- mediators and moderators that help to ex- diate feedback, the number of cues and plain how leadership influences intended channels utilized, personalization of mes- outcomes. A third trend involves deriving sages, and language variety), communica- alternative ways to examine leadership. We 442 Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber in Annual Review of Psychology 60 (2009)

expect to see a greater use of mixed-meth- Summary Points ods designs in future research. The quan- 1. The field of leadership is evolving to a titative strategies for studying leadership more holistic view of leadership. have dominated the literature over the past 100 years, but increasing attention is being 2. More positive forms of leadership are paid to cases and qualitative research that being integrated into literature. should now be integrated with quantitative 3. Increasing attention is being given to ex- approaches. amining how leadership causally im- Part of the evolution of leadership the- pacts interim and ultimate outcomes. ory and research will continue to involve 4. The follower is becoming an integral further defining what actually constitutes part of the leadership dynamic system. leadership from a content perspective, e.g., authentic, transformational, or vision- 5. There is growing interest in what genu- ary, and a process perspective, e.g., shared, inely develops leadership. complex, or strategic. We also expect much 6. E-leadership is becoming a common- more attention to be paid to the area of place dynamic in work organizations. strategic leadership, which we did not have 7. More and more leadership is being dis- space here to cover, and applying what we tributed and shared in organizations. have learned about content and process to 8. Leadership is being viewed as a complex this level of analysis. Finally, we go back to and emergent dynamic in organizations. the point where we started in suggesting

that the time has never been better to ex- amine the genuine development of leader- Future Issues ship. The field of leadership has done sur- prisingly little to focus its energies on what 1. More future research in leadership will contributes to or detracts from genuine be mixed methods. leadership development. Given the forces 2. Determining the causal mechanisms in the global market, we expect that over that link leadership to outcomes will be the next 10 years, research and theory in a priority. this area will explode as organizations in- 3. Assessing and developing leadership creasingly ask for ways to accelerate pos- using evidence-based strategies will be itive leadership development as they en- a target focus. ter the front lines of the war for leadership talent. 4. Examining strategic leadership as a pro- In summary, the leadership field over the cess and person will be an evolving area past decade has made tremendous progress of theory and research. in uncovering some of the enduring mys- 5. More theoretical work and research will teries associated with leadership. These in- focus on the follower as a prime element clude whether leaders are born or made, in the leadership dynamic. how followers affect how successful leaders 6. How to develop global mindsets among can be, how some charismatic leaders build leaders will be an area of interest. up societies and others destroy them, as well as what impact leading through tech- 7. A top priority area will be leadership in nology has on individual and collective per- cultures that are underrepresented in formance. The period that leadership theory the literature, such as Muslim cultures. and research will enter over the next decade 8. How shared leadership evolves and de- is indeed one of the most exciting in the his- velops will be a focus in face-to-face and tory of this planet. virtual environments.

Leadership: Current Theories, Research, and Future Directions 443

Acknowledgments opment. In International Review of Indus- trial and Organizational Psychology, ed. G We greatly appreciate the contributions Hodgkinson, K Ford, pp. 197–238. New made to this paper by Melissa Carsten, Ra- York: Wiley chel Clapp-Smith, Jakari Griffith, Yongwoon Avolio BJ, Gardner WL. 2005. Authentic lead- Kim, Ketan Mhatre, David Sweetman, Mary ership development: getting to the root of Uhl-Bien, and Kay-Ann Willis. positive forms of leadership. Leadersh. Q. 16:315–38 Avolio BJ, Hannah S, Reichard R, Chan A, Walumbwa F. 2009. 100 years of leader- Literature Cited ship intervention research. Leadersh. Q. In Adebayo DO, Udegbe IB. 2004. Gender in the press boss-subordinate relationship: a Nigerian Avolio BJ, Kahai SS, Dodge GE. 2001. E-lead- study. J. Organ. Behav. 25:515–25 ership: implications for theory, research, Agle BR, Nagarajan NJ, Sonnenfeld JA, Srini- and practice. Leadersh. Q. 11:615–68 vasan D. 2006. Does CEO charisma mat- Avolio BJ, Luthans F. 2006. The High Impact ter? An empirical analysis of the relation- Leader: Moments Matter in Accelerating Au- ships among organizational performance, thentic Leadership. New York: McGraw- environmental uncertainty, and top man- Hill. 273 pp. agement team perceptions of CEO cha- Avolio BJ, Zhu WC, Koh W, Bhatia P. 2004b. risma. Acad. Manage. J. 49:161–74 Transformational leadership and organi- Ahuja MK, Galvin JE. 2003. Socialization in zational commitment: mediating role of virtual groups. J. Manage. 29:161–85 psychological empowerment and moder- Altrocchi J. 1999. Individual differences in ating role of structural distance. J. Organ. pluralism in self-structure. In The Plu- Behav. 25:951–68 ral Self: Multiplicity in Everyday Life, ed. J Balthazard PA, Waldman DA, Atwater LE. Rowan, M Cooper, pp. 168–82. London: 2008. The mediating effects of leadership Sage and interaction style in face-to-face and Arvey RD, Zhang Z, Avolio BJ, Krueger virtual teams. See S Weisband 2008, pp. RF. 2007. Developmental and genetic 127–50 determinants of leadership role occu- Barbuto JE, Wheeler DW. 2006. Scale devel- pancy among women. J. Appl. Psychol. opment and construct clarification of ser- 92:693–706 vant leadership. Group Organ. Manage. Avolio BJ. 1999. Full Leadership Development: 31:300–26 Building the Vital Forces in Organizations. Barelka AJ. 2007. New findings in virtual team Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 234 pp. leadership. Unpubl. PhD thesis. Mich. Avolio BJ. 2005. Leadership Development in Bal- State Univ. ance: Made/Born. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Bass BM. 1985. Leadership and Performance Be- Avolio BJ. 2007. Promoting more integrative yond Expectations. New York: Free Press. strategies for leadership theory-building. 256 pp. Am. Psychol. 62:25–33 Bass BM, Avolio BJ, Jung DI, Berson Y. 2003. Avolio BJ, Bass BM. 1995. Individual consid- Predicting unit performance by assessing eration viewed at multiple levels of anal- transformational and transactional lead- ysis—a multilevel framework for exam- ership. J. Appl. Psychol. 88:207–18 ining the diffusion of transformational Bass BM, Bass R. 2008. Handbook of Leadership: leadership. Leadersh. Q. 6:199–218 Theory, Research, and Application. New Avolio BJ, Bass BM, Walumbwa FO, Zhu W. York: Free Press. 1296 pp. 2004a. Multifactor Leadership Question- Bass BM, Steidlmeier P. 1999. Ethics, charac- naire: Manual and Sampler Test. Redwood ter, and authentic transformational lead- City, CA: Mind Garden ership behavior. Leadersh. Q. 10:181–217 Avolio BJ, Chan A. 2008. The dawning of a Benefiel M. 2005. The second half of the new era for genuine leadership devel- journey: spiritual leadership for orga- 444 Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber in Annual Review of Psychology 60 (2009)

nizational transformation. Leadersh. Q. Clapp-Smith R, Luthans F, Avolio BJ. 2007. 16:723–47 The role of psychological capital in global Bligh MC, Kohles JC, Pearce CL, Justin JEG, mindset development. In The Global Stovall JF. 2007. When the romance is Mindset: Advances in International Manage- over: follower perspectives of aversive ment, ed. MA Hitt, R Steers, M Javidan, leadership. Appl. Psychol.: Int. Rev. Psy- pp. 105–30. Greenwich, CT: JAI chol. Appl. Rev. Int. 56:528–57 Cogliser CC, Schriesheim CA. 2000. Explor- Bono JE, Anderson MH. 2005. The advice and ing work unit context and leader-mem- influence networks of transformational ber exchange: a multi-level perspective. J. leaders. J. Appl. Psychol. 90:1306–14 Organ. Behav. 21:487–511 Bono JE, Ilies R. 2006. Charisma, positive Colella A, Varma A. 2001. The impact of sub- emotions and mood contagion. Leadersh. ordinate disability on leader-member ex- Q. 17:317–34 change relationships. Acad. Manage. J. Bono JE, Judge TA. 2003. Self-concordance at 44:304–15 work: toward understanding the motiva- Conger JA, Kanungo RN. 1998. Charismatic tional effects of transformational leaders. Leadership in Organizations. Thousand Acad. Manage. J. 46:554–71 Oaks, CA: Sage. 288 pp. Boyacigiller NA, Beechler S, Taylor S, Levy Cooper CD, Scandura TA, Schriesheim CA. O. 2004. The crucial yet elusive global 2005. Looking forward but learning from mindset. In Handbook of Global Manage- our past: potential challenges to develop- ment: A Guide to Managing Complexity, ed. ing authentic leadership theory and au- J McNett, pp. 81–93. Malden, MA: Black- thentic leaders. Leadersh. Q. 16:475–93 well Sci. Day DV, Gronn P, Salas E. 2004. Leadership Brown ME, Trevino LK, Harrison DA. 2005. capacity in teams. Leadersh. Q. 15:857–80 Ethical leadership: a social learning per- De Cremer D, van Knippenberg D. 2004. spective for construct development and Leader self-sacrifice and leadership- ef testing. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. fectiveness: the moderating role of leader 97:117–34 self-confidence. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Bryman A. 1992. Charisma and Leadership in Process. 95:140–55 Organizations. London/Newbury Park, Dent EB, Higgins AE, Wharff DM. 2005. CA: Sage. 198 pp. Spirituality and leadership: an empir- Burns JM. 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper ical review of definitions, distinctions, & Row. 530 pp. and embedded assumptions. Leadersh. Q. Campbell JD, Assanand S, Di Paula A. 2003. 16:625–53 The structure of the self-concept and its Dickson MW, Den Hartog DN, Mitchel- relation to psychological adjustment. J. son JK. 2003. Research on leadership in a Personal. 71:115–40 cross-cultural context: making progress, Carson JB, Tesluk PE, Marrone JA. 2007. and raising new questions. Leadersh. Q. Shared leadership in teams: an investiga- 14:729–68 tion of antecedent conditions and perfor- Dionne SD, Yammarino FJ, Atwater LE, mance. Acad. Manage. J. 50:1217–34 James LR. 2002. Neutralizing substitutes Carsten M, Uhl-Bien M, Patera J, West B, Mc- for leadership theory: leadership effects Gregor R. 2007. Social Constructions of Fol- and common-source bias. J. Appl. Psychol. lowership. Presented at Acad. Manag. 87:454–64 Conf., Philadelphia, PA Dionne SD, Yammarino FJ, Howell JP, Villa Cascio WF, Shurygailo S. 2003. E-leadership J. 2005. Substitutes for leadership, or not. and virtual teams. Organ. Dyn. 31:362–76 Leadersh. Q. 16:169–93 Chen GQ, Tjosvold D, Liu CH. 2006. Cooper- Dooley KJ, Lichtenstein B. 2008. Research meth- ative goals, leader people and productiv- ods for studying the dynamics of leader- ity values: their contribution to top man- ship. In Complexity Leadership, Part I: Concep- agement teams in China. J. Manage. Stud. tual Foundations, ed. M Uhl-Bien, R Marion, 43:1177–200 pp. 269–90. Charlotte, NC: Inform. Age Leadership: Current Theories, Research, and Future Directions 445

Dorfman P. 2004. International and cross- Goldsmith M. 2003. Global Leadership: The cultural leadership research. In Handbook Next Generation. Upper Saddle River, NJ: for International Management Research, ed. Financial Times Prentice Hall. 350 pp. BJ Punnett, O Shenkar, pp. 265–355. Ann Graen GB. 2006. In the eye of the beholder: Arbor, MI: Univ. Mich. Press cross-cultural lesson in leadership from Dvir T, Shamir B. 2003. Follower develop- project GLOBE: a response viewed from mental characteristics as predicting trans- the third culture bonding (TCB) model of formational leadership: a longitudinal cross-cultural leadership. Acad. Manage. field study.Leadersh. Q. 14:327–44 Perspect. 20:95–101 Dweck CS. 1986. Motivational processes af- Graen GB, Uhl-Bien M. 1995. Relationship- fecting learning. Am. Psychol. 41:1040–48 based approach to leadership—develop- Earley CP, Murnieks C, Mosakowski E. 2007. ment of leader-member exchange (LMX) Cultural intelligence and the global mind- theory of leadership over 25 years—ap- set. In The Global Mindset, ed. M Javidan, plying a multilevel multidomain perspec- RM Steers, MA Hitt, pp. 75–103. New tive. Leadersh. Q. 6:219–47 York: Elsevier Green S, Hassan F, Immelt J, Marks M, Mei- Epitropaki O, Martin R. 2005. From ideal to land D. 2003. In search of global leaders. real: a longitudinal study of the role of Harvard Bus. Rev. 81:38–45 implicit leadership theories on leader- Greenleaf RK. 1991. The Servant as Leader. In- member exchanges and employee out- dianapolis, IN: Robert Greenleaf Center comes. J. Appl. Psychol. 90:659–76 Hackman JR, Wageman R. 2005. A theory Erdogan B, Liden R. 2002. Social exchanges of team coaching. Acad. Manage. Rev. in the workplace: a review of recent de- 30:269–87 velopments and future research direc- Hambley LA, O’Neil TA, Kline TJB. 2006. tions in leader-member exchange the- Virtual team leadership: the effects of ory. In Leadership, ed. IL Neider, CA leadership style and communication me- Schriesheim, pp. 65–114. Greenwich, CT: dium on team interaction styles and out- Information Age comes. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. Follett MP. 1924. Creative Experience. New 103:1–20 York: Logmans Green Harter JK, Schmidt FL, Hayes TL. 2002. Busi- Fredrickson BL. 2001. The role of positive ness-unit-level relationship between emotions in positive psychology—the employee satisfaction, employee en- broaden-and-build theory of positive gagement, and business outcomes: a emotions. Am. Psychol. 56:218–26 meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 87:268–79 Fry LW. 2003. Toward a theory of spiritual Hazy JK, Goldstein JA, Lichtenstein BB. 2007. leadership. Leadersh. Q. 14:693–727 Complex systems leadership theory: an Fry LW. 2005. Introduction to The Leadership introduction. In Complex Systems Leader- Quarterly special issue: toward a para- ship Theory: New Perspectives from Com- digm of spiritual leadership. Leadersh. Q. plexity Science on Social and Organizational 16:619–22 Effectiveness, ed. JK Hazy, JA Goldstein, Gelfand MJ, Erez M, Aycan Z. 2007. Cross- BB Lichtenstein, pp. 1–13. Mansfield, MA: cultural organizational behavior. Annu. ISCE Publ. Rev. Psychol. 58:479–514 Hofstede GH. 2001. Culture’s Consequences: George B. 2003. Authentic Leadership: Rediscov- Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, ering the Secrets to Creating Lasting Value. and Organizations Across Nations. Thou- San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 217 pp. sand Oaks, CA: Sage. 596 pp. Gerstner CR, Day DV. 1997. Meta-analytic re- Hogg MA, Martin R, Weeden K. 2004. view of leader-member exchange theory: Leader-member relations and social iden- correlates and construct issues. J. Appl. tity. In Leadership and Power: Identity Pro- Psychol. 82:827–44 cesses in Groups and Organizations, ed. D Goethals GR. 2005. Presidential leadership. van Knippenberg, MA Hogg, pp. 18–33. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 56:545–70 London: Sage 446 Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber in Annual Review of Psychology 60 (2009)

House RJ, Hanges PJ, Javidan M, Dorfman Kerr S, Jermier JM. 1978. Substitutes for lead- PW, Gupta V. 2004. Culture, Leadership, ership: their meaning and measurement. and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 22:376–403 Societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 818 Kirkman BL, Lowe KB, Gibson CB. 2006. pp. A quarter century of Culture’s Conse- Howell JM, Shamir B. 2005. The role of fol- quences: a review of empirical research lowers in the charismatic leadership incorporating Hofstede’s cultural values process: relationships and their conse- framework. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 37:285–320 quences. Acad. Manage. Rev. 30:96–112 Kozlowski SWJ, Bell BS. 2003. Work groups Howell JP, Bowen DE, Dorfman PW, Kerr S, and teams in organizations. In Handbook Podsakoff PM. 2007. Substitutes for lead- of Psychology: Industrial and Organizational ership: effective alternatives to ineffec- Psychology, ed. WC Borman, DR Ilgen, RJ tive leadership. In Leadership: Understand- Klimoski, pp. 333–75. London: Wiley ing the Dynamics of Power and Influence in Kulich C, Ryan MK, Haslam SA. 2007. Where Organizations, ed. RP Vecchio, pp. 363–76. is the romance for women leaders? The Notre Dame, IN: Univ. Notre Dame Press effects of gender on leadership attribu- Ilies R, Nahrgang JD, Morgeson FP. 2007. tions and performance-based pay. Appl. Leader-member exchange and citizen- Psychol. Int. Rev. Psychol. Appl. Rev. Int. ship behaviors: a meta-analysis. J. Appl. 56:582–601 Psychol. 92:269–77 Lane HW. 2004. The Blackwell Handbook of Joseph EE, Winston BE. 2005. A correlation Global Management: A Guide to Managing of servant leadership, leader trust, and Complexity. New York: Wiley-Blackwell. organizational trust. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. 476 pp. J. 26:6–22 Leung K, Bhagat RS, Buchan NR, Erez M, Judge TA, Piccolo RF. 2004. Transformational Gibson CB. 2005. Culture and interna- and transactional leadership: a meta-ana- tional business: recent advances and their lytic test of their relative validity. J. Appl. implications for future research. J. Int. Psychol. 89:755–68 Bus. Stud. 36:357–78 Kacmar KM, Zivnuska S, White CD. 2007. Liao H, Chuang AC. 2007. Transforming ser- Control and exchange: the impact of vice employees and climate: a multilevel, work environment on the work effort of multisource examination of transforma- low relationship quality employees. Lead- tional leadership in building long-term ersh. Q. 18:69–84 service relationships. J. Appl. Psychol. Kahai SS, Avolio BJ. 2008. Effects of leader- 92:1006–19 ship style and anonymity on the discus- Lichtenstein BB, Uhl-Bien M, Marion R, Seers sion of an ethical issue in an electronic A, Orton JD, Schreiber C. 2007. Complex- meeting system context. See S Weisband ity leadership theory: an interactive per- 2008, pp. 97–126 spective on leading in complex adaptive Kark R, Van Dijk D. 2007. Motivation to lead, systems. In Complex Systems Leadership motivation to follow: the role of the self- Theory: New Perspectives from Complex- regulatory focus in leadership processes. ity Science on Social and Organizational Ef- Acad. Manage. Rev. 32:500–28 fectiveness, ed. JK Hazy, JA Goldstein, BB Keller RT. 2006. Transformational leader- Lichtenstein, pp. 129–41. Mansfield, MA: ship, initiating structure, and substitutes ISCE Publ. for leadership: a longitudinal study of Lord RG, Brown BR. 2004. Leadership Pro- research and development project team cesses and Follower Self-Identity. Hillsdale, performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 91:202–10 NJ: Erlbaum Kelley RE. 1992. The Power of Followership: Lord RG, Brown DJ. 2001. Leadership, val- How to Create Leaders People Want to Fol- ues, and subordinate self-concepts. Lead- low, and Followers Who Lead Themselves. ersh. Q. 12:133–52 New York: Doubleday/Currency. 260 Lord RG, Brown DJ, Harvey JL, Hall RJ. 2001. pp. Contextual constraints on prototype gen- Leadership: Current Theories, Research, and Future Directions 447

eration and their multilevel consequences Mobley WH, Gessner MJ, Arnold V. 1999. for leadership perceptions. Leadersh. Q. Advances in Global Leadership. Stamford, 12:311–38 CT: JAI Lord RG, Emrich CG. 2000. Thinking outside Mumford MD, Connelly S, Gaddis B. 2003. the box by looking inside the box: extend- How creative leaders think: experi- ing the cognitive revolution in leadership mental findings and cases. Leadersh. Q. research. Leadersh. Q. 11:551–79 14:411–32 Lord RG, Hall RJ. 1992. Contemporary views Mumford MD, Friedrich TL, Caughron JJ, of leadership and individual differences. Byrne CL. 2007. Leader cognition in real- Leadersh. Q. 3:137–57 world settings: How do leaders think Lord RG, Hall RJ. 2005. Identity, deep struc- about crises? Leadersh. Q. 18:515–43 ture and the development of leadership O’Connor PMG, Quinn L. 2004. Organiza- skill. Leadersh. Q. 16:591–615 tional capacity for leadership. In The Cen- Lowe KB, Gardner WL. 2000. Ten years of ter for Creative Leadership Handbook of Lead- the Leadership Quarterly: contributions ership Development, ed. CD McCauley, E and challenges for the future. Leadersh. Q. Van Velsor, pp. 417–37. San Francisco, 11:459–514 CA: Jossey-Bass Luthans F. 2002. Positive organizational be- Pearce CL. 2004. The future of leadership: havior: developing and managing psy- combining vertical and shared leader- chological strengths. Acad. Manage. Exec. ship to transform knowledge work. Acad. 16:57–72 Manage. Exec. 18:47–57 Luthans F, Avolio BJ. 2003. Authentic Pearce CL, Conger JA. 2003. Shared Leader- leadership: a positive developmen- ship: Reframing the Hows and Whys of Lead- tal approach. In Positive Organizational ership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Scholarship: Foundations of a New Disci- Pearce CL, Sims HP. 2002. The relative influ- pline, ed. KS Cameron, JE Dutton, RE ence of vertical vs. shared leadership on Quinn, pp. 241–58. San Francisco, CA: the longitudinal effectiveness of change Berrett-Koehler management teams. Group Dynamics The- Malhotra A, Majchrzak A, Rosen B. 2007. ory Res. Pract. 6:172–97 Leading virtual teams. Acad. Manage. Per- Piccolo RF, Colquitt JA. 2006. Transforma- spect. 21:60–70 tional leadership and job behaviors: the Martin R, Thomas G, Charles K, Epitropaki mediating role of core job characteristics. O, McNamara R. 2005. The role of leader- Acad. Manage. J. 49:327–40 member exchanges in mediating the re- Plowman DA, Duchon D. 2008. Dispelling lationship between locus of control and the myths about leadership: from cyber- work reactions. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. netics to emergence. In Complexity Lead- 78:141–47 ership Part I: Conceptual Foundations, ed. Maurer TJ, Lippstreu M. 2005. Differentiat- M Uhl-Bien, R Marion, pp. 129–53. Char- ing Motivation to Lead from Motivation to lotte, NC: Inform. Age Develop Leadership Capability: Relevance of Reichard RJ, Avolio BJ. 2005. Where are we? “Born vs Made” Beliefs. Presented at meet. The status of leadership intervention re- Acad. Manage., Honolulu, HI search: a meta-analytic summary. In Au- Meindl JR, Ehrlich SB, Dukerich JM. 1985. thentic Leadership and Practice: Origins, Ef- The romance of leadership. Adm. Sci. Q. fects, and Development, ed. WL Gardner, BJ 30:78–102 Avolio, FO Walumbwa, pp. 203–26. Ox- Mendenhall ME. 2001. Introduction: new ford, UK: Elsevier Sci. perspectives on expatriate adjustment Roberts LM, Dutton JE, Spreitzer CM, and its relationship to global leadership Heaphy ED, Quinn RE. 2005. Composing development. In Developing Global Busi- the reflected best-self portrait: building ness Leaders: Policies, Processes, and Inno- pathways for becoming extraordinary in vations, ed. GK Stahl, pp. 1–16. Westport, work organizations. Acad. Manage. Rev. CT: Quorum 30:712–36 448 Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber in Annual Review of Psychology 60 (2009)

Russell RF, Stone AG. 2002. A review of ser- Self-concept and self-esteem in everyday vant leadership attributes: developing a life. Am. Psychol. 62:84–94 practical model. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. Tekleab AG, Taylor MS. 2003. Aren’t there 23:145–57 two parties in an employment relation- Schaubroeck J, Lam SSK, Cha SE. 2007. Em- ship? Antecedents and consequences of bracing transformational leadership: organization-employee agreement on team values and the impact of leader be- contract obligations and violations. J. Or- havior on team performance. J. Appl. Psy- gan. Behav. 24:585–608 chol. 92:1020–30 Thomas DC. 2006. Domain and develop- Schriesheim CA, Castro SL, Cogliser CC. ment of cultural intelligence—the impor- 1999. Leader-member exchange (LMX) tance of mindfulness. Group Organ. Man- research: a comprehensive review of the- age. 31:78–99 ory, measurement, and data-analytic Tosi HL, Misangyi VF, Fanelli A, Waldman practices. Leadersh. Q. 10:63–113 DA, Yammarino FJ. 2004. CEO charisma, Schyns B, Felfe J, Blank H. 2007. Is charisma compensation, and firm performance. hyper-romanticism? Empirical evidence Leadersh. Q. 15:405–20 from new data and a meta-analysis. Appl. Uhl-Bien M. 2006. Relational leadership the- Psychol. Int. Rev. Psychol. Appl. Rev. Int. ory: exploring the social processes of 56:505–27 leadership and organizing. Leadersh. Q. Shamir B. 2007. From passive recipients to 17:654–76 active coproducers: followers’ roles in the Uhl-Bien M, Graen GB, Scandura TA. 2000. leadership process. In Follower-Centered Implications of leader-member exchange Perspectives on Leadership: A Tribute to the (LMX) for strategic human resource man- Memory of James R. Meindl, ed. B Shamir, agement systems: relationships as social R Pillai, MC Bligh, M Uhl-Bien, pp. ix– capital for competitive advantage. Res. xxxix. Greenwich, CT: Inform. Age Pers. Hum. Resour. Manage. 18:137–85 Smith PB, Peterson MF, Schwartz SH, Ah- Uhl-Bien M, Marion R. 2008. Complexity Lead- mad AH, Akande D, et al. 2002. Cul- ership. Charlotte, NC: Information Age tural values, sources of guidance, and Uhl-Bien M, Marion R, McKelvey B. 2007. their relevance to managerial behavior— Complexity leadership theory: shift- a 47-nation study. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. ing leadership from the Industrial Age 33:188–208 to the Knowledge Era. Leadersh. Q. Sosik JJ, Avolio BJ, Kahai SS. 1997. Effects of 18:298–318 leadership style and anonymity on group Van de Vijver FJR, Leung K. 2000. Method- potency and effectiveness in a group de- ological issues in psychological research cision support system environment. J. on culture. J. Cross-Cultural Psychol. Appl. Psychol. 82:89–103 31:33–51 Sparrowe RT. 2005. Authentic leadership and Van Dyne L, Ang S. 2006. Getting more than the narrative self. Leadersh. Q. 16:419–39 you expect: global leader initiative to Sparrowe RT, Soetjipto BW, Kraimer ML. span structural holes and reputational ef- 2006. Do leaders’ influence tactics - re fectiveness. In Advances in Global Leader- late to members’ helping behavior? It de- ship, ed. WH Mobley, E Weldon, pp. 101– pends on the quality of the relationship. 22. New York: Elsevier Acad. Manage. J. 49:1194–208 Villa JR, Howell JP, Dorfman PW, Daniel DL. Spears LC. 2004. The understanding and 2003. Problems with detecting modera- practice of servant leadership. In Practic- tors in leadership research using mod- ing Servant-Leadership: Succeeding Through erated multiple regression. Leadersh. Q. Trust, Bravery, and Forgiveness, ed. LC 14:3–23 Spears, M Lawrence, pp. 167–200. San Waldman DA, Javidan M, Varella P. 2004. Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Charismatic leadership at the strategic Swann WB, Chang-Schneider C, McClarty level: a new application of upper eche- KL. 2007. Do people’s self-views matter? lons theory. Leadersh. Q. 15:355–80 Leadership: Current Theories, Research, and Future Directions 449

Waldman DA, Ramirez GG, House RJ, Pura- directions. See S Weisband 2008, pp. nam P. 2001. Does leadership matter? CEO 149–256 leadership attributes and profitability un- Weisband A. 2008b. Research challenges for der conditions of perceived environmen- studying leadership at a distance. See S tal uncertainty. Acad. Manage. J. 44:134–43 Weisband 2008, pp. 3–12 Waldman DA, Yammarino FJ. 1999. CEO Weisband S, ed. 2008. Leadership at a Distance: charismatic leadership: levels-of-manage- Research in Technologically-Supported Work. ment and levels-of-analysis effects. Acad. New York: Erlbaum Manage. Rev. 24:266–85 Whittington JL, Pitts TM, Kageler WV, Good- Walumbwa FO, Avolio BJ, Gardner WL, win VL. 2005. Legacy leadership: the Wernsing TS, Peterson SJ. 2008. Authen- leadership wisdom of the Apostle Paul. tic leadership: development and valida- Leadersh. Q. 16:749–70 tion of a theory-based measure. J. Man- Wofford JC, Goodwin VL, Whittington JL. age. 34:89–126 1998. A field study of a cognitive- ap Walumbwa FO, Avolio BJ, Zhu W. 2008. proach to understanding transforma- How transformational leadership weaves tional and transactional leadership. Lead- its influence on individual job perfor- ersh. Q. 9:55–84 mance: the role of identification and effi- Xiao Y, Seagull FJ, Mackenzie CF, Klein KJ, cacy beliefs. Pers. Psychol. In press Ziegert J. 2008. Adaptation of team com- Walumbwa FO, Lawler JJ. 2003. Building ef- munication patterns. Exploring the ef- fective organizations: transformational fects of leadership at a distance: task ur- leadership, collectivist orientation, work- gency, and shared team experience. See S related attitudes and withdrawal behav- Weisband 2008, pp. 71–96 iours in three emerging economies. Int. J. Yammarino FJ, Dionne SD, Chun JU, Dan- Hum. Resour. Manage. 14:1083–101 sereau F. 2005. Leadership and levels of Walumbwa FO, Lawler JJ, Avolio BJ. 2007. analysis: a state-of-the-science review. Leadership, individual differences, and Leadersh. Q. 16:879–919 work-related attitudes: a cross-culture in- Yukl G. 1999. An evaluation of conceptual vestigation. Appl. Psychol. Int. Rev. Psy- weaknesses in transformational and char- chol. Appl. Rev. Int. 56:212–30 ismatic leadership theories. Leadersh. Q. Wang H, Law KS, Hackett RD, Wang DX, 10:285–305 Chen ZX. 2005. Leader-member exchange Yukl GA. 2006. Leadership in Organizations. as a mediator of the relationship between Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Pren- transformational leadership and follow- tice Hall. 542 pp. ers’ performance and organizational Yukl GA, Van Fleet DD. 1992. Theory and citizenship behavior. Acad. Manage. J. research on leadership in organizations. 48:420–32 In Handbook of Industrial and Organiza- Washington RR, Sutton CD, Field HS. 2006. tional Psychology, ed. MD Dunnette, LM. Individual differences in servant leader- Hough, pp. 147–98. Palo Alto, CA: Con- ship: the roles of values and personality. sulting Psychol. Press Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 27:700–16 Zaccaro SJ, Bader P. 2003. E-leadership and Watson WE, Kumar K, Michaelsen LK. 1993. the challenges of leading E-teams: mini- Cultural diversity’s impact on interaction mizing the bad and maximizing the good. process and performance—comparing Organ. Dyn. 31:377–87 homogeneous and diverse task groups. Zhu W, Avolio BJ, Walumbwa FO. 2008. Acad. Manage. J. 36:590–602 Moderating role of follower characteris- Weber R, Camerer C, Rottenstreich Y, Knez tics with transformational leadership and M. 2001. The illusion of leadership: misat- follower work engagement. Group Organ. tribution of cause in coordination games. Manage. In press Organ. Sci. 12:582–98 Zigurs I. 2003. Leadership in virtual teams: Weisband A. 2008a. Lessons about leader- oxymoron or opportunity? Organ. Dyn. ship at a distance and future research 31:339–51