leadership in organizations - sage - the natural home for authors

INTRODUCTION

Legends and myths about what distinguishes ‘greatleaders’ from ‘commoners’ seem to have alwaysattracted people. Bass writes: ‘The study of leader-ship rivals in age the emergence of civilization,which shaped its leaders as much as it was shapedby them. From its infancy, the study of history hasbeen the study of leaders – what they did and whythey did it’ (1990a: 3). Leadership still fascinatesscholars as well as the general public. However, theterm ‘leadership’ means different things to differentpeople. Definitions of leadership vary in terms ofemphasis on leader abilities, personality traits,influence relationships, cognitive versus emotionalorientation, individual versus group orientation, andappeal to self versus collective interests. Definitionsalso vary in whether they are primarily descriptiveor normative in nature as well as in their relativeemphasis on behavioral styles (Den Hartog,Koopman, Thierry, Wilderom, Maczynski &

Jarmuz, 1997). Leadership is sometimes distinguishedfrom management (e.g., Kotter, 1990; Zaleznik,1977) or seen as one of several managerial roles(e.g., Mintzberg, 1989). Bryman (1992) states thatmost definitions of leadership emphasize three mainelements: group, influence, and goal. Table 9.1 pro-vides several examples of definitions of leadership.

Another way to view leadership is in terms of thedifferent domains leadership encompasses. Mostapproaches to leadership have been leader-centered.However, one can distinguish between the leader,follower, and relationship domain of leadership(Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). In all three domainsdifferent levels of analysis (i.e., individual, dyad,group or larger collectivities) can be the focus ofinvestigation (e.g., Yammarino & Bass, 1991).According to Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995), leaderbehavior and characteristics and their effects arethe primary issues of concern in the leader-baseddomain. A follower-based approach would leadto hypotheses focusing on follower issues such asfollower characteristics, behaviors, and perceptions

9

Leadership in Organizations

D E A N N E N . D E N H A R T O Gand P A U L L . K O O P M A N

Leadership has always been an important topic in work and organizational psychology andmuch research has been devoted to the topic. This chapter describes the developmentsin this field over the last decades. Trait, style, and contingency theories of leadership inorganizations are presented, as well as several alternative approaches to studying leadership.Special attention is also given to transformational/charismatic leadership. The growingimportance of global and international world business creates a strong demand for managerswho are sophisticated in international management and skilled at working with people fromother countries. This has resulted in increased attention for cross-cultural perspectives theleadership field. Other currents of change, such as the developing information technologyand the increased importance of teams and other lateral organizing mechanisms are influ-encing work and organizations in a pervasive manner. We conclude the chapter by present-ing several possible ways in which these trends may change the role of leadership in futureorganizations.

squesenberry

Text Box

squesenberry

Text Box

DEN HARTOG, DEANNE, and PAUL KOOPMAN. " Leadership in Organizations ." Handbook of Industrial, Work & Organizational Psychology - Volume 2. 2001. SAGE Publications. 16 Feb. 2011.

or topics such as empowerment (e.g., Hollander,1992; Meindl, 1990). A relationship-based modeltakes the relationship between leader and followeras the starting point for research and theory build-ing. Issues of concern are reciprocal influenceand the development and maintenance of effectiverelationships (e.g., Bryman, 1992; Graen &Scandura, 1987). Graen and Uhl-Bien note that amultiple domain approach should be taken moreoften and that ‘careful sampling from multipledomains within the same investigation shouldaccount for more of the potential leadership contri-bution, and thus increase the predictive validity andpractical usefulness of our studies’ (1995: 221).

As stated, most research in the leadership field sofar has been done from a leader-centered point ofview. The following section presents an overviewof the major developments in leadership researchand theory to date. This is followed by a moreextensive treatment of the most recent trend inleadership research, which focuses on so-calledcharismatic, transformational, or inspirationalleadership. The growing importance of global andinternational world business creates a strongdemand for managers who are sophisticated ininternational management and skilled at workingwith people from other countries (Adler, 1991).This has led to increased attention for cross-culturalperspectives the leadership field. Therefore, thetopic of international and cross-cultural researchinto leadership is also discussed. A discussion ofthe future of leadership and future leadershipresearch concludes this chapter.

TRENDS AND DEVELOPMENTSIN LEADERSHIP RESEARCH

Leadership has been an important topic of investi-gation, especially in North America, for manydecades. Several main trends can be distinguished

in the development of the study of (business)leadership. Prior to the 1980s the main approachesto leadership were the trait, style, and contingencyapproach. Table 9.2 presents a historical overviewof the main trends in the leadership field. The datesin this table represent rough indications of the peri-ods in which the emphasis was on that approach. Anew stage did not necessarily mean the previousstage was completely abandoned; rather, a shift inemphasis occurred (Bass, 1990a; Bryman, 1992).Several alternative ways to conceptualize and studyleadership have had a profound influence on thedevelopment of ideas about and research into lead-ership from the early 1980s onward. Below, thethree aforementioned main trends and several ofthese alternative approaches to leadership will bedescribed.

The Trait Approach

Early research into leadership can be characterizedas a search for ‘the great man.’ Personal characteris-tics of leaders were emphasized and the implicitidea was that leaders are born rather than made.All leaders were supposed to have certain stablecharacteristics that made them into leaders. Thefocus was on identifying and measuring traits thatdistinguished leaders from nonleaders or effectivefrom ineffective leaders (Hollander & Offermann,1990). From these distinctions between leaders andnonleaders, a profile of an ‘ideal’ leader could bederived, which could serve as the basis for selectionof future leaders.

Three main categories of personal characteristicswere included in the search for the ‘great man.’First, physical features, such as height, physique,appearance, and age. Second, ability characteristicssuch as intelligence, knowledge, and fluency ofspeech. And third, personality traits such asdominance, emotional control and expressiveness,and introversion–extraversion (Bryman, 1992).

Leadership in Organizations 167

Table 9.1 Defining leadershipAnglo-Saxon definitions of leadership

• Leadership is the influential increment over and above mechanical compliance with the routine directives of theorganization (Katz & Kahn, 1978).

• Leadership is the process of influencing the activities of an organized group toward goal achievement (Rauch &Behling, 1984).

• Yukl (1998) broadly defines leadership as influence processes affecting the interpretation of events for followers,the choice of objectives for the group or organization, the organization of work activities to accomplish the objectives,the motivation of followers to achieve the objectives, the maintenance of cooperative relationships and teamwork,and the enlistment of support and cooperation from people outside the group or organization.

• Leadership is defined in terms of a process of social influence whereby a leader steers members of a group towards agoal (Bryman, 1992).

• Leadership is the ability of an individual to motivate others to forego self interest in the interest of a collective vision,and to contribute to the attainment of that vision and to the collective by making significant personal self-sacrificesover and above the call of duty, willingly (House & Shamir, 1993).

Research up to 1950 failed to yield a consistentpicture of leader traits, therefore research into thisarea slowed. After about 25 years the interest intraits possessed by leaders revived. In 1974, afterreviewing 163 studies that had been reportedbetween 1949 and 1970, Stogdill showed thatcontrary to what had been concluded from earlierreviews, several universal personal traits and skills(such as vigor and persistence in the pursuit ofgoals, self-confidence and tolerance for uncertaintyand frustration) were indeed associated with leader-ship (Bass, 1990a). Other studies have also shownthat traits or personal characteristics do indeed playa more significant role in leadership than was con-cluded earlier (e.g., Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991;Lord, De Vader & Allinger, 1986). Kirkpatrick andLocke’s (1991) review suggests that drive, a desireto lead, honesty and integrity, self-confidence, cog-nitive ability, and knowledge of the business arepersonal characteristics that distinguish leaders fromnonleaders. Other traits predicting effective leader-ship include: high energy level and stress tolerance,internal locus of control orientation, emotionalmaturity, socialized power motivation, moderateachievement motivation, and a low need for affilia-tion (Yukl, 1998).

The type of ‘traits’ under consideration in this‘reviving’ trait approach are different form the earlystudies. Bryman (1992) warns that there is a dangerthat the term ‘trait’ becomes so stretched that itapplies to any variable on which leaders and non-leaders differ, even certain behavioral patterns suchas those discussed below. Thus, although there hasbeen a resurgence of interest in the trait approach,the way in which traits are treated has changed.Also, traits are now considered along with other(situational and behavioral) variables.

Disillusionment followed the lack of empirical evi-dence for the existence of a ‘leadership trait profile’in the early years of trait research. This led to a newemphasis in leadership research, the style approach.

Leadership Style

The second major trend in researching leadershipemphasized leader behavior. The focus shifted

from who leaders are (traits) to what leaders do(behavioral style). In this approach, effectiveness ofleaders is dependent on the exerted leadership style.Whereas the trait approach focused on stable per-sonal characteristics which were usually thought tobe largely innate (implying selection of effectiveleaders rather than training), the style approachimplied that leadership is a behavioral pattern,which can be learned. Thus, according to thisapproach, once one was able to discover the ‘right’style, people could be trained to exhibit thatbehavior and become better leaders (Bass, 1990a;Bryman, 1992).

Most influential in this period was probably theseries of questionnaire-based Ohio State studies.The Ohio State researchers concluded that leader-ship style could best be described as varying alongtwo dimensions, i.e., ‘consideration’ and ‘initiatingstructure’ (e.g., Fleishman & Harris, 1962). A secondmajor research program concerning leader behaviorin this period was carried out at the University ofMichigan. The results of these studies (summarizedby Likert, 1961, 1967) show that they found threetypes of leader behavior differentiating betweeneffective and ineffective managers: task-orientedbehavior, relationship-oriented behavior, and parti-cipative leadership.

Some researchers proposed ‘universal’ theoriesof effective leader behavior, stating that, forinstance, effective leaders are both people- andtask-oriented, so-called ‘high–high’ leaders. Blakeand Mouton’s (1982) managerial grid is an exampleof such a ‘high–high’ theory. Other prominent‘universal’ theories were based on the idea thatleaders who make extensive use of participativedecision procedures are more effective than otherleaders (e.g., Likert, 1967; McGregor, 1960).

Criticism of the Style ApproachThere have been many criticisms of the styleapproach. Among the criticisms are the inconsistentfindings and measurement problems, the problemof causality, the problem of the group, informalleadership, and, most pressing, the lack of situationalanalysis (Bryman, 1992). Korman (1966) showedthat the magnitude and direction of correlations

Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology — 2168

Table 9.2 Trends in leadership theory and researchPeriod Approach Core theme

Up to late 1940s Trait Leaders are born; leadership as an innate ability Late 1940s to late 1960s Style What do they do; effectiveness has to do with how

the leader behavesLate 1960s to early 1980s Contingency It all depends; effectiveness of leadership is affected

by the situation/contextSince early 1980s New leadership Leaders need vision and inspire loyalty

(including charismatic/ and emotional attachmenttransformational leadership)

Adapted from Bryman (1992: 1).

between leadership styles and outcomes werehighly variable and divergent. Often, correlationswere not statistically significant (see also Bass,1990a). Identified measurement problems includeresponse tendencies such as leniency effects andcontamination by subordinate’s implicit theories ofleadership (implicit theories will be described inmore detail below). Assumed causality was aproblem in the early studies (this also goes for traitstudies). These studies were usually cross-sectional,meaning that the notion that leadership style consti-tutes the independent rather than the dependentvariable is an assumption in stead of a conclusionbased on investigation of this view. Since then ithas been shown that causality can run both ways(Bryman, 1992).

The problem of the group refers to the tendencyin leadership research to focus on the group levelrather than the individual or dyad levels of analysis.We will return to this below when briefly dis-cussing the vertical dyad linkage (VDL) approachas an alternative way to study leadership. Mostresearch described above was directed at formal,designated leaders who might behave different thaninformal leaders. Also, where designated leadersare not the actual group leaders the questions areprobably not about the ‘right’ person (Bryman,1992). Informal and emergent leadership are stillrarely studied.

The failure of the style approach to pay attentionto situational characteristics that act as possiblemoderators of the relationship between leadershipand outcomes is probably its most serious problem.Possible moderators include task characteristics(e.g., complexity, interdependence) and subordi-nate characteristics (e.g., experience, motivation),but environmental factors or organizational culturecould also influence the shape or form of therelationship between leadership style and out-comes. Attempts to address this situational issue ledto the next main trend, contingency approaches tostudy leadership.

Contingency Approaches

As stated, many contingency approaches can be con-sidered as an attempt to repair what researchers sawas the deficiencies of the aforementioned approaches(Smith & Peterson, 1988). The main proposition incontingency approaches is that the effectiveness of agiven leadership style is contingent on the situation,implying that certain leader behaviors will be effec-tive in some situations but not in others.

Fiedler’s ModelThe earliest contingency theory of leader effective-ness was the theory by Fiedler (1967). Fiedler iswell-known and heavily criticized for his‘least-preferred-coworker’ (LPC) measure. The

basic assumption is that a leader’s description of theperson with whom he has the greatest difficultyworking reflects a basic leadership style. A secondassumption is that which of the basic leadershipstyles contributes most to group performance varieswith the ‘situation favorability.’ This favorability isdetermined by weighting and combining threeaspects of the situation, namely leader–memberrelations, position power and task structure. Forinstance, a situation is least favorable for a leaderwhen leader–member relations are poor, positionpower is low and the task is unstructured. Themodel predicts that when the situation is eitherhighly favorable or very unfavorable, low LPCleaders are more effective than high LPC leaders. Inintermediate situations, high LPC leaders should bemore effective than low LPC leaders. Support forthe model is at best weak. Also, the LPC measureand several of the assumptions made in the model(such as the weighting of situation aspects) arecriticized for lacking a theoretical basis (Yukl, 1998).

More recently, Fiedler and Garcia (1987) devel-oped a model that deals with the cognitive abilitiesof leaders (cognitive resources theory). Accordingto this model, group performance depends on aninteraction between two ‘traits’ (leader intelligenceand experience), one type of leadership behavior(directive), and two aspects of the situation (inter-personal stress and the nature of the group task). Sofar, there is little empirical support for this model.

Situational Leadership TheoryHersey and Blanchard’s (1969, 1977) situationalleadership theory (SLT) has been a popular basisfor leadership training for many years. OriginallySLT proposes that leaders should attune theirbehavior to fit with the ‘maturity’ or in later writ-ings the ‘development level’ of the team as a wholeas well as its individual members. Combining highor low task and relationship behavior creates fourdifferent leadership styles: telling (high task, lowrelations); selling (high, high); participating (lowtask, high relations); and delegating (low, low).These styles are more or less appropriate for differ-ent types of team members. For team members whoare, for instance, low on willingness and ability a‘telling’ style is appropriate. The empirical evidencefor the theory is scant (Bass, 1990a; Yukl, 1998).

The Normative Decision-Making ModelAnother widely known contingency theory focuseson criteria to determine whether or not a leadershould involve subordinates in different kinds ofdecision making (Vroom & Yetton, 1973). Theimportance of using decision procedures thatare appropriate for the situation has been recog-nized for some time (Heller, Pusic, Strauss &Wilpert, 1998; Yukl, 1998). For instance,Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1958) noted that a


leader’s choice of decision procedures reflectsforces in the leader, the subordinates and the situa-tion. Also, Maier (1963) recognized the need forleaders to consider both the quality requirementsof a decision and the likelihood of subordinateacceptance before choosing a decision procedure.Vroom and Yetton (1973) go beyond these appro-aches. In their model they try to indicate whichdecision procedure will be most effective in a speci-fic situation. They distinguish five decision proce-dures, namely two types of autocratic decision (AIand AII), two types of consultative decision (CI andCII), and one joint decision by leader and group(GII). AI entails that a manager decides withoutasking others for input such as opinions or sugges-tions. In AII, a manager gathers the necessary infor-mation from subordinates (with or withoutexplaining the problem at hand), then makes thedecision. CI means sharing the problem with indivi-dual subordinates and considering their ideas andsuggestions and CII involves getting them together asa group and sharing the problem. In both C cases, themanager still decides, and the decision may or maynot reflect subordinates’ opinions. Finally, GIIimplies sharing the problem with subordinates andthat the solution should reflect agreement (consensus)of the group. The manager accepts and implementsany decision the group reaches and does not havemore influence over the final decision than others.

The Vroom and Yetton model predicts that theeffectiveness of these decision procedures dependson several aspects of the situation, including theamount of relevant information held by leader andsubordinates, the likelihood subordinates will acceptan autocratic decision, and the extent to which thedecision problem is unstructured. The model alsoprovides a set of rules that help identify whether adecision procedure in a given situation is inappro-priate (i.e., would it jeopardize decision quality and/or acceptance?). For instance, when subordinatespossess relevant information the leader does nothave, an autocratic decision may not be appropriatebecause the leader would lack relevant informationthat needs to be considered. This model was updatedand extended by Vroom and Jago (1988). Theirrevised version of the model takes some importantaspects of the situation into account that the earliermodel lacks (e.g., serious time constraints and geo-graphical dispersion of subordinates). The modelcan be considered normative in the sense that it pre-scribes ‘rules’ for leaders to follow in order to makethe best decisions under different circumstances.There is some empirical support for the model; how-ever, it deals with a relatively small part of leader-ship and also has some conceptual weaknesses (seeYukl, 1998 for an overview).

Path–Goal TheoryThe most influential and complete contingencytheory to date is probably House’s path–goal theory

of leadership (House, 1971; House & Mitchell,1974). This dyadic theory of supervision describeshow formally appointed superiors affect the moti-vation and satisfaction of subordinates (House,1996). House and Mitchell advanced two generalpropositions: (1) leader behavior is acceptable andsatisfying to subordinates to the extent that subordi-nates see such behavior as either an immediatesource of or instrumental to future satisfaction;(2) leader behavior is motivational (i.e., increasesfollower effort) to the extent that such behaviormakes follower need satisfaction contingent oneffective performance and to the extent that suchbehavior complements the environment of subordi-nates by providing guidance, support, and rewardsnecessary for effective performance (1974: 84).Leaders will be effective to the extent that theycomplement the environment in which their subor-dinates work by providing the necessary cognitiveclarifications to ensure that subordinates expectthey can attain work goals (i.e., path–goal clarifyingbehavior), and to the extent that subordinatesexperience intrinsic satisfaction and receive valentrewards as a direct result of attaining those workgoals (i.e., behavior directed toward satisfyingsubordinate needs (House, 1996). House andMitchell (1974) specify four types of leader behav-ior: directive path–goal clarifying behavior, sup-portive leader behavior, participative leaderbehavior, and achievement-oriented behavior.Proposed effects of leader behavior include subor-dinate motivation, satisfaction, and performance.Task and subordinate characteristics are treated asmoderator variables.

Bryman (1992) describes several general prob-lems with path–goal theory. Many of these problemsare shared with the aforementioned Ohio traditionof investigating leadership style (e.g., inconsistentfindings, problems associated with using groupaverage methods of describing leaders, no attentionfor informal leadership, problems with causality andpotential measurement problems). However, accord-ing to Evans (1996) the theory has not adequatelybeen tested.

ALTERNATIVE APPROACHESTO STUDYING LEADERSHIP

The general dissatisfaction and pessimism thatarose from the inconsistent research findings onthe different contingency models stimulated severalresearchers to search for more or less radical‘remedies’ to revive leadership theory. Smith andPeterson (1988) list five such remedies:

(1) Replace leader style measures by measures ofreward and punishment.

(2) Differentiate between subordinates.


(3) Review the circumstances which call forleadership.

(4) Examine leaders’ perceptions of subordinates.(5) Reexamine the basis of subordinates’ percep-

tions of leaders.

A sixth that can be added to these is focusing onthe use of power and influence tactics rather thanon ‘leadership’ (e.g., Yukl & Falbe, 1990). These‘remedies’ reflect three broad developments. First,the tendency to relate the study of leadership totheoretical developments in other areas of social,cognitive, and organizational psychology as well asto those in other social sciences. Second, to paymore attention to the role of cognition and percep-tions of those (both leaders and subordinates) understudy. Third, to use greater control through moresophisticated statistical techniques and differentmethodologies, including experiments (Smith &Peterson, 1988).

Reward and Punishment

The first of the five remedies listed above focuseson leader reward and punishment. The analyses ofleader’s use of reward and punishment rather thanleadership style developed from the application ofconditioning and cognitive–behavioral models (seePodsakoff, 1982). Podsakoff, Todor and Skov (1982)found that leaders rewarding good performance hadsubordinates who performed better and were moresatisfied than other subordinates. This did not holdfor leaders rewarding regardless of performance orpunishing leaders (see Smith & Peterson, 1988).

Differentiating Between Subordinates

The second remedy mentioned above focuses ondifferentiating between subordinates. Researchersin the leadership field tend to use group averagescores rather than individual perceptions as indi-cations for leadership style. This means treatingindividual followers and their relationship with theleader as interchangeable. The different exchangethat leaders can develop with different individualsubordinates is the focus of the work of Graen andcolleagues (Graen & Cashman, 1975; Graen &Scandura, 1987; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). VerticalDyad Linkage and Leader–Member Exchange(LMX) focus on the dyadic exchange between leaderand subordinate. The general point of the approachby Graen and colleagues is that leaders differentiatebetween subordinates and that group average per-ceptions are not necessarily the best reflection ofleader behavior. So far, this work does not answerwhat the basis is for the differentiations leaders make.In their review of this approach, Graen and Uhl-Bien(1995) place the questions raised in the LMX tradi-tion in the relation-based domain of leadership.

When Do We Need Leadership?

Reviewing the circumstances that do or do notcall for leadership is the basis of the substitutes forleadership approach. This is the third remedy listedabove. Essentially the substitutes for leadershipmodel posits that there are a variety of situationalvariables that can substitute for, neutralize, orenhance the effects of leader behavior. Proposedvariables include subordinate characteristics (e.g.,experience, ability), task characteristics (e.g., a rou-tine task, feedback provided by task) and organiza-tional characteristics (e.g., a cohesive work group).Such variables can diminish or amplify the leader’sability to influence subordinates’ attitudes, behav-ior, or performance (Howell, Dorfman & Kerr,1986; Kerr & Jermier, 1978). The intuitive appealof this approach is considerable and the model cannowadays be found in most textbooks on leadershipand organizational behavior (e.g., Hughes, Ginnett &Curphy, 1999; Navahandi, 2000). However, theempirical support for the substitutes for leadershipmodel (testing whether substitutes moderate rela-tionships between leader behavior and subordinateoutcome/criterion variables) has not been encourag-ing (e.g., Howell & Dorfman, 1981).

Podsakoff, MacKenzie and Bommer (1996) pre-sent a meta-analysis of the relationships betweensubstitutes for leadership and employee attitudes,role perceptions, and performance. Their maineffects test (i.e., not a moderator analysis) showsthat the combination of substitutes and leaderbehavior accounted for the majority of variance inattitudes and role perceptions and for some of thevariance in performance. The results indicate that insome cases the unique effects of the ‘substitutes’ onthe outcomes are even stronger than the uniqueeffects of the leadership behaviors. This impliesthat even though the model does not hold, the ‘sub-stitutes’ themselves are important to consider inorganizational research. More theoretical andempirical work on these issues is necessary.

De Vries, Roe and Taillieu (1999) focus on the‘need for leadership’ as a characteristic of subordi-nates. As such they use a more follower-centeredapproach of leadership (see, e.g., Hollander &Offermann, 1990). The need for leadership reflectsthe extent to which an employee wishes the leaderto facilitate the paths towards goals. De Vries et al.(1999) show that the need for leadership moderatesthe relationship between charismatic leadership andseveral outcomes.

The Role of Perception

The next two remedies focus on leader and sub-ordinate perceptions. When researching how leadersperceive subordinates, leaders are seen as systemsprocessing information about their subordinates.


On basis of that information, leaders then choosea strategy to influence a subordinate’s behavior inthe desired direction (Smith & Peterson, 1988).Attribution plays a major role. To what do leadersattribute the cause of subordinates’ performance?Leaders can attribute performance (good or bad)either to subordinates themselves or to the circum-stances. Bad performance could, for instance, becaused either by subordinates’ incompetence or weakeffort, or by unforeseen circumstances. Researchshows that leaders tend to attribute failure to subor-dinates and success to themselves. Attributing fail-ure to a subordinate is done most when the focalsubordinate performs worse than others and whenthat subordinate has failed before on a similar task(Green & Mitchell, 1979). Below, subordinate per-ceptions of leaders will be described in more detail.

Leader PerceptionBeing perceived as a leader acts as a prerequisite forbeing able to go beyond a formal role in influencingothers (Lord & Maher, 1991). Thus, perceptualprocesses on the part of followers play a crucial rolein the leadership process as well as in researchingleadership.

Most people are confronted with leadership almostdaily, either in their job or through the media. Assuch, those people have (often implicit) ideas aboutwhat kind of characteristics leaders should have orshould not have and what leaders should or shouldnot do. An individual’s implicit leadership theoryrefers to beliefs held about how leaders behavein general and what is expected of them (Eden &Leviatan, 1975). ‘Implicit theories are cognitiveframeworks or categorization systems that are in useduring information processing to encode, processand recall specific events and behavior. An implicittheory can also be conceived as the personalizedfactor structure we use for information processing’(Bass, 1990a: 375–6). Implicit leadership theories(ILTs) are seen as personal constructs used to makejudgments about leadership (Korukonda & Hunt,1989). ‘While leadership perceptions may not bereality, they are used by perceivers to evaluate andsubsequently distinguish leaders from non-leaders.They also provide a basis for social power and influ-ence’ (Lord & Maher, 1991: 98). ILTs have beenused in attempts to explain leadership attributions andperceptions (e.g., Lord, Foti & Phillips, 1982; Lord,Foti & De Vader, 1984; Offermann, Kennedy &Wirtz, 1994). Furthermore, ILTs have been shown tobe a possible bias in the measurement of actual leaderbehavior (e.g., Gioia & Sims, 1985).

Leadership perceptions can, according to Lord andMaher (1991), be based on two alternative processes.First, leadership can be recognized based on the fitbetween an observed person’s characteristics withthe perceiver’s implicit ideas of what ‘leaders’ are(ILTs). This type of process is tied closely to cate-gorization theory (see Rosch, 1978). Lord and his

colleagues (1982, 1984) applied the principles ofcategorization to the field of leadership. Theydeveloped a theory on how leader perceptions areformed, focusing on the knowledge structures usedto classify leaders and the actual informationprocesses used in forming and evaluating leadershipperceptions. Leadership perceptions are based oncognitive categorization processes in which per-ceivers match the perceived attributes of potentialleaders they observe to an internal prototype ofleadership categories (Foti & Luch, 1992). A proto-type can be conceived as a collection of characteris-tic traits or attributes and the better the fit betweenthe perceived individual and the leadership proto-type, the more likely this person will be seen as aleader (Offermann et al., 1994; Foti & Luch, 1992).

Alternatively, leadership can be inferred fromoutcomes of salient events. Attribution processesare crucial in these inference-based processes(Lord & Maher, 1991). A successful business‘turnaround’ is often quickly attributed to the high-quality ‘leadership’ of top executives or the CEO.Another example of such an inference-based processis that attributions of charisma to leaders are morelikely when organizational performance is high(Shamir, 1992). In such cases charismatic leadershipis inferred from business success. In Meindl’s‘romance of leadership’ approach, inference-basedprocesses (leadership is inferred from good results)are central to the conception of leadership (Meindl,Ehrlich & Dukerich, 1985; Meindl, 1990).

Power and Influence

As Yukl (1998) notes, influence over followers is theessence of leadership. As such, the research by Yukland associates on power and influence processes canbe seen as an alternative way to study leadership.

Power can stem from different sources. In theirwell-known taxonomy, French and Raven (1959)describe five sources of power, namely rewardpower, coercive power, legitimate, referent, andexpert power. However, these five are not complete,for instance, access to and control over informationalso acts as an important source of power (Pettigrew,1972; Heller, Drenth, Koopman & Rus, 1988). Bass(1960) distinguishes between position power andpersonal power. Position power includes formalauthority, control over punishments, rewards, andinformation, and ecological control. The latter refersto having control over the physical environment,technology, and organization of work. Personalpower is derived from one’s relationship to othersrather than one’s position in the hierarchy. Potentialinfluence based on expertise, friendship, and loyaltycan be seen as personal power. Research by Yukl andFalbe (1991) has shown these two types of powerare relatively independent. Political processes inorganizations involve members’ efforts to increaseor protect their power (Pfeffer, 1981). Contributing


to such political power are: having control over keydecisions, forming coalitions, cooptation, andinstitutionalization (Yukl, 1998).

Influence TacticsSeveral studies have looked at influence tactics(e.g., Erez, Rim & Keider, 1986; Kipnis, Schmidt &Wilkinson, 1980; Yukl & Falbe, 1990; Yukl &Tracey, 1992). Yukl and his colleagues identifiednine proactive influence tactics (see Yukl & Falbe,1990; Yukl, 1998). The first is pressure. Threats,requests, persistent reminding or frequent checkingare used to influence the target in the desireddirection. The agent can also use exchange. Thisinvolves offering an exchange of goods/services,promises to return the favor later or promising thetarget a share in the benefits if the target complieswith the request. When using coalition tactics, theagent enlists the aid of a third party to persuade thetarget to do something, or uses the support of othersas a reason for the target to agree also. The agentcan also resort to legitimating tactics. This involvestrying to legitimate a request by claiming theauthority or right to make it or by verifying andstressing that it is in accordance with organizationalpolicies, rules, or traditions. Agents using rationalpersuasion use rational arguments and facts to con-vince the target that a request is reasonable andviable, and that it is likely to result in the attainmentof the objectives. Another tactic is inspirationalappeals: the agent makes a request or proposessomething that arouses the target’s interest andenthusiasm by appealing to his or her values, ideals,and aspirations or by increasing target self-confidence. The next tactic Yukl and associatesdistinguish is consultation. The agent asks the par-ticipation of the target in planning a strategy, acti-vity, or change that requires target support andassistance, or is willing to modify a proposal toincorporate target suggestions. Ingratiation involvesthe agent using flattery, praise, or friendly behaviorto get the target in a good mood or think favorablyof the agent before making a request. Finally, agentscan use personal appeals to the target’s feelings offriendship and loyalty when asking for something.

The influence tactics are used in different direc-tions, i.e., not only do managers try to influencesubordinates, but these tactics are also used viceversa and to influence peers. Research shows thatinspirational appeals, consultation, ingratiation,exchange, legitimating, and pressure are used moredownward (i.e., to influence subordinates) thanupward (i.e., to influence superiors) and that ratio-nal persuasion is used more upward than downward(Yukl & Falbe, 1990; Yukl, Falbe & Youn, 1993;Yukl & Tracey, 1992). There are also differencesin sequencing of tactics within a prolonged influ-ence attempt. ‘Softer’ tactics such as personal andinspirational appeals, rational persuasion, and con-sultation are used early on, and ‘harder’ tactics such

as pressure, exchange and coalitions are more likelyto be used later (if the earlier tactics fail), as theyinvolve greater costs and risks (Yukl et al., 1993;Yukl, 1998). Agents may also use a combination oftactics at the same time. Falbe and Yukl (1992)found that some combinations are more effectivethan others. For instance, combinations of soft tacticssuch as consultation, and inspirational and personalappeals, were usually more effective than using asingle soft tactic. In contrast, combining soft tacticswith a harder tactics such as pressure was usuallyless successful than using a soft tactic alone. Finally,the effectiveness of soft tactics was enhanced bycombining them with rational persuasion.

THE ‘NEW’ LEADERSHIP

From the early 1980s onward a renewed interest inthe concept of leadership itself arose in both scien-tific and professional fields. Meindl (1990) notesthat this resurgence of interest appears to be accom-panied by an acceptance of the distinction betweentransactional and transformational leadership, withan emphasis on the latter. Quinn (1988) comparestransactional and transformational leadership withother differentiations in leadership such as relations-oriented–task-oriented leadership (Fiedler, 1967),consideration–initiating structure (Korman, 1966),and directive–participative or autocratic–democraticleadership (Heller & Yukl, 1969). However, Bass(1990b) claims that the transactional-transforma-tional model is a new paradigm, neither replacingnor explained by other models such as the relations-oriented–task–oriented leadership model. Bryman(1992) refers to this new ‘paradigm’ as ‘the newleadership’ approach.1

Terms used to describe these ‘new leaders’include: transformational, charismatic, ‘leaders’ (asopposed to managers), transforming, inspirational,visionary, or value-based. Despite the broad arrayof terms used by different authors within thisapproach, there seem to be more similarities thandifferences between these views of the phenomenonof leadership. In literature the terms ‘transforma-tional’ and ‘charismatic’ leadership are the mostoften used terms to refer to this type of leadership(e.g., Hunt, 1999).

The theories attempt to explain how certainleaders are able to achieve extraordinary levels offollower motivation, admiration, commitment,respect, trust, dedication, loyalty, and performance.They also try to explain how some of these leaderssucceed to lead their organizations or units to attainoutstanding accomplishments, such as the foundingand growing of successful entrepreneurial firms orcorporate turnarounds (House, Delbecq & Taris,1998). Comparing House’s path–goal theory withhis 1976 charismatic theory one could say that


path–goal theory focuses on how follower needsand conditions determine leader behavior, whereascharismatic theory is about how leaders changepeople rather than respond to them (House, 1996).Another difference is that where in path–goaltheory leaders are effective when they complementthe environment, the new leadership focuses moreon changing and creating the environment.

The Concept of Charisma

Most writers concerned with charisma begin theirdiscussion with Max Weber’s ideas. Charismaappears in his work on the origins of authority(Weber, 1947). Weber’s charisma concept includesan exceptional leader, a (crisis) situation, theleader’s vision or mission presenting a solution tothe crisis, followers who are attracted to the leaderand the vision, and validation of the charismaticqualities of the leader through repeated success(Trice & Beyer, 1986). These five components arepresent to some extent in almost all theories oncharisma. The theories differ in how the compo-nents are operationalized and in which componentis seen as the most important (Den Hartog,Koopman & Van Muijen, 1995).

Charisma as a Personal Attributeor a Social Relationship?

One of the most common views is that charismais something that people ‘have’ or ‘do not have,’ atrait standpoint. There is an undeniable personalfactor in the charismatic leadership. Such leadersare viewed by their followers as being special.Rather than treating charisma itself as a personalitytrait, most authors have attempted to distinguishpersonal factors associated with charismatic leader-ship. Examples of personal factors that have beennamed as potentially important in acquiring andmaintaining charisma are: physical characteristics,such as a handsome appearance, piercing eyes, anddistinct voice (Willner, 1984; Bryman, 1992).Psychological leader characteristics, such as highenergy and self-confidence, dominance and a strongneed for power, and a strong conviction in their ownbeliefs and ideals (e.g., House, 1977; House,Woycke & Fodor, 1988; House & Howell, 1992).Turner (1993) names audacity and determination ascrucial personal qualities of leaders. Finally, abilitycharacteristics, such as intelligence and inter-personal skills (Locke, 1991) as well as the leader’seloquence or rhetorical skills (e.g., Willner, 1984;Atkinson, 1984; Den Hartog & Verburg, 1997).

Exclusively defining charisma as a personalattribute or skill does not do justice to reciprocity ofthe relationship between leader and follower. Weberconceptualized charisma as a naturally fragile andunstable social relationship between leader andfollower, in constant need of validation. Following

from Weber’s writings, leader characteristics,behavior, and mission, followers’ attribution ofcharisma, the situation, and the validation of charismaall play a role in a complex social relationship. Thissocial relationship perspective does not imply thatthe idea of the leader as an exceptional person andthe personal factors described above are not impor-tant; on the contrary, they are an important part ofthe relationship.

Although the emphasis is traditionally on theinfluence leaders have on followers, some authorsemphasize that both followers and leaders are influ-enced by leadership processes. Burns (1978), forinstance, conceptualizes transforming leadership asa two-way process; transforming leadership ‘raisesthe level of human conduct and ethical aspiration ofboth the leader and the led, and thus it has a trans-forming effect on both’ (p. 20).

Charismatic Leadershipand Organizational Behavior

A first major application of charisma to the studyof formal organizations can be found in House(1977), whose theory combines personal traits,leader behavior, and situational factors. Accordingto House, four personal characteristics of the leadercontribute to charismatic leadership: dominance,self-confidence, need for influence, and a strongconviction of the integrity of one’s own beliefs.Charismatic leaders represent their values andbeliefs through role modeling. To create a favorableperception with followers they can engage in imagebuilding and express ideological goals (a mission).They communicate high expectations of followersand show confidence in followers’ ability to live upto those expectations. And, according to House,charismatic leaders are more likely than noncharis-matic leaders to arouse motives (e.g., need forachievement) in followers that are relevant toattaining the mission. House assumes charismaticleadership is more likely to arise in stressful situa-tions. A sense of crisis makes the attribution ofcharisma more likely. House (1977) specifies thefollowing effects of such leadership: follower trustin the correctness of the leader’s beliefs, similarityof followers’ beliefs to those of the leader, unques-tioning acceptance of and willing obedience to theleader, identification with and emulation of theleader, emotional involvement of the follower inthe mission, heightened goals of the follower, and afeeling on the part of followers that they will be ableto contribute to the accomplishment of the mission.

Charisma and Attribution Several attribution-based explanations of charis-matic leadership can be found in the literature. Themost ‘drastic’ dismisses charisma as mere attribu-tion, virtually unrelated to leader characteristics orbehavior. Meindl (1990) speaks of charisma as a


social contagion process. According to the socialcontagion view, charismatic elements of leader–follower relations are a function of processes occur-ring within the context of lateral relationships thatdevelop among followers and subordinates them-selves. The attribution and effects of charisma ori-ginate from the group, not from the leader and inthat light, leaders are seen as largely interchangeable.The social contagion process is instigated by condi-tions causing stress or arousing excitement, whichcan be channeled and defined in terms of leadershipand charisma and set in motion a social contagionprocess among followers.

A less radical example of an attribution-basedexplanation of charisma is the charismatic influencemodel developed by Conger and Kanungo (1987,1988). In this model the basis for follower attribu-tions of charisma is the leader’s observed behavior,which can be interpreted as expressing charismaticqualities. According to Conger and Kanungo,charismatic leaders can be distinguished from non-charismatic leaders, by:

(1) their sensitivity to environmental constraintsand follower needs and their ability to identifydeficiencies in the status quo;

(2) their formulation of an idealized vision andextensive use of articulation and impressionmanagement skills;

(3) their use of innovative and unconventionalmeans for achieving their vision and their useof personal power to influence followers.

Charismatic leadership is seen as (partly) attri-butional by most authors. Leaders must not onlydisplay certain characteristics, but must also beperceived as charismatic. According to Bass andAvolio (1990), transformational leaders (see below)are likely to become charismatic in the eyes of theirfollowers. This seems to imply that charisma is notseen as a type of leader behavior, but as an attribu-tion of followers, in other words a ‘product’ ratherthan a component of transformational leadership.Attributed charisma has been shown to be (in part)a function of the leader’s prior success in reachinghard goals and accomplishing outstanding feats ofperformance. As stated, Shamir (1992) has shownthat performance outcomes affect the attribution ofinfluence and charisma to the leader.

Charisma and the Self-ConceptRather than influencing by affecting the taskenvironment of followers or using material incen-tives or threat of punishment, Shamir, House andArthur (1993) state that charismatic leadership isseen as giving meaningfulness to work by infusingwork and organizations with moral purpose andcommitment. Their self-concept-based explanationof charisma proposes that ‘charismatic leadershipachieves its effects by implicating the self-concept

of followers and recruiting their self expressivemotivation’ (Shamir, 1991: 90–1). Thus, leaderbehavior is linked with follower effects throughfollower self-concepts.

The focus of this explanation of charisma is onthe qualitative changes in follower’s motivationthat Burns (1978) and Bass (1985) describe, namelya strong internalization of the leader’s values andgoals, a strong personal or moral (as opposed tocalculative) commitment to these values and goalsand a tendency to transcend their own self-interests.Based on several assumptions about the self-concept,Shamir et al. (1993) describe several processes bywhich charismatic leaders have their transforma-tional and motivational effect on followers. Leadersincrease the intrinsic value of effort and goal accom-plishment by linking them to valued aspects of theself-concept, thus harnessing the motivationalforces of self-expression, self-consistency, specificmission-related self-efficacy, generalized self-esteem, and self-worth. Leaders also enhanceself-efficacy, self-esteem, and collective efficacythrough positive evaluations, expressions of confi-dence, higher expectations, and emphasizing theindividual follower’s ties to the collective. Thus thetheory comprises four main parts: leader behaviors,effects on followers’ self-concepts, further effects onfollowers, and the motivational processes by whichthe leader behaviors produce the charismatic effects.

Different Types of ‘Charisma’? The term charismatic has been applied to verydiverse leaders in political arenas, religious spheres,social movements, and business organizations(Howell, 1988). A question raised by the wide-spread application of the term charisma is whetherdifferent types of charisma should be defined.Howell (1988), for example, differentiates betweenpersonalized and socialized charismatic leaders.Socialized charismatic leadership is based on egali-tarian behavior, serves collective interests, anddevelops and empowers others. Personalized charis-matic leadership is based on personal dominance,and narcissistic and authoritarian behavior, serves theleader’s self-interest, and is exploitative of others.Similarly, Conger (1990) distinguishes negativefrom positive charismatic leaders. A different typeof distinction is made by Etzioni (1961) andHollander (1978). They hold that charisma can bea property of one’s office (a position providingcelebrity status) and/or of one’s person.

A third way of distinguishing types of charismahas to do with the idea of social or psychologicaldistance between leader and follower. Katz and Kahn(1978) state that charisma requires some psycho-logical distance between leader and follower. Theday-to-day intimacy of organization members andtheir immediate supervisors destroys the illusionneeded in the charismatic relationship. They hold


that charisma is only appropriate in the top echelonof the organization. A leader in the topechelon would be sufficiently distant from mostorganization members to make a simplified andalmost magical image possible. Others (e.g., Bass,1985; Conger & Kanungo, 1987) assume thatcharisma is common at all levels of the organization.A third position would be that charismatic leader-ship may be found at different levels, and in both asituation of close and distant leadership, but thatrelevant characteristics and behaviors as well as theireffects are different for close and distant leaders.In other words, one can distinguish ‘close’ from‘distant’ charismatic leadership (see Shamir, 1995).

Transactional and TransformationalLeadership

Burns (1978) argues that transactional leadershipentails an exchange between leader and follower.Followers receive certain valued outcomes (e.g.,wages, prestige) when they act according to theleader’s wishes. According to Burns the exchangecan be economic, political, or psychological innature. Bass (1985) notes that leadership in (organi-zational) research has generally been conceptualizedas a cost–benefit exchange process. Such transac-tional leadership theories are founded on the ideathat leader–follower relations are based on a seriesof exchanges or implicit bargains between leadersand followers. House et al. (1988) hold that the gen-eral notion in these theories is that whenthe job and the environment of the follower fail toprovide the necessary motivation, direction, andsatisfaction, the leader, through his or her behavior,will be effective by compensating for the deficien-cies. The leader clarifies the performance criteria, inother words what he expects from subordinates, andwhat they receive in return. Several transactionaltheories have been tested extensively and somehave received empirical support. Examples are theaforementioned path–goal theory and vertical dyadtheory.

Transformational LeadershipTransformational leadership goes beyond thecost–benefit exchange of transactional leadershipby motivating and inspiring followers to performbeyond expectations (Bass, 1985). Transformationalleadership theories predict followers’ emotionalattachment to the organization and emotional andmotivational arousal of followers as a consequenceof the leader’s behavior (House et al., 1988). Haterand Bass state: ‘The dynamics of transformationalleadership involve strong personal identificationwith the leader, joining in a shared vision of thefuture, or going beyond the self-interest exchangeof rewards for compliance’ (1988: 695). Trans-formational leaders broaden and elevate the interests

of followers, generate awareness and acceptanceamong the followers of the purposes and mission ofthe group, and motivate followers to go beyond theirself-interests for the good of the group. Tichy andDevanna (1990) highlight the transforming effectthese leaders can have on organizations as well ason individuals. By defining the need for change,creating new visions, and mobilizing commitmentto these visions, leaders can ultimately transformthe organization. According to Bass (1985) suchtransformation of followers can be achieved by rais-ing the awareness of the importance and value ofdesigned outcomes, getting followers to transcendtheir own self-interests and altering or expandingfollowers’ needs.

Contrasting transactional and transformationalleadership does not mean the models are unrelated.Bass (1985) views these as separate dimensions,which would imply that a leader can be both trans-actional and transformational. He argues that trans-formational leadership builds on transactionalleadership but not vice versa. Transformationalleadership can be viewed as a special case of trans-actional leadership, in as much as both approachesare linked to the achievement of some goal or objec-tive. The models differ on the process by which theleader motivates subordinates and the types of goalsset (Hater & Bass, 1988).

Specific BehaviorsBass (1985, 1997) defines both transactional andtransformational leadership as comprising severaldimensions. Transactional leadership has two dimen-sions. The first dimension is contingent reward. Theleader rewards followers for attaining the specifiedperformance levels. Reward is contingent on effortexpended and performance level achieved. Thesecond type of transactional leadership is (active)management by exception. When practicing man-agement by exception a leader only takes actionwhen things go wrong and standards are not met.Leaders avoid giving directions if the old wayswork and allow followers to continue doing theirjobs as always, as long as performance goals aremet (e.g., Hater & Bass, 1988). A leader activelyseeks deviations from standard procedures andtakes action when irregularities occur.

Transformational leadership has four dimensions.The first dimension is charisma. The charismaticleader provides vision and a sense of mission,instills pride, gains respect and trust, and increasesoptimism (Bass, 1985). Charismatic leaders excite,arouse, and inspire their subordinates. According toBass (1990a) attaining charisma in the eyes of one’semployees is central to succeeding as a transforma-tional leader. This dimension is sometimes referredto as idealized influence. The second dimension oftransformational leadership is inspiration. Bass(1985) originally conceptualized inspiration as asubfactor within charisma. Inspiration describes a


leader’s capacity to act as a model for subordinates,the communication of a vision and the use ofsymbols to focus efforts. The third dimension isindividual consideration. While a leader’s charismamay attract subordinates to a vision or mission, theleader’s use of individualized consideration alsosignificantly contributes to a subordinate achievinghis/her fullest potential (Yammarino & Bass, 1990).Individual consideration is in part coaching andmentoring, it provides for continuous feedback andlinks the individual’s current needs to the organiza-tion’s mission (Bass, 1985). Some feel that indivi-dualized consideration is similar to the Ohio Statenotion of consideration (Hunt, 1991; Bryman, 1992).Bass and Avolio, however, state that the two arerelated, but that individualized consideration buildson two aspects of behavior, i.e., individualizationand development of followers, where as earlierscales measuring consideration were primarily con-cerned with whether a leader was seen a ‘good guyor gal’ or not (1993: 63). The last dimension oftransformational leadership is intellectual stimula-tion. An intellectually stimulating leader providessubordinates with a flow of challenging new ideasto stimulate rethinking of old ways of doing things(Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1990). It arouses anawareness of problems, of subordinates’ ownthoughts and imagination, and a recognition of theirbeliefs and values. Intellectual stimulation is evi-denced by subordinates’ conceptualization, compre-hension, and analysis of the problems they face andthe solutions generated (Yammarino & Bass, 1990).

Other authors have included several other dimen-sions of this type of leadership, for instance, vision,demonstrating trust in subordinates, role model-ing, and expressing high performance expecta-tions (e.g., House, 1996; Podsakoff, MacKenzie,Moorman & Fetter, 1990).

Outcomes of Transformational/Charismatic Leadership

Conger and Kanungo (1988) observe there isconsensus among authors on the following effectsof charismatic leaders on followers: high attach-ment to and trust in the leader, willing obedience tothe leader, heightened performance and motivation,greater group cohesion in terms of shared beliefsand low intragroup conflict and a sense of empower-ment. Other often-mentioned follower outcomes arecommitment to the organization’s goals, perceivedleader effectiveness and follower’s satisfaction withthe leader (Den Hartog et al., 1995).

In general, charismatic/transformational leader-ship is expected to lead to more positive effects onsubordinates than transactional leadership. Bass andassociates find a consistent pattern of relationshipsbetween his leadership measures and the outcomeand performance measures, with transformationalleadership and the outcomes being highly positively

correlated and transactional leadership and theoutcomes less so (Bass, 1997). Self-reports of extraeffort, satisfaction with the leader, and perceivedleader effectiveness were often used as dependentvariables early on (e.g., Bass, Avolio & Atwater,1996; Bryman, 1992). However, many other ‘out-comes’ have been studied, including: trust in theleader (e.g., Podsakoff et al., 1990; 1996); trust inmanagement and colleagues (Den Hartog, 1997);organizational commitment (e.g., Den Hartog,1997; Koh, Steers & Terborg, 1995; Podsakoffet al., 1996); leader performance (e.g., Yammarino,Spangler & Bass, 1993), business unit performance(e.g., Howell & Avolio, 1993); subordinate/workgroup performance (e.g., Howell & Frost, 1989);and organizational citizenship behaviors (Podsakoffet al., 1990; Koh et al., 1995).

The results of a comprehensive meta-analysis byLowe, Kroeck & Sivasubramaniam (1996) indicatethat transformational leadership scales reliably pre-dict work unit effectiveness, both for subordinateperceptions (.80) and for (objective) organizationalmeasures of effectiveness (.35). According to Loweet al. (1996) subordinate ratings of effectiveness areprobably inflated as raters would probably strive forconsistency across independent and dependent vari-ables. Again, logical distance is questionable. Onthe other hand, organizational measures are likelyto be attenuated as they narrow the perspective ofperformance to a single measured criterion (finan-cial indicators, percentage of goals met), rather thaninclude the constellation of outcomes that wouldcontribute to subordinate perceptions of leadereffectiveness (e.g., individual development, organi-zational learning, more ethical principles). Loweet al. (1996) found that transformational leader-ship consistently showed higher associationswith effectiveness than transactional leadership.Against expectations, they also found that effectsizes were larger in public rather than privateorganizations and for lower- rather than higher-level leaders.

Possible Negative EffectsHouse and Singh (1987) conclude that charismaticand transformational leaders profoundly influencefollower effort, performance and affective responsestoward them. Thus, charismatic leaders can have aconsiderable influence on organizations; however,these consequences are not necessarily beneficial.The possible negative effects are sometimes referredto as ‘the dark side of charisma.’ Possible negativeeffects in organizations include poor interpersonalrelationships, negative consequences of impulsive,unconventional behavior, negative consequences ofimpression management, poor administrative prac-tices, negative consequences of self-confidence,and failure to plan for succession (Conger, 1990;Yukl, 1998). Charismatic leadership, by reducing


in-group criticism and increasing unquestioningobedience could also have negative effects on groupdecision making (groupthink, Janis, 1982). Althoughtransformational or socialized charismatic leadersare able to empower and develop followers, De Vrieset al. (1999) find a positive relationship betweencharismatic leadership and the need for leadership.This suggests that subordinates are more rather thanless ‘dependent’ when a charismatic leader ispresent. Such increased dependency on leaders maynot always be beneficial to organizations.

CROSS-CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES:LEADERSHIP AROUND THE WORLD

Different cultural groups may have a differentconception of what leadership should entail (Bass,1990a; Hofstede, 1993). And, following from thesedifferent conceptions, the evaluation and meaningof many leader behaviors and characteristics mayalso strongly vary in different cultures. For instance,in a culture which endorses an authoritarian style,leader sensitivity might be interpreted as weak,whereas in cultures endorsing a more nurturing style,sensitivity is a prerequisite to be seen as a leader(Den Hartog et al., 1999).

Most research on leadership during the pasthalf-century was conducted in the United States,Canada, and Western Europe. If research is con-ducted elsewhere, leadership theories and question-naires developed in the USA are often translatedand used abroad without much adaptation. Anexample is Bass and Avolio’s (1990) MultifactorLeadership Questionnaire (MLQ). Besides in theUSA and Canada, the MLQ is used in countries asdiverse as Japan (Yokochi, 1989, reported in Bass,1990a), New Zealand (Singer & Singer, 1990),Taiwan and Mexico (Dorfman & Howell, 1988),the Netherlands (Den Hartog, Van Muijen &Koopman, 1997), Austria (Geyer & Steyrer, 1998),and Belgium (Lievens, Van Geit & Coetsier, 1997).

However, the applicability of certain conceptsand ways to measure these in a non-US contextshould not be taken for granted (e.g., Boyacigiller &Adler, 1991). Hofstede (1993: 81) states: ‘In aGlobal perspective, US management theories con-tain a number of idiosyncrasies not necessarilyshared by management elsewhere. Three suchidiosyncrasies are mentioned: A stress on marketprocesses, a stress on the individual and a focus onmanagers rather than workers.’ Similarly, House(1995) notes that almost all prevailing theories ofleadership and most empirical evidence is ratherNorth American in character, that is, ‘individualisticrather than collectivistic; emphasizing assumptionsof rationality rather than ascetics, religion, or super-stition; stated in terms of individual rather thangroup incentives, stressing follower responsibilities

rather than rights; assuming hedonistic rather thanaltruistic motivation and assuming centrality ofwork and democratic value orientation’ (1995: 443).House also notes that much cross-cultural psycho-logical, sociological, and anthropological researchshows that there are many cultures that do not sharethese assumptions. ‘As a result there is a growingawareness of need for a better understanding ofthe way in which leadership is enacted in variouscultures and a need for an empirically groundedtheory to explain differential leader behavior andeffectiveness across cultures’ (1995: 443–4, see alsoBoyacigiller & Adler, 1991; House et al., 1997).Kanungo and Mendonca (1996), for instance,describe how demands for leadership in developingcountries differ from those placed on leaders in theUSA. They examine the ‘culture fit’ of four distinctleader roles – task, social, participative andcharismatic – relative to the sociocultural character-istics of developing countries and the internal workcultures of such countries. The impact of culturalcontingencies on these four leader roles is described.Kanungo and Mendonca (1996) argue that organiza-tional change is needed in such countries, rather thanmaintaining the status quo. As a result they see thecharismatic leadership role as critical for organiza-tions in developing countries. More theory develop-ment and testing is clearly needed in this area.

Studying Leadership Across Cultures

An increasing body of literature (including some ofthe aforementioned studies) deals with comparisonsof leadership dimensions, behaviors or preferencesacross cultures (e.g., House et al., 1997; Peterson &Hunt, 1997; Dorfman, Howell, Hibino, Lee, Tate &Bautista, 1997). Still, much research to date hasbeen limited in scope, usually comparing leadersand leader effectiveness in two or three countries.An interesting example of studying cross culturalaspects of leadership in a more elaborate project(involving over 25 countries) is found in the ongoingwork on the event management model proposed bySmith and Peterson (1988). In this model ‘leader-ship which contributes to effective event manage-ment can be defined ‘as actions by a person whichhandle organizational problems as expressed in theevents faced by others’ (Smith & Peterson, 1988:80). The event management model presents ananalysis of role relationships putting the roleof leaders in the context of other sources of mean-ing. In handling events, managers can use differentsources of information and meaning (e.g., rules,national norms, superiors, peers, subordinates).Smith, Peterson and Misumi (1994) show that man-agers in high power distance countries (i.e., coun-tries where a high degree of inequality amongpeople is considered normal by the population,cf. Hofstede, 1991) report more use of rules and


procedures than do managers from low powerdistance countries.

Leader Prototypes

Several studies have focused on culture-baseddifferences in leadership prototypes or implicittheories of leadership. As described above, implicitleadership theory (ILT) has been found to be apotent force in answering questions on leaderbehavior in the USA. Bryman (1987) conducted astudy into the generalizability of implicit leadershiptheory and found strong support for the operation ofimplicit theories of leadership in Great Britain.Gerstner and Day (1994) performed a study focus-ing on a cross-cultural comparison of leadershipprototypes. Respondents filled out a questionnaire(developed and tested only in the USA) which asksrespondents to assign prototypicality ratings to 59attributes relevant to (business) leadership. Theycompared these prototypicality ratings from asample of American students (n = 35) to smallsamples (n = between 10 and 22) of students fromseven countries outside the United States (who onaverage had been living in the United States for2.5 years). They found that the traits considered to bemost (as well as moderately and least) characteristicof business leaders varied by respondents’ country orculture of origin. This study has obvious limitationsdue to the small sample sizes, using only foreign stu-dents in the sample, and only an English-languagetrait-rating instrument, which has not been cross-culturally validated. However, the reliable differ-ences found in leadership perceptions of members ofvarious countries warrant further examination.

Another example of a study focusing on leader-ship preferences in different countries is the researchby Singer and Singer (1990). Presuming subordi-nates’ leadership preferences mediate the effective-ness of actual leader behavior, they conducted theirstudy in New Zealand and Taiwan and found acommon preference among their respondents fortransformational leadership. This preference has alsobeen found in the United States (Bass & Avolio,1989). According to Bass (1997) such a preferencefor transformational leadership is found across awide range of cultures.

The GLOBE ProjectIncreasing the understanding of culture-baseddifferences in leadership perception is a key issue inthe GLOBE research program. GLOBE is a long-term study directed toward the development ofsystematic knowledge concerning how societal andorganizational cultures affect leadership andorganizational practices (House et al., 1999).Approximately 60 countries from all major regionsof the world participate in GLOBE, making it themost extensive investigation of cross-cultural

aspects of leadership to date. The project wasoriginated by Robert House who has led ‘thecoordinating team’ based in the United States.Besides the coordinating team, approximately 150social scientists (Co-Country Investigators or CCIs)from around the world are responsible for manag-ing the project and collecting data in their respec-tive countries.

The main objectives of the GLOBE study are toanswer questions such as: Are there leader behav-iors that are universally accepted and effectiveacross cultures and are there behaviors that aredifferentially accepted and effective across cultures?The overall hypotheses that are to be tested concernrelationships between societal culture dimensions,organizational culture dimensions and CLTs(culturally endorsed implicit leadership theories) aswell as relationships specified by structural contin-gency theory of organizations (e.g., Donaldson,1995). The information ensuing from this projectwill be useful for understanding how leaders invarious societal and organizational cultures can beeffective and for identifying the constraints imposedon leaders by cultural norms, values, and beliefs(House et al., 1999).

The initial aim of the GLOBE project was todevelop societal and organizational measures ofculture and leadership attributes that are appropriateto use across cultures. This aim was accomplished inthe first phase of the project. The results of two pilotstudies support the reliability and construct validity ofthe questionnaire scales (Hanges et al., under review).

Data collection in the second (hypothesis testing)phase is now completed and the analyses to test thehypotheses are currently being conducted. Over15,000 middle managers from approximately 800organizations in the financial, food and/or tele-communications industries in 60 countries wereasked to describe leader attributes and behavior thatthey perceived to enhance or impede outstandingleadership. Some first results of the GLOBE studyreport which leadership attributes are universallyendorsed as contributing to outstanding leadership,which are universally seen as undesirable, and whichare culturally contingent (Den Hartog et al., 1999).

Contributing to outstanding leadership in allcultures were several attributes reflecting integrity(being trustworthy, just, and honest) Also, an out-standing leader shows many attributes reflectingcharismatic, inspirational, and visionary leadership(an outstanding leader is encouraging, positive, moti-vational, a confidence builder, dynamic, and hasforesight). Team-oriented leadership is also univer-sally seen as important (such a leader is effective inteam building, communicating, and coordinating).Finally, other items that are universally endorsedinclude being excellence oriented, decisive, intelli-gent, and a win–win problem solver (Den Hartoget al., 1999: 240). The GLOBE study also showsthat several attributes are universally viewed as


ineffective or in other words as impediments tooutstanding leadership. These include being a loner,being noncooperative, ruthless, nonexplicit, irri-table, and dictatorial (Den Hartog et al., 1999: 240).

Finally, many leadership attributes were found tobe culturally contingent, i.e., a high positive ratingwas obtained in some and a low or even negativerating in other cultures. For instance, country meansfor the attribute enthusiastic range from 3.72 to 6.44on a seven point scale. Country means for risktaking range from 2.14 to 5.96, for sensitive from1.96 to 6.35, for class-conscious from 2.53–6.09and for autonomous from 1.63–5.17 (see DenHartog et al., 1999: 241, for the complete list).

Regional DifferencesBesides testing the overall ‘global’ hypotheses, theGLOBE data are also suited to look at regionaldifferences. Studies by Brodbeck et al. (2000) andKoopman et al. (1999), for instance, focus on theEuropean results, distinguishing different patterns ofleadership and societal culture in Europe. Generallyspeaking, two broad clusters of cultures were distin-guished in Europe, namely a north/western clusterand a south/eastern cluster. Concerning the culturedimensions, the north/west scored significantlyhigher on dimensions such as achievement orienta-tion, future orientation, and uncertainty avoidance.In contrast, the south/east scored significantly higheron dimensions such as assertiveness and power dis-tance. On gender egalitarianism the combination ofthe Nordic and the central/eastern European coun-tries had a significantly higher score (indicating amore equal treatment of men and women) than theother European countries (e.g., Latin countries). Onmost culture dimensions there is considerable vari-ance within Europe, in other words there is no typi-cal ‘European culture.’

Interesting differences between north/westernEurope and the south/eastern Europe were alsofound on the leadership profiles. South/easternEurope scores higher on administrative competence,being autocratic, a conflict inducer, diplomatic, facesaving, nonparticipative, procedural, self-oriented,and status-conscious. In north/western Europecharacteristics such as being inspiring and havingintegrity are seen as more important (Koopmanet al., 1999). From the perspective of Bass’s (1960)distinction between personal and position power,one might conclude that in the south/east of Europethe importance of position power is emphasized,whereas in the north/west the focus is on the(use of ) personal power.

The GLOBE data can also be used for smallerscale in-depth comparisons between two (or more)countries. This allows for a focused comparison pro-viding more detailed information than the generalstudy that looks at differences at a global level,while being able to rely on the internationally

developed and thoroughly tested questionnaires. Anexample of such a more focused comparison ofnational culture and leader attributes in theNetherlands and Poland, two of the European coun-tries participating in the GLOBE study can be foundin Den Hartog et al. (1997a). This study shows thatDutch respondents value attributes associated withintegrity and inspirational leader behavior morestrongly than Polish respondents. Visionary qualitiesscore high in both countries. Diplomacy and admini-strative skills (being orderly, well-organized, and agood administrator) are considered more importantin Poland. Polish respondents also have a less nega-tive attitude towards autocratic leader behavior andstatus consciousness than the Dutch managers.

Enacting Leadership BehaviorsThe GLOBE results show a ‘universal’ preference forcertain leadership attributes. However, this does notmean such attributes will be enacted in the same man-ner across cultures. For example, Bass states that‘Indonesian inspirational leaders need to persuadetheir followers about the leaders’ own competence, abehavior that would appear unseemly in Japan’(1997: 132). However, according to Bass, not with-standing the fact that it can be expressed in differentways, the concept of inspiration appears ‘to be as uni-versal as the concept of leadership itself’ (1997: 132).

Similar examples of enacting positively valuedattributes in a different manner in different coun-tries ensue from the qualitative data that are alsogathered in the GLOBE research (media analyses,interviews, and focus group meetings). Forinstance, Martinez and Dorfman (1998) gatheredGLOBE data in Mexico. An example of behaviorthat was highly valued by the Mexicans, but mightnot be appropriate in other contexts was a highdegree of involvement of a leader in the privatelives of his employees. An example from their inter-views is a leader calling the doctor when thehusband of an employee was in hospital to makesure an operation was legitimate. However, such abehavior would be felt to be an invasion of privacyin other countries. Such examples clearly show thatthe behaviors indicative of consideration or com-passion will differ strongly in different cultureseven if the positive evaluation of the construct‘consideration’ in itself is found across differentcultures (see Den Hartog et al., 1999).

IS THERE A FUTUREFOR LEADERSHIP?

Currents of change such as the developing informa-tion technology and globalization are influencingwork and organizations as we know them in apervasive and long-lasting manner (e.g., Howard,1995; Davis, 1995). Among the fundamental


changes in organizations is the increasing use ofteams to make decisions (Guzzo, 1995) and moregenerally the increased importance of teams andother lateral organizing mechanisms (Mohrman &Cohen, 1995).

Organizations are becoming more and moreflexible. As Shamir (1999) puts it, an importantcharacteristic of the new form of organization is ‘theobliteration of boundaries within the organizationand between the organization and elements in itsexternal environment’ (p. 52). Such ‘boundaryless’organizations (Davis, 1995) to a large extent com-prise temporary systems whose elements (people aswell as technology) are assembled and disassem-bled according to the shifting needs of specificprojects. As organizations can no longer rely on thetraditional hierarchy, managing and coordinatingthe efforts of employees may become more diffi-cult. In the flexible, boundaryless structures wherepeople shift from team to team, leaders will not beable to rely on the same level of formal power theyhad in their position in the former hierarchies. Also,the content of work is changing. As House (1995)notes, much 21st century work will be intellectualrather than physical. Observing, monitoring, andcontrolling, in other words, direct supervision ofsuch tasks, will be very difficult.

Such developments could lead to a less pro-nounced role for leaders in organizations. One couldeven suggest that the idea of a single person takingon the ‘leadership role’ may become obsolete in thefuture organization. Shamir (1999) describes severalpossible scenarios that imply a reduced importanceof the role of leadership in the 21st century. Onesuch scenario is ‘disposable leadership.’ As organi-zations increasingly rely on temporary arrangements(e.g., project teams), leadership itself will becomesuch a temporary arrangement, and will as such belimited in scope and duration. The group memberwith the most relevant knowledge would then beleader regarding that specific task. A similarscenario is the idea of shared, distributed, peer, orcollective leadership. As Shamir (1999) notes, thecommon element in these ideas is that leadership isnot concentrated in the hands of one single ‘heroic’leader or a limited group, but is divided and per-formed by many or all team members simulta-neously or sequentially. Similarly, the idea behind‘self-managed teams’ also implies a transfer of theleadership responsibility to the team as a whole(e.g., Barker, 1993; Manz & Sims, 1993).

A third scenario implying a reduction of theimportance of leadership is what Shamir and Ben-Ari(1999) refer to as ‘teleleadership.’ As Shamir (1999)describes, the increasing use of computer-mediatedtechnologies and group decision support systemsmay enhance the importance of leadership func-tions that relate to the transmission of informationbetween leader and group members. It may alsoreduce the distance between the top and lower levels

in the organization and enable more effectivecommunication between those parties. However, therole of leaders is obviously reduced to more cognitiveelements (managing information flow) rather thanthe social, human, and emotional elements ofleadership. Whether it is possible to identify with ortrust leaders with whom one only communicateselectronically is yet unclear (Shamir, 1999).

There are also other problems with these scenarios.Self-management does not always yield positiveresults. Also, identifying with a professional group,organization, or team increases commitment to thatgroup and its goals and implies adherence to a pat-tern of values shared within such a group.Belonging to multiple groups with unclear bound-aries may lead to identity problems (Emans,Koopman, Rutte & Steensma, 1996). House (1995)notes that the nonroutine tasks of the future willrequire problem solving, individual initiative, inno-vative behavior, and motivation, as well as awillingness to take on personal responsibility forgetting the task done on the part of employees.Also, increased uncertainty and pace of change maybe accompanied with increased feelings of uncer-tainty and anxiety on part of organization members.As West and Altink (1996) point out, a sense ofpsychological safety is essential for showing inno-vative behavior. Creating such a sense of safety andclarity and increasing motivation and commitmentmay still remain important leadership functions intomorrow’s organizations.

As Shamir summarizes, ‘boundaryless, flattened,flexible, project-based and team-based organizationsthat employ temporary, externalized and remoteworkers, whose tasks are more intellectual and lessroutine and cannot be controlled and coordinated bystructure or direct supervision, need mechanisms ofcoordination through shared meaning systems, ashared sense of purpose, and high member commit-ment to shared values’ (1999: 59). Therefore, bound-aryless organizations are likely to need strongleadership to perform integrative functions. Suchintegrative functions are less likely to be performedby movable or disposable leaders. Leaders haveplayed an important role in promoting change andinnovation and challenging the status quo in stableenvironments. In tomorrow’s unstable environ-ments the role of leaders is to balance an emphasison change with providing (a sense of) stability andcontinuity, and to establish and maintain collectiveidentities in the absence of traditional identity-forming boundaries (Shamir, 1999).

SOME SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURERESEARCH ON LEADERSHIP

The changing role of leadership in future organiza-tions is an obvious and important topic for future


research. As discussed above, the role of leaders inever-changing organizations will be different fromtheir traditional role in a more stable environment.An added problem in this respect is that leaders areoften selected on a certain profile, relevant for acertain job or time period. Changes in the organiza-tion and environment may require new skills orcharacteristics that these managers were not selectedon. As the pace of change increases, this problemmay also increase. More research seems needed inthis area.

Similarly, more theory development and researchon the similarities as well as differences of leader-ship in different cultures around the world is clearlyneeded.

Also, in many studies on leadership in organiza-tions the role of ‘time’ is not incorporated. It hasoften been noted that leadership is essentially a rela-tional process unfolding over time. If leadership issupposed to contribute to the development of cer-tain attitudes, emotional states, or self-efficacy, andincreased performance, a longitudinal perspective isneeded to capture some of this development. Exam-ples of such longitudinal studies include Yammarinoet al. (1993) and Howell and Avolio (1993). Notenough is known about leadership developmentover time. How leadership skills and perceptionsdevelop, and which factors help or impede suchdevelopment are interesting issues in need of fur-ther research. A possibility to study such topicswould be to follow the development of attitudes andperceptions of both leaders and followers over timein groups in which new leaders start. Questions suchas whether leaders can start out being ‘inspirational’or do they first need to build ‘idiosyncracy credit’(Hollander, 1978) and trust, and which leadershipskills and behaviors can or cannot be learned arealso interesting in this respect.

Another important way in which time exertscrucial influence is that people in organizationsmore often than not have a shared history and/or ashared future. Experiences from the past as well asexpectations for the future shape both behavior andperceptions in ways which many studies are notdesigned or able to capture. The shared historyimplies that relationships have been shaped overtime, and take place in a broader context whichaltered prior expectations. A shared future impliesthat some behaviors are less appropriate or effectivethan others. An example of the influence of sharedhistory is that often, even after managers are trainedto exert certain leader behaviors, and try to do so,they find that they are not perceived to be or behaveany different. Also, circumstances and thereforethe appropriateness of behavior may change overtime. Becoming more experienced may influencefollowers’ perception of leader behavior over time.For instance, depending on the need and stageof development of the follower, leader behav-iors reflecting consideration can be interpreted

differently by the same people over time (Avolio, &Bass, 1995).

Although much can be done using question-naires, leadership research would benefit from amultimethod approach. Yukl (1998) states that thefield would benefit from descriptive research usingobservation and interviews to discover what leadersactually do. Using less traditional data sources,such as analyzing speeches (e.g., Den Hartog &Verburg, 1997; Shamir, Arthur & House, 1994) ordoing historiometric studies (e.g., Deluga 1997;House, Spangler & Woyke, 1991) could also beused to triangulate self-report survey data. Insch,Moore and Murphy (1997) propose to use contentanalysis more often and give guidelines how toperform such analyses in this field. Increased useof (field) experiments is also important to gainmore understanding of causal relationships anddirection of causality of many relationships.

Another possibility for future research is toexamine leadership in relation to topics stemmingfrom other research fields: for example, expandingresearch into leadership and personality as well asfollowership and personality or incorporating recenttrends from cognitive psychology. Examples in thisdirection are the development of the so-called leader-plex model (Hooijberg, Hunt & Dodge, 1997) aswell as increased attention for perception and cogni-tion (Lord & Maher, 1991). Relationships betweenleadership and leader as well as follower affect andemotions are also in need of more research.

In 1978, Burns stated that ‘Leadership is one of themost observed and least understood phenomena onearth’ (p. 2). Much has happened since: substitutes,LMX, globalization, and leadership perception areonly some of the topics that have had a major impact.Also, the introduction of charisma and transforma-tional leadership to the field of organizational leader-ship has inspired many to reexamine their ideas aboutthe essence of leadership. These developments indeedseem to have enhanced the understanding of thephenomenon of leadership. However, the overviewpresented here shows that the quest is far from over.

NOTE

1 Not to be confused with Vroom and Jago’s (1988)use of ‘new leadership’ as a term to describe a revisedcontingency approach to participation in decision-making(see paragraph 1.2.4).

REFERENCES

Adler, N.J. (1991). International dimensions of organiza-tional behavior (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Atkinson, M. (1984). Our masters’ voices. The languageand body language of politics. London: Routledge.


Avolio, B.J., & Bass, B.M. (1995). Individual considerationviewed at multiple levels of analysis: A multi-levelframework for examining the diffusion of transforma-tional leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 199–218.

Barker, J.R. (1993). Tightening the iron cage: Concertivecontrol in self-managing teams. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 38, 408–437.

Bass, B.M. (1960). Leadership, psychology, and organi-zational behavior. New York: Free Press.

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

Bass, B.M. (1990a). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook ofleadership: Theory, research and managerial applica-tions (3rd ed.) New York: Free Press.

Bass, B.M. (1990b). Editorial: Toward a meeting of minds.Leadership Quarterly, 1.

Bass, B.M. (1997). Does the transactional–transformationalparadigm transcend organizational and national bound-aries? American Psychologist, 52(2), 130–139.

Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. (1989). Potential biases inleadership measures: How prototypes, leniency and gen-eral satisfaction relate to ratings and rankings of trans-formational and transactional leadership constructs.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49,509–527.

Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. (1990). The implicationsof transactional and transformational leadership forindividual, team, and organizational development.Research in Organizational Change and Development,4, 231–272.

Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. (1993). Transformationalleadership a response to critiques. In M.M. Chemers, &R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research. SanDiego: Academic Press.

Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J., & Atwater, L. (1996). The trans-formational and transactional leadership of men andwomen. Applied Psychology: An international Review,45(1), 5–34.

Blake, R.R., & Mouton, J.S. (1982). Management by gridprinciples or situationalism: Which? Group andOrganization Studies, 7, 207–210.

Boyacigiller, N., & Adler, N. (1991). The parochialdinosaur: Organizational science in a global context.Academy of management Review, 16, 262–290.

Brodbeck, F.C., Frese, M., & 44 coauthors (2000).Cultural variation of leadership prototypes across 22European countries. Journal of Occupational andOrganizational Psychology, in press.

Bryman, A. (1987). The generalizability of leadershiptheory. Journal of Social Psychology, 127, 129–141.

Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organi-zations. London: Sage.

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

Conger, J.A. (1990). The dark side of leadership.Organizational Dynamics, 1990, 44–55.

Conger, J.A., & Kanungo, R.N. (1987). Towards a behav-ioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizationalsettings. Academy of Management Review, 12,637–647.

Conger, J.A., & Kanungo, R.N. (1988). Behavioraldimensions of charismatic leadership. In J.A. Conger, &R.N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic Leadership: TheElusive Factor in Organizational Effectiveness(pp. 78–97). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Davis, D.D. (1995). Form, function and strategy in bound-aryless organizations. In A. Howard (Ed.), The chang-ing nature of work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Deluga, R.J. (1997). Relationship among American presi-dential charismatic leadership, narcissism and ratedperformance. Leadership Quarterly, 8, 49–65.

Den Hartog, D.N. (1997). Inspirational leadership. VUdoctoral dissertation. KLI-dissertation series, 1997-nr2. Enschede: Ipskamp.

Den Hartog, D.N., House, R.J., Hanges, P., Dorfman, P.,Ruiz-Quintanilla, A., & 159 coauthors (1999). Culturespecific and cross-culturally endorsed implicit leader-ship theories: Are attributes of charismatic/transforma-tional leadership universally endorsed? LeadershipQuarterly, 10(2), 219–256.

Den Hartog, D.N., Koopman, P.L., Thierry, Hk.,Wilderom, C.P.M., Maczynski, J., & Jarmuz, S. (1997a).Dutch and Polish perceptions of leadership and nationalculture: The GLOBE project. European Journal of Workand Organizational Psychology, 6(4), 389–415.

Den Hartog, D.N., Koopman, P.L., & Van Muijen, J.J.(1995). Charismatic leadership: A State of the Art. TheJournal of Leadership Studies, 2(4), 35–50.

Den Hartog, D.N., Van Muijen, J.J., & Koopman, P.L.(1997). Transactional versus transformational leader-ship: An analysis of the MLQ. Journal of Occupationaland Organizational Psychology, 70(1), 19–34.

Den Hartog D.N., & Verburg, R.M. (1997). Charisma andrhetoric: The communicative techniques of internationalbusiness leaders. Leadership Quarterly, 8(4), 355–391.

De Vries, R.E., Roe, R.A., & Taillieu, T.C.B. (1999). Oncharisma and need for leadership. European Journal ofWork and Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 109–127.

Donaldson, L. (1995). American anti-management theoriesof organization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dorfman, P.W., & Howell, J.P. (1988). Dimensions ofnational culture and effective leadership patterns.Advances in International Comparative Management,3, 127–150.

Dorfman, P.W., Howell, J.P., Hibino, S., Lee, J.K.,Tate, U., & Bautista, A. (1997). Leadership in Westernand Asian countries: Commonalities and differences ineffective leadership processes across culture. LeadershipQuarterly, 8(3), 233–274.

Eden, D., & Leviatan, U. (1975). Implicit leadershiptheory as a determinant of the factor structure under-lying supervisory behavior scales. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 60, 736–741.

Emans, B., Koopman, P.L., Rutte, C., & Steensma, H.(1996). Teams in organisaties: Interne on externedeterminanten van resultaatgerichtheid. Gedrag enOrganisatie, 9, 309–327.

Erez, M., Rim, Y., & Keider, I. (1986). The two sides ofthe tactics of influence: Agent vs. target. Journal ofOccupational Psychology, 59, 25–39.


Etzioni, A. (1961). A comparative analysis of complexorganisations. New York: Free Press.

Evans, M.G. (1996). R.J. House’s A path–goal theoryof leadership effectiveness. Leadership Quarterly,7, 305–309.

Falbe, C.M., & Yukl, G. (1992). Consequences formanagers of using single influence tactics and combi-nations of tactics. Academy of Management Journal,35, 638–653.

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

Fiedler, F.E., & Garcia, J.E. (1987). New approachesto leadership: Cognitive resources and organizationalperformance. New York: John Wiley.

Fleishman, E.A., & Harris, E.F. (1962). Patterns of leader-ship behavior related to emplyee grievances andturnover. Personnel Psychology, 15, 43–56.

Foti, R.J., & Luch, C.H. (1992). The influence of individ-ual differences on the perception and categorization ofleaders. Leadership Quarterly, 3, 55–66.

French, J., & Raven, B.H. (1959). The bases of socialpower. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies of social power.Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.

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

Geyer, A.L.J., & Steyrer, J.M. (1998). Transformationalleadership and objective performance in banks. AppliedPsychology: An International Review, 47(3), 397–420.

Gioia, D.A., & Sims, H.P. (1985). On avoiding the influ-ence of implicit leadership theories in leader behaviordescriptions. Educational and Psychological Measure-ment, 45, 217–243.

Graen, G.B., & Cashman, J.F. (1975). A role-makingmodel of leadership in formal organizations: A develop-mental approach. In J.G. Hunt, & L.L. Larson (Eds.),Leadership frontiers (pp. 143–165). Kent, OH: KentState University Press.

Graen, G.B., & Scandura, T. (1987). Toward a psychologyof dyadic organizing. Research in OrganizationalBehavior, 9, 175–208.

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

Green, S.G., & Mitchell, T.R. (1979). Attributionalprocesses of leaders in leader member exchanges.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23,45–458.

Guzzo, R.A. (1995). Introduction: At the intersection ofteam effectiveness and decision making. In R.A. Guzzo,& E. Salas (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision makingin organizations (pp. 1–8). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hanges, P.J., House, R.J., Dickson, M.W., Dorfman,P.W., & 170 coauthors (in review). The developmentand validation of scales measuring societal culture andculturally shared implicit theories of leadership.

Hater, J.J., & Bass, B.M. (1988). Superiors’ evaluationsand subordinates’ perceptions of transformational and

transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology,73, 695–702.

Heller, F.A., Drenth, P.J.D., Koopman, P.L., & Rus, V.(1988). Decisions in organisations: A three countrycomparative study. London: Sage.

Heller, F., Pusic, E., Strauss, G., & Wilpert, B. (1998).Organizational participation: Myth and reality. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Heller, F.A., & Yukl, G. (1969). Participation, managerialdecisionmaking and situational variables. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Performance, 4, 227–241.

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K.H. (1969). The management oforganizational behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K.H. (1977). Management oforganizational behavior: Utilizing human resources(4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Softwareof the mind. London: MacGraw-Hill.

Hofstede G. (1993). Cultural constraints in managementtheories. Academy of Management Executive, 7(1),81–94.

Hollander, E.P. (1978). Leadership dynamics. New York:Free Press.

Hollander, E.P. (1992). Leadership, followership, self, andothers. Leadership Quarterly, 3, 43–54.

Hollander, E.P., & Offermann, L.R. (1990). Relationalfeatures of organizational leadership and followership.In K.E. Clark, & M.B. Clark (Eds.), Measures ofleadership (pp. 83–98). West Orange, NJ: LeadershipLibrary of America.

Hooijberg, R. Hunt, J.G., & Dodge, G.E. (1997).Leadership complexity and the development of the lead-erplex model. Journal of Management, 23, 375–408.

House, R.J. (1971). Path-goal theory of leader effective-ness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 321–338.

House, R.J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leader-ship. In J.G. Hunt, & L.L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership:The cutting edge (pp. 189–204). Carbondale, IL:Southern Illinois University Press.

House, R.J. (1995). Leadership in the 21st century: Aspeculative enquiry. In A. Howard (Ed.), The changingnature of work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

House, R.J. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership:Lessons, legacy and a reformulated theory. LeadershipQuarterly, 7(3), 323–352.

House, R.J., Delbecq, A., & Taris, T.W. (1998). Valuebased leadership: An integrated theory and an empiricaltest. Internal publication.

House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S.A.,Dorfman, P.W., Javidan, M., Dickson, M.W. et al.(1999). Cultural influences on leadership and organiza-tions: Project GLOBE. In W.H. Mobley, M.J. Gessner, &V. Arnold (Eds.), Advances in Global Leadership(pp. 171–233). Stamford, CN: JAI Press.

House, R.J., & Howell, J.M. (1992). Personality andcharismatic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 3(2),81–108.

House, R.J., & Mitchell, T.R. (1974). Path-goal theory ofleadership. Contemporary Business, 3, 81–98.


House, R.J., & Shamir, B. (1993). Toward the integrationof transformational, charismatic and visionary theories.In M.M. Chemers, & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadershiptheory and research: Perspectives and directions(pp. 81–107).

House, R.J., & Singh, J.V. (1987). Organizational behavior:Some new directions for I/O psychology. Annual Reviewof Psychology, 38, 669–718. New York: Academic Press.

House, R.J., Spangler, W.D., & Woyke, J. (1991).Personality and charisma in the US presidency: Apsychological theory of leadership effectiveness.Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 364–396.

House, R.J., Woycke, J., & Fodor, E.M. (1988).Charismatic and noncharismatic leaders: Differences inbehavior and effectiveness. In J.A. Conger, &R.N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elu-sive factor in organizational effectiveness (pp. 98–121).San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

House, R.J., Wright, N.S., & Aditya, R.N. (1997). Cross-cultural research on organizational leadership: A criticalanalysis and a proposed theory. In P.C. Early, &M. Erez (Eds.), New perspectives on internationalindustrial/organizational psychology. San Francisco:The New Lexington Press.

Howard, A. (Ed.) (1995) The changing nature of work.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Howell, J.M. (1988). Two faces of charisma: Socializedand personalized leadership in organizations. InJ.A. Conger, & R.N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismaticleadership: The elusive factor in organizational effec-tiveness (pp. 213–236). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Howell, J.M., & Avolio B.J. (1993). Transformationalleadership, transactional leadership, locus of controland support for innovation. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 78, 891–902.

Howell, J.M., & Frost, P.J. (1989). A laboratory study ofcharismatic leadership. Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes, 43, 243-269.

Howell, J.P., & Dorfman, P.W. (1981). Substitutes forleadership: Test of a construct. Academy of ManagementJournal, 24, 714–728.

Howell, J.P., Dorfman, P.W., & Kerr, S. (1986).Moderator variables in leadership research. Academy ofManagement Review, 11, 88–102.

Hughes, R.L., Ginnett, R.C., & Curphy, G.J. (1999).Leadership: Enhancing the lessons of experience (3rdEd.). Boston: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.

Hunt, J.G. (1991). Leadership: A new synthesis. Newburypark, CA: Sage.

Hunt, J.G. (1999). Transformational/charismatic leader-ship’s transformation of the field: A historical essay.Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 129–144.

Insch, G.S., Moore, J.E., & Murphy, L.D. (1997). Contentanalysis in leadership research – example, procedures,and suggestions for future use. Leadership Quarterly, 8,1–25.

Janis, I.L. (1982). Groupthink (2nd ed.). Boston:Houghton-Mifflin.

Kanungo, R.N., & Mendonca, M. (1996). Cultural contin-gencies and leadership in developing countries.

Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 14,263–295.

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

Kerr, S., & Jermier, J.M. (1978). Substitutes for leader-ship: Their meaning and measurement. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Performance, 22, 375–403.

Kipnis, D., Schmidt, F.M., & Wilkinson, I. (1980). Intra-organizational influence tactics: Explorations in gettingone’s way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 440–452.

Kirkpatrick, S.A., & Locke, E.A. (1991). Leadership: Dotraits matter? Academy of Management Excecutive, 5,48–60.

Koh, W.L., Steers, R.M., & Terborg,. J.R. (1995). Theeffects of transformational leadership on teacher atti-tudes and student performance in Singapore. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 16, 319–333.

Koopman, P.L., Den Hartog, D.N., Konrad, E., & 44 co-authors (1999). National culture and leadership profilesin Europe: Some results from the GLOBE study.European Journal of Work and OrganizationalPsychology, 8, 503–520.

Korman, A.K. (1966). ‘Consideration’, ‘initiating struc-ture’, and organizational criteria – a review. PersonnelPsychology, 19, 349–361.

Korukonda, A.R., & Hunt, J.G. (1989). Pat on the back vs.kick in the pants: An application of cognitive inferenceto the study of leader reward and punishment behaviors.Group and Organization Studies, 14, 299–334.

Kotter, J.P. (1990). A force for change: How leadershipdiffers from management. New York: Free Press.

Lievens, F., Van Geit, P., & Coetsier, P. (1997).Identification of transformational leadership qualities:An examination of potential biases. European Journalof Work and Organizational Psychology, 4, 415–430.

Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management.New York: McGraw-Hill.

Likert, R. (1967). The human organization. New York:McGraw-Hill.

Locke, E.A. (with Kirkpatrick, S.A., Wheeler, J.K.,Schneider, J., Niles, K., Goldstein, H., Welsh, K., &D.O. Chah) (1991). The essence of leadership.New York: Lexington Books.

Lord, R.G., De Vader, C.L., & Allinger, G.M. (1986). Ameta-analysis of the relationship between personalitytraits and leadership perceptions: An application ofvalidity generalization procedures. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 71, 402–410.

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

Lord, R.G., Foti, R.J., & Phillips, J.S. (1982). A theory ofleadership categorization. In J.G. Hunt, U. Sekaran, &C.A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Leadership: Beyond establish-ment views (pp. 104–121). Carbondale: SouthernIllinois University Press.

Lord, R.G., & Maher, K.J. (1991). Leadership and infor-mation processing. London: Routledge.


Lowe, K.B., Kroeck, K.G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996).Effectiveness correlates of transformational and trans-actional leadership: A meta-analytic review. LeadershipQuarterly, 7, 385–425.

Maier, N.R.F. (1963). Problem solving discussions andconferences. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Manz, C.C., & Sims, H.P., jr. (1993). Business withoutbosses: How self-managing teams are building high per-formance companies. New York: Wiley.

Martinez, S., & Dorfman, P.W. (1998). The Mexicanentrepreneur: An ethnographic study of the Mexicanempressario. International Studies of Management andOrganizations, 28, 97–123.

McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise.New York: McGraw-Hill.

Meindl, J.R. (1990). On leadership: An alternative to theconventional wisdom. In B.M. Staw, & L.L. Cummings(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, 12,159–203.

Meindl, J.R., Ehrlich, S.B., & Dukerich, J.M. (1985). Theromance of leadership. Administrative Science Quar-terly, 30, 78–102.

Mintzberg, H. (1989). Mintzberg on management.New York: Free Press.

Mohrman, S.A., & Cohen, S.G. (1995). When people getout of the box: New relationships, new systems. InA. Howard (Ed.), The changing nature of work. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Nahavandi, A. (2000). The art and science of leadership(2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Offermann, L.R., Kennedy, J.K., & Wirtz, P.W. (1994).Implicit leadership theories: Content structure, andgeneralizability. Leadership Quarterly, 5(1), 43–55.

Peterson, M.F., & Hunt, J.G. (1997). International pers-pectives on international leadership. LeadershipQuarterly, 8(3), 203–231.

Pettigrew, A. (1972). Information control as a powerresource. Sociology, 6, 187–204.

Pfeffer, J. (1981). Management as symbolic action: Thecreation and maintenance of organizational paradigms.Research in Organizational Behavior, 3, 1–52.

Podsakoff, P.M. (1982). Determinants of a supervisor’suse of rewards and punishments: A literature reviewand suggestions for future research. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Performance, 29, 58–83.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., & Bommer, W.H.(1996). Transformational leader behaviors and substi-tutes for leadership as determinants of employee satis-faction, commitment, trust and organizational citizenshipbehaviors. Journal of Management, 22, 259–298.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H., &Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviorsand their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfactionand organizational citizenship behaviors. LeadershipQuarterly, 1(2), 107–142.

Podsakoff, P.M., Todor, W.D., & Skov, R. (1982). Effectsof leader contingent and noncontingent reward, andpunishment behaviors on subordinate performance andsatisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 25,810–821.

Quinn, R.E. (1988). Beyond rational management:Mastering the paradoxes and competing demands ofhigh performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Rauch, C.F., & Behling, O. (1984). Functionalism: Basisfor an alternate approach to the study of leadership. InJ.G. Hunt, D.M. Hosking, C.A. Schriesheim, &R. Stewart (Eds.), Leaders and managers: Internationalperspectives on managerial behavior and leadership.Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.

Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E.Rosch, & B.B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categoriza-tion. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

Shamir, B. (1991). The charismatic relationship: Alterna-tive explanations and predictions. LeadershipQuarterly, 2(2), 81–104.

Shamir, B. (1992). Attribution of charisma and influenceto the leader: The romance of leadership revisited.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(5), 386–407.

Shamir, B. (1995). Social distance and charisma: Theoreticalnotes and an exploratory study. Leadership Quarterly,6(1), 19–47.

Shamir, B. (1999). Leadership in boundaryless organiza-tions: Disposable or indispensable? European Journalof Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 49–71.

Shamir, B., Arthur, M.B., & House, R.J. (1994). Therhetoric of charismatic leadership: A theoretical exten-sion, a case study and implications for research.Leadership Quarterly, 5(1), 25–42.

Shamir, B., & Ben-Ari, E. (1999). Leadership in an openarmy? Civilian connections, interorganizational frame-works, and changes in military leadership. In J.G. Hunt,G.E. Dodge, & L.Wong (Eds.), Out-of-the- box leader-ship: Transforming the 21st century army and other topperforming organizations. Stanford, CT: JAI Press.

Shamir, B., House, R.J., & Arthur, M.B. (1993). The moti-vational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4, 1–17.

Singer, M.S., & Singer, A.E. (1990). Situational constraintson transformational versus transactional leadershipbehavior, subordinates’ leadership preference, and satis-faction. Journal of Social psychology, 130(3), 385–396.

Smith, P.B., & Peterson, M.F. (1988). Leadership, organi-zations and culture. London: Sage.

Smith, P.B., Peterson M.F., & Misumi, J. (1994). Eventmanagement and work team effectiveness in Japan,Britain and the USA. Journal of Occupational andOrganizational Psychology, 67, 33–43.

Tannenbaum, R., & Schmidt, W.H. (1958). How tochoose a leadership pattern. Harvard Business Review,36 (March-April), 95–101.

Tichy, N.M., & Devanna, M.A. (1990). The transforma-tional leader (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

Trice, H.M., & Beyer, J.M. (1986). Charisma and itsroutinization in two social movement organizations.Research in Organizational Behavior, 8, 113–164.

Turner, S. (1993). Charisma and obedience, a risk cogni-tion approach. Leadership Quarterly, 4, 235–256.

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


Vroom, V.H., & Yetton, P.W. (1973). Leadership anddecisionmaking. Pittsburgh: University of PittsburghPress.

Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economicorganization (A.N. Henderson, & T. Parsons, Eds., &trans.). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

West, M.A., & Altink, W.M.M. (1996). Innovation atwork: Individual, group, organizational, and socio-historical perspectives. European Journal of Work andOrganizational Psychology, 5(1), 3–11.

Willner, A.R. (1984). The spellbinders: Charismatic politi-cal leadership. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Yammarino, F.J., & Bass, B.M. (1990). Long-term fore-casting of transformational leadership and its effectsamong naval officers: Some preliminary findings. InK.E. Clark, & M.B. Clark (Eds.), Measures of leader-ship (pp. 151–170). West Orange, NJ: LeadershipLibrary of America.

Yammarino, F.J., & Bass, B.M. (1991). Person and situa-tion views of leadership: A multiple levels of analysisapproach. Leadership Quarterly, 2, 121–139.

Yammarino, F.J., Spangler, W.D., & Bass, B.M. (1993).Transformational leadership and performance: A

longitudinal investigation. Leadership Quarterly,4(1), 81–102.

Yokochi, N. (1989). Leadership styles of Japanesemanagers: Transformational and transactional.Doctoral dissertation, United States InternationalUniversity, San Diego, CA.

Yukl, G. (1998). Leadership in organizations (4th ed.).Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Yukl, G., & Falbe, C.M. (1990). Influence tactics andobjectives in upward, downward, and lateral influenceattempts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(2),132–140.

Yukl, G., & Falbe, C.M. (1991). The importance of dif-ferent power sources in downward and lateral relations.Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 416–423.

Yukl, G., Falbe, C.M., & Youn, J.Y. (1993). Patterns ofinfluence behavior for managers. Group and Organi-zation Management, 20, 272–296.

Yukl, G., & Tracey, B. (1992). Consequences of influencetactics used with subordinates, peers, and the boss.Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 525–535.

Zaleznik, A. (1977). Managers and leaders: Are theydifferent? Harvard Business Review, 15, 67–78.


leadership in organizations - sage - the natural home for authors

Documents