Leadership: Current Theories, Research, and Future Directions Bruce J. Avolio, 1 Fred O. Walumbwa, 2 and Todd J. Weber 3 1 Department of Management, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska 68588-0491; email: [email protected]2 Department of Management, The Arizona State University, Glendale, Arizona 85306-4908; email: [email protected]3 Department of Management, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska 68588-0491; email: [email protected]Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2009. 60:421–49 The Annual Review of Psychology is online at psych.annualreviews.org This article’s doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163621 Copyright c 2009 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved 0066-4308/09/0110-0421$20.00 Key Words authentic leadership, cognitive leadership, complexity leadership, cross-cultural leadership, new-genre leadership, shared leadership Abstract This review examines recent theoretical and empirical developments in the leadership literature, beginning with topics that are currently re- ceiving attention in terms of research, theory, and practice. We begin by examining authentic leadership and its development, followed by work that takes a cognitive science approach. We then examine new- genre leadership theories, complexity leadership, and leadership that is shared, collective, or distributed. We examine the role of relationships through our review of leader member exchange and the emerging work on followership. Finally, we examine work that has been done on sub- stitutes for leadership, servant leadership, spirituality and leadership, cross-cultural leadership, and e-leadership. This structure has the ben- efit of creating a future focus as well as providing an interesting way to examine the development of the field. Each section ends with an identi- fication of issues to be addressed in the future, in addition to the overall integration of the literature we provide at the end of the article. 421 Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2009.60:421-449. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by HAMLINE UNIVERSITY on 10/16/09. For personal use only.
Transcript
ANRV364-PS60-16 ARI 27 October 2008 16:19
Leadership: Current Theories,Research, and FutureDirectionsBruce J. Avolio,1 Fred O. Walumbwa,2and Todd J. Weber3
1Department of Management, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska 68588-0491;email: [email protected] of Management, The Arizona State University, Glendale,Arizona 85306-4908; email: [email protected] of Management, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska 68588-0491;email: [email protected]
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2009. 60:421–49
The Annual Review of Psychology is online atpsych.annualreviews.org
This article’s doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163621
Copyright c! 2009 by Annual Reviews.All rights reserved
AbstractThis review examines recent theoretical and empirical developments inthe leadership literature, beginning with topics that are currently re-ceiving attention in terms of research, theory, and practice. We beginby examining authentic leadership and its development, followed bywork that takes a cognitive science approach. We then examine new-genre leadership theories, complexity leadership, and leadership that isshared, collective, or distributed. We examine the role of relationshipsthrough our review of leader member exchange and the emerging workon followership. Finally, we examine work that has been done on sub-stitutes for leadership, servant leadership, spirituality and leadership,cross-cultural leadership, and e-leadership. This structure has the ben-efit of creating a future focus as well as providing an interesting way toexamine the development of the field. Each section ends with an identi-fication of issues to be addressed in the future, in addition to the overallintegration of the literature we provide at the end of the article.
INTRODUCTIONOne of our goals for this integrative reviewis to examine the ways in which the field ofleadership is evolving and the consequencesof its evolutionary path for the models, meth-ods, and populations examined. For example,at the outset of the field of leadership, the pri-mary focus was on studying an individual leader,who was most likely a male working in somelarge private-sector organization in the United
States. Today, the field of leadership focuses notonly on the leader, but also on followers, peers,supervisors, work setting/context, and culture,including a much broader array of individu-als representing the entire spectrum of diver-sity, public, private, and not-for-profit organi-zations, and increasingly over the past 20 years,samples of populations from nations around theglobe. Leadership is no longer simply describedas an individual characteristic or difference, but
422 Avolio ·Walumbwa ·Weber
Ann
u. R
ev. P
sych
ol. 2
009.
60:4
21-4
49. D
ownl
oade
d fro
m a
rjour
nals.
annu
alre
view
s.org
by H
AM
LIN
E U
NIV
ERSI
TY o
n 10
/16/
09. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
ANRV364-PS60-16 ARI 27 October 2008 16:19
rather is depicted in various models as dyadic,shared, relational, strategic, global, and a com-plex social dynamic (Avolio 2007, Yukl 2006).
We organize our examination of how leader-ship is evolving by discussing significant areas ofinquiry that represent current pillars in leader-ship research, some understandably taller thanothers. We highlight the current state of eachparticular area of inquiry, and discuss what weknow, what we don’t know, and what remainsinteresting possibilities to pursue in future re-search. Given our space limitations, we focusmore on the current state of these respective ar-eas in terms of advances in theory, research, andpractice, including the criticisms and bound-aries of theories, models, and methods whereverappropriate. From this analysis, we offer somerecommendations for future directions that thescience of leadership could pursue, and we dis-cuss the potential implications for leadershippractice.
Looking back over the past 100 years, wecannot imagine a more opportune time for thefield of leadership studies. Never before has somuch attention been paid to leadership, and thefundamental question we must ask is, what dowe know and what should we know about lead-ers and leadership? We begin addressing thesequestions not by going back to the earliest workin leadership, but rather by focusing on whatis most current in the field. We then examineother areas from which the current work hasemerged, rather than examining leadership ma-terial covered in recent reviews (Gelfand et al.2007, Goethals 2005) or providing a compre-hensive historical review of the field that is bet-ter left to the Handbook of Leadership (Bass &Bass 2008; see also Yukl & Van Fleet 1992).
OVERVIEW OF AUTHENTICLEADERSHIPOne of the emerging pillars of interest in thefield of leadership has been called authenticleadership development. As discussed in a spe-cial issue [edited by Avolio & Gardner (2005)]of the Leadership Quarterly on this topic and inan earlier theoretical piece by Luthans & Avolio
Authenticleadership: a patternof transparent andethical leader behaviorthat encouragesopenness in sharinginformation needed tomake decisions whileaccepting followers’inputs
Transformationalleadership: leaderbehaviors thattransform and inspirefollowers to performbeyond expectationswhile transcendingself-interest for thegood of theorganization
Positiveorganizationalbehavior: literaturethat is focusing onpositive constructssuch as hope,resiliency, efficacy,optimism, happiness,and well-being as theyapply to organizations
Broaden-and-buildtheory: suggestspositive emotionsexpand cognition andbehavioral tendencies,and encourage novel,varied, and exploratorythoughts and actions
(2003), the advent of work on authentic leader-ship development came as a result of writings ontransformational leadership, in which authorssuch as Bass & Steidlmeier (1999) suggest thatthere are pseudo versus authentic transforma-tional leaders.
Luthans & Avolio (2003) also introducedthe concept of authentic leadership develop-ment into the literature with the goal of in-tegrating work on (Luthans 2002) positiveorganizational behavior with the life-span lead-ership development work of Avolio (1999).Their main purpose was to examine what con-stituted genuine leadership development in-cluding what worked and didn’t work to de-velop leaders and leadership, as well as to bringto the foreground some of the recent workin positive psychology as a foundation for ex-amining how one might accelerate the de-velopment. Luthans and Avolio reasoned thatusing some of the theoretical work in posi-tive psychology such as Fredrickson’s (2001)broaden-and-build theory, they could offer amore positive way for conceptualizing leader-ship development. According to Fredrickson,those individuals who have more positive psy-chological resources are expected to grow moreeffectively or to broaden themselves and buildout additional personal resources to perform.Luthans and Avolio report that to a large ex-tent, the prior leadership development workwas based on a deficit-reduction model strat-egy, where one discovered what was wrong witha leader and then worked to correct deficits interms of focusing on the leader’s development(also see Avolio & Luthans 2006).
Authentic Leadership DefinedFirst and foremost, the concept of authenticityhas been around for a long time, as reflected inmany philosophical discussions of what consti-tutes authenticity (Harter et al. 2002). George(2003) popularized authentic leadership in thegeneral practice community when he publishedhis book on the topic, as did Luthans & Avolio(2003) for the academic community. Luthans& Avolio (2003, p. 243) defined authentic
www.annualreviews.org • Leadership: Theory and Research 423
Ann
u. R
ev. P
sych
ol. 2
009.
60:4
21-4
49. D
ownl
oade
d fro
m a
rjour
nals.
annu
alre
view
s.org
by H
AM
LIN
E U
NIV
ERSI
TY o
n 10
/16/
09. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
ANRV364-PS60-16 ARI 27 October 2008 16:19
Ethical leadership:the demonstration ofnormativelyappropriate conductthrough personalactions andinterpersonalrelationships, and thepromotion of suchconduct to followers
Nomologicalnetwork: arepresentation of aconstruct, itsobservablemanifestation, and therelationship betweenthe two
leadership as “a process that draws from bothpositive psychological capacities and a highlydeveloped organizational context, which re-sults in both greater self-awareness and self-regulated positive behaviors on the part ofleaders and associates, fostering positive self-development.” This definition and subsequentwork on authentic leadership was defined atthe outset as multilevel in that it included theleader, follower, and context very specifically inthe way it was conceptualized and measured.This addressed a typical criticism in the lead-ership literature summarized by Yammarinoet al. (2005, p. 10) who concluded, “relativelyfew studies in any of the areas of leadershipresearch have addressed levels-of-analysis is-sues appropriately in theory, measurement, dataanalysis, and inference drawing.”
At the same time, several scholars (e.g.,Cooper et al. 2005, Sparrowe 2005) expressedconcerns with Luthans & Avolio’s initial defi-nition of authentic leadership. The initial con-ceptual differences notwithstanding, there ap-pears to be general agreement in the literatureon four factors that cover the components ofauthentic leadership: balanced processing, in-ternalized moral perspective, relational trans-parency, and self-awareness. Balanced process-ing refers to objectively analyzing relevant databefore making a decision. Internalized moralperspective refers to being guided by internalmoral standards, which are used to self-regulateone’s behavior. Relational transparency refers topresenting one’s authentic self through openlysharing information and feelings as appropriatefor situations (i.e., avoiding inappropriate dis-plays of emotions). Self-awareness refers to thedemonstrated understanding of one’s strengths,weaknesses, and the way one makes sense ofthe world. These four constructs were furtheroperationally defined by Walumbwa and col-leagues (2008). Walumbwa et al. (2008) pro-vided initial evidence using a multisample strat-egy involving U.S. and non-U.S. participantsto determine the construct validity of a new setof authentic leadership scales. Specifically, theyshowed the four components described aboverepresented unique scales that were reliable.
These four scales loaded on a higher-order fac-tor labeled authentic leadership that was dis-criminantly valid from measures of transforma-tional leadership (e.g., Avolio 1999) and ethicalleadership (e.g., Brown et al. 2005) and was asignificant and positive predictor of organiza-tional citizenship behavior, organizational com-mitment, and satisfaction with supervisor andperformance.
Future Focus RequiredWork on defining and measuring authenticleadership is in the very early stages of de-velopment. Future research will need to of-fer additional evidence for the construct va-lidity of this measure or other measures, andit will also need to demonstrate how authenticleadership relates to other constructs within itsnomological network. This would include con-structs such as moral perspective, self-conceptclarity, well-being, spirituality, and judgment.Moreover, there is a need to examine how au-thentic leadership is viewed across situationsand cultures and whether it is a universallyprescribed positive root construct—meaningit represents the base of good leadership re-gardless of form, e.g., participative, directive,or inspiring. In the next section, we turn ourattention to the second major focus on au-thentic leadership, which incorporates the termdevelopment.
AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIPDEVELOPMENTUp until very recently, one would be hard-pressed to find in the leadership literaturea general model of leadership development(Luthans & Avolio 2003). Even more difficult tofind is evidence-based leadership development.Specifically, what evidence is there to supportwhether leaders or leadership can be developedusing one or more specific theories of leader-ship? This question led to a concerted effort toexplore what was known about whether lead-ers are born or made, as well as the efficacy ofleadership interventions.
424 Avolio ·Walumbwa ·Weber
Ann
u. R
ev. P
sych
ol. 2
009.
60:4
21-4
49. D
ownl
oade
d fro
m a
rjour
nals.
annu
alre
view
s.org
by H
AM
LIN
E U
NIV
ERSI
TY o
n 10
/16/
09. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
ANRV364-PS60-16 ARI 27 October 2008 16:19
Heritability and LeadershipOne avenue of research that has exploredwhether leaders are born versus made has in-volved studying identical and fraternal twins.Preliminary evidence using a behavioral ge-netics approach has shown that approximately30% of the variation in leadership style andemergence was accounted for by heritabil-ity; the remaining variation was attributed todifferences in environmental factors such asindividuals having different role models andearly opportunities for leadership development(Arvey et al. 2007). Because identical twins have100% of the same genetic makeup and fraternaltwins share about 50%, this behavioral geneticsresearch was able to control for heritability toexamine how many leadership roles the twinsemerged into over their respective careers. Inthis and subsequent research for both men andwomen across cultures, similar results were ob-tained. The authors conducting this researchconclude that the “life context” one grows upin and later works in is much more importantthan heritability in predicting leadership emer-gence across one’s career.
Examining Evidence for PositiveLeadership InterventionsLord & Hall (1992, p. 153) noted, “too muchresearch in the past has attempted to probe thecomplex issues of leadership using simple bi-variate correlations.” It seems fair to say thatalthough most models of leadership have causalpredictions, a relatively small percentage of theaccumulated literature has actually tested thesepredictions using controlled leadership inter-ventions, especially in field research settings(Yukl 2006).
To determine whether experimental inter-ventions actually impacted leadership devel-opment and/or performance, a qualitative andquantitative review of the leadership interven-tion (i.e., studies where a researcher overtlymanipulated leadership to examine its impacton some specific intermediate process vari-ables or outcomes) literature was undertaken
(see Avolio & Luthans 2006, Avolio et al. 2009,Reichard & Avolio 2005). The focus of thismeta-analytic review was unique in that up tothat point, more than 30 meta-analyses hadbeen published on leadership research, noneof which had focused on leadership interven-tions and more than one model of leadership.For each study, the leadership intervention ex-amined was categorized into six types: train-ing, actor/role-play, scenario/vignette, assign-ments, expectations, others. Reichard & Avolio(2005) reported that regardless of the theory be-ing investigated, results showed that leadershipinterventions had a positive impact on workoutcomes (e.g., ratings of leader performance),even when the duration of those interventionswas less than one day. In terms of utility, partic-ipants in the broadly defined leadership treat-ment condition had on average a 66% chanceof positive outcomes versus only a 34% chanceof success for the comparison group.
Future Focus RequiredRelatively little work has been done over thepast 100 years to substantiate whether leader-ship can actually be developed. Indeed, basedon the meta-analysis findings reviewed above,only 201 studies were identified that fit theintervention definition. Of those 201 studies,only about one third focused on developingleadership as opposed to manipulating it forimpact through role plays or scripts to testa particular proposition in one of the variousmodels.
One of the emerging areas of interest inleadership research, which we have dedicatedmore attention to in its own section, con-cerns the linkages between cognitive scienceand how leaders perceive, decide, behave, andtake action (Lord & Brown 2004). For exam-ple, to develop leadership, it is imperative thatwe examine how a leader’s self-concept and/oridentity is formed, changed, and influences be-havior (Swann et al. 2007). This raises a keyquestion regarding what constitutes leaders’working self-concept and/or identity with re-spect to how they go about influencing others
www.annualreviews.org • Leadership: Theory and Research 425
Ann
u. R
ev. P
sych
ol. 2
009.
60:4
21-4
49. D
ownl
oade
d fro
m a
rjour
nals.
annu
alre
view
s.org
by H
AM
LIN
E U
NIV
ERSI
TY o
n 10
/16/
09. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
ANRV364-PS60-16 ARI 27 October 2008 16:19
(Swann et al. 2007). For example, does an au-thentic leader have a different working self-concept than someone who is described by fol-lowers as transformational or transactional, andhow do these differences develop in the leaderover time?
We know from previous literature that al-though a leader’s working self-concept is con-structed in the current moment, it is also basedon more stable self-concepts and identitiesstored in the individual’s long-term memory.Avolio & Chan (2008) indicate there are certaintrigger events that activate the leader’s workingself-concept. These trigger events induce self-focused attention, self-assessment, and activatea leader’s working self-concept. These triggermoments can occur naturally as the leader in-teracts with others during leadership episodesor they can be induced through formal train-ing exercises and self-reflection (Roberts et al.2005).
Another very promising area of researchthat has not received sufficient attention in theleadership literature focuses on understandingwhat constitutes an individual’s level of devel-opmental readiness or one’s capacity or moti-vational orientation to develop to one’s full po-tential. Prior authors have defined developmen-tal readiness as being made up of componentssuch as one’s goal orientation (Dweck 1986) andmotivation to develop leadership (Maurer &Lippstreu 2005). In this literature, the authorsargue that leaders who are more motivated tolearn at the outset and who have higher moti-vation to lead will more likely embrace triggerevents that stimulate their thinking about theirown development as an opportunity to improvetheir leadership effectiveness.
In sum, a great deal of energy and interestis emerging in the leadership development lit-erature that suggests there will be a lot moreactivity in trying to discover what impacts gen-uine leadership development at multiple levelsof analysis, from cognitive through to organi-zational climates. This literature will no doubtlink to the life-span development and cognitivepsychology literatures to fuel further work inthis area.
COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGYAND LEADERSHIPThe cognitive science leadership literature is anarea of research and theory containing a widerange of approaches that are united by their fo-cus on explaining the way leaders and follow-ers think and process information. This liter-ature includes a broad range of topics such asself-concept theory, meta-cognitions, and im-plicit leadership theory (e.g., Lord & Emrich2000), which are addressed in more detailbelow.
One of the more recent developments inthe literature has been an attempt to developmodels of leadership cognition. Lord & Hall(2005) developed a model of leadership de-velopment that emphasized the leader’s cog-nitive attributes or abilities. A second modelwas developed by Mumford et al. (2003) andexamined the way shared thinking contributedto leader creativity. These two approaches il-lustrate a fundamental way in which views ofleadership cognitions vary, with the former fo-cusing on activities with the individual leaderand the latter focusing on interactions that oc-cur between individuals (Mumford et al. 2007).We examine several of the key emerging con-structs within this literature, beginning with theself-concept.
Emerging Cognitive ConstructsRecent literature on what constitutes the self-concept has distinguished between the struc-ture of the self-concept and its contents(Altrocchi 1999). The content refers to the eval-uations one makes of oneself as well as self-beliefs. The structure refers to ways in whichthe self-concept content is organized for pro-cessing. In a study on the structure of the self-concept, Campbell et al. (2003) examined thecompeting arguments that one benefits fromhaving either unity in self-concept or plural-ism. Although the literature tends to treat thetwo as opposite ends of a continuum, theirstudy showed they are not necessarily relatedto each other. This study further showed thattwo measures of pluralism (self-complexity and
426 Avolio ·Walumbwa ·Weber
Ann
u. R
ev. P
sych
ol. 2
009.
60:4
21-4
49. D
ownl
oade
d fro
m a
rjour
nals.
annu
alre
view
s.org
by H
AM
LIN
E U
NIV
ERSI
TY o
n 10
/16/
09. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
ANRV364-PS60-16 ARI 27 October 2008 16:19
self-concept compartmentalization) were notrelated to each other and that multiple mea-sures of self-concept unity, such as self-conceptdifferentiation, self-concept clarity, and self-discrepancies, were moderately related to eachother and that each had implications for leaderdevelopment.
Lord & Brown (2001) presented a modelexamining two specific ways that leaders caninfluence the way followers choose to behavein terms of the motivations they use to regu-late actions/behaviors. The first way relates tovalues (e.g., achievement) and emphasizes mak-ing specific values (or patterns of values) salientfor the follower to motivate him or her to ac-tion. The second relates to the followers’ self-concept, whereby the leader activates a specificidentity to which followers can relate, creating acollective identity that the follower ultimatelyembraces as his or her own. Both values andself-concept are viewed as mediating the link-age between the leader’s actions and the behav-ior of the follower.
Because there are a range of peripheral andcore identities that could be salient to an in-dividual at any one point in time, the ques-tion of which identities are activated at anytime is relevant to research on leadership andits impact on followers. The idea of a workingself-concept refers to the identity (or combi-nation of identities) that is salient in the mo-ment, and it consists of three types of com-ponents: self-views, current goals, and possibleselves (Lord & Brown 2004). The self-view re-lates to the current working model or view ofoneself, whereas the possible selves may repre-sent the ideal model an individual may be striv-ing for and something that could be leveragedby the leader to motivate and develop follow-ers into better followers or leaders themselves.Overall, the working self-concept has the po-tential to provide insight into the challengingissue of how salient one’s identity is and howleadership can enhance its salience, though itsuse within the leadership literature has beensomewhat limited so far.
One of the essential building blocks in thecognitive leadership literature is the idea of a
Cognitive leadership:a broad range ofapproaches toleadershipemphasizing howleaders and followersthink and processinformation
Transactionalleadership:leadership largelybased on the exchangeof rewards contingenton performance
schema, which is a broad organizing frame-work that helps one understand and make senseof a given context or experience. One notableexample of the use of schemas with respectto leadership research is the work of Woffordet al. (1998), who proposed a cognitive model toexplain the way transformational and transac-tional leaders view work with followers. In theirfield study, Wofford et al. examined schematicprocesses (e.g., vision, follower, self) and scripts(behaviors associated with a schema), arguingthat transformational and transactional leader-ship use different schemas to interpret events,which then results in the choice of differ-ent leadership behaviors/actions in responseto those events. Support was found for trans-formational leader cognitions being related tothe leaders’ choice of acting transformationally.Mixed support was found for the relationshipsbetween transactional leader schemas and be-haviors and actions chosen.
Prototypical Abstractionsof LeadershipThe leadership research on social identity for-mation has also focused heavily on what con-stitutes prototypicality, which has shown thatfollowers may be more drawn to leaders whoare exemplars of groups they belong to or wantto join. Early research conceptualized proto-types as being relatively static and applicable inmany situations. Recent work has contested thatview, arguing that prototypes are dynamic andcan be applied and adapted based on the exist-ing constraints or challenges being confrontedby leaders (Lord et al. 2001).
Subsequent research has also focused on therelationship between implicit leadership theo-ries and several relevant performance outcomes(Epitropaki & Martin 2005). We note that formore than 25 years, a great deal of the work oncognitive psychology and leadership focused onhow implicit theories and prototypes affectedthe perceptions of leaders and followers, gener-ally examining how it disadvantaged or biasedthem in views of others. More recent trendsin this literature coincide nicely with emphasis
www.annualreviews.org • Leadership: Theory and Research 427
Ann
u. R
ev. P
sych
ol. 2
009.
60:4
21-4
49. D
ownl
oade
d fro
m a
rjour
nals.
annu
alre
view
s.org
by H
AM
LIN
E U
NIV
ERSI
TY o
n 10
/16/
09. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
ANRV364-PS60-16 ARI 27 October 2008 16:19
New-genreleadership: leadershipemphasizingcharismatic leaderbehavior, visionary,inspiring, ideologicaland moral values, aswell astransformationalleadership such asindividualizedattention, andintellectual stimulation
now being placed on authentic leadership de-velopment. Specifically, research is now at-tempting to link how leaders think about events,choose to behave, and/or develop.
Future Focus RequiredCognitive approaches to investigating leader-ship draw heavily on several literatures de-scribed above. This broad stream of researchhas potential for enhancing existing theories ofleadership in terms of helping to explain howleaders and followers attend to, process, andmake decisions and develop. Additional worklinking self-concept and meta-cognitive theo-ries to research on leadership will no doubtcontribute to our understanding of how lead-ers and followers actually develop. For ex-ample, if a leader has low self-concept clar-ity, to what extent can we expect that sameleader to be self-aware? What are the impli-cations for enhancing a leader’s self-conceptclarity or working self-concept about whatconstitutes the roles of effective leadershipin developing that leader’s self-awareness andperformance?
NEW-GENRE LEADERSHIPAlthough prior authors have focused on whatconstitutes charismatic, inspirational, and vi-sionary leadership as far back as the early 1920s,much of the attention in the literature on thesenewer theories of leadership has come aboutover the past 25 years. Burns (1978) and Bass(1985) signaled the need to shift the focus ofleadership research from predominantly exam-ining transactional models that were based onhow leaders and followers exchanged with eachother to models that might augment transac-tional leadership and were labeled charismatic,inspirational, transformational, and visionary.The early work of Bass and Burns set the stagefor distinguishing what Bryman (1992) referredto as more traditional theories of leadershipversus what they termed new-genre leadershiptheories.
New-Genre Versus TraditionalLeadershipBryman (1992) commented, “There was con-siderable disillusionment with leadership the-ory and research in the early 1980s. Part of thedisillusionment was attributed to the fact thatmost models of leadership and measures ac-counted for a relatively small percentage of vari-ance in performance outcomes such as produc-tivity and effectiveness. Out of this pessimismemerged a number of alternative approaches,which shared some common features . . . , col-lectively referred to as the new leadership”(Bryman 1992, p. 21). Unlike the traditionalleadership models, which described leader be-havior in terms of leader-follower exchange re-lationships, setting goals, providing directionand support, and reinforcement behaviors, orwhat Bass (1985) referred to as being basedon “economic cost-benefit assumptions” (p. 5),the new leadership models emphasized sym-bolic leader behavior; visionary, inspirationalmessages; emotional feelings; ideological andmoral values; individualized attention; and in-tellectual stimulation. Emerging from theseearly works, charismatic and transformationalleadership theories have turned out to be themost frequently researched theories over thepast 20 years (Avolio 2005, Lowe & Gardner2000).
The theory of charismatic/transformationalleadership suggests that such leaders raise fol-lowers’ aspirations and activate their higher-order values (e.g., altruism) such that fol-lowers identify with the leader and his orher mission/vision, feel better about theirwork, and then work to perform beyond sim-ple transactions and base expectations (e.g.,Avolio 1999, Bass 1985, Conger & Kanungo1998). Accumulated research (see Avolio et al.2004a for a summary of this literature), in-cluding a series of meta-analytic studies (e.g.,Judge & Piccolo 2004), has found that charis-matic/transformational leadership was posi-tively associated with leadership effectivenessand a number of important organizationaloutcomes across many different types of
428 Avolio ·Walumbwa ·Weber
Ann
u. R
ev. P
sych
ol. 2
009.
60:4
21-4
49. D
ownl
oade
d fro
m a
rjour
nals.
annu
alre
view
s.org
by H
AM
LIN
E U
NIV
ERSI
TY o
n 10
/16/
09. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
ANRV364-PS60-16 ARI 27 October 2008 16:19
organizations, situations, levels of analyses, andcultures such as productivity and turnover.
Over the past decade, a lot of research ef-fort has been invested in understanding theprocesses through which charismatic/transfor-mational leaders positively influence follow-ers’ attitudes, behaviors, and performance. Forexample, a number of studies have examineddifferent processes through which transforma-tional leadership effects are ultimately realizedin terms of performance outcomes. These pro-cesses include followers’ formation of com-mitment; satisfaction; identification; perceivedfairness (e.g., Liao & Chuang 2007, Walumbwaet al. 2008); job characteristics such as variety,identity, significance, autonomy and feedback(e.g., Piccolo & Colquitt 2006); trust in theleader (e.g., Wang et al. 2005); and how fol-lowers come to feel about themselves and theirgroup in terms of efficacy, potency, and cohe-sion (e.g., Bass et al. 2003, Bono & Judge 2003,Schaubroeck et al. 2007).
Boundary Conditionsfor New-Genre LeadershipAfter establishing the positive links betweentransformational leadership and the interven-ing variables and performance outcomes, morerecent research has examined the boundaryconditions in which transformational leader-ship is more (or less) effective in predictingfollower attitudes and behaviors. For example,several studies have focused on identifying andunderstanding contextual variables (e.g., idio-centrism) that mediate or moderate the rela-tionship of charismatic/transformational lead-ership with followers’ level of motivationand performance at the individual, team orgroup, and organizational levels (e.g., DeCremer & van Knippenberg 2004, Keller 2006,Walumbwa et al. 2007). Additional researchhas focused on examining the moderating ef-fects of follower dispositions such as efficacy(Dvir & Shamir 2003, Zhu et al. 2008), phys-ical and structural distance (e.g., Avolio et al.2004b), perceived environmental uncertainty(e.g., Agle et al. 2006), social networks (e.g.,
Mediatedmoderation: amoderatingrelationship that ismediated by anothervariable
Moderatedmediation: amediating relationshipthat is moderated byanother variable
Bono & Anderson 2005), technology to sup-port group decision-making (e.g., Sosik et al.1997), and cultural orientations such as collec-tivism (e.g., Walumbwa & Lawler 2003).
Future Focus RequiredAlthough significant progress has been madein studying charismatic/transformational lead-ership, a number of areas still deserve furtherattention. First, despite the important andpositive contributions made by charismatic ortransformational leadership in practice, ques-tions remain as to what determines or predictscharismatic or transformational leadership,or why some leaders engage in charismaticor transformational leadership behavior andothers do not. Limited research has examinedleaders’ biographies or the role of followers(Howell & Shamir 2005) as predictor variables.
Second, despite significant progress in un-derstanding how and when charismatic andtransformational leadership behaviors are moreeffective, further research is needed that ex-plores the process and boundary conditionsfor charismatic and transformational leadershipwith beneficial work behaviors. For example,although scholars who have investigated charis-matic and transformational leadership havediscussed motivational constructs as centralcomponents in their frameworks, generallyspeaking, few have paid any attention to the un-derlying psychological processes, mechanisms,and conditions through which charismatic andtransformational leaders motivate followers tohigher levels of motivation and performance(Kark & Van Dijk 2007).
Yukl (1999) has called for a more con-certed effort to understand both the moderat-ing and mediating mechanisms that link charis-matic/transformational leadership to followeroutcomes. To date, only a few preliminarystudies have simultaneously examined mediatedmoderation or moderated mediation (e.g., DeCremer & van Knippenberg 2004, Walumbwaet al. 2008).
Third, other areas that deserve researchattention include examining how to link
www.annualreviews.org • Leadership: Theory and Research 429
Ann
u. R
ev. P
sych
ol. 2
009.
60:4
21-4
49. D
ownl
oade
d fro
m a
rjour
nals.
annu
alre
view
s.org
by H
AM
LIN
E U
NIV
ERSI
TY o
n 10
/16/
09. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
ANRV364-PS60-16 ARI 27 October 2008 16:19
CAS: complexadaptive system
charismatic/transformational leadership to theemerging literature on emotions and leader-ship. Although all of these newer theories em-phasize the emotional attachment of followersto the leader, there has been a dearth of con-ceptual and empirical research on examiningthe relationships between these new leadershiptheories and followers’ affective states (Bono &Ilies 2006).
Fourth, research on charismatic and trans-formational leadership at the organizationalor strategic level has generally lagged behindall other areas of leadership research exceptperhaps the focus on leadership development(Waldman & Yammarino 1999), and the resultsthus far have been mixed (Agle et al. 2006).For example, Waldman and colleagues (Tosiet al. 2004, Waldman et al. 2001) found that thecharisma of the chief executive officer (CEO)was not related to subsequent organizationalperformance as measured by net profit mar-gin and shareholder return or return on as-sets, respectively. On the other hand, Agle et al.(2006) and Waldman et al. (2004) reported thatCEO charisma was associated with subsequentorganizational performance. Clearly, more re-search is needed that focuses on potential medi-ating and moderating variables such as externalstakeholders while examining the relationshipbetween CEO charismatic or transformationalleadership and firm performance.
Finally, although cross-cultural researchpertaining to charismatic/transformationalleadership generally supports the relationshipsreported for the United States and other West-ern cultures, it is important to note that thesestudies largely involve survey-based designs.We recommend that researchers incorporatea number of alternative research designs,including but not limited to experimentaldesigns, longitudinal designs, and qualitativedesigns, as well as the use of multiple sourcesand mixed methods studies.
COMPLEXITY LEADERSHIPMany previous models of leadership have beendesigned to accommodate more traditional hi-
erarchical structures of organizations. To thedegree that organizations are hierarchical, sotoo are leadership models (Uhl-Bien et al.2007). Yet, there has been a growing sense oftension in the leadership literature that mod-els of leadership that were designed for thepast century may not fully capture the leader-ship dynamic of organizations operating in to-day’s knowledge-driven economy (Lichtensteinet al. 2007). Applying the concepts of com-plexity theory to the study of leadership hasresulted in what has been referred to as com-plexity leadership (Uhl-Bien & Marion 2008).Based on this framework, leadership is viewed asan interactive system of dynamic, unpredictableagents that interact with each other in com-plex feedback networks, which can then pro-duce adaptive outcomes such as knowledge dis-semination, learning, innovation, and furtheradaptation to change (Uhl-Bien et al. 2007).According to complex systems leadership the-ory, “leadership can be enacted through anyinteraction in an organization . . . leadership isan emergent phenomenon within complex sys-tems” (Hazy et al. 2007, p. 2).
In line with leadership fitting the needs ofthe situation or challenges in which it operates,complexity leadership posits that to achieve op-timal performance, organizations cannot be de-signed with simple, rationalized structures thatunderestimate the complexity of the contextin which the organization must function andadapt (Uhl-Bien et al. 2007). Simply viewingthe leader and follower in a simple exchangeprocess won’t fly in terms of explaining the fulldynamics of leadership.
Complexity and TraditionalLeadership TheoryIn traditional leadership theory, the unit of anal-ysis is oftentimes the leader, the leader andfollower, the leader and group, and so forth.The fundamental unit of analysis in complex-ity leadership is referred to as a complex adap-tive system, or CAS (Uhl-Bien et al. 2007).The CAS has its roots in the physical sci-ences and is composed of interdependent agents
430 Avolio ·Walumbwa ·Weber
Ann
u. R
ev. P
sych
ol. 2
009.
60:4
21-4
49. D
ownl
oade
d fro
m a
rjour
nals.
annu
alre
view
s.org
by H
AM
LIN
E U
NIV
ERSI
TY o
n 10
/16/
09. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
ANRV364-PS60-16 ARI 27 October 2008 16:19
that can operate simultaneously on the basis ofcertain rules and localized knowledge that gov-erns the CAS, while also being able to adaptand emerge based on feedback from the sys-tem (Plowman & Duchon 2008). Complexityleadership theory (CLT; Uhl-Bien et al. 2007)has been developed as an overarching explana-tion of how CAS operates within a bureaucraticorganization, and it identifies three leadershiproles to explore: adaptive (e.g., engaging oth-ers in brainstorming to overcome a challenge),administrative (e.g., formal planning accordingto doctrine), and enabling (e.g., minimizing theconstraints of an organizational bureaucracy toenhance follower potential).
Future Focus RequiredOne of the core propositions of complexityleadership theory is that “much of leadershipthinking has failed to recognize that leader-ship is not merely the influential act of an in-dividual or individuals but rather is embeddedin a complex interplay of numerous interact-ing forces” (Uhl-Bien et al. 2007, p. 302). Howshould one then study this form of leadership?Dooley & Lichtenstein (2008) describe severalmethods for studying complex leadership in-teractions, including by focusing on (a) micro,daily interactions using real-time observation,(b) meso interactions (days and weeks) using so-cial network analysis, where one examines a setof agents and how they are linked over time,and (c) macro interactions (weeks, months, andlonger) through event history analysis. Finally,agent-based modeling simulations (i.e., com-puter simulations based on a set of explicit as-sumptions about how agents are supposed tooperate) are also being used as a means to studycomplexity leadership.
In sum, the complexity leadership fieldclearly lacks substantive research. We suspectthis is a result of the difficulties in assessingthis type of emergent construct within a dy-namically changing context. However, substan-tive research is needed if this area of leader-ship research is to advance beyond conceptualdiscussions.
CLT: complexityleadership theory
Shared leadership:an emergent statewhere team memberscollectively lead eachother
SHARED, COLLECTIVE,OR DISTRIBUTED LEADERSHIPSimilar to our discussion above about complex-ity leadership, we see more evidence for sharedor collective leadership in organizations as hi-erarchical levels are deleted and team-basedstructures are inserted. In describing shared andteam leadership, it is important to point out thatthese forms of leadership are typically viewedas different streams of research. For example,team leadership research has typically focusedon the role of an individual leading the team. Incontrast, those authors examining shared lead-ership generally view it as a process versus a per-son engaging multiple members of the team.In this section, we refer to the terms “sharedleadership,” “distributed leadership,” and “col-lective leadership” interchangeably, parallelingtheir usage in the leadership literature.
Shared Leadership DefinedAccording to Day et al. (2004), team and sharedleadership capacity is an emergent state—something dynamic that develops throughouta team’s lifespan and that varies based on theinputs, processes, and outcomes of the team.It produces patterns of reciprocal influence,which reinforce and develop further relation-ships between team members (Carson et al.2007). The most widely cited definition ofshared leadership is that of Pearce & Conger(2003): “a dynamic, interactive influence pro-cess among individuals in groups for which theobjective is to lead one another to the achieve-ment of group or organizational goals or both.This influence process often involves peer, orlateral, influence and at other times involvesupward or downward hierarchical influence”(p. 1). The term shared leadership overlaps withrelational and complexity leadership, and dif-fers from more traditional, hierarchical, or ver-tical models of leadership (Pearce & Sims 2002).
Highly shared leadership is broadly dis-tributed within a group or a team of individ-uals rather than localized in any one individ-ual who serves in the role of supervisor (Pearce
www.annualreviews.org • Leadership: Theory and Research 431
Ann
u. R
ev. P
sych
ol. 2
009.
60:4
21-4
49. D
ownl
oade
d fro
m a
rjour
nals.
annu
alre
view
s.org
by H
AM
LIN
E U
NIV
ERSI
TY o
n 10
/16/
09. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
ANRV364-PS60-16 ARI 27 October 2008 16:19
& Conger 2003). More specifically, shared lead-ership is defined as a team-level outcome (Dayet al. 2004) or as a “simultaneous, ongoing, mu-tual influence process within a team that is char-acterized by ‘serial emergence’ of official as wellas unofficial leaders” (Pearce 2004, p. 48). Simi-lar to what we’ve described with respect to com-plexity leadership, when shared leadership canbe “viewed as a property of the whole system,as opposed to solely the property of individu-als, effectiveness in leadership becomes more aproduct of those connections or relationshipsamong the parts than the result of any one partof that system (such as the leader)” (O’Connor& Quinn 2004, p. 423).
Research EvidenceAlthough a number of authors [beginning withMary Parker Follett (1924)] have discussed theidea of shared leadership, it has only gainedattention in the academic leadership literaturerecently, and relatively few studies have triedto measure shared leadership. One exceptionis the work by Avolio & Bass (1995). In theirstudy, instead of raters evaluating the individ-ual leader, the target of ratings was the team it-self. Avolio & Bass (1995) report that the team-level measures of transformational and trans-actional leadership positively predicted perfor-mance similar to the individual-level measuresin previous research.
Future Focus RequiredOne of the criticisms of research on shared lead-ership involves the lack of agreement on its defi-nition (Carson et al. 2007). For example, shouldthere be a generic definition of shared leader-ship that is qualified by such terms as transac-tional or transformational shared leadership?
Other potential areas that have yet to beexplored involve certain boundary conditions,mediators, and moderators that have been rec-ommended as a focus for future research. Forexample, Pearce & Conger (2003) noted thatfuture research was needed to examine poten-tial moderators such as the distribution of cul-
tural values, task interdependence, task compe-tence, task complexity, and the team life cycle.Carson et al. (2007) proposed that greater at-tention be paid to levels of task competence inthe team, complexity of tasks, and task inter-dependence in terms of examining how teamsfunction when using shared leadership. Theseauthors have also recommended that future re-search focus on the team’s life cycle.
Another area that has not received much re-search attention involves the environment inwhich teams function. For example, Carsonet al. (2007) proposed that future research ex-amine the type of team environment that en-ables shared leadership, suggesting that the en-vironment consists of three “highly interrelatedand mutually reinforcing” dimensions: sharedpurpose, social support, and voice. These au-thors described several organizational climatefactors that could potentially support moreshared leadership in teams, including (a) sharedpurpose, which “exists when team membershave similar understandings of their team’s pri-mary objectives and take steps to ensure a fo-cus on collective goals”; (b) social support, de-scribed as “team members’ efforts to provideemotional and psychological strength to oneanother. This helps to create an environmentwhere team members feel their input is valuedand appreciated”; and (c) voice, which is “the de-gree to which a team’s members have input intohow the team carries out its purpose” (p. 1222).
Future research also needs to examine howexternal team leaders affect the team’s abilityand motivation to be self-directed and sharein leadership (Carson et al. 2007). Hackman &Wageman (2005) suggest that an external leaderto the team can “help team members make coor-dinated and task-appropriate use of their collec-tive resources in accomplishing the team’s task”(p. 269).
In a nutshell, the time for examining sharedleadership may be upon us to the extent that or-ganizations are moving into a knowledge drivenera where firms are distributed across cultures.This suggests that individual-based “heroic”models of leadership may not be sustainable inand of themselves (Pearce 2004).
432 Avolio ·Walumbwa ·Weber
Ann
u. R
ev. P
sych
ol. 2
009.
60:4
21-4
49. D
ownl
oade
d fro
m a
rjour
nals.
annu
alre
view
s.org
by H
AM
LIN
E U
NIV
ERSI
TY o
n 10
/16/
09. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
ANRV364-PS60-16 ARI 27 October 2008 16:19
LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGEUnlike shared leadership, which has focused ongroups, leader-member exchange (LMX) the-ory has focused on the relationship between theleader and follower (Cogliser & Schriesheim2000). The central principle in LMX theoryis that leaders develop different exchange re-lationships with their followers, whereby thequality of the relationship alters the impacton important leader and member outcomes(Gerstner & Day 1997). Thus, leadership oc-curs when leaders and followers are able todevelop effective relationships that result inmutual and incremental influence (Uhl-Bien2006).
This literature has evolved from focusingexclusively on the consequences of the LMXrelationship to focusing on both antecedentsand consequences. For example, Tekleab &Taylor (2003) assessed leader and followerlevels of agreement on their mutual obligationsand their psychological contract with eachother. In a recent meta-analysis reported byIlies et al. (2007), the authors reported thata higher-quality LMX relationship not onlypredicted higher levels of performance, butalso organizational citizenship behaviors. Someadditional areas of focus in terms of high- ver-sus low-quality LMX relationships have beenthe context in which those relationships havedeveloped. Kacmar et al. (2007) examined theconditions under which leaders and followersin low-quality exchanges exerted more effortin examining how the situation interactedwith the impact of supervisors. Using controltheory, the authors tried to explain howperceptions of supervisor competence, central-ization, and organizational politics influencedtheir willingness to exert effort on the jobbeyond what would be typically expected in aless-than-effective exchange relationship.
Additional research on the nature of the re-lationship and how it is formed has focused onthe use of impression management tactics andits impact on the quality of the LMX relation-ship. Colella & Varma (2001) investigated howa follower’s perceived disability and use of in-
LMX: leader memberexchange
gratiation related to LMX quality. By using in-gratiation tactics, the individuals with disabil-ities were able to increase the quality of therelationship between the leader and follower.Similar results were reported by Sparrowe et al.(2006), who showed that downward-influencetactics used by the leader affected the quality ofthe LMX relationship.
Extensions to LMXThe original work produced by Graen & Uhl-Bien (1995) on the role-making and role-taking processes has been extended by Uhl-Bienand colleagues (2000) to examine how leader-follower dyads transform from individual inter-est to shared interest based on the developmentof trust, respect, and obligations to each other.Similar work along these lines has examinedthe effects of goal congruence on the qualityof the LMX relationship. This work suggeststhat to the extent that goals are similar or mu-tually reinforcing, one would expect to producea higher-quality LMX relationship.
Additional LMX research on individual dif-ferences has examined the impact of gender onthe quality of the LMX relationship, althoughthese findings have been mixed. For instance,Adebayo & Udegbe (2004) reported that fol-lowers in opposite-sex dyads perceived a betterLMX quality in comparison with those fromsame-sex dyads.
Recent research has moved beyond exam-ining LMX in terms of antecedents and con-sequences and has examined the quality of theleader and follower relationship as a modera-tor and/or mediator of performance. For ex-ample, Sparrowe et al. (2006) reported that thequality of the relationship moderated the re-lationship between downward-influence tacticsand helping behaviors. Martin et al. (2005) re-ported that LMX either fully or partially medi-ated the relationship between locus of controland several work-related outcomes such as jobsatisfaction, work-related well-being, and orga-nizational commitment.
In an extension of the linkages between so-cial network theory and LMX, Graen (2006)
www.annualreviews.org • Leadership: Theory and Research 433
Ann
u. R
ev. P
sych
ol. 2
009.
60:4
21-4
49. D
ownl
oade
d fro
m a
rjour
nals.
annu
alre
view
s.org
by H
AM
LIN
E U
NIV
ERSI
TY o
n 10
/16/
09. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
ANRV364-PS60-16 ARI 27 October 2008 16:19
put forth a recent transformation of LMX the-ory that he refers to as the new LMX–MMXtheory of sharing network leadership. Accord-ingly, both Uhl-Bien (2006) and Graen (2006),building on earlier LMX research, now view or-ganizations as systems of interdependent dyadicrelationships, or dyadic subassemblies, and ad-vocate the importance of both formal and infor-mal influences on individual, team, and networkflows of behavior.
Future Focus RequiredOver the years, LMX theory and research havebeen targets of criticism. One pervasive crit-icism of this literature revolves around mea-surement. For example, many different mea-sures of LMX have been developed and usedsince the theory was first proposed (Yukl 2006).Schriesheim et al. (1999, p. 100) argued, “LMXscales seem to have been developed on ad hoc,evolutionary basis, without the presentation ofany clear logic or theory justifying the changeswhich were made.” LMX research has also beencriticized for failing to conceptualize the socialcontext in which leaders and followers are em-bedded. With a few exceptions, “the majority ofresearch is, quite explicitly, located at the dyadiclevel, with very little theorizing or empiricalwork examining LMX work at the group level”(Hogg et al. 2004, p. 22). In other words, the-ory and research on LMX have focused on theleader-follower relationship without acknowl-edging that each dyadic relationship occurswithin a system of other relationships (Cogliser& Schriesheim 2000, Yukl 2006). LMX theoryand research also tend to assume that peoplesimply evaluate their own LMX relationshipin an absolute sense. According to Hogg et al.(2004), this is an oversimplification of how peo-ple judge relationships. The authors argue thatit is much more likely that followers evaluatethe quality of their LMX relationship not onlyin the absolute sense (i.e., low versus high), butalso with reference to their perception of oth-ers’ LMX relationships. Another criticism ofthe LMX literature is that most of it is basedon correlation designs. This was a central crit-
icism made by Cogliser & Schriesheim (2000)regarding the lack of causal results reported inthe extensive stream of research associated withLMX research.
LMX research has also been criticized fornot including more objective measures of per-formance (Erdogan & Liden 2002). Frequently,research in this area has collected performanceoutcomes that were generated by the leader orsupervisor. It is now time to extend this researchby collecting independent outcome measuresthat logically would be influenced by the qual-ity of LMX relationship.
Another promising area for future researchis to extend work on LMX theory across cul-tures. Specifically, what are the implications ofnational culture for the formation and devel-opment of an LMX quality relationship, and inturn how would that link to key organizationaloutcomes? Preliminary research addressing thisquestion across cultures has produced someinteresting results. For example, Chen et al.(2006) reported that regardless of whether themanager was American or Chinese, the qualityof the LMX relationship was related to cooper-ative goal setting or interdependence.
FOLLOWERSHIPAND LEADERSHIPPerhaps one of the most interesting omissionsin theory and research on leadership is the ab-sence of discussions of followership and its im-pact on leadership. Leadership researchers treatfollower attributes as outcomes of the leader-ship process as opposed to inputs, even thoughthere have been a number of calls over the yearsto examine the role that followers play in theleadership process (e.g., Shamir 2007).
Romance of LeadershipOur examination of follower-centric views be-gins with a focus on what the leadership lit-erature describes as the romance of leader-ship. Meindl et al. (1985) proposed a socialconstructionist theory to describe the relation-ship between leadership and followership. They
434 Avolio ·Walumbwa ·Weber
Ann
u. R
ev. P
sych
ol. 2
009.
60:4
21-4
49. D
ownl
oade
d fro
m a
rjour
nals.
annu
alre
view
s.org
by H
AM
LIN
E U
NIV
ERSI
TY o
n 10
/16/
09. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
ANRV364-PS60-16 ARI 27 October 2008 16:19
argued that leadership is significantly affectedby the way followers construct their under-standing of the leader in terms of their interpre-tation of his or her personality, behaviors, andeffectiveness.
Accumulated research on the romance ofleadership has produced mixed findings. Schynset al. (2007) conducted a meta-analysis todetermine whether they could tease out theeffects controlling for such things as mea-surement error and sampling bias while fo-cusing on whether followers had a tendencyto romanticize their perceptions of transfor-mational/charismatic leadership. Their resultsrevealed a modest relationship between the ro-mance of leadership and perceptions of trans-formational/charismatic leadership, accountingfor approximately 5% of the variance in lead-ership ratings. In another study, Kulich et al.(2007) examined the relevance of the romanceof leadership theory through an experiment thatcompared how the performance of a male anda female leader was viewed by allowing partici-pants to choose how much of a bonus to allocateto the leader. Their results showed that the maleCEO’s bonus differed substantially dependingon the company’s performance, whereas no dif-ferences were reported for the female CEO.
Bligh et al. (2007) found that followers’ neg-ative views of their work environment wereoverly attributed to their leaders’ in that theyviewed the leader as more responsible for thesenegative outcomes and situations than was war-ranted. Along the same lines, Weber et al.(2001) reported that group success and failurewere overly attributed to the leader. However,these authors also reported that attributions offailure to the leader may have had more sig-nificant negative repercussions, with the failingteam consistently voting to replace their lead-ers when the situation was more of the cause forthe team’s failure.
Updates on Follower-Centric ViewsHowell & Shamir (2005) put forth some im-portant theoretical propositions regarding howfollower traits and characteristics might influ-
ence leader and follower relationships (also seeDvir & Shamir 2003). Specifically, they iden-tified followers’ self-concept clarity and collec-tive identity as important factors in determininghow followers form charismatic relationshipswith their leader. Howell & Shamir (2005) thensuggested that followers, who have a personal-ized relationship with a charismatic leader, maybe more likely to show blind loyalty, obedience,and deference.
Carsten et al. (2007) examined how individ-uals hold divergent social constructions of fol-lowership that seem to coalesce around levels ofpassivity or proactivity, which followers believecould lead to effectiveness in their role. Thus,like leaders, not all followers are created equalin the minds of followers. This pattern was re-flected in the work of Kelley (1992), who con-ceptualized followers as falling into quadrants,based on their being active or passive followersas well as whether they were critical or noncrit-ical thinkers.
Future Focus RequiredShamir (2007) suggested that leadership ef-fectiveness is just as much a product of goodfollowers as it is of good leaders. Shamir(2007) made some specific recommendationsfor future work on follower-centered research,including examining how followers’ needs,identities, and implicit theories affect leaderselection and emergence as well as leader en-dorsement and acceptance; how follower in-teractions/social networks influence the emer-gence of leadership and effectiveness; howfollowers’ expectations, values, and attitudesdetermine leader behavior; how followers’ ex-pectations affect the leader’s motivation andperformance; how followers’ acceptance of theleader and their support for the leader affectthe leader’s self-confidence, self-efficacy, andbehavior; how followers’ characteristics (e.g.,self-concept clarity) determine the nature of theleadership relationship formed with the leader;and how followers’ attitudes and characteris-tics (e.g., level of development) affect leaderbehavior.
www.annualreviews.org • Leadership: Theory and Research 435
Ann
u. R
ev. P
sych
ol. 2
009.
60:4
21-4
49. D
ownl
oade
d fro
m a
rjour
nals.
annu
alre
view
s.org
by H
AM
LIN
E U
NIV
ERSI
TY o
n 10
/16/
09. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
ANRV364-PS60-16 ARI 27 October 2008 16:19
In addition, more work needs to be done ex-amining how followership is construed acrossdifferent industries and cultures. It is possiblethat in more advanced and newly forming in-dustries, the concept of followership may beconstrued and enacted differently than what wemight find in more established industries withlong histories of treating leaders and followersin a particular way (Schyns et al. 2007).
SUBSTITUTES FOR LEADERSHIPThe substitutes-for-leadership theory focuseson situational factors that enhance, neutral-ize, and/or totally substitute for leadership. Forexample, a group of people engaged in elec-tronic brainstorming using technology, such asa group decision support system, may operateas though there was a participative leader whowas leading the group, but in fact, leadershipcomes from the operating rules for using thesystem to engage. Kerr & Jermier (1978) pro-posed the substitutes-for-leadership theory toaddress some of the romance effects describedabove. This research stream focuses on a rangeof situational/organizational and follower char-acteristics that might influence the leadershipdynamic (Howell et al. 2007).
Since this theory was originally proposed, aconsiderable amount of research has been com-pleted to determine whether there are substi-tutes for leadership with respect to impacts onperformance. A number of authors have con-cluded that evidence is not sufficient to supportthe main propositions in the theory (Dionneet al. 2002, Keller 2006). For example, Dionneet al. (2002) tested the moderating effects oftask variability, organization formulation, or-ganization inflexibility, and lack of control onthe relationship between leadership behaviorand group effectiveness. However, the authorsfound little support for the moderating effectsproposed by the substitutes-for-leadership the-ory. This lack of support may be attributableto problems in measuring these substitutes forleadership. Yet, revisions to the scale and its usein subsequent research have not provided anyfurther support for this theory.
Future Focus RequiredVilla et al. (2003) recommended that future re-search consider including multiple moderatorsthat may interact with each other to impact per-formance that might be erroneously attributedto the leader. Dionne et al. (2005) suggestedthat future research consider testing the fivepossible conditions linking leader behavior,leadership effectiveness, and other situationalvariables (e.g., substitutes), which include (a) aleadership main effects model, (b) a substitutesmain effect model, (c) an interactive or jointeffects model, (d ) a mediation model, whereinthe substitutes mediate leadership impact ver-sus moderate, and (e) the originally proposedmoderated model. Future research should alsofocus more on the nature of the samples to beincluded in tests of substitutes for leadership.For example, one might focus on the culturalbackground as well as quality of one’s followersby sampling professional workers who functionin highly independent roles, as a possiblesample for studying the boundary conditionsfor the effects of substitutes for leadership(Howell et al. 2007).
Finally, to evaluate fairly the substitutes fortheory propositions will require more longi-tudinal research designs. For example, leaderswho are more transformational will develop fol-lowers over time to take on more leadershiproles and responsibilities. The way such leadersstructure the context to develop followershipand the followership itself may ultimately sub-stitute for the leader’s influence (Keller 2006).
SERVANT LEADERSHIPBuilding on the work of Greenleaf (1991),Spears (2004) listed ten characteristics rep-resenting a servant leader: (a) listening,(b) empathy, (c) healing, (d ) awareness, (e) per-suasion, ( f ) conceptualization, ( g) foresight,(h) stewardship, (i ) commitment, and( j ) building community. Russell & Stone(2002) reviewed the literature on servant lead-ership, distinguishing such leadership into twobroad categories: functional and accompanyattributes. Functional attributes include having
436 Avolio ·Walumbwa ·Weber
Ann
u. R
ev. P
sych
ol. 2
009.
60:4
21-4
49. D
ownl
oade
d fro
m a
rjour
nals.
annu
alre
view
s.org
by H
AM
LIN
E U
NIV
ERSI
TY o
n 10
/16/
09. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
ANRV364-PS60-16 ARI 27 October 2008 16:19
vision, being honest, trustworthy, serviceoriented, a role model, demonstrating appre-ciation of others’ service, and empowerment.In terms of accompany attributes, servantleaders are described as good communicatorsand listeners, credible, competent, encour-aging of others, teachers, and delegators.In general, the limited empirical researchon servant leadership has shown that it ispositively related to follower satisfaction, theirjob satisfaction, intrinsic work satisfaction,caring for the safety of others, and organi-zational commitment. Joseph & Winston(2005) examined the relationship between em-ployee perceptions of servant leadership andorganizational trust, and reported a positiverelationship with both trust in the leader aswell as trust in one’s organization. Washingtonet al. (2006) examined the relationship betweenservant leadership and the leader’s values ofempathy, integrity, competence, and agree-ableness, and reported that “followers’ ratingsof leaders’ servant leadership were positivelyrelated to followers’ ratings of leaders’ values ofempathy, integrity, and competence” (p. 700).
Future Focus RequiredOne major tenet of servant leadership pro-posed by Greenleaf (1991) was that followersof servant leaders would be expected to be-come “healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomousand more likely to become servants themselves”(Barbuto & Wheeler 2006, p. 321). This sug-gests that future research could take a morefollower-centric approach in looking at thewell-being of followers of servant leaders andthe ways in which their well-being affects theability of the leader and followers to perform.As with LMX, the measurement of servant lead-ership is problematic. Already many differentmeasures of servant leadership have been pro-posed with scales and items varying based onproblems with its definition. Future researchneeds to examine how the personal values ofservant leaders differ from those of other lead-ership styles, such as transformational (Russell& Stone 2002).
SPIRITUALITY AND LEADERSHIPOne might ask leaders the question, Do you feelthere is something missing in the work that youdo and the way you lead others? Many authorshave referred to that void and have attemptedto examine how a greater sense of spiritualityin the workplace may be fostered. The researchon workplace spirituality also now includes afocus on spiritual leadership—defined as “com-prising the values, attitudes, and behaviors thatare necessary to intrinsically motivate one’s selfand others so that they have a sense of spiritualsurvival through calling and membership” (Fry2003, p. 711).
Dent et al. (2005) examined how spiritual-ity and leadership was defined in the literatureand concluded, “The field of study is marked byall of the typical characteristics of paradigm de-velopment including a lack of consensus abouta definition of workplace spirituality” (p. 626).Fry (2003) contends that spiritual leadershipadds to the existing leadership literature com-ponents that have been explicitly missing, suchas a sense of calling on the part of leaders andfollowers as well as the creation of organiza-tional cultures characterized by altruistic lovewhereby leaders and followers express genuinecare, concern, and appreciation for both self andothers. Fry (2003) states, “The ultimate effectof spiritual leadership is to bring together orcreate a sense of fusion among the four funda-mental forces of human existence (body, mind,heart, and spirit) so that people are motivatedfor high performance, have increased organiza-tional commitment, and personally experiencejoy, peace, and serenity” (p. 727).
Future Focus RequiredPart of the challenge in this area of leader-ship research is simply defining what spiritualitymeans without necessarily tying it to one partic-ular religion or philosophical base. Dent et al.(2005) summarized a number of definitions ofspirituality that highlight some of the chal-lenges in building theory and research in thisarea. The authors concluded that a wide array
www.annualreviews.org • Leadership: Theory and Research 437
of concepts/constructs is included in the defi-nition of spirituality, but some of the commonelements are a search for meaning, reflection,an inner connection, creativity, transformation,sacredness, and energy.
Fry (2005) defines spiritual leadership ascomprising the values, attitudes, and behav-iors that are necessary to intrinsically moti-vate self and others to enhance a sense of spir-itual survival through calling and membership.Yet, some authors criticize Fry’s model as wellas other models of spirituality and leadershipfor not providing a sufficient understandingof what constitutes spirituality and the waysin which it ties to leadership. For example,Benefiel (2005) criticized the work on spiri-tuality and leadership, stating that it “inad-vertently draws upon outdated, discredited, orshallow approaches to spirituality; they reinventthe wheel; they dip into credible theories ofspirituality but then don’t fully develop themor resolve the conflicts among them. Whilethese theories are comprehensive and creativein the context of leadership studies, a more ro-bust, up-to-date, and sophisticated understand-ing of spirituality is needed if theories of spir-itual leadership are to stand up under scrutinyand be taken seriously in the wider academy” (p.727). Finally, there still seem to be two schoolsof thought in this area of leadership research:In one school, a set of scholars discuss spiri-tuality in the theological sense (Whittingtonet al. 2005), whereas in the other school, thefocus is more on understanding the inner mo-tivation and drive a leader creates in followersto enhance workplace spirituality (Fry 2005).Until a definition of what constitutes spiritu-ality and leadership is agreed upon, it will bedifficult to conceptualize and measure theseconstructs.
CROSS-CULTURAL LEADERSHIPAlthough most leadership research and the-ory has been developed and tested within aWestern context, a growing interest in researchand theory focuses on the role of leadershipacross cultural contexts. This interest is driven
in part by the globalization of organizationsthat encourage and, at times, require leadersto work from and across an increasingly diverseset of locations. The result is an increased focuson cross-cultural leadership research (Gelfandet al. 2007, House et al. 2004). Extensivereviews also exist for cross-cultural researchthat is more tangentially linked to leadership(Hofstede 2001, Kirkman et al. 2006, Leunget al. 2005).
Project GLOBEAlthough there have been numerous critiquesand discussions of work in this area (see Jour-nal of International Business Studies, Vol. 37,No. 6), the work of Project GLOBE (globalleadership and organizational behavioral effec-tiveness) constitutes one of the more ambitiousand influential cross-cultural leadership stud-ies. The study, as detailed in an edited book(House et al. 2004), involved a group of morethan 160 researchers working in 62 societies.Research included a mix of quantitative andqualitative investigations. The study was de-signed to address a number of goals, the firstof which was to develop cultural dimensionsat both the organizational and societal level ofanalysis, building upon the work of Hofstede(2001). A second major goal of the project wasto examine the beliefs that different cultures hadabout effective leaders. Although many of theleadership attributes and behaviors examinedvaried by culture, the research did determinethat certain implicit leadership theories (e.g.,charisma/transformational, team-oriented) haduniversal endorsement. A third phase of theresearch involved ethnographies of individualcountries based largely on qualitative data.
Global LeadershipThe goal of identifying leaders who are ableto effectively lead across a variety of cultureshas great appeal and has been the focusof numerous articles in both the academic(Mobley et al. 1999) and popular press(Goldsmith 2003, Green et al. 2003, Lane
438 Avolio ·Walumbwa ·Weber
Ann
u. R
ev. P
sych
ol. 2
009.
60:4
21-4
49. D
ownl
oade
d fro
m a
rjour
nals.
annu
alre
view
s.org
by H
AM
LIN
E U
NIV
ERSI
TY o
n 10
/16/
09. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
ANRV364-PS60-16 ARI 27 October 2008 16:19
2004). However, substantial differences andapproaches remain in how global leadershipis conceptualized and defined. One approachprimarily focuses on international experience,implying that leaders must spend time living indifferent cultures in order to be prepared to lead(Van Dyne & Ang 2006). A second approachemphasizes the competencies a leader needs tohave in order to lead effectively and success-fully across cultures (Mendenhall 2001). Thisapproach emphasizes having a broad set of ex-periences and competencies that allow leadersto manage across cultures rather than focusingon a deep knowledge of one or two specific cul-tures. This approach is reflected in the relatedwork on global mindset (Boyacigiller et al.2004, Clapp-Smith et al. 2007) and culturalintelligence (Earley et al. 2007, Thomas 2006).
Comparative LeadershipComparative research on the effectiveness ofleadership in different cultures was the basis ofearly work in this field and continues to be amajor area of research (Dickson et al. 2003,Dorfman 2004, Gelfand et al. 2007, Kirkmanet al. 2006). Such research compares leadershipin two or more cultures, examining the degreeto which a practice that was developed in oneculture applies to others. A common approachexamines the direct impact a cultural dimen-sion has on leadership. For example, one majorcross-cultural study examined the impact of cul-tural values on the selection of sources of guid-ance for dealing with work events that managersare likely to face in 47 countries (Smith et al.2002). This study identified which sources ofguidance were correlated with specific culturaldimensions using several major cultural valuedimension frameworks.
Another common strategy examines the in-direct influence of culture as it moderates therelationship between leadership practice andrelevant performance outcomes. Walumbwaet al. (2007) examined the effect of allocentrism(collective orientation) and idiocentrism (indi-vidual orientation) on the relationships amongleadership (transformational and transactional)
and both organizational commitment and satis-faction with supervisor. Allocentrics were foundto react more positively to transformationalleaders, whereas idiocentrics had a more pos-itive reaction to transactional leaders.
Future Focus RequiredAlthough significant progress has been madein the cross-cultural leadership literature, sev-eral important issues need to be addressed. Forexample, the term “culture” itself refers to acomplex set of constructs around which there isongoing debate. Not surprisingly, the attemptto examine the effect that culture has on lead-ership brings with it the associated conceptualand methodological challenges that are alreadyassociated with cross-cultural research (Van deVijver & Leung 2000). Despite improvementsmade over the years, a need remains for futureresearch to focus on levels of analysis when con-ducting cross-cultural leadership research. Thisapplies to the development of explicitly cross-level theoretical models as well as the use ofappropriate statistical techniques. Although therelevance of levels is widely recognized, the im-plications of cross-level analysis are often notreflected in the research design in this litera-ture, particularly when it comes to insuring asufficient number of cultures are included toconduct the analysis. Many researchers assumethey can use the country as a convenient sub-stitute for measuring culture, which may bean erroneous level of analysis given the diver-sity of cultures represented in most countries.Large-scale collaborations such as the GLOBE(House et al. 2004) study and the 47-nationstudy of Smith et al. (2002) are likely to be re-quired to develop the types of samples neededfor such analytical approaches.
E-LEADERSHIPLeading virtually involves leading people fromdifferent departments, organizations, coun-tries, and sometimes even competitor compa-nies (Avolio et al. 2001). In virtual teams, “chal-lenges are more likely to occur when distributed
www.annualreviews.org • Leadership: Theory and Research 439
Ann
u. R
ev. P
sych
ol. 2
009.
60:4
21-4
49. D
ownl
oade
d fro
m a
rjour
nals.
annu
alre
view
s.org
by H
AM
LIN
E U
NIV
ERSI
TY o
n 10
/16/
09. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
ANRV364-PS60-16 ARI 27 October 2008 16:19
E-leadership:leadership whereindividuals or groupsare geographicallydispersed andinteractions aremediated bytechnology
work occurs in different time zones, when localcommunication and human infrastructures fail,when team members’ hardware and softwareplatforms are different, or when local work de-mands require the immediate attention of col-located managers and workers, thereby creatingpressure to pursue local priorities over the ob-jectives of distant collaborators” (A. Weisband2008b, p. 6).
Zigurs (2003) suggested that traditionalleadership models built on a foundation of face-to-face interactions may not fully explain howvirtual leadership and teams work. Specifically,how one provides feedback, encouragement, re-wards, and motivation needs to be re-examinedwhere leadership is mediated through technol-ogy. Zigurs (2003) suggests that the continuingdevelopment in technology such as increasedbandwidth, wireless networks, integrated hand-held devices, voice input, built-in video, videowalls, and automatic translation will no doubthave a significant impact on how virtual teamscommunicate and how leadership is manifestedin such teams. To date, a great deal of the workon e-leadership focuses on either leadership invirtual work teams or groups interacting in whatare called “group decision support systems.”For example, Zaccaro & Bader (2003) providedan overview of the similarities and differencesbetween face-to-face teams and e-teams. Theyspecifically focused on the impact of leader-ship functions such as communication build-ing, role clarification, team development, andeffective task execution and how they differedwhen mediated through technology. Other au-thors have focused on the effects of structuralfactors such as distance and multiple locationson e-leadership and virtual team effectiveness(e.g., Cascio & Shurygailo 2003).
Common Questions withE-LeadershipSome of the common questions or hypothe-ses suggested to guide research on e-leadershipand virtual teams have been summarized byAvolio et al. (2001), Barelka (2007), as well asAhuja & Galvin (2003) and include the follow-
ing: How does the nature and structure of tech-nology impact how leadership style influencesfollower motivation and performance? Whateffect will leadership mediated through tech-nology have on trust formation? Will the natureof the technology such as its richness or trans-parency be a factor in building trust in virtualteams? How will the leadership and locationof teams and technology connecting membersaffect the quality and quantity of their commu-nication? How will the nature of the task andits complexity influence how leadership affectsvirtual team performance?
Group and Virtual Teams ResearchA number of studies have examined e-leadership and virtual teams. For example,Kahai & Avolio (2008) investigated the effectsof leadership style and anonymity on the dis-cussion of an ethical issue in an electronic sys-tem context. Kahai & Avolio examined howgroups discussed an ethical issue by manipu-lating the leadership style of the target e-leaderand whether the group members were anony-mous or identified. They reported that fre-quency of group member participation in dis-cussing how to address the ethical issue wasgreater when leadership style was transactionalversus transformational.
Xiao et al. (2008) conducted a field experi-ment focusing on surgical teams operating in areal-life trauma center. In their study, the teamleader either was placed in the room with thesurgical team or interacted with them virtu-ally. The authors reported that when the teamleader was in the next room, the leader hadgreater influence on communications betweenthe senior member in the room and other teammembers. However, when the senior leader wascollocated, the amount of communication be-tween the team leader, the senior member, andjunior members was more balanced. With hightask urgency, the team leader was more involvedwith the senior team member in terms of com-munication regardless of location, whereas thecommunication between the team leader andjunior members was reduced.
440 Avolio ·Walumbwa ·Weber
Ann
u. R
ev. P
sych
ol. 2
009.
60:4
21-4
49. D
ownl
oade
d fro
m a
rjour
nals.
annu
alre
view
s.org
by H
AM
LIN
E U
NIV
ERSI
TY o
n 10
/16/
09. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
ANRV364-PS60-16 ARI 27 October 2008 16:19
Balthazard et al. (2008) examined the me-diational role of leadership and group memberinteraction styles in comparing virtual and face-to-face teams. They reported that group mem-bers in face-to-face teams were generally morecohesive, were more accepting of a group’s deci-sions, and exhibited a greater amount of synergythan did virtual teams. Face-to-face teams ex-hibited a greater amount of constructive inter-action in comparison with virtual teams, whichscored significantly higher on defensive inter-action styles.
Malhotra et al. (2007) collected survey, in-terview, and observational data on virtual teamsto identify the leadership practices of effectiveleaders of virtual teams. These leadershippractices included the ability to (a) establishand maintain trust through the use of commu-nication technology, (b) ensure that distributeddiversity is understood and appreciated,(c) manage effectively virtual work-life cycles,(d ) monitor team progress using technology,(e) enhance visibility of virtual members withinthe team and outside the organization, and( f ) let individual team members benefit fromthe team.
Future Focus RequiredHambley et al. (2006) advocate that future re-search on e-leadership be conducted in fieldsettings. They recommend that virtual teamsworking on actual problem-solving tasks andprojects be examined to help capture the moti-vational element that may not exist with ad hocgroups working in the lab. A. Weisband (2008a)argued, “Future research may want to considerhow we lead in environments that lack any cen-tral coordination mechanism, or how multipleleaders work together to innovate, create, andhelp others” (p. 255).
E-leadership areas recommended for futureresearch by authors of papers on the virtualteam topic include task ownership, cohesion,media richness (i.e., technology’s capacity forproviding immediate feedback, the number ofcues and channels utilized, personalization ofmessages, and language variety), communica-
tion quality, asynchronous and synchronouscommunication, task complexity, and work-ing on multiple virtual teams simultaneously(Kozlowski & Bell 2003, Zaccaro & Bader2003). For example, Watson et al. (1993) stud-ied culturally diverse and homogenous virtualgroups and compared their interactions over a17-week period. They found that culturally di-verse groups initially suffered in their perfor-mance but over time surpassed homogenousgroups, especially in terms of the number ofalternative ideas generated.
In summary, we expect that the work onvirtual leadership and team interactions willcontinue to be a growth area for leadershipresearch. The fundamental issue for leader-ship scholars and practitioners to address ishow technology is transforming the tradi-tional roles of leadership at both individualand collective levels by examining “how exist-ing leadership styles and cultures embedded ina group and/or organization affect the appro-priation of advanced information technologysystems” (Avolio et al. 2001, p. 658).
CLOSING COMMENTSAND INTEGRATIONThe evolution of this literature points to severalimportant trends. The first trend involves thefield of leadership taking a more holistic view ofleadership. Specifically, researchers are now ex-amining all angles of leadership and includingin their models and studies the leader, the fol-lower, the context, the levels, and their dynamicinteraction. The second trend involves examin-ing how the process of leadership actually takesplace by, for example, integrating the work ofcognitive psychology with strategic leadership.In this regard, we are witnessing greater in-terest in how the leader processes informationas well as how the follower does so, and howeach affects the other, the group, and organiza-tion. More work is expected on examining thevarious mediators and moderators that help toexplain how leadership influences intended out-comes. A third trend involves deriving alterna-tive ways to examine leadership. We expect to
www.annualreviews.org • Leadership: Theory and Research 441
Ann
u. R
ev. P
sych
ol. 2
009.
60:4
21-4
49. D
ownl
oade
d fro
m a
rjour
nals.
annu
alre
view
s.org
by H
AM
LIN
E U
NIV
ERSI
TY o
n 10
/16/
09. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
ANRV364-PS60-16 ARI 27 October 2008 16:19
see a greater use of mixed-methods designs infuture research. The quantitative strategies forstudying leadership have dominated the litera-ture over the past 100 years, but increasing at-tention is being paid to cases and qualitative re-search that should now be integrated with quan-titative approaches.
Part of the evolution of leadership the-ory and research will continue to involve fur-ther defining what actually constitutes leader-ship from a content perspective, e.g., authen-tic, transformational, or visionary, and a processperspective, e.g., shared, complex, or strategic.We also expect much more attention to be paidto the area of strategic leadership, which wedid not have space here to cover, and apply-ing what we have learned about content andprocess to this level of analysis. Finally, we goback to the point where we started in suggest-ing that the time has never been better to ex-amine the genuine development of leadership.The field of leadership has done surprisingly
little to focus its energies on what contributesto or detracts from genuine leadership devel-opment. Given the forces in the global mar-ket, we expect that over the next 10 years,research and theory in this area will explode asorganizations increasingly ask for ways to accel-erate positive leadership development as theyenter the front lines of the war for leadershiptalent.
In summary, the leadership field over thepast decade has made tremendous progressin uncovering some of the enduring myster-ies associated with leadership. These includewhether leaders are born or made, how follow-ers affect how successful leaders can be, howsome charismatic leaders build up societies andothers destroy them, as well as what impactleading through technology has on individualand collective performance. The period thatleadership theory and research will enter overthe next decade is indeed one of the most excit-ing in the history of this planet.
SUMMARY POINTS
1. The field of leadership is evolving to a more holistic view of leadership.
2. More positive forms of leadership are being integrated into literature.
3. Increasing attention is being given to examining how leadership causally impacts interimand ultimate outcomes.
4. The follower is becoming an integral part of the leadership dynamic system.
5. There is growing interest in what genuinely develops leadership.
6. E-leadership is becoming a commonplace dynamic in work organizations.
7. More and more leadership is being distributed and shared in organizations.
8. Leadership is being viewed as a complex and emergent dynamic in organizations.
FUTURE ISSUES
1. More future research in leadership will be mixed methods.
2. Determining the causal mechanisms that link leadership to outcomes will be a priority.
3. Assessing and developing leadership using evidence-based strategies will be a target focus.
4. Examining strategic leadership as a process and person will be an evolving area of theoryand research.
442 Avolio ·Walumbwa ·Weber
Ann
u. R
ev. P
sych
ol. 2
009.
60:4
21-4
49. D
ownl
oade
d fro
m a
rjour
nals.
annu
alre
view
s.org
by H
AM
LIN
E U
NIV
ERSI
TY o
n 10
/16/
09. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
ANRV364-PS60-16 ARI 27 October 2008 16:19
5. More theoretical work and research will focus on the follower as a prime element in theleadership dynamic.
6. How to develop global mindsets among leaders will be an area of interest.
7. A top priority area will be leadership in cultures that are underrepresented in the litera-ture, such as Muslim cultures.
8. How shared leadership evolves and develops will be a focus in face-to-face and virtualenvironments.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENTThe authors are not aware of any biases that might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of thisreview.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTSWe greatly appreciate the contributions made to this paper by Melissa Carsten, Rachel Clapp-Smith, Jakari Griffith, Yongwoon Kim, Ketan Mhatre, David Sweetman, Mary Uhl-Bien, andKay-Ann Willis.
LITERATURE CITED
Adebayo DO, Udegbe IB. 2004. Gender in the boss-subordinate relationship: a Nigerian study. J. Organ.Behav. 25:515–25
Agle BR, Nagarajan NJ, Sonnenfeld JA, Srinivasan D. 2006. Does CEO charisma matter? An empirical analysisof the relationships among organizational performance, environmental uncertainty, and top managementteam perceptions of CEO charisma. Acad. Manage. J. 49:161–74
Ahuja MK, Galvin JE. 2003. Socialization in virtual groups. J. Manage. 29:161–85Altrocchi J. 1999. Individual differences in pluralism in self-structure. In The Plural Self: Multiplicity in Everyday
Life, ed. J Rowan, M Cooper, pp. 168–82. London: SageArvey RD, Zhang Z, Avolio BJ, Krueger RF. 2007. Developmental and genetic determinants of leadership
role occupancy among women. J. Appl. Psychol. 92:693–706Avolio BJ. 1999. Full Leadership Development: Building the Vital Forces in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage. 234 pp.Avolio BJ. 2005. Leadership Development in Balance: Made/Born. Hillsdale, NJ: ErlbaumAvolio BJ. 2007. Promoting more integrative strategies for leadership theory-building. Am. Psychol. 62:25–33Avolio BJ, Bass BM. 1995. Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of analysis—a multilevel frame-
work for examining the diffusion of transformational leadership. Leadersh. Q. 6:199–218Avolio BJ, Bass BM, Walumbwa FO, Zhu W. 2004a. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire: Manual and Sampler
Test. Redwood City, CA: Mind GardenAvolio BJ, Chan A. 2008. The dawning of a new era for genuine leadership development. In International
Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, ed. G Hodgkinson, K Ford, pp. 197–238. New York:Wiley
Avolio BJ, Gardner WL. 2005. Authentic leadership development: getting to the root of positive forms ofleadership. Leadersh. Q. 16:315–38
Avolio BJ, Hannah S, Reichard R, Chan A, Walumbwa F. 2009. 100 years of leadership intervention research.Leadersh. Q. In press
Avolio BJ, Kahai SS, Dodge GE. 2001. E-leadership: implications for theory, research, and practice. Leadersh.Q. 11:615–68
www.annualreviews.org • Leadership: Theory and Research 443
Ann
u. R
ev. P
sych
ol. 2
009.
60:4
21-4
49. D
ownl
oade
d fro
m a
rjour
nals.
annu
alre
view
s.org
by H
AM
LIN
E U
NIV
ERSI
TY o
n 10
/16/
09. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
ANRV364-PS60-16 ARI 27 October 2008 16:19
Avolio BJ, Luthans F. 2006. The High Impact Leader: Moments Matter in Accelerating Authentic Leadership. NewYork: McGraw-Hill. 273 pp.
Avolio BJ, Zhu WC, Koh W, Bhatia P. 2004b. Transformational leadership and organizational commitment:mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural distance. J. Organ. Behav.25:951–68
Balthazard PA, Waldman DA, Atwater LE. 2008. The mediating effects of leadership and interaction style inface-to-face and virtual teams. See S Weisband 2008, pp. 127–50
Barbuto JE, Wheeler DW. 2006. Scale development and construct clarification of servant leadership. GroupOrgan. Manage. 31:300–26
Barelka AJ. 2007. New findings in virtual team leadership. Unpubl. PhD thesis. Mich. State Univ.Bass BM. 1985. Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York: Free Press. 256 pp.Bass BM, Avolio BJ, Jung DI, Berson Y. 2003. Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and
transactional leadership. J. Appl. Psychol. 88:207–18Bass BM, Bass R. 2008. Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Application. New York: Free Press.
1296 pp.Bass BM, Steidlmeier P. 1999. Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. Leadersh.
Q. 10:181–217Benefiel M. 2005. The second half of the journey: spiritual leadership for organizational transformation.
Leadersh. Q. 16:723–47Bligh MC, Kohles JC, Pearce CL, Justin JEG, Stovall JF. 2007. When the romance is over: follower perspec-
tives of aversive leadership. Appl. Psychol.: Int. Rev. Psychol. Appl. Rev. Int. 56:528–57Bono JE, Anderson MH. 2005. The advice and influence networks of transformational leaders. J. Appl. Psychol.
90:1306–14Bono JE, Ilies R. 2006. Charisma, positive emotions and mood contagion. Leadersh. Q. 17:317–34Bono JE, Judge TA. 2003. Self-concordance at work: toward understanding the motivational effects of trans-
formational leaders. Acad. Manage. J. 46:554–71Boyacigiller NA, Beechler S, Taylor S, Levy O. 2004. The crucial yet elusive global mindset. In Handbook of
Global Management: A Guide to Managing Complexity, ed. J McNett, pp. 81–93. Malden, MA: BlackwellSci.
Brown ME, Trevino LK, Harrison DA. 2005. Ethical leadership: a social learning perspective for constructdevelopment and testing. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 97:117–34
Bryman A. 1992. Charisma and Leadership in Organizations. London/Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 198 pp.Burns JM. 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. 530 pp.Campbell JD, Assanand S, Di Paula A. 2003. The structure of the self-concept and its relation to psychological
adjustment. J. Personal. 71:115–40Carson JB, Tesluk PE, Marrone JA. 2007. Shared leadership in teams: an investigation of antecedent conditions
and performance. Acad. Manage. J. 50:1217–34Carsten M, Uhl-Bien M, Patera J, West B, McGregor R. 2007. Social Constructions of Followership. Presented
at Acad. Manag. Conf., Philadelphia, PACascio WF, Shurygailo S. 2003. E-leadership and virtual teams. Organ. Dyn. 31:362–76Chen GQ, Tjosvold D, Liu CH. 2006. Cooperative goals, leader people and productivity values: their con-
tribution to top management teams in China. J. Manage. Stud. 43:1177–200Clapp-Smith R, Luthans F, Avolio BJ. 2007. The role of psychological capital in global mindset development.
In The Global Mindset: Advances in International Management, ed. MA Hitt, R Steers, M Javidan, pp. 105–30.Greenwich, CT: JAI
Cogliser CC, Schriesheim CA. 2000. Exploring work unit context and leader-member exchange: a multi-levelperspective. J. Organ. Behav. 21:487–511
Colella A, Varma A. 2001. The impact of subordinate disability on leader-member exchange relationships.Acad. Manage. J. 44:304–15
Conger JA, Kanungo RN. 1998. Charismatic Leadership in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 288 pp.Cooper CD, Scandura TA, Schriesheim CA. 2005. Looking forward but learning from our past: potential
challenges to developing authentic leadership theory and authentic leaders. Leadersh. Q. 16:475–93
444 Avolio ·Walumbwa ·Weber
Ann
u. R
ev. P
sych
ol. 2
009.
60:4
21-4
49. D
ownl
oade
d fro
m a
rjour
nals.
annu
alre
view
s.org
by H
AM
LIN
E U
NIV
ERSI
TY o
n 10
/16/
09. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
ANRV364-PS60-16 ARI 27 October 2008 16:19
Day DV, Gronn P, Salas E. 2004. Leadership capacity in teams. Leadersh. Q. 15:857–80De Cremer D, van Knippenberg D. 2004. Leader self-sacrifice and leadership effectiveness: the moderating
role of leader self-confidence. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 95:140–55Dent EB, Higgins AE, Wharff DM. 2005. Spirituality and leadership: an empirical review of definitions,
distinctions, and embedded assumptions. Leadersh. Q. 16:625–53Dickson MW, Den Hartog DN, Mitchelson JK. 2003. Research on leadership in a cross-cultural context:
making progress, and raising new questions. Leadersh. Q. 14:729–68Dionne SD, Yammarino FJ, Atwater LE, James LR. 2002. Neutralizing substitutes for leadership theory:
leadership effects and common-source bias. J. Appl. Psychol. 87:454–64Dionne SD, Yammarino FJ, Howell JP, Villa J. 2005. Substitutes for leadership, or not. Leadersh. Q. 16:169–93Dooley KJ, Lichtenstein B. 2008. Research methods for studying the dynamics of leadership. In Complexity
Leadership, Part I: Conceptual Foundations, ed. M Uhl-Bien, R Marion, pp. 269–90. Charlotte, NC: Inform.Age
Dorfman P. 2004. International and cross-cultural leadership research. In Handbook for International Manage-ment Research, ed. BJ Punnett, O Shenkar, pp. 265–355. Ann Arbor, MI: Univ. Mich. Press
Dvir T, Shamir B. 2003. Follower developmental characteristics as predicting transformational leadership: alongitudinal field study. Leadersh. Q. 14:327–44
Dweck CS. 1986. Motivational processes affecting learning. Am. Psychol. 41:1040–48Earley CP, Murnieks C, Mosakowski E. 2007. Cultural intelligence and the global mindset. In The Global
Mindset, ed. M Javidan, RM Steers, MA Hitt, pp. 75–103. New York: ElsevierEpitropaki O, Martin R. 2005. From ideal to real: a longitudinal study of the role of implicit leadership theories
on leader-member exchanges and employee outcomes. J. Appl. Psychol. 90:659–76Erdogan B, Liden R. 2002. Social exchanges in the workplace: a review of recent developments and future
research directions in leader-member exchange theory. In Leadership, ed. IL Neider, CA Schriesheim,pp. 65–114. Greenwich, CT: Information Age
Follett MP. 1924. Creative Experience. New York: Logmans GreenFredrickson BL. 2001. The role of positive emotions in positive psychology—the broaden-and-build theory
of positive emotions. Am. Psychol. 56:218–26Fry LW. 2003. Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. Leadersh. Q. 14:693–727Fry LW. 2005. Introduction to The Leadership Quarterly special issue: toward a paradigm of spiritual leadership.
Leadersh. Q. 16:619–22Gelfand MJ, Erez M, Aycan Z. 2007. Cross-cultural organizational behavior. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 58:479–514George B. 2003. Authentic Leadership: Rediscovering the Secrets to Creating Lasting Value. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass. 217 pp.Gerstner CR, Day DV. 1997. Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: correlates and con-
struct issues. J. Appl. Psychol. 82:827–44Goethals GR. 2005. Presidential leadership. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 56:545–70Goldsmith M. 2003. Global Leadership: The Next Generation. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Financial Times Prentice
Hall. 350 pp.Graen GB. 2006. In the eye of the beholder: cross-cultural lesson in leadership from project GLOBE: a
response viewed from the third culture bonding (TCB) model of cross-cultural leadership. Acad. Manage.Perspect. 20:95–101
Graen GB, Uhl-Bien M. 1995. Relationship-based approach to leadership—development of leader-memberexchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years—applying a multilevel multidomain perspective.Leadersh. Q. 6:219–47
Green S, Hassan F, Immelt J, Marks M, Meiland D. 2003. In search of global leaders. Harvard Bus. Rev.81:38–45
Greenleaf RK. 1991. The Servant as Leader. Indianapolis, IN: Robert Greenleaf CenterHackman JR, Wageman R. 2005. A theory of team coaching. Acad. Manage. Rev. 30:269–87Hambley LA, O’Neil TA, Kline TJB. 2006. Virtual team leadership: the effects of leadership style and com-
munication medium on team interaction styles and outcomes. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 103:1–20Harter JK, Schmidt FL, Hayes TL. 2002. Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction,
employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 87:268–79
www.annualreviews.org • Leadership: Theory and Research 445
Ann
u. R
ev. P
sych
ol. 2
009.
60:4
21-4
49. D
ownl
oade
d fro
m a
rjour
nals.
annu
alre
view
s.org
by H
AM
LIN
E U
NIV
ERSI
TY o
n 10
/16/
09. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
ANRV364-PS60-16 ARI 27 October 2008 16:19
Hazy JK, Goldstein JA, Lichtenstein BB. 2007. Complex systems leadership theory: an introduction. In ComplexSystems Leadership Theory: New Perspectives from Complexity Science on Social and Organizational Effectiveness,ed. JK Hazy, JA Goldstein, BB Lichtenstein, pp. 1–13. Mansfield, MA: ISCE Publ.
Hofstede GH. 2001. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations AcrossNations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 596 pp.
Hogg MA, Martin R, Weeden K. 2004. Leader-member relations and social identity. In Leadership and Power:Identity Processes in Groups and Organizations, ed. D van Knippenberg, MA Hogg, pp. 18–33. London:Sage
House RJ, Hanges PJ, Javidan M, Dorfman PW, Gupta V. 2004. Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: TheGLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 818 pp.
Howell JM, Shamir B. 2005. The role of followers in the charismatic leadership process: relationships andtheir consequences. Acad. Manage. Rev. 30:96–112
Howell JP, Bowen DE, Dorfman PW, Kerr S, Podsakoff PM. 2007. Substitutes for leadership: effectivealternatives to ineffective leadership. In Leadership: Understanding the Dynamics of Power and Influence inOrganizations, ed. RP Vecchio, pp. 363–76. Notre Dame, IN: Univ. Notre Dame Press
Ilies R, Nahrgang JD, Morgeson FP. 2007. Leader-member exchange and citizenship behaviors: a meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 92:269–77
Joseph EE, Winston BE. 2005. A correlation of servant leadership, leader trust, and organizational trust.Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 26:6–22
Judge TA, Piccolo RF. 2004. Transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic test of theirrelative validity. J. Appl. Psychol. 89:755–68
Kacmar KM, Zivnuska S, White CD. 2007. Control and exchange: the impact of work environment on thework effort of low relationship quality employees. Leadersh. Q. 18:69–84
Kahai SS, Avolio BJ. 2008. Effects of leadership style and anonymity on the discussion of an ethical issue inan electronic meeting system context. See S Weisband 2008, pp. 97–126
Kark R, Van Dijk D. 2007. Motivation to lead, motivation to follow: the role of the self-regulatory focus inleadership processes. Acad. Manage. Rev. 32:500–28
Keller RT. 2006. Transformational leadership, initiating structure, and substitutes for leadership: a longitudinalstudy of research and development project team performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 91:202–10
Kelley RE. 1992. The Power of Followership: How to Create Leaders People Want to Follow, and Followers Who LeadThemselves. New York: Doubleday/Currency. 260 pp.
Kerr S, Jermier JM. 1978. Substitutes for leadership: their meaning and measurement. Organ. Behav. Hum.Perform. 22:376–403
Kirkman BL, Lowe KB, Gibson CB. 2006. A quarter century of Culture’s Consequences: a review of empiricalresearch incorporating Hofstede’s cultural values framework. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 37:285–320
Kozlowski SWJ, Bell BS. 2003. Work groups and teams in organizations. In Handbook of Psychology: Industrialand Organizational Psychology, ed. WC Borman, DR Ilgen, RJ Klimoski, pp. 333–75. London: Wiley
Kulich C, Ryan MK, Haslam SA. 2007. Where is the romance for women leaders? The effects of gender onleadership attributions and performance-based pay. Appl. Psychol. Int. Rev. Psychol. Appl. Rev. Int. 56:582–601
Lane HW. 2004. The Blackwell Handbook of Global Management: A Guide to Managing Complexity. New York:Wiley-Blackwell. 476 pp.
Leung K, Bhagat RS, Buchan NR, Erez M, Gibson CB. 2005. Culture and international business: recentadvances and their implications for future research. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 36:357–78
Liao H, Chuang AC. 2007. Transforming service employees and climate: a multilevel, multisource examinationof transformational leadership in building long-term service relationships. J. Appl. Psychol. 92:1006–19
Lichtenstein BB, Uhl-Bien M, Marion R, Seers A, Orton JD, Schreiber C. 2007. Complexity leadershiptheory: an interactive perspective on leading in complex adaptive systems. In Complex Systems LeadershipTheory: New Perspectives from Complexity Science on Social and Organizational Effectiveness, ed. JK Hazy,JA Goldstein, BB Lichtenstein, pp. 129–41. Mansfield, MA: ISCE Publ.
Lord RG, Brown BR. 2004. Leadership Processes and Follower Self-Identity. Hillsdale, NJ: ErlbaumLord RG, Brown DJ. 2001. Leadership, values, and subordinate self-concepts. Leadersh. Q. 12:133–52
446 Avolio ·Walumbwa ·Weber
Ann
u. R
ev. P
sych
ol. 2
009.
60:4
21-4
49. D
ownl
oade
d fro
m a
rjour
nals.
annu
alre
view
s.org
by H
AM
LIN
E U
NIV
ERSI
TY o
n 10
/16/
09. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
ANRV364-PS60-16 ARI 27 October 2008 16:19
Lord RG, Brown DJ, Harvey JL, Hall RJ. 2001. Contextual constraints on prototype generation and theirmultilevel consequences for leadership perceptions. Leadersh. Q. 12:311–38
Lord RG, Emrich CG. 2000. Thinking outside the box by looking inside the box: extending the cognitiverevolution in leadership research. Leadersh. Q. 11:551–79
Lord RG, Hall RJ. 1992. Contemporary views of leadership and individual differences. Leadersh. Q. 3:137–57Lord RG, Hall RJ. 2005. Identity, deep structure and the development of leadership skill. Leadersh. Q. 16:591–
615Lowe KB, Gardner WL. 2000. Ten years of the Leadership Quarterly: contributions and challenges for the
future. Leadersh. Q. 11:459–514Luthans F. 2002. Positive organizational behavior: developing and managing psychological strengths. Acad.
Manage. Exec. 16:57–72Luthans F, Avolio BJ. 2003. Authentic leadership: a positive developmental approach. In Positive Organizational
Scholarship: Foundations of a New Discipline, ed. KS Cameron, JE Dutton, RE Quinn, pp. 241–58. SanFrancisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler
Malhotra A, Majchrzak A, Rosen B. 2007. Leading virtual teams. Acad. Manage. Perspect. 21:60–70Martin R, Thomas G, Charles K, Epitropaki O, McNamara R. 2005. The role of leader-member exchanges
in mediating the relationship between locus of control and work reactions. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol.78:141–47
Maurer TJ, Lippstreu M. 2005. Differentiating Motivation to Lead from Motivation to Develop Leadership Capa-bility: Relevance of “Born vs Made” Beliefs. Presented at meet. Acad. Manage., Honolulu, HI
Meindl JR, Ehrlich SB, Dukerich JM. 1985. The romance of leadership. Adm. Sci. Q. 30:78–102Mendenhall ME. 2001. Introduction: new perspectives on expatriate adjustment and its relationship to global
leadership development. In Developing Global Business Leaders: Policies, Processes, and Innovations, ed. GKStahl, pp. 1–16. Westport, CT: Quorum
Mobley WH, Gessner MJ, Arnold V. 1999. Advances in Global Leadership. Stamford, CT: JAIMumford MD, Connelly S, Gaddis B. 2003. How creative leaders think: experimental findings and cases.
Leadersh. Q. 14:411–32Mumford MD, Friedrich TL, Caughron JJ, Byrne CL. 2007. Leader cognition in real-world settings: How
do leaders think about crises? Leadersh. Q. 18:515–43O’Connor PMG, Quinn L. 2004. Organizational capacity for leadership. In The Center for Creative Leadership
Handbook of Leadership Development, ed. CD McCauley, E Van Velsor, pp. 417–37. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass
Pearce CL. 2004. The future of leadership: combining vertical and shared leadership to transform knowledgework. Acad. Manage. Exec. 18:47–57
Pearce CL, Conger JA. 2003. Shared Leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage
Pearce CL, Sims HP. 2002. The relative influence of vertical vs. shared leadership on the longitudinal effec-tiveness of change management teams. Group Dynamics Theory Res. Pract. 6:172–97
Piccolo RF, Colquitt JA. 2006. Transformational leadership and job behaviors: the mediating role of core jobcharacteristics. Acad. Manage. J. 49:327–40
Plowman DA, Duchon D. 2008. Dispelling the myths about leadership: from cybernetics to emergence. InComplexity Leadership Part I: Conceptual Foundations, ed. M Uhl-Bien, R Marion, pp. 129–53. Charlotte,NC: Inform. Age
Reichard RJ, Avolio BJ. 2005. Where are we? The status of leadership intervention research: a meta-analytic summary. In Authentic Leadership and Practice: Origins, Effects, and Development, ed. WL Gardner,BJ Avolio, FO Walumbwa, pp. 203–26. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Sci.
Roberts LM, Dutton JE, Spreitzer CM, Heaphy ED, Quinn RE. 2005. Composing the reflected best-selfportrait: building pathways for becoming extraordinary in work organizations. Acad. Manage. Rev. 30:712–36
Russell RF, Stone AG. 2002. A review of servant leadership attributes: developing a practical model. Leadersh.Organ. Dev. J. 23:145–57
Schaubroeck J, Lam SSK, Cha SE. 2007. Embracing transformational leadership: team values and the impactof leader behavior on team performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 92:1020–30
www.annualreviews.org • Leadership: Theory and Research 447
Ann
u. R
ev. P
sych
ol. 2
009.
60:4
21-4
49. D
ownl
oade
d fro
m a
rjour
nals.
annu
alre
view
s.org
by H
AM
LIN
E U
NIV
ERSI
TY o
n 10
/16/
09. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
ANRV364-PS60-16 ARI 27 October 2008 16:19
Schriesheim CA, Castro SL, Cogliser CC. 1999. Leader-member exchange (LMX) research: a comprehensivereview of theory, measurement, and data-analytic practices. Leadersh. Q. 10:63–113
Schyns B, Felfe J, Blank H. 2007. Is charisma hyper-romanticism? Empirical evidence from new data and ameta-analysis. Appl. Psychol. Int. Rev. Psychol. Appl. Rev. Int. 56:505–27
Shamir B. 2007. From passive recipients to active coproducers: followers’ roles in the leadership process.In Follower-Centered Perspectives on Leadership: A Tribute to the Memory of James R. Meindl, ed. B Shamir,R Pillai, MC Bligh, M Uhl-Bien, pp. ix–xxxix. Greenwich, CT: Inform. Age
Smith PB, Peterson MF, Schwartz SH, Ahmad AH, Akande D, et al. 2002. Cultural values, sources of guidance,and their relevance to managerial behavior—a 47-nation study. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 33:188–208
Sosik JJ, Avolio BJ, Kahai SS. 1997. Effects of leadership style and anonymity on group potency and effective-ness in a group decision support system environment. J. Appl. Psychol. 82:89–103
Sparrowe RT. 2005. Authentic leadership and the narrative self. Leadersh. Q. 16:419–39Sparrowe RT, Soetjipto BW, Kraimer ML. 2006. Do leaders’ influence tactics relate to members’ helping
behavior? It depends on the quality of the relationship. Acad. Manage. J. 49:1194–208Spears LC. 2004. The understanding and practice of servant leadership. In Practicing Servant-Leadership: Suc-
ceeding Through Trust, Bravery, and Forgiveness, ed. LC Spears, M Lawrence, pp. 167–200. San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass
Swann WB, Chang-Schneider C, McClarty KL. 2007. Do people’s self-views matter? Self-concept and self-esteem in everyday life. Am. Psychol. 62:84–94
Tekleab AG, Taylor MS. 2003. Aren’t there two parties in an employment relationship? Antecedents andconsequences of organization-employee agreement on contract obligations and violations. J. Organ.Behav. 24:585–608
Thomas DC. 2006. Domain and development of cultural intelligence—the importance of mindfulness. GroupOrgan. Manage. 31:78–99
Tosi HL, Misangyi VF, Fanelli A, Waldman DA, Yammarino FJ. 2004. CEO charisma, compensation, andfirm performance. Leadersh. Q. 15:405–20
Uhl-Bien M. 2006. Relational leadership theory: exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing.Leadersh. Q. 17:654–76
Uhl-Bien M, Graen GB, Scandura TA. 2000. Implications of leader-member exchange (LMX) for strategichuman resource management systems: relationships as social capital for competitive advantage. Res. Pers.Hum. Resour. Manage. 18:137–85
Uhl-Bien M, Marion R. 2008. Complexity Leadership. Charlotte, NC: Information AgeUhl-Bien M, Marion R, McKelvey B. 2007. Complexity leadership theory: shifting leadership from the In-
dustrial Age to the Knowledge Era. Leadersh. Q. 18:298–318Van de Vijver FJR, Leung K. 2000. Methodological issues in psychological research on culture. J. Cross-Cultural
Psychol. 31:33–51Van Dyne L, Ang S. 2006. Getting more than you expect: global leader initiative to span structural holes and
reputational effectiveness. In Advances in Global Leadership, ed. WH Mobley, E Weldon, pp. 101–22. NewYork: Elsevier
Villa JR, Howell JP, Dorfman PW, Daniel DL. 2003. Problems with detecting moderators in leadershipresearch using moderated multiple regression. Leadersh. Q. 14:3–23
Waldman DA, Javidan M, Varella P. 2004. Charismatic leadership at the strategic level: a new application ofupper echelons theory. Leadersh. Q. 15:355–80
Waldman DA, Ramirez GG, House RJ, Puranam P. 2001. Does leadership matter? CEO leadership attributesand profitability under conditions of perceived environmental uncertainty. Acad. Manage. J. 44:134–43
Waldman DA, Yammarino FJ. 1999. CEO charismatic leadership: levels-of-management and levels-of-analysiseffects. Acad. Manage. Rev. 24:266–85
Walumbwa FO, Avolio BJ, Gardner WL, Wernsing TS, Peterson SJ. 2008. Authentic leadership: developmentand validation of a theory-based measure. J. Manage. 34:89–126
Walumbwa FO, Avolio BJ, Zhu W. 2008. How transformational leadership weaves its influence on individualjob performance: the role of identification and efficacy beliefs. Pers. Psychol. In press
448 Avolio ·Walumbwa ·Weber
Ann
u. R
ev. P
sych
ol. 2
009.
60:4
21-4
49. D
ownl
oade
d fro
m a
rjour
nals.
annu
alre
view
s.org
by H
AM
LIN
E U
NIV
ERSI
TY o
n 10
/16/
09. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
ANRV364-PS60-16 ARI 27 October 2008 16:19
Walumbwa FO, Lawler JJ. 2003. Building effective organizations: transformational leadership, collectivistorientation, work-related attitudes and withdrawal behaviours in three emerging economies. Int. J. Hum.Resour. Manage. 14:1083–101
Wang H, Law KS, Hackett RD, Wang DX, Chen ZX. 2005. Leader-member exchange as a mediator of the re-lationship between transformational leadership and followers’ performance and organizational citizenshipbehavior. Acad. Manage. J. 48:420–32
Washington RR, Sutton CD, Field HS. 2006. Individual differences in servant leadership: the roles of valuesand personality. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 27:700–16
Watson WE, Kumar K, Michaelsen LK. 1993. Cultural diversity’s impact on interaction process andperformance—comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups. Acad. Manage. J. 36:590–602
Weber R, Camerer C, Rottenstreich Y, Knez M. 2001. The illusion of leadership: misattribution of cause incoordination games. Organ. Sci. 12:582–98
Weisband A. 2008a. Lessons about leadership at a distance and future research directions. See S Weisband2008, pp. 149–256
Weisband A. 2008b. Research challenges for studying leadership at a distance. See S Weisband 2008, pp. 3–12Weisband S, ed. 2008. Leadership at a Distance: Research in Technologically-Supported Work. New York: ErlbaumWhittington JL, Pitts TM, Kageler WV, Goodwin VL. 2005. Legacy leadership: the leadership wisdom of
the Apostle Paul. Leadersh. Q. 16:749–70Wofford JC, Goodwin VL, Whittington JL. 1998. A field study of a cognitive approach to understanding
transformational and transactional leadership. Leadersh. Q. 9:55–84Xiao Y, Seagull FJ, Mackenzie CF, Klein KJ, Ziegert J. 2008. Adaptation of team communication patterns.
Exploring the effects of leadership at a distance: task urgency, and shared team experience. See S Weisband2008, pp. 71–96
Yammarino FJ, Dionne SD, Chun JU, Dansereau F. 2005. Leadership and levels of analysis: a state-of-the-science review. Leadersh. Q. 16:879–919
Yukl G. 1999. An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories.Leadersh. Q. 10:285–305
Yukl GA. 2006. Leadership in Organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall. 542 pp.Yukl GA, Van Fleet DD. 1992. Theory and research on leadership in organizations. In Handbook of Industrial
and Organizational Psychology, ed. MD Dunnette, LM. Hough, pp. 147–98. Palo Alto, CA: ConsultingPsychol. Press
Zaccaro SJ, Bader P. 2003. E-leadership and the challenges of leading E-teams: minimizing the bad andmaximizing the good. Organ. Dyn. 31:377–87
Zhu W, Avolio BJ, Walumbwa FO. 2008. Moderating role of follower characteristics with transformationalleadership and follower work engagement. Group Organ. Manage. In press
Zigurs I. 2003. Leadership in virtual teams: oxymoron or opportunity? Organ. Dyn. 31:339–51
www.annualreviews.org • Leadership: Theory and Research 449
Health Psychology: Developing Biologically Plausible Models Linkingthe Social World and Physical HealthGregory E. Miller, Edith Chen, and Steve Cole ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 501
Health and Social Systems
The Case for Cultural Competency in Psychotherapeutic InterventionsStanley Sue, Nolan Zane, Gordon C. Nagayama Hall, and Lauren K. Berger ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 525
Research Methodology
Missing Data Analysis: Making It Work in the Real WorldJohn W. Graham ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 549
Psychometrics: Analysis of Latent Variables and Hypothetical Constructs
