CHAPTER 7

LEADERSHIP
Julian Barling, Amy Christie, and Colette Hoption

Leadership is a fascinating and controversial topic,

about which much is known and much remains to be
learned. Leadership has long captivated the attention
of scholars, practitioners, and the public. For that reason, numerous journals are devoted to the topic of
leadership, such as Leadership Quarterly, Leadership
and Organization Development Journal, Journal of
Leadership Studies and Leader to Leader. Nonetheless,
some questions remain unresolved, such as: Are leaders born or made? Can we teach leadership in organizations? Can leaders be as influential as we might
hope? Can leaders wreak as much harm as we might
fear? Not only are these questions intriguing, but
their answers also contribute substantially to our
understanding of, and have implications for, the
psychology of both leaders and their followers and
behavior in organizations more generally. In this
chapter, we address these and other questions. In
doing so, we provide a review of what is known and
what remains to be understood about leadership.
Throughout this chapter, we follow what is now
referred to as an evidence-based approach (Pfeffer &
Sutton, 2006; Rousseau, 2006). Broadly speaking, the
evidence-based approach mandates that management
practices should be based on the best available empirical data, whenever such data exist. In a similar manner, we believe that the development of knowledge
about leadership must also rest on the best available
empirical evidence. Although this approach is by no
means newthere were earlier indications that evaluating the effects of organizational interventions on
the basis of soft versus hard outcomes would lead

to different conclusions (Bass, 1983; Terpstra,

1981)concerns about methodological rigor in
leadership research remain (e.g., Hunter, BedellAvers, & Mumford, 2007). Following from this
evidence-based approach, the chapter includes discussions of leadership theories that have been subject to empirical scrutiny (e.g., leadermember
exchange theory [LMX], transformational leadership) and excludes those that have largely escaped
such scrutiny (e.g., Coveys principle-centered leadership; Greenleafs servant leadership). We also choose
this approach because the sheer number of leadership theories precludes the possibility of discussing
them all. The remainder of this chapter presents an
overview of the leadership literature guided by the
evidenced-based approach, beginning with a review
of leadership theories, then summarizing key findings
within the field, and concluding with a path for
future leadership research.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF
LEADERSHIP THEORIES
As the topic of scholarly debate for centuries and
the subject of systematic theoretical and empirical
research for much of the past 100 years, leadership
has a long tradition in the social sciences. Not
surprisingly, with such an extensive history, the
leadership literature has demonstrated ebbs and
flows of prevailing wisdom. Although many ideas
of the past have fallen from popular favor, the evolution of leadership perspectives is both reflected

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

183

Barling, Christie, and Hoption

in and critical to the understanding of the dominant leadership theories of the present day. In this
preliminary section we provide a brief history of
the progression of leadership theories that form the
foundation of current thinking and research in the
field of leadership today. To complement this section, a visual depiction of leadership trends over the
past quarter of a century is provided in Table 7.1,
which we will reflect on in greater detail at the end
of this section.

Trait Theories of Leadership

The very first theories of leadership sought to identify
the physical characteristics or psychological traits that
differentiated leaders from nonleaders or good leaders
from poor leaders (House & Aditya, 1997). Some of
the traits identified and studied included height
(for a review, see Judge & Cable, 2004) and physical
appearance (e.g., Cherulnik, Turns, & Wilderman,
1990), gender (for a review, see Eagly & Karau,
1991), authoritarianism (e.g., Tarnopol, 1958),
intelligence (for a review, see Judge, Colbert, & Ilies,
2004), and self-confidence (e.g., Richardson &
Hanawalt, 1952). Although selected evidence supported the notion that traits could be used to predict
leadership emergence, and numerous studies showed
a link between intelligence and leadership emergence
and effectiveness (e.g., see Judge et al., 2004), most
results lacked consistency across time, setting, and
studies. Thus, even though the majority of leadership
research conducted during the 1940s was devoted to
understanding leader traits, by the 1950s very little
consistent or conclusive empirical support emerged
for any universal traits that could predict leader
emergence and effectiveness.
Research then progressed toward the identification of effective leader behaviors (Stogdill, 1950)
an endeavor that continues today. Nevertheless, a
renewed interest in trait theories of leadership
emerged in the 1970s when evidence for complex
theories and measures of personality traits (e.g., the
Big Five) emerged within the field of psychology,
providing the leadership literature with better theories and measures with which to investigate potential
leadership traits (House & Aditya, 1997). Based on
these advances, more conclusive evidence has been
found for the existence of personality traits that char184

acterize leaders, a topic that will be discussed in

more detail later in this chapter.

Early Behavioral Theories of Leadership

Similar to trait perspectives of leadership, early
behavioral approaches attempted to uncover and verify leadership behaviors that were universally effective. The most extensively studied behaviors in these
early endeavors were two dimensions identified in
the Ohio State studies: Initiating Structure and
Consideration. These two behaviors broadly represent task-focused and people-focused leadership
behaviors, respectively. Initiating Structure describes
leadership behaviors that create clear guidelines and
procedures to facilitate the achievement of specified
goals (e.g., Kerr, Schriesheim, Murphy, & Stogdill,
1974). Accordingly, three items from the Leader
Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ), the
instrument often used to measure Initiating Structure,
include [My leader] maintains definite standards
of performance, [My leader] encourages the use
of uniform procedures, and [My leader] schedules
the work to be done. Whereas Initiating Structure
focuses on what today might be more consistent with
performance appraisal, Consideration depicts leadership behaviors that are centered on reciprocal trust,
respect, and a concern for the welfare of followers
(e.g., Kerr et al., 1974), and is represented by LBDQ
items such as [My leader] helps people in the work
group with their personal problems and [My leader]
backs up what people under him/her do.
Originally, leadership scholars hypothesized that
the ideal leadership style, the one that would most
positively affect follower attitudes and performance,
would incorporate high levels of both Initiating
Structure and Consideration (see Kerr et al., 1974, for
a review). Such a leader would be able to guide followers toward the accomplishment of organizational
goals and provide them with the emotional support
necessary to help them perform at the highest level.
Researchers concluded that Initiating Structure
behaviors would have a stronger positive relationship
with follower performance, whereas Consideration
behaviors would be more closely related to follower attitudes, such as satisfaction and morale
(see Judge, Piccolo, & Illies, 2004, for a review).
Nevertheless, meta-analytic evidence suggests that

Consideration-initiating structure and

leadership
Situational leadership theory
Pathgoal theory
Substitutes for leadership
Leadermember exchange or vertical dyad
linkage
Transformational Leadership
Charismatic Leadership
Romance of leadership
Implicit leadership theories
Prototypicality
Followership
Shared leadership
Authentic leadership

Leadership theory
4
5
3
0
3
0
2
2
0
3
1

2
2
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0

1983

1982

1981

1980

0
0
1
4

0
2

2
2
1
8

1985

1984

0
0
0
0

0
2

3
1
4
5

10

1987

1986

0
0
2
1

1
3

4
1
2
6

1989

1988

0
0
1
3

0
7

4
2
2
11

1991

1990

Frequencies With Which Leadership Theories Have Been Studied, 19802007

TABLE 7.1

0
0
3
0

1
8

3
0
3
10

1993

1992

0
0
1
1

2
8

0
2
4
12

1995

1994

1
2
2
2

7
8

3
2
8
23

1997

1996

11
22
1
1
1
1
2

7
0
1
27

1999

1998

30
15
1
6
4
4
4

1
0
4
24

2001

2000

52
12
1
2
0
2
5

0
0
3
24

2003

2002

75
28
3
6
4
2
7
8

0
0
7
35

2005

2004

105
18
8
7
5
5
19
7

3
4
1
57

2007

2006

284
135
14
26
16
27
49
15

37
19
40
246

58

Total

Leadership

185

Barling, Christie, and Hoption

the correlation between Initiating Structure and

Consideration is .17 and that sometimes they are,
in fact, negatively correlated with each other,
depending on the measurement instrument used
(see Judge et al., 2004). Thus, although high
Initiating Structure and high Consideration may be
the optimal expression of these behaviors from a theoretical perspective, this combination may not accurately capture patterns of leader behavior in
organizations.
The inconclusive relationship between Initiating
Structure and Consideration was not the only challenge to the Ohio State leadership framework; the
theory was also criticized for its inability to generate consistent and reliable results across multiple
samples during the 1950s and 1960s. In some
cases, studies found negative relationships between
Initiating Structure and follower satisfaction and
between Consideration and performance (see Kerr
et al., 1974). Although a later study, using robust
statistical techniques to summarize the approximately 100 empirical studies examining these behaviors, showed that inconsistencies were largely the
result of methodological contradictions (Judge et al.,
2004), researchers in the 1950s and 1960s turned to
situational moderators to explain discrepancies
between studies and, ultimately, to identify the situations in which Initiating Structure and Consideration
would be most effective. This pursuit began with a
focus on organizational context, such as time pressures and physical demands, and characteristics of
followers, such as intrinsic motivation and role ambiguity. By doing so, the leadership literature evolved
from seeking the discovery of universally successful
leadership behaviors to acknowledging that effective
leadership behaviors may be situation-specific and
then to examining the interaction between leadership
behavior, situational contingencies, and leader effectiveness. (The progression toward perspectives that
emphasized the importance of situational constraints
on leadership is discussed in the following section.)
Although Initiating Structure and Consideration
were largely abandoned and deemed conceptually
and methodologically invalid by the 1970s, there has
been renewed interest in the Ohio State leadership
dimensions. Judge et al. (2004) argued that deserting
these two leadership dimensions was premature,
186

calling them the forgotten ones. In Judge et al.s.

meta-analytic review, they showed a significant
relationship (all corrected for unreliability of measures and measurement error) between Initiating
Structure (average r .29) and Consideration (average r .48), and job satisfaction (Initiating Structure
r = .22; Consideration r = .46), satisfaction with the
leader (Initiating Structure r = .33; Consideration
r = .78), follower motivation (Initiating Structure
r = .40; Consideration r = .50), leader job performance
(Initiating Structure r = .24; Consideration r = .25),
group-organization performance (Initiating Structure
r = .30; Consideration r = .28), and leader effectiveness (Initiating Structure r = .39; Consideration
r = .52). Furthermore, as expected, Consideration
showed a stronger relationship with attitudinal outcomes (e.g., satisfaction with leader, job satisfaction) than did Initiating Structure; on the other
hand, Initiating Structure related more to grouporganization performance than did Consideration.
These findings suggest that despite the disappearance
of the Ohio State leadership dimensions from the
literature, more research attention is still needed to
verify their contribution to our understanding of
leadership, especially because researchers (e.g.,
Keller, 2006) have argued that they may be largely
independent of the behavioral theory that dominates
contemporary leadership researchtransformational
leadership theory.

Contingency Theories of Leadership

Situational or contingency approaches to leadership
build on the early behavioral theories previously
described. Situational theories contend that the effectiveness of leadership traits or behaviors is dependent on characteristics of the situation, including
features of the organization, the workplace, and the
followers. The next sections discuss three situational
theories of leadership that have received considerable theoretical and empirical attention: Fiedlers
contingency theory, the pathgoal theory of leadership, and substitutes for leadership.
Fiedlers contingency theory. Fiedlers (1967)
theory is often credited as the first true contingency
theory of leadership. The theory categorizes leaders
as either task-motivated or relationship-motivated.

Leadership

These categories are similar to Initiating Structure

and Consideration, respectively, but Fiedlers theory
goes further by suggesting that the effectiveness of
each varies by situation. In particular, contingency
theory draws attention to three dimensions that may
characterize a situation: (a) leaderfollower relations,
(b) performance goal clarity, and (c) formal authority or power. Each dimension influences the extent
to which leaders are afforded a sense of control over
their jobs. For example, regarding authority, leaders
are more likely to feel a sense of control when they
have the formal authority to make decisions, and
less likely when they dont. Fiedler created eight
situations based on the various combinations of
these three dimensions, which ranged on a continuum from the most favorable situation (i.e., strong
leaderfollower relations, high task clarity, and high
power) to the least favorable situation (i.e., weak
leaderfollower relations, low task clarity, and low
power). Fiedler assumed that leadership behaviors
were more difficult to change than were situations;
consequently, he stipulated that optimal outcomes
are a result of a correspondence between the leaders
existing behaviors and the situation.
A central tenet of Fiedlers contingency theory is
that task-motivated leaders are more effective in
extreme situations (i.e., very favorable or unfavorable situations), whereas relationship-motivated
leaders are more effective in moderately favorable
situations. To illustrate, a task-motivated leader was
hypothesized to respond best during times of crisis
or disaster, which are often chaotic and characterized by little formal structure in terms of the task
and authority, while working closely with unfamiliar others (i.e., a very unfavorable situation). A
relationship-motivated leader may become distracted and feel overwhelmed by the needs of
others, whereas a task-motivated leader may have
less difficulty acting quickly and decisively. On the
other hand, in some situations or organizations,
more moderate situational constraints are common,
as is the case in creative industries, in which the
leaderfollower relationship often is strong and the
task and formal authority structure is loosely
defined. In these cases, relationship-oriented leaders
excel because they are more considerate of followers individual needs and foster followers creative

inputs, whereas task-motivated leaders are likely to

undermine followers creativity by failing to adequately appreciate the flexibility that they require.
Despite a considerable amount of research, the
evidence supporting Fiedlers contingency theory is
mixed. A number of meta-analytic reviews of the
literature (e.g., Peters, Hartke, & Pohlmann, 1985;
Schriesheim, Tepper, & Tetrault, 1994) have supported the notion that leadership style and situation interact, such that task-motivated leaders and
relationship-motivated leaders excel in different situations. However, these results were strongest when
tested in laboratory settings (Ayman, Chemers, &
Fiedler, 1995). For instance, Peters et al. found that
in laboratory studies (r ranging from an absolute
magnitude of .01 to .33, corrected for sampling
error), the more effective leadership style was correctly predicted in six of the eight contingency theory
situations, compared to only half of the situations for
field studies (r ranging from an absolute magnitude of
.01 to .50, corrected for sampling error). The less persuasive findings in field settings could derive from
improper measurement techniques. Thus, although
the predictions of contingency theory are promising,
advances in the theory are still needed to understand
why discrepancies emerge between laboratory and
field settings if it is to regain prominence in the current leadership literature.
Pathgoal leadership theory. A second contingency
theory of leadership, pathgoal leadership theory
(House, 1971), also emerged in response to the disappointing findings of the Ohio State studies. Similar
to Fiedlers contingency theory, pathgoal leadership
theory had two objectives: (a) identify the role and
behaviors of effective leaders, and (b) explore the situational contingencies that modify those behaviors.
First, the theory posits that a leaders role is to
align the goals of followers with those of the organization. Next, a leader must facilitate the achievement
of those goals. This is accomplished by helping followers realize that they have the capabilities to meet
their goals, clarifying the path between the effort that
they exert and goal attainment, and ensuring that the
goals are valuable to followers.
Unlike the Ohio State model (i.e., Initiating
Structure and Consideration), pathgoal leadership
187

Barling, Christie, and Hoption

theory identifies four categories of leadership behaviors that motivate followers to achieve their goals
(House & Mitchell, 1974). Participative leadership
behavior involves including followers in decision
making and soliciting follower feedback. Consistent
with the focus on participation in decision making
that was already prevalent in the 1970s (e.g., Alutto
& Belasco, 1972), this leadership behavior was
hypothesized to enhance motivation by fostering
overlap between follower and organizational goals and
by providing followers with more appreciation
and understanding of the pathway between effort
and goal achievement. Directive pathgoal-clarifying
leadership behavior mimics Initiating Structure,
motivating followers by providing task structure,
feedback, and procedures that reduce role ambiguity, linking follower effort to performance and goal
attainment, and communicating the rewards contingent on performance. By contrast, supportive leadership behavior is similar to Consideration, whereby
leaders demonstrate their concern for the needs and
best interests of followers and, by doing so, remove
some of the potential obstacles that may prevent
followers from obtaining their goals. The final
leadership behavior identified in the theory is
achievement-oriented leadership behavior, which
involves creating challenging and high-standard
performance goals and expressing confidence in
followers abilities to meet such challenges. Followers
should then respond with greater self-efficacy and
effort toward goal attainment.
Pathgoal leadership theorys second focus is on
situational factors that render leadership behaviors
more or less effective. These factors relate to the
organizational environment, job design, and follower
characteristics. However, empirical tests have not
yielded conclusive support for the situational factors. For example, in a meta-analysis of 120 studies,
Wofford and Liska (1993) found support for only
6 of 16 moderation hypotheses predicted by path
goal leadership theory (zr ranged from .31 to .51
corrected for unreliability of measures and sampling
error). Schriesheim and Neiders (1996) qualitative
summary of the empirical literature suggested that
the most consistent results for the situational focus
of the theory have been for the relationship between
directive clarifying behavior (most often measured
188

using the LBDQ Initiating Structure scale) and follower satisfaction when task characteristics (e.g.,
autonomy, task variety, and feedback) promote
intrinsic motivation. We found the relationships
between the remaining categories of leadership
behaviors and the performance outcomes far less
conclusive. It has been suggested that improper
measurement and incomplete or inappropriately
specified testing may account for the theorys
empirical shortcomings, as a result of which future
research should fairly test the tenets of pathgoal
leadership theory (Schriesheim, Castro, Zhou, &
DeChurch, 2006). Nonetheless, the complexity of
the model may inhibit the possibility of subjecting
the theory to an omnibus test.
Substitutes for leadership. Kerr and Jermiers
(1978) substitutes for leadership theory further
extends the situational perspective of leadership, in
particular path-goal leadership theory, by illuminating additional situational contingencies of leadership behaviors (House, 1996). Specifically, Kerr and
Jermier identified numerous situational variables
that influence the relationship between leadership
and its outcomes. These variables fit within one of
two primary categories: neutralizers and substitutes.
Neutralizers of leadership are situational factors that
block the effects of leadership, rendering leadership
behaviors inconsequential. One example of a neutralizer of leadership is spatial distance between the
leader and the follower. By contrast, substitutes for
leadership both neutralize leadership and positively
influence attitudinal and performance outcomes.
Examples of leadership substitutes include the followers intrinsic interest in the task, ability, training,
and experience. These are substitutes because they
relate positively to follower satisfaction, morale, and
performance and therefore eliminate the need for
leadership.
Because the substitutes for leadership theory has
intuitive appeal, the inadequate substantiating evidence for the theory across multiple rigorous study
designs and samples remains a surprise (e.g., Dionne,
Yammarino, Atwater, & James, 2002). Most past
research suggests that substitutes for leadership have
an additive effect; that is, they influence important
outcomes irrespective of leadership behaviors without diminishing or negating the influence of leader-

Leadership

ship itself (Keller, 2006; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, &

Bommer, 1996). Accordingly, substitutes for leadership theory has largely disappeared from current
leadership research.

Emergence of a Relational Theory

of Leadership
Fiedlers contingency theory, pathgoal leadership
theory, and substitutes for leadership theory all
emphasize the importance, if not the primacy, of situational factors. However, by the late 1970s and 1980s,
focus shifted to a relational perspective of leadership
as evidenced by the solidification of LMX (e.g.,
Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Gerstner & Day,
1997). LMX is a theory of neither leader nor follower
traits or behaviors; instead, it focuses primarily on the
leaderfollower dyad. Proponents of LMX argue that
most leadership theories assume that there is unidirectional influence flowing from leader to follower
and, furthermore, that a leaders behaviors and
effectiveness are both consistent across followers
(e.g., Schriesheim, Castro, & Cogliser, 1999). To
address these assumptions, LMX studies the unique
leaderfollower relationships that are fostered
through leadership behaviors. These dyadic relationships are inherently unique because LMX contends
that leaders develop different exchange relationships
with different followers and, furthermore, that mutual
influence occurs within each dyad (Gerstner & Day,
1997). In addition, LMX examines the quality of
leaderfollower relationships and in turn posits that
higher quality relationships between leaders and followers will result in more positive organizational outcomes than lower quality relationships.
High-quality LMX relationships are defined by
mutual support, trust, liking, provision of latitude,
attention, and loyalty (Schriesheim et al., 1999). It
follows that the opposite qualities, such as downward
influence, role distinctions, social distance, contractual obligations, and distrust, have been used to
define low-quality LMX. These are general definitions
of good and poor LMX, but realistically the components that constitute the good or poor quality of a
relationship are likely to vary between individuals
(House & Aditya, 1997). Accordingly, defining and
measuring (universally) high- or low-quality LMX is
challenging.

Nonetheless, based on the generalized features of

high-quality LMX relationships provided above,
research has revealed that high-quality LMX enjoys a
number of positive implications for organizations.
For instance, high-quality LMX has been positively
associated with follower satisfaction, commitment,
role clarity, and performance and negatively associated with follower turnover intentions and role conflict, across numerous empirical studies (see Gerstner
& Day, 1997, for a review). Traditionally, there has
been a concentrated focus on the positive effects of
high-quality LMX, and it is implied that low-quality
LMX simply fails to produce those positive effects.
However, Townsend, Phillips, and Elkins (2000)
showed that low-quality LMX may be more harmful
than previously appreciated. These authors showed
that high-quality LMX relationships lead to superior
follower performance and increased organizational
citizenship behaviors, whereas low-quality LMX
relationships were not only unconnected to these
outcomes but were also linked to retaliatory behaviors from followers.
LMX theory has helped to advance our understanding of the leadership literature by considering
not only the leader but also the leaderfollower relationship within the leadership process. However,
although the aim of LMX theory is to understand
leaderfollower relationships, it has been critiqued
for its inability to adequately capture the dyadic
nature of these relationships. A meta-analytic review
of numerous published studies showed only a moderate correlation (r = .37 corrected for measurement
unreliability and sampling error) between leaders
perceptions of LMX quality and followers perceptions of LMX quality (Gerstner & Day, 1997), a disappointing finding given LMX theorys presumption
of dyadic associations. Furthermore, LMX theory has
attracted criticism for its minimal attention to practical applications; the theory predicts associations
between high-quality LMX and positive organizational outcomes, but it reveals little about how leaders can differentially generate these relationships
with followers. Despite its shortcomings, LMX theory
continues to be studied in current leadership research
and has contributed greatly to our appreciation
of and progression toward relational notions of
leadership.
189

Barling, Christie, and Hoption

In summary, over the course of almost a century

of research, the leadership literature has evolved
from differentiating leaders from nonleaders on the
basis of personal traits to recognizing the intricacies
of leadership behaviors, situational contingencies,
leaderfollower relationships, and mutual, dyadic
influences. As indicated throughout this section,
some of these theories of leadership continue to
attract scholarly attention today. However, we now
turn our attention to the theory that undoubtedly
dominates the leadership literature, namely, transformational leadership theory (e.g., Judge & Bono,
2000).

The Transformational Leadership

Framework
Although it is often difficult to pinpoint the intellectual origins of a theory, two seminal books stand
out in the development of transformational leadership. First, Burns (1978) laid the groundwork for
much subsequent thinking about transformational
leadership in differentiating transformational
leadership from other forms of leadership. Second,
Bass (1985) further conceptualized the transformational framework (which includes both transformational and transactional leadership behaviors) and
extended its focus to the organizational context.
Both Burns and Bass stimulated others to conduct
research on transformational leadership around the
world; Bass himself was a major figure in empirical
research on transformational leadership until his
death in 2007.
It is now generally accepted that four different
behaviors (idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized
consideration) constitute transformational leadership, whereas laissez-faire, management-by-exception,
and contingent reward fall under the rubric of
transactional leadership. We first discuss the latter
three behaviors involved in transactional leadership
and then move on to a discussion of the four behaviors involved in transformational leadership. In
doing so, we note that our descriptions are based on
discussions of these behaviors presented extensively elsewhere (e.g., Avolio, 1999a; Bass, 1985;
Bass & Riggio, 2006) and that we limit our descriptions accordingly.
190

Transactional leadership. Transactional leadership comprises three different behaviors. First, a

style of nonmanagement and nonleadership characterizes laissez-faire leader behaviors. These behaviors include avoiding and denying responsibility and
neglecting to take any action even in dire situations.
In its most extreme form, laissez-faire managers do
nothing most of the time.
Second, active management-by-exception takes
place when leaders focus vigorously on followers
mistakes and failures to meet standards. These leaders consistently look for errors at the expense of,
rather than in addition to, a focus on positive events.
Upon encountering these errors, leaders are likely to
yell at, embarrass, punish, or discipline followers for
their mistakes. Kelloway, Sivanathan, Francis, and
Barling (2005) suggested that this negative focus,
coupled with punitive action by the leader, results in
employees experiencing active management-byexception as abusive.
In contrast to active management-by-exception
style, passive management-by-exception also
describes managers who focus on errors. However,
these managers do not actively monitor for mistakes; instead, they wait until the mistakes are of
such consequence that they can no longer be
ignored. Therefore, passive management-byexception is closer in nature to laissez-faire than
active management-by-exception behaviors, and it
also results in similar outcomes (Avolio, 1999b;
Bass & Riggio, 2006).
Third, while laissez-faire reflects the absence of
management, and management-by-exception reflects
poor management, contingent reward reflects
good management. Contingent reward involves
managers setting goals, providing feedback, and
ensuring that employee behaviors have consequences, both positive and negative. As the name
suggests, these leaders make rewards contingent on
followers meeting a specified performance target.
Nonetheless, the meaning of contingent reward is
somewhat ambiguous, because in some analyses
(e.g., the factor intercorrelations in Bycio,
Hackett, & Allens [1995] study; their Table 3),
contingent reward is significantly more highly correlated with elements of transformational leadership (such as charismatic leadership, intellectual

Leadership

stimulation, individualized consideration) than with

management-by-exception (rs of .79, .81, and .83,
respectively, vs. .26).
To summarize Judge and Piccolos (2004) recent
meta-analytic findings, active management-byexception is related to follower satisfaction with the
leader (r = .24), follower motivation (r = .14), leader
job performance (r = .13), group or organizational
performance (r = .09; 90% confidence interval
includes zero), and leader effectiveness (r = .21). The
overall relationships between passive managementby-exception and laissez-faire leadership and various
leadership criteria are negative: specifically, passive
management-by-exception is negatively related to follower satisfaction with the leader (r = .14; 90% confidence interval includes zero), follower motivation
(r = .27), group or organizational performance
(r = .17), and leader effectiveness (r = .19), while
laissez-faire leadership is negatively related to job satisfaction (r = .28), follower satisfaction with the
leader (r = .58), follower motivation (r = .07; 90%
confidence interval includes zero), leader job performance (r = .01; 90% confidence interval includes
zero), and leader effectiveness (r = .54). By contrast,
contingent reward has been associated positively with
various criteria for leader effectiveness, such as job
satisfaction (r = .64), satisfaction with the leader (r =
.55), follower motivation (r = .59), leader job performance (r = .45), group or organizational performance
(r = .16), and leader effectiveness (r = .55; all correlations corrected for measure unreliability, measurement error, and sampling error; Judge &
Piccolo, 2004).
Upon review of the transactional leadership
framework, the term transactional leadership could be
seen as an oxymoron because the behaviors (i.e., contingent reward and management-by-exception) are
responses to employees behaviors and are based on
the formal power accorded to managers. In contrast,
leadership transcends situational needs and is based
more on informal than formal sources of power. This
might lead to the conceptualization of transactional
leadership as consistent with management rather
than leadership (Bass & Riggio, 2006).
Transformational leadership. At the conceptual
level, transformational leadership comprises four
separate behaviors (see Bass & Riggio, 2006).

Idealized influence centers on leaders behaviors that

are motivated by what is best for the organization
and its members, rather than what is easy and expedient; these behaviors include providing a vision for
the future and creating a collective sense of mission.
Leaders who exhibit idealized influence are guided
by their moral commitment to their followers and
the collective good; they go beyond self-interest.
Leaders who manifest idealized influence are able to
resist organizational pressures for short-term financial outcomes and instead focus their efforts on
the long-term well-being of their employees, themselves, and their organizations. Thus, a hallmark
of idealized influence is that these leaders act with
integrity. In this respect, Burns (1978) insisted
that transformational leadership extends beyond
Maslows (1965) self-actualization theory because a
self-oriented focus is eschewed.
Transformational leadership theory posits that
leaders who manifest inspirational motivation encourage their employees to achieve more than what was
thought possible, either by themselves or by those
around them. They do so by setting high but realistic
standards, which they transmit through interpersonal
interactions; they tell stories and use symbols. These
leaders inspire employees to surmount psychological
setbacks and external obstacles, and they instill in
employees the belief that they can confront and overcome current and future hurdles. Inspirationally
motivating leaders interactions with subordinates
reflect the self-fulfilling prophecy, as they help foster resilience and self-efficacy in their followers.
Intellectual stimulation is the third facet of transformational leadership behavior. Earlier understandings
of leadership assumed the technical expertise of the
leader who could answer all questions posed by subordinates. In contrast, leaders who display intellectual
stimulation encourage employees to think for themselves, question their own commonly held assumptions, reframe problems, and approach matters in
innovative ways. Given the encouragement and
opportunity to develop their own personal strategies
to tackle setbacks, employees become more confident and adept in work-related and personal issues.
Fourth and finally, individualized consideration
characterizes leaders who pay special attention to
employees personal needs for achievement and
191

Barling, Christie, and Hoption

development and act as mentors. These leaders

provide the necessary caring, compassion, and
empathy that influence employees well-being,
and their instrumental and emotional support
helps employees develop their potential and skills.
In doing so, leaders establish a relationship with
followers.
The majority of the studies on transformational
leadership use the Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) to assess its four components, a measurement tool that we discuss more in depth later
in this chapter. Although the four dimensions of
transformational leadership are presented as conceptually distinct, it has become apparent from
meta-analyses (Bycio et al., 1995; Tepper & Percy,
1994) that measurement issues make assessing them
separately rather difficult. The recent development
of several new scales (e.g., Alimo-Metcalfe & AlbanMetcalfe, 2001; Herold, Fedor, Caldwell, & Liu,
2008; Rafferty & Griffin, 2004) offers some promise
for future research to answer remaining questions
about whether the presence of all four behaviors is
necessary for leadership to qualify as transformational or whether some of the four behaviors are
more critical than others (Mackenzie, Podsakoff, &
Jarvis, 2005). This issue is discussed in more detail
later in this chapter.

Charismatic Leadership Theory

The theory of charismatic leadership represents a
major attempt to explain leadership. Initially proposed by the sociologist Max Weber (1947), charisma
was characterized by followers belief that the leader
possessed unusual and exceptional qualities. There
are now several interpretations of this theory, with
the two most prominent emphasizing either attributions that followers make about the leader (Conger
& Kanungo, 1998) or actual leadership behaviors
(House, 1977). These explanations of charismatic
leadership evolved around the same time as transformational leadership theory (House, 1977). Although
authors debate whether charismatic leadership and
transformational leadership are interchangeable
constructs, most suggest that the differences
between the theories are minor (e.g., Conger &
Kanungo, 1998; House & Podsakoff, 1994), which
is in part evidenced by their similar or equivalent
192

measurement instruments (see Judge, Woolf, Hurst,

& Livingston, 2008, for a review).
One notable feature distinguishing the theories is
their differential emphasis on follower attributions of
leader behavior; the charismatic leadership tradition
often argues that leadership exists in the eyes of followers (Conger, 1999, p. 153). What distinguishes
charismatic leaders from other leaders is their ability
to act in ways that encourage followers to perceive
them and their visions as extraordinary. Specifically,
charismatic leadership is attributed to leaders who
challenge the status quo, inspire followers around
a collective-focused vision of the future, show sensitivity to the needs of followers, and take personal
risks to achieve their vision.
Several general issues concerning transformational
and charismatic leadership warrant comment at this
stage. First, Judge and Bono (2000) noted that transformational and charismatic leadership attracted
more research during the decade of the 1990s than all
other theories of leadership combined. To understand
the relative status of leadership theories today, we
conducted a similar analysis of leadership topics from
1980 to 2007 using PsycINFO to search for the number of articles related to each topic. The results of this
analysis appear in Table 7.1. The results for each of
the theories discussed in this chapter illustrate the
flux of empirical attention to leadership theories over
time. Based on these data, several conclusions are
appropriate. First, transformational leadership
remains the most widely researched theory, with
LMX and charismatic leadership the second and third
most studied, respectively. Second, together, these
three theories account for 63% of all leadership
research between 1980 and 2007. However, recent
years have also seen increasing devotion to theories of
leadership that accentuate the role of followers in the
leadership process; these theories are discussed in
detail later in this chapter.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LEADERSHIP:
ARE LEADERS BORN OR MADE?
As we have already noted, leadership has long
attracted attention. Still, one of the most enduring
social questions remains: Are leaders born or made?
A search of scholar.google.com (on May 4, 2009)

Leadership

yielded at least 182 articles relating to this question.

Understanding how leadership develops will have
profound social, theoretical, and managerial implications. In this section, we address several different
ways in which empirical research has confronted this
question, by considering studies on genetic influences
on leadership emergence, early family influences on
leadership behavior, and executive development or
leadership training.
Before embarking on this discussion, we must
draw a distinction between leadership emergence or
role occupancy on the one hand, and leadership
behaviors on the other. Leadership emergence reflects
whether individuals become leaders by either occupying formal leadership roles or informally arising as a
leader, whereas, traditionally, leadership behaviors
center on how people actually behave once they have
assumed a leadership role, or perhaps even when
they are not in formal leadership positions (a topic
discussed later in this chapter). As such, leadership
emergence and leadership behaviors remain separate
constructs. Despite the importance of understanding
leadership development that reflects both leadership
emergence and leadership behaviors, very little
empirical research has addressed these critical issues.

Leadership Emergence
Some people are born to move and shake the world.
Their blessings: high energy, exceptional intelligence,
extreme persistence, self-confidence and a yearning
to influence others (Avolio, 1999a, p.18). Although
much of the discussion in this chapter focuses on the
issue of leadership behaviors and effectiveness, precisely which individuals attain positions of leadership
in the first instance is of equal intrigue. As suggested by Avolio (1999a), one possibility is that
some individuals are naturally predisposed to
become leaders. Consistent with recent advances in
the burgeoning field known as social neuroscience
(Cacioppo et al., 2007), the notion that genetic and
biological factors play an important role in the development of leadership should not be unexpected.
Nevertheless, well-controlled studies on possible
genetic and/or biological effects on leadership
development remain scant.
Empirical research on the role of genetic factors in
behavior was initially stimulated by the classic studies

conducted by Bouchard and his colleagues on

identical twins reared apart (see Bouchard, Lykken,
McGue, Segal, & Tellegen, 1990). In a series of
studies, they identified the extent to which genetic
factors influence cognitive ability, personality, antisocial behavior, and psychopathology (e.g., Baker,
Jacobson, Raine, Lozano, & Bezdijan, 2007; Bouchard
et al., 1990; McGue & Bouchard, 1998). Research
using the identical-twins-reared-apart paradigm has
shown that, even controlling for job characteristics
and physical demands, approximately 30% of the
variance in intrinsic job satisfaction was a function of
genetic factors (Arvey, Bouchard, Segal, & Abraham,
1989). Arvey and his colleagues have subsequently
conducted several studies using this paradigm to
investigate leadership emergence, operationalized as
leadership role occupancy. Leadership role occupancy is a type of leadership emergence that reflects
whether people actually hold positions of leadership
within organizations and can also reflect an individuals position in the organizational hierarchy (Ilies,
Gerhardt, & Le, 2004).
In the first of these later studies, Arvey, Rotundo,
Johnson, Zhang, and McGue (2006) studied 110 identical twin pairs and 94 nonidentical twins, all males,
from the Minnesota Twin Registry. Leadership role
occupancy was indicated by the number of leadership
roles that each twin held within work-related professional associations and the hierarchical level of the
twins current leadership positions in their respective
organizations. The results support a genetic influence
on leadership role occupancy: At a descriptive level,
if one twin held leadership positions in professional
organizations and associations, the second was more
likely to do so as well. Their heritability analyses went
further to show that, after controlling for two personality variables (social potency and achievement),
30% of the variance in leadership role occupancy
was explained by genetic factors, with the remaining
variance, 70%, accounted for by environmental factors. In addition, the two personality variables that
predict leadership role occupancy (i.e., achievement
and social potency) were shown to share an important
genetic component (accounting for 24% and 42% of
the variance, respectively). Nonetheless, contrary to
the authors predictions, personality did not mediate
any genetic effects on role occupancy.
193

Barling, Christie, and Hoption

In a second study, Arvey, Zhang, Avolio, and

Krueger (2007) intended to extend earlier findings
with the inclusion of additional environmental predictors of leadership role occupancy, and they investigated 214 identical and 178 nonidentical female
twins from the Minnesota Twin Registry. They again
showed that heritability accounted for a significant
proportion of the variance in leadership role occupancy (in this case, 32% of the variance), and their
findings showed that work experience explained an
additional 17% of the total variance in leadership
role occupancy. A second environmental predictor,
early family experiences, did not significantly relate
to subsequent leadership role occupancy. However,
it is possible that their three-item measure of family
experience was not sufficiently comprehensive and
therefore could not be fairly compared to the effects
of work experiences on leadership role occupancy.
These findings should remind organizational practitioners (and leaders alike) that there are aspects of
leadership role occupancy that lie beyond their control; yet, the amount of variance accounted for by
environmental factors in leadership role occupancy
still provides organizations with substantial opportunities for involvement and potential influence.
Furthermore, although intriguing, understanding
more about genetic influences on leadership role
occupancy offers very little in terms of selecting
future leaders. Although these studies have begun to
isolate the heritability influence on leadership role
occupancy, it remains for future research to isolate
genetic influences on leadership behaviors.

Early Family Influences

The notion that early developmental influences
affect leadership emergence and behavior are neither
new nor implausible (see Bass, 1960; Karnes &
DIlio, 1989). Elder (1974) noted that children
whose fathers were unemployed during the Great
Depression had to deal with external challenges at a
young age. However, later in life, these children had
achieved more educationally (they did better at
school and were more likely to pursue higher education) and were more satisfied with their lives.
Similarly, Cox and Coopers (1989) retrospective
analysis demonstrated that a disproportionate number of successful British CEOs had experienced early
194

familial adversity (either loss of a parent or separation from parents). As a result of such adversity, they
learned to take responsibility for themselves from an
early age. Certainly the Cox and Cooper study justifies further research on early family influences on
subsequent leadership emergence and behaviors.
There has been interest in the specific nature of
the early environment that might influence subsequent leadership. Generally, studies have shown that
parents warmth and acceptance and their achievement demands predict predispositions to leadership
behaviors in 10th-grade adolescents and in boys aged
16.5 years and girls aged 15.6 years (Bronfenbrenner,
1961, and Klonsky, 1983, respectively). Similarly,
Towler (2005) showed that young adults (18
25 years of age) with fathers who exercised high levels of psychological control were less likely to exhibit
charismatic leadership. Hartman and Harris (1992)
also showed that college students who subsequently
held management positions modeled the leadership
of individuals whom they admired early in their
lives; most of these individuals were their parents.
A more recent study of 196 pairs of twins who
were part of the ongoing Minnesota Twin Family
Study (Avolio, Rotundo, & Walumbwa, 2009)
refines our understanding of the role of early experiences on later leadership role occupancy in several
important ways. First, Avolio et al. (2009) focused
on Baumrinds (1971) notion of authoritative parenting, which is a combination of psychological autonomy, acceptance, and supervision, reflects positive
parenting, and is not to be mistaken for authoritarian
parenting. Avolio et al. (2009) showed that authoritative parenting was associated with lower levels of
prehigh school childrens modest (delinquency and
family/school offenses) and serious (serious crime,
drug use) rule-breaking behavior. Second, modest
and serious rule-breaking behaviors predicted subsequent leadership role occupancy differently:
Specifically, modest rule-breaking behavior was positively, and serious rule-breaking behavior negatively,
associated with leadership role occupancy. Avolio
et al. (2009) suggested that early experiences with
rule breaking (a) enable parents to guide their children to learn from these experiences and (b) reflect
the same qualities necessary for leadership role occupancy. In contrast, just as early diagnoses of conduct

Leadership

problem disorders predict subsequent counterproductive behaviors in organizations (Roberts,

Harms, Caspi, & Moffitt, 2007), early contact with
the law and drug use are unlikely to result in positive
organizational outcomes.
Recent research conducted within the context of
sports teams provides additional information about
the early development of leadership. Zacharatos,
Barling, and Kelloway (2000) studied high school
sports teams and assessed whether perceptions of
parents behaviors influenced athletes leadership
behaviors during sports events. This study was especially interested in the extent to which parents modeled transformational leadership in the home. The
authors showed that adolescents perceptions of parents transformational parenting behaviors predicted
their own enactment of these behaviors as rated by
their coaches and peers. However, other findings
(e.g., Hartman & Harris, 1992; Harris, 1995; Tucker,
Turner, Barling, & McEvoy, 2008) suggested that
research needs to focus on multiple social influences
simultaneously.
In summary, leadership behaviors may be
learned during adolescence, the impressionable
years (Krosnick & Alwin, 1989), or between the
ages of 18 and 25, the period of emerging adulthood
(Arnett, 2000), and they can be linked to subsequent leader behavior, making this a fertile issue for
future research.

Executive and Leadership Development

Having discussed early influences on leader development, we now turn our attention to the question of
whether leadership can be taught. However, if we are
to answer this question and be consistent with our
evidence-based approach, there need to be rigorous
experimental evaluations of the effects of leadership
interventions using interpretable experimental or
quasi-experimental designs (Cook & Campbell,
1979). Without methodological rigor, unstable
conclusions are likely to be drawn. In an area in
which experimental rigor is not the norm, our literature search uncovered four published studies
that exemplify the importance of rigorous control,
inasmuch as they used control group designs, conventional statistical testing, random assignment of
participants to groups or treatments to groups, and/or

pretest/posttest measurement. As such, these

four studies used interpretable designs (Cook &
Campbell, 1979) and satisfied most of Terpstras
(1981) criteria. This is important if valid inferences
are to be drawn: An analysis of 52 articles on organizational interventions with varying levels of methodological sophistication showed that positive results
were more likely with weaker methodological designs,
whereas disconfirming evidence was more probable
with methodologically rigorous designs (indicated by
the use of census or representative samples, more than
30 participants, pretestposttest control group
designs with random assignment, and conventional
significance testing; Terpstra, 1981; Bass, 1983)
a situation that potentially characterizes current
leadership research (Hunter at al., 2007).
In the first experimental study of the effects of
transformational leadership training in a field setting,
Barling, Weber, and Kelloway (1996) randomly
assigned 9 branches of a regional bank to the experimental group and 11 to the wait-list control group.
The managers of the nine branches then received
1 full day of transformational leadership training
(Kelloway & Barling [2000] provide a more detailed
description of the group-based training). A day after
the training, leaders in the experimental group met
individually with a coach, who provided the leaders
with individual feedback based on a recently completed 360-degree exercise of transformational leadership. Based on this feedback, goals were set for
making improvements to their transformational leadership behaviors. Individual meetings between the
coach and each of the nine managers were held each
month for the next 3 months, both to review performance and to boost the transformational leadership
training.
Barling et al.s (1996) findings support the notion
that transformational leadership can be taught: First,
following the full training program, there were significant differences in transformational leadership
ratings (as reported by subordinates) between the
experimental and control groups. Second, levels of
organizational commitment were significantly higher
among subordinates who were led by leaders in the
experimental training than among subordinates
who were led by leaders in the control group, who
had not received any training. Third, banks run by
195

Barling, Christie, and Hoption

managers who had received transformational leadership training sold significantly more personal loans
and credit cardstwo indices of special relevance to
the banksin comparison to the banks run by managers in the control group. The generalizability of
this phenomenon is supported: Kelloway, Barling,
and Helleur (2000) showed that transformational
leadership could be taught to a sample of managers
of a health care facility.
Dvir, Eden, Avolio, and Shamir (2002) also
focused on the development of transformational
leadership in their study of infantry soldiers. Seven
individuals were randomly assigned to the transformational leadership condition, which included
5 days of training, consisting of role playing exercises,
simulations, video presentations, and group, peer,
and trainer feedback. Akin to the booster sessions
described in Barling et al.s (1996) study, the leaders
participated in a 3-hour session prior to a leadership
assignment to reinforce the lessons of leadership
training. Although the specific effects of transformational leadership in this context are discussed later
in this chapter, it is important to note here that the
training was effective: Both knowledge of transformational leadership theory and transformational
leadership behaviors rated by subordinates were
significantly enhanced by the training, whereas
there were no such changes in the control group.
Methodologically, it is also worth noting that
although the Barling et al. (1996), Dvir et al. (2002),
Kelloway et al. (2000), and Mullen and Kelloway
(2009) studies focused on fewer than 30 leaders, all
their evaluations were based on samples of more
than 30 individuals (employees) per group, thereby
fulfilling one of Terpstras (1981) criteria for a rigorous evaluation.
Most recently, following the earlier studies showing that transformational leadership behaviors can be
developed through training and that safety-specific
transformational leadership predicted employee
safety behaviors (Barling, Loughlin, & Kelloway,
2002), Mullen and Kelloway (2009) conducted an
experiment and showed that safety-specific transformational leadership could be developed in leaders.
Leaders attitudes toward safety were influenced by
the training, as were employees safety behaviors.
More intriguingly, Mullen and Kelloway also
196

included a group that received general transformational leadership training, and no significant effects
on safety emerged for this group, raising the question of how specific leadership training needs to be
in order to influence desired subordinate outcomes.
It also remains to be seen whether safety training by
itself would yield the same results as those from the
safety-specific transformational leadership training;
if not, then stronger support for the effectiveness of
transformational leadership would result.
Skarlicki and Latham (1996, 1997) directed their
training toward meeting the specific demands that
leaders in their sample faced, such as enhancing
citizenship behavior within a union. In these studies,
leaders (union shop stewards) in the experimental
group were provided with four 3-hour sessions
focused on training behaviors that influence follower
perceptions of procedural and interactional justice.
The results strongly supported the effectiveness of
the leadership training. Perceptions of union fairness
were higher among union members whose shop
stewards had attended the training. Evidence for a
downstream effect was also found in both studies:
Changes in the shop stewards behaviors resulted in
increases in rank-and-file members citizenship
behaviors on behalf of the union.
A possible opportunity lost in executive and leadership development deserves mention. Training in
organizations has long been studied, with robust
lessons learned from decades of research (Aguinis &
Kraiger, 2009; Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001). To
date, however, executive and leadership development
initiatives have largely failed to benefit from the literature on training. One consequence of this is that, as
is apparent from the prior discussion, the research on
executive and leadership development interventions
has not considered the types of issues considered central within training, such as needs assessment, different delivery modes, and the transfer of training.
Similarly, any potential indirect benefits of leadership
development (e.g., leader self-efficacy, commitment;
Tannenbaum, Mathieu, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers,
1991) have also been ignored. Parenthetically, the
training literature has perhaps not devoted sufficient
attention to leadership development. It is likely that
our understanding of executive and leadership development and the effectiveness of intervention initia-

Leadership

tives would be enhanced in the future by a greater

rapprochement between the two.
To summarize what is known about leadership
development, we not only considered the role of
genetic factors and early family influences but also
discussed several studies showing that leadership can
be taught. It is also imperative that we pause to
acknowledge that timing is important to leader development. Even when holding a leadership position,
leaders need time to adopt, learn, and demonstrate
leader behaviors (Day, Sin, & Chen, 2004), even after
relatively brief leadership development initiatives
(Barling et al., 1996; Mullen & Kelloway, 2009). How
long outcomes take to emerge, and how long training
effects last, are just two inquiries worthy of further
attention. The dearth of studies on the development
of leadership means that we have only scratched the
surface of the question, Are leaders born or made?
SOME CORRELATES OF LEADERSHIP
Other topics in leadership research have simultaneously attracted empirical attention. Research conducted on leadership over the past several decades
has tended to emphasize topics that were of substantial importance within the social sciences in general.
As a result, much is known about the intersections
of leadership and personality, gender, and ethnic
and cross-cultural differences.

Personality and Leadership

In the search for answers to the fundamental questions raised in thinking about leadership (e.g., why
some people emerge as leaders, why some people are
more effective than others in leadership roles), the
role of personality looms large. In this section, we
extend our earlier discussion of trait approaches to
leadership by discussing three ways in which personality pertains to leadership. First, we consider personality and leader emergence and effectiveness; second,
we explore the relationship between personality and
transformational leadership behaviors; and third, we
examine how follower personality influences perceptions and evaluations of leadership. (See also Vol. 2,
chap. 5, this handbook.)
Personality and general leadership. Two central
questions are traditionally asked to identify leader-

shipwho emerges as a leader and who is an effective leaderand research has focused on whether and
how personality influences both leadership emergence
and effectiveness. For example, individuals are more
likely to occupy leadership roles or be perceived as
leaders when they are achievement-oriented and
socially potent, meaning that they are hard-working
and thrive when they are in charge of others (Arvey
et al., 2006). Self-monitoring behaviors also predict
emergent leadership, particularly because high selfmonitors are more likely to exhibit task-oriented
behaviors in groups (Eby, Cader, & Noble, 2003).
Furthermore, results from two meta-analyses reviewing the accumulated empirical studies link personality
traits to leadership. First, Lord, de Vader, and Alliger
(1986) showed that leader intelligence (r = .52), masculinity-femininity (r = .34), and dominance (r = .17)
predicted perceptions of leadership (correlations corrected for unreliability of measures, sampling error,
and range restriction). Second, researchers Judge,
Bono, Ilies, and Gerhardt (2002) showed that the
Big Five model of personality (i.e., extraversion,
agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and
openness to experience) explained 28% and 15% of
the variance in leader emergence and leader effectiveness, respectively. These reviews suggest that personality trait perspectives of leadership emergence and
effectiveness offer considerable credibility.
In a refined analysis of the intersection between
personality and leadership, Judge et al.s (2002) quantitative review showed that of the Big Five personality
traits, openness to experience and extraversion were
significantly related (all correlations corrected for
average reliability of measures and measurement
error) to both leadership emergence (r = .24 and
r = .33, respectively) and effectiveness (r = .24 and
r = .24, respectively), while conscientiousness was
significantly related to leadership emergence (r = .33)
and neuroticism significantly related to leadership
effectiveness (r = .22). Openness to experience is
defined by creativity and risk-taking, which the
authors argue are relevant to both leader selection and
performance, and extraverts are social, energetic, and
dominant and therefore may more easily hold others
attention and have social influence (Judge et al.,
2002). Similarly, conscientious individuals characteristically demonstrate discipline in and diligence
197

Barling, Christie, and Hoption

toward their work (McCrae & John, 1992); it follows that conscientious personalities are likely to
be selected for leadership roles. Likewise, the relative insecurity and emotional instability of individuals high on neuroticism can limit their leadership
effectiveness.
Despite knowledge about average tendencies, little
is known about the processes through which leader
personality traits influence organizational outcomes.
Peterson, Smith, Martorana, and Owens (2003)
offered one explanation, showing that CEO personality affects team dynamics at the senior-management
level. For example, dynamics such as corrupt behaviors, risk-taking propensity, flexibility, and cohesiveness are affected by CEO personality and that each of
these dynamics relates to organizational performance.
Personality and transformational leadership behaviors. As the popularity of the transformational
leadership framework persists (see Table 7.1), extensive research has been invested into understanding
the connections between personality and transformational leadership behaviors. A meta-analysis analyzing 384 correlations from 26 samples (Bono & Judge,
2004) showed consistent relationships (correlations
corrected for measure reliability and measurement
error) between transformational leadership and
extraversion (r = .22) and neuroticism (r = .17).
Individuals who were outgoing and optimistic (i.e.,
extraverted personality) tended to display more idealized influence and inspirational motivation behaviors.
Conversely, those who were distressed, anxious, and
prone to insecurities (i.e., neurotic personality) were
unlikely to have the confidence needed to take on
transformational roles. There were, however, inconsistent findings between agreeableness and openness
to experience and the transformational leadership
behaviors, and the authors also reported a relatively
weak relationship between personality and transactional leadership, which was unexpected. The authors
did not predict a link between conscientiousness and
transformational leadership because, as they noted,
There is no particular reason to expect that conscientious individuals will exhibit vision, enthusiasm, or
creativity (Bono & Judge, 2004, p. 903).
Overall, the associations established in Bono
and Judges (2004) study were relatively modest
198

specifically, the Big Five explain twice as much variance in leadership emergence as in leader charisma,
and almost five times more in emergence than in
intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration. The leader development section of this chapter
highlights the malleability of leadership behaviors,
and thus leadership training may partially explain
this discrepancy (Bono & Judge, 2004); leadership
behaviors may be less stable than personality characteristics. Consequently, personality traits can tell us
more about who is likely to attain leadership positions than how individuals might lead once they
must fulfill those roles.
The Big Five are not the only characteristics associated with transformational behaviors. Proactive
personality (Crant & Bateman, 2000), histrionic personality (Khoo & Burch, 2008), secure attachment
style (Popper, Mayseless, & Castelnovo, 2000), and
positive affectivity (Rubin, Munz, & Bommer, 2005)
are also positive correlates of transformational leadership. Of particular interest in recent years is the
relationship between narcissism (defined as immense
self-love; Judge, LePine, & Rich, 2006) and transformational leadership. Judge et al.s study confirmed
that narcissistic personalities possess inflated selfevaluations as evidenced by their high self-ratings of
transformational leadership; importantly, Judge et al.s
study also demonstrated that followers rated narcissistic leaders lower on transformational leadership
than did the leaders themselves. These results highlight the role of perceptions of leadershipa topic
of growing interest. Accordingly, our discussion
now shifts to the topic of followers personalities and
how those personalities might determine followers
perceptions of leadership.
Follower personality and leadership. Any discussion of leadership and personality would be incomplete without accounting for the personality of
followers. A growing research interest suggests that
follower personality is integral to the leadership
process. For example, Bernerth, Armenakis, Feild,
Giles, and Walker (2007) related perceptions of LMX
to both follower and leader dimensions of the Big
Fiveleaders conscientiousness and agreeableness,
and followers conscientiousness, extraversion, openness, and neuroticism were associated with follower

Leadership

perceptions of LMX. Schyns and colleagues work

has been particularly helpful to our understanding of
follower personality and transformational leadership.
These authors have shown that followers high on
agreeableness (Schyns & Felfe, 2006), conscientiousness, neuroticism, honesty/humility (Schyns &
Sanders, 2007), and particularly, extraversion (Felfe
& Schyns, 2006) tend to perceive leaders as more
transformational. Furthermore, follower personality
has been shown to predict leader preferences:
Ehrhart and Klein (2001) showed that followers with
higher self-esteem and achievement orientation preferred charismatic leaders to noncharismatic leaders.
All of these studies suggest that follower personality influences perceptions of leadership; what remains
to be seen is whether or not follower personality
directly affects leadership behavior, which would
occur if leaders adjust their behaviors to better suit
the personalities of their followers. By contrast, leadership style may predict personality. Hofmann and
Jones (2005) showed that transformational leadership
predicted collective personality; collective-level agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, and openness to experience were all positively related to
transformational leadership and negatively related to
passive leadership across 68 collectives and 448
employees. One cannot rule out the possibility, however, that transformational leaders may select followers with distinct personality traits.
Our knowledge about the relationship between
personality and leadership is enhanced with refined
analyses, such as studies showing that personality is
more strongly linked with leader emergence than
behavior and that some personality dimensions (e.g.,
conscientiousness) might not be expected to predict
certain leadership behaviors (e.g., charisma; Bono &
Judge, 2004). Our knowledge also stands to be
enriched by answering questions about how followers personalities in tandem with leaders personalities influence the leadership process. Exploring these
issues will be of importance to future research.

Gender and Leadership

As perhaps the most apparent individual difference,
gender has captured the attention of scholars in

numerous domains, and leadership is no exception.

The topic of gender inequalities in prominent leadership roles has been actively debated in the public
domain and thoroughly explored by researchers. We
need look no further than the 2008 Democratic
Convention, which highlighted the role of gender in
leadership as Senator Hillary Clinton aimed for the
nomination to be the first female U.S. president. The
media raised numerous gender issues that apply to
organizational research, such as masculinity in leadership (e.g., Romano, 2007) and the interaction
between follower and leader gender, in frequently
questioning whether women would be more supportive of a female president than would men (Sullivan,
2008). These and other issues have fueled much
research in this area.
Many gender-based discussions in leadership
revolve around the question of whether men and
women are, or can be, equally effective leaders.
Certainly, no shortage of research exists asking this
question. In a quantitative review of the literature,
Eagly, Karau, and Makhijani (1995) found that
overall leadership effectiveness is not dependent on
leader gender, but men and women perform differentially better or worse under certain conditions. Male
leaders were more effective (effect sizes corrected for
unreliability) when their role was regarded as more
masculine ( = .19),1 when the majority of their
subordinates were male ( = .22), and in military settings (d = .42). In contrast, women performed better
as leaders in roles that were defined as more feminine (e.g., required interpersonal ability; = .20).
On aggregate, men were only marginally favored as
leaders in terms of leadership evaluations (e.g., in
56% of the studies comparing men to women, men
were rated more favorably than women, a percentage
not significantly different from the hypothesized
50%), yet when women used stereotypically masculine leadership styles (e.g., autocratic leadership;
d = .30), were in male-dominated positions (d = .09),
or were evaluated by men (d = .15), this imbalance
was much greater and in favor of men (all effect sizes
corrected for unreliability; Eagly et al., 1995).
Past research has also explored the predictive
value of gender on differential leadership behaviors.

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

199

Barling, Christie, and Hoption

Meta-analytic results have suggested that women have

a tendency to demonstrate more democratic and less
autocratic leadership behaviors (d = .27 corrected for
unreliability; Eagly & Johnson, 1990) and were perceived by followers as slightly more transformational
(d = .10) and less transactional (d = .12 for management by exception active, d = .27 for management by
exception passive; Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, & van
Engen, 2003) than their male counterparts. Yet, when
comparing senior-level leaders, men reported higher
levels of emotional expression (which pertains to
charismatic leadership [Conger, 1989]) than women.
Thus, although some evidence suggests that men and
women are perceived differently on various leadership
styles, extending this line of research will be necessary
if any strong conclusions are to be reached.
Despite the seemingly similar performance of
female and male leaders, men remain far more likely
to hold leadership positions in organizations, whereas
women are stereotyped to have a lower aptitude for
leadership (see Ryan & Haslam, 2007, for a review).
In leaderless groups, men emerge as the leader more
often than do women (e.g., for direct task leadership,
d = .37; Eagly & Karau, 1991). What is also notable is
that women may emerge as social leaders more so
than men (e.g., for direct social leadership, d = .12;
Eagly & Karau, 1991), and that gender role identity
may be a stronger predictor of emergent leadership
than biological sex (Kent & Moss, 1994). Although
some evidence suggests that the stereotype of women
being less effective leaders is beginning to change
(Duehr & Bono, 2006), gender inequality in management roles remains prevalent.
Numerous explanations for this disparity have
been offered. Women may hit glass ceilings that
prevent their rise to high-level management positions, whereas men ride glass escalators, quickly
advancing through the organizational hierarchy (e.g.,
Maume, 1999). More recently, Ryan and Haslam
(2007) proposed that as women begin to occupy
more prominent managerial roles, they are now more
likely to fall over the glass cliff. From this perspective, women are most often selected for high-level
leadership positions when those positions are associated with greater risk, thereby setting women up
to be unsuccessful. To illustrate, initial empirical
evidence shows that women are preferred leadership
200

candidates for projects that have failed in the past or

are projected to fail in the future (see Ryan & Haslam,
2007, for a review). Unfortunately, inequality begets
further inequality because such failure is easily used to
legitimize the women-as-less-effective-leaders stereotype. It is also possible that gender biases in organizations are learned or modeled. Phillips (2005) showed
that in a sample of Silicon Valley law firms, if the firm
founders had parent firms with few women in prominent leadership positions, then the firm founders
were less likely to place women in leadership roles in
the new firm, and vice versa.
Another reason for the scarcity of women in the
upper echelons of the organizational hierarchy may
be womens own motivation to fulfill those roles.
Eagly, Karau, Miner, and Johnsons (1994) metaanalysis of 51 studies concluded that although the
difference was slight, men were more motivated to
obtain management roles (d = .22 corrected for
unreliability). Stereotype threat may be one explanation for this finding. Stereotype threat occurs when
knowledge of a salient negative stereotype (e.g.,
women are not very good leaders) causes the stigmatized individual to fear confirming the stereotype,
creating anxiety and lowering expectations and/or
performance (Steele & Aronson, 1995). Indeed,
Davies, Spencer, and Steele (2005) showed that
stereotype threat limited womens aspirations to
become leaders. In two experiments, women were
exposed to gender stereotypical television commercials (subtly displaying traditional female stereotypes); in both studies, those women were unwilling
to take on leadership roles during a task. However,
removing the stereotype threat by telling the women
that there were no gender differences associated
with the task restored their motivation. Field evidence also suggests that women are less likely to
draw on these stereotypical beliefs about womens
leadership abilities when they are more frequently
exposed to women in counterstereotypical leadership positions (Dasgupta & Asgari, 2004). In light
of the growing number of women who are obtaining
prominent leadership roles in organizations (Ryan
& Haslam, 2007), it is possible that downward
biases on womens interest in leadership positions
and potential performance within leadership positions, may be minimized in the future.

Leadership

Topics in gender and leadership will no doubt

continue to attract the interest of management, organizational researchers, and society at large. Certainly,
although gender differences in leadership emergence
and behaviors have been identified, no consensus
has been reached as to why gender inequalities in
leadership prevail or how they should be addressed.
However, the changing demographics of the workforce suggest that these questions will be of increasing importance to organizations and to organizational
scholars. To extend our knowledge, and in light of
Kent and Mosss (1994) finding (noted earlier), comparing the predictive value of gender role identity to
biological sex on leader emergence is one promising
avenue for future inquiry.

Cross-Cultural Leadership and Ethnicity

With broad-based pressures for social equality and
the rush to globalization of the past two decades, it
comes as no surprise that researchers have turned
their attention to how leadership and culture,
nationality, and ethnicity intersect; among these,
culture has received the most attention. As defined
by Hofstede (2001), culture defines members of a
nation, region, or group in a way that determines
members core values. In his classic research,
Hofstede distinguished national cultures along the
dimensions of power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism/collectivism, masculinity/
femininity, and future orientation. Many organizational psychologists adopted Hofstedes framework
to understand intercultural relations in the workplace, and in this section we review some of that
research as it pertains to leadership.
To begin, we describe the Global Leadership
and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE)
project that has spearheaded a great deal of crosscultural research in the field. The GLOBE project
involves researchers from all over the world and
diverse cultures, all of whom seek to understand the
interplay between leadership and culture (House,
Javidan, Hanges, & Dorfman, 2002). Specifically, for
this 10-year research program, quantitative data were
collected from 17,000 managers in 951 organizations
across 62 different societies (House, 2004), a mammoth undertaking. As testaments to the projects
effectiveness, many research studies have used

GLOBE data, and their varied topics demonstrate the

broad spectrum of research questions spawned from
the intersection of leadership and culture. For example, Dickson, Resick, and Hanges (2006) used these
data to investigate different organizational climates
and organizationally shared leadership prototypes,
and Den Hartog and colleagues (1999) used GLOBE
data to study cultural-specific implicit leadership
theories.
Considerable attention has been given to the
cross-cultural validity of transformational leadership.
This attention should perhaps not be surprising after
Bass (1997) wrote in whatever the country, when
people think about leadership, their prototypes and
ideals are transformational (p. 135). In support of
this view, Singer and Singers (1990) studies of police
officers in New Zealand and Taiwanese employees
both paralleled results from American samples:
Transformational leadership was the preferred leadership style in comparison with transactional leadership. Furthermore, in that same study, the New
Zealand police officers displayed more transformational behaviors than transactional behaviors, and
the Taiwanese sample reported that transformational
leadership behaviors were displayed in their organizations. Together with studies discussed throughout
this chapter demonstrating the utility of transformational leadership in other countries (e.g., Canada,
Germany, Israel, Singapore, Tanzania, Turkey), credibility emerges for the notion that transformational
leadership applies to contexts outside of North
America.
As mentioned, Den Hartog and colleagues (1999)
tested whether there were certain leader characteristics that were universally endorsed. They found
that trustworthiness, fairness, honesty, and being
encouraging and positive were some of the universally endorsed characteristics of leaders, and they
further rationalized that these universally endorsed
characteristics reflected transformational/charismatic
leadership. However, the application of universal
negative leader attributes (e.g., being noncooperative
and nonexplicit) to transformational leadership was
not discussed, and yet there may be valuable connections. For example, as a consequence of encouraging
followers to think creatively, leaders may appear nonexplicit because they refrain from imposing their own
201

Barling, Christie, and Hoption

views on others. Den Hartog and colleagues are not

alone in supporting the universal appeal of transformational leadership; the numerous MLQ translations
(e.g., Felfe, 2006; Shao & Webber, 2006) are another
indicator of the cross-national popularity and utility
of transformational leadership.
Nonetheless, conceptually and empirically, there
are reasons to question the universality of transformational leadership theory. Specifically with regard
to its applicability in China, Shao and Webber (2006)
noted that leaders, even those who are open to
experience[,] will not exhibit intellectual stimulation
behavior, [because it] is incompatible with high
uncertainty-avoidance Chinese culture (p. 942).
Similarly, Fukushige and Spicer (2007) argued that
leadership preferences in Japan are distinct from preferences documented in the majority of the leadership
literature based on Western standards. In their study,
Japanese workers preferred contingent-reward
leadership over idealized influence and inspirational
motivation. The authors argued that inspirational
motivation elicited skepticism in Japanese followers,
and idealized influence demonstrated immodesty.
Insights such as these illuminate cultural influences
on leadership perceptions; what is seen as optimism
and confidence in one context might be interpreted as
insincerity and immodesty in another.
Not only have there been questions about the cultural boundaries of leader preferences, but also cultural influences on typical leadership behaviors have
spurned research. As Gerstner and Day (1994)
argued, The most characteristic traits of a leader in
one culture may be very different from prototypical
traits in another culture (p. 123). Their results
showed that typical traits of business leaders varied
across countries. For example, in India, the top three
typical traits of business leaders reported were industriousness, competitiveness, and determination. In
contrast, in France, determined, open-minded,
and informed described the top three typical
traits of business leaders. Furthermore, Rosette,
Leonardelli, and Phillips (2008) concluded that
leader race is critical to that leaders prototypicality
in the United States. More specifically, being White
was significantly associated with a leader role, and
the authors argued that one reason for this is the frequent exposure to White leaders in North America.
202

Collectively, these results have obvious implications

for leaders working in a national culture other than
their own, as leaders need to be constantly mindful
of local employees implicit expectations of their
leaders. These results also pertain to dynamics
within a national culture, because people from different cultural backgrounds, such as ethnicities, interact and therefore may hold different expectations of
each other.
Supporting the notion that within-nation cultural
differences also influence leadership and leadership
perceptions, Ah Chong and Thomas (1997) examined two ethnic groups in New Zealand, namely the
Pakeha (New Zealanders who are predominantly of
European descent) and Pacific Islanders, and their
findings showed the complexity of cultural differences in leadership. They found support for ethnic
differences in leadership perceptions and also a significant interaction between leader ethnicity and follower ethnicity: Pacific Islanders reported more
satisfaction with Pacific Islander leaders than with
Pakeha leaders.
These studies appear to question Basss (1997)
statement that people from all countries hold prototypes of leadership that are transformational.
Gertsner and Day (1994) showed that different cultures valued different leader traits, and Ah Chong
and Thomas (1997) demonstrated that, even within
the same national culture, preferences for leadership varied as a function of leader and follower
ethnicity. Such findings raise questions about the
universality or cross-national validity of transformational leadership.
Nonetheless, one explanation consistent with
Basss (1997) assertion regarding the universality of
transformational leadership is that, despite these
inter- and intracultural differences, ultimately the
characteristics preferred are associated with transformational leadership. For example, open-mindedness
(favored in France) is an expression of intellectual
stimulation, and determination (favored in India)
contributes to inspirational motivation. Moreover,
Bass had suggested that transformational leadership behaviors may be manifested differently across
cultures; for example, in Indonesia, boastfulness
contributes to inspirational motivation, whereas
boastfulness is eschewed in Japan, but this does

Leadership

not mean the Japanese do not display inspirational

motivation in other ways. Therefore, with regard to
Ah Chong and Thomass (1997) study, Pacific
Islanders may have preferred leaders of the same
ethnicity because they were more attuned to those
leaders displays of transformational leadership
than to those of Pakeha leaders. On the other hand,
accepting such a flexible conceptualization of transformational leadership would mean that a fair test of
its validity would be difficult. Clearly, more research
is needed that seeks to understand the differential
expression of leadership behaviors and the outcomes
of such behaviors, within and across cultures. At
present, research tends to focus more on demonstrating the cross-cultural equivalence of transformational leadership.
One problem inherent in all cross-cultural or
cross-national research is ensuring measurement
equivalence; measures of leader behavior are culturespecific because, as mentioned previously, behaviors
(e.g., boastfulness) can take on different meanings in
different cultures. Indeed, Ayman and Chemers
(1983) suggested that Euro-American measures of
leader behavior are not adequate to describe leader
behavior for Iranians. For example, they added new
items to the LBDQ such as is like a kind father to
reflect the paternalistic society of Iran, and this item
contributed to a new factor called Benevolent
Paternalism. Therefore, Ayman and Chemers concluded that the use of universal measures and constructs [is] likely to lead to uninterpretable research
findings (p. 341). This is a potentially limiting issue
because, in many cross-cultural or cross-national
studies, research instruments measuring leadership
are based on items developed in and for North
American cultures, hence the numerous translations of the MLQ noted earlier. In addition, measurement equivalence is necessary for research
focused on group differences, such as differences
across nations and ethnicities; if one set of measures means one thing to one group and something different to another group, a group mean
comparison may be tantamount to comparing
apples and spark plugs (Vandenberg & Lance,
2000, p. 9). Certainly, future research on leadership across cultures needs to be more sensitive to
this issue.

A second problem concerns the ability to generalize from cross-cultural studies over time. Thus,
although Hofstedes (2001) work has been fruitful
in guiding many cross-cultural studies of leadership,
the characteristics inherent in the national cultures
studied may change over time as a result, for example, of economic recessions and globalization (e.g.,
Ralston, Holt, Terpstra, & Kai-Cheng, 1997). Indeed,
Fukushige and Spicers (2007) qualitative research
suggested that Japanese work culture was in the
process of becoming a meritocracy. To account for
these and other changes, contemporary research
should take the time to reevaluate Hofstedes dimensions and ensure that the cultures studied are accurately depicted in their present-day state.
Finally, a third challenge to cross-culture leadership studies is complying with the various national
ethical standards for research. Aguinis and Henle
(2002) reviewed some of the studies which described
the differing ethical standards across countries and,
in particular, drew attention to Leach and Harbins
(1997) research. Although there are some universal
ethical standards (e.g., privacy, avoiding harm, remuneration for participations), there are also noticeable
differences, such as Chinas ethics codes being
most divergent from the American Psychological
Associations (APA) guidelines, as well as the United
States standards for sharing and duplicating data.
OUTCOMES OF LEADERSHIP
Jack Welch is a figurehead in contemporary business leadership (Amernic, Craig, & Tourish, 2007),
and this is largely due to performance outcomes
attributed to him. Byrne (1998) suggests that
if leadership is an art, then surely
Welch has proved himself a master
painter. Few have personified corporate
leadership more dramatically. Fewer
still have so consistently delivered on
the results of that leadership. For
17 years, while big companies and their
chieftains tumbled like dominoes in an
unforgiving global economy, Welch has
led GE to one revenue and earnings
record after another. (p. 90)
203

Barling, Christie, and Hoption

Undoubtedly, the long-standing interest in leadership in organizations derives from the widespread
belief that leaders like Jack Welch have the potential to affect important organizational outcomes.
Numerous studies have demonstrated the beneficial
consequences of positive leadership, and transformational leadership in particular, on follower attitudes and states and performance in organizations.
More recently, there has also been more interest into
leaderships effect on follower health, well-being,
and safety. In this section of the chapter, we review
these leadership outcomes, explore the mechanisms
through which leadership exerts its effects, and discuss the conditions that moderate these effects (see
Figure 7.1 for an overview). First, however, several
observations flowing from the tendency to attribute
so much success to one leader (e.g., Jack Welch)
require elaboration. First, the widespread myths
linking single leaders like Welch to the fate of organizational behemoths like GE, with its operations in
Prelaunch
Phase
IndividualLevel
Variables

GroupLevel
Variables

62 countries, derive not from sound empirical

research but rather from impressionistic, subjective
accounts. Second, such attributions ignore the fact
that the success (or failure) of any one organization
will have multiple determinants. The tendency to
attribute success to one leader is consistent with the
romance of leadership phenomenon (Meindl,
1998; Meindl, Ehrlich, & Dukerich, 1985), which
will be discussed in more detail later in this chapter.

Direct Outcomes
Numerous quantitative reviews have now established that transformational leadership relates to
various metrics of organizational effectiveness, such
as satisfaction with the leader, job satisfaction, motivation, follower perceptions of effective leadership,
leader performance, and group-organizational performance. Judge and Piccolo (2004) showed that across
87 studies, transformational leadership (r .44) was
positively related to these leadership effectiveness
Postlaunch
Phase

Launch
Phase
SocietalLevel
Variables

Sample Activities
Identification of opportunities
Initial opportunity evaluation
Assembly of required
resources
Gathering pertinent information

IndividualLevel
variables

GroupLevel
Variables

SocietalLevel
Variables

Sample Activities
Choosing legal form of new
venture
Obtaining intellectual property
protection
Developing initial business
model and strategies

Dependent Measures

Dependent Measures

Number and quality of

opportunities identified
Capital raised
Success in attracting highquality partners, employees

Time until first sale

Time until break-even
Time until first employee hired
Number, strength of patents
acquired

IndividualLevel
Variables

GroupLevel
Variables

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

Dependent Measures
Financial Measures (growth in
sales, earnings, number of
employees; value of initial
public offering)
Success in Obtaining Required
Resources
Attitudinal Measures (e.g.,
personal and life satisfaction)
Measures of Entrepreneurs
Personal Health and WellBeing

FIGURE 7.1. Outcomes, moderators, and mediators of leadership. LMX = leadermember exchange;
OCBs = organizational citizenship behaviors.
204

SocietalLevel
Variables

Leadership

criteria, as was contingent reward leadership (r .39).

These results are in sharp contrast to the validity
found for laissez-faire leadership (r .37), and the
less consistent correlations between managementby-exception and organizational outcomes (all
correlations corrected for unreliability of measures, measurement error, and sampling error).
Judge and Piccolos pattern of findings coincides
with earlier meta-analyses (e.g., Lowe, Kroeck, &
Sivasubramaniam, 1996). However, Judge and
Piccolo go beyond past research by showing that
transformational leadership relates to effectiveness
measures even after controlling for the effects of
transactional and laissez-faire leadership behaviors.
Generally, studies have considered leadership
effectiveness at the level of the follower (including
follower attitudes and performance), the group, and
the organization. Beyond those examined by Judge
and Piccolo (2004), a number of additional follower
attitudes show relationships with transformational
leadership, including trust in the leader (for a
review see Burke, Sims, Lazzara, & Salas, 2007),
commitment to the organization (e.g., Barling,
Weber, & Kelloway, 1996), responsiveness to
change initiatives (Herold, Fedor, Caldwell, & Liu,
2008), turnover intentions (e.g., Bycio et al., 1995),
psychological safety (Detert & Burris, 2007), cynicism (Bommer, Rich, & Rubin, 2005), and identification with the leader, group, and organization
(e.g., Epitropaki & Martin, 2005a; Kark, Shamir, &
Chen, 2003).
There is also support for the influence of transformational leadership and charisma on follower
performance. For instance, in an experiment using a
trained actor to elicit charismatic leader behaviors,
Kirkpatrick and Locke (1996) found that charisma
positively affected follower task performance.
Consistent with the falling dominoes analogy
(e.g., Avolio, 1999b), Dvir et al.s (2002) findings
also suggest that leadership can have indirect performance effects, such that the transformational leadership of higher-level leaders positively influenced the
performance of followers who were not their direct
reports. Moreover, Bono and Anderson (2005)
showed that transformational leaders and their followers played more central roles in advice and influence networks.

Transformational leadership exerts influence on

more discretionary forms of follower performance as
well. Organizational citizenship behaviors (i.e., positive organizational behaviors that go beyond the formal requirements of ones job) are more common
among followers of a transformational leader (e.g.,
Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006). By enhancing intrinsic
motivation, sparking intellectual stimulation, and
energizing followers, transformational leadership
can also foster follower creativity and ingenuity
(e.g., Shin & Zhou, 2003). Finally, transformational
leadership has been related to the development of
followers in terms of follower morality, motivation,
and empowerment (Dvir et al., 2002). As described
earlier, Dvir et al.s study of leader development
indicated that leaders who received transformational
leadership training had a stronger influence on follower development, particularly on follower selfefficacy and collective orientation.
Evidence for the relationship between leadership
and performance extends beyond the individual follower to group-level outcomes, as was the case in the
Barling et al. (1996) study that found a significant
relationship between transformational leadership
training and sales performance in bank branches.
Lim and Ployhart (2004) focused specifically on
transformational leadership and performance in a
team setting and also found a significant positive
effect. Moreover, Bass, Avolio, Jung, and Berson
(2003) found a strong relationship between transactional leadership and unit performance in army platoons, and a positive relationship emerged between
empowering leader behaviors and team performance
in Srivastava, Bartol, and Lockes (2006) study of
management teams.
Less understood is the relationship between
CEO charisma and transformational leadership and
firm-level performance, possibly because obtaining
leadership ratings of CEOs and top-level managers is
difficult. Of the studies that investigated the effects
of CEO leadership on firm financial performance,
findings were inconclusive (see Agle, Nagarajan,
Sonnenfeld, & Srinivasan, 2006, for a summary).
Agle et al.s recent study found little support for the
relationship between CEO charisma and firm financial performance, even in uncertain market conditions. Instead, their findings are more consistent
205

Barling, Christie, and Hoption

with a romance of leadership approach; CEOs

included in the study were rated as more charismatic when prior firm performance was stronger,
but CEO charisma did not predict firm performance
prospectively. With mixed support, Waldman,
Ramrez, House, and Puranam (2001) reported an
important moderating effect: CEO charisma predicted firm financial performance under conditions
of market uncertainty, when CEO discretion is
heightened, thereby increasing the potential for
CEO leadership to have an effect. Ling, Simsek,
Lubatkin and Veigas (2008) findings suggest that
focusing on the initial effects of CEOs transformational leadership on top management teams may be
important in linking CEO leadership and financial
outcomes.
To summarize, ample evidence suggests that
leadership relates to both follower perceptions of
leader effectiveness and to individual-, group-, and
in some cases, firm-level performance criteria. We
now shift our attention away from outcomes that
evaluate leadership effectiveness based on its relation to performance and toward a focus on
employee safety and well-being as metrics of effectual leadership.
Leaders have the opportunity to embrace and
improve the well-being of their followers by promoting safe working practices. For example, high-quality
leaderfollower relationships have been related to
safety communication and commitment, both of
which improve safety behaviors (Hofmann &
Morgeson, 1999). In another example, Barling et al.
(2002) developed a safety-specific measure of transformational leadership, and they found that employees of safety-specific transformational leaders were
more conscious of safety concerns and perceived a
stronger climate of safety in the organization. In turn,
higher safety consciousness and climate were associated with fewer safety-related incidents and occupational injuries. This model was later extended to
contrast transformational leadership with passive
leadership styles (Kelloway, Mullen, & Francis,
2006). Results confirmed that transformational leaders can effectively communicate safety beliefs and
raise safety consciousness and climate, yet safetyspecific passive leadership can be detrimental in that
it is negatively related to safety awareness.
206

Outside of a safety context, there is a growing

interest in the relationship between leadership and
followers psychological well-being. Effective leadership may reduce workplace stressors, while enhancing followers moods and experiences. Epitropaki
and Martin (2005a) found a direct link between
high-quality leaderfollower relationships and follower well-being, and van Dierendonck, Haynes,
Borrill, and Stride (2004) related leadership to followers work-related and general well-being across
four time periods. Support for the transformational
and charismatic leadership framework has also associated this leadership style with follower well-being,
in part through mood contagion. Leader charisma is
associated with more positive and less negative affect
in followers (e.g., Cherulnik, Donley, Wiewel, &
Miller, 2001; Erez, Misangyi, Johnson, LePine, &
Halverson, 2008). Transformational leaders also contribute to followers psychological well-being by
helping them find meaning in their work (Arnold,
Turner, Barling, Kelloway, & McKee, 2007). These
findings suggest that meaningful work stimulates
intrinsic reasons for working and, as a result, promotes resiliency in the face of challenges, as well as
higher quality of life.
Even in its infancy, this area of leadership studies
presents compelling evidence for the effect of leadership not only on followers attitudes and behaviors
but also on their psychological health. Before shifting our attention toward mediating effects, it is
important to note that these outcomes of leadership
are not necessarily static. For example, Shao and
Webber (2006) argued that in the long run, intellectual stimulation may produce desirable effects.
Yet, in the short run, leaders who continually urge
followers to search for new and better methods of
doing things may create ambiguity, conflict, or other
forms of stress in the minds of followers (p. 937). It
would be imprudent, then, to assume that either
positive or negative effects will surface immediately
or be enduring.

Mediating Effects: Explaining How

Leadership Affects Outcomes
As reviewed, much is known about the outcomes of
leadership, but less is known about how and why
these effects occur. In response, an emergent body of

Leadership

literature explores the various means through which

leadership exerts its influence. In general, three categories of mediators have been proposed: those relating to follower perceptions of the leader, of
themselves, and of the job.
Demonstrative of the first category of mediators,
we know that there is a relationship between transformational leadership and followers positive perceptions of their leaders. Arguably, these followers
feel a greater sense of commitment to the leader
as a result of those positive perceptions and therefore demonstrate a willingness to exert effort that
ultimately benefits an organization. Wang, Law,
Hackett, Wang, and Chen (2005) argued further that
followers are more likely to reciprocate transformational behaviors as a mechanism of social exchange.
They sampled 162 leaderfollower dyads and found
that followers perceptions of high-quality LMX
(e.g., mutual respect and consideration) mediated
the relationship between transformational leadership
and follower performance.
Supporting the notion that followers perceptions
of their leaders attributes mediate leader effectiveness are studies that show a relationship between
perceived trust in the leader (e.g., Dirks, 2000;
Jung & Avolio, 1999; Pillai, Schriesheim, & Williams,
1999), leader fairness (for a review, see van
Knippenberg, De Cremer, & van Knippenberg,
2007), and identification with the leader (e.g., Kark
et al., 2003) and desired follower outcomes. For
example, transformational leaders empower their
followers, invite follower contributions to decisionmaking, are respectful of followers, and are willing
to forgo their own interests for the good of the
group. As a result, followers of transformational
leaders are more likely to trust that their leader
will act in good faith and will treat them fairly.
Pillai et al. illustrated these relationships in a path
model, showing that followers of transformational
leaders perceived greater procedural justice, which
predicted higher trust in the leader and subsequent
organizational citizenship behaviors on the part of
the follower. In contrast, followers who do not trust
their leader are unlikely to accept the leaders
vision or commit themselves on the leaders behalf
(Jung & Avolio, 2000). Farmer and Aguinis (2005)
echoed these ideas in a conceptual model relating

follower perceptions of leader power to various follower outcomes.

Followers may also be more likely to resist a
leaders vision when they perceive the leaders values
to be inconsistent with their own. Jung and Avolio
(2000) suggested that through communication and
inspirational motivation, transformational leaders
transmit their collective-focused values to followers;
thus, followers of transformational leaders will be
more likely to internalize the leaders mission, aligning their own values with those of the leader. These
authors show that transformational leadership is positively related to value congruence between leaders
and followers and that value congruence mediates
the relationship between transformational leadership
and follower performance. Likewise, Kark et al.
(2003) found that transformational leadership was
positively related to identification with the leader
and with the group overall. However, the nature of
the identification with the leader was critical:
Personalized identification with the leader mediated
the relationship between transformational leadership
and follower dependence on the leader, whereas
socialized identification with the work group mediated the relationship between transformational
leadership and follower empowerment. Thus, further research is needed to fully understand the conditions under which transformational leadership is
related to follower development and when followers
may become overly reliant on the leader for guidance or motivation.
The second category of mediators prominent in
the leadership literature considers how leaders alter
follower or group internal states. Of particular
interest has been empowerment and efficacy at the
individual and group levels. To illustrate, transformational leaders show intellectual stimulation,
encouraging followers to voice their concerns and to
speak up, by creating an environment of psychological safety (Detert & Burris, 2007). In this way,
followers are empowered by transformational leaders who stimulate their interest and involve them in
organizational visions. Consequently, psychological
empowerment plays a role in mediating the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational commitment (Avolio, Zhu, Koh, & Bhatia,
2004) as well as LMX and follower performance
207

Barling, Christie, and Hoption

(Chen, Kirkman, Kanfer, Allen, & Rosen, 2007).

Similar findings have been reported at the team
level: Team empowerment mediates the effects of
leadership climate on team performance (Chen
et al., 2007).
Another example of this second category of
mediators is intrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and sports performance (e.g.,
Charbonneau, Barling, & Kelloway, 2001).
Moreover, empowering leadership behaviors also
enhance intrinsic motivation and have been linked
to knowledge sharing within teams (Srivastava,
Bartol, & Locke, 2006). Srivastava et al. supported
the presence of a second mediator in their study:
team efficacy. Indeed, efficacy and empowerment
are intimately intertwined (e.g., Chen et al., 2007;
Spreitzer, 1995). Giving followers opportunities to
share their ideas and voice their opinions is just one
way in which leaders can influence followers confidence in their own abilities, and this may be the
route through which empowering leadership garners such positive outcomes (e.g., Srivastava et al.,
2006.). The relationship between follower and
group efficacy and transformational leadership is
stimulated through transformational leaders individualized mentorship and coaching, engagement of
followers in the task and organizational goals, and
expressions of confidence in followers abilities to
achieve group goals (Schaubroeck, Lam, & Cha,
2007). Accordingly, group efficacy has been shown
to mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and team performance (Bass et al.,
2003; Schaubroeck et al., 2007.).
The final category of mediating mechanisms used
to explain the positive effects of leadership relate to
the way in which followers perceive their jobs. As
suggested previously, transformational leaders can
influence the meaningfulness that followers find in
their jobs (Arnold et al., 2007). Piccolo and Colquitt
(2007) called this phenomenon the management of
meaning and showed that followers of transformational leaders find more meaning in their work as
measured by core job characteristics: task significance, autonomy, task variety, task identity, and
feedback. In their study, more meaningful work
stimulated intrinsic sources of motivation and goal
208

commitment, which were directly related to organizational citizenship behaviors and task performance.
Similar empirical evidence suggests that followers
self-concordance, or the extent to which activities
such as job-related tasks or goals express individuals authentic interests or values, partially mediates
the relationship between transformational leadership and follower attitudes (Bono & Judge, 2003,
p. 556). Future research would benefit from further
explaining the ways through which leadership can
influence follower perceptions of meaningful work
and, correspondingly, their attitudes, performance,
and well-being.

Moderating Effects: Isolating the

Boundary Conditions of
Leadership Effectiveness
One question that is frequently asked is whether
leadership matters; Nye (2008) refined this popular
question, asking not just whether leadership matters, but when it mattersa question of theoretical
and practical importance. Research has identified
factors relating to the follower, group, leader
follower relationship, and context that moderate
the relationship between leadership and organizational outcomes. Next we consider these influences
in greater depth and point to areas that warrant
future research.
At the follower level, leadership effectiveness may
be conditional on followers levels of positive and
negative affect. Epitropaki and Martin (2005a)
showed that the positive effects of transformational
leadership on follower identification with the organization were dependent on the followers positive and
negative affect. Followers with high positive affect
and low negative affect reported more favorable
impressions of their work, and, as a result of such a
positive outlook, these followers were more likely to
identify with their organization. The reverse was true
for individuals with low positive affect and high
negative affect. However, in this latter circumstance,
transformational leaders had a relatively greater
impact on followers identification, perhaps through
the management of meaning. These results suggest
that the followers most likely to benefit from transformational leadership are those who need leadership the most.

Leadership

This interpretation is consistent with the findings

of Whittington, Goodwin, and Murray (2004). In
their study, transformational leadership had a
stronger effect on follower affective commitment
and performance when followers faced difficult or
challenging goals and thus needed guidance.
Conversely, transformational leadership exerted less
influence on followers when job enrichment was
high (Whittington et al., 2004.). Similar moderated
effects were also apparent at the team level where
inclusion of a team leader was more relevant to
information gathering and performance for teams
with an external locus of control than for those
with an internal locus of control (Boone, van
Olffen, & Van Witteloostuijn, 2005). Leadership is
more instrumental to external teams who lack team
potency and require greater direction and motivation to be successful.
Leadership effectiveness is contingent on aspects
of the leaderfollower relationship. Piccolo and
Colquitt (2006) proposed that followers are more
open to and accepting of transformational leadership under conditions of higher quality LMX, and
they found that transformational leadership related
more strongly to follower performance and citizenship behaviors under these circumstances. Positive
leadership behaviors may also be more successful
when leaders and followers share a sense of common identity or in situations that highlight their
shared identity (Ellemers, de Gilder, & Haslam,
2004). Despite these propositions, conceptualizations of high-quality leaderfollower relationships
as both mediators (as described in the previous section) and moderators of the leadership process
remain to be reconciled.
Research on characteristics of leaderfollower
relationships as moderators of leader effectiveness
has also considered proximal relationships between
leaders and followers, but the findings warrant
cautious interpretation. For example, Howell and
Hall-Merenda (1999) showed that transformational
leadership predicted follower performance over a
1-year period for followers within close physical
proximity of the leader but did not have an effect
when followers were physically distant. To the
contrary, others have argued that structural distance between leaders and followers (i.e., when

leaders have an indirect relationship with followers

through a middle leader) may enhance the relationship between transformational leadership and
both performance and commitment (e.g., Avolio
et al., 2004; Dvir et al., 2002). To add to the complexity, structural and physical distances are typically highly correlated (Avolio et al., 2004). Perhaps
acknowledging that leader hierarchical level differentially predicts effectiveness can shed light on
this contradiction. Quantitative reviews of the
transformational and charismatic leadership literatures have suggested that transformational leaders
higher in the organizational hierarchy are somewhat more effective than those at lower levels
(Fuller, Patterson, Hester, & Stringer, 1996; Judge
& Piccolo, 2004). Thus, future research will be necessary to disentangle the relative influences of physical distance, structural distance, and hierarchical
level on leader effectiveness.
As mentioned, there are suggestions that culture
can direct the effectiveness of leadership (Shamir &
Howell, 1999). For instance, experimental evidence
suggests that transactional leaders, who focus on
self-directed, short-term goals, elicited stronger performance from individualists (Jung & Avolio, 1999).
Conversely, collectivists may perform better when
their leader is transformational because such leaders
focus on the goals of the group and a shared purpose. Based on a cross-national study of financial services teams, Schaubroeck et al. (2007) found results
at the team level that coincide with those of Jung and
Avolios (1999) experiment: Transformational leadership affected team potency more for groups with
shared collectivist values. In addition, shared power
distance values also enhanced the effects of transformational leadership on team potency. Individuals
with strong power distance values have a greater
respect for leaders and thus are more likely to internalize a transformational leaders confidence in the
teams capabilities. However, evidence for the moderating effects of culture extends beyond followers values to the leaders values as well. Spreitzer, Perttula,
and Xin (2005), for example, showed that leaders
traditional cultural values moderated the relationship between transformational leadership and effectiveness. Taken together, these studies suggest that
culture is a significant, yet perhaps underrepresented
209

Barling, Christie, and Hoption

and under-explored, component of the leadership

process.
The final category of moderators that has garnered empirical support relates to organizational
context. Shamir and Howell (1999) proposed that
charismatic leadership emerges more often and has
stronger effects in weak psychological situations,
which are characterized by ambiguity, whereas in
strong psychological situations, which constrict
behavior, the reverse is true. In contrast is Lim and
Ployharts (2004) exploration of transformational
leadership in typical and maximum contexts. A maximum context consists of three components: (a) followers are aware that their performance is under
evaluation, (b) followers are committed to exerting
maximum effort, and (c) the task is short in duration
(e.g., SWAT teams). Lim and Ployhart argued that
the potential of transformational leaders is amplified
in maximum contexts (which should seemingly be
stronger situations) and showed that the relationship between transformational leadership and performance is weaker in typical performance contexts as
compared with these maximum contexts.
Another example of a contextual moderator of
leadership stems from Lowe et al.s (1996) metaanalytic review, which concluded that charisma was
significantly more highly correlated with effectiveness in public (r = .74) versus private (r = .59) organizations (correlations corrected for unreliability of
measures, measurement error, and sampling error).
One possible reason for Lowe et al.s finding is that
public-sector organizations tend to be more consultative than their private-sector counterparts, which
are more hierarchical in nature.
Sizeable proportions of the employed workforce
in virtually all countries are employed within the
public sector, making the study of leadership in this
context more than a mere passing curiosity. Also
motivating the need for this focus is the frequent
stereotype of differences in leadership and motivation between the private- and public-sector environments (e.g., leadership is better in the private
sector). Instead of denigrating leadership within
public-sector organizations, a more constructive
approach might be to learn from them. In this case,
given the demonstrated effectiveness of transformational leadership, one lesson might be that changing
210

to a more consultative and less hierarchical nature

might help private-sector organizations enhance
their transformational leaders effectiveness.
The foregoing discussion of contextual moderators suggests that the results of charismatic and
transformational leadership in one context may be
different in another context. Along the same lines,
Judge and Piccolo (2004) showed that transformational leadership validities differed between organizational and military contexts. This result is
important because many leadership studies take
place in military contexts, and their findings have
been used in support of obtaining similar results in
nonmilitary organizations. Therefore, a more
detailed discussion of these studies and their findings is warranted.
First and foremost, unlike business or similar
organizational contexts, military contexts provide an
opportunity to understand the nature, development,
and consequences of leadership in life-and-death situations. Second, the fact that military personnel who
are often engaged in highly dangerous work could be
volunteers, regular employees, or involuntarily conscripted provides a rich context in which to test the
intersection between leadership effectiveness and follower characteristics. Third, given the norms and
prescriptive behavior in the military, leadership
behaviors may be more evident in individuals who
hold relatively high status in the chain of command
(Kane, Tremble, & Trueman, 2000).
Two studies based in a military context provide
useful insights. First, Bass et al. (2003) studied the
longitudinal effects of transformational leadership in
four different brigades undergoing tactical mission
exercises in the United States. Like others, they
showed that the effects of transformational leadership and contingent reward on platoon performance
were not necessarily direct; they were partially mediated by the direct effects of leadership on platoon
cohesion and potency. In addition, their results
revealed that passive or laissez-faire leadership style
exerted negative effects on group cohesion, potency,
and performance. Second, the implications of Dvir
et al.s (2002) findings for the development of leadership, discussed earlier in this chapter, were that
cadets performance (e.g., knowledge and use of light
weapons and physical performance on an obstacle

Leadership

course) was highest in the transformational leadership group.

Continuing the discussion on moderators of
leadership, an understanding of the labor-union
context, in which union officials exercise little
formal power and democracy is integral to union
dynamics, would be instructive. Unions differ in
many ways from private- and public-sector organizations. Specifically, although membership is
sometimes mandatory, participation is voluntary.
Leadership occurs at all levels of organizationsand
unions are no exception; a great deal of research has
focused on the lowest levels of unions (i.e., on shop
stewards; Barling et al., 2002). In addition, because
obtaining participation from members is critical for
union survival and success, understanding leadership in unions is both a means to an end and an end
in itself. Beginning in the 1950s, leadership research
emphasized typologies of union leaders behavior.
Gouldner (1947) first differentiated between union
leaders who were focused on bread-and-butter
issues and those who were governed by more progressive priorities. Batstone, Boraston, and Frenkel
(1977) extended this model, suggesting four types
of union leaders, namely, the leader, cowboy, nascent
leader, and populist leader.
Later, researchers applied existing leadership theories to the unionized context. Consistent with LMX
theory, McClane (1991) initially showed the importance of the interaction between union leaders and
their members and identified some critical personality factors that moderated this relationship. However,
most of the subsequent research has focused on
transformational leadership, showing that transformational leadership influences union attitudes and
union participation (e.g., Catano, Pond, & Kelloway,
2001; Fullagar, McCoy, & Shull, 1992; Kelloway
& Barling, 1993). Nonetheless, given the democratic nature of unions, it remains for research to
investigate directly just how the unionized context
might moderate the effects of transformational
leadership.
In summary, although a great deal of knowledge
has emerged from studying the outcomes of leadership, further conceptual and empirical attention is
needed to fully appreciate the leadership process,
particularly in terms of its mechanisms and contin-

gencies. We hope that this relatively brief review

stimulates thought toward such endeavors.
EXPLORING THE ROLE OF FOLLOWERS
IN LEADERSHIP
So far, we have focused our attention exclusively on
leaders and leadership. However, any act of leadership requires the active involvement of, and agreement by, followers. In this next section, we reverse
this bias by introducing followers into our understanding of leadership. There are many reasons why
followers look to their leaders, one of which is to help
them to make sense of organizational life (Pfeffer,
1977). To understand how followers engage in sensemaking, we turn our discussion to topics involving
the social construction of leadership, focusing on two
frameworks: the romance of leadership (Meindl
et al., 1985) and implicit leadership theories (ILTs;
Epitropaki & Martin, 2005b). We then consider the
social identity analysis of leadership, which relates
both leader and follower properties to the emergence
and effectiveness of leadership. All of these frameworks help to accomplish our goal of shifting the discussion away from leader behaviors and traits and
toward followers perceptions of those behaviors and
traits. Accordingly, this section raises some critical
questions for future research on followership.
As mentioned earlier in this chapter, an emphasis
on leader behaviorsor what might appropriately be
referred to as a leader-centric focusdominates leadership studies. Consequently, we know much about
leader behaviors and how they are associated with
follower performance and satisfaction; in contrast,
much less is known about followers perceptions of
leader behaviors and how they might be influenced,
or be a function of, leaders behaviors. Consistent
with a follower-centric focus, in this section we ask
how followers perceive and understand leadership
behaviors.

The Romance of Leadership

Perhaps nowhere might the concept of the romance
of leadership be better understood than during times
of abject crises. During crises, leadership almost
always induces follower perceptions of leader
charisma; where recovery from the crisis is critical
211

Barling, Christie, and Hoption

to the future well-being of followers, such recovery

is often attributed to that leaders capabilities (Pillai,
1996; Pillai & Meindl, 1998).
This process was evident in Rudi Giulianis popularity after the attacks of September 11: He had
created ardent critics and foes along the way, but all
were silenced by the stern-jawed competence that
characterized the outgoing mayors statesmanlike
response to the worst tragedy in his citys history
(Fiorina, 2001, p. 8). Fiorinas observation illustrates how a successful response to a grave crisis can
overwrite past critics and foes, with much more
favorable leadership perceptions taking their place.
Similarly, Bligh, Kohles, and Meindl (2004) wrote of
President Bush,
Prior to the events of 9/11, President
George W. Bush was generally not seen
as a strong, charismatic leader that people would place their faith in during
times of crisis or external threat. . . .
the media often characterized the
President as oratorically challenged. . . .
Seemingly overnight, however,
Americans embraced the President and
his leadership. Before the terrorist
attacks, 51% of Americans approved of
Bushs job performance, whereas after
the attacks, his approval ratings jumped
to 86%. (p. 213)
In both of these cases, one plausible explanation is
that followers are retrospectively romanticizing the
role that their leaders played in their recovery,
attributing their safety and well-being to the perceived extraordinary qualities and behaviors of their
leaders.
The romance of leadership notion has spurred
many research questions that differ significantly
from the traditional leader-centric paradigm. To
illustrate: In the traditional focus, ratings of leadership (e.g., to what degree the leader exudes power
and confidence) are interpreted as actual accounts
of leader behavior; consistent with the romance of
leadership notion, ratings are more likely to be seen
as information about followers constructions of
leadership (Meindl, 1995). Moreover, after gathering
leader ratings from different followers, researchers
212

typically aggregate those ratings. Aggregation of the

ratings disregards the uniqueness of each followers
construction of leadership. Inspired by the romance
of leadership notion, researchers would seek to
explain why there are differences or similarities in
followers ratings.
Assuming a romance of leadership perspective
raises several issues. First, formal leadership status,
rank, and position in the organization assume less
importance. When followers constructions of leadership are critical to a comprehensive understanding
of leadership, the importance of informal leaders
(e.g., peer leaders) who attract followers attention
and commitment increases (e.g., Loughead &
Hardy, 2005; Neubert, 1999), even in the presence
of a formal leader (e.g., Manz & Sims, 1987).
Evidently, for followers, leadership means more
than official status or ranking in an organization.
Second, although in theory we are all sensemakers, some individuals are more prone to romanticizing leadership than others (Felfe, 2005), hence
the development and usefulness of the Romance of
Leadership Scale (RLS; Meindl, 1998). The RLS suggests how leader ratings could be over- or underestimated: Individuals who score high on the RLS
tend to overestimate leader competencies, whereas
those low on the RLS tend to underestimate leaders
(Felfe & Petersen, 2007). These findings should
prompt researchers and practitioners to interpret
follower ratings of leadership cautiously.
Third, leaders also have romantic notions about
their own leadership style and may encourage the
romance of their leadership so as to garner follower
support and approval (Gray & Densten, 2007).
One way of romanticizing ones own leadership is
to deemphasize ones faults, which may be done
unconsciously (e.g., leaders deceive themselves into
believing their own rhetoric) or consciously (e.g.,
they deliberately manage a favorable impression;
Gray & Densten).
Fourth, the romance of leadership does not
imply only positive constructions of leadership.
If a positive halo exists, people may see
even obviously poor performance in a
somewhat positive light if they attribute
it to the efforts and activities of top

Leadership

management. But it is more likely that

the halo is negative when people evaluate poor performancewhen leadership appears to have produced poor
outcomes, observers may view those
outcomes in an exaggeratedly negative
way. (Meindl & Ehrlich, 1987, p. 105)
In other words, followers can attribute both organizational successes and organizational failures to leaders during sense-making (e.g., Bligh, Kohles, Pearce,
Justin, & Stovall, 2007; Boeker, 1992; Cameron,
Kim, & Whetten, 1987). Therefore, what is being
romanticized is the power of leaders (to bring about
success or failure), not the leaders themselves.

Implicit Leadership Theories

Implicit leadership theory (ILT) originates from
leadership categorization theory, which suggests that
expectations and beliefs about the ideal leader
serve as standards against which we compare our
actual leaders (Lord & Maher, 1993). ILT research
has investigated the distinctions among expectations
and beliefs about ideal leaders, leaders in general, effective leaders, supervisors, and leaders
worthy of influence (e.g., Kenney, Schwartz-Kenney,
& Blascovich, 1996; Offermann, Kennedy, & Wirtz,
1994). Much of the initial research was conducted in
laboratories, but more recent research has applied
ILT to the field. Offermann et al. conducted a series
of studies using university students and employed
adults. The results of these studies yielded eight
dimensions that were frequently used to describe
leaders: sensitivity, dedication, tyranny, charisma,
attractiveness, masculinity, intelligence, and
strength. Ever since these dimensions were identified, subsequent research has asked questions such
as What are the implications for leaders, leadership,
and organizations of matching or not matching a followers implicit notions of leadership with specific
leaders? and Where do these ILTs originate?
To answer these and other questions, Epitropaki
and Martin (2005b) investigated the extent to which
followers actual leaders matched those followers
ILTs and whether the degree of matching significantly predicted relationship quality, work attitudes,
and well-being. As predicted, closer matches were

significantly related to ratings of leaderfollower

relationship quality, and relationship quality related
to attitudes (e.g., job satisfaction) and well-being.
Additionally, Epitropaki and Martin (2005a) collected data a year later from the same participants and
used cross-lagged modeling analyses to test for the
feedback loop originally proposed by Lord and Maher
(1993). If a feedback loop exists, then individuals
should update their ILTs when they are confronted
with contrary evidence. A research question that
tests the feedback loop could be, What happens to
the structure of ones ILTs if the characteristic male is
part of the ILTs, and yet ones male leader fails at a
business venture? Epitropaki and Martin (2005a)
sought to better understand whether the feedback
loop existed and how it worked. However, no support for the feedback loop was found: Followers
perceptions of leaders tended to be stable over time
despite any disconfirming evidence. However,
Epitropaki and Martin (2005a) maintained that a
feedback loop may still exist; one year of exposure to
disconfirming evidence may not have been sufficient
to have an effect on follower perceptions. Overall,
Epitropaki and Martins (2005a) research demonstrated that despite the abstract nature of ILTs, they
have practical implications for organizations and
work outcomes.
Keller (1999) provided insight into the origin of
ILTs. Although Offermann et al.s (1994) initial
research specified eight leader dimensions, Keller
(1999) related each dimension to the Big Five
dimensions of personality mentioned earlier in this
chapter. For example, agreeableness and sensitivity
were correlated. Expanding our understanding of
the development of leadership, Keller also examined
the role of parenting style in this study. She concluded that an individuals ideal leader images were
significantly related to that individuals perceptions
of his/her parents; if ones parents were perceived as
tyrannical, then tyrannical was integral to his/her
perception of an ideal leader. Kellers research goes
beyond understanding the structure of ILTs and
toward understanding the source of them.
As presented here, research on the social construction of leadership (whether focusing on the
romance of leadership or ILTs) accentuates the role
of follower cognitions in attributing leadership and
213

Barling, Christie, and Hoption

identifying leaders. Despite progress in this area,

important questions remain. Although the conceptual role of ILTs is obviousthey influence peoples
expectations about their leadersempirical research
has yet to establish how extensive ILTs are in the
first place. Looking forward, attempts should also
be made to track the stability of ILTs over time. In
addition, how much others (e.g., parents, first
supervisors, peers) expectations and beliefs about
leaders affect ones own ideal leader traits needs to
be better understood. A rich understanding of
followership awaits a social constructionist view
of leadership.

Prototypicality
In the predominant leader-centric tradition, heroic
images of leaders overshadow the role of the group
that the leader belongs to and leads, yet many leader
behaviors are targeted toward mobilizing followers,
emphasizing group goals, and uplifting group morale
(Chemers, 2001). Accordingly, group characteristics
are critical for leader effectiveness. The social identity
analysis of leadership postulates that the congruence
between group characteristics and leader characteristics is critical to understanding evaluations of leader
effectiveness and leader endorsement. The term
leader group prototypicality is used throughout this literature to describe the extent to which leaders represent group norms, values, and standards, also known
as group prototypes. Group prototypes are fuzzy sets
of characteristics that in a given context define the
group and they describe and prescribe group membership appropriate attributes and behavior in a specific context (Giessner & van Knippenberg, 2008,
p. 15); this effect is heightened as the salience of the
group increases (Hogg, 2001). The social identity
analysis of leadership that underlies group prototypicality describes the mechanisms through which leaders emerge and gain follower endorsement.
Unlike LMX and transformational leadership theory, which focus on the nature of leadership, the
social identity analysis of leadership is concerned
with identifying the features of leaders and followers
that critically define a leaders emergence and development (van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg,
2005). In addition, unlike implicit leadership theories, which provide a within-person understanding
214

of leadership, prototypicality addresses relational

issues between followers, groups, and leaders. The
social identity analysis of leadership addresses itself
to questions such as To what extent does group
composition relate to leader effectiveness? How
do groups select their leaders? and Why do some
leaders gain significantly more follower support
than other leaders?
A major tenet of the social identity analysis of
leadership is that the group member who most accurately embodies the groups values and norms is
the most likely to emerge as the groups leader. One
example of this derives from the fashion industry,
where leadership succession is frequent and group
prototypes are not only readily observable but are
also potential sources for competitive advantage. In
that industry, successors are pressured to maintain a
fashion houses values and standards while simultaneously injecting their own uniqueness into each
collection. Valentino Garavanis announced departure from his fashion house in 2007 led to a search
for his successor, with Alessandra Facchinetti
eventually named as his replacement. The CEO of
Valentino Fashion Group, Stefano Sassi, remarked,
Facchinetti is the designer who can interpret and
continue the legacy of Valentinos core values at their
best (Barnett, 2007), suggesting that Facchinettis
successful emergence as the houses leader was
based, at least in part, on her ability to accurately
represent the group prototype (i.e., Valentinos
core values).
In a second example, after CEO Robert Meers
announced his retirement from the primarily
womens clothing retailer Lululemon Athletica Inc.,
Christine Day was named his successor in April
2008. Clearly expressing an interest in preserving
the group prototype, founder and chairman Chip
Wilson had said earlier in February, I have a quest
now to turn Lululemon into truly a womens company. I believe the next CEO will be a woman
(Shaw, 2008, p. FP7). Having a female CEO reflects
and reinforces Lululemons interest in womens
health and lifestyle issues; indeed, Day admitted to
participating in yoga, Pilates, and runningactivities
to which Lululemon caters with its fitness-brand
merchandise (Constantineau, 2008). Meers further
affirmed the importance of Days representation of

Leadership

the organization: She also happens to be our target

customershe lives and breathes it, and that was
exactly what I was looking for (Constantineau,
2008). Wilson intimated that Day will have a
hand in creating female-friendly policies, underscoring how much the organization values being
a strong womens company (Shaw). Moreover,
being female, Day enhances her leader group prototypicality, as the majority of the organizations
employees are women.
The social identity analysis of leadership can be
applied to both examples; leader role occupancy
and emergence were dependent on the congruence
between the organizations and the successors values, norms, and standards, thereby enhancing
leader group prototypicality. Beyond leader emergence (e.g., van Knippenberg, van Knippenberg,
& van Dijk, 2000), research findings support the
notion that leader group prototypicality is associated with leader endorsement (e.g., Platow & van
Knippenberg, 2001), ratings of effectiveness (e.g.,
Hains, Hogg, & Duck, 1997), and persuasiveness
(e.g., van Knippenberg, Lossie, & Wilke, 1994),
and it affords prototypical leaders latitude in their
actions (Giessner & van Knippenberg, 2008).
Likewise, the effects of leader group prototypicality
are more pronounced when group members strongly
identify with the group (e.g., Hains et al.; Hogg,
Hains, & Mason, 1998; Platow & van Knippenberg).
The underlying rationale is that leader group prototypicality conveys to followers the notion that the
leader is aligned with collective interests and is truly
a member of the group, and it reinforces the groups
identity (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, &
Wetherell, 1987).
Despite such findings, there is no empirical
support for the relationship between leader prototypicality and objective measures of performance.
Nonetheless, group-prototypical leaders fare better
with respect to evaluations of effectiveness. Giessner
and van Knippenberg (2008) reported that in times of
failure, leaders who were prototypical of group norms
were judged less harshly than leaders who were less
prototypical of group norms. Leader prototypicality,
then, provided a license to fail. Similarly, leader
prototypicality also provides what may be thought of
as a license to eccentricity. The positive feelings

surrounding a prototypical leader (e.g., who is presumed to have the collectives interests at heart)
could afford the leader leeway in his or her actions
(including actions that lead to failure) that should
extend to that individuals unconventional or risky
behaviors (van Knippenberg et al., 2000; van
Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005).
The situation of low group prototypicality has
also been studied. Van Knippenberg and van
Knippenberg (2005) found a significant relationship
between leader self-sacrifice and evaluations of
leader effectiveness, and this was most pronounced
for leaders who were low in group prototypicality.
This finding suggests that leaders self-sacrificing
behaviors may compensate for the lack of group prototypicality: Self-sacrificing behavior, not unlike group
prototypicality, signals that a leader is genuinely interested in the collective good. Future directions for
research may take this a step further and posit situations in which low leader group prototypicality is
actually beneficial for followers, such as during
times of change or when the groups culture is
counterproductive.
Relatively new to leadership studies, the social
identity analysis of leadership is predominantly
studied in laboratory experiments. It follows that the
challenge is to apply these concepts to real-world situations or to experiments that maximize ecological
validity, where group prototypes and leader prototypicality may not be as salient as they appear in
experiment designs. In this vein, Hogg and colleagues (2006) conducted an experiment in which
the group prototype was not explicit. To create an
ambiguous group prototype, they manipulated the
salience of either a stereotypically feminine (e.g., creative) or masculine (e.g., rational) group norm rather
than explicitly stating that the group prototype was
male or female. They also manipulated leader
gender and measured participants sex-role orientation (i.e., beliefs about female and male behavioral
norms), and they found that even when the group
prototype was ambiguous, male leaders were judged
as more effective when the group prototype was
stereotypically masculine. Similarly, female leaders
were judged as more effective when the group prototype was stereotypically feminine. It follows that even
under conditions of inexplicitness the significance
215

Barling, Christie, and Hoption

of a group prototype for leadership endorsement is

not diminished.
To further improve upon the generalizability of
findings from this area of research, it would be useful
to investigate leader emergence, endorsement, and
perceptions in groups without any group prototypes.
The absence of a group prototype may be more representative of the real-world context in which (new
and temporary) groups operate. Following the earlier
examples of Valentino and Lululemon, future field
research may also explore the phenomena of leader
emergence on group norms (i.e., Days contribution
to a womens company) as well as group norms
contributing to leader emergence (i.e., Facchinettis
fit with the established Valentino norms) in tandem.
The social identity analysis of leadership provides
a fresh perspective that depicts a relational model of
leadership: The characteristics that support a leaders
endorsement and emergence are specific to the group
being led. Reflecting its social identity and selfcategorization foundations, the social identity analysis
of leadership promotes research where the variables of
interest are followers perceptions, such as their perceptions of a leaders representativeness of the group,
and curiosity lies in the cognitive processes in which
followers engage to inform their perceptions.
DESTRUCTIVE LEADERSHIP
Until now, we have focused primarily on high-quality
leadership. Unfortunately, not all leadership is
either ethical or productive. In this section, we
review common conceptualizations of undesirable
leadership styles, including passive, abusive, and
unethical leadership. (See also Vol. 3, chap. 15, this
handbook.)

Neglectful and Abusive Leadership

For the most part, the effects of passive leadership
have been compared with those of active leadership
(e.g., by comparing laissez-faire with transformational leadership). It is widely held that passive leadership fails to produce the positive outcomes of
more active leadership styles (Skogstad, Einarsen,
Torsheim, Aasland, & Hetland, 2007), but it is not
necessarily presumed to result in negative effects.
Only rarely has passive leadership been linked to
216

detrimental results. A meta-analysis of the full-range

model of transformational leadership showed that
laissez-faire leadership was negatively related to
leader effectiveness (r = .54), and that followers of
laissez-faire leaders tended to be dissatisfied with
their jobs (r = .28) and leaders (r = .58; all correlations corrected for unreliability of measures,
measurement error, and sampling error; Judge &
Piccolo, 2004). Skogstad et al. (2004) extended
these findings to show that passive, indirect leadership also predicted role ambiguity, role conflict,
conflict with coworkers, bullying behaviors, and,
indirectly, psychological distress.
Similarly, passive leadership may also be conceptualized as neglectful, particularly with respect
to employee safety. Earlier we described how transformational leaders may act as role models of safe
behaviors, lowering incidents of workplace injuries.
Conversely, passive leaders are detached from their
leadership responsibilities and unlikely to be
involved in promoting safety behaviors (Kelloway
et al., 2006). As a result, instead of acting as role
models, passive leaders signal that safety is unimportant, and such neglect can have adverse
effects on safety outcomes. Kelloway et al. (2006)
provided empirical support for this proposition,
finding that safety-specific passive leadership
negatively predicted safety-related outcomes
even after accounting for the positive effects of
safety-specific transformational leadership. More
recently, Hinkin and Schriesheim (2008) showed
in a series of four studies that when leaders avoid
giving appropriate rewards and punishment, follower
perceptions (satisfaction and perceptions of effectiveness) of the leader are negatively influenced, as are
subordinates perceptions of role clarity and supervisors perceptions of their subordinates performance.
Kelloway et al. (2006) made a clear distinction
between the passive leadership that they studied and
directly abusive leadership, suggesting that, in the
case of safety, leaders are more likely to overlook
safety issues than to purposefully or maliciously
obstruct and compromise the safety of their employees. A separate line of research has clarified the
behaviors of abusive supervision, despite its relative
infrequency (e.g., Tepper, 2000; Zellars, Tepper, &
Duffy, 2002; for a detailed review of the abusive

Leadership

supervision literature, see Tepper, 2007). Tepper

(2000) defined abusive supervisions as subordinates
perceptions of . . . the extent to which supervisors
engage in the sustained display of hostile verbal and
nonverbal behaviors, excluding physical contact
(p. 178, emphasis in original). Example behaviors
include criticizing followers in front of others,
yelling at followers, belittling followers, lying, and
unjustifiably blaming followers for mistakes.
Abusive supervision predicts a host of negative
outcomes, including follower deviance, poor attitudes
and performance, turnover, diminished psychological
health, and poorer work-family functioning (see
Tepper, 2007, for a review). Abusive supervision is
also met with greater follower resistance (Tepper,
Duffy, & Shaw, 2001). Tepper, Moss, Lockhart, and
Carr (2007) reported that followers of abusive supervisors tended to use regulative maintenance communication tactics that involved maintaining the
leaderfollower relationship through avoidance and
evasion tactics (e.g., distorting negative reports to
prevent a punitive reaction from the leader).
Ironically, Tepper et al. (2007) found that such tactics actually exacerbate the relationship between abusive supervision and follower psychological distress.
Two primary mediators relate abusive supervision
to these dysfunctional outcomes, namely, perceptions of injustice and lack of control. Followers of
abusive supervisors are likely to feel unfairly treated,
explaining both their resultant negative attitudes and
states and also their retaliatory behaviors (e.g.,
Tepper, 2000; Zellars et al., 2002). Followers may
retaliate against an abusive supervisor not only to
restore equity but also to regain a sense of personal
control over the situation. Mitchell and Ambrose
(2007) showed that followers of abusive supervisors
were more likely to display deviant behaviors toward
their supervisor and that this relationship was
stronger when followers held negative, an eye for an
eye, reciprocity beliefs. In addition, followers acted
more defiantly toward others in the organization as
well, suggesting that their inability to restore justice
and personal control may have initiated displaced
aggression.
An equally interesting stream of research has
considered how displaced aggression can explain
abusive supervision (Tepper, 2007). In a study of

supervisors, followers, and followers family members, Hoobler and Brass (2006) found evidence
consistent with the notion that supervisors displaced
their anger on followers, as evidenced by abusive
supervisory behaviors, and that followers displaced
their aggression onto their family members.
Specifically, when supervisors perceived a breach in
their psychological contract with their organizations,
then followers were more likely to report abusive
supervisory behaviors; this was particularly the case
for leaders with a hostile attribution bias or the tendency to overly blame others. Moreover, family
members of abused followers reported higher levels
of family undermining committed by the abused followers. A second empirical study also lends some
support to the displaced aggression theory of abusive
supervision. In this study, leaders who experienced
interactional injustice from their immediate supervisors were more likely to be perceived by their followers as abusive. However, this relationship only
held for supervisors with an authoritarian leadership
style (Aryee, Chen, Sun, & Debrah, 2007).
Although concern about the predominant negative focus in much of psychology is not new, such
negativity may be less prevalent in the field of leadership, with its strong emphasis on the benefits of positive leadership. In fact, further research is required to
more fully understand the antecedents of abusive
supervision and how follower attributes and behaviors moderate these relationships (Tepper, 2007).
For example, leader depression is one empirically
tested predictor of abusive supervision (Tepper,
Duffy, Henle, & Lambert, 2006), while other proposed antecedents, such as leader personality and
organizational culture, remain unexplored (Tepper,
2007). Perhaps one explanation for the overall lack
of studies on negative leadership is that leaders
behaviors are not always consistent; for example,
they could be charismatic, yet also display bouts of
hostile behavior (Pfeffer, 2007). Steve Jobs of Apple
Computer might reflect this: He has been credited
with reviving Apple and painted as charismatic in the
process (e.g., Harvey, 2001), but he also has a reputation for sadistic perfectionism, often without discernible provocation (Berglas, 1999, p. 29). These
complexities and inconsistencies are difficult to
capture in single studies but must be reflected in
217

Barling, Christie, and Hoption

research to avoid simplistic interpretations of purely

evil (or purely good) leaders.
We now turn our attention to unethical leadership, which goes beyond behaviors and spotlights
leaders values, beliefs, and morals.

Unethical Leaders
Despite considerable concern devoted to this issue
by the lay public, the ethics of leadership has all too
often escaped systematic study by organizational
scholars (Brown, Trevio, & Harrison, 2005),
although this critical omission is now being reversed.
Greater attention is being accorded to ethical issues
in leadership from an array of different approaches,
such as personality (e.g., House & Howell, 1992;
Judge et al., 2006), values (e.g., Bass & Steidlmeier,
1999), moral reasoning (Turner, Barling, Epitropaki,
Butcher, & Milner, 2002), moral orientation (Simola,
Barling & Turner, in press), generalized ethical
leadership (Brown et al.), follower attributions
(Dasborough & Ashkanasy, 2002), and behavioral
integrity (Dineen, Lewicki, & Tomlinson, 2006).
Brown et al. (2005) defined ethical leadership as
the demonstration of normatively appropriate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal
relationships, and the promotion of such conduct to
followers through two-way communication, reinforcement, and decision-making (p. 120). The
authors conceptually distinguished this concept of
ethical leadership from other similar constructs,
such as transformational leadership and leader honesty, and showed that ethical leadership was positively associated with follower satisfaction with the
leader, job dedication, willingness to speak up about
problems, and leader effectiveness.
More frequently, scholarly attention has been
drawn to depictions of leaders as immoral or unethical, which should describe leaders who fail to uphold
the behaviors described by Brown et al. (2005). One
of the most prominent distinctions is between socialized charismatic and personalized charismatic leaders (e.g., House & Howell, 1992; Howell & Avolio,
1992) or, in parallel, transformational, and pseudotransformational leaders (e.g., Bass & Steidlmeier,
1999). Personalized charismatic, or pseudotransformational, leaders offer the illusion of transformational leadership through their strong inspirational
218

appeal. As Bass described pseudotransformational

leadership, it looks like a transformational leader, it
acts like a transformational leader, but in fact it is
not (Hooijberg & Choi, 2000, p. 298). In contrast
to transformational leaders, these leaders place their
own self-interested goals above the collective good;
a typical example, according to Bass, would be the
executive who cries crocodile tears when downsizing, but then gives himself a big bonus (Hooijberg
& Choi, 2000, p. 298). Pseudotransformational leadership is thought to be especially destructive to followers because these leaders have a powerful ability
to motivate others, while largely ignoring their welfare. They may also select followers who provide
them unwavering support: As one former disciple
of Michael Milken, the junk bond king, said, If he
walked off the cliff, everyone in that group would
have followed him (Howell & Avolio, 1992, p. 47).
Related to unethical leadership is self-focused
leadership, as depicted in the study of leader narcissism. By nature, narcissism may provoke leaders to
overly attribute organizational successes to their own
virtues and efforts and accordingly undervalue the
contributions of followers. This is an important issue,
as anecdotal evidence suggests that narcissistic individuals may be more likely to emerge as leaders (see
Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006, for a review). However,
Paunonen, Lnnqvist, Verkasalo, Leikas, and
Nissinen (2006) distinguished between what they
deemed as the more positive elements (i.e., egotism
and self-esteem) and the more negative elements (i.e.,
impression management and manipulation) of narcissism, and they showed that the positive elements of
narcissism predicted leadership only in the absence of
the negative elements. Research is needed to explain
the relationship between narcissism and leadership
emergence and thus further understand self-focused
leadership styles.
Resisting the temptation to draw conclusions
about leadership based on outcomes, this section on
the dark side of leadership clearly describes deleterious leadership based on underlying motivations,
intentions, values, and behaviors. Moving forward,
research may benefit most from understanding which
conditions are more amenable to destructive leadership styles, and why, and whether some individuals
are more predisposed to the dark side of leadership

Leadership

(Hogan & Hogan, 2001), as well as ways to mitigate

any harmful effects (Sutton, 2007).
MEASURING LEADERSHIP
The typical approach to investigating
leadership is not without its flaws. More
precisely, by conducting a study that
focuses on subordinate perceptions
and uses pre-developed measures and
approaches to leadership, we are making
a number of assumptionsassumptions
that appear, in many cases, misguided.
(Hunter et al., 2007, p. 436)
In a quest for true meaning, substance, and practical utility (p. 443), Hunter et al. challenged leadership researchers to move away from a number of
fundamental assumptions, including (a) that leadership is equally important for all followers, (b) that
followers witness leader behaviors and therefore
can evaluate them, (c) that instruments to measure
leadership are psychometrically sound, and (d) that
current leadership instruments capture critical
leader behaviors.
It is tempting to regard Hunter et al.s observations as a critique of the leadership field, but we
regard their insights as directing future research. In
this vein, the present section reviews select assumptions and debates about common methods in leadership research.
As noted earlier in this chapter, transformational
leadership remains the most widely researched
leadership theory, and to date the most widely used
instrument to measure transformational leadership is
the MLQ (Bass & Avolio, 1990). The MLQ has also
been used to assess transactional leadership and
laissez-faire leadership. Despite its extensive use in
organizational research, many concerns remain, primarily relating to the factor structure of the MLQ.
Bycio et al. (1995) noted that the four facets of transformational leadership are so highly correlated that,
in practice, it is unlikely that a leader would score
high on one facet and low on the others. Moreover,
the high correlation between transactional and
transformational leadership has also been raised,
and together these concerns have resulted in much

research on the psychometric properties of the MLQ

(e.g., Bycio et al., 1995; Carless, 1998; Den Hartog,
Van Muijen, & Koopman, 1997; Heinitz, Liepmann,
& Felfe, 2005; Tejeda, Scandura, & Pillai, 2001;
Tepper & Percy, 1994).
Interpreting precisely what these findings mean is
difficult. From a practical perspective it is evident
that it is challenging to separate the four transformational components (Heinitz et al., 2005). The four
behaviors are held to be conceptually separate, but
the consistent factor analytic findings could point to
measurement problems (which is frequently the position taken) or might indicate that the four behaviors
are not conceptually separate after all. To complicate
matters further, Bass (1998) himself suggested that
transformational leaders . . . behave in ways to
achieve superior results by employing one or more of
the four components of transformational leadership
(p. 5). If a leader has to use only one component of
transformational leadership to be considered transformational, then despite any conceptual differences, all
four behaviors are equally indicative of transformational leadership, and substitutable. Clearly, research
will need to isolate the most appropriate conceptualization and measurement of transformational leadership (MacKenzie et al., 2005).
Accordingly, alternative measures for transformational leadership have been proposed. Carless,
Wearing, and Mann (2000) developed the seven-item
Global Transformational Leadership scale (GTL; e.g.,
encourages thinking about problems in new ways
and questions assumptions, communicates a clear
and positive vision of the future) rated on a 5-point
Likert-type scale (e.g., 1 = Rarely or never, 5 = Very
frequently, if not always). More recently, in Herold
at al.s (2008) study, transformational leadership was
assessed using 22 items (e.g., I believe my leader
encourages employees to be team players and I
believe my leader shows respect for individuals feelings) that were based on the earlier work of Rubin
et al. (2005). In addition, Alimo-Metcalfe and AlbanMetcalfe (2001) developed the Transformational
Leadership Questionnaire (TLQ), as well as a specific
version for government employees. The TLQ yielded
nine factors, including genuine concern for others,
accessible and approachable, and encourages
critical and strategic thinking. The comparative
219

Barling, Christie, and Hoption

advantages and disadvantages of all these scales,

including the MLQ, need to be investigated further.
To complement this discussion of transformational leadership measures, Table 7.2 contains a
list of leadership measures that cover many of the
leadership concepts in this chapter. Although not
exhaustive, this list illustrates the advance of relational leadership measures (e.g., how the leader
treats the follower). This trend has prompted studies
on leaderfollower agreement, and it presents an
opportunity for the development of a measure of
leadership that requires information from both the
leader and the follower to capitalize on the unique
information about the relationship that both members possess.
Departing from how to measure of leadership,
we now turn our attention to the question of when
to measure leadership, and this discussion identifies
three perceptual biases that may significantly affect
leadership assessment: (a) honeymoon effect,
(b) hangover effect, and (c) halo error.
Honeymoon biases occur at the start of ones tenure
in the organization; the enthusiasm of starting a new
job, combined with the organization putting its best
foot forward for new hires, may solicit (overly) positive attitudes toward the organization; the hangover
effect describes the decline and eventual stability in
positive attitudes after the honeymoon period
(Boswell, Boudreau, & Tichy, 2005). Both of these
biases could influence leadership ratings, with followers rating their leaders more highly at the start
of their relationship (i.e., during the honeymoon
period). Over time, perceptions of the leaders may
decline as followers gain more information about
the organization, the job, and the leaders behaviors
(i.e., during the hangover period). It follows that the
length of time that the leader and follower have
spent together can influence leadership ratings, and
researchers might be well advised to account for
honeymoon and hangover biases.
Approaches based on employees ratings of leadership rest on the assumption that followers have continued interactions with their leaders. In reality, that
is likely not the case; Hunter et al. (2007) asked
researchers to consider the extent to which followers
are actually privy to leader behaviors. One way to
satisfy this query is to study specific incidents or
220

episodes of leadership. Within this framework, the

most appropriate time to measure leader effectiveness would be after an episode of leadership rather
than relying on retrospective accounts. Self-defined
episodes of leadership may be the most appropriate,
given the established role of critical moments in
(mis)shaping memories (e.g., Redelmeier, Katz, &
Kahneman, 2003); on the other hand, focusing on
episodes may promote a so-called halo effect.
A halo effect results from judgments that are
based on a general impression, thereby neglecting
specific acts that may disconfirm ones general
impression, and [a]s a result of the halo effect, individuals are rated as consistently good or consistently
poor performers, regardless of their variable strengths
and weaknesses (Nathan & Lord, 1983, p. 102). To
underscore the importance of this bias, consider that
measures of leadership rely on follower perceptions
and that previous research has established that follower ratings are especially vulnerable to halo error
(Frone, Adams, Rice, & Instone-Noonan, 1986).
Therefore, when measuring leadership, it is important to note that followers ratings of leadership may
contain followers general impressions of the leader
and may not necessarily be based upon what a leader
actually does.
We have concentrated on measurement issues in
this section, but methodological issues in leadership
research are also pervasive. Hunter et al. (2007) provided important recommendations to address such
concerns. These included the need for multiple
sources of information about leader behavior, paying equal attention to positive and negative aspects
of leadership, accounting for the context in which
leadership occurs, and engaging in multilevel and/or
longitudinal research. Collectively, confronting the
measurement and methodological challenges that
pervade the field of leadership studies will enable
the further development of comprehensive understanding of leadership.
LEADERSHIP IN RELATED CONTEXTS
Thus far, we have reviewed the leadership literature
from a multitude of contexts and have considered
how leadership effects can be minimized or maximized in different contexts. In this next section, we

Meindl, 1998; Meindl and Ehrlich,

1988
Houghton and Neck, 2002
Hersey and Blanchard, 1988
Dupr and Barling, 2006
Bass and Avolio, 1990
Carless, Wearing, and Mann, 2000

LMX-7
Supervisory Behavior Description
Questionnaire (SBDQ)
Ohio State Leader Behavior Description
Questionnaire (LBDQ)
Need for Supervision Scale
Romance of Leadership Scale (RLS)

Revised self-leadership questionnaire (RSLQ)

Leadership Effectiveness and Adaptability
Description (LEAD) instrument
Supervisory Control Over Work Performance
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)
Global Transformational Leadership (GTL)

Leadermember exchange
Leadership style

Romance of leadership

Self-leadership
Situational leadership/leader
adaptability
Supervisory control

Transformational leadership

Need for supervision

de Vries, Roe, and Taillieu, 1998

Stodgill, 1963

Epitropaki and Martin, 2004;

Offermann, Kennedy, and Wirtz
(1994)
Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995
Fleishman, 1953

My supervisor does not give me the freedom to do things

that I want to do in my work.
My leader displays a sense of power and confidence.
My leader communicates a clear and positive vision of
the future.

The region manager has a marked influence on my

performance.
When the top leaders are good, the organization does
well; when the top leaders are bad, the organization
does poorly.
I establish specific goals for my own performance.

How well does your leader recognize your potential?

He needles people under him for greater effort.

Implicit leadership theories

Implicit leadership

Brown, Trevio, and Harrison, 2005

Kelley, 1992

My boss tells me my thoughts or feelings are stupid.

Appears to be a skillful performance when presenting to a
group.
Discusses business ethics or values with employees.
Are your personal work goals aligned with the organizations priority goals?
How characteristic is each trait of a business leader? (e.g.,
dominant, sensitive)

Tepper, 2000
Conger and Kanungo, 1994

Abusive Supervision
Conger-Kanungo (C-K) scale of charismatic
leadership
Ethical Leadership Scale
Followership Questionnaire

Abusive supervision
Charismatic leadership

Ethical leadership
Follower style

Example item (if available)

Source

Measure

Construct

Measures of Leadership Styles, Behaviors, and Perceptions

TABLE 7.2

Leadership

221

Barling, Christie, and Hoption

take a special interest in the studies conducted in

the sports and education contexts. By doing so, we
illustrate how organizational leadership frameworks
are being applied to other settings and how we can
potentially advance organizational leadership studies.

The Sports Context

Sports psychologists have likened coaches to business
leaders (see Kellett, 1999), and as a result the application of organizational leadership frameworks to a
sports context has garnered interest. In particular,
several empirical tests of the role of transformational
leadership in sports performance exist. For example,
Rowold (2006) studied 200 martial arts students and
showed that leaders idealized influence, inspirational motivation, and individualized consideration
predicted athletes extra effort, perceptions of
coaches effectiveness, and satisfaction with the
coach. Inspirational motivation also predicted the
frequency of training each month. Zacharatos et al.s
(2000) study showed the generalizability of these
findings: Although the average age of Rowolds sample was 32 years, Zacharatos et al. showed that the
same pattern of results was obtained among adolescent athletes. Charbonneau et al. (2001) studied elite
university athletes, finding that the effects of transformational leadership on sports performance were indirectly related through intrinsic motivation. Given
these performance outcomes, it follows that transformational leadership in sports teams may be a competitive advantage for sports teams.
Day et al. (2004) did not focus their study on a
particular style of leadership, but they found that
occupying a leadership role (i.e., team captain) in
the National Hockey League (NHL) was related to
performanceeven after controlling for performance prior to assuming the leadership role. To
our knowledge, there has yet to be an empirical
test of whether leadership titles in organizations
would yield similar results, and Day et al. also
made an important distinction between the sports
and organizational contexts. In sports teams, there
are followersthe athletesand leaders such as
coaches, managers, and team captains, but there is
some overlap; that is, a team captain can be considered one of the athletes. In organizations, there is a
distinction between leaders and followersoften
222

defining each role against the other and arguably

placing more emphasis on hierarchy and status. This
structural difference between contexts warrants consideration before organizational researchers (or sports
psychologists) transplant leadership frameworks
developed for organizations to the sports context.
Revealing another difference between these contexts, Kellett (1999) interviewed coaches and concluded that leadership was not an integral part of
coaches self-defined job description, even though
researchers are quick to make such a parallel. Kellett
went on to argue that elements of transformational
leadership were rarely referenced in his interviews,
yet Kellett also argued that coaches described their
work as facilitating the development of others
(p. 165), which is consistent with individualized consideration. Furthermore, not confining their analysis
to coaches, Hoption, Phelan, and Barling (2007) interviewed professional athletes and found evidence of
transformational leadership in sports. To explain
some of the inconsistency, future research may
explore sports-specific transformational leadership.

Education
The educational or school context also applies to the
study of leadership. Intriguingly, effective leadership
in this context may have long-term consequences
for student attitudes and performance. Whether the
focus is on the influence of principals on teachers or
on the influence of teachers on students, many of
the behaviors under consideration (e.g., student performance) are largely discretionary, increasing the
potential influence of leadership.
Like other contexts we have showcased thus far,
studies in the education milieu have focused on
transformational leadership, showing, for example,
that teachers transformational leadership is related
to students perceptions of teacher performance
and students involvement in their own studies
(Harvey, Royal, & Stout, 2003). Nguni, Sleegers,
and Denessens (2006) study also highlighted the
effectiveness of transformational leadership but reiterated that any leadership effects are often indirect.
In addition, their results supported the augmentation hypothesis (Bass, 1998) demonstrating that
teachers transformational leadership provided
unique variance after accounting for the effects of

Leadership

transactional leadership. In another example of

transformational leadership in this context, Sahins
(2004) study documented the association between
school principals transformational leadership and
school culture.
Arguably the most comprehensive study in an
educational context is Koh, Steers, and Terborgs
(1995) multilevel study within 89 schools in
Singapore. They studied the effects of school principals transformational leadership on teachers satisfaction, organizational commitment, and citizenship
behaviors and their students academic performance.
Their results both replicated and extended other
findings on transformational leadership. First, they
found no compelling evidence that transformational
leadership affected student performance directly;
instead, like others studying transformational leadership and performance, they found evidence for an
indirect effect, thereby highlighting the role of
critical mediating variables (e.g., teacher attitudes).
Second, Koh et al.s data replicated the augmentation hypothesis; however, the authors go a step
further, showing that transactional leadership did
not account for any significant variance after the
effects of transformational leadership were controlled. Third, the importance of cross-cultural
nuances is demonstrated in Singaporean context
because of one finding that appears to be at odds
with prior research, namely, that principals transformational leadership did not predict teachers
citizenship behaviors. However, this is consistent
with the notion that many of the teachers measured citizenship behaviors were not discretionary
but instead were contractual obligations in the
Singaporean context. Last, like findings in the
military context (Dvir et al., 2002), Koh et al. went
beyond this dyadic focus, showing that leaders can
indeed affect the performance of the followers of
their followers.
WHAT WE STILL NEED TO KNOW
As indicated at the outset of this chapter, although
much is known about leadership, much remains to be
learned. In this final section of the chapter, we consider what we believe are some of the major lessons
that need to be learned.

Followership
Perhaps Napoleon Bonaparte said it best: Soldiers
generally win battles; generals get credit for them.
The leader-centric studies that dominate research
on leadership result in an incomplete knowledge
about leadership; however, advocating an exclusive
follower-centric research agenda would result in
similarly unbalanced knowledge. Thus, we advocate
a relational view of leadership, one in which leaders
and followers together produce leadership. Inserting
followers into the leadership equation is not novel,
but, as reflected in the opening quote to this section,
the contribution of followers is underappreciated
and, moreover, often restricted to obeying orders
and taking direction (Baker, 2008).
We join the call for research to combat such a
passive stereotype of followers; it diminishes the
role of followers in organizational success and
leader effectiveness and followers ability to motivate leadership change (e.g., Deluga, 1987), and by
default it exaggerates the role and importance of
leaders. Suggestive support for followers as active
contributors to leadership emerged in Dvir and
Shamirs (2003) longitudinal study in which leaders were rated as less transformational as followers
developed their own leadership skills. One possible
explanation is that with follower development, a
transformational relationship emerged, meaning that
the responsibility to motivate, inspire, stimulate, and
nurture are shared between leader and follower.
Although the possibility for bidirectional socialization
remains to be investigated directly in a leadership
context, evidence of such effects exists in other hierarchical relationships, including parentchild relationships (e.g., Glass, Bengtson, & Dunham, 1986).
Developing implicit followership theories (i.e.,
expectations and beliefs about followers) might be
especially useful in understanding followership.
With expectations on leaders and followers, dyadic
data become essential. Each member of the
leaderfollower dyad gains meaning from and
through the other.

Shared Leadership
Moving beyond leaderfollower distinctions, what
about the situation in which many individuals in
the same group demonstrate leadership behaviors?
223

Barling, Christie, and Hoption

When this occurs, it is termed shared leadership.

Although varied definitions of shared leadership
exist, in general, it is a team property that depicts
the extent to which team members mutually influence each other with or without formal leadership
(e.g., Carson, Tesluk, & Marrone, 2007; Ensley,
Hmieleski, & Pearce, 2006). Essentially, the presence of shared leadership flattens an organizations
hierarchy and harnesses the power of leadership by
distributing it among team members so that peerto-peer influence flourishes.
Shared leadership is associated with performance
outcomes in problem-solving groups (e.g., Carson
et al., 2007), new ventures (e.g., Ensley et al., 2006),
and medical teams (Klein, Ziegert, Knight, & Xiao,
2006). In addition to performance, shared leadership
is linked to group cohesion (e.g., Perry, Pearce, &
Sims, 1999), collective vision (e.g., Ensley, Pearson,
& Pearce, 2003), collective identity (e.g., Shamir &
Lapidot, 2003), and creativity and intrinsic motivation (e.g., Hooker & Csikszentmihalyi, 2003).
Nonetheless, Perry and colleagues (1999) cautioned
against the assumption that shared leadership is
always beneficial: When the inherent benefits of
working in a [team] are not necessary for the
[task], the costs of the shared leadership process
may actually decrease effectiveness (p. 45).
Additionally, Barry (1991) argued that effective
shared leadership becomes problematic if members
do not have the skills to demonstrate those behaviors and if teams are not purposefully composed to
address a teams various leadership needs. Equally
important, the effectiveness of shared leadership
depends on team members enjoying shared goals
(Conger & Pearce, 2003).
Qualitative and conceptual manuscripts outnumber the empirical tests of shared leadership. One reason for this could be the varied operationalizations
of shared leadership, each of which expresses shared
leadership differently. Conger and Pearce (2003)
and Carson et al. (2007) identified aggregation techniques, network analysis, and group measures as
possible ways to quantify shared leadership. Each
methodological approach has its advantages (e.g.,
richness of the data) and disadvantages (e.g., complicated statistical methods), so it would be helpful
for future research to compare the use of different
224

methodological approaches (Conger & Pearce,

2003) in empirically advancing our understanding
of shared leadership.
Having acknowledged that there are limitations to
shared leadership and its operationalization, its benefits are still intriguing for many scholars and practitioners. The following suggestions have been raised
for establishing shared leadership: provide feedback
on leader behaviors (Shamir & Lapidot, 2003): offer
leadership training for all team members (Houghton,
Neck, & Manz, 2003); ensure that the organizational
culture is aligned with team leadership, such as
replacing individual rewards with team-based
rewards (e.g., Hooker & Csikszentmihalyi, 2003);
and use an external leader to monitor the rate and
progress of shared leadership (Perry et al., 1999).
There is a strong likelihood that team members who
know each other well will be more likely to engage
in shared leadership (e.g., Barry, 1991; Morgan,
Salas, & Glickman, 1993; Perry et al., 1999), so it is
important to keep in mind that shared leadership
emergence requires time and long-term planning.

Authentic Leadership
Consistent with the attention given to some major
ethical lapses by leaders, the notion of authentic
leadership has attracted much interest since the turn
of the century. Following early debate, Avolio and
his colleagues included the following components in
their definition of authentic leadership (see Avolio
& Luthans, 2006; Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner,
Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008): self-awareness, relational transparency, balanced processing of all relevant data in an objective manner before decisions
are made, and finally, an internalized moral perspective. Although the relative newness of this perspective means that few empirical studies have been
reported, Walumbwa et al. have provided a reliable
and valid measure, and their data supported a
higher-order multidimensional model of the construct. One benefit of these early data is that they
were collected not just in the United States but also
in Kenya and China (Walumbwa et al., 2008), allaying concerns that the concept of authentic leadership may be culturally bound.
Important questions remain for this nascent theory. On a conceptual level, there are differing views as

Leadership

to whether authenticity requires a grounding in

moral values (Avolio & Gardner, 2005) or whether
authenticity requires leaders be true to their values
and beliefs no matter how socially unacceptable
(Shamir & Eilam, 2005). Shamir and Eilam (2005)
and Sparrowe (2005) went further, questioning the
advisability of authenticity among leaders who are
narcissistic or who display questionable values.
Second, the theory underlying the concept of authentic leadership suggests that the four dimensions are
related but separate, but the available data suggest
strong intercorrelations among the dimensions. Third,
given the core characteristics of authentic leadership,
it remains for research to demonstrate that it is empirically separate from conceptually similar constructs.
Fourth, it remains to be seen whether authentic leadership can be developed in leaders.

Leadership in Critical Moments

Leadership is often operationalized as the frequency
of leadership behaviors. For example, using the MLQ,
followers rate how often their leaders engage in
transformational behaviors, and it is assumed that
followers construct their ratings by accurately averaging those behaviors over a specified time period.
However, it may be more likely that leadership has
relatively greater meaning in times of crisis (Pillai,
1996; Pillai & Meindl, 1998) and that followers construct their perceptions of leadership in pivotal
moments when leadership is either highlighted or
critical (Tucker, Turner, Barling, Reid, & Elving,
2006). Understanding leadership in the midst of these
critical moments is thus essential to a complete characterization of leadership.
How leaders respond to critical moments can be
vital. Dutton, Frost, Worline, Lilius, and Kanov
(2002) highlighted the need to lead with compassion in times of organizational and individual crisis,
which could include incidents such as the events of
September 11, a natural disaster, the death of an
employee, or an employees unexpected illness.
When this occurs, employees are likely to feel a
greater sense of commitment to the organization,
often enhancing performance. Accordingly, leadership behaviors in times of crisis can extend beyond
those critical moments, shaping leaderfollower
relationships and the organization into the future.

Supporting this notion is the aforementioned finding that leaders apologies following transgressions
are related to transformational leadership ratings
(Tucker et al., 2006); Tucker et al. argued that apologies are critical moments in the leaderfollower
relationship and defined such moments as distinct interactions that, while occurring relatively
infrequently, serve to punctuate or reinforce the
status quo (p. 197).
Similarly, whether or not charismatic leaders are
more likely to emerge in times of crisis has been
debated (for a review. see Shamir & Howell, 1999).
Although some studies suggest that charismatic leaders emerge in times of crisis (e.g., Roberts & Bradley,
1988), evidence to the contrary is not uncommon
(e.g., Pillai & Meindl, 1998). Alternatively, it is possible for leaders to frame situations in a way that is perceived as critical or extraordinary, suggesting reverse
causality (Shamir & Howell, 1999). Nevertheless,
recent research suggests that transformational leaders
may be more effective under critical performance
conditions than in more ordinary situations (Lim &
Ployhart, 2004). Clarifying these issues is required if
researchers are to elucidate the role of leadership in
critical moments.
Preliminary evidence points to potential differences in leadership behaviors and leadership perceptions in ordinary versus extraordinary situations.
However, many questions remain. Is leadership best
conceptualized as an average frequency of behaviors
over time, or do some situations enhance the salience
of certain leadership behaviors? Do any benefits that
accrue to leaders because of their behaviors during a
crisis carry over to an everyday basis? Researchers
have the opportunity to provide new knowledge by
focusing on questions such as these.

Humility
One way to understand leadership is to through the
core role of humility. Morris et al. (2005) defined
humility as a personal orientation founded on a
willingness to see the self accurately and a propensity to put oneself in perspective (p. 1331). While
acknowledging that other leadership theories also
accord a critical role to humility (e.g., level 5 leadership; Collins, 2001), the behaviors involved in transformational leadership make it as relevant to humility.
225

Barling, Christie, and Hoption

Humility has been identified as important to understanding transformational leadership (Bass & Riggio,
2006) in that humility would restrain leaders from
becoming entranced with public adulation and
would influence leaders to be other-focused (Morris
et al, 2005). Despite this recognition of the importance of humility in transformational leadership,
there has not yet been a focus on how the specific
humility-related behaviors engaged in by leaders
underlie transformational leadership.

Leadership Meets Social Neuroscience

Unquestionably, some of the most substantial and
intriguing advances in our understanding of individual behavior over the past 2 decades originated with
merging social and biological knowledge. The field
of social neuroscience uses broadly based biological
processes to explain social interactions and behaviors (Cacioppo et al., 2007). This breadth and depth
of the knowledge awaits those wishing to expand
our understanding of leadership.
As noted earlier in this chapter, an intriguing
question that continues to bedevil social and behavioral scientists is whether leadership is learned or
inherited. Several studies based on a behavioral
genetic approach have addressed the relative role of
environmental and genetic factors in leadership
emergence (Arvey et al., 2006, 2007). Despite those
advances, genetic and biological effects on the development of leadership behaviors warrant attention and
robust empirical examination. For example, testosterone is consistently linked with behaviors (e.g.,
social control and aggression) that characterize negative leadership (e.g., van Honk & Schutter, 2007;
White, Thornhill, & Hampson, 2006). There is
also evidence linking counterproductive organizational behaviors to the early emergence of childhood conduct problem disorders (Roberts et al.,
2007). Incorporating leadership into the field of
social neuroscience would respond to calls for
more integrative theory building with respect to
leadership (Avolio, 2007) and open up the field of
leadership development as a viable opportunity for
future research on social neuroscience (Cacioppo
et al., 2007).
Nonetheless, the success of these endeavors
requires knowledge of the social and the biological
226

bases of behavior and the research methods underlying both. With the majority of leadership researchers
being trained in the social sciences, collaboration
across fields traditionally seen as unrelated will be
a necessity.

Humor
Although there is some research on humor in the
workplace (e.g., Fleming, 2005; Francis, 1994;
Yovetich, Dale, & Hudak, 1990), its prevalence in
organizations is widespread and diverse in nature.
Leaders have certainly been exhorted to provide a
so-called fun workplace culture (Pfeffer, 1998),
including the use of humor (Fleming, 2005). Such
appeals are based on the notion that fun workplace
cultures are associated with many benefits, including increased worker motivation (Crawford, 1994),
commitment, and performance (Avolio, Howell, &
Sosik, 1999). In this sense, humor is instrumental
and strategic; as explained by Fleming, humor is
ultimately a serious business. It is unsurprisingly
driven by very sober corporate motives (p. 288).
Although humor can sometimes be beneficial,
positive outcomes do not always ensue. Avolio and
colleagues (1999) found that the frequent use of
humor does not always lead to better performance;
they speculated that some issues (e.g., setting target
objectives) were not amenable to humor because of
their seriousness. Additionally, positive outcomes
depend on the type of humor used. Decker and
Rotondo (2001) distinguished between negative
(e.g., sexual and insult humor) and positive (e.g.,
nonoffensive humor) forms of humor and concluded
that leaders who used positive forms of humor
received more positive leader ratings than leaders
who used negative forms of humor. One question
that immediately emerges is: Why would leaders
choose to use negative forms of humor?
According to the superiority theory of humor,
negative forms of humor (such as insults) reinforce
the hierarchy between leaders and followers
(Westwood, 2004). Leaders who want to maintain
power distance may be especially prone to using
humor in this manner. In contrast, positive forms of
humor should minimize the distance between leaders
and followers (Barsoux, 1996). In essence, humor can
be used to communicate a leaders values, especially

Leadership

the type of leaderfollower relationship that he or she

desires.
Thus far, we have considered the strategic use of
humor, but we also acknowledge that humor could
be an individual difference: People have general tendencies when using humor. To this end, Martin,
Puhlik-Doris, Larsen, Gray, and Weir (2003) developed an instrument to measure individuals humor
style, the Humor Styles Questionnaire (HSQ). They
defined four styles of humor usage: affiliative (e.g.,
I enjoy making people laugh), self-enhancing
(e.g., If I am feeling upset or unhappy I usually try
to think of something funny about the situation to
make myself feel better), aggressive (e.g., If I dont
like someone, I often use humor or teasing to put
them down), and self-defeating (e.g., If I am having problems or feeling unhappy, I often cover it up
by joking around, so that even my closest friends
dont know how I really feel.). To our knowledge,
empirical investigations into leadership and Martin
et al.s forms of humor have yet to be explored.
However, because the HSQ focuses on the joketellers motivations (e.g., to feel better versus to make
others laugh), it would be useful to explain why leaders choose to use some forms of humor over others.
Furthermore, it is possible that leaders use more
than one form of humor, such as both affiliative and
aggressive humor, with equal frequency; how
would this impact their leader ratings? It would be
interesting to investigate how followers reconcile
this seeming inconsistency, as well as the situational conditions that may be more (or less) conducive to certain forms of humor and the stability
of humor style over time.

Corporate Social Responsibility

Organizations attempts to recognize social issues are
usually encapsulated within corporate social responsibility (CSR), which reflect[s] the organizations
status and activities with respect to its perceived societal obligations (Dacin & Brown, 1997, p. 68). We
would be remiss if we did not comment on the potential role for leadership in this area, as one might reasonably expect that this will become an increasingly
important issue for organizations in the future (see
Vol. 3, chap. 24, this handbook). In general, most
research on CSR has been conducted at the organiza-

tional level (e.g., Bird, Hall, Moment & Reggiani,

2007); it is extremely unusual to encounter
research on this topic at the individual employee
level. This remains surprising, as the success or
failure of any CSR initiative presumably rests
largely on whether employees identify with the
values inherent in the CSR initiative and are
willing to go beyond normal job expectations to
ensure that the initiative succeeds.
Given its value-based focus and empirical research
showing that it can motivate employees discretionary
behaviors, charismatic leadership might be especially
appropriate in this context. Previous research has
highlighted the effectiveness of charismatic leaders in
selling a message and producing rhetoric to justify a
cause (e.g., Den Hartog & Verburg, 1997; Seyranian
& Bligh, 2008), and the societal impact of CSR initiatives could be consistent with idealized influences
emphasis on the collective good and collective
goals. In the future, it will be critical for leaders to
move beyond a philanthropic approach to one
which emphasizes the many ways in which organization and their members can benefit from organizational responsibility interventions (see Vol. 3, chap.
24, this handbook). How organizations respond to,
and raise awareness of social issues (e.g., the environment) further illustrates the potential role for and
impact of leadership both within and beyond the
organization.

Leadership Selection
While genetic and early family environment influences leadership role occupancy and behaviors,
the selection of leaders is in the hands of organizations. To facilitate leadership selection,
questionnaires and different assessment tools
(e.g., structured interviews; Krajewski, Goffin,
McCarthy, Rothstein, & Johnston, 2006) are frequently used. Nonetheless, the basic conceptual
assumption, that performance on a questionnaire
can predict performance on the battlefield, is
debatable (Gladwell, 2004, 2008).
Use of personality tests to aid in selecting leaders
rests on the premise that certain personality traits are
empirically associated with effective (and noneffective; Hogan & Hogan, 2001) leadership behaviors.
Perhaps the most widely used personality inventory
227

Barling, Christie, and Hoption

for leadership selection is the Myers-Briggs Type

Instrument (MBTI; Gardner & Martinko, 1996;
Roush & Atwater, 1992), a self-report measure of
personality preferences or types developed by the
mother-and-daughter team of Katharine and Isabel
Briggs, that is based on the theory of Carl Jung. The
use of the MBTI for selection in general, and leadership selection in particular, is clouded in considerable controversy owing to lingering concerns about
theory, reliability and validity, and appropriate
administration and scoring procedures (e.g., Jackson,
Parker, & Dipboye, 1996; Pittenger, 1993). One
straightforward prediction is that, given the importance of leadership selection and the practical and
financial efficiency of online questionnaires, there
will be growing pressure to move toward the use of
online leader selection tools. Nonetheless, practical
problems need to be confronted, including whether
online methods can assess the interactive and dynamic
functions of leadership. The future for leadership
selection tests depends on the availability of reliable
and valid tests that can be used appropriately and
that predict the outcomes of interest. It would be
premature to discard leadership selection tests in
their entirety and risk throwing the baby out with
the bathwater (e.g., Paunonen, Rothstein, & Jackson,
1999). However, an updated perspective of leadership selection and selection tests is warranted. At
the same time, nontechnological techniques such
as leaderless group tasks (Hooijberg & Choi, 2000)
and unstructured interviews might still prove useful in leadership selection, and subordinates need
to be engaged in the leadership selection process.
Moreover, given that a large portion of the leadership
function now involves team processes and that teams
hold a central role in organizations, team-based
selection will likely be a part of the future of leadership selection.

Contrasting Different Leadership Theories

As is no doubt evident from the preceding discussions, there is clearly no dearth of available leadership theories. Although Hunter et al. (2007) have
described the content of the typical leadership study,
it is also possible to characterize the approach taken
within the typical leadership study: Specifically,
Hunter et al. described researchbe it correlational
228

or experimental, cross-sectional or longitudinal

that tests the central tenets of a single, specific theory. One of the ultimate goals of all such research
would be to make informed judgments about the relative utility and validity of the different leadership
theories. However, because of the meaningful differences across all these studiesfor example, in the
measures used, the outcomes addressed, and the
time needed for interventions to exert any effects
any such judgments would be difficult at best.
Instead, like the research conducted on goalsetting theory some 2 decades ago by Latham, Erez,
and Locke (1988) that was designed to disentangle
seemingly contradictory findings about the same
phenomena from different studies, substantially
more can be gained at this stage from conducting
research that a priori sets up fair comparisons
(Cooper & Richardson, 1986) between competing
leadership theories that can produce winners and
losers. Moreover, the process described by Latham
et al., which engages the theories disputants in the
design of the research, remains underutilized yet
extremely promising. The results of such research
would have the potential to help researchers and
practitioners alike make sense of the existing leadership theories and enumerable empirical tests.
CONCLUSION
Our understanding of leadership has come a long way
since physical features such as height and attractiveness were thought to be prime determining factors of
leadership emergence and effectiveness. Despite the
wealth of knowledge that has accumulated, opportunities to answer new questions promise to expand
our knowledge of leadership to new and different
directions in the near future. After almost a century of
social and behavioral science research on leadership,
we stand on the brink of a new and expanded knowledge of organizational leadership.

References
Agle, B. R., Nagarajan, N. J., Sonnenfeld, J. A., &
Srinivasan, D. (2006). Does CEO charisma matter? An
empirical analysis of the relationships among organizational performance, environmental uncertainty, and
top management team perceptions of CEO charisma.
Academy of Management Journal, 49, 161174.

Leadership

Aguinis, H., & Henle, C. A. (2002). Ethics in research. In

S. G. Rogelberg (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in
industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 3456).
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and
development for individuals, teams, organizations and
society. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 451474.
Ah Chong, L. M., & Thomas, D. C. (1997). Leadership
perceptions in cross-cultural context: Pakeha and
Pacific Islanders in New Zealand. Leadership
Quarterly, 8, 275293.
Alimo-Metcalfe, B., & Alban-Metcalfe, R. J. (2001). The
development of a new Transformational Leadership
Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 74, 127.
Alutto, J. A., & Belasco, J. A. (1972). A typology for participation in organizational decision making.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 117125.
Amernic, J., Craig, R., & Tourish, D. (2007). The transformational leader as pedagogue, physician, architect,
commander, and saint: Five root metaphors in Jack
Welchs letters to stockholders of General Electric.
Human Relations, 60, 18391872.
Amit, K., Popper, M., Gal, R., Miskal-Sinai, M., & Lissak,
A. (2006). The potential to lead: The difference
between leaders and non-leaders. Megamot, 44,
277296.
Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging childhood: A theory of
development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469480.
Arnold, K. A., Turner, N. A., Barling, J., Kelloway, E. K.,
& McKee, M. (2007). Transformational leadership
and well-being: The mediating role of meaningful
work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12,
193203.
Arvey, R. D., Bouchard, T. J., Segal, N. L., & Abraham,
L. M. (1989) Job satisfaction: Environmental and
genetic components. Journal of Applied Psychology,
74, 187192.
Arvey, R. D., Rotundo, M., Johnson, W., Zhang, Z., &
McGue, M. (2006). The determinants of leadership
role occupancy: Genetic and personality factors.
Leadership Quarterly, 17, 120.
Arvey, R. D., Zhang, Z., Avolio, B. J., & Krueger, R. F.
(2007). Developmental and genetic determinants of
leadership role occupancy among women. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 92, 693705.
Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., Sun, L., & Debrah, Y. A. (2007).
Antecedents and outcomes of abusive supervision:
Test of a trickle-down model. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92, 191201.
Avolio, B. J. (1999a). Are leaders born or made?
Psychology Today, 32, 18.

Avolio, B. J. (1999b). Full leadership development: Building

the vital forces in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Avolio, B. J. (2007). Promoting more integrative strategies
for leader theory-building. American Psychologist, 62,
2533.
Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive
forms of leadership. Leadership Quarterly (June 2005),
16, 315338.
Avolio, B. J., Howell, J. M., & Sosik, J. J. (1999). A funny
thing happened on the way to the bottom line: Humor
as a moderator of leadership style effects. Academy of
Management Journal, 42, 219227.
Avolio, B. J., & Luthans, F. W. (2006). The high impact
leader: Authentic, resilient leadership that gets results
and sustains growth. New York: McGraw Hill.
Avolio, B. J., Rotundo, M., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2009).
Early life experiences as determinants of leadership
role occupancy: The importance of parental influence
and rule breaking behaviour. Leadership Quarterly,
20, 324342.
Avolio, B. J., Zhu, W., Koh, W., & Bhatia, P. (2004).
Transformational leadership and organizational commitment: Mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural distance.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2, 951968.
Ayman, R., & Chemers, M. M. (1983). Relationship of
supervisory behavior ratings to workgroup effectiveness and subordinate satisfaction among Iranian managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 338341.
Ayman, R., Chemers, M. M., & Fiedler, F. (1995). The
contingency model of leadership effectiveness: Its
level of analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 147167.
Baker, L. A., Jacobson, K. C., Raine, A., Lozano, D. I., &
Bezdijan, S. (2007). Genetic and environmental bases
of childhood antisocial behavior: A multi-informant
twin study. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 116,
219236.
Baker, S. D. (2008). Followership: The theoretical foundation of a contemporary construct. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 14, 5060.
Barling, J., Loughlin, C., & Kelloway, E. K. (2002).
Development and test of a model linking safetyspecific transformational leadership and occupational
safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 488496.
Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Effects
of transformational leadership training on attitudinal
and financial outcomes: A field experiment. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 81, 827832.
Barnett, L. (2007, September 5). Breaking news: Alessandra
Facchinetti at Valentino. Retrieved May 15, 2008, from
http://www.vogue.co.uk/news/daily/200709/070905229

Barling, Christie, and Hoption

breaking-news-alessandra-facchinetti-at-valentino.
aspx
Barry, D. (1991). Managing the bossless team: Lessons in
distributed leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 20,
3147.
Barsoux, J. (1996). Why organizations need humor.
European Management Journal, 14, 500508.
Bass, B. M. (1960). Leadership, psychology, and organizational behavior. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Bass, B. M. (1983). Issues involved in relations between
methodological rigor and reported outcomes in evaluations in evaluations of organizational development. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 197199.

Bligh, M. C., & Kohles, J. C., Pearce, C. L., Justin, J. E.,

& Stovall, J. F. (2007). When the romance is over:
Follower perspectives of aversive leadership.
Applied Psychology: An International Review, 56,
528557.
Boeker, W. (1992). Power and managerial dismissal:
Scapegoating at the top. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 37, 400421.
Bommer, W. H., Rich, G. A., & Rubin, R. S. (2005).
Changing attitudes about change: Longitudinal
effects of transformational leader behavior on
employee cynicism about organizational change.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 733753.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond

expectations. New York: Free Press.

Bono, J. E., & Anderson, M. H. (2005). The advice and

influence networks of transformational leaders.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 13061314.

Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactionaltransformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational

and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52,
130139.

Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Self-concordance at

work: Toward understanding the motivational effects
of transformational leaders. Academy of Management
Journal, 46, 554571.

Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial,

military, and educational impact. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Personality and

transformational and transactional leadership: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89,
901910.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003).
Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88, 207218.
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational
leadership (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character,
and authentic transformational leadership behavior.
Leadership Quarterly, 10, 181217.
Batstone, E., Boraston, I., & Frenkel, S. (1977). Shop
stewards in action: The organization of workplace conflict and accommodation. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology Monographs, 4, 1102.
Berglas, S. (1999). What you can learn from Steve Jobs.
Inc, 21, 2931.
Bernerth, J. B., Armenakis, A. A., Feild, H. S., Giles, W. F.,
& Walker, H. J. (2007). Is personality associated with
perceptions of LMX? An empirical study. Leadership
& Organization Development Journal, 28, 613631.
Bird, R., Hall, A., Moment, F., & Reggiani, F. (2007).
What corporate responsibility activities are valued by
the market? Journal of Business Ethics, 76, 189206.
Bligh, M. C., Kohles, J. C., & Meindl, J. R. (2004).
Charisma under crisis: Presidential leadership,
rhetoric, and media responses before and after the
September 11 terrorist attacks. Leadership Quarterly,
15, 211239.
230

Boone, C., Van Olffen, W., & Van Witteloostuijn, A.

(2005). Team locus-of-control composition, leadership structure, information acquisition, and financial
performance: A business simulation study. Academy
of Management Journal, 48, 889909.
Boswell, W. R., Boudreau, J. W., & Tichy, J. (2005). The
relationship between employee job change and job
satisfaction: The honeymoon-hangover effect. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 90, 882892.
Bouchard, T. J., Lykken, D. T., McGue, M., Segal, N. L.,
& Tellegen, A. (1990, October 12). Sources of
human differences: The Minnesota Study of Twins
Reared Apart. Science, 250, 223228.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1961). Some familial antecedents
of responsibility and leadership in adolescents. In
L. Petrullo & B. M. Bass (Eds.), Leadership and interpersonal behavior (pp. 239271). New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston.
Brown, M. E., Trevio, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005).
Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for
construct development and testing. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97, 117134.
Burke, C. S., Sims, D. E., Lazzara, E. H., & Salas, E.
(2007). Trust in leadership: A multi-level review and
integration. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 606632.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper.
Bycio, P., Hackett, R. D., & Allen, J. S. (1995). Further
assessments of Basss (1985) conceptualization of
transactional and transformational leadership.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 468478.

Leadership

Byrne, J. A. (1998). Jack: A close-up look at how

Americas number 1 manager runs GE. Business
Week, 3581 (8 June), 90.

Conger, J. A. (1989). The charismatic leader: Behind the

mystique of exceptional leadership. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Cacioppo. J. T., Amaral, D. G., Blanchard, J. J., Cameron,

J. L., Carter, C. S., Crews, D., et al. (2007). Social
neuroscience: Progress and implications for mental
health. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2,
99123.

Conger, J. A. (1999). Charismatic and transformational

leadership in organizations: An insiders perspective
on these developing streams of research. Leadership
Quarterly, 10, 145179.

Cameron, K. S., Kim, M. U., & Whetten, D. A. (1987).

Organizational effects of decline and turbulence.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 222240.
Carless, S. A. (1998). Assessing the discriminant validity
of transformational leader behaviour as measured by
the MLQ. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 71, 353358.
Carless, S. A., Wearing, A. J., & Mann, L. (2000). A short
measure of transformational leadership. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 14, 389405.
Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., Marrone, J. A. (2007). Shared
leadership in teams: An investigation of antecedent
conditions and performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 50, 12171234.
Catano, V. M., Pond, M., & Kelloway, E. K. (2001).
Exploring commitment and leadership in voluntary
organizations. Leadership and Organization
Development Journal, 22, 256263.
Charbonneau, D., Barling, J., & Kelloway, E. K. (2001).
Transformational leadership and sports performance:
The mediating role of intrinsic motivation. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 31, 15211534.
Chemers, M. M. (2001). Leadership effectiveness: An integrative view. In M. Hogg and S. Tindale (Eds.),
Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group
processes. (pp. 376399). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Chen, G., Kirkman, B. L., Kanfer, R., Allen, D., & Rosen,
B. (2007). A multilevel study of leadership, empowerment, and performance in teams. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92, 331346.
Cherulnik, P. D., Donley, K. A., Wiewel, T. S. R., &
Miller, S. R. (2001). Charisma is contagious: The
effect of leaders charisma on observers affect.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 21492159.
Cherulnik, P. D., Turns, L. C., & Wilderman, S. K. (1990).
Physical appearance and leadership: Exploring the
role of appearance-based attribution in leader
emergence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20,
15301539.
Clark, P. F., Barling, J., Carroll, A., Fullagar, C., &
Gallagher, D. G. (2007). The Influence of Transformational Leadership on Newcomers Union Attitudes: A
Longitudinal Study. Annual Meeting of the Academy
of Management, Philadelphia, PA, August.
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make
the leap . . . and others dont. New York: Harper Collins.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1994). Charismatic

leadership in organizations: Perceived behavioral
attributes and their measurement. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 15, 439452.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic
leadership in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Conger, J. A., & Pearce, C. L. (2003). A landscape of
opportunities: Future research on shared leadership.
In C. L. Pearce & J. A. Conger (Eds.) Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Constantineau, B. (2008, April 2). Profits soar at
Lululemon. The Vancouver Sun. Retrieved May 3,
2008, from http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/
news/business/story.html?id=7d4a6589-01e7-4d07bb24-5b324eb651e4&k=62474
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasiexperimentation: Design and analysis issues for field
settings. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Cooper, W. H., & Richardson, A. H. (1996). Unfair comparisons. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 179184.
Cox, C. J., & Cooper, C. L. (1989). The making of the
British CEO: Childhood, work experience, personality, and management style. Academy of Management
Executive, 3, 353358.
Crant, J. M., & Bateman, T. S. (2000). Charismatic leadership viewed from above: The impact of proactive personality. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 6375.
Crawford, C. B. (1994). Theory and implications regarding the utilization of strategic humor by leaders.
Journal of Leadership Studies, 1, 5367.
Dacin, P. A., & Brown, T. J. (1997). The company and
the product: Corporate associations and consumer
product responses. Journal of Marketing, 61, 6884.
Dansereau, F. J., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal
organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role
making process. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 13, 4678.
Dasborough, M. T., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2002). Emotion
and attribution of intentionality in leader-member
relationships. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 615634.
Dasgupta, N., & Asgari, S. (2004). Seeing is believing:
Exposure to counterstereotypic women leaders and its
effect on the malleability of automatic gender stereotyping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40,
642658.
231

Barling, Christie, and Hoption

Davies, P. G., Spencer, S. J., & Steele, C. M. (2005).

Clearing the air: Identity safety moderates the effects
of stereotype threat on womens leadership aspirations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88,
276287.
Day, D. V., Sin, H., & Chen, T. T. (2004). Assessing the
burdens of leadership: Effects of formal leadership
roles on individual performance over time. Personnel
Psychology, 57, 573605.
Decker, W. H., and Rotondo, D. M. (2001). Relationships
among gender, type of humor and perceived leader
effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Issues, 13, 450465.
Deluga, R. J. (1987). Corporate coups dtat: What happens
and why. Leadership and Organization Development
Journal, 8, 915.
Den Hartog, D. N., House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., RuizQuintanilla, S. A., Dorfman, P. W., Abdalla, I. A., et
al. (1999). Culturally-specific and cross-culturally
generalizable implicit leadership theories: Are attributes of charismatic leadership theories universally
endorsed? Leadership Quarterly, 10, 219256.

Dupr, K. E., & Barling, J. (2006). Predicting and preventing supervisory workplace aggression. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 1326.
Dutton, J. E., Frost, P. J., Worline, M. C., Lilius, J. M., &
Kanov, J. M. (2002). Leading in times of trauma.
Harvard Business Review, 80, 5461.
Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., Shamir, B. (2002). Impact
of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment. Academy
of Management Journal, 45, 735744.
Dvir, T., & Shamir, B. (2003). Follower developmental
characteristics as predicting transformational leadership: A longitudinal field study. Leadership Quarterly,
14, 327344.
Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen,
M. L. (2003). Transformational, transactional, and
laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129,
569591.
Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin,
108, 233256.

Den Hartog, D. N., Van Muijen, J. J., & Koopman, P. L.

(1997). Transactional versus transformational leadership: An analysis of the MLQ. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 70, 1934.

Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (1991). Gender and the emergence of leaders: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 685710.

Den Hartog, D. N., & Verburg, R. M. (1997). Charisma and

rhetoric: Communicative techniques of international
business leaders. Leadership Quarterly, 8, 355391.

Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., & Makhijani, M. G. (1995).

Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: A metaanalysis. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 125145.

Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior

and employee voice: Is the door really open?
Academy of Management Journal, 50, 869884.

Eagly, A. H., Karau, S., Miner, J. B., & Johnson, B. T.

(1994). Gender and motivation to manage in hierarchical organizations: A meta-analysis. Leadership
Quarterly, 5, 135159.

de Vries, R. E., Roe, R. A., & Taillieu, T. C. B. (1998).

Need for supervision: Its impact on leadership effectiveness. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
34, 486501.
Dickson, M. W., Resick, C. J., & Hanges, P. J. (2006).
Systematic variation in organizationally-shared cognitive prototypes of effective leadership based on organizational form. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 487505.
Dineen, B. R., Lewicki, R. J., & Tomlinson, E. C. (2006).
Supervisory guidance and behavioral integrity:
Relationships with employee citizenship and deviant
behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 622635.
Dionne, S. D., Yammarino, F. J., Atwater, L. E., & James,
L. R. (2002). Neutralizing substitutes for leadership
theory: Leadership effects and common-source bias.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 454464.

Eagly, A. H., Makhijani, M. G., & Klonsky, B. G. (1992).

Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 111, 322.
Eby, L. T., Cader, J., & Noble, C. L. (2003). Why do high
self-monitors emerge as leaders in small groups? A
comparative analysis of the behaviors of high versus
low self-monitors. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 33, 14571479.
Ehrhart, M. G., & Klein, K. J. (2001). Predicting followers preferences for charismatic leadership: The influence of follower values and personality. Leadership
Quarterly, 12, 153179.
Elder, G. H. (1974). Children of the Great Depression.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Dirks, K. T. (2000). Trust in leadership and team performance: Evidence from NCAA basketball. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 85, 10041012.

Ellemers, N., de Gilder, D., & Haslam, S. A. (2004).

Motivating individuals and groups at work: A social
identity perspective on leadership and group performance. Academy of Management Review, 29, 459478.

Duehr, E. E., & Bono, J. E. (2006). Men, women, and

managers: Are stereotypes finally changing?
Personnel Psychology, 59, 815846.

Ensley, M. D., Hmieleski, K. M., & Pearce, C. L. (2006).

The importance of vertical and shared leadership
within new venture top management teams:

232

Leadership

Implications for the performance of startups.

Leadership Quarterly, 17, 217231.
Ensley, M. D., Pearson, A., & Pearce, C. L. (2003). Top
management team process, shared leadership, and
new venture performance: A theoretical model and
research agenda. Human Resource Management
Review, 13, 329346.
Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2004). Implicit leadership
theories in applied settings: Factor structure, generalizability, and stability over time. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89, 293310.
Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2005a). From ideal to real: A
longitudinal study of the role of implicit leadership
theories on leader-member exchanges and employee
outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 659676.
Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2005b). The moderating
role of individual differences in the relation between
transformational/transactional leadership perceptions and organizational identification. Leadership
Quarterly, 16, 569589.
Erez, A., Misangyi, V. F., Johnson, D. E., LePine, M. A.,
& Halverson, K. C. (2008). Stirring the hearts of followers: Charismatic leadership as the transferal of
affect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 602616.
Farmer, S. M. and Aguinis, H. (2005). Accounting for
subordinate perceptions of supervisor power: An
identity-dependence model. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90, 10691083.
Felfe, J. (2005). Personality and romance of leadership. In
B. Schyns & J. R. Meindl (Eds.), Implicit leadership
theories: Essays and explorations (pp. 199225).
Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Felfe, J. (2006). Validation of a German version of the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ Form
5x Short) by Bass and Avolio (1995). Zeitschrift fr
Arbeits und Organisationspsychologie, 50, 6178.
Felfe, J., & Petersen, L. (2007). Romance of leadership
and management decision making. European Journal
of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16, 124.
Felfe, J., & Schyns, B. (2006). Personality and the perception of transformational leadership: The impact of
extraversion, neuroticism, personal need for structure, and occupational self-efficacy. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 36, 708739.
Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness.
New York: McGraw-Hill.

Francis, L. E. (1994). Laughter, the best mediation:

Humor as emotion management in interaction.
Symbolic Interaction, 17, 147163.
Frone, M. R., Adams, J., Rice, R. W., & Instone-Noonan,
D. (1986). Halo error: A field study comparison of
self- and subordinate evaluations of leadership
process and leader effectiveness. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 454461.
Fukushige, A. & Spicer, D. P. (2007). Leadership preferences in Japan: An exploratory study. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 28, 508530.
Fullagar, C., McCoy, D., & Shull, C. (1992). The socialization of union loyalty. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 13, 1326.
Fuller, J. B., Patterson, C. E. P., Hester, K., & Stringer,
D. Y. (1996). A quantitative review of research on
charismatic leadership. Psychological Reports, 78,
271287.
Gardner, W. L. & Martinko, M. J. (1996). Using the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to study managers: A
literature review and research agenda. Journal of
Management, 22, 4583.
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1994). Cross-cultural comparison of leadership prototypes. Leadership
Quarterly, 5, 121134.
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic
review of leadermember exchange theory:
Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 82, 827844.
Giessner, S. R., & van Knippenberg, D. (2008). License
to fail: Goal definition, leader group prototypicality,
and perceptions of leadership effectiveness after
leader failure. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 105, 1435.
Gladwell, M. (2004, September 20). Personality plus. The
New Yorker, 4248.
Gladwell, M. (2008, December 15). Most likely to succeed. The New Yorker, 3642.
Glass, J., Bengtson, V. L. & Dunham, C. C. (1986).
Attitude similarity in three-generation families:
Socialization, status inheritance, or reciprocal influence? American Sociological Review, 51, 685698.
Gouldner, A. W. (1987). Attitudes of progressive trade
union leaders. American Journal of Sociology, 52,
389393.

Fleishman, E. A. (1953). The description of supervisory

behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 37, 16.

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based

approach to leadership: Development of leader
member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over
25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219247.

Fleming, P. (2005). Workers playtime? Boundaries and

cynicism in a Culture of Fun program. The Journal
of Applied Behavioral Science, 41, 285303.

Gray, J. H., & Densten, I. L. (2007). How leaders woo

followers in the romance of leadership. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 56, 558581.

Fiorina, C. (2001, December 29). People of the year. The

Financial Times, p. 8.

233

Barling, Christie, and Hoption

Hains, S. C., Hogg, M. A., & Duck, J. M. (1997). Selfcategorization and leadership: Effects of group prototypicality and leader stereotypicality. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 10871099.
Harris, J. R. (1995). Where is the childs environment? A
group socialization theory of development. Psychological Review, 102, 458489.
Hartman, S. J., & Harris, O. J. (1992). The role of parental
influences on leadership. The Journal of Social Psychology, 132, 153167.
Harvey, A. (2001). A dramaturgical analysis of charismatic
leader discourse. Journal of Organizational Change
Management, 14, 253265.
Harvey, S., Royal, M., Stout, D. (2003). Instructors transformational leadership: University student attitudes
and ratings. Psychological Reports, 92, 395402.
Heinitz, K., Liepmann, D., & Felfe, J. (2005). Examining
the factor structure of the MLQ: Recommendation
for a reduced set of factors. European Journal of
Psychological Assessment, 21, 182190.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. (1988). Management of organization behavior: Utilizing human resources, 5th ed.,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Herold, D. M., Fedor, D. B., Caldwell, S., & Liu, Y. (2008).
The effects of transformational and change leadership
on employees commitment to a change: A multilevel
study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 346357.
Hinkin, T. R. & Schriesheim, C. A. (2008). An examination of nonleadership: From laissez-faire leadership
to leader reward omission and punishment omission.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 12341248.
Hofmann, D. A., & Jones, L. M. (2005). Leadership, collective personality, and performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 90, 509522.
Hofmann, D. A., & Morgeson, F. P. (1999). Safety-related
behavior as a social exchange: The role of perceived
organizational support and leader-member exchange.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 286296.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Cultures consequences: Comparing
values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across
nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2001). Assessing leadership: A
view from the dark side. International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, 9, 4051.
Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 184200.
Hogg, M. A., Fielding, K. S., Johnson, D., Masser, B.,
Russell, E., & Svensson, A. (2006). Demographic category membership and leadership in small groups: A
social identity analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 17,
335350.
Hogg, M. A., Hains, S. C., & Mason, I. (1998).
Identification and leadership in small groups:
234

Salience, frame of reference, and leader stereotypicality effects on leader evaluations. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 75, 12481263.
Hoobler, J. M., & Brass, D. J. (2006). Abusive supervision
and family undermining as displaced aggression.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 11251133.
Hooijberg, R., & Choi, J (2000). From selling peanuts
and beer in Yankee Stadium to creating a theory of
transformational leadership: An interview with
Bernie Bass. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 291306.
Hooker, C., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2003). Flow, creativity, and shared leadership: Rethinking the motivation
and structuring of knowledge work. In C. L. Pearce &
J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the
hows and whys of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Hoption, C., Phelan, J., & Barling, J. (2007). Transformational leadership in sport. In M. R. Beauchamp &
M. A. Eys (Eds.), Group dynamics advances in sport and
exercise psychology: Contemporary themes (pp. 4560).
Abingdon, England: Routledge.
Houghton, J. D., & Neck, C. P. (2002). The revised selfleadership questionnaire: Testing a hierarchical factor
structure for self-leadership. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 17, 672691.
Houghton, J. D., Neck, C. P., & Manz, C. C. (2003). Selfleadership and superleadership: The heart and art of
creating shared leadership in teams. In C. L. Pearce
& J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing
the hows and whys of leadership (pp. 123140).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
House, R., & Howell, J. M. (1992). Personality and charismatic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 3, 81108.
House, R., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., & Dorfman, P. (2002).
Understanding cultures and implicit leadership theories across the globe: An introduction to project
GLOBE. Journal of World Business, 37, 310.
House, R. J. (1971). A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 321339.
House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larsen (Eds.), Leadership:
The cutting edge (pp. 189207). Carbondale, IL:
Southern Illinois University Press.
House, R. J. (1996). Pathgoal theory of leadership:
Lessons, legacy and a reformulated theory. Leadership
Quarterly, 7, 323352.
House, R. J. (2004). Illustrative examples of GLOBE
findings. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan,
P. W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leadership and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 38). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The social scientific
study of leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of Management, 23, 409473.

Leadership

House, R. J., & Mitchell, T. R. (1974). Path-goal theory of

leadership. Contemporary Business, 3, 8198.

structure in leadership research. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 89, 3651.

House, R. J., & Podsakoff, P. M. (1994). Leadership effectiveness: Past perspectives and future directions for
research. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: The state of the science (pp. 4582). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.

Judge, T. A., Woolf, E. A., Hurst, C., & Livingston, B.

(2008). Leadership. In J. Barling & C. Cooper (Eds.),
Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 334352).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1992). The ethics of charismatic leadership: Submission or liberation? The
Executive, 6, 43.

Jung, D. I., & Avolio, B. J. (1999). Effects of leadership

style and followers cultural orientation on performance in groups and individual task conditions.
Academy of Management Journal, 47, 208218.

Howell, J. M., & Hall-Merenda, K. E. (1999). The ties

that bind: The impact of leadermember exchange,
transformational and transactional leadership, and
distance on predicting follower performance. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 84, 680694.

Jung, D. I., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). Opening the black

box: An experimental investigation of the mediating
effects of trust and value congruence on transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 21, 949964.

Ilies, R., Gerhardt, M. W., & Le, H. (2004). Individual differences in leadership emergence: Integrating metaanalytic findings and behavioral genetics estimates.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12,
207219.

Kane, T. D., Tremble, T. R., & Trueman, R. (2000).

Transformational leadership effects at different levels
of the army. Military Psychology 12, 137150.

Hunter, S. T., Bedell-Avers, K. E., & Mumford, M. D.

(2007). The typical leadership study: Assumptions,
implications, and potential remedies. Leadership
Quarterly, 18, 435446.
Jackson, S. L., Parker, C. P., & Dipboye, R. L. (1996). A
comparison of competing models underlying
responses to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.
Journal of Career Assessment, 4, 99115.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor model of
personality and transformational leadership. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 85, 751765.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W.
(2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and
quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,
765780.
Judge, T. A., & Cable, D. M. (2004). The effect of physical
height on workplace success and income: Preliminary
test of a theoretical model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 428441.
Judge, T. A., Colbert, A. E., & Ilies, R. (2004). Intelligence
and leadership: A quantitative review and test of theoretical propositions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89,
542552.

Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces
of transformational leadership: Empowerment and
dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88,
246255.
Karnes, F. A., & DIlio, V. R. (1989). Student leaders and
their parents perceptions of the home environment.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 33, 165168.
Keller, R. T. (2006). Transformational leadership, initiating structure, and substitutes for leadership: A longitudinal study of research and development project
team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91,
202210.
Keller, T. (1999). Images of the familiar: Individual differences and implicit leadership theories. Leadership
Quarterly, 10, 589607.
Kellett, P. (1999). Organisational leadership: Lessons
from professional coaches. Sport Management Review,
2, 150171.
Kelley, R. E. (1992). The power of followership: How to
create leaders people want to follow and followers who
lead themselves. New York: Doubleday.
Kelloway, E. K., & Barling, J. (1993). Members participation in local union activities: Measurement, prediction and replication. Journal of Applied Psychology,
78, 262279.

Judge, T. A., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2006). Loving

yourself abundantly: Relationship of the narcissistic
personality to self- and other perceptions of workplace
deviance, leadership, and task and contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 762776.

Kelloway, E. K., & Barling, J. (2000). What we have

learned about developing transformational leaders.
Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 21,
355363.

Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational

and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of
their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology,
89, 755768.

Kelloway, E. K., Barling, J., & Helleur, J. (2000).

Enhancing transformational leadership: the roles of
training and feedback. Leadership and Organization
Development Journal, 21, 145149.

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

Kelloway, E. K., Mullen, J., & Francis, L. (2006).

Divergent effects of transformational and passive
235

Barling, Christie, and Hoption

leadership on employee safety. Journal of

Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 7686.
Kelloway, E. K., Sivanathan, N., Francis, L., & Barling, J.
(2005). Poor leadership. In J. Barling & E. K.
Kelloway (Eds.) Handbook of work stress (pp. 89112).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kenney, R. A., Schwartz-Kenney, B. M., & Blascovich, J.
(1996). Implicit leadership theories: Defining leaders
described as worthy of influence. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 11281143.
Kent, R. L., & Moss, S. E. (1994). Effects of sex and gender role on leader emergence. Academy of
Management Journal, 37, 13351346.
Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 22, 375403.
Kerr, S., Schreisheim, C. A., Murphy, C. J., & Stogdill,
R. M. (1974). Toward a contingency theory of leadership based upon the consideration and initiating
structure literature. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 12, 6282.
Khoo, H. S., & St. J. Burch, G. (2008). The dark side of
leadership personality and transformational leadership: An exploratory study. Personality and Individual
Differences, 44, 8697.
Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1996). Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic leadership components on performance and attitudes. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 81, 3651.
Klein, K. J., Ziegert, J. C., Knight, A. P., Xiao, Y. (2006).
Dynamic delegation: Shared, hierarchical, and deindividualized leadership in extreme action teams.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 51, 590621.
Klonsky, B. G. (1983). The socialization and development
of leadership ability. Genetic Psychology Monographs,
108, 97135.
Koh, W. L., Steers, R. M., & Terborg, J. R. (1995). The
effects of transformational leadership on teacher attitudes and student performance in Singapore. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 16, 319333.
Krajewski, H. T., Goffin, R. D., McCarthy, J. M., Rothstein,
M. G., Johnston, N. (2006). Comparing the validity of
structured interviews for managerial-level employees:
Should we look to the past or focus on the future?
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
79, 411432.
Krosnick, J. A., & Alwin, D. F. (1989). Aging and susceptibility to attitude change. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 57, 416425.
Latham, G. P., Erez, M., & Locke, E. A. (1988). Resolving
scientific disputes by the joint design of crucial
experiments by the antagonists: Application to the
Erez-Latham dispute regarding participation in goal
setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 753772.
236

Leach, M. M., & Harbin, J. J. (1997). Psychological ethics

codes: A comparison of twenty-four countries.
International Journal of Psychology, 32, 181192.
Lim, B. C., & Ployhart, R. E. (2004). Transformational
leadership: Relations to the five-factor model and
team performance in typical and maximum contexts.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 610621.
Ling, Y., Simsek, Z., Lubatkin, M. H., & Veiga, J. F.
(2008). Transformational leaderships role in promoting corporate entrepreneurship: Examining the
CEOTMT interface. Academy of Management
Journal, 51, 557576.
Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1993). Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions and performance.
Boston, MA: Rutledge.
Lord, R. G., de Vader, C. L., & Alliger, G. M. (1986). A
meta-analysis of the relation between personality
traits and leadership perceptions: An application of
validity generalization procedures. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 71, 402410.
Louhead, T. M., & Hardy, J. (2005). An examination of
coach and peer leader behaviors in sport. Psychology
of Sport and Exercise, 6, 303312.
Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N.
(1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformation and
transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of
the MLQ literature. Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385425.
Mackenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Jarvis, C. B. (2005).
The problem of measurement model misspecification
in behavioural and organizational research and some
recommended solutions. Journal of Applied Psychology,
90, 710730.
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (1987). Leading workers to
lead themselves: The external leadership of selfmanaging work teams. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 32, 106129.
Martin, R. A., Puhlik-Doris, P., Larsen, G., Gray, J., &
Weir, K. (2003). Individual differences in uses of
humor and their relation to psychological well-being:
Development of the Humor Styles Questionnaire.
Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 4875.
Maslow, A. H. (1965). Eupsychian management: A journal.
Homewood IL: Dorsey.
Maume, D. J., Jr. (1999). Glass ceilings and glass escalators: Occupational segregation and race and sex differences in managerial promotions. Work and
Occupations, 26, 483509.
McClane, W. E. (1991). The interaction of leader and
member exchange characteristics in the leader
member exchange (LMX) model of leadership. Small
Group Research, 22, 283300.
McCrae, R. R & John, O. (1992). An introduction to the
five-factor model and its applications. Journal of
Personality, 60, 174214.

Leadership

McGue, M., & Bouchard, T. J. (1998). Genetic and environmental influences on human behavioral differences. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 21, 124.
Meindl, J. R. (1995). The romance of leadership as a
follower-centric theory: A social constructionist
approach. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 329341.
Meindl, J. R. (1998). Appendix: Measure and assessments for the romance of leadership approach. In
F. Dansereau & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership:
The multiple-level approachesPart B: Contemporary
and alternative (p. 199302). Stamford, CT: JAI.
Meindl, J. R., & Ehrlich, S. B. (1987). The romance of
leadership and the evaluation of organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 91109.
Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. (1985).
The romance of leadership. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 30, 78102.
Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating
effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 92, 11591168.
Morris, J. A., Brotheridge, C. M., & Urbanski, J. C.
(2005). Bringing humility to leadership: Antecedents
and consequences of leader humility. Human
Relations, 58, 13231350.
Morgan, B. B., Jr., Salas, E., & Glickman, A. (1993). An
analysis of team evolution and maturation. Journal of
General Psychology, 120, 277291.
Mullen, J., & Kelloway, E. K. (2009). Safety leadership: A
longitudinal study of the effects of transformational
leadership on safety outcomes. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 2, 253272.
Nathan, B. R., & Lord, R. G. (1983). Cognitive categorization and dimensional schemata: A process
approach to the study of halo in performance ratings.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 102114.
Neubert, M. J. (1999). Too much of a good thing or the
more the merrier? Exploring the dispersion and gender composition of informal leadership in manufacturing teams. Small Group Research, 30, 635646.
Nguni, S., Sleegers, P., & Denessen, E. (2006).
Transformational and transactional leadership effects
on teachers job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior in
primary schools: The Tanzanian case. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17, 145177.
Nye, J. S. (2008). The powers to lead. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Offermann, L. R., Kennedy, J. K., & Wirtz, P. W. (1994).
Implicit leadership theories: Content, structure, and
generalizability. Leadership Quarterly, 5, 4358.
Paunonen, S. V., Lnnqvist, J., Verkasalo, M., Leikas, S.,
& Nissinen, V. (2006). Narcissism and emergent

leadership in military cadets. Leadership Quarterly,

17, 475486.
Paunonen, S. V., Rothstein, M. G., & Jackson, D. N.
(1999). Narrow reasoning about the use of broad
personality measures for personnel selection. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 20, 389405.
Perry, M. L., Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1999).
Empowered selling teams: How shared leadership
can contribute to selling team outcomes. Journal of
Personal Selling and Sales Management, 19, 3551.
Peters, L. H., Hartke, D. D., & Pohlmann, J. T. (1985).
Fiedlers contingency theory of leadership: An application of the meta-analysis procedures of Schmidt
and Hunter. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 274285.
Peterson, R. S., Smith, D. B., Martorana, P. V., & Owens,
P. D. (2003). The impact of chief executive officer
personality on top management team dynamics: One
mechanism by which leadership affects organizational performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88,
795808.
Pfeffer, J. (1977). The ambiguity of leadership. Academy
of Management Review, 2, 104112.
Pfeffer, J. (1998). The Human Equation: Building Profits by
Putting People First. Boston: Harvard Business School
Press.
Pfeffer, J. (2007). In defense of the boss from hell.
Business 2.0, 8, 70.
Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2006). Hard facts, dangerous
half-truths and total nonsense. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
Phillips, D. J. (2005). Organizational genealogies and the
persistence of gender inequality: The case of Silicon
Valley law firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50,
440472.
Piccolo, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. (2006). Transformational
leadership and job behaviors: The mediating role of
core job characteristics. Academy of Management
Journal, 49, 327340.
Pillai, R. (1996). Crisis and the emergence of charismatic
leadership in groups: An experimental investigation.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 543562.
Pillai, R., & Meindl, J. R. (1998). Context and charisma:
A meso level examination of the relationship of
organic structure, collectivism, and crisis to charismatic leadership. Journal of Management, 24, 643671.
Pillai, R., Schriesheim, C. A., & Williams, E. S. (1999).
Fairness perceptions and trust as mediators for
transformational and transactional leadership: A
two-sample study. Journal of Management, 25,
897933.
Pittenger, D. J. (1993). The utility of the Myers-Briggs
Type Indicator. Review of Educational Research, 63,
467488.
237

Barling, Christie, and Hoption

Platow, M. J., & van Knippenberg, D. (2001). A social

identity analysis of leadership endorsement: The
effects of leader ingroup prototypicality and distributive intergroup fairness. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 27, 15081519.

Rubin, R. S., Munz, D. C., & Bommer, W. H. (2005).

Leading from within: The effects of emotion recognition and personality on transformational leadership
behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 48,
845858.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H.

(1996). Meta-analysis of the relationships between
Jerr and Jermiers substitutes for leadership and
employee job attitudes, role perceptions, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 380399.

Ryan, M. K., & Haslam, S. A. (2007). The glass cliff:

Exploring the dynamics surrounding the appointment of women to precarious leadership positions.
Academy of Management Review, 32, 549572.

Popper, M., Mayseless, O., & Castelnovo, O. (2000).

Transformational leadership and attachment.
Leadership Quarterly, 11, 267289.

Sahin, S. (2004). The relationship between transformational and transactional leadership styles of school
principals and school culture. Kuram ve Uygulamada
Egitim Bilimleri, 42, 387396.

Rafferty, A. E., & Griffin, M. A. (2004). Dimensions of

transformational leadership: Conceptual and empirical extension. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 329354.

Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2001). The science of

training: A decade of progress. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52, 471499.

Ralston, D., Holt, D., Terpstra, R., & Kai-Cheng, Y.

(1997). The impact of national culture and economic
ideology on managerial work values: A study of the
United States, Russia, Japan, and China. Journal of
International Business Studies, 28, 177207.

Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S. K., & Cha, S. E. (2007).

Embracing transformational leadership: Team values
and the impact of leader behavior on team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 10201030.

Redelmeier, D. A., Katz, J., & Kahneman, D. (2003).

Memories of colonoscopy: A randomized trial. Pain,
104, 187194.
Richardson, H. M., & Hanawalt, N. G. (1952). Leadership
as related to the Bernreuter personality measures: V.
Leadership among adult women in social activities.
Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 141153.

Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., & Cogliser, C. C. (1999).

Leadermember exchange (LMX) research: A comprehensive review of theory, measurement, and dataanalytic practices. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 63113.
Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., Zhou, X., & DeChurch,
L. A. (2006). An investigation of pathgoal and
transformational leadership theory predictions at the
individual level of analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 17,
2138.

Roberts, B. W., Harms, P. D., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E.

(2007). Predicting the counterproductive employee
in a child-to-adult prospective study. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 92, 14271436.

Schriesheim, C. A., & Neider, L. L. (1996). Pathgoal

leadership theory: The long and winding road.
Leadership Quarterly, 7, 317321.

Roberts, N. C., & Bradley, R. T. (1988). Limits of

charisma. In J. A. Conger & R. N. Kanungo (Eds.),
Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness (pp. 253275). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Schriesheim, C. A., Tepper, B. J., & Tetrault, L. A.

(1994). Least preferred co-worker score, situational
control, and leadership effectiveness: A meta-analysis
of contingency model performance predictions.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 561573.

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

Newsweek, 150, 13.

Schyns, B., & Felfe, J. (2006). The personality of followers and its effect on the perception of leadership: An
overview, a study, and a research agenda. Small
Group Research, 37, 522539.

Rosenthal, S. A., & Pittinsky, T. L. (2006). Narcissistic

leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 617633.
Rossette, A. S., Leonardelli, G. J., & Phillips, K. W. (2008).
The White standard: Racial bias in leader categorization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 758777.
Roush, P. E. & Atwater, L. E. (1992). Using the MBTI to
understand transformational leadership and selfperception accuracy. Military Psychology, 4(1), 1734.
Rousseau, D. M. (2006). Is there such a thing as evidencebased management? Academy of Management Review,
31, 256269.
Rowold, J. (2006). Transformational and transactional
leadership in martial arts. Journal of Applied Sport
Psychology, 18, 312325.
238

Schyns, B., & Sanders, K. (2007). In the eyes of the

beholder: Personality and the perception of leadership. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37,
23452363.
Seyranian, V., & Bligh, M. C. (2008). Presidential charismatic leadership: Exploring the rhetoric of social
change. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 5476.
Shamir, B., & Eilam, G. (2005). Whats your story? A
life-stories approach to authentic leadership development. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 395417.
Shamir, B., & Howell, J. M. (1999). Organizational and
contextual influences on the emergence and effective-

Leadership

ness of charismatic leadership. Leadership Quarterly10,

257283.
Shamir, B., & Lapidot, Y. (2003). Shared leadership in the
management of group boundaries: A study of expulsions from officers training courses. In C. L. Pearce
& J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing
the hows and whys of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Shao, L., & Webber, S. (2006). A cross-cultural test of the
five-factor model of personality and transformational
leadership. Journal of Business Research, 59, 936944.
Shaw, H. (2008, February 15). The making of Lululemon:
Superheroines inspired companys founder to revolutionize womens yoga wear. National Post, p. FP7.
Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2003). Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity: Evidence from
Korea. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 703714.
Simola, S., Barling, J., & Turner, N. (in press). Transformational leadership and moral orientation: Contrasting
an ethic of justice and an ethic of care. Leadership
Quarterly.
Singer, M. S., & Singer, A. E. (1990). Situational constraints on transformational versus transactional
leadership behaviour, subordinates leadership preference, and satisfaction. Journal of Social Psychology,
130, 385396.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Latham, G. P. (1996). Increasing citizenship behavior within a labor union: A test of organizational justice theory. Journal of Applied Psychology,
81, 161169.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Latham, G. P. (1997). Leadership
training in organizational justice to increase citizenship behavior within a labor union: A replication.
Personnel Psychology, 50, 617633.
Skogstad, A., Einarsen, S., Torsheim, T., Aasland, M. S.,
& Hetland, H. (2007). The destructiveness of laissezfaire leadership behavior. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 12, 8092.
Sparrowe, R. N. (2005). Authenticity and the narrative
self. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 419439.
Spreitzer, G. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the
workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 14421465.
Spreitzer, G. M., Perttula, K. H., & Xin, K. (2005).
Traditionality matters: An examination of the effectiveness of transformational leadership in the United
States and Taiwan. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
26, 205227.
Srivastava, A., Bartol, K. M., & Locke, E. A. (2006).
Empowering leadership in management teams: Effects
on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance.
Academy of Management Journal, 49, 12391251.
Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and
the intellectual test performance of African

Americans. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 69, 797811.
Stogdill, R. M. (1950). Leadership, membership and organization. Psychological Bulletin, 47, 114.
Stodgill, R. M. (1963). Manual for the leader behavior
description questionnaire. Columbus: Bureau of
Business Research, Ohio State University.
Sullivan, A. (2008). Gender bender. Time, 171, 36.
Sutton, R. I. (2007). The no arsehole rule: Building a civilized workplace and surviving one that isnt. New York:
Warner Books.
Tannenbaum, S. I., Mathieu, J. E., Salas, E., & CannonBowers, J. A. (1991). Meeting trainees expectations:
The influence of training fulfillment on the development of commitment, self-efficacy, and motivation.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 759769.
Tarnopol, L. (1958). Personality differences between leaders and non-leaders. Personnel Journal, 37, 5760.
Tejeda, M. J., Scandura, T. A., & Pillai, R. (2001). The
MLQ revisited: Psychometric properties and recommendations. Leadership Quarterly, 12, 3152.
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 178190.
Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review synthesis, and research agenda.
Journal of Management, 33, 261289.
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Henle, C. A., & Lambert, L. S.
(2006). Procedural injustice, victim precipitation,
and abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 59,
101123.
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., & Shaw, J. D. (2001).
Personality moderators of the relationship between
abusive supervision and subordinates resistance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 974983.
Tepper, B. J., Moss, S. E., Lockhart, D. E., & Carr, J. C.
(2007). Abusive supervision, upward maintenance
communication, and subordinates psychological distress. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 11691180.
Tepper, B. J., & Percy, P. M. (1994). Structural validity of
the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 54, 734744.
Terpstra, D. (1981). Relationship between methodological rigor and reported outcomes in organization
development evaluation research. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 66, 541543.
Towler, A. (2005). Charismatic leadership development:
Role of parental attachment style and parental psychological control. Journal of Leadership and
Organizational Studies, 11(4), 1525.
Townsend, J., Phillips, J. S., & Elkins, T. J. (2000).
Employee retaliation: The neglected consequence of
poor leader-member exchange relations. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 457463.
239

Barling, Christie, and Hoption

Tucker, S., Turner, N., Barling, J., & McEvoy, M. (in

press). Transformational leadership and childrens
aggression in team setting: A short-term, longitudinal study. Leadership Quarterly.
Tucker, S., Turner, N., Barling, J., Reid, E. M., & Elving,
C. (2006). Apologies and transformational leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 63, 195207.
Turner, N., Barling, J., Epitropaki, O., Butcher, V., &
Milner, C. (2002). Transformational leadership and
moral reasoning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,
304311.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., &
Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social
group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, England:
Blackwell.
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and
synthesis of the measurement invariance literature:
Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for
organizational research. Organizational Research
Methods, 3, 470.
van Dierendonck, D., Haynes, C., Borrill, C., & Stride, C.
(2004). Leadership behavior and subordinate wellbeing. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9,
165175.
van Honk, J., & Schutter, D. J. L. G. (2007). Testosterone
reduces conscious detection of signals serving social
correction: Implications for antisocial behavior.
Psychological Science, 18, 663667.
van Knippenberg, D., De Cremer, D., & van
Knippenberg, B. (2007). Leadership and fairness:
The state of the art. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 16, 113140.
van Knippenberg, D., Lossie, N., & Wilke, H. (1994).
In-group prototypicality and persuasion:
Determinants of heuristic and systematic message
processing. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33,
289300.
van Knippenberg, B. & van Knippenberg, D. (2005).
Leader self-sacrifice and leadership effectiveness: The
moderating role of leader prototypicality. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 90, 2537.
van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., & van Dijk,
E. (2000). Who takes the lead in risky decision mak-

240

ing? Effects of group members risk preferences and

prototypicality. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 84, 213234.
Waldman, D. A., Ramrez, G. G., House, R. J., &
Puranam, P. (2001). Does leadership matter? CEO
leadership attributes and profitability under conditions of perceived environmental uncertainty.
Academy of Management Journal, 44, 134143.
Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D., & Chen,
Z. X. (2005). Leadermember exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational
leadership and followers performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management
Journal, 48, 420432.
Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organizations (T. Parsons, Trans.). New York: Free Press.
Westwood, R. (2004). Comic relief: Subversion and
catharsis in organizational comedic theatre.
Organization Studies, 25, 775795.
White, R. E., Thornhill, S., & Hampson, E. (2006).
Entrepreneurs and evolutionary biology: The relationship between testosterone and new venture creation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 100, 2134.
Whittington, J. L., Goodwin, V. L., & Murray, B. (2004).
Transformational leadership, goal difficulty, and job
design: Independent and interactive effects on
employee outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 15,
593606.
Wofford, J. C., & Liska, L. Z. (1993). Pathgoal theories
of leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Management, 19, 857876.
Yovetich, N. A., Dale, J. A., & Hudak, M. A. (1990).
Benefits of humor in reduction of threat-induced
anxiety. Psychological Reports, 66, 5158.
Zacharatos, A., Barling, J., & Kelloway, E. K. (2000).
Development and effects of transformational leadership in adolescents. Leadership Quarterly, 11,
211226.
Zellars, K. L., Tepper, B. J., & Duffy, M. K. (2002).
Abusive supervision and subordinates organizational
citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology,
87, 10681076.