Leadership: Current Theories, Research, and Future Directions PDF

ANRV364-PS60-16 ARI 27 October 2008 16:19 Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org. Erasmus University Rotterdam (ar-129898) IP: 145.5.180.19 On: Mon, 06 Jan 2025 14:30:07...

ANRV364-PS60-16 ARI 27 October 2008 16:19 Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org. Erasmus University Rotterdam (ar-129898) IP: 145.5.180.19 On: Mon, 06 Jan 2025 14:30:07 Leadership: Current Theories, Research, and Future Directions Bruce J. Avolio,1 Fred O. Walumbwa,2 and Todd J. Weber3 1 Department of Management, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska 68588-0491; email: [email protected] 2 Department of Management, The Arizona State University, Glendale, Arizona 85306-4908; email: [email protected] 3 Department of Management, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska 68588-0491; email: [email protected] Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2009. 60:421–49 Key Words The Annual Review of Psychology is online at authentic leadership, cognitive leadership, complexity leadership, psych.annualreviews.org cross-cultural leadership, new-genre leadership, shared leadership This article’s doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163621 Abstract Copyright  c 2009 by Annual Reviews. This review examines recent theoretical and empirical developments in All rights reserved the leadership literature, beginning with topics that are currently re- 0066-4308/09/0110-0421$20.00 ceiving attention in terms of research, theory, and practice. We begin by examining authentic leadership and its development, followed by work that takes a cognitive science approach. We then examine new- genre leadership theories, complexity leadership, and leadership that is shared, collective, or distributed. We examine the role of relationships through our review of leader member exchange and the emerging work on followership. Finally, we examine work that has been done on sub- stitutes for leadership, servant leadership, spirituality and leadership, cross-cultural leadership, and e-leadership. This structure has the ben- efit of creating a future focus as well as providing an interesting way to examine the development of the field. Each section ends with an identi- fication of issues to be addressed in the future, in addition to the overall integration of the literature we provide at the end of the article. 421  ANRV364-PS60-16 ARI 27 October 2008 16:19 Contents INTRODUCTION.................. 422 Future Focus Required............. 432 OVERVIEW OF AUTHENTIC LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE... 433 Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org. Erasmus University Rotterdam (ar-129898) IP: 145.5.180.19 On: Mon, 06 Jan 2025 14:30:07 LEADERSHIP.................... 423 Extensions to LMX................ 433 Authentic Leadership Defined...... 423 Future Focus Required............. 434 Future Focus Required............. 424 FOLLOWERSHIP AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND LEADERSHIP.............. 434 DEVELOPMENT................ 424 Romance of Leadership............ 434 Heritability and Leadership........ 425 Updates on Follower-Centric Examining Evidence for Positive Views.......................... 435 Leadership Interventions........ 425 Future Focus Required............. 435 Future Focus Required............. 425 SUBSTITUTES FOR COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY LEADERSHIP.................... 436 AND LEADERSHIP.............. 426 Future Focus Required............. 436 Emerging Cognitive Constructs.... 426 SERVANT LEADERSHIP........... 436 Prototypical Abstractions Future Focus Required............. 437 of Leadership................... 427 SPIRITUALITY AND Future Focus Required............. 428 LEADERSHIP.................... 437 NEW-GENRE LEADERSHIP....... 428 Future Focus Required............. 437 New-Genre Versus Traditional CROSS-CULTURAL Leadership..................... 428 LEADERSHIP.................... 438 Boundary Conditions Project GLOBE................... 438 for New-Genre Leadership...... 429 Global Leadership................. 438 Future Focus Required............. 429 Comparative Leadership........... 439 COMPLEXITY LEADERSHIP...... 430 Future Focus Required............. 439 Complexity and Traditional E-LEADERSHIP..................... 439 Leadership Theory............. 430 Common Questions with Future Focus Required............. 431 E-Leadership................... 440 SHARED, COLLECTIVE, Group and Virtual Teams OR DISTRIBUTED Research....................... 440 LEADERSHIP.................... 431 Future Focus Required............. 441 Shared Leadership Defined......... 431 CLOSING COMMENTS Research Evidence................. 432 AND INTEGRATION............ 441 INTRODUCTION States. Today, the field of leadership focuses not only on the leader, but also on followers, peers, One of our goals for this integrative review supervisors, work setting/context, and culture, is to examine the ways in which the field of including a much broader array of individu- leadership is evolving and the consequences als representing the entire spectrum of diver- of its evolutionary path for the models, meth- sity, public, private, and not-for-profit organi- ods, and populations examined. For example, zations, and increasingly over the past 20 years, at the outset of the field of leadership, the pri- samples of populations from nations around the mary focus was on studying an individual leader, globe. Leadership is no longer simply described who was most likely a male working in some as an individual characteristic or difference, but large private-sector organization in the United 422 Avolio · Walumbwa · Weber  ANRV364-PS60-16 ARI 27 October 2008 16:19 rather is depicted in various models as dyadic, (2003), the advent of work on authentic leader- shared, relational, strategic, global, and a com- ship development came as a result of writings on plex social dynamic (Avolio 2007, Yukl 2006). transformational leadership, in which authors Authentic We organize our examination of how leader- such as Bass & Steidlmeier (1999) suggest that leadership: a pattern Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org. Erasmus University Rotterdam (ar-129898) IP: 145.5.180.19 On: Mon, 06 Jan 2025 14:30:07 ship is evolving by discussing significant areas of there are pseudo versus authentic transforma- of transparent and inquiry that represent current pillars in leader- tional leaders. ethical leader behavior ship research, some understandably taller than Luthans & Avolio (2003) also introduced that encourages openness in sharing others. We highlight the current state of each the concept of authentic leadership develop- information needed to particular area of inquiry, and discuss what we ment into the literature with the goal of in- make decisions while know, what we don’t know, and what remains tegrating work on (Luthans 2002) positive accepting followers’ interesting possibilities to pursue in future re- organizational behavior with the life-span lead- inputs search. Given our space limitations, we focus ership development work of Avolio (1999). Transformational more on the current state of these respective ar- Their main purpose was to examine what con- leadership: leader eas in terms of advances in theory, research, and stituted genuine leadership development in- behaviors that transform and inspire practice, including the criticisms and bound- cluding what worked and didn’t work to de- followers to perform aries of theories, models, and methods wherever velop leaders and leadership, as well as to bring beyond expectations appropriate. From this analysis, we offer some to the foreground some of the recent work while transcending recommendations for future directions that the in positive psychology as a foundation for ex- self-interest for the science of leadership could pursue, and we dis- amining how one might accelerate the de- good of the organization cuss the potential implications for leadership velopment. Luthans and Avolio reasoned that practice. using some of the theoretical work in posi- Positive organizational Looking back over the past 100 years, we tive psychology such as Fredrickson’s (2001) behavior: literature cannot imagine a more opportune time for the broaden-and-build theory, they could offer a that is focusing on field of leadership studies. Never before has so more positive way for conceptualizing leader- positive constructs much attention been paid to leadership, and the ship development. According to Fredrickson, such as hope, fundamental question we must ask is, what do those individuals who have more positive psy- resiliency, efficacy, optimism, happiness, we know and what should we know about lead- chological resources are expected to grow more and well-being as they ers and leadership? We begin addressing these effectively or to broaden themselves and build apply to organizations questions not by going back to the earliest work out additional personal resources to perform. Broaden-and-build in leadership, but rather by focusing on what Luthans and Avolio report that to a large ex- theory: suggests is most current in the field. We then examine tent, the prior leadership development work positive emotions other areas from which the current work has was based on a deficit-reduction model strat- expand cognition and emerged, rather than examining leadership ma- egy, where one discovered what was wrong with behavioral tendencies, and encourage novel, terial covered in recent reviews (Gelfand et al. a leader and then worked to correct deficits in varied, and exploratory 2007, Goethals 2005) or providing a compre- terms of focusing on the leader’s development thoughts and actions hensive historical review of the field that is bet- (also see Avolio & Luthans 2006). ter left to the Handbook of Leadership (Bass & Bass 2008; see also Yukl & Van Fleet 1992). Authentic Leadership Defined First and foremost, the concept of authenticity OVERVIEW OF AUTHENTIC has been around for a long time, as reflected in LEADERSHIP many philosophical discussions of what consti- One of the emerging pillars of interest in the tutes authenticity (Harter et al. 2002). George field of leadership has been called authentic (2003) popularized authentic leadership in the leadership development. As discussed in a spe- general practice community when he published cial issue [edited by Avolio & Gardner (2005)] his book on the topic, as did Luthans & Avolio of the Leadership Quarterly on this topic and in (2003) for the academic community. Luthans an earlier theoretical piece by Luthans & Avolio & Avolio (2003, p. 243) defined authentic www.annualreviews.org Leadership: Theory and Research 423  ANRV364-PS60-16 ARI 27 October 2008 16:19 leadership as “a process that draws from both These four scales loaded on a higher-order fac- positive psychological capacities and a highly tor labeled authentic leadership that was dis- developed organizational context, which re- criminantly valid from measures of transforma- Ethical leadership: the demonstration of sults in both greater self-awareness and self- tional leadership (e.g., Avolio 1999) and ethical Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org. Erasmus University Rotterdam (ar-129898) IP: 145.5.180.19 On: Mon, 06 Jan 2025 14:30:07 normatively regulated positive behaviors on the part of leadership (e.g., Brown et al. 2005) and was a appropriate conduct leaders and associates, fostering positive self- significant and positive predictor of organiza- through personal development.” This definition and subsequent tional citizenship behavior, organizational com- actions and work on authentic leadership was defined at mitment, and satisfaction with supervisor and interpersonal relationships, and the the outset as multilevel in that it included the performance. promotion of such leader, follower, and context very specifically in conduct to followers the way it was conceptualized and measured. This addressed a typical criticism in the lead- Future Focus Required Nomological network: a ership literature summarized by Yammarino Work on defining and measuring authentic representation of a et al. (2005, p. 10) who concluded, “relatively leadership is in the very early stages of de- construct, its few studies in any of the areas of leadership velopment. Future research will need to of- observable manifestation, and the research have addressed levels-of-analysis is- fer additional evidence for the construct va- relationship between sues appropriately in theory, measurement, data lidity of this measure or other measures, and the two analysis, and inference drawing.” it will also need to demonstrate how authentic At the same time, several scholars (e.g., leadership relates to other constructs within its Cooper et al. 2005, Sparrowe 2005) expressed nomological network. This would include con- concerns with Luthans & Avolio’s initial defi- structs such as moral perspective, self-concept nition of authentic leadership. The initial con- clarity, well-being, spirituality, and judgment. ceptual differences notwithstanding, there ap- Moreover, there is a need to examine how au- pears to be general agreement in the literature thentic leadership is viewed across situations on four factors that cover the components of and cultures and whether it is a universally authentic leadership: balanced processing, in- prescribed positive root construct—meaning ternalized moral perspective, relational trans- it represents the base of good leadership re- parency, and self-awareness. Balanced process- gardless of form, e.g., participative, directive, ing refers to objectively analyzing relevant data or inspiring. In the next section, we turn our before making a decision. Internalized moral attention to the second major focus on au- perspective refers to being guided by internal thentic leadership, which incorporates the term moral standards, which are used to self-regulate development. one’s behavior. Relational transparency refers to presenting one’s authentic self through openly sharing information and feelings as appropriate AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP for situations (i.e., avoiding inappropriate dis- DEVELOPMENT plays of emotions). Self-awareness refers to the Up until very recently, one would be hard- demonstrated understanding of one’s strengths, pressed to find in the leadership literature weaknesses, and the way one makes sense of a general model of leadership development the world. These four constructs were further (Luthans & Avolio 2003). Even more difficult to operationally defined by Walumbwa and col- find is evidence-based leadership development. leagues (2008). Walumbwa et al. (2008) pro- Specifically, what evidence is there to support vided initial evidence using a multisample strat- whether leaders or leadership can be developed egy involving U.S. and non-U.S. participants using one or more specific theories of leader- to determine the construct validity of a new set ship? This question led to a concerted effort to of authentic leadership scales. Specifically, they explore what was known about whether lead- showed the four components described above ers are born or made, as well as the efficacy of represented unique scales that were reliable. leadership interventions. 424 Avolio · Walumbwa · Weber  ANRV364-PS60-16 ARI 27 October 2008 16:19 Heritability and Leadership (see Avolio & Luthans 2006, Avolio et al. 2009, Reichard & Avolio 2005). The focus of this One avenue of research that has explored meta-analytic review was unique in that up to whether leaders are born versus made has in- that point, more than 30 meta-analyses had volved studying identical and fraternal twins. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org. Erasmus University Rotterdam (ar-129898) IP: 145.5.180.19 On: Mon, 06 Jan 2025 14:30:07 been published on leadership research, none Preliminary evidence using a behavioral ge- of which had focused on leadership interven- netics approach has shown that approximately tions and more than one model of leadership. 30% of the variation in leadership style and For each study, the leadership intervention ex- emergence was accounted for by heritabil- amined was categorized into six types: train- ity; the remaining variation was attributed to ing, actor/role-play, scenario/vignette, assign- differences in environmental factors such as ments, expectations, others. Reichard & Avolio individuals having different role models and (2005) reported that regardless of the theory be- early opportunities for leadership development ing investigated, results showed that leadership (Arvey et al. 2007). Because identical twins have interventions had a positive impact on work 100% of the same genetic makeup and fraternal outcomes (e.g., ratings of leader performance), twins share about 50%, this behavioral genetics even when the duration of those interventions research was able to control for heritability to was less than one day. In terms of utility, partic- examine how many leadership roles the twins ipants in the broadly defined leadership treat- emerged into over their respective careers. In ment condition had on average a 66% chance this and subsequent research for both men and of positive outcomes versus only a 34% chance women across cultures, similar results were ob- of success for the comparison group. tained. The authors conducting this research conclude that the “life context” one grows up in and later works in is much more important Future Focus Required than heritability in predicting leadership emer- Relatively little work has been done over the gence across one’s career. past 100 years to substantiate whether leader- ship can actually be developed. Indeed, based on the meta-analysis findings reviewed above, Examining Evidence for Positive only 201 studies were identified that fit the Leadership Interventions intervention definition. Of those 201 studies, Lord & Hall (1992, p. 153) noted, “too much only about one third focused on developing research in the past has attempted to probe the leadership as opposed to manipulating it for complex issues of leadership using simple bi- impact through role plays or scripts to test variate correlations.” It seems fair to say that a particular proposition in one of the various although most models of leadership have causal models. predictions, a relatively small percentage of the One of the emerging areas of interest in accumulated literature has actually tested these leadership research, which we have dedicated predictions using controlled leadership inter- more attention to in its own section, con- ventions, especially in field research settings cerns the linkages between cognitive science (Yukl 2006). and how leaders perceive, decide, behave, and To determine whether experimental inter- take action (Lord & Brown 2004). For exam- ventions actually impacted leadership devel- ple, to develop leadership, it is imperative that opment and/or performance, a qualitative and we examine how a leader’s self-concept and/or quantitative review of the leadership interven- identity is formed, changed, and influences be- tion (i.e., studies where a researcher overtly havior (Swann et al. 2007). This raises a key manipulated leadership to examine its impact question regarding what constitutes leaders’ on some specific intermediate process vari- working self-concept and/or identity with re- ables or outcomes) literature was undertaken spect to how they go about influencing others www.annualreviews.org Leadership: Theory and Research 425  ANRV364-PS60-16 ARI 27 October 2008 16:19 (Swann et al. 2007). For example, does an au- COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY thentic leader have a different working self- AND LEADERSHIP concept than someone who is described by fol- The cognitive science leadership literature is an lowers as transformational or transactional, and area of research and theory containing a wide Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org. Erasmus University Rotterdam (ar-129898) IP: 145.5.180.19 On: Mon, 06 Jan 2025 14:30:07 how do these differences develop in the leader range of approaches that are united by their fo- over time? cus on explaining the way leaders and follow- We know from previous literature that al- ers think and process information. This liter- though a leader’s working self-concept is con- ature includes a broad range of topics such as structed in the current moment, it is also based self-concept theory, meta-cognitions, and im- on more stable self-concepts and identities plicit leadership theory (e.g., Lord & Emrich stored in the individual’s long-term memory. 2000), which are addressed in more detail Avolio & Chan (2008) indicate there are certain below. trigger events that activate the leader’s working One of the more recent developments in self-concept. These trigger events induce self- the literature has been an attempt to develop focused attention, self-assessment, and activate models of leadership cognition. Lord & Hall a leader’s working self-concept. These trigger (2005) developed a model of leadership de- moments can occur naturally as the leader in- velopment that emphasized the leader’s cog- teracts with others during leadership episodes nitive attributes or abilities. A second model or they can be induced through formal train- was developed by Mumford et al. (2003) and ing exercises and self-reflection (Roberts et al. examined the way shared thinking contributed 2005). to leader creativity. These two approaches il- Another very promising area of research lustrate a fundamental way in which views of that has not received sufficient attention in the leadership cognitions vary, with the former fo- leadership literature focuses on understanding cusing on activities with the individual leader what constitutes an individual’s level of devel- and the latter focusing on interactions that oc- opmental readiness or one’s capacity or moti- cur between individuals (Mumford et al. 2007). vational orientation to develop to one’s full po- We examine several of the key emerging con- tential. Prior authors have defined developmen- structs within this literature, beginning with the tal readiness as being made up of components self-concept. such as one’s goal orientation (Dweck 1986) and motivation to develop leadership (Maurer & Lippstreu 2005). In this literature, the authors Emerging Cognitive Constructs argue that leaders who are more motivated to Recent literature on what constitutes the self- learn at the outset and who have higher moti- concept has distinguished between the struc- vation to lead will more likely embrace trigger ture of the self-concept and its contents events that stimulate their thinking about their (Altrocchi 1999). The content refers to the eval- own development as an opportunity to improve uations one makes of oneself as well as self- their leadership effectiveness. beliefs. The structure refers to ways in which In sum, a great deal of energy and interest the self-concept content is organized for pro- is emerging in the leadership development lit- cessing. In a study on the structure of the self- erature that suggests there will be a lot more concept, Campbell et al. (2003) examined the activity in trying to discover what impacts gen- competing arguments that one benefits from uine leadership development at multiple levels having either unity in self-concept or plural- of analysis, from cognitive through to organi- ism. Although the literature tends to treat the zational climates. This literature will no doubt two as opposite ends of a continuum, their link to the life-span development and cognitive study showed they are not necessarily related psychology literatures to fuel further work in to each other. This study further showed that this area. two measures of pluralism (self-complexity and 426 Avolio · Walumbwa · Weber  ANRV364-PS60-16 ARI 27 October 2008 16:19 self-concept compartmentalization) were not schema, which is a broad organizing frame- related to each other and that multiple mea- work that helps one understand and make sense sures of self-concept unity, such as self-concept of a given context or experience. One notable Cognitive leadership: differentiation, self-concept clarity, and self- example of the use of schemas with respect a broad range of Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org. Erasmus University Rotterdam (ar-129898) IP: 145.5.180.19 On: Mon, 06 Jan 2025 14:30:07 discrepancies, were moderately related to each to leadership research is the work of Wofford approaches to other and that each had implications for leader et al. (1998), who proposed a cognitive model to leadership development. explain the way transformational and transac- emphasizing how leaders and followers Lord & Brown (2001) presented a model tional leaders view work with followers. In their think and process examining two specific ways that leaders can field study, Wofford et al. examined schematic information influence the way followers choose to behave processes (e.g., vision, follower, self) and scripts Transactional in terms of the motivations they use to regu- (behaviors associated with a schema), arguing leadership: late actions/behaviors. The first way relates to that transformational and transactional leader- leadership largely values (e.g., achievement) and emphasizes mak- ship use different schemas to interpret events, based on the exchange ing specific values (or patterns of values) salient which then results in the choice of differ- of rewards contingent on performance for the follower to motivate him or her to ac- ent leadership behaviors/actions in response tion. The second relates to the followers’ self- to those events. Support was found for trans- concept, whereby the leader activates a specific formational leader cognitions being related to identity to which followers can relate, creating a the leaders’ choice of acting transformationally. collective identity that the follower ultimately Mixed support was found for the relationships embraces as his or her own. Both values and between transactional leader schemas and be- self-concept are viewed as mediating the link- haviors and actions chosen. age between the leader’s actions and the behav- ior of the follower. Because there are a range of peripheral and Prototypical Abstractions core identities that could be salient to an in- of Leadership dividual at any one point in time, the ques- The leadership research on social identity for- tion of which identities are activated at any mation has also focused heavily on what con- time is relevant to research on leadership and stitutes prototypicality, which has shown that its impact on followers. The idea of a working followers may be more drawn to leaders who self-concept refers to the identity (or combi- are exemplars of groups they belong to or want nation of identities) that is salient in the mo- to join. Early research conceptualized proto- ment, and it consists of three types of com- types as being relatively static and applicable in ponents: self-views, current goals, and possible many situations. Recent work has contested that selves (Lord & Brown 2004). The self-view re- view, arguing that prototypes are dynamic and lates to the current working model or view of can be applied and adapted based on the exist- oneself, whereas the possible selves may repre- ing constraints or challenges being confronted sent the ideal model an individual may be striv- by leaders (Lord et al. 2001). ing for and something that could be leveraged Subsequent research has also focused on the by the leader to motivate and develop follow- relationship between implicit leadership theo- ers into better followers or leaders themselves. ries and several relevant performance outcomes Overall, the working self-concept has the po- (Epitropaki & Martin 2005). We note that for tential to provide insight into the challenging more than 25 years, a great deal of the work on issue of how salient one’s identity is and how cognitive psychology and leadership focused on leadership can enhance its salience, though its how implicit theories and prototypes affected use within the leadership literature has been the perceptions of leaders and followers, gener- somewhat limited so far. ally examining how it disadvantaged or biased One of the essential building blocks in the them in views of others. More recent trends cognitive leadership literature is the idea of a in this literature coincide nicely with emphasis www.annualreviews.org Leadership: Theory and Research 427  ANRV364-PS60-16 ARI 27 October 2008 16:19 now being placed on authentic leadership de- New-Genre Versus Traditional