Leveraging Leaders: A Literature Review and Future Lines of Inquiry For Empowering Leadership Research

574906
research-article2015
GOMXXX10.1177/1059601115574906Group & Organization ManagementSharma and Kirkman
Article
Group & Organization Management
2015, Vol. 40(2) 193–237
Leveraging Leaders: © The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
A Literature Review sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1059601115574906
and Future Lines of gom.sagepub.com
Inquiry for Empowering

Leadership Research
Payal Nangia Sharma1 and Bradley L. Kirkman2
Abstract
We review and synthesize the empowering leadership literature and, as a
result, suggest two new provocative lines of inquiry directing future research.
Based on a set of testable propositions, we first encourage researchers to
answer the question of why empowering leadership occurs. Second, we
encourage researchers to explore less positive and unintended, negative
outcomes of empowering leadership. To identify opportunities for future
work along these two lines, we use four theoretical perspectives including
(1) person–situation interactions, (2) followership theory, (3) contingency
approaches to leadership, and, (4) the too-much-of-a-good-thing effect. As
a result, we set an agenda for the next decade of research on empowering
leadership.
Keywords
empowering leadership, empowerment, individual differences, cultural
values, context, followership, contingency leadership theory
1Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ, USA

2North Carolina State University, Raleigh, USA
Corresponding Author:
Payal Nangia Sharma, Rutgers Business School, Rutgers University, 100 Rockafeller Road,
Room 2141, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA.
Email: [email protected]
194 Group & Organization Management 40(2)
Empowering leadership is defined as leader behaviors directed at individuals

or entire teams and consisting of delegating authority to employees, promot-
ing their self-directed and autonomous decision making, coaching, sharing
information, and asking for input (Z. Chen, Lam, & Zhong, 2007; Kirkman
& Rosen, 1999; Konczak, Stelly, & Trusty, 2000). Given the continuing flat-
tening of organizations, more reliance on teamwork, and the growing com-
plexity of work, there is increased interest in empowering leadership from
both scholars and practitioners (Arnold, Arad, Rhoades, & Drasgow, 2000;
Seibert, Silver, & Randolph, 2004).
For example, the role of leaders is becoming more challenging, as they are
now expected to manage their responsibilities in environments characterized
by globalization, changing technologies, diminishing resources, and increased
costs (Chase, 2000; Jaffe, 1995; Kinicki, McKee, & Wade, 1996; Murphy,
2002). Furthermore, leaders are tasked with managing their employees in the
face of demands over which they may not have control—such as layoffs,
downsizing, and work schedule changes—but which put additional pressures
on leaders to perform effectively (Niehoff, Moorman, Blakely, & Fuller,
2001; Sparks, Faragher, & Cooper, 2001). In response to these demands, it
has become a practical imperative for leaders to engage in empowering initia-
tives that involve their employees, as it is neither feasible nor realistic for
leaders “to have all the answers” or “make all the decisions” (Lovelace,
Manz, & Alves, 2007, p. 375). In addition, both scholarly (Stewart, Courtright,
& Barrick, 2012) and practical (Wirthman, 2014) evidence indicates that
organizations and teams that use empowering initiatives outperform their
counterparts that rely more so on traditional hierarchical structures. In sum,
there is a critical need for empowering leadership in contemporary work
settings.
Reflecting this interest, researchers have published more than 50 empiri-
cal studies examining empowering leadership. This body of research has
almost exclusively focused on its positive outcomes, however, which pre-
cludes a complete understanding of the phenomenon in two important ways.
First, with a primary focus on outcomes, we have little understanding of what
leads to empowering leadership. Scholarly work on related leader actions
shows that not all leaders are willing to invest in and involve employees
(Leana, 1986, 1987; Offermann & Hellmann, 1997; Yukl & Fu, 1999); hence,
it is conceptually important to examine factors predicting empowering lead-
ership. By identifying antecedents, organizations wishing to leverage the
known benefits of empowering leadership can better understand how to
encourage leaders to empower their employees.
Second, there is also scant attention to the less positive and unintended,
negative effects of empowering leadership for individuals and teams.
Sharma and Kirkman 195
Growing evidence indicates that empowering leadership is not advantageous

in all organizational contexts and that not all followers are universally recep-
tive to empowering initiatives (Humborstad & Kuvaas, 2013; Kirkman &
Shapiro, 2001; Lorinkova, Pearsall, & Sims, 2013; Martin, Liao, & Campbell,
2013; Yagil, 2002; Yun, Cox, & Sims, 2006). Yet, a comprehensive review of
the empowering leadership literature has not been conducted, so theoretical
ambiguity remains as to why, how, and when empowering leadership is most
likely to benefit work settings and employees (e.g., are there boundary condi-
tions making empowering leadership more, or less, positively impactful? see
Li, Chiaburu, Kirkman, & Xie, 2013, for a similar discussion of boundary
conditions of transformational leadership). Furthermore, conflicting findings
in empowering leadership research suggest mixed recommendations for
practitioners. Finally, meta-analytic research that included empowering lead-
ership actually combined the construct with a host of other leadership con-
structs (as a predictor of individual and team empowerment), thereby
obscuring specific relationships (Seibert, Wang, & Courtright, 2011).
Accordingly, our purpose is to address these two issues by reviewing the
empowering leadership literature, synthesizing prior findings, identifying
unresolved questions, developing testable propositions, and providing rec-
ommendations for future research. In an effort to organize and quantify the
findings from existing work, we begin by discussing prior conceptualizations
of empowering leadership and its distinctiveness from other leadership
behaviors and the related construct of empowerment. We next review prior
research on outcomes of empowering leadership and identify gaps in this
literature, which can be addressed through the two lines of inquiry we pro-
pose. We then develop our theoretical model (see Figure 1) and propositions
illustrating factors that are likely to (a) predict empowering leadership and
(b) explain the processes through which less positive and unintended, nega-
tive effects of empowering leadership occur. We use four theoretical perspec-
tives to identify opportunities for future work within these two lines of
inquiry, including (1) person–situation interactions, (2) followership theory,
(3) contingency approaches to leadership, and (4) the too-much-of-a-good-
thing (TMGT) effect. Importantly, we do not intend to be exhaustive with our
model, but the constructs we chose are exemplary of possibilities for empow-
ering leadership research.
Literature Review
To conduct a comprehensive literature review, we identified empowering
leadership studies in three ways, including a manual scan of leading manage-
ment and psychology journals, as well as journals in related fields; a compre-
hensive web-based search of relevant terms (e.g., empowering leadership,
Figure 1. Proposed theoretical model.

Note. LMX = leader–member exchange.
empowerment climate) using several electronic databases (e.g., Business

Source Premier, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Google Scholar) covering the
last eight decades (1930-2013); and a scan of reference lists from the articles
identified through these first two methods. We next discuss prior conceptual-
izations of empowering leadership as well as how it is distinct from other
leadership constructs.
Empowering Leadership Defined

Behavior Versus Process Conceptualizations
Empowering leadership has typically been defined in two ways. First, and as
mentioned, empowering leadership involves behaviors of formal leaders (or,
those leaders who are in positions of status and authority in their organiza-
tions), such as encouraging subordinates to express opinions and ideas, pro-
moting collaborative decision making, and supporting information sharing
and teamwork (Arnold et al., 2000; Burke et al., 2006; G. Chen, Sharma,
Edinger, Shapiro, & Farh, 2011; Pearce et al., 2003; Yun et al., 2006). Second,
to more completely account for its motivational effects, studies have concep-
tualized empowering leadership as a power-sharing process by formal lead-
ers, which enhances employee (both individuals’ and teams’) autonomy and
investment in their work (G. Chen, Kirkman, Kanfer, Allen, & Rosen, 2007;
Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Kirkman & Rosen, 1999; Konczak et al., 2000;
Lorinkova et al., 2013; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). Although multiple defi-
nitions of empowering leadership exist, there is convergence regarding its
measurement in the form of actual leader behaviors (Kirkman & Rosen,
1999; Srivastava, Bartol, & Locke, 2006). Thus, we integrate both conceptual
perspectives from prior work by adopting the definition of empowering lead-
ership as leader behaviors, then discussing the mechanisms and outcomes of
the behaviors to highlight the motivational processes occurring between
empowering leaders and their followers.
Distinctions With Related Leadership Constructs

Empowering leadership shares both similarities and important differences
with other leadership constructs, including (a) delegation, (b) participative
leadership, (c) transformational leadership, and (d) leader–member exchange
(LMX). Management scholars have also studied the related construct of
empowerment climate, as we explain below. Based on our review and the
following discussion of differences between constructs, we argue (in addition
to others, for example, Burke et al., 2006) that empowering leadership is suf-
ficiently distinct from these more established leadership constructs to warrant
continuing a unique line of scholarly inquiry.
Delegation. Empowering leadership is similar to delegation, or leader behav-

iors that encourage subordinate decision-making authority and autonomy.
This is because giving employees decision-making autonomy (and, in so
doing, the chance to feel impactful) is central to both constructs (Ashour &
England, 1972; Leana, 1986, 1987; Offermann & Hellmann, 1997; Yukl &
Fu, 1999). However, unlike delegation, empowering leadership exerts
broader motivational influences beyond decision making—for example, by
encouraging employees to set their own goals and enhancing employees’
sense of confidence and personal control both cognitively and behaviorally in
their work (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999; Manz & Sims, 1987).
Participative leadership. Participative leaders are those who consult their

employees, ask for their suggestions, and take their ideas into consideration
before making their own decisions (Y. F. Chen & Tjosvold, 2006; de Poel,
Stoker, & Van der Zee, 2014). Employees who are on the receiving end of
participative leadership report that they have an opportunity to discuss prob-
lems with their leaders and influence decisions made by their organizations
(Emery, 1995; Stanton, 1993). Such experiences reflect how empowering
leadership similarly aims to use employee input in decision making.
However, empowering leadership is much broader than, and hence includes,

participative leadership because empowering leadership results in employees
actually making their own decisions, rather than simply influencing those of
their leaders (Ahearne, Mathieu, & Rapp, 2005).
Transformational leadership. Transformational leadership refers to the encour-

agement of follower self-development and satisfying followers’ needs (Bass,
Waldman, Avolio, & Bebb, 1987). According to Bass (1985), four dimen-
sions comprise the behaviors of transformational leaders, including (a) ideal-
ized influence, or displaying conviction and appealing to followers on an
emotional level, causing followers to identify with their leader; (b) inspira-
tional motivation, or articulating a vision that is appealing and inspiring,
challenging followers with high standards, communicating optimism about
goal attainment, and providing meaning for tasks; (c) intellectual stimulation,
or challenging assumptions, taking risks, soliciting followers’ ideas, and
encouraging creativity; and (d) individualized consideration, or attending to
each follower’s needs, acting as a mentor or coach, and listening to their
concerns.
Empowering leadership is unique because transformational leaders may
exhibit all four of these behaviors without actually transferring much control
or power to subordinates. For example, transformational leaders may inspire
followers with a vision or challenge them intellectually, but still retain all (or
the majority of) decision making or leadership authority. Thus, leaders may
be highly transformational without exhibiting any empowering leadership
and vice versa (Bass, 1997; Martin et al., 2013). Further, confirmatory factor
analyses on empowering and transformational leadership demonstrate dis-
criminant validity, providing empirical support for these leadership styles as
distinct behavioral types (Pearce et al., 2003).
LMX. LMX refers to a two-way, dyadic relationship shared by a supervisor

with each of his or her subordinates that develops in unique ways (i.e., rather
than being uniformly the same across all subordinates; see Liden, Sparrowe,
& Wayne, 1997). Consistent with social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), the
quality of an exchange relationship predicts one party’s expectations as well
as behaviors toward the other party (e.g., Gerstner & Day, 1997; Graen &
Scandura, 1987; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). As such, LMX is narrowly
focused on the quality of supervisor–subordinate relationships. This quality
of the exchange relationship is typically assessed through subordinate per-
ceptions of where one “stands” with his or her leader, including how satisfied
the leader is with the subordinate, as well the leader having confidence in the
subordinate to the point of justifying decisions made by the subordinate if she
or he were not present to do so (Bauer & Green, 1996; Scandura & Graen,
1984). Empowering leadership is entirely distinct from the quality of the
exchange relationship, however, and is a broader motivational leadership
style aimed at building employees’ sense of confidence, autonomy, and con-
trol in work settings. In addition, some followers may report high levels of
LMX even with leaders who are highly directive (i.e., providing direction,
command, and assigned goals, and reprimand as mechanisms influencing
behavior; see Pearce et al., 2003).
Empowerment climate. Empowerment climate represents “a shared percep-

tion regarding the extent to which an organization makes use of structures,
policies, and practices supporting employee empowerment” (Seibert et al.,
2004, p. 334). Relatedly, a limited number of studies have adopted leadership
climate as the construct of interest, focusing on empowering leadership cli-
mate, or ambient leadership behaviors directed at a team as a whole with the
potential of developing team-level (i.e., shared) empowerment (G. Chen
et al., 2007). As G. Chen and colleagues (2007) noted, empowering leader-
ship behaviors (e.g., also called “external team leader behaviors” by Kirkman
& Rosen, 1999) are similar to the notion of empowerment climate developed
by Seibert and colleagues (2004). However, even though empowering leader-
ship refers to actual leader behaviors, empowering or leadership climate is
more focused on the shared perceptions of employees of policies, practices,
and structures.
Positive Outcomes of Empowering Leadership

The existing body of empowering leadership work has typically examined its
positive outcomes spanning attitudes and behaviors of teams, their members,
and individual employees. Taken together, this empirical pattern of benefits
suggests that empowering leadership is an effective leadership style for many
employees and organizational settings. We next review these studies by sum-
marizing important findings, typically examined outcomes, strength of rela-
tionships, and theoretical rationales guiding the results. To illustrate this body
of research, we provide tables summarizing empowering leadership studies
organized by variable as well as specific correlations between these variables
(see the Appendix).
Team-Level and Cross-Level Studies

Team-level empowering leadership studies have often examined perfor-
mance-based outcomes (cf. Stewart, Courtright, & Manz, 2011). For exam-
ple, according to Carmeli, Schaubroeck, and Tishler (2011), empowering
leadership is positively related to firm performance, due to both top manage-

ment team (TMT) members believing in their ability to meet challenges
(termed “TMT potency”) as well as information exchange, collaboration, and
joint decision making between members (termed “behavioral integration”).
Similarly, team-level empowering leadership has been found to promote
team performance via mechanisms of (a) knowledge sharing and team effi-
cacy (Srivastava et al., 2006) and (b) team creative efficacy and concor-
dance—referring to whether employees find the work interesting and
enjoyable (Hon & Chan, 2013).
In addition to performance-based outcomes, empowering leadership is
positively associated with team behaviors, such as shared leadership (Hoch,
2013), knowledge creation (Menguc, Auh, & Uslu, 2013), learning (Yun,
Faraj, & Sims, 2005), and effective planning processes (Rapp, Ahearne,
Mathieu, & Rapp, 2010). Furthermore, empirical research indicates that
empowering leadership has cross-level effects by influencing individual team
members’ outcomes, including (a) citizenship behaviors, due to customer
learning climate and psychological empowerment (Auh, Menguc, & Jung,
2014); (b) innovative and teamwork behaviors and turnover intentions, due to
members’ affective commitment and psychological empowerment (G. Chen
et al., 2011); and (c) safety compliance behaviors (Martínez-Córcoles, Gracia,
Tomás, Peiró, & Schöbel, 2013). At the team level, research suggests that
empowering leadership has the strongest effects with efficacy (Hon & Chan,
2013; Srivastava et al., 2006) and knowledge creation or sharing (Menguc
et al., 2013; Srivastava et al., 2006), likely due to motivational and team-
building influences of these leader behaviors.
Individual-Level Studies
At the individual level, empowering leadership studies have examined a wide
array of employee attitudes and behaviors as well. For example, empowering
leadership is positively associated with positive employee attitudes such as
affective and organizational commitment (Harris, Li, Boswell, Zhang, & Xie,
2014; Hassan, Mahsud, Yukl, & Prussia, 2013; Raub & Robert, 2013),
engagement (Tuckey, Bakker, & Dollard, 2012), and job satisfaction (Vecchio,
Justin, & Pearce, 2010). Empowering leadership is further linked with cre-
ativity (Harris et al., 2014; Zhang & Bartol, 2010), which scholars attribute to
the mediating role of efficacy in transmitting the positive influence of
empowering leadership (Zhang & Zhou, 2014). From a behavioral perspec-
tive, empowering leadership is positively associated with employee in-role
and extra-role behaviors (Auh et al., 2014; Humborstad, Nerstad, & Dysvik,
2014; Raub & Robert, 2010), knowledge sharing (Eze, Goh, Goh, & Tan,
2013), performance (Harris et al., 2014; Humborstad et al., 2014; Vecchio et

al., 2010), role clarity (Harris et al., 2014; Martínez-Córcoles, Gracia, Tomás,
& Peiró, 2014), safety compliance (Martínez-Córcoles et al., 2014; Martínez-
Córcoles et al., 2013), self-leadership (Yun et al., 2006), and voice (Raub &
Robert, 2013). Finally, empowering leadership is positively linked with out-
comes related to one’s leader, such as subordinate-reported LMX and leader-
ship effectiveness (Hassan et al., 2013) and trust in leaders (Bobbio, Bellan,
& Manganelli, 2012). At the individual level, research suggests that empow-
ering leadership has the strongest effects with leader-oriented outcomes
(Bobbio et al., 2012; Hassan et al., 2013), follower commitment, and role
clarity (G. Chen et al., 2011; Harris et al., 2014; Hassan et al., 2013; Martínez-
Córcoles et al., 2014; Raub & Robert, 2013). These effects are likely due to
how empowering leaders’ behaviors are positively focused on developing
employees and ensuring their success in work settings.
Empowering Leadership and Empowerment

As mentioned, an important mediating mechanism linking empowering lead-
ership with individual- and team-level outcomes is empowerment (Leach,
Wall, & Jackson, 2003). Researchers have typically conceptualized empow-
erment in two main ways, including a structural (also termed “social-struc-
tural” or “contextual” approach) and psychological, state-based approach
(Spreitzer, 2007), with the second being a consequence of the first. In their
qualitative review of empowerment, Maynard, Gilson, and Mathieu (2012)
identified empowering leadership as an important antecedent of empower-
ment. According to prior meta-analyses, Seibert et al. (2011) and Maynard,
Mathieu, Gilson, O’Boyle, and Cigularov (2013) combined empowering
leadership with other leadership behaviors into an overall leadership category
that yielded similar findings.
Structural empowerment is defined as “a practice, or set of practices
involving the delegation of responsibility down the hierarchy so as to give
employees increased decision-making authority in respect to the execution of
their primary work tasks” (Leach et al., 2003, p. 28). This approach to
empowerment focuses on conditions in the organization that facilitate shar-
ing of power, decision making, and control over resources between individu-
als, and which serve as indicators of empowerment (Kanter, 1977; Kirkman
& Rosen, 1999; Spreitzer, 2007).
Psychological empowerment refers to the extent to which employees per-
ceive that they have impact, competence, autonomy, and meaningfulness in
their work—that is, employee cognitive states regarding empowerment (cf.
G. Chen & Tesluk, 2012; Koberg, Boss, Senjem, & Goodman, 1999; Maynard
et al., 2013; Seibert et al., 2011; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). According to
Spreitzer (1995), (a) “impact” occurs when employees believe they affect or
influence outcomes in their organization; (b) “competence” is defined as
employees believing they are capable of accomplishing task goals; (c)
“autonomy” refers to when employees have choice in how they go about
doing their work; and (d) “meaningfulness” is defined as employees feeling
intrinsic enjoyment in the work they are doing. Similarly, according to
Conger and Kanungo (1988), psychological empowerment is “a process of
enhancing feelings of self-efficacy among organizational members through
the identification of conditions that foster powerlessness and through their
removal by both formal organizational practices [structural empowerment]
and informal techniques of providing efficacy information” (p. 474). We now
turn to a discussion of our two new lines of inquiry, including (a) why does
empowering leadership occur and (b) to what extent does empowering lead-
ership yield less positive or unintended negative effects?
New Line of Inquiry 1: Why Does Empowering

Leadership Occur?
Given the focus of most empowering leadership studies on individual- and
team-level positive outcomes, an important area for future research is to
investigate factors that give rise to this leadership style. Indeed, as stated,
even though some scholars define empowering leadership as a set of behav-
iors, the motivation behind these behaviors is unclear. We next put forth spe-
cific propositions regarding potential predictors of empowering leadership,
as guided by person–situation interactionist (Mischel, 1977; Schneider, 1983)
and followership theories (Hollander, 1992; Uhl-Bien, Riggio, Lowe, &
Carsten, 2014).
Person–Situation Interactionist Approaches

According to person–situation interactionist theory, individual differences
and the situation are both important predictors of individuals’ behavior
(Mischel, 1977). Using this theory, we suggest three sets of predictor vari-
ables that can explain why empowering leadership occurs, including (a) indi-
vidual (i.e., person) differences of leaders, namely, cultural values and the
personality trait of narcissism; (b) the organizational context (i.e., situation)
in which leaders are embedded—specifically job stressors and behaviors by
senior and/or peer leaders; and (c) both person and situation factors. We begin
by discussing individual differences of leaders.
Individual (Person/Leader) Differences

It has been noted that “[individual differences] profoundly affect our behav-
ior; an examination of the role of individual differences provides an impor-
tant starting point for understanding human behavior in organizations”
(Murphy, 1996, p. xvi). Consistent with this, prior meta-analytic and other
studies have examined the role of individual differences in leadership phe-
nomena (Bono & Judge, 2004; Cogliser, Gardner, Gavin, & Broberg, 2012),
suggesting the importance of understanding these differences for topics such
as leadership emergence. We next review theory and prior research to inform
the individual differences propositions we offer in this area regarding leader
cultural values and personality.
Leader Cultural Values

Cultural values act as interpretative “filters” that guide and indicate individ-
ual preferences—and, hence, are logical and important predictors of how
people behave in organizational settings (Gelfand, Erez, & Aycan, 2007;
Kirkman, Lowe, & Gibson, 2006). Due to the globalization of the workforce,
there is increasing variance in cultural values that both managers and employ-
ees encounter as part of their work experiences (Javidan, Dorfman, Sully de
Luque, & House, 2006). Furthermore, members from different nations hold
varied culturally endorsed implicit leadership theories (CLTs), referring to a
set of shared beliefs regarding “attributes, personality characteristics, skills
and behaviors that contribute to or impede outstanding leadership” (Javidan
et al., 2006, p. 72). This variance likely affects preferences by leaders and
followers for management practices, making it a research imperative to
understand the intersection of empowering leadership and cultural values
(e.g., Kirkman, G. Chen, Farh, Z. Chen, & Lowe, 2009).
Leader power distance orientation. Based on CLT theory, we suggest that cul-
tural values determine the extent to which leaders exhibit empowering lead-
ership. The first cultural value on which we focus is power distance
orientation, defined as an individual’s willingness to accept an unequal dis-
tribution of power in institutions and organizations (Clugston, Howell, &
Dorfman, 2000; Hofstede, 1980). Specifically, and guided by their attitudes
toward viewing power as expendable (Clugston et al., 2000; Dorfman &
Howell, 1988), leaders who are lower on individual power distance orienta-
tion likely feel more comfortable behaving in ways that involve subordinates
as equal partners with whom to share power, such as by giving subordinates
more decision-making influence. Low power distance–oriented leaders tend
to have relationships with their employees who are less formal and closer,
and higher power distance–oriented leaders prefer supervisor–subordinate
relations that are more distant, hierarchically ordered, and reserved (Offer-
mann & Hellmann, 1997). In contrast, empowering leader behaviors are in
direct contradiction to the autocratic and paternalistic management of high
power distance–oriented leaders (Offermann & Hellmann, 1997) because, by
definition, empowering actions involve leaders relinquishing authority and
decision-making control, and encouraging self-directed employee activities
(see G. Chen et al., 2007; Kirkman & Rosen, 1999; Konczak et al., 2000).
Empirically, in prior work, scholars have examined leader cultural values
as antecedents to delegation (a similar set of behaviors to empowering leader-
ship, as stated earlier; see Leana, 1986, 1987; Offermann & Hellmann, 1997;
Yukl & Fu, 1999). These studies indicate that leader delegation is negatively
associated with cultural values of leader power distance orientation.
Furthermore, as related support, in an experimental study exploring power
and managers’ attitudes toward employees, Tjosvold and Sun (2006) demon-
strated that when participants in the role of leaders viewed power as expand-
able rather than independent or limited, the leaders used their power to assist,
encourage, and empower their “employees.” Building on our theorizing and
this prior empirical work, we therefore propose
Proposition 1: Leader power distance orientation will be negatively asso-

ciated with empowering leadership.
Leader uncertainty avoidance orientation. In addition to power distance orienta-

tion, we expect leader uncertainty avoidance orientation will likewise predict
empowering leadership. Uncertainty avoidance orientation refers to feeling
threatened by uncertain and ambiguous situations and a having desire to
avoid these situations by providing greater career stability, establishing more
formal rules, and not tolerating deviant ideas (Clugston et al., 2000; Hofst-
ede, 1980; Offermann & Hellmann, 1997). Individuals who are high on this
cultural value find ambiguity stressful, and instead prefer a rigid code of
behaviors and less tolerance for unorthodox behaviors and ideas (Clugston et
al., 2000; Dorfman & Howell, 1988; Offermann & Hellmann, 1997; Hofst-
ede, 1980). Conversely, low uncertainty avoidance-oriented individuals have
more relaxed attitudes and feel more comfortable with change as well as
ambiguity. As a result, we argue that that high uncertainty avoidance-oriented
leaders are less likely to take the “risk” of empowering subordinates and giv-
ing them more control, and will be less inclined to involve subordinates in
decision making. Empirically, and similar to power distance orientation,
leader delegation has been found to be negatively linked with leader
uncertainty avoidance orientation (Offermann & Hellmann, 1997). Thus, we

propose
Proposition 2: Leader uncertainty avoidance orientation will be nega-

tively associated with empowering leadership.
Leader collectivism orientation. A third cultural value previously unexamined

in delegation research but which we expect to play an important role in
empowering leadership is collectivism orientation (also referred to as psy-
chological collectivism to denote an individual-level construct; see Jackson,
Colquitt, Wesson, & Zapata-Phelan, 2006). Collectivism orientation refers to
the value placed on social relationships, such that highly collectivistic indi-
viduals are more likely to place the welfare of their families, groups, or orga-
nizations over their own (Pillai & Meindl, 1998). Our choice of collectivism
orientation is guided by its relevance to important aspects of organizational
life—namely, one’s attitude toward working collectively, especially given the
prevalence of work teams in today’s organizations (Cohen & Bailey, 1997).
Because collectivist-oriented individuals are “group committed” and
“group serving” (Abraham, 1997; Earley, 1989; Jackson et al., 2006), collec-
tivist-oriented leaders are likely to express this by demonstrating a more sup-
portive approach and concern toward their employees (Janssens, Brett, &
Smith, 1995), stressing collaboration, and sharing (as subsets of “behavioral
integration”) among their followers, and emphasizing group harmony and
welfare, rather than individually oriented self-interest, control, and pursuit of
individual goals (Simsek, Veiga, Lubatkin, & Dino, 2005). Such behaviors
are likely because collectivist-oriented managers are more socially integrated
than their individualist-oriented counterparts (Pillai & Meindl, 1998) and
hence more likely to not only look out for the “best interests” of group mem-
bers by creating a positive and rewarding work environment for them, but to
prefer group-based activities. Less group-oriented leaders will prefer instead
to encourage individual-based initiatives and contributions (Offermann &
Hellmann, 1997), and likely be more reluctant to engage in the unit-directed,
group-serving behaviors that comprise empowering leadership.
Notably, Javidan and colleagues (2006) reported that in Brazil, a collectiv-
istic nation, managers prefer leaders who engage their work groups and
“intensely dislike leaders who are individualistic, autonomous, and indepen-
dent” (p. 76). Interestingly, prior meta-analytic work has found that the cul-
tural value of individualism orientation (referring to preferences for a loosely
knit social framework in which individuals are expected to take care of only
themselves and their immediate families, Hofstede, 1980) is negatively cor-
related with directive leadership, and positively correlated with participative
leadership. However, the distinction of these leadership constructs with

empowering leadership may explain the opposite effects than our proposed
theorizing here. We therefore predict
Proposition 3: Leader collectivism orientation will be positively associ-

ated with empowering leadership.
Leader Narcissism
In addition to leader cultural values, another possible leader individual differ-
ence predictor of empowering leadership is the personality trait of narcis-
sism. Narcissism is defined as a broad personality construct including an
exaggerated sense of self-importance, fantasies of unlimited success or
power, need for admiration, entitlement, lack of empathy, and exploitation of
others (Blair, Hoffman, & Helland, 2008). Although some research has exam-
ined linkages between personality traits and transformational leadership
(viz., the Big Five; see Bono & Judge, 2004), less theorized about or exam-
ined is the extent to which dispositional bases exist for empowering leader-
ship, in particular.
Prior studies show that narcissism scores have increased significantly in
current generations, highlighting its practical relevance for today’s manage-
ment phenomena (Goudreau, 2013). Also, as noted by scholars, individuals
with such characteristics seek positions of power (i.e., being leaders), so we
posit that it is conceptually meaningful to examine the narcissism–empower-
ing leadership linkage. Prior work suggests that narcissists are ineffective
leaders who lack integrity due to tendencies such as failing to admit mistakes,
blaming others for their own mistakes, being self-aggrandizing, and taking
unwarranted credit for success (Kernberg, 1979; Kets de Vries & Miller,
1985). These attributes make it unlikely that narcissistic leaders will engage
in empowering initiatives with their subordinates. Hence, we suggest
Proposition 4: Leader narcissism will be negatively associated with

empowering leadership.
It is perhaps worth considering, however, whether narcissists will choose

to empower their employees out of a desire to make themselves “look like”
effective leaders in their organizational settings and fulfill their self-views as
successful individuals. Researchers could consider this alternative relation-
ship between narcissism and empowering leadership in future empirical
research.
Contextual (Situational) Factors

In addition to individual differences between leaders, we expect the organiza-
tional context in which leaders are embedded will predict empowering leader-
ship. Context is defined as “situational opportunities and constraints that affect
the occurrence and meaning of organizational behavior as well as functional
relationships between variables” (Johns, 2006, p. 386). Given that leadership
is both embedded in, and socially constructed from, context (Osborn, Hunt, &
Jauch, 2002), it should prove theoretically meaningful to investigate the roles
played by various social and task-based contextual factors in the emergence of
empowering leadership behaviors. We next discuss two potential factors
including, specifically (a) job stressors for leaders and (b) interactions between
senior-level and peer leaders and their subordinates.
Leader job stressors. First, job stressors are defined as circumstances or con-
ditions beyond one’s control, leading people to feel that the demands of their
environment exceed available resources (P. Y. Chen & Spector, 1992; Peters
& O’Connor, 1980; Salas, Driskell, & Hughes, 1996). Leaders in particular
are likely to experience fast-paced, complex, and extreme on-the-job demands
(e.g., Hambrick, Finkelstein, & Mooney, 2005; Huy, 1999; Lovelace et al.,
2007; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Paradoxically, the influential role of lead-
ers for employees can be potentially compromised if leaders are unable to
effectively manage their own stressors. Thus, an important, yet unanswered,
research question regards whether and how job stressors impair leaders’ abili-
ties to act in empowering ways.
We propose two competing possibilities regarding stressors and empower-
ing leadership that can be explored in future work. First, job stressors might
negatively predict empowering leadership due to role overload and a sense of
constriction in leaders who are less receptive to involving their employees in
high stress situations. Stressful situations often cause people to “freeze,” hin-
dering their ability to maintain effective interactions with others as well as
perform job duties (Ellis, 2006; Staw, Sandelands, & Dutton, 1981). The
resulting rigidity occurs as a function of factors, including raised anxiety and
hampered information processing (Ganster, 2005; Hambrick et al., 2005).
High stress jobs and extreme situations characterized by high strain also
induce fatigue and evoke feelings of helplessness and dependency in indi-
viduals, making it difficult for individuals to act in functional ways consistent
with role requirements (Hannah, Uhl-Bien, Avolio, & Cavarretta, 2009;
Solomon, Mikulincer, & Hobfoll, 1986). Thus, we predict
Proposition 5a: Job stressors for leaders will be negatively associated

with empowering leadership.
Alternatively, perhaps the very nature of stressors is such that leaders

might be more likely to involve their employees and act in empowering ways
as a means to compensate for the demands placed on the leaders themselves.
This possibility is reflected in the conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll,
1989), according to which individual well-being and performance suffer
when valued resources are threatened or lost (referring to objects such as
one’s home; personal characteristics such as marriage, tenure, and seniority;
conditions, referring to one’s positive self-view and ability to see through
stressful circumstances; and/or energies to include time, money, and knowl-
edge). Importantly, the loss of personal resources can be offset when indi-
viduals “gain” other resources, such as support from other people, as
attributed to mechanisms of building resiliency and providing recognition
and interpersonal closeness that makes individuals feel better during stressful
circumstances (Hobfoll, 1989; Kobasa & Puccetti, 1983). Thus, contrary to
Proposition 5a, we predict
Proposition 5b: Job stressors for leaders will be positively associated

with empowering leadership.
Senior-level and peer leaders’ behaviors. A second contextual predictor that we

propose will give rise to empowering leadership is the extent to which a
leader observes empowering leadership behaviors by his or her senior and/or
peer leaders. Existing work has documented the phenomenon of leaders imi-
tating their senior-level leaders’ behaviors in the form of transformational
and ethical leadership (i.e., normatively appropriate conduct) or abusive
supervision (i.e., the sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behav-
iors; see Bass et al., 1987; Mawritz, Mayer, Hoobler, Wayne, & Marinova,
2012; Mayer, Kuenzi, Greenbaum, Bardes, & Salvador, 2009). These studies
typically attribute such influence effects—termed “cascading leadership”—
to social learning theory (Bandura, 1977). According to this theory, imitation
and modeling occurs as a result of observational learning, which is governed
by four sub-processes of paying attention to a role model’s behavior, remem-
bering the behavior, integrating the behavior into one’s own actions, and
desiring to demonstrate what is learned (Bandura, 1977).
In a similar vein, we expect that other leaders who empower their subor-
dinates (i.e., be they senior or peer-level leaders) will serve as role models for
other leaders to engage in the same behaviors in organizational settings. If
enough fellow leaders exhibit empowering leadership, the behavior might
become an organizational norm, or an informal mechanism governing indi-
viduals’ actions compared with the formal regulating role played by organi-
zational policies (Feldman, 1984). Other organizational members might
socially alienate those whose behaviors deviate from norms (Elster, 1989),
and so it becomes socially desirable for them to model the behaviors. Thus,
we propose
Proposition 6: Empowering leadership by senior-level and peer leaders

will be positively associated with focal leaders’ empowering leadership.
Person × Situation Factors

A third area we posit should predict empowering leadership behaviors is a
combination of person factors for leaders and the context in which leaders are
embedded (Hackman & Wageman, 2007). Our theorizing about interactive
effects dovetails with previous calls by organizational scholars for interac-
tionist approaches to predicting behavior, rather than solely relying on either
personal or situational characteristics as was typical of management scholars
prior to the 1970s (Chatman, 1989; Mischel, 1977; Schneider, 1983). Indeed,
Bowers (1973) noted, “a position stressing the interaction of the person and
the situation is both conceptually satisfying and empirically warranted” (p.
307). The challenge of adopting an interactionist approach to predicting
empowering leadership lies in examining situations that are enduring, such as
the strength of a particular situation (Chatman, 1989; Mischel, 1977), as well
considering personal factors that are theoretically meaningful to empowering
processes. Our previous suggestions regarding leader individual differences
in the form of cultural values and the personality trait of narcissism, coupled
with the organizational context in the form of lower level leaders’ job stress-
ors and behaviors by senior-level and peer leaders—while not a comprehen-
sive list of predictors—offer conceptual starting points from which scholars
interested in this area can build with future work.
Followership Theory
Another set of contextual factors we expect predicts empowering leadership
stems from followers. By turning the “spotlight” on followers as potential
antecedents, we offer propositions that reflect scholarly interest in follower-
ship theory, defined as the study of the nature and impact of followers and
following in the leadership process (Uhl-Bien et al., 2014, p. 84). Despite
recognition that leadership is a dynamic process involving both leaders and
followers, research has historically focused on leaders themselves, and the
role of followers and their importance in leadership phenomena is less well-
understood (Hunter, Bedell-Avers, & Mumford, 2007; Li et al., 2013; Riggio,
Chaleff, & Lipman-Blumen, 2008; Zhu, Avolio, & Walumbwa, 2009).
In particular, even though research has established linkages between

leader qualities such as competence and dependability with effective leader-
ship (Hollander, 1992), less is known about how similar qualities in followers
might elicit behaviors such as empowering actions from leaders toward these
followers. To fill this gap, we propose that (a) the quality of the exchange
relationship between leaders and followers and (b) follower proactive behav-
iors be examined as antecedents to empowering leadership.
LMX. First, we expect the quality of the exchange relationship between lead-
ers and followers as reported by the leader will determine the occurrence of
empowering leadership. As stated, LMX refers to a unique, two-way, dyadic
relationship shared by a supervisor with each of his or her subordinates
(Liden et al., 1997). Importantly, we focus on the supervisor’s perspective of
LMX (termed “supervisor LMX,” or “SLMX”) because scholars have
described how high- versus low-quality SLMX predicts supervisory behav-
iors toward employees (cf. Wilson, Sin, & Conlon, 2010). In addition, con-
gruence may not always exist between supervisor- and subordinate-reporting
of their relationship (see Sin, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2009; Tekleab & Tay-
lor, 2003), which implies that behavioral outcomes of leader- versus member-
rated exchanges may differ for the leader versus member, respectively. We
thus expect that supervisors who report higher quality exchanges with subor-
dinates will engage in empowering leader behaviors such as involving subor-
dinates in decision making, sharing information, and asking for input.
Notably, prior delegation work has found that leader perceptions of a sub-
ordinate as capable, responsible, and trustworthy predict leaders’ tendencies
to delegate (Leana, 1986, 1987; Yukl & Fu, 1999). There is also evidence for
the positive benefits that subordinates incur as a result of high-quality LMX
with their leaders—for example, higher levels of in-role and extra-role per-
formance (Deluga, 1994; Ilies, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007; Masterson,
Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor, 2000), lower levels of turnover intentions
(Gerstner & Day, 1997), and higher levels of on-the-job effort (Gerstner &
Day, 1997; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Liden et al., 1997; Sin et al., 2009).
Drawing on our own theorizing and evidence from these extant studies, we
similarly suggest that based on their own evaluation of the exchange relation-
ship, supervisors are likely to make behavioral choices toward employees—
such as autonomy granting behaviors (Greguras & Ford, 2006; Scandura,
Graen, & Novak, 1986; Yammarino & Dubinsky, 1992). Thus, we propose
Proposition 7: Leader-reported high-quality LMX with subordinates will

be positively associated with empowering leadership.
Follower proactivity. Second, employee proactivity refers to anticipatory

actions taken by employees to have impact on the self or environment (Bate-
man & Crant, 1993; Grant, Parker, & Collins, 2009; Parker, Williams, &
Turner, 2006). Such actions include speaking up, using influence tactics,
seeking feedback, taking charge, and personal initiative-taking (Kipnis,
Schmidt, & Wilkinson, 1980; Morrison & Milliken, 2000; Van Dyne &
LePine, 1998). Given the increased uncertainty characterizing contemporary
work environments in which change is ever-present, employee proactivity is
crucial for organizational success (Grant et al., 2009). Such employees them-
selves typically benefit as well by earning higher salaries, displaying greater
productivity, and receiving more awards and promotions (e.g., Seibert,
Kraimer, & Crant, 2001; Thompson, 2005; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998; Van
Scotter, Motowidlo, & Cross, 2000). This pattern of positive outcomes sug-
gests that leaders and organizations are responsive to proactive employees
and reward them for such behaviors.
However, there is also empirical evidence demonstrating that leaders
might be less receptive to follower proactivity and similar characteristics. For
example, leaders are less willing to delegate to subordinates who tend to be
more, rather than less, controlling (or “dominant” in personality, cf. Ashour
& England, 1972). According to Grant and colleagues (2009), follower pro-
active behaviors were more likely to contribute to higher supervisor perfor-
mance evaluations when employees expressed strong prosocial values or low
negative affect. Although there is the possibility of negative reactions by
leaders to proactive followers (contingent on other aspects), we build on prior
delegation research to propose that follower proactivity will positively elicit
empowering behaviors from leaders. As mentioned, a major tenet of empow-
ering leadership is leaders’ desire to motivate and develop subordinates by
encouraging expression of ideas and opinions, and thus these leaders are will-
ing to share power with followers. As such, we expect
Proposition 8: Follower proactivity will be positively associated with

empowering leadership.
New Line of Inquiry 2: To What Extent Does

Empowering Leadership Yield Less Positive or
Negative Effects?
As stated, there is growing evidence that empowering leadership is not
advantageous in all organizational contexts, and not all followers are univer-
sally receptive to empowering initiatives from leaders. These emerging
themes in the empowering leadership literature suggest that it is reasonable to

(a) consider when positive outcomes of empowering leadership are more,
versus less, likely to occur—that is, as contingency approaches and (b)
develop a deeper understanding of why empowering leadership might actu-
ally yield unintended negative consequences—that is, is there a potentially
“dark side” of empowering leadership? We next review research in this area,
then offer three propositions to reflect this possibility by drawing on first, a
contingency approach to leadership and second, the too-much-of-a-good-
thing (TMGT) effect.
Contingency Approaches to Leadership

Historically, since the 1970s, there has been an ongoing exploration of con-
tingency variables in leadership dynamics, which has resulted in a number of
explanatory theories and paradigms (Howell, Dorfman, & Kerr, 1986). This
approach has focused on situational influences in the relationship between an
individual’s leadership style and outcomes for his or her followers (i.e., under
Condition A, leadership Style X is appropriate, whereas under Condition B,
Style Y is the better choice). Contingency research emerged in response to
practical failures by leaders in the mid-20th century to obtain consistent, suc-
cessful results across a variety of organizational circumstances (Fiedler,
1967, 1978; Hershey & Blanchard’s, 1982; House, 1971; Jago & Vroom,
1980; Vroom & Yetton, 1973). However, contingent leadership theories have
not yet fully incorporated empowering leadership, which, similar to transfor-
mational leadership, is still largely viewed as a leadership behavior that
should be exhibited regardless of the situation. This is a gap that, as we dis-
cuss below, offers a meaningful opportunity to further scholarly and practical
understanding of when, why, and how empowering leadership might not
always be the best “fit” for particular work settings or based on follower dif-
ferences. We next review existing contextual empowering leadership
research, and then we offer specific propositions (as illustrated in Figure 1) to
advance current work.
Contextual Factors
Scholars are increasingly examining the interplay of empowering leadership
and a range of organizational contextual factors, and the resultant impact on
organizationally relevant outcomes such as employee performance. For
example, Wallace, Johnson, Mathe, and Paul (2011) found that empowering
leadership climate positively related to psychological empowerment climate,
which in turn, related to leader performance, but only under conditions of
high-felt accountability. That is, quick-service restaurant managers who felt

more empowered operated higher performing restaurants as compared with
managers who felt less empowered, but only when those empowered manag-
ers also felt a high sense of accountability.
Studies further indicate the importance of understanding the joint effects
of empowering leadership and context on team outcomes. Empowering lead-
ership has been shown to have stronger effects on (a) both core task profi-
ciency and proactive behaviors for work units that were less, rather than
more, satisfied with their leaders (Martin et al., 2013) and (b) software team
performance only under conditions of high task uncertainty or team expertise
(Faraj & Sambamurthy, 2006). In a related vein, in dynamic industry envi-
ronments, start-ups with homogeneous TMTs performed best when led by
empowering leaders while conversely, in stable industry environments, start-
ups with heterogeneous TMTs were found to perform best when led by
empowering leaders (Hmieleski & Ensley, 2007). In medical teams, empow-
ering leadership was more effective when trauma severity was low, and when
team experience was high, and empowering leaders also provided more
learning opportunities than did directive leaders (Yun et al., 2005).
Taken together, these studies indicate that contextual factors play impor-
tant roles in determining the outcomes of empowering leadership. This
research further offers a conceptual basis on which future work can build to
examine the interactive effects of empowering leadership and context on
individuals and teams across different work settings.
Job and Personal Stressors

As mentioned earlier, job stressors are likely important predictors of empow-
ering leader behaviors, and we further expect that stressors experienced by
subordinates may also determine whether empowering leadership leads to
less positive follower outcomes. Researchers have typically found that lead-
ers can play an important role for their followers who are experiencing chal-
lenging job situations characteristic of contemporary organizations, such as
by offering emotional support to offset negative outcomes like burnout
(Hobfoll, 1989; Sparks et al., 2001). However, an unanswered question
remains as to whether empowering practices are an appropriate leadership
style for employees facing their own job-based stressors (Demerouti, Bakker,
Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001; Lepine, Podsakoff, & Lepine, 2005).
A small but developing area of research in the management literature has
investigated the role of challenge versus hindrance stressors in employee work
experiences. Challenge stressors are perceived by employees as promoting
one’s personal growth and achievement (e.g., job overload, time pressure, and
high levels of responsibility) and linked with employee motivation and posi-
tive outcomes including job satisfaction. Conversely, hindrance stressors are
perceived by employees as constraining personal development and work-
related accomplishments (e.g., role ambiguity, role overload, and red tape)
and are associated with diminished motivation and negative outcomes,
including employee strain and turnover intentions (cf. Lepine et al., 2005;
Podsakoff, LePine, & LePine, 2007). Consistent with these descriptions, it is
possible that the combination of empowering leadership with workplace
stressors may overwhelm employees, such that the typically positive effects
of empowering leadership on employee outcomes such as performance will
be weakened by challenge and hindrance stressors. We thus propose
Proposition 9a: Follower challenge stressors will weaken the positive

relationship between empowering leadership and outcomes such as fol-
lower performance.
Proposition 9b: Follower hindrance stressors will weaken the positive
lower performance.
In addition, individuals who experience high levels of demands in their

personal lives might be less receptive to the motivational influence of empow-
ering leadership. Indeed, because of the investment by empowering leaders
in their followers, such employees may find themselves in work situations
that require high levels of cognitive focus and engagement with their job
roles and other organizational members. Yet, due to their personal demands,
these individuals may instead prefer to work in a cognitively limited setting
in which they are told what to do by directive leaders. That is, because
humans have limited information-processing capabilities, individuals may
feel cognitively taxed by personal circumstances and thus have little to give
in the work setting and be unable to focus or optimally respond to their
empowering leaders’ well-intended practices (Staw et al., 1981). Empirically,
prior work suggests that individuals who are overwhelmed by difficult job
situations are less able to recognize alternative approaches and integrate
diverse sources of information into innovative products and services (Jehn &
Bendersky, 2003), pointing to the limits of these individuals to process and
react to stimuli in the workplace. Thus, individuals who are personally over-
whelmed in their home lives may prefer less engaging behaviors by their
leaders in their work settings. We therefore suggest
Proposition 10: Follower personal demands will weaken the positive

lower performance.
Negative Outcomes
An emerging body of research also offers conceptual insights into the “dark
side” possibility of empowering leadership. For example, even though highly
inclusive leaders (who engage in practices similar to empowering leadership)
have been shown to promote beneficial outcomes in work settings, recent
research has demonstrated that subordinates of inclusive leaders are likely to
engage in higher quantity, but lower quality, of upward communication with
their leaders (Sumanth, 2011).
A growing number of studies have likewise reported negative conse-
quences for empowering leadership. According to Humborstad and Kuvaas
(2013), employees experienced high role ambiguity and low intrinsic motiva-
tion when their leaders overestimated employee expectations regarding on-
the-job empowerment. Similarly, based on longitudinal performance data,
Lorinkova and colleagues (2013) found that teams led by a directive leader
initially outperformed those led by an empowering leader—even though the
empowering-led teams later experienced higher performance improvement
over time [due to higher levels of (a) team learning, or the “process by which
relatively permanent changes occur in the behavioral potential of the group as
a result of group interaction activities through which members acquire, share,
and combine knowledge” (see Burke et al., 2006, p. 1190); (b) coordination,
which “involves information exchange and mutual adjustment of action to
align the pace and sequencing of team member contributions” (see Marks,
Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001, p. 368); (c) empowerment; and (d) mental model
development, or collective knowledge structures that allow team members to
understand and form expectations concerning other team members’ responsi-
bilities, needs, and behaviors (see Mohammed, Klimoski, & Rentsch, 2000)].
As a third example, Maynard, Mathieu, Marsh, and Ruddy (2007) found
that at the team level of analysis, a climate of resistance to empowerment
negatively related to customer satisfaction as mediated by team transition
processes, or periods of time when teams focus primarily on evaluation and/
or planning activities. Also, resistance to empowerment climate had an indi-
rect effect on team performance through its relationship with team action
processes, or activities leading to the accomplishment of the team’s goal or
task (Marks et al., 2001). This pattern of findings suggests that further atten-
tion is warranted to understand potentially less functional outcomes or
responses by employees to their leaders’ empowering practices.
At the team level, research shows that groups with, and without, members
displaying self-leadership behaviors (including members setting and meeting
goals effectively, feeling motivated to accomplish jobs, and using positive
self-talk and imagery to evoke desirable behaviors; see Cohen & Ledford,
1994; Frayne & Latham, 1987; Neck & Houghton, 2006) do not differ in
terms of levels of group member job satisfaction and organizational commit-
ment (e.g., Cohen & Ledford, 1994). In addition, self-led groups have been
shown to induce lower levels of member satisfaction and commitment, and
higher levels of absenteeism, turnover, stress, and burnout because of the
associated levels of responsibility and pressure to accomplish work (e.g.,
Barker, 1993; Batt & Applebaum, 1995; Cordery, Mueller, & Smith, 1991;
Wall, Kemp, Jackson, & Clegg, 1986). As recently theorized by Maynard and
colleagues (2013), it is unclear whether competent teams are likely to embrace
or resist empowering initiatives, suggesting the possibility of negative out-
comes for these teams when working for well-meaning, power-sharing lead-
ers. We build on this work to develop our next propositions, guided by the
TMGT effect.
TMGT Effect
The TMGT effect refers to when antecedent variables traditionally leading to
desirable consequences eventually promote negative outcomes (i.e., there
exists a “tipping point” for linear, positive effects, resulting in inverted
U-shaped relationships; Pierce & Aguinis, 2013). For example, a large body
of research has established positive outcomes for leaders’ initiating structure
behavior (i.e., or the degree to which a leader defines and organizes his role
and the roles of followers, is oriented toward goal attainment, and establishes
well-defined patterns and channels of communication) and consideration
behavior (i.e., the degree to which a leader shows concern and respect for
followers, looks out for their welfare, and expresses appreciation and sup-
port; see Fleishman, 1953; Judge, Piccolo, & Ilies, 2004). Yet, there is also
some empirical evidence that (a) at extreme ends of both leadership behav-
iors, followers report grievances and turnover intentions and (b) high levels
of traits related to both structure (i.e., dominance) and consideration (i.e.,
sociability) have detrimental effects (e.g., Ames & Flynn, 2007; Fleishman,
1998; Pierce & Aguinis, 2013). This evidence reflects the practical reality
that it is imperative for leaders to understand the right balance in approach for
circumstances at hand, and the subsequent “costs” of such mismatch (Kaplan
& Kaiser, 2003). Thus, the TMGT effect can serve as a meaningful concep-
tual anchor for future empowering leadership research.
Curvilinear Effects
The TMGT exemplar findings indicate several possible paths for future
research. For example, even though empowering leadership is typified by its
motivational effects, one possibility is that, over time and given the associ-
ated demands of working autonomously (Campion & McClelland, 1991,
1993), empowering behaviors from one’s leader may “wear down” followers
and exhaust them (Maslach & Schaufeli, 1993). To illustrate, an intriguing
possibility for future research is to explore an inverted U-shaped relationship
between empowering leadership and positive employee outcomes such as job
satisfaction, and a U-shaped relationship with negative employee outcomes
such as psychological distress. Our thinking here dovetails with calls for
more research examining “temporal leadership” processes because an explicit
role for leaders, particularly at senior levels, is to help their employees and
organizations adapt to changing environments by managing across multiple
time frames and cycles of operating, as well as to help organizations strategi-
cally pace their work (Ancona, Goodman, Lawrence, & Tushman, 2001).
Although there are realistic challenges of acquiring access to organizations to
conduct longitudinal studies, as well as developing sophisticated methodolo-
gies to capture the phenomena of interest (Ancona et al., 2001), using a tem-
poral lens in the empowering domain nevertheless can afford management
researchers richer insights into the effects of empowering leaders in work
settings. Although we do not visually depict our theorizing related to this
“over time” element, we do formally propose
Proposition 11a: Over time, empowering leadership will have an inverted

U-shaped relationship with positive employee outcomes such as job
satisfaction.
Proposition 11b: Over time, empowering leadership will have a U-shaped
relationship with negative employee outcomes such as psychological
distress.
A second avenue for future dark side work is to explore the possibility that
some followers might be perceived negatively by other organizational mem-
bers, due to the overtly positive effects associated with being empowered by
one’s leader. Earlier, we suggested that leaders might prefer to empower fol-
lowers who possess particular characteristics—which, in turn, imply that
other employees may not be empowered. This could occur in a work team in
which a team’s leader perceives members differently. Thus, an unanswered
research question in such a scenario regards whether negative outcomes of
tension, interpersonal friction, or animosity could emerge between team-
mates based on whether they are (or are not) empowered by their leaders.
Stated another way and following extant LMX research showing that leaders
develop unique (and not uniform) relationships with “in-group” and “out-
group” followers (Dulebohn, Bommer, Liden, Brouer, & Ferris, 2012),
well-intended empowering behaviors by leaders toward some (but not all)

employees could signal favoritism in the team setting, hence eliciting percep-
tions of unfairness, resentment, or even hostility between employees.
Typically, team-level empowering leadership research has assessed the
level of agreement between employees regarding their leader’s practices
(Kirkman & Rosen, 1999; Srivastava et al., 2006), yet this approach masks
the potential variance in perceptions we suggest exist between employees.
Our suggestion additionally reflects a recent study addressing issues of dif-
ferentiated transformational leadership in work groups, which found that
when leaders treated individuals within their groups differently, the work-
group’s effectiveness diminished because of different levels of followers
identifying with the group leader and feelings of self-efficacy, or a belief in
one’s abilities (Wu, Tsui, & Kinicki, 2010). A related area of LMX research
further demonstrates various effects for LMX differentiation in teams (Schyns
& Day, 2010). Taken together, prior scholarly work and practical reality indi-
cate that disparities in empowering leadership behaviors likely exist as per-
ceived by employees, and there is a rich area available for future work to
understand the consequential outcomes for teams and individuals alike.
Although we do not visually depict our theorizing related to this variance, we
propose
Proposition 12: Variance in team members’ perceptions of empowering

leadership (i.e., empowering leadership differentiation) will be negatively
associated with relationship quality between team members and overall
team performance.
A third conceptual possibility to inform the dark side of empowering lead-

ership is to examine whether followers who are empowered by their leaders
may again, over time, become overly confident and/or develop extremely
positive views of their own abilities. On one hand, the motivational effects of
empowering leadership have been well documented in prior studies, and yet,
on the other hand, it remains to be examined if followers of such leaders
might develop unintended narcissistic tendencies because of these same
effects. In support, prior work has theorized that reinforcing the notion that
employees’ needs should be met can prompt self-absorption and induce “con-
tented cows,” which implies there are downsides to “good management”
(Koprowski, 1981, p. 459). Although we again do not visually depict our
theorizing related to this “over time” element, we do propose
Proposition 13: Over time, empowering leadership will be positively

associated with follower narcissism.
Discussion
We sought to summarize the existing empowering leadership literature and
offer two new lines of inquiry to meaningfully build on prior work.
Specifically, as the majority of empowering leadership studies have focused
on positive outcomes, we suggest that future work should examine factors
that are likely to (a) predict empowering leadership and (b) explain the pro-
cesses through which less positive and unintended, negative effects of
empowering leadership are likely to occur. To guide the testable propositions
we offer within these lines of inquiry, we used four theoretical perspectives
including (1) person–situation interactions, (2) followership theory, (3) con-
tingency approaches to leadership, and (4) the TMGT effect. Although we did
not intend to be exhaustive with our model, the constructs we chose to
develop are exemplars of the types of constructs relevant for empowering
leadership research.
Implications for Future Research

We offer several implications for future empowering leadership research.
First, we encourage researchers to answer the question of why empowering
leadership occurs. Following person–situation interactionist theory (Mischel,
1977; Schneider, 1983), we suggest that studies incorporate individual, per-
son factors; situation factors; and person × situation interactions to compre-
hensively capture relevant antecedents to empowering leadership.
Furthermore, we refer to prior conceptualizations of followership to propose
follower-based factors that may also predict empowering leadership. Second,
building on a growing interest in both the positive and negative sides of man-
agement and applied psychology research, we encourage researchers to
explore the extent to which empowering leadership has (a) less positive
effects and (b) when and why a seemingly positive leadership approach could
end up having unintended, counterintuitive negative effects. To do so, we
suggest building on contingency approaches to leadership as well as explor-
ing the TMGT effect (Pierce & Aguinis, 2013). These approaches promise to
be both theoretically and practically powerful for scholars and leaders alike.
If researchers do indeed follow and build on the roadmap of future research
outlined here, we are likely to have a much more robust understanding of this
widely practiced, but relatively under-researched, empowering leadership
construct in the foreseeable future.
Notably, in addition to the specific testable propositions we put forth, we
suggest that future work consider other constructs that we did not include in
our review. For example, in addition to the personality trait of narcissism,
other related individual leader personality traits that could be examined as

predictors to empowering leadership include authoritarianism, need for con-
trol, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Together with narcissism,
Machiavellianism and psychopathy form the “Dark Triad” of personality
traits, meaning that individuals with these traits share “a tendency to be cal-
lous, selfish, and malevolent in their interpersonal dealings” (see Paulhus &
Williams, 2002, p. 100). Furthermore, recent research suggests that personal-
ity traits like humility predict empowering leadership behaviors by CEOs
(Ou et al., 2014), hence constructs including altruism can also be examined
as antecedents, particularly in contrast to the Dark Triad mentioned above.
Finally, because the Big Five personality traits have been theoretically and
empirically linked to other leadership approaches, such as transformational
leadership (Bono & Judge, 2004; Judge & Bono, 2000), it might prove useful
to determine whether the relationships would be similar (or different) with
empowering leadership, as these two constructs are theoretically and empiri-
cally distinct.
Finally, as discussed, as empowering leadership might likely predict nega-
tive outcomes for followers, an important consideration is whether empower-
ing leadership may be stressful for leaders themselves. Empowering
leadership requires coordination between leaders and their followers, so
therein lay the possibility that leaders will experience chaos in trying to man-
age their employees, such as misalignment of effort. There is the further pos-
sibility that empowering leaders may be regarded as tipping too much toward
inclusion of their followers and, as a result, perceived as less assertive or
powerful by their followers or even other leaders in the organization (Kaplan
& Kaiser, 2003). Finally, a small but growing body of research examines the
moderating role of empowering leadership (Gao, Janssen, & Shi, 2011;
Hmieleski & Ensley, 2007; Magni & Maruping, 2013; Mathieu, Ahearne, &
Taylor, 2007; van Dijke, De Cremer, Mayer, & Van Quaquebeke, 2012), and
future work can further develop this perspective, to more fully explain the
role of empowering behaviors by leaders in organizational phenomena.
Implications for Practice

We also offer important practical implications emanating from our review.
Specifically, following our first line of inquiry, organizations wishing to pro-
mote empowering leadership in their work settings can better understand rea-
sons why this leadership style is likely to occur. The well-established benefits
of empowering leadership for individuals and teams suggest there is a practi-
cal imperative for organizations to understand those factors that predict lead-
ers engaging in empowering initiatives in their works settings. However, it is
reasonable to consider that not all leaders are equally willing to invest in their
employees. Our propositions thus indicate that individual differences explain
which leaders are more predisposed to involving their employees and why.
This theorizing can inform organizational selection practices that seek to
actively promote employees’ motivation. For example, the selection of lead-
ers can be better understood and more accurately performed when organiza-
tions aim to place leaders at the helm of work teams whose members are
proactive and responsive to initiative-taking actions. In addition, if an organi-
zation is aware that employees perform best when working with directive
leaders, our propositions can inform the selection of which leaders optimally
“match” these employees.
Second, by understanding contingency factors in empowering leadership
processes as well as how and why empowering leadership promotes unin-
tended negative consequences, managers can become better sensitized to
workplace dynamics such as “fit” between their practices and the preferences
of their followers. For example, person–supervisor fit theory is subsumed
within fit theories of person–environment interactions that examine the com-
patibility between an individual and a work environment that occurs when
both of their characteristics are well matched (Schneider, 2001). Empirical
findings underscore the importance of understanding person–supervisor fit as
well, given it is positively associated with employee work outcomes includ-
ing job satisfaction, organizational commitment, supervisor satisfaction,
LMX, and job performance (cf. Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson,
2005). Thus, there are meaningful practical uses of our second line of inquiry
for managers in understanding when less positive outcomes and negative out-
comes of their empowering leadership might occur.
As a third related practical implication, leaders in today’s organizations
can be better informed by our review on deciding whether, when, or how to
engage in empowering initiatives with their employees. Practical research
conveys to managers the importance of practicing empowering leadership
(Wirthman, 2014), which implies that all employees are equally receptive to
being involved by their managers and that all managers are equally receptive
to engaging in empowering behaviors. However, as our review suggests, a
growing area of scholarly research is not so sanguine about the benefits of
empowering leadership across situations, leaders, and employees.
Specifically, our propositions regarding potentially less positive and unin-
tended negative consequences of empowering leadership help provide a
deeper, more nuanced understanding of when, why, or how empowerment
benefits managers and employees. In turn, managers can make better-
informed decisions regarding how to best motivate and lead their employees
in their work settings.
Conclusion
As we hope our review convincingly suggests, the field is wide open in terms
of moving toward a better understanding of the nomological network of
empowering leadership. We also hope that our review has provided a helpful
roadmap for future researchers to follow (and build on) in better theoretically
and empirically understanding this important construct over the next decade.
We anxiously anticipate what the next decade of research on empowering
leadership will have in store for organizational scholars.
Appendix
Table A1. Summary of Empowering Leadership Effects by Individual-Level
Variable.
Construct No. Citation r

Commitment 5 Chen, Sharma, Edinger, Shapiro, and .20* (S1)
(organizational or Farh (2011) .30* (S2)
affective) Harris, Li, Boswell, Zhang and Xie .34**
(2014)
Hassan, Mahsud, Yukl, and Prussia .41*
(2013)
Konczak, Stelly, and Trusty (2000) .36*
Raub and Robert (2013) .47*
Creativity 3 Harris et al. (2014) .20*
Zhang and Bartol (2010) .24**
Zhang and Zhou (2014) .45**
Creative process 2 Harris et al. (2014) .56**
engagement Zhang and Bartol (2010) .24**
Efficacy 1 Zhang and Zhou (2014) .33**
Engagement 1 Tuckey, Bakker, and Dollard (2012) .38**
Innovative behaviors 1 Chen et al. (2011) .28* (S1)
.16* (S2)
Intrinsic motivation 1 Zhang and Bartol (2010) .20**
Job satisfaction 2 Vecchio, Justin, and Pearce (2010) .28**
Konczak et al. (2000) .51*
Knowledge sharing 2 Kuo and Lee (2011) .35*
Eze, Goh, Goh, and Tan (2013) .82*
Leader effectiveness 1 Hassan et al. (2013) .67*
Leader–member 1 Hassan et al. (2013) .68*
exchange
Mastery approach 1 Humborstad, Nerstad, and Dysvik .31*
(2014)
(continued)
Table A1. (continued)

Organizational 3 Auh, Menguc, and Jung (2014) .14** (GL)
citizenship .37** (IL)
behaviors Raub and Robert (2010) .28*
Humborstad et al. (2014) .44*
Performance 3 Harris et al. (2014) .30**
Humborstad et al. (2014) .38*
Vecchio et al. (2010) .33**
Psychological 5 Auh et al. (2014) .21** (GL)
empowerment .47** (IL)
Chen et al. (2011) .45* (S1)
.27* (S2)
Konczak et al. (2000) .46*
Resistance 1 Vecchio et al. (2010) −.40**
Risky behaviors 1 Martínez-Córcoles, Gracia, Tomás, −.26**
Peiró, and Schöbel (2013)
Role clarity 2 Harris et al. (2014) .46**
Martínez-Córcoles, Gracia, Tomás, .44*
and Peiró (2014)
Safety compliance 2 Martínez-Córcoles et al. (2014) .32*
Martínez-Córcoles et al. (2013) .32**
Self determination 1 Yagil and Gal (2002) .31**
Service climate 1 Yagil and Gal (2002) .35**
Shared values 1 Clark, Hartline, and Jones (2009) .12*
Skills 1 Yagil and Gal (2002) .21**
Social climate 1 Muhonen, Jonsson, Denti, and Chen .56**
(2013)
Teamwork 1 Chen et al. (2011) .21* (S1)
behaviors .15* (S2)
Trust in leader 1 Bobbio, Bellan, and Mangenelli .76**
(2012)
Turnover intentions 1 Chen et al. (2011) −.29* (S1)
−.25* (S2)
Voice 1 Raub and Robert (2013) .26*
Note. For individual-level constructs, empowering leadership was measured at the team or
individual level in studies listed. Also, when multiple dimensions of empowering leadership
were used, the average correlation was reported across these dimensions with the variable(s)
of interest. Finally, multiple studies are reported for variables examined either as mediator
and/or dependent variables. S1 = Study 1; S2 = Study 2; GL = group-level empowering
leadership; IL = empowering leadership.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
Table A2. Summary of Empowering Leadership Effects by Team-Level Variable.

Behavioral 1 Carmeli, Schaubroeck, and Tishler .30**
integration (2011)
Creativity 1 Hon and Chan (2013) .28**
Efficacy 2 Hon and Chan (2013) .44**
Srivastava, Bartol, and Locke (2006) .47**
Knowledge creation 2 Menguc, Auh, and Uslu (2013) .62**
or sharing Srivastava et al. (2006) .39**
Performance 1 Faraj and Sambamurthy (2006) .33**
Planning processes 1 Rapp, Ahearne, Mathieu, and Rapp .20*
(2010)
Proactive behaviors 1 Martin, Liao, and Campbell (2013) .53*
Satisfaction 1 Martin et al. (2013) .44*
Task proficiency 1 Martin et al. (2013) .27*
Note. When multiple dimensions of empowering leadership were used, the average
correlation was reported across these dimensions with the variable(s) of interest. Also,
multiple studies are reported for variables examined either as mediator and/or dependent
variables.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
Acknowledgments
We thank Special Issue Editors Lucy Gilson and Caren Goldberg and two anonymous
reviewers for their assistance with our manuscript. We also thank Aparna Krishnan
and Kelly Coyne for their assistance with our literature search.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.
References
Abraham, R. (1997). The relationship of vertical and horizontal individualism and
collectivism to intrapreneurship and organizational commitment. Leadership &
Organization Development, 18, 179-186.
Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J., & Rapp, A. (2005). To empower or not to empower
your sales force? An empirical examination of the influence of leadership
empowerment behavior on customer satisfaction and performance. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 90, 945-955.
Ames, D. R., & Flynn, F. J. (2007). What breaks a leader: The curvilinear rela-
tion between assertiveness and leadership. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 92, 307-324.
Ancona, D. G., Goodman, P. S., Lawrence, B. S., & Tushman, M. L. (2001). Time: A
new research lens. Academy of Management Review, 26, 645-663.
Arnold, J. J., Arad, S., Rhoades, J. A., & Drasgow, F. (2000). The Empowering
Leadership Questionnaire: The construction and validation of a new scale for
measuring leader behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 249-269.
Ashour, A. S., & England, G. (1972). Subordinates assigned level of discretion as
a function of leader’s personality and situational variables. Journal of Applied
Auh, S., Menguc, B., & Jung, Y. (2014). Unpacking the relationship between
empowering Leadership and service-oriented citizenship behaviors: A multilevel
approach. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 42, 558-579.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Barker, J. R. (1993). Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing
teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 408-437.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York,
NY: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm
transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52,
130-139.
Bass, B. M., Waldman, D. A., Avolio, B. J., & Bebb, M. (1987). Transformational
leadership and the falling domino effect. Group & Organization Studies, 12,
73-87.
Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational
behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 103-118.
Batt, R., & Applebaum, E. (1995). Worker participation in diverse settings: Does the
form affect the outcome, and if so, who benefits? British Journal of Industrial
Relations, 33, 353-378.
Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1996). Development of leader-member exchange: A
longitudinal test. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1538-1567.
Blair, C., Hoffman, B. J., & Helland, K. (2008). Narcissism and manager effec-
tiveness: An empirical examination of the dark side. Human Performance, 21,
254-276.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: John Wiley.
Bobbio, A., Bellan, M., & Manganelli, A. M. (2012). Empowering leadership, per-
ceived organizational support, trust, and job burnout for nurses: A study in an
Italian general hospital. Health Care Management Review, 37, 77-87.
Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Personality and transformational and transactional
leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 901-910.
Bowers, K. S. (1973). Situationism in psychology: Analysis and a critique.
Psychological Review, 80, 307-336.
Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Halpin, S. M.
(2006). What type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-
analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 288-307.
Campion, M. A., & McClelland, C. L. (1991). Interdisciplinary examination of the
costs and benefits of enlarged jobs: A job design quasi-experiment. Journal of
Campion, M. A., & McClelland, C. L. (1993). Follow-up extension of the interdisci-
plinary costs and benefits of enlarged jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78,
339-351.
Carmeli, A., Schaubroeck, J., & Tishler, A. (2011). How CEO empowering leadership
shapes top management team processes: Implications for firm performance. The
Leadership Quarterly, 22, 399-411.
Chase, M. (2000, May 1). Health & medicine (A special report): Food & fitness:
Healthy assets: Corporations are discovering that it can pay to keep their
employee fit. Wall Street Journal, p. R9.
Chatman, J. A. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A model of
person-organization fit. Academy of Management Review, 14, 333-349.
Chen, G., Kirkman, B. L., Kanfer, R., Allen, D., & Rosen, B. (2007). A multi-level
study of leadership, empowerment, and performance in teams. Journal of Applied
Chen, G., Sharma, P. N., Edinger, S. K., Shapiro, D. L., & Farh, J. (2011). Motivating
and demotivating forces in teams: Cross-level influences of empowering leader-
ship and relationship conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 541-557.
Chen, G., & Tesluk, P. E. (2012). Team participation and empowerment: A multilevel
perspective. In S. W. J. Kozlowski (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of organizational
psychology (pp. 767-788). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Chen, P. Y., & Spector, P. E. (1992). Relationships of work stressors with aggres-
sion, withdrawal, theft and substance use: An exploratory study. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65, 177-184.
Chen, Y. F., & Tjosvold, D. (2006). Participative leadership by American and Chinese
managers in China: The role of relationships. Journal of Management Studies,
43, 1727-1752.
Chen, Z., Lam, W., & Zhong, J. A. (2007). Leader-member exchange and member
performance: A new look at individual-level negative feedback-seeking behav-
ior and team-level empowerment climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,
202-212.
Clark, R. A., Hartline, M. D., & Jones, K. C. (2009). The effects of leadership style
on hotel employees’ commitment to service quality. Cornell Hospital Quarterly,
50, 209-231.
Clugston, M., Howell, J. P., & Dorfman, P. W. (2000). Does cultural socialization
predict multiple bases and foci of commitment? Journal of Management, 26,
5-30.
Cogliser, D. C., Gardner, W. L., Gavin, M., & Broberg, J. C. (2012). Big five per-
sonality factors and leader emergence in virtual teams: Relationships with team
trustworthiness, member performance contributions, and team performance.

Group & Organization Management, 37, 752-784.
Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness
research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23,
239-290.
Cohen, S. G., & Ledford, G. E. (1994). The effectiveness of self-managing teams: A
quasi- experiment. Human Relations, 47, 13-44.
Conger, J., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory
and practice. Academy of Management Review, 13, 471-482.
Cordery, J. L., Mueller, W. S., & Smith, L. M. (1991). Attitudinal and behavioral
effects of autonomous group working: A longitudinal field study. Academy of
Management Journal, 34, 464-476.
Deluga, R. J. (1994). Supervision trust building, leader-member exchange and orga-
nizational Citizenship behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job
demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499-
512.
de Poel, F. M., Stoker, J. I., & Van der Zee, K. I. (2014). Leadership and organiza-
tional tenure diversity as determinants of project team effectiveness. Group &
Organization Management, 39, 532-560.
Dorfman, P. W., & Howell, J. P. (1988). Dimensions of national culture and effec-
tive leadership patterns. Advances in International Comparative Management,
8, 127-250.
Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2012).
Meta-analysis of LMX antecedents and consequences: Integrating the past with
an eye toward the future. Journal of Management, 6, 1715-1759.
Earley, P. C. (1989). Social loafing and collectivism: A comparison of the United
States and China. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 565-582.
Ellis, A. P. (2006). System breakdown: The role of mental models and transactive
memory in the relationship between acute stress and team performance. Academy
of Management Journal, 49, 576-589.
Elster, J. (1989). The cement of society. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Emery, F. E. (1995). Participative design: Effective, flexible and successful, now!.
Journal for Quality and Participation, 18, 6-9.
Eze, U. C., Goh, G., Goh, C. Y., & Tan, T. L. (2013). Perspectives of SMEs on knowl-
edge sharing. Vine, 43, 210-236.
Faraj, S., & Sambamurthy, V. (2006). Leadership of information systems devel-
opment projects. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 53, 238-
249.
Feldman, D. C. (1984). The development and enforcement of group norms. Academy
of Management Review, 9, 47-53.
Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York, NY: McGraw-
Hill.
Fiedler, F. E. (1978). The contingency model and the dynamics of the leadership
process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology
(pp. 59–96). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Fleishman, E. A. (1953). Leadership climate and human relations training. Personnel
Fleishman, E. A. (1998). Patterns of leadership behavior related to employee grievances
and turnover: Some post hoc reflections. Personnel Psychology, 51, 825-834.
Frayne, C. A., & Latham, G. P. (1987). Application of social learning theory to
employee self-management of attendance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72,
387-392.
Ganster, D. C. (2005). Executive job demands: Suggestions from a stress and deci-
sion-making perspective. Academy of Management Review, 30, 492-502.
Gao, L., Janssen, O., & Shi, K. (2011). Leader trust and employee voice: The moderat-
ing role of empowering leader behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 787-798.
Gelfand, M. J., Erez, M., & Aycan, Z. (2007). Cross-cultural organizational behavior.
Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 479-514.
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of Leader-Member
Exchange Theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology,
82, 827-844.
Goudreau, J. (2013). Are Millenials “deluded narcissists”? Retrieved from http://
www.forbes.com/sites/jennagoudreau/2013/01/15/are-millennials-deluded-
narcissists/
Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Towards a psychology of dyadic organiza-
tions. Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, 175-208.
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-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6,
219-247.
Grant, A. M., Parker, S., & Collins, C. (2009). Getting credit for proactive behavior:
Supervisor reactions depend on what you value and how you feel. Personnel
Greguras, G. J., & Ford, J. M. (2006). An examination of the multidimensionality of
supervisor And subordinate perceptions of leader-member exchange. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 433-465.
Hackman, J. R., & Wageman, R. (2007). Asking the right questions about leadership.
American Psychologist, 62, 43-47.
Hambrick, D. C., Finkelstein, S., & Mooney, A. (2005). Executives sometimes lose it,
just like the rest of us. Academy of Management Review, 30, 503-508.
Hannah, S. T., Uhl-Bien, M., Avolio, B. J., & Cavarretta, F. L. (2009). A framework
for examining leadership in extreme contexts. The Leadership Quarterly, 20,
897-919.
Harris, T. B., Li, N., Boswell, W. R., Zhang, X., & Xie, Z. (2014). Getting what’s
new from newcomers: Empowering leadership, creativity, and adjustment in the
socialization context. Personnel Psychology, 67, 567-604.
Hassan, S., Mahsud, R., Yukl, G., & Prussia, G. E. (2013). Ethical and empowering
leadership and leader effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28, 133-
146.
Hershey, P., & Blanchard, K. (1982). Management of organizational behavior (4th
ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hmieleski, K. M., & Ensley, M. D. (2007). A contextual examination of new venture
performance: Entrepreneur leadership behavior, top management team hetero-
geneity, and environmental dynamism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28,
865-889.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources. American Psychologist, 3, 513-524.
Hoch, J. (2013). Shared leadership and innovation: The role of vertical leadership and
employee integrity. Journal of Business and Psychology, 28, 159-174.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-
related values. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hollander, E. P. (1992). The essential interdependence of leadership and follower-
ship. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 71-75.
Hon, A. H., & Chan, W. W. (2013). Team creative performance: The roles of empow-
ering leadership, creative-related motivation, and task interdependence. Cornell
Hospitality Quarterly, 54, 199-210.
House, R. J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 16, 321-338.
Howell, J. P., Dorfman, P. W., & Kerr, S. (1986). Moderator variables in leadership
research. Academy of Management Review, 11, 88-102.
Humborstad, S. I. W., & Kuvaas, B. (2013). Mutuality in leader-subordinate empow-
erment expectation: Its impact on role ambiguity and intrinsic motivation. The
Humborstad, S. I. W., Nerstad, C. G., & Dysvik, A. (2014). Empowering leader-
ship, employee goal orientations and work performance A competing hypothesis
approach. Personnel Review, 43, 246-271.
Hunter, S. T., Bedell-Avers, K. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2007). The typical leader-
ship study: Assumptions, implications, and potential remedies. The Leadership
Quarterly, 18, 435-446.
Huy, Q. H. (1999). Emotional capability emotional intelligence and radical change.
Academy of Management Review, 24, 325-345.
Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Leader-member exchange and
citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,
269-277.
Jackson, C. L., Colquitt, J. A., Wesson, M. J., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2006).
Psychological collectivism: A measurement validation and linkage to group
member performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 884-899.
Jaffe, D. (1995). The healthy company: Research paradigms for personal and organi-
zational health. In S. Sauter & L. Murphy (Eds.), Organizational risk factors for
job stress (pp. 13-39). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Jago, A. G., & Vroom, V. H. (1980). An evaluation of two alternatives to the Vroom/
Yetton normative model. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 347-355.
Janssens, M., Brett, J. M., & Smith, F. J. (1995). Confirmatory cross-cultural

research: Testing the viability of a corporation-wide safety policy. Academy of
Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., Sully de Luque, M., & House, R. J. (2006). In the
eye of the beholder: Cross-cultural lessons in leadership from Project GLOBE.
Academy of Management Perspectives, 20, 67-90.
Jehn, K., & Bendersky, C. (2003). Intragroup conflict in organizations: A contingency
perspective on the conflict–outcome relationship. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 24, 187-242.
Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy
of Management Review, 31, 386-408.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and transforma-
tional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 751-765.
Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Ilies, R. (2004). The forgotten ones? A re-examination
of consideration, initiating structure, and leadership effectiveness. Journal of
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York, NY: Basic
Books.
Kaplan, R. E., & Kaiser, R. B. (2003). Developing versatile leadership. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 44, 19-26.
Kernberg, O. (1979). Regression in organizational leadership. Psychiatry, 42, 29-39.
Kets de Vries, M. F. R., & Miller, D. (1985). The neurotic organization: Diagnosing
and changing counterproductive styles of management. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Kinicki, A., McKee, F., & Wade, K. (1996). Annual review, 1991-1995: Occupational
health. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 190-220.
Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, I. (1980). Intra-organizational influence
tactics: Explorations in getting one’s way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65,
440-452.
Kirkman, B. L., Chen, G., Farh, J. L., Chen, Z. X., & Lowe, K. B. (2009). Individual
power distance orientation and follower reactions to transformational leaders: A
cross-level, cross-cultural, examination. Academy of Management Journal, 52,
744-764.
Kirkman, B. L., Lowe, K. B., & Gibson, C. B. (2006). A quarter century of culture’s
consequences: A review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede’s cultural
value framework. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 285-320.
Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and
consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42,
58-74.
Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (2001). The impact of cultural values on job satisfac-
tion and organizational commitment in self-managing work teams: The mediat-
ing role of employee resistance. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 557-569.
Kobasa, S. C., & Puccetti, M. C. (1983). Personality and social resources in stress
resistance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 839-850.
Koberg, C. S., Boss, R. W., Senjem, J. C., & Goodman, E. A. (1999). Antecedents and
outcomes of empowerment: Empirical evidence from the health care industry.
Konczak, L. J., Stelly, D. J., & Trusty, M. L. (2000). Defining and measuring
empowering leader behaviors: Development of an upward feedback instrument.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 301-313.
Koprowski, E. J. (1981). Exploring the meaning of “good” management. Academy of
Management Review, 6, 459-467.
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences
of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization,
person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281-342.
Kuo, R.-Z., & Lee, G.-G. (2011). Knowledge management system adoption:
Exploring the effects of empowering leadership, task-technology fit, and com-
patibility. Behaviour & Information Technology, 30, 113-129.
Leach, D. J., Wall, T. D., & Jackson, P. R. (2003). The effect of empowerment on
job knowledge: An empirical test involving operators of complex technology.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 27-52.
Leana, C. (1986). Predictors and consequences of delegation. Academy of Management
Journal, 29, 754-774.
Leana, C. (1987). Power relinquishment versus power-sharing: Theoretical clarifica-
tion and empirical comparison of delegation and participation. Journal of Applied
Lepine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P., & Lepine, M. A. (2005). A meta-analytic test of the
challenge stressor-hindrance stressor framework: An explanation for inconsis-
tent relationships among stressors and performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 48, 764-775.
Li, N., Chiaburu, D. S., Kirkman, B. L., & Xie, Z. T. (2013). Spotlight on the fol-
lowers: An examination of moderators of relationships between transforma-
tional leadership and subordinates’ citizenship and taking charge. Personnel
Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader-Member Exchange
Theory: The past and potential for the future. In G. Ferris (Ed.), Research in
personnel and human resource management (pp. 47-119). Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
Lorinkova, N. M., Pearsall, M. J., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (2013). Examining the differ-
ential longitudinal performance of directive versus empowering leadership in
teams. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 573-596.
Lovelace, K. J., Manz, C. C., & Alves, J. C. (2007). Work stress and leadership devel-
opment: The role of self-leadership, shared leadership, physical fitness and flow
in managing demands and increasing job control. Human Resource Management
Review, 17, 374-387.
Magni, M., & Maruping, L. M. (2013). Sink or swim: Empowering leadership
and overload in teams’ ability to deal with the unexpected. Human Resource
Management, 52, 715-739.
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1987). Leading workers to lead themselves: The exter-
nal leadership of self-managing work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly,
32, 106-128.
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework
and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356-376.
Martin, S. L., Liao, H., & Campbell, E. M. (2013). Directive versus empowering
leadership: A field experiment comparing impacts on task proficiency and proac-
tivity. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 1372-1395.
Martínez-Córcoles, M., Gracia, F. J., Tomás, I., & Peiró, J. M. (2014). Strengthening
safety compliance in nuclear power operations: A role-based approach. Risk
Analysis: An International Journal, 34, 1257-1269.
Martínez-Córcoles, M., Gracia, F. J., Tomás, I., Peiró, J. M., & Schöbel, M. (2013).
Empowering team leadership and safety performance in nuclear power plants: A
multilevel approach. Safety Science, 51, 293-301.
Maslach, C., & Schaufeli, W. B. (1993). Historical and conceptual development of
burnout. In W. B. Schaufeli, C. Maslach, & T. Marek (Eds.), Professional burn-
out: Recent developments in theory and research (pp. 1-16). Washington, DC:
Taylor & Francis.
Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000). Integrating
justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment
on work relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 738-748.
Mathieu, J., Ahearne, M., & Taylor, S. R. (2007). A longitudinal cross-level model of
leader and salesperson influences on sales force technology use and performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 528-537.
Mawritz, M. B., Mayer, D. M., Hoobler, J. M., Wayne, S. J., & Marinova, S. V.
(2012). A trickle-down model of abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 65,
325-357.
Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., & Salvador, R. (2009). How
low does ethical leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 1-13.
Maynard, M. T., Gilson, L. L., & Mathieu, J. E. (2012). Empowerment—Fad or fab?
A multilevel- review of the last decades of research. Journal of Management, 38,
1231-1281.
Maynard, M. T., Mathieu, J. E., Gilson, L. L., O’Boyle, E. H., Jr., & Cigularov, K.
P. (2013). Drivers and outcomes of team psychological empowerment: A meta-
analytic review and model test. Organizational Psychology Review, 3, 101-137.
Maynard, M. T., Mathieu, J. E., Marsh, W. M., & Ruddy, T. (2007). A multi-level
investigation of the influences of employees’ resistance to teams and empower-
ment. Human Performance, 20, 147-171.
Menguc, B., Auh, S., & Uslu, A. (2013). Customer knowledge creation capability
and performance in sales teams. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
41, 19-39.
Mischel, W. (1977). The interaction of person and situation. In D. Magnusson & N.
S. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional
psychology (pp. 333-352). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Mohammed, S., Klimoski, R., & Rentsch, J. R. (2000). The measurement of team
mental models: We have no shared schema. Organizational Research Methods,
3, 123-165.
Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change
and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25,
706-725.
Muhonen, T., Jonsson, S., Denti, L., & Chen, K. (2013). Social climate as a mediator
between leadership behavior and employee well-being in a cross-cultural per-
spective. Journal of Management Development, 32, 1040-1055.
Murphy, K. R. (1996). Individual differences and behavior in organizations: Much
more than g. In K. Murphy (Ed.), Individual differences and behavior in organi-
zations (pp. 3-30). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Murphy, L. (2002). Job stress research at NIOSH: 1972-2002. In P. Perrewe & D.
Ganster (Eds.), Research in occupational stress and well-being: Historical and
current perspectives on stress and health (Vol. 2., pp. 1-55). New York, NY:
Elsevier Science.
Neck, C., & Houghton, J. (2006). Two decades of self-leadership theory and research:
Past developments, present trends, and future possibilities. Journal of Managerial
Niehoff, B. P., Moorman, R. H., Blakely, G., & Fuller, J. (2001). The influence of
empowerment and job enrichment on employee loyalty in a downsizing environ-
ment. Group & Organization Management, 26, 93-113.
Offermann, L. R., & Hellmann, P. S. (1997). Culture’s consequences for leadership
behavior: National values in action. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28,
342-351.
Osborn, R. N., Hunt, J. G., & Jauch, L. R. (2002). Toward a contextual theory of
leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 797-837.
Ou, A. Y., Tsui, A. S., Kinicki, A. J., Waldman, D. A., Xiao, Z., & Song, L. J. (2014).
Humble chief executive officers’ connections to top management team integra-
tion and middle managers’ responses. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59,
34-72.
Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of
proactive behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 636-652.
Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism,
machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556-
563.
Pearce, C. L., Sims, H. P., Jr., Cox, J. F., Ball, G., Schnell, E., Smith, K. A., & Trevino,
L. (2003). Transactors, transformers and beyond: A multi-method development
of a theoretical typology of leadership. Journal of Managerial Development, 22,
273-307.
Peters, L. H., & O’Connor, E. J. (1980). Situational constraints and work outcomes:
The influences of a frequently overlooked construct. Academy of Management
Review, 5, 391-397.
Pierce, J. R., & Aguinis, H. (2013). The too-much-of-a-good-thing effect in manage-
ment. Journal of Management, 39, 313-338.
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, 643-671.
Podsakoff, N. P., LePine, J. A., & LePine, M. A. (2007). Differential challenge
stressor-hindrance-stressor relationships with job attitudes, turnover inten-
tions, turnover and withdrawal behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Rapp, A., Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J., & Rapp, T. (2010). Managing sales teams in a vir-
tual environment. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27, 213-224.
Raub, S., & Robert, C. (2010). Differential effects of empowering leadership on
in-role and extra-role employee behaviors: Exploring the role of psychological
empowerment and power values. Human Relations, 63, 1743-1770.
Raub, S., & Robert, C. (2013). Empowerment, organizational commitment, and
voice behavior in the hospitality industry: Evidence from a multinational sample.
Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 54, 136-148.
Riggio, R. E., Chaleff, I., & Lipman-Blumen, J. (Eds.). (2008). The art of follower-
ship: How great followers create great leaders and organizations. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Salas, E., Driskell, J. E., & Hughes, S. (1996). Introduction: The study of stress and
human performance. In J. E. Driskell & E. Salas (Eds.), Stress and human perfor-
mance (pp. 1-45). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Scandura, T. A., & Graen, G. (1984). Moderating effects of initial leader-member
exchange status on the effects of leadership intervention. Journal of Applied
Scandura, T. A., Graen, G. B., & Novak, M. A. (1986). When managers decide not to
decide autocratically: An investigation of leader-member exchange and decision
influence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 579-584.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources and their
relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 25, 293-315.
Schneider, B. (1983). Interactional psychology and organizational behavior. In B. M.
Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 1-31).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Schneider, B. (2001). Fits about fit. Applied Psychology: An International Review,
50, 141-152.
Schyns, B., & Day, D. (2010). Critique and review of Leader-Member Exchange
Theory: Issues of agreement, consensus, and excellence. European Journal of
Work & Organizational Psychology, 19, 1-29.
Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Crant, J. M. (2001). What do proactive people do?
A longitudinal model linking proactive personality and career success. Personnel
Seibert, S. E., Silver, S. R., & Randolph, W. A. (2004). Taking empowerment to the
next level: A multiple-level model of empowerment, performance and satisfac-
tion. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 332-349.
Seibert, S. E., Wang, G., & Courtright, S. H. (2011). Antecedents and consequences
of psychological and team empowerment in organizations: A meta-analytic
review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 981-1003.
Simsek, Z., Veiga, J. F., Lubatkin, M., & Dino, R. N. (2005). Modeling the multi-
level determinants of top management team behavioral integration. Academy of
Sin, H., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2009). Understanding why they don’t
see eye to eye: An examination of Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) agreement.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1048-1057.
Solomon, Z., Mikulincer, M., & Hobfoll, S. E. (1986). The effects of social sup-
port and battle intensity on loneliness and breakdown during combat. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1269-1276.
Sparks, K., Faragher, B., & Cooper, C. L. (2001). Well-being and occupational health
in the 21st century workplace. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions,
measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442-1465.
Spreitzer, G. M. (2007). Taking stock: A review of more than twenty years of research
on empowerment at work. In C. Cooper & J. Barling (Eds.), The handbook of
organizational behavior (pp. 54-72). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
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, 1239-1251.
Stanton, E. S. (1993). Employee participation: A critical evaluation and suggestions
for management practice. Advanced Management Journal, 58, 18-23.
Staw, B. M., Sandelands, L. E., & Dutton, J. E. (1981). Threat-rigidity effects in orga-
nizational behavior: A multi-level analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly,
26, 501-524.
Stewart, G. L., Courtright, S. H., & Barrick, M. R. (2012). Peer-based control in self-
managing teams: Linking rational and normative influence with individual and
group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 435-447.
Stewart, G. L., Courtright, S. H., & Manz, C. C. (2011). Self-leadership: A multi-level
review. Journal of Management, 37, 185-222.
Sumanth, J. J. (2011). Be careful what you ask for: How highly inclusive leaders
diminish upward communication quality (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Tekleab, A. G., & Taylor, M. S. (2003). Aren’t there two parties in an employment
relationship? Antecedents and consequences of organization-employee agree-
ment on contract obligations and violations. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
24, 585-608.
Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment:
An “interpretative” model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management
Review, 15, 666-681.
Thompson, J. A. (2005). Proactive personality and job performance: A social capital
perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1011-1017.
Tjosvold, D., & Sun, H. (2006). Effects of power concepts and employee performance
on managers’ empowering. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal,
27, 217-234.
Tuckey, M. R., Bakker, A. B., & Dollard, M. F. (2012). Empowering leaders optimize
working conditions for engagement: A multilevel study. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 17, 15-27.
Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R. E., Lowe, K. B., & Carsten, M. K. (2014). Followership
theory: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 83-104.
van Dijke, D., De Cremer, D., Mayer, D. M., & Van Quaquebeke, N. (2012).
When does procedural fairness promote organizational citizenship behav-
iors? Integrating empowering leadership types in relational justice models.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117, 235-248.
Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors:
Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal,
41, 108-119.
Van Scotter, J., Motowidlo, S. J., & Cross, T. C. (2000). Effects of task performance
and contextual performance on systemic rewards. Journal of Applied Psychology,
85, 526-535.
Vecchio, R. P., Justin, J. E., & Pearce, C. L. (2010). Empowering leadership: An
examination of mediating mechanisms within a hierarchical structure. The
Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and decision-making. Pittsburgh,
PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Wall, T. D., Kemp, N. J., Jackson, P. R., & Clegg, C. W. (1986). Outcomes of auton-
omous work groups: A long-term field experiment. Academy of Management
Journal, 29, 280-304.
Wallace, J. C., Johnson, P. D., Mathe, K., & Paul, J. (2011). Structural and psycho-
logical empowerment climates, performance, and the moderating role of shared
felt accountability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 840-850.
Wilson, K. S., Sin, H., & Conlon, D. E. (2010). What about the leader in leader-
member exchange? The impact of resource exchanges and substitutability on the
leader. Academy of Management Review, 35, 358-372.
Wirthman, L. (2014). Is flat better? Zappos ditches hierarchy to improve company per-
formance. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/sungardas/2014/01/07/is-
flat-better-zappos-ditches-hierarchy-to-improve-company-performance/
Wu, J. B., Tsui, A. S., & Kinicki, A. J. (2010). Consequences of differentiated leader-
ship in groups. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 90-106.
Yagil, D. (2002). The relationship of customer satisfaction and service workers’ per-
ceived control: Examination of three models. International Journal of Service
Industry Management, 13, 382-398.
Yagil, D. & Gal, I. (2002). The role of organizational service climate in generating
control and empowerment among workers and customers. Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services, 9, 215-226.
Yammarino, F. J., & Dubinsky, A. J. (1992). Superior-subordinate relationships: A
multiple levels of analysis approach. Human Relations, 45, 575-600.
Yukl, G., & Fu, P. P. (1999). Determinants of delegation and consultation by manag-
ers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 219-232.
Yun, S., Cox, J., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (2006). The forgotten follower: A contingency
model of leadership and follower self-leadership. Journal of Managerial
Yun, S., Faraj, S., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (2005). Contingent leadership and effectiveness
of trauma resuscitation teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1288-1296.
Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee
creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motiva-
tion, and creative process engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53,
107-128.
Zhang, X., & Zhou, J. (2014). Empowering leadership, uncertainty avoidance,
trust, and employee creativity: Interaction effects and a mediating mechanism.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 124, 150-164.
Zhu, W., Avolio, B. J., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2009). Moderating role of follower
characteristics with transformational leadership and follower work engagement.
Author Biographies
Payal Nangia Sharma is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Management
and Global Business at Rutgers Business School. She received her PhD degree in
Organizational Behavior at the University of Maryland, College Park. Her research
focuses on examining and understanding the role of positive and negative factors in
leadership processes and team member relationships.
Bradley L. Kirkman is the General (Ret.) H. Hugh Shelton Distinguished Professor of
Leadership and head of the Management, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship Department
in the Poole College of Management at NC State University. He received his PhD
degree in Organizational Behavior from the Kenan-Flagler Business School at the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. His research focuses on leadership, inter-
national management, virtual teams, and work team leadership and empowerment.

Leveraging Leaders: A Literature Review and Future Lines of Inquiry For Empowering Leadership Research

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Leveraging Leaders: A Literature Review and Future Lines of Inquiry For Empowering Leadership Research

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Leveraging Leaders: A Literature Review and Future Lines of Inquiry For Empowering Leadership Research

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

574906

Inquiry for Empowering

Payal Nangia Sharma1 and Bradley L. Kirkman2

1Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ, USA

Empowering leadership is defined as leader behaviors directed at individuals

Growing evidence indicates that empowering leadership is not advantageous

Figure 1. Proposed theoretical model.

empowerment climate) using several electronic databases (e.g., Business

Empowering Leadership Defined

Distinctions With Related Leadership Constructs

Delegation. Empowering leadership is similar to delegation, or leader behav-

Participative leadership. Participative leaders are those who consult their

However, empowering leadership is much broader than, and hence includes,

Transformational leadership. Transformational leadership refers to the encour-

LMX. LMX refers to a two-way, dyadic relationship shared by a supervisor

Empowerment climate. Empowerment climate represents “a shared percep-

Positive Outcomes of Empowering Leadership

Team-Level and Cross-Level Studies

leadership is positively related to firm performance, due to both top manage-

2013), performance (Harris et al., 2014; Humborstad et al., 2014; Vecchio et

Empowering Leadership and Empowerment

New Line of Inquiry 1: Why Does Empowering

Person–Situation Interactionist Approaches

Individual (Person/Leader) Differences

Leader Cultural Values

Proposition 1: Leader power distance orientation will be negatively asso-

Leader uncertainty avoidance orientation. In addition to power distance orienta-

uncertainty avoidance orientation (Offermann & Hellmann, 1997). Thus, we

Proposition 2: Leader uncertainty avoidance orientation will be nega-

Leader collectivism orientation. A third cultural value previously unexamined

leadership. However, the distinction of these leadership constructs with

Proposition 3: Leader collectivism orientation will be positively associ-

Proposition 4: Leader narcissism will be negatively associated with

It is perhaps worth considering, however, whether narcissists will choose

Contextual (Situational) Factors

Proposition 5a: Job stressors for leaders will be negatively associated

Alternatively, perhaps the very nature of stressors is such that leaders

Proposition 5b: Job stressors for leaders will be positively associated

Senior-level and peer leaders’ behaviors. A second contextual predictor that we

Proposition 6: Empowering leadership by senior-level and peer leaders

Person × Situation Factors

In particular, even though research has established linkages between

Proposition 7: Leader-reported high-quality LMX with subordinates will

Follower proactivity. Second, employee proactivity refers to anticipatory

Proposition 8: Follower proactivity will be positively associated with

New Line of Inquiry 2: To What Extent Does

themes in the empowering leadership literature suggest that it is reasonable to

Contingency Approaches to Leadership

high-felt accountability. That is, quick-service restaurant managers who felt

Job and Personal Stressors

Proposition 9a: Follower challenge stressors will weaken the positive

In addition, individuals who experience high levels of demands in their

Proposition 10: Follower personal demands will weaken the positive

Proposition 11a: Over time, empowering leadership will have an inverted

well-intended empowering behaviors by leaders toward some (but not all)

Proposition 12: Variance in team members’ perceptions of empowering

A third conceptual possibility to inform the dark side of empowering lead-

Proposition 13: Over time, empowering leadership will be positively

Implications for Future Research