Stuck with a difficult assignment? No time to get your paper done? Feeling confused? If you’re looking for reliable and timely help for assignments, you’ve come to the right place. We promise 100% original, plagiarism-free papers custom-written for you. Yes, we write every assignment from scratch and it’s solely custom-made for you.

Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper

please, Keep in mind

submit it on Monday 13th of February at 12:00 New York time

there are 12 documents, 8 of them are the reference that you must read, except for this you also need to read at least 10 academic ariticle papers.

another 2 is a powerpoint, the first one is about the leadership and another one is the briefing of the assignment (relate to the leadership).

The topic

can be found from an extra

Word file. The rest one is a picture, which you must find the online article and you need to reference it.

This kinds of assignment must be fully understand and you should talk through from the both side. The requirement can be found from the word file.

A meta-analytic review of authentic and transformational leadership: A test for redundancy☆ George C. Banks a,⁎, Kelly Davis McCauley b, William L. Gardner c, Courtney E. Guler a aUniversity of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, USAbWest Texas A&M University, Canyon, TX, USAcTexas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA article info abstract Article history: Received 26 August 2015 Received in revised form 27 January 2016 Accepted 23 February 2016 Available online xxxx Handling Editor: M. Mumford While authentic leadership (AL) has seen a dramatic increase in scholarly attention over the last decade, its contribution relative to more established leadership constructs merits investigation. We employ meta-analytic techniques to compare AL and transformational leadership theories using 100 independent samples and 25,452 individuals. Thefindings reveal that (1) the relation- ship between authentic and transformational leadership is large in magnitude, suggesting construct redundancy (ρ= .72); (2) neither AL nor transformational leadership add noticeable incremental validity beyond the other construct; (3) AL has a lower relative weight than transformational lead- ership for the outcomes of follower satisfaction, follower satisfaction with the leader, task perfor- mance, and leader effectiveness; and (4) AL demonstrates dominance over transformational leadership when predicting group or organization performance and organizational citizenship behaviors. We recommend future research examine AL at the component level and its relationships with related ethical constructs to potentially differentiate it from transformational leadership. © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Authentic leadership Transformational leadership Meta-analysis Introduction Authenticity within the leadership context has received significant attention within the management literature as a standalone construct (e.g.,Luthans & Avolio, 2003), perhaps as a response to the crisis of confidence in today’s corporate and government leaders (Gardner, Cogliser, Davis, & Dickens, 2011). Since its introduction, authentic leadership (AL) has gained considerable prac- titioner (e.g.Cashman, 2003; George, 2003; George & Sims, 2007) and scholarly interest (e.g.Avolio, 2010; Gardner et al., 2011). During this time, the study of AL has benefitted from critical refinements of the theoretical models (Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May, & Walumbwa, 2005; Ilies, Morgeson, & Nahrgang, 2005) and the development of multiple validated scales (e.g.Neider & Schriesheim, 2011; Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008). As a result of these advancements, empirical work examining AL has increased quite dramatically over the past 10 years. Despite the impressive advances made both theoretically and empirically, researchers have expressed concerns regarding the contribution of AL theory to the leadership literature (e.g.Cooper, Scandura, & Schriesheim, 2005; Yammarino, Dionne, Schriesheim, & Dansereau, 2008). For example, AL overlaps conceptually with many of the other positive theories of leadership (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). An application of Occam’s razor would suggest that, all else being equal, two redundant constructs add unnecessary complexity to our understanding of leadership theory (Schmidt, 2010). Indeed,Avolio and Gardner (2005) The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2016) xxx–xxx ☆ Suggestions by Matthew Baker, Ernest O′Boyle, In-Sue Oh, and Anson Seers were valuable in the improvement of this paper and were greatly appreciated. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2014 Southern Management Association conference. ⁎Corresponding author at: University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Belk College of Business, 9201 University City Blvd, Charlotte, NC, 28223. E-mail address:[email protected](G.C. Banks). LEAQUA-01127; No of Pages 19 1048-9843/© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Contents lists available atScienceDirect The Leadership Quarterly journal Please cite this article as: Banks, G.C., et al., A meta-analytic review of authentic and transformational leadership: A test for redundancy,The Leadership Quarterly(2016), suggest that AL can incorporate many theories of leadership including transformational, charismatic, servant, and spiritual, along with other forms of positive leadership. With such conceptual overlap, concerns have emerged about whether AL is sufficiently distinct from these theories (Avolio & Walumbwa, 2014). The issue of distinctiveness between these theories, both theoretically and empirically, is important since a lack of distinctiveness between AL and other positive leadership theories could suggest that AL theory may be“old wine in new bottles”(Spell, 2001). Hence, determining whether AL represents a case of construct redundancy and if AL accounts for unique variance in key outcomes will help to assess the value that AL adds to the leadership literature. Our study offers three primary contributions to the literature. First, we take the initial steps toward addressing concerns about construct redundancy in the leadership literature by investigating the empirical distinction of AL from transformational leadership. To explore the potential empirical redundancy of AL in comparison to transformational leadership, we present and test the rela- tionship between authentic and transformational leadership across multiple studies. We also report the incremental validity of AL over and above transformational leadership and vice versa, and we provide a test of the relative contribution of authentic and transformational leadership when predicting important work outcomes. Second, by completing the tests, we also offer thefirst meta-analytic review of the AL literature. While the number of AL studies pales in comparison to the number of transformational leadership studies, empirical work has demonstrated the importance of early meta-analytic reviews in providing critical guidance for fast-growing bodies of literature (e.g.,Oh, Wang, & Mount, 2011). AsLeavitt, Mitchell, and Peterson (2010)point out, despite the potential utility for doing so, meta-analysis is rarely used to compare theories and address concerns regarding theory prolif- eration. We seek to capitalize on this potential, as we believe meta-analysis provides an advantageous tool for exploring our research questions. Specifically, we selected meta-analysis to examine the discriminant validity of AL relative to transformational leadership, since these theories reflect a considerable amount of conceptual overlap (seeTable 1inAvolio & Gardner, 2005for a complete overview of the theoretical convergence between these theories). Lastly, as our third contribution we present a roadmap for future AL theory development and empirical research. AL theory Luthans and Avolio’s (2003)conceptualization of AL ignited scholarly interest in the AL construct within thefield of manage- ment and provided the foundation for current understandings of the construct. Building upon their work, several scholars (e.g.Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Gardner, Avolio, Luthans et al., 2005; Ilies et al., 2005; Walumbwa et al., 2008)haverefined AL the- ory. Refinements such as those byWalumbwa et al. (2008)have resulted in the most generally accepted definition of AL within the literature. Thus, authentic leaders are described as being self-aware, showing openness and clarity regarding who they are, and consistently disclosing and acting in accordance with their personal values, beliefs, motives, and sentiments (Walumbwa et al., 2008). Based on this view, there are four components of AL: self-awareness, relational transparency, balanced processing, and an internalized moral perspective. Self-awarenessarises from an understanding of self-reflection regarding one’s values, emotions, goals, knowledge, and talents (Gardner, Avolio, Luthans et al., 2005) and one’s strengths and weaknesses (Ilies et al., 2005). Additionally, it refers to knowledge of the multifaceted nature of the self and one’s meaning-making process in relation to the social world (Walumbwa et al., 2008). Anin- ternalized moral perspectiveis based on self-regulation, which is anchored by one’s mission, deep-seeded values, or a desire to make a difference (Shamir & Eilam, 2005; Walumbwa et al., 2008).Balanced processingincludes considering others’ opinions and all available relevant information in decision-making while maintaining a relatively objective lens (Walumbwa et al., 2008). Finally,relational transparencyrefers to showing one’s true self to others and openly, but appropriately, sharing information regarding one’s true thoughts and emotions. Thus, authentic leaders welcome openness and self-disclosure in close relationships with others (Gardner, Avolio, & Walumbwa, 2005). Past empirical evidence has linked AL to both attitudinal (e.g. Laschinger, Wong, & Grau, 2013; Leroy, Palanski, & Simons, 2012) and behavioral outcomes (e.g.Hannah, Walumbwa, & Fry, 2011a; Leroy, Anseel, Gardner, & Sels, 2012). For the purpose of examining the empirical redundancy of AL, we focus specifically on the following six outcomes: (1) follower job satisfaction, (2) follower satisfaction with the leader, (3) task performance, (4) organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB), (5) group or organization perfor- mance, and (6) rated leader effectiveness. These outcomes were selected because they have been explicitly identified by AL theory (Avolio, Gardner, Walumbwa, Luthans, & May, 2004; Gardner, Avolio, Luthans et al., 2005, 2011; Luthans & Avolio, 2003; Walumbwa et al., 2008)asconsequencesoftheauthenticleader–follower relationship, and they have been previously examined in meta-analytic studies on transformational leadership (e.g.Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Wang, Oh, Courtright, & Colbert, 2011). Such overlap in the outcomes between our study and prior transformational leadership meta-analyses was necessary in order to test the incremental validity and relative importance of AL compared to transformational leadership. Empirical evidence suggests that when leaders are aware of their values and act upon such beliefs, they are more likely to achieve elevated levels of performance and help others accomplish the same (Ryan & Deci, 2001). Followers tend to express greater satisfac- tion with their leader when the leader engages in authentic behaviors and this satisfaction is likely to correspond to an increase in job satisfaction (Jensen & Luthans, 2006). Thus, leaders who are perceived to be more ethical and make principled decisions will be perceived as caring more about their followers (Brown & Treviño, 2006) and will likely inspire increased levels of OCBs. Additionally, AL has seen a strong link to improved task performance (Leroy, Anseel et al., 2012) and performance at both the group andfirm levels (Hannah et al., 2011a), in part, because individuals who are authentic are able to effectively use balanced processing of information and illustrate consistency between their words and deeds (Walumbwa et al., 2008). The result is that followers are more likely to receive the assistance, guidance, and resources that they need to perform their roles. In addition to 2G.C. Banks et al. / The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2016) xxx–xxx Please cite this article as: Banks, G.C., et al., A meta-analytic review of authentic and transformational leadership: A test for redundancy,The Leadership Quarterly(2016), this direct effect of AL, there is likely to be an indirect effect on performance. This is because authentic leaders serve as role models who act with integrity and fairness (Avolio et al., 2004). Furthermore, given that AL has been linked to these important performance-related outcomes, it is likely that authentic leaders will also be rated as more effective (Illies, Curseu, Dimotakis, & Spitzmuller, 2013). Thus, we suggest the following: Hypothesis 1.AL will have positive, nonzero relationships with the following work outcomes: (a) follower job satisfaction, (b) follower satisfaction with the leader satisfaction, (c) task performance, (d) organizational citizenship behaviors, (e) group or organization performance, and (f) rated leader effectiveness. Transformational leadership theory Transformational leadership theory has received a tremendous amount of attention in the last three decades and has deserved- ly emerged as one of the most dominant leadership theories (Mhatre & Riggio, 2014). First proposed byBurns (1978),thetheory was advanced byBass (1985), who made critical revisions. Since that point the theory has received the benefits of both theoretical as well as meta-analytic reviews (Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, & van Engen, 2003; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996; van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013), along with an in-depth theoretical and methodological critique (van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013). Transformational leadership describes how a leader seeks to meet the higher-order needs of followers. Four dimensions of transformational leadership have been proposed. First,idealized influencecharacterizes the extent to which an individual engages in behaviors that encourage followers to identify with him or her (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Second,inspirational motivation describes the extent to which an individual puts forth a vision meant to inspire followers. Third,intellectual stimulationcharacter- izes the extent to which individuals challenge existing assumptions and encourage others to take risks. Finally,individual considerationdescribes the extent to which an individual seeks to meet the individual needs of his or her followers (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). We suggest that when introducing a new leadership construct, such as AL, it is necessary to take stock of how this novel con- struct fares when predicting important outcomes relative to existing constructs, such as transformational leadership. If it is the case that AL does not illustrate incremental validity and a certain amount of importance relative to more established leadership constructs, its contribution to leadership research might be brought into question. Extensive reviews of the transformational lead- ership literature already exist (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999; Eagly et al., 2003; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013; Wang et al., 2011). Thus, in this section, we discuss the literature on transformational leadership as it relates to AL theory and research. There are many differences and similarities between transformational leadership and AL. With regard to conceptual differ- ences, transformational leadership focuses on developing followers for the purpose of performing leadership roles (Avolio, 1999), whereas AL is more concerned with developing followers’ sense of self more generally (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). Addition- ally, authentic leaders are not necessarily charismatic or inspirational, yet transformational leaders by definition paint powerful visions and stimulate creativity among followers within an organization. Other key elements of AL theory that are distinct or absent from transformational leadership theory include (a) a reciprocal relationship between positive psychological capital and authentic leadership/followership, (b) open and transparent relationships with close others, (c) alignment between leader values and ethical conduct, (d) a positive, strengths-based perspective, and (e) follower authenticity and development (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). These differences reflect the core premise of AL that alignment between the leaders’ values and behavior pro- duces tangible benefits for the leader in the form of heightened levels of psychological well-being. Conversely, follower modeling of such authenticity contributes to elevated levels of follower engagement, trust in the leader, well-being, and performance. Hence, the explicit focus on the psychological health and well-being of both the leader and followers that accrues from the attain- ment of authenticity represents a unique feature of AL theory that is not present within the transformational leadership literature. As for similarities, a review of the original definitions of transformational leadership by bothBurns (1978)and Bass (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999) suggests that it is a necessity that“true”as opposed to“pseudo”transformational leaders are authentic in their actions ( Avolio & Gardner, 2005). Hence, AL is most likely highly related to genuine transformational leadership and may serve as a“root construct”of this and other forms of positive leadership (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). Moreover,Avolio and Gardner (2005)note that the underlying leadership processes described by both theories stress the importance of leader self-awareness, positive modeling, follower self-determination, positive social exchanges between leaders and followers, and a supportive and ethical organizational context, while positing positive effects on follower, group, and organizational performance. Finally, while transformational leadership theory does not explicitly discuss the role of positive psychological capital or follower and leader relational transparency,Avolio and Gardner (2005)point out that these elements of AL are implicit in scholarly discussions of transformational leadership. Thus, while there are notable differences been the posited elements of AL versus transformational leadership, there is also a considerable amount of conceptual overlap. An examination of the tools used to measure these constructs further illustrates their distinctiveness. The items in the Multi- factor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass & Avolio, 2004), which is the most extensively used measure of transformational leadership, suggest that the content of this measure differs from that in the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ;Avolio, Gardner, & Walumbwa, 2007) or the Authentic Leadership Inventory (Neider & Schriesheim, 2011), which measure the four AL dimensions. Yet this does not mean there is not still conceptual overlap between the measures of AL and transformational leadership as 3 G.C. Banks et al. / The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2016) xxx–xxx Please cite this article as: Banks, G.C., et al., A meta-analytic review of authentic and transformational leadership: A test for redundancy,The Leadership Quarterly(2016), appears to be the case for the dimensions of idealized influence within transformational leadership theory and the internalized moral perspective within AL theory (Walumbwa et al., 2008). In the case of these two sub-dimensions, one would expect a leader to role model ideal behaviors that are meant to inspire followers in at least some capacity. Thus, from both a conceptual and measurement perspective, AL and transformational leadership appear to be related, yet distinct. If there is a very strong relation- ship between the measures of AL and transformational leadership, one might raise the issue of empirical redundancy. Based upon these arguments, we propose the following competing hypotheses: Hypothesis 2a.AL will reflect incremental validity and/or provide a greater relative contribution than transformational leadership when predicting important work outcomes. Hypothesis 2b.AL will not reflect incremental validity and/or provide a greater relative contribution than transformational leadership when predicting important work outcomes. Methods Literature search A thorough search was conducted in order to identify published and unpublished samples that examined the antecedents, corre- lates, and consequences of AL. We employed a search strategy similar to that ofGardner et al. (2011). Samples were identified through electronic searches of EBSCO/Host databases (e.g., Academic Search Complete, Business Source Complete, Education Re- search Complete, ERIC, PsycArticles, and PsycINFO) and Google Scholar using specific keywords such as“authentic leadership”and “authenticity”paired with“leader,”“follower,”or“leadership.”We conducted manual searches of theAcademy of Management, Society for Industrial/Organizational Psychology,andSouthern Management Associationannual conference proceedings and programs. We also searched reference lists of key articles on AL (e.g.,Gardner et al., 2011). A cutoff date was set for September 19, 2014. Finally, we issued a call for unpublished samples and in-press papers through theAcademy of Management’s OB, HRDIV, and LDRNET listservs. Inclusion and exclusion criteria To be included in the current meta-analytic review, primary samples had to meet several established criteria. First, only primary samples that explicitly measured AL were included. Second, to merit inclusion, primary samples had to measure AL and at least one of the variables identified inTable 1. Third, samples were included only if sufficient data were reported in order to calculate a correlation coefficient. When the necessary information was not reported, the authors were contacted and a request was made for the zero-order correlations not provided in the original study (e.g.Batchelor, 2011; Clapp-Smith, Vogelgesang, & Avey, 2009). It was decided to exclude the study byHmieleski, Cole, and Baron (2012)as these authors applied a reference-shift composition model to their AL scale so as to characterize AL of entire teams instead of individual leaders. In total, this process resulted in 100 samples that were coded and the inclusion of 25,452 individuals. The primary input values (e.g., sample size, reliabilities, and correlations) from each sample are available inAppendix A. Coding procedures Two authors independently coded a subsample of studies. Across 44 coding decisions (e.g., sample size, reliabilities, effect size, etc.), the interrater reliability was acceptable (Cohen’s kappa = 1.0) (Cohen, 1960). Additionally, the lead author randomly exam- ined approximately 20% of the primary samples and found no coding errors. When coding samples, if the sample included mul- tiple time periods, Time 1 was coded in order to increase the comparability of longitudinal samples to samples that utilized a cross-sectional design. In some instances, a reliability estimate (e.g., coefficient alpha) was not reported, and an average reliability was computed using other reliabilities in that distribution. If a study did not report the reliability of the AL measure employed, we used Cronbach’s alpha for the ALQ even if it was a unique scale. This most likely overestimates reliability and under corrects for any measurement error. However, as corrections boost the magnitude of the correlations, it was decided to use the more conser- vative approach. In a few cases proxies were coded. First, affective commitment was coded as a proxy for organizational commit- ment. Second, credibility was coded as a proxy for trust. Third, bullying was coded as a proxy for counterproductive work behaviors (CWB). In all other instances, the variables coded exactly matched the category for which the variable was assigned (e.g., the variable job satisfaction was coded as the criterion job satisfaction). Meta-analytic procedures The psychometric meta-analysis approach was employed in order to synthesize the primary samples (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). In a few instances, a composite correlation was used (the composites are reported inAppendix A). The variability of corrected effect size estimates was investigated by calculating 80% credibility intervals. Wide intervals or intervals that include zero can be interpreted as evidence of moderating effects. Additionally, the percentage of variability due to random-sampling and measurement error is described. Finally, 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were reported. 4G.C. Banks et al. / The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2016) xxx–xxx Please cite this article as: Banks, G.C., et al., A meta-analytic review of authentic and transformational leadership: A test for redundancy,The Leadership Quarterly(2016), Incremental validity and relative weights analyses Historically, in management research, there has been a great deal of emphasis placed on the total predictive validity of a collection of theoretically important variables (Johnson & LeBreton, 2004). Additionally, techniques have been posited that allow one to compare the importance of one predictor variable to another. For example, it is not uncommon to see regression analyses, such as tests of incremental validities, included in meta-analytic studies (Geyskens, Krishnan, Steenkamp, & Cunha, 2009; Kepes, McDaniel, Brannick, & Banks, 2013). This approach can be useful as it allows one to see the extent to which various constructs provide predictive validity over and above related constructs. However, such approaches can also be limited when the correlations between predictor variables are quite large in magnitude. This is certainly true when considering authentic and transformational leadership (Copeland, 2009; Lelchook, 2012; Walumbwa et al., 2008). Concerns about multicollinearity in regression equations suggest that a relative weights analysis is merited. The use of relative weights in meta-analyses has gained great popularity and acceptance in the management literature (Banks et al., 2014; Behson, 2012; Chiaburu, Munoz & Gardner, 2013; Chiaburu, Peng, Oh, Banks & Lomeli, 2013; Derue, Nahrgang, Wellman, & Humphrey, 2011; O’Boyle, Humphrey, Pollack, Hawver, & Story, 2011; O’Boyle, Forsyth, Banks, White, & Story, 2014; Tonidandel & LeBreton, 2011). Such an analysis can be completed using the epsilon weight technique advanced byJohnson (2001). This technique has received much attention over the past decade. This approach can be used to identify patterns of dominance among correlated predictor variables (LeBreton, Hargis, Griepentrog, Oswald, & Ployhart, 2007). Hence, its adoption is warranted when considering the high correlations of the leadership constructs of interest in this study. The resulting weights can be summed toR 2and then compared via ratios. For example, an epsilon weight of 0.30 is three times as important as an epsilon weight of 0.10; the summed weights of 0.40 reflect the total variance explained. Sensitivity analyses Various sensitivity analyses were conducted to verify the robustness of the results. Unfortunately, a sufficient number of sam- ples were not available to compare the operationalization of AL using the ALQ (Walumbwa et al., 2008) relative to the Authentic Leadership Inventory (ALI;Neider & Schriesheim, 2011). Outlier check A check for outliers was conducted usingHuffcutt and Arthur’s (1995)sample adjusted meta-analytic deviancy (SAMD) with corrections recommended byBeal, Corey, and Dunlap (2002). A critical value of .001 was used. When identified as a possible out- lier, the primary samples were reexamined to rule out the possibility that there were coding or transcription errors. In all in- stances, analyses were conducted with and without the possible outliers to identify if there were any changes in the conclusions drawn. In no cases did a conclusion change, and thus, it was decided not to eliminate any potential outliers. One-sample-removed analysis To supplement the outlier check and to reduce any remaining concerns that the results may have been affected by influential samples, one-sample-removed analyses were computed and reported in the results section (Kepes et al., 2013). To accomplish this, the primary samples were removed one at a time from each distribution and the meta-analytic estimate was recalculated. The result is a range of estimates that illustrates the robustness of the meta-analytic estimate should any one sample be removed. Publication bias check Publication bias is considered to be a potential threat to the robustness of meta-analytic results (Banks, Kepes, & McDaniel, 2012; Banks & McDaniel, 2011) and, consequently, evidence-based practice (Briner & Rousseau, 2011). Previous research has sug- gested that, conservatively speaking, publication bias analyses should only be interpreted when there are at least 15 samples, as publication bias tests are thought to be less accurate within smaller distributions (Kepes, Banks, & Oh, 2012). In the current study, there are four distributions with at least 15 or more samples (AL-transformational leadership; AL-OCB; AL-commitment; AL-job satisfaction). In order to triangulate the possibility of publication bias, we report the results of the trim andfill (Duval, 2005), moderate selection models (Vevea & Woods, 2005), and cumulative meta-analysis (Kepes, Banks, McDaniel, & Whetzel, 2012). For a complete review of these tests, seeBanks, Kepes, and McDaniel (2015)as well asKepes, Banks, McDaniel et al. (2012). Results We began our analyses by considering the relationships between AL and its sub-dimensions. Past empirical studies have examined the construct validity of AL via factor analysis (e.g.Neider & Schriesheim, 2011; Walumbwa et al., 2008). Yet there are benefits to considering the relations between dimensions via meta-analysis because such results provide close approximation of pa- rameter estimates free from random-sampling error (LePine, Erez, & Johnson, 2002). There appear to be strong relations among the AL dimensions. The correlations between relational transparency and balanced processing (b ρ=.86,k=23,N= 4425), internal- ized moral perspective (b ρ=.89,k=24,N= 4,535), and self-awareness (b ρ= .88,k= 23,N= 4,457) are all large in magnitude. The parameter estimates between balanced processing and self-awareness (b ρ= .92,k= 24,N= 4,515) and internalized moral 5 G.C. Banks et al. / The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2016) xxx–xxx Please cite this article as: Banks, G.C., et al., A meta-analytic review of authentic and transformational leadership: A test for redundancy,The Leadership Quarterly(2016), perspective (b ρ= .84,k=24,N= 4,516) are also quite large in magnitude. Finally, the relation between internalized moral perspec- tive and self-awareness (b ρ=.84,k=23,N= 4,378) was consistent with the other relations examined. The correlates and outcomes of AL are illustrated inTable 1. In cases where the number of samples (k) and the overall sample size are small (n), greater caution should be used when interpreting the results. The results shown inTable 1provide support forHypothesis 1. AL is strongly correlated with job satisfaction (b ρ= .53,k=16,N= 4,084), follower satisfaction with the leader (b ρ=.66,k=6,N= 1,318), group or organization performance (b ρ=.40,k=4,N= 333), and leader-rated effectiveness (b ρ= .58,k=7,N= 1,431), as well as task performance (b ρ=.14,k=9,N= 2,054) and OCB of followers (b ρ=.48,k=10, N= 2,309). There were also strong true-score correlations between AL and other important behavioral and attitudinal outcomes, such as CWB (b ρ=−.31,k=3,N= 1,549), organizational commitment (b ρ= .51,k=17,N= 4,077), and turnover intentions (b ρ=− .21,k=5,N= 1,149). Hence, these results show that AL is related to both important attitudinal and behavioral outcomes. Also of note, AL displays a strong positive relationship with leader-member exchange (LMX;b ρ=.65,k=6,N= 2,083). The estimate of the true-score correlation (b ρ) between authentic and transformational leadership is .72 (k=23,N= 5,414). These results indicate a strong overlap between authentic and transformational leadership, which raises concern that these are not stand-alone constructs. It should be noted that the authentic-transformational leadership parameter estimate exceeds the traditionally accepted minimum cutoff for acceptable internal consistency of .70 (LePine et al., 2002; Nunnally, 1978). Thisfinding is contradictory to scale development studies that argue that authentic and transformational leadership are empirically distinct constructs (Neider & Schriesheim, 2011; Walumbwa et al., 2008). Incremental validity and relative importance of AL As previously described, we propose that when introducing a new leadership construct, it is necessary to take stock of how this new construct fares when predicting important outcomes compared to existing constructs. In the case that AL fails to illus- trate incremental validity and/or an appropriate amount of importance relative to existing leadership constructs, its contributions to thefield of management could be brought into question. As previously mentioned, concerns exist that there is construct and theory proliferation in management research (Leavitt et al., 2010). Thus, we conducted both incremental validity and relative weights analyses with authentic and transformational leadership. To construct the correlation matrix necessary for each incremental validity test and relative weights analysis, an attempt was made to identify the most up-to-date and accurate correlations between transformational leadership and important outcomes. Thus, we used the correlations fromJudge and Piccolo (2004)as well asWang et al. (2011)for our incremental validity and Table 1 Correlates and consequences of authentic leadership (AL). VariablekN rSD r bρa bρb SDρ CVLL CVUL CILL CIUL %Var One sample removed AL←→Transformational 23 5,414 .70 .20 .72 .85 .27 [.37 1.00] [.60 .83] 2% .69 to .77 ALQ 17 4,013 .74 .11 .74 .90 .24 [.43 1.00] [.63 .86] 2% .72 to .82 Other measures 6 1,401 .58 .31 .63 .70 .32 [.22 1.00] [.38 .89] 2% .52 to .79 AL←→Transactional 10 1,812 .44 .35 .55 .58 .43 [.00 1.00] [.29 .82] 3% .48 to .69 AL→Employee behavioral and attitudinal outcomes Task performance 9 2,054 .12 .04 .14 .15 .04 [.08 .19] [.08 .19] 74% .12 to .16 Group or org performance 4 333 .35 .07 .40 .43 .08 [.31 .50] [.28 .52] 69% .33 to .49 OCB 10 2,309 .42 .24 .48 .52 .24 [.17 .78] [.33 .63] 7% .40 to .52 Voice 6 1,530 .29 .10 .31 .36 .11 [.17 .44] [.21 .41] 25% .27 to .36 LMX 6 2,083 .60 .22 .65 .75 .22 [.36 .94] [.47 .83] 3% .55 to .73 Satisfaction with leader 6 1,318 .60 .11 .66 .72 .11 [.52 .81] [.57 .76] 16% .64 to .72 Trust in leader 12 3,210 .57 .18 .65 .71 .19 [.41 .89] [.54 .76] 7% .62 to .74 Leader effectiveness 7 1,431 .54 .35 .58 .64 .37 [.11 .99] [.30 .85] 2% .49 to .73 Job satisfaction 16 4,084 .48 .15 .53 .59 .16 [.32 .74] [.45 .61] 10% .50 to .55 Org. commitment 17 4,077 .44 .14 .51 .55 .16 [.30 .71] [.43 .59] 13% .49 to .54 Creativity 4 859 .29 .21 .33 .39 .23 [.04 .62] [.10 .56] 9% .21 to .41 Engagement 11 3,018 .33 .34 .37 .41 .38 [−.11 .85] [.14 .59] 3% .29 to .49 Empowerment 5 1,394 .45 .07 .51 .54 .07 [.41 .60] [.43 .58] 35% .47 to .53 Psychological capital 7 3,134 .48 .09 .53 .59 .11 [.40 .67] [.45 .62] 14% .49 to .55 CWB 3 1,549−.28 .11−.31−.33 .12 [−.47−.16] [−.46−.17] 13%−.41 to−.17 Turnover intentions 5 1,149−.20 .28−.21−.25 .31 [−.60 .18] [−.49 .06] 5%−.42 to−.14 Burnout/stress 7 1,616−.24 .00−.27−.30 .00 [−.27−.27] [−.31−.22] 100%−.29 to−.25 Note. k= number of independent samples;N= total sample size; r= sample-size-weighted mean observed correlation;SD r= sample-size-weighted observed standard deviation of correlations;b ρ= mean true-score correlation (corrected for unreliability for both variables);SD ρ= standard deviation of corrected correlations; CV LLand CV UL= lower and upper bounds, respectively, of the 80% credibility interval; CI LLand CI UL= lower and upper bounds, respectively, of the 95% confidence interval around the mean true-score correlation; %Var = percentage of variance attributable to statistical artifacts; OCB = organizational citizenship behaviors; LMX = leader-member exchange; CWB = counterproductive work behaviors. aObserved correlation corrected for measurement error using coefficient alpha.bObserved correlation corrected for measurement error using inter-judge agreement. 6G.C. Banks et al. / The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2016) xxx–xxx Please cite this article as: Banks, G.C., et al., A meta-analytic review of authentic and transformational leadership: A test for redundancy,The Leadership Quarterly(2016), relative weights analyses. The correlations from the current meta-analysis and those from the two previous studies were input into an SPSS matrix regression macro created byJohnson (2001)for the relative weights analyses. When constructing meta-analytic correlation matrices, it is important to keep in mind that effect sizes from prior meta- analyses draw upon different samples from those included in the current meta-analysis. Thus, there is a possible limitation that the samples vary in important and unknown ways. Additionally, the number of samples included in previous transformational leadership meta-analytic research was larger than the number of samples included in this AL meta-analysis. Hence, the parameter estimates for transformational leadership are thought to be more stable as the literature has had more time to develop and become established. With these caveats in mind, the results of the current incremental validity and relative weights analyses do represent the best estimates of the population parameters and AL’s contribution relative to transformational leadership. The results of the incremental validity tests are illustrated inTable 2. In the upper half of the table, transformational leadership is entered into step one of the regression model, and AL is entered into step two. The results show that AL adds little incremental validity over and above transformational leadership except for the case of followers’ OCB (ΔR 2= .15) and group or organization performance (ΔR 2= .09). Conversely, when AL is enteredfirst into the regression model, transformational leadership appears to add the most incremental validity in the evaluation of leadership effectiveness (ΔR 2= .10), follower job satisfaction (ΔR 2=.08), and follower satisfaction with the leader (ΔR 2= .11). Neither construct appears to add much incremental validity over and above the other in general. Next, we completed relative weights analyses. Epsilon weights can be used in such an analysis in order to estimate the sum of explained variance (R 2). Additionally, the epsilon weights can be judged through ratios (Johnson & LeBreton, 2004). The magni- tude of the weights can be interpreted using the standards set byCohen (1988)in whichR 2values of 0.01, 0.09, and 0.25 cate- gorize the small, medium, and large effects, respectively. Yet these standards for evaluating bivariate relations can be considered conservative when used in the context of multivariate models such as in the case of a relative weights analysis. This is because partial and semi-partial correlations decrease as the number of predictors increases (except for in the case of suppressor effects). Table 3displays the results of the relative weights analyses. The percentage of relative weights shown inTable 3is calculated by dividing the relative weights by totalR 2and subsequently multiplying by 100. The percentages then total to 100%. This infor- mation provides indices of the relative importance of these leadership constructs that are useful for interpretation of the results. In general, the results of the comparison of AL to transformational leadership show mixed dominance by the two constructs. AL did not show greater dominance than transformational leadership for follower job satisfaction (42.3% vs. 57.7%), task perfor- mance (22.4% vs. 77.6%), follower satisfaction with the leader (43.8% vs. 56.2%), and leadership effectiveness (41.7% vs. 58.3%). Conversely, AL did show greater dominance in the cases of group or organization performance (78.6% vs. 21.4%) and OCB Table 2 Results of the incremental validity tests.* The incremental validity of AL Follower job satisfaction Follower satisfaction with leader Task performance βSEβSEβSEβSEβSEβSE TL 0.58⁎⁎ 0.01 0.41⁎⁎ 0.02 0.71⁎⁎ 0.02 0.49⁎⁎ 0.02 0.21⁎⁎ 0.02 0.23⁎⁎ 0.03 AL 0.23⁎⁎ 0.02 0.31⁎⁎ 0.02−0.02 0.03 R 2= 0.336⁎⁎ R 2= 0.363⁎⁎ R 2= 0.504⁎⁎ R 2= 0.550⁎⁎ R 2= 0.044⁎⁎ R 2= 0.044⁎⁎ ΔR 2= 0.027⁎⁎ ΔR 2= 0.046⁎⁎ ΔR 2= 0.000 Group or organization performance Leader effectiveness OCB TL 0.26⁎⁎ 0.04−0.06 0.05 0.64⁎⁎ 0.02 0.46⁎⁎ 0.02 0.30⁎⁎ 0.01−0.10 0.02 AL 0.44⁎⁎ 0.05 0.25⁎⁎ 0.02 0.55⁎⁎ 0.02 R 2= 0.068⁎⁎ R 2= 0.162⁎⁎ R 2= 0.410⁎⁎ R 2= 0.439⁎⁎ R 2= 0.090⁎⁎ R 2= 0.235⁎⁎ ΔR 2= 0.094⁎⁎ ΔR 2= 0.029⁎⁎ ΔR 2= 0.145⁎⁎ The incremental validity of transformational leadership Follower job satisfaction Follower satisfaction with leader Task performance βSEβSEβSEβSEβSEβSE AL 0.53⁎⁎ 0.01 0.23⁎⁎ 0.02 0.66⁎⁎ 0.02 0.31⁎⁎ 0.02 0.14⁎⁎ 0.02−0.02 0.03 TL 0.41⁎⁎ 0.02 0.49⁎⁎ 0.02 0.23⁎⁎ 0.03 R 2= 0.281⁎⁎ R 2= 0.363⁎⁎ R 2= 0.436⁎⁎ R 2= 0.550⁎⁎ R 2= 0.020⁎⁎ R 2= 0.044⁎⁎ ΔR 2= 0.082⁎⁎ ΔR 2= 0.114⁎⁎ ΔR 2= 0.024⁎⁎ Group or organization performance Leader effectiveness OCB AL 0.40⁎⁎ 0.04 0.44⁎⁎ 0.05 0.58⁎⁎ 0.02 0.25⁎⁎ 0.02 0.48⁎⁎ 0.01 0.55⁎⁎ 0.02 TL−0.06 0.05 0.46⁎⁎ 0.02−0.10 0.02 R 2= 0.160⁎⁎ R 2= 0.162⁎⁎ R 2= 0.336⁎⁎ R 2= 0.439⁎⁎ R 2= 0.230⁎⁎ R 2= 0.235⁎⁎ ΔR 2= 0.002⁎⁎ ΔR 2= 0.103⁎⁎ ΔR 2= 0.005⁎⁎ Note. AL = authentic leadership; TL = transformational leadership. ⁎ pb.05. ⁎⁎ pb.01.7 G.C. Banks et al. / The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2016) xxx–xxx Please cite this article as: Banks, G.C., et al., A meta-analytic review of authentic and transformational leadership: A test for redundancy,The Leadership Quarterly(2016), (79.9% vs. 20.1%). The nature of the dominance by constructs varies and often by wide margins. In sum, it appears that across the six outcomes, transformational leadership shows greater relative weight in four of the cases, while AL shows greater dominance in another two. Sensitivity analyses Contextual factors In order to consider the potential for contextual factors to influence the relations investigated in this study, we investigated several moderating variables. First, in cases where at least three samples were available by source, we reported multi-source (data came from multiple participants) or same source relations (data came from a single source). We also coded for the most common context, which was the healthcare industry and level of leader investigated (e.g., upper management and lower manage- ment). Thesefindings are reported inTable 4.Webriefly discuss the AL-transformational leadership relation as a case example. The AL-transformational leadership relation did not seem to vary much by source (e.g.,ρ= .75 vs.ρ= .81). However, for the level of management for this relation, upper management differed significantly from lower management (e.g.,ρ= .86 vs. ρ= .42). In general, the reporting of these categorical moderators allows for a more detailed look at the extant research on AL. One sample removed The one-sample-removed analyses are summarized inTable 1. These results illustrate the range of possible effect sizes if any one sample were removed from the analyses. As might be expected, the range of potential estimates is much smaller in nature when the number of samples (k) increases. There is no doubt that as the number of AL studies increases, more stability will emerge in the parameter estimates between the AL and the constructs in its nomological network. However, the range of poten- tial estimates appears to be small in most cases, suggesting that the results are relatively robust. It appears that some of the distributions with fewer samples were less robust. For instance, the AL-CWB relation (k= 3) ranged from−.41 to−.17, and the AL-turnover intentions relation (k=5)rangedfrom−.42 to−.14. Conversely, larger distributions, such as the AL-transformational re- lation (k= 23), showed a smaller range from .69 to .77. In general, the smaller ranges can be interpreted as illustrating more robust findings, while the larger ranges illustrate that greater caution should be exercised when interpreting thefindings. Correction for measurement error Inter-judge agreement may be a more appropriate estimate of reliability than coefficient alphas in the context of the current study (LeBreton & Senter, 2007). However, the vast majority of the studies included in this meta-analysis did not report the necessary reliability estimate. Hence, we coded the requisite information for AL where available and then imputed the reliability estimate for the studies where the information was missing. As a sensitivity check, we report the observed correlations corrected for measurement error using inter-judge agreement inTable 1. By and large, thefindings reported inTable 1did not change re- gardless of the type of measurement error corrected. Publication bias analyses As previously stated, we followed past precedence and only interpreted distributions with at least 15 samples for the publica- tion bias analyses (Kepes, Banks, & Oh, 2012). To begin, we examined the relationship between authentic and transformational leadership. The moderate (Δr= .002) and severe (Δr= .004) one-tailed selection model tests show that the original meta- analytic estimate is only marginally adjusted downward. Next, a cumulative meta-analysis was calculated and the difference be- tween the point estimate after the 10% most precise samples in the distribution and thefinal meta-analytic estimate was com- pared. The results show that the correlation is adjusted downward, which is counter to what would be expected if publication bias were present. Finally, when considering the potential for missing negative or near-zero correlations, the trim andfill analysis supported the results of the previous two analyses asfindings suggested that publication bias is not present in the distribution. Table 3 Relative importance of authentic and transformational leadership. Follower job satisfaction Follower satisfaction with leader Group or organization performance Raw relative weightsRelative weights as a % ofR 2 Raw relative weightsRelative weights as a % ofR 2 Raw relative weightsRelative weights as a % ofR 2 Authentic 0.154 42.3 0.241 43.8 0.127 78.6 Transformational 0.209 57.7 0.309 56.2 0.035 21.4 R 2= 0.363R 2= 0.550R 2= 0.162 Task performance OCB Leadership effectiveness Raw relative weightsRelative weights as a % ofR 2 Raw relative weightsRelative weights as a % ofR 2 Raw relative weightsRelative weights as a % ofR 2 Authentic 0.010 22.4 0.188 79.9 0.183 41.7 Transformational 0.034 77.6 0.047 20.1 0.256 58.3 R 2= 0.044R 2= 0.235R 2= 0.439 8G.C. Banks et al. / The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2016) xxx–xxx Please cite this article as: Banks, G.C., et al., A meta-analytic review of authentic and transformational leadership: A test for redundancy,The Leadership Quarterly(2016), The same analyses were repeated with the AL→organizational commitment and AL→job satisfaction relationships. These analyses also provided no evidence of publication bias. In sum, this preliminary evidence shows no support for concerns of publication bias. However, the analyses should be updated in the future once more samples have emerged. Discussion The primary objective of this study is to consider the potential for empirical redundancy among the authentic and transforma- tional leadership constructs. Despite recent advancements in the theoretical understanding of AL, only a few years ago there was a dearth of empirical studies necessary to conduct a meta-analytic review (e.g.,Gardner et al., 2011) and consider the contribution of the construct. However, due to the dramatic increase in AL studies, a critical mass has been reached allowing for a meta- analytic review on the topic. Thus, this study is thefirst to consider the empirical redundancy of AL using a meta-analysis. This objective was completedfirst by examining the magnitude of the correlation between AL and transformational leadership. We then conducted two additional analyses to consider the incremental validity of the constructs as well as their relative importance. Interestingly, thefindings of this study are somewhat inconsistent with previous empirical work. While individual scale develop- ment studies have provided evidence that the AL and transformational leadership constructs are related, yet distinct (Neider & Schriesheim, 2011; Walumbwa et al., 2008), the current studyfinds at least some evidence to the contrary. More specifically, AL was strongly and positively correlated with transformational leadership. The very large correlation between AL and transformational Table 4 Categorical moderators of Authentic Leadership (AL) relations. VariablekN rSD r bρSD ρ CVLL CVUL CILL CIUL %Var AL←→Transformational Multi-source 5 1,068 .66 .16 .75 .17 [.53 .97] [.59 .90] 6.5% Same source 16 3,393 .73 .23 .81 .25 [.49 .99] [.69 .93] 2.2% Upper management 9 1,948 .75 .10 .86 .12 [.71 .99] [.78 .94] 8.3% Lower management 4 639 .38 .32 .42 .34 [−.02 .86] [.08 .76] 5.2% Task performance Multi-source 6 1,439 .13 .00 .14 .01 [.14 .15] [.09 .20] 99.2% Same source 3 615 .10 .07 .11 .07 [.02 .21] [−.00 .23] 52.4% Healthcare context 3 534 .07 .09 .08 .10 [−.05 .20] [−.06 .22] 42.3% OCB Multi-source 5 1,145 .29 .08 .33 .10 [.21 .46] [.23 .44] 32.0% Same source 4 917 .56 .29 .62 .27 [.28 .96] [.35 .89] 3.8% Upper management 3 796 .60 .30 .65 .29 [.27 .99] [.31 .98] 2.3% Trust in leader Healthcare context 3 658 .58 .08 .66 .08 [.56 .76] [.56 .76] 30.1% Upper management 4 1,495 .46 .17 .52 .18 [.29 .75] [.34 .70] 7.1% Job satisfaction Multi-source 4 787 .43 .00 .46 .00 [.46 .46] [.40 .52] 99.9% Same source 11 3,159 .49 .17 .55 .19 [.31 .79] [.44 .66] 7.3% Healthcare context 5 1,227 .51 .18 .56 .21 [.29 .83] [.37 .75] 5.7% Upper management 3 520 .30 .13 .35 .11 [.22 .49] [.21 .49] 40.1% Lower management 5 1,122 .41 .05 .45 .07 [.36 .53] [.37 .52] 45.4% Org. commitment Multi-source 6 1,207 .47 .11 .52 .12 [.37 .68] [.42 .63] 19.6% Same source 10 2,732 .43 .15 .50 .17 [.28 .72] [.39 .61] 10.0% Upper management 3 520 .46 .00 .63 .12 [.48 .77] [.48 .77] 32.1% Lower management 3 572 .37 .11 .40 .12 [.25 .55] [.25 .55] 25.4% Engagement Healthcare context 3 557 .29 .05 .32 .05 [.25 .38] [.22 .41] 68.8% Psychological capital Multi-source 3 938 .45 .07 .49 .05 [.42 .56] [.41 .57] 49.6% Same source 4 2,196 .49 .10 .55 .12 [.40 .70] [.43 .67] 8.6% Upper management 4 1,932 .48 .08 .54 .09 [.42 .66] [.45 .64] 16.5% Burnout/stress Healthcare context 4 1,075−.23 .00−.26 .00 [−.26−.26] [−.31−.20] 99.9% Lower management 3 822−.22 .00−.24 .00 [−.24−.24] [−.31−.18] 99.9% Note. k= number of independent samples;N= total sample size; r= sample-size-weighted mean observed correlation;SD r= sample-size-weighted observed standard deviation of correlations;b ρ= mean true-score correlation (corrected for unreliability for both variables);SD ρ= standard deviation of corrected correla- tions; CV LLand CV UL= lower and upper bounds, respectively, of the 80% credibility interval; CI LLand CI UL= lower and upper bounds, respectively, of the 95% confidence interval around the mean true-score correlation; %Var = percentage of variance attributable to statistical artifacts; OCB = organizational citizenship behaviors.9 G.C. Banks et al. / The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2016) xxx–xxx Please cite this article as: Banks, G.C., et al., A meta-analytic review of authentic and transformational leadership: A test for redundancy,The Leadership Quarterly(2016), leadership suggests the possibility of empirical redundancy as the correlation approached 1.0. This was particularly true when AL was measured using the ALQ where the parameter estimate was .74. Given that conceptual arguments have been made for the distinction between AL and transformational leadership, it is curious that the two constructs wereso highly correlated. It is possible that further refinement to the ALQ as well as continued application of the ALI would improve our understanding of the AL and transformational leadership relationship. Further, given the .72 correlation between AL and transformational leadership, it is not surprising that neither AL nor transformational leadership seemed to add much incremental validity over and above the other. Perhaps most notably, transformational leadership seemed to outperform AL in predicting four of the six examined attitudinal and performance-related outcomes. Yet AL outperformed transformational leadership when predicting group- orfirm-level per- formance (a proxy for leadership effectiveness in some research areas) and followers’ OCB. Thus, the relative importance analyses suggest that AL and transformational leadership may show dominance over the other in predicting varying outcomes. However, given the small number of samples and total sample sizes in some cases, such as when considering group or organization perfor- mance, caution should be exercised when expressing the robustness of thefindings. Still in total, while the magnitude of the correlation between authentic and transformational leadership and the incremental validity results suggest the possibility of empirical redundancy, thefindings of the relative weights analyses indicate that AL is deserving of future attention given the mixed results. With this caution in mind, we found it useful to revisit AL and transformational leadership theory to speculate on possible explanations for the differences in the relative levels of dominance observed for these theories. In doing so, we were struck by the extent to which the outcomes that are more strongly related to transformational leadership (task performance, leader effec- tiveness, follower job satisfaction, and follower satisfaction with the leader) reflect an individual level focus, whereas those more strongly related to AL (OCB’s and group and organizational performance) reflect a collective focus. One possible explanation for the former set offindings is provided by the subtitle ofBass’ (1985)seminal treatise on transformational leadership—Performance Beyond Expectations. Clearly, the focal outcome of transformational leadership is performance. As such, in retrospect, perhaps it is not surprising that it has a stronger relationship with task performance and leader effectiveness. Moreover, achievement of elevated levels of leadership effectiveness and follower performance may explain the strong relationships with job satisfaction and follower satisfaction. Specifically, by inspiring followers to pursue and attain exceptional levels of performance, transforma- tional leadership accrues very high levels of follower satisfaction with their jobs and the leader. By contrast, the central focus of AL on enabling both leaders and their followers to stay true to their values, identity, emotions, motives, and goals (Gardner, Avolio, Luthans et al., 2005)reflects a more diffuse focus beyond performance. Indeed, the internal- ized moral perspective component of AL suggests that both leaders and their followers have a clear moral duty to respect the in- terests of the collective. While this responsibility is also implied by transformational leadership (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999), it is more explicit and central to AL. This focus may in turn explain the stronger relationship of AL with citizenship behaviors that are directed toward supporting collective interests, even though such behaviors may not always produce tangible individual re- wards (LePine et al., 2002). Moreover, this focus on not only one’s self-interests but also the interests of the collective may explain why AL is more strongly associated with elevated levels of group and organizational performance. While this post hoc explanation is admittedly speculative, it is also a plausible explanation for these differential results that is compatible with both AL and transformational leadership theory. Hence, we consider assessments of the merits of this explanation to be a promising avenue for future research into authentic and transformational leadership and the differences between them. While the focus of this research has been to assess AL relative to the more established construct of transformational leadership, it should be noted that the conceptual underpinnings and empirical support for charismatic-transformational leadership has been drawn into question. In a highly critical review of this literature,van Knippenberg and Sitkin (2013)concluded that thefield suf- fers from serious theoretical and measurement deficiencies. In particular, they argued that (1) a clear definition of charismatic- transformational leadership is lacking, in that current multidimensional conceptions of charismatic-transformational leadership do not specify how these dimensions combine to form charismatic-transformational leadership, or how these dimensions were selected for inclusion; (2) the distinct influence of the leadership dimensions on mediating processes and outcomes are not spec- ified; (3) conceptualization and operationalization of these constructs confounds them with their effects; and (4) the validity of the most commonly used measures is suspect because they fail to reproduce the posited dimensional structure or achieve empir- ical distinctiveness from other aspects of leadership. Hence, despite three decades of conceptual and empirical scholarly attention being devoted to explicating the construct of transformational leadership, conceptual and empirical ambiguity remains. In light of these limitations, it is possible that the redundancy between AL and transformational leadership stems from limita- tions of the later, as opposed to the former, theory. Nonetheless, it should also be noted that the extant AL theory and research to date is subject to many of the same criticisms thatvan Knippenberg and Sitkin (2013)level against transformational leadership theory. These include a lack of distinctiveness among the components (as the high correlations observed in this study demon- strate) and the absence of theory regarding differential effects. These limitations have important implications for future AL research, as described below. Limitations and implications for future research As AL is a new construct that is drawing considerable attention in the academic (Gardner et al., 2011), and practitioner liter- ature (George & Sims, 2007), the results of this meta-analytic review are critical to direct future research. There are three primary points that we wish to emphasize in order to guide future research. First, perhaps one of the most obviousfindings of this re- search is the strong correlation between AL and transformational leadership. In fact, AL has fairly strong correlations across the 10G.C. Banks et al. / The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2016) xxx–xxx Please cite this article as: Banks, G.C., et al., A meta-analytic review of authentic and transformational leadership: A test for redundancy,The Leadership Quarterly(2016), range of measures that we presume to reflect outcomes of good leadership. Some of the issues we see in the ALQ measure may be due to an overall reliance on single-source methods. It was not uncommon for AL studies to rely largely upon followers to rate the authenticity of leadership, the degree to which a leader was transformational, and other outcomes. Such an approach could certainly lead to correlations that are inflated by common-method bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2012). In other words, the potential for correlated method variance may inflate the relations between AL and transformational leadership as well as important outcomes. Second, there was an overreliance on studies that collected data at one time point. Again, this is not unique in primary studies in leadership (Gardner, Lowe, Moss, Mahoney, & Cogliser, 2010; Lowe & Gardner, 2000), but the collection of data at multiple time points would do much to reduce concerns regarding the inflating influence of common-method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2012; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Lee, 2003;Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). What is redeeming is the fact that AL performed reasonably well when predicting performance-related outcomes not dependent on a single source (e.g., supervisor-rated task performance; group orfirm-level performance). This latterfinding is intriguing. It is possible that thefinding is due to chance when looking at group orfirm-level performance as the overall sample size was rather small (n= 333). However, in the case of supervisor-rated task performance, there was a relatively large overall sample size (n= 1,439), indicating less potential for a chancefinding. In the case of supervisor-rated task performance, we can have greater confidence in the robustness of the results. Third, we point out that the results of the incremental validity and relative weights analyses are dependent upon the qual- ity and type of criteria used. In the event that criteria quality is poor, or the types of criteria matter (i.e., there are moderating variables), the results of these analyses might change. To help further distinguish AL and transformational leadership, more work should be done to consider the relationships be- tween the underlying dimensions of the two constructs. As noted above, the lack of articulation of how the dimensions combine, as well as their differential effects, is a limitation of transformational leadership research (van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013) that is so far shared by AL theory and research (Gardner et al., 2011). As such, an insufficientamountofempiricalworkwasavailableto permit us to explore dimensional analyses in the current meta-analytic review. However, a more specific consideration of the redundancy of the two constructs at the facet level would be insightful. The advantages of using a meta-analytic comparison of sub-facets has been illustrated when examining the dimensions of potentially redundant personality models, such as thefive- factor model and the dark triad model (e.g.,O’Boyle et al., 2014). The subscales of AL were highly correlated in these analyses, suggesting weak discriminant and structural validity (Messick, 1995). However, part of the problem may stem from current definitions of the AL components, which fail to clearly demarcate their differences. For example, a sharper conceptualization of how relational transparency differs from balanced processing would enable researchers to generate new items to better operationalize these differences. Conceptually, relational transparency is more focused on being open in one’s relationships with close others and willing to engage in self-disclosure, whereas balanced processing is focused on a relatively objective and non-defensive interpretation of ego-relevant information, regardless of its source (Gardner, Avolio, Luthans et al., 2005). At present, the items of the ALQ and the ALI do not fully capture these distinctions. As such, it is not surprising that these dimensions are highly correlated. Sharpening the conceptual distinctions among the AL components and developing associated measures that reflect these differences would also facilitate the generation of differential hypotheses for focal work outcomes and appropriate tools for exploring these hypotheses. For example, the aforementioned difference between relational transparency and balanced processing suggests that the former will be more strongly related to measures of self-disclosure (Jourad & Lasakow, 1958), whereas the latter would be a better pre- dictor of distributive and procedural justice (Greenberg, 1987). Hence, while it is of critical importance that future research con- siders the possibility that a general factor underlies the four components of AL and all observed relationships, it is also important that greater conceptual and empirical work be conducted to determine the utility of refining the de finitions and operationalization of these components. Such work could be completed with both the ALQ and the ALI scales, as well as new measures that may better differentiate the AL components and hence establish greater discriminant validity among these dimensions and with other measures of positive leadership. Thus, we recommend that researchers continue to explore the relations between AL and its components with other leadership theories (e.g., LMX, servant leadership, and ethical leadership) as more data become available (Brown & Treviño, 2006; Liden & Maslyn, 1998; Liden, Panaccio, Meuser, Hu, & Wayne, 2014). Fig. 1illustrates both theoretical antecedents and outcomes of AL discussed in the literature. 1Interestingly, antecedents of AL have not yet received adequate research attention, although they have been theoretically argued to be relevant to AL. Studies on AL have focused largely upon the relations between AL and important work outcomes (e.g., job performance, job satisfaction). Hence, this was the focus of our meta-analysis. Yet it is worth noting that another approach to distinguishing authentic and trans- formational leadership would be to consider antecedents related to ethical factors, such as the organizational ethical climate and the values of the leader, as well as ethical outcomes. Unlike transformational leadership, AL was explicitly developed to answer calls to improve the ethical conduct of today’s leaders (Gardner et al., 2011), which may explain its stonger association with collective outcomes, as suggested above. This distinction may be important when attempting to discriminate between authentic and transformational leadership. Yet there were no sufficient studies with a focus on how AL might decrease unethical behaviors (e.g.,Cianci, Hannah, Roberts, & Tsakumis, 2014) available to explore these effects in this study. Consequently, the lack of research that considers ethical antecedents and outcomes is a shortcoming of the existing AL research and an opportunity for future research. The contribution of AL compared to transformational leadership might be different if ethical antecedents and 1Enough data exist to test individual differences as antecedents (e.g., gender, age, etc.). However, individual differences have not been theorizedto be meaningful antecedents to AL, thus, we do not include such tests (Gardner et al., 2011).11 G.C. Banks et al. / The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2016) xxx–xxx Please cite this article as: Banks, G.C., et al., A meta-analytic review of authentic and transformational leadership: A test for redundancy,The Leadership Quarterly(2016), outcomes were considered. Additionally, greater research at the component level could assess the discriminant validity of the internalized moral perspective component since, theoretically, it should be most strongly related to ethical behavior and outcomes (Walumbwa et al., 2008). On a related note, we wish to emphasize that there was a general lack of identified antecedents that could predict the emergence of AL. Some researchers have suggested that trigger events, positive psychological capacities, personal histories, and a positive organiza- tional context could lead to AL behaviors (Gardner, Avolio, Luthans et al., 2005; Luthans & Avolio, 2003). However, there were insuf- ficient empirical data to test such assertions. Moreover, we echo calls from other scholars suggesting that greater emphasis should be placed on the development of authentic followers (Cianci et al., 2014; Gardner et al., 2011; Leroy, Anseel et al., 2012). The need for a greater focus on followers when studying leadership is true of most leadership theories (Avolio, 2007), and the AL literature is certain- ly not unique in this aspect. Additionally, the number of primary samples did not allow for the testing of several important moderating variables. For example, the ALQ is the most commonly used measure of AL (Walumbwa et al., 2008). However, other measures have been developed and used, such as the ALI (Neider & Schriesheim, 2011). Yet at this juncture it was not possible to compare the magnitude of the parameter estimates between these scales when predicting attitudinal and behavioral outcomes due to the limited number of available samples that employ the ALI. Similarly, it was not possible to test for contextual or methodological moderators, such as industry, use of multi-source designs, experimental versus observational designs, or longitudinal versus cross-sectional designs. Future research will need to consider these potentially meaningful moderators, as well as their causal relationships with AL components, after the number of primary samples has grown even further. Finally, it is important to note that while our meta-analysis focused on the most prevalent version of AL theory advanced by Avolio, Gardner, Luthans, Walumbwa, and colleagues (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Gardner, Avolio, Luthans et al., 2005; Walumbwa et al., 2008), which is deeply rooted in the social psychology literature, there are alternative perspectives (Algera & Lips-Wiersma, 2012; Ladkin & Spiller, 2013; Ladkin & Taylor, 2010; Liu, 2010; Pittinsky & Tyson, 2005; Shamir & Eilam, 2005; Sparrowe, 2005). For instance,Algera and Lips-Wiersma (2012)draw from philosophy to advance four existential authenticity themes (inauthen- ticity is inevitable, authenticity requires creating one’s own meaning, authenticity does not imply goal and value congruence, and authenticity is not intrinsically ethical) that provide very different implications for AL than those generated from a social psychol- ogy perspective. However, because these alternative approaches are either purely conceptual or rely exclusively on qualitative methods (Liu, 2010; Pittinsky & Tyson, 2005; Shamir & Eilam, 2005), it was impossible to incorporate them in this meta- analysis. Nevertheless, it is important to not only acknowledge these alternative approaches but also consider their utility in re- fining the prevailing conceptions of AL and their potential for enhancing the operationalization of the construct and the explica- tion of its nomological network (Neuman, 2002). Enhanced dialog along these lines may serve to provide a broader perspective of AL, stimulating more diverse avenues for future research, and thereby enriching both the study and practice of authentic leadership. PREDICTORS Leader characteristics Personal history Psychological capital Efficacy beliefs Psychological contract Attributions Positive Work Experiences Trigger events Ethical climate Positive org. context Affective events Authentic leadership Transformational Leadership RELATIVE IMPORTANCE Relational outcomes LMX Satisfaction with leader Trust in leader Leader effectiveness Follower outcomes Job satisfaction Organizational commitment Creativity Engagement Empowerment Psychological capital Turnover intentions Burnout/stress ATTITUDINAL OUTCOMES Task performance Group and org performance OCB & Voice CWB BEHAVIORAL OUTCOMES Note. Theoretically relevant predictor variables of authentic leadership have not received sufficient empirical attention necessary for inclusion in the current meta-analytic study. Fig. 1.Predictors and work outcomes of authentic leadership.Note. Theoretically relevant predictor variables of authentic leadership have not received sufficient empirical attention necessary for inclusion in the current meta-analytic study. 12G.C. Banks et al. / The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2016) xxx–xxx Please cite this article as: Banks, G.C., et al., A meta-analytic review of authentic and transformational leadership: A test for redundancy,The Leadership Quarterly(2016), Conclusions AL is a new leadership construct that is attracting a great deal of empirical attention and excitement in an attempt to address the crisis of confidence in today’s government and corporate leaders (Gardner et al., 2011). At the foundation of AL is the belief that leaders can express their natural selves in an open and honest manner and that this will lead to positive and ethical work outcomes. The current meta-analytic review considered the empirical redundancy of AL by computing its correlation with trans- formational leadership while mitigating the influences of random-sampling error and measurement error. Next, we considered the incremental validity and relative importance of AL in comparison to transformational leadership. Most notably, AL showed some dominance over transformational leadership when predicting selected outcomes. Yet our review ultimately shows that much work is needed to better distinguish AL from transformational leadership. This can be accomplished by improving the methodological design of studies as well as by focusing on antecedents and outcomes with ethical implications. In sum, AL is a new leadership construct that shows promise; however, theoretical, measurement, and validity issues must be considered for this new construct to reach its full potential. Appendix A Main codes and input values of each primary study/sample included in the meta-analysis. Not included are the authentic lead- ership dimension level correlations (these correlations are available upon request). Author Year Publishednr r xx ryy Variable Abid et al. (2012) Yes 210 .48 .71 .53 Commitment Abid et al. (2012) Yes 210 .12 .71 .62 Job satisfaction Alok and Israel (2012) Yes 117 .47 .95 .88 Engagement Amadeo (2008) No 313 .80 .93 .86 Job satisfaction Azanza et al. (2013) Yes 571 .35 .88 .90 Job satisfaction Bamford et al. (2013) Yes 280 .28 .97 .90 Engagement Batchelor (2011) No 138 .42 .90 .88 Commitment Batchelor (2011) No 138 .44 .90 .63 Job satisfaction Batchelor (2011) No 138−.42 .90 .94 Turnover intentions Batchelor (2011) No 138 .25 .90 .86 Group and organization performance Batchelor (2011) No 138 .59 .90 .82 OCB Batchelor (2011) No 138 .66 .90 .88 Transformational Bird et al. (2012) Yes 633 .61 .95 .86 Engagement Bezeau (2010) No 104 .27 .60 .84 Transactional Bezeau (2010) No 104 .37 .60 .82 Transformational Brennan (2010) No 806 .64 .81 .87 Transformational Burris (2013) Yes 187 .86 .92 .94 Transformational Cameron (2007) No 95 .84 .96 .96 Trust in leader Caza et al. (2010) Yes 960 .56 .90 .82 Psy Cap Černe et al. (2014) Yes 171 .36 .94 .90 Job satisfaction Černe et al. (2014) Yes 171 .61 .94 .80 LMX Černe et al. (2014) Yes 171 .32 .94 .75 Engagement Černe et al. (2013) Yes 201 .65 .91 .90 Creativity Chen (2010) No 351 .59 .97 .87 Commitment Chiaburu et al. (2011) Yes 165 .63 .96 .84 Transactional Chiaburu et al. (2011) Yes 165 .44 .96 .86 Job satisfaction Clapp-Smith et al. (2009) Yes 82 .30 .70 .87 Psy Cap Clapp-Smith et al. (2009) Yes 82 .41 .70 .73 Trust in leader Clapp-Smith et al. (2009) Yes 51 .27 .70 1.00 Task performance Copeland (2009) No 175 .89 .97 .95 Leader effectiveness Copeland. (2009) No 175 .90 .97 .95 Transformational Cottrill (2012) No 80 .36 .96 .85 OCB Eberly (2011) No 97 .46 .94 .95 Leader effectiveness Emuwa et al. (2013) Yes 152 .21 .77 .81 Empowerment Epitropaki et al. (2013) No 207 .26 .96 .90 Psy Cap Epitropaki et al. (2013) No 207−.21 .96 .72 Burnout/stress Erkutlu and Chafra (2013) Yes 848 .33 .89 .86 Trust in leader Erkutlu and Chafra (2013) Yes 848−.38 .89 .89 CWB Giallondardo et al. (2010) Yes 170 .21 .91 .86 Engagement Giallondardo et al. (2010) Yes 170 .29 .91 .90 Job satisfaction Guerrero et al. (2014) Yes 606 .27 .94 .78 Commitment Hannah et al. (2011b) Yes 47 .27 .76 .82 Group and organization performance Hassan and Ahmed (2011) Yes 395 .53 .90 .90 Engagement Hassan and Ahmed (2011) Yes 395 .71 .90 .83 Trust in leader Houghton et al. (2013) No 262 .16 .92 .85 OCB Hsiung (2012) Yes 404 .66 .96 .87 LMX Hsiung (2012) Yes 404 .40 .96 .92 Voice13 G.C. Banks et al. / The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2016) xxx–xxx Please cite this article as: Banks, G.C., et al., A meta-analytic review of authentic and transformational leadership: A test for redundancy,The Leadership Quarterly(2016), (continued) Author Year Publishednr r xx ryy Variable Huang and Luthans (2013) No 286 .11 .89 .84 LMX Huang and Luthans (2013) No 286 .21 .89 .94 Voice Illies et al. (2013) Yes 198 .16 .79 .73 Leader effectiveness Jensen (2003) No 62 .21 .91 .82 Psy Cap Jensen (2003) No 62 .40 .91 1.00 Group and organization performance Jensen and Luthans (2006) Yes 172 .41 .95 .93 Job satisfaction Jensen and Luthans (2006) Yes 172 .48 .95 .82 Commitment Joo (2014) Yes 427 .90 .85 .88 Transformational Kiersch et al. (2012) No 187−.21 .96 .78 Burnout/stress Kiersch et al. (2012) No 187−.56 .96 .92 Turnover intentions Kiersch et al. (2012) No 187 .65 .96 .88 Commitment Kiyani et al. (2013) Yes 283 .98 .96 .99 OCB Lagan et al. (2007) No 215 .71 .92 .88 Transformational Lagan et al. (2007) No 215 .23 .92 .84 Commitment Laschinger and Fida (2014) Yes 342−.18 .94 .92 Burnout/stress Laschinger and Fida (2014) Yes 342−.29 .94 .88 Turnover intentions Laschinger and Smith (2013) Yes 194 .42 .96 .84 Empowerment Laschinger et al. (2013) Yes 273−.28 .97 .93 Burnout/stress Lelchook (2012) No 327 .91 .79 .97 Transformational Lelchook (2012) No 327 .77 .79 .97 Transactional Lelchook (2012) No 327 .21 .79 .96 Engagement Leroy (2013) No 225 .32 .93 .85 Voice Leroy et al. (2012a) Yes 252 .48 .95 .92 Job satisfaction Leroy et al. (2012b) Yes 225 .25 .95 .90 Commitment Leroy et al. (2012b) Yes 118 .22 .95 .87 Task performance Lewis (2010) No 190 .78 .92 .84 Trust in leader Lewis (2010) No 190 .64 .92 .90 LMX Lewis (2010) No 190 .74 .92 .89 Leader effectiveness Li et al. (2014) Yes 199 .14 .89 .86 Task performance Li et al. (2014) Yes 199 .23 .89 .94 OCB Li et al. (2014) Yes 199 .21 .89 .88 Creativity Li et al. (2014) Yes 170 .50 .92 .86 Transformational Li et al. (2014) Yes 170 .20 .92 .90 Task performance Li et al. (2014) Yes 170 .01 .92 .94 Creativity Liu (2012) No 107 .46 .93 .95 Engagement Liu (2012) No 107−.03 .93 .96 Task performance Liu (2012) No 107 .80 .93 .96 Transformational Liu (2012) No 107−.23 .93 .91 CWB Lusin (2014) No 200 .44 .90 .80 Commitment McClellan (2007) No 149 .23 .90 .86 Commitment McElrath (2013) No 231 .51 .90 .87 Trust in leader Men (2012) No 402 .85 .96 .90 Transformational Men (2012) No 402 .62 .96 .86 Commitment Men (2012) No 402 .70 .96 .88 Job satisfaction Men (2012) No 402 .53 .96 .85 Empowerment Milad (2012) No 530 .60 .95 .92 Commitment Neider and Schriesheim (2011) Yes 228 .50 .90 .88 Job satisfaction Neider and Schriesheim (2011) Yes 228 .72 .90 .89 Satisfaction with lead Neider and Schriesheim (2011) Yes 228 .36 .90 .86 Commitment Nichols (2012) No 116 .30 .78 .55 Trust in leader Nielsen (2013) Yes 594 .71 .89 .86 Transformational Nielsen (2013) Yes 594−.14 .89 .85 CWB Norman (2006) No 304 .73 .96 .82 Trust in leader Norman (2006) No 304 .84 .96 .92 Leader effectiveness Norris (2013) No 433 .35 .90 .88 Job satisfaction Norris (2013) No 433 .49 .90 .89 Satisfaction with lead Ozkan and Ceylan (2012) Yes 304 .51 .92 .94 Commitment Peus et al. (2012) Yes 157 .65 .94 .91 Commitment Peus et al. (2012) Yes 157 .81 .94 .94 Satisfaction with lead Peus et al. (2012) Yes 86 .59 .88 .89 Satisfaction with lead Peus et al. (2012) Yes 86 .53 .88 .84 Group and organization performance Rahimnia and Sharifirad (2015) Yes 272 .52 .91 .84 Job satisfaction Rahimnia and Sharifirad (2015) Yes 272−.24 .91 .87 Burnout/stress Rego et al. (2012) Yes 201 .65 .91 .90 Psy Cap Rego et al. (2012) Yes 201 .65 .91 .90 Creativity Riggio et al. (2010) Yes 172 .87 .97 .97 Transformational Riggio et al. (2010) Yes 172 .84 .97 .69 Transactional Schabram (2009) No 26 .61 .72 .72 Transformational Seco and Lopes (2013) Yes 326−.57 .89 .94 Engagement Shapira-Lischinsky and Tsemach (2014) Yes 366 .46 .83 .86 Empowerment Shapira-Lischinsky and Tsemach (2014) Yes 366 .30 .83 .88 OCB 14G.C. Banks et al. / The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2016) xxx–xxx Please cite this article as: Banks, G.C., et al., A meta-analytic review of authentic and transformational leadership: A test for redundancy,The Leadership Quarterly(2016), References 2 *Abid, T., Altaf, M., Yousaf, U., & Bagram, M. (2012).Entrepreneur as an authentic leader: A study of small and medium sized enterprises in Pakistan.Management Science Letters,2,2355–2360. Algera, P. M., & Lips-Wiersma, M. (2012).Radical authentic leadership: Co-creating the conditions under which all members of the organization can be authentic.The Leadership Quarterly,23,118–131. *Alok, K., & Israel, D. (2012).Authentic leadership and work engagement.Indian Journal of Industrial Relations,47,498–510. *Amadeo, C. A. (2008). A correlational study of servant leadership and registered nurse job satisfaction in acute health-care settings. Unpublished Ed.D., University of Phoenix, Phoenix, Arizona. Avolio, B. J. (1999).Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Avolio, B. (2007).Promoting more integrative strategies for leadership theory-building.American Psychologist,62,25–33. Avolio, B. J. (2010).Pursuing authentic leadership development. In N. Nohria, & R. Khurana (Eds.),The handbook of leadership theory and practice: A Harvard Business School centennial colloquium on advancing leadership(pp. 739–768). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005).Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership.The Leadership Quarterly,16,315–338. (continued) Author Year Publishednr r xx ryy Variable Shapira-Lischinsky and Tsemach (2014) Yes 366 .20 .83 .94 Turnover intentions Sosik et al. (2011) Yes 184 .63 .82 .82 Transformational Spitmuller and Illies (2010) Yes 91 .26 .93 .88 Transformational Stearns (2012) No 192 .42 .96 .94 Job satisfaction Tuttle (2009) No 285 .87 .94 .96 Transformational Tuttle (2009) No 285 .00 .94 .47 Transactional Tuttle (2009) No 132 .90 .97 .92 Leader effectiveness Valsania et al. (2012) Yes 220 .47 .90 .85 OCB Walumbwa et al. (2008) Yes 178 .22 .90 .72 OCB Walumbwa et al. (2008) Yes 178 .36 .90 .92 Commitment Walumbwa et al. (2008) Yes 178 .48 .90 .88 Satisfaction with lead Walumbwa et al. (2008) Yes 236 .39 .90 .70 OCB Walumbwa et al. (2008) Yes 236 .54 .90 .92 Commitment Walumbwa et al. (2008) Yes 236 .62 .90 .85 Satisfaction with lead Walumbwa et al. (2008) Yes 236 .68 .90 .88 Transformational Wang et al. (2014) Yes 794 .78 .95 .96 LMX Wang et al. (2014) Yes 794 .48 .95 .88 Psy Cap Wang et al. (2014) Yes 794 .11 .95 .84 Task performance Wang et al. (2013) Yes 386 .58 .95 .94 Engagement Weischer et al. (2013) Yes 334 .76 .90 .92 Trust in leader Wherry (2012) No 238 .47 .93 .89 LMX Wherry (2012) No 238 .46 .93 .82 OCB Williams (2014) Yes 115 .41 .97 .77 Job satisfaction Wilson (2013) No 106 .28 .91 .90 Engagement Wong and Cummings (2009) Yes 147 .29 .90 .92 Voice Wong and Cummings (2009) Yes 147 .25 .90 .89 Task performance Wong and Cummings (2009) Yes 147−.34 .90 .81 Burnout/stress Wong and Cummings (2009) Yes 147 .49 .90 .83 Trust in leader Wong and Cummings (2009) Yes 188 .40 .90 .92 Voice Wong and Cummings (2009) Yes 188 .12 .90 .89 Task performance Wong and Cummings (2009) Yes 188−.25 .90 .81 Burnout/stress Wong and Cummings (2009) Yes 188 .53 .90 .83 Trust in leader Wong and Laschinger (2012) Yes 280 .46 .97 .88 Empowerment Wong and Laschinger (2012) Yes 280 .35 .97 .95 Job satisfaction Wong and Laschinger (2012) Yes 280 .01 .97 .76 Task performance Wong et al. (2010) Yes 280 .69 .97 .83 Trust in leader Wong et al. (2010) Yes 280 .10 .97 .92 Voice Wood (2007) No 335 .45 .90 .88 Transformational Wood (2007) No 335 .13 .90 .69 Transactional Wood (2007) No 335 .06 .90 .89 Leader effectiveness Woolley et al. (2011) Yes 828 .43 .94 .88 Psy Cap Yemi-Sofumade (2012) No 116−.35 .97 .71 Turnover intentions Zhu (2006) No 55 .85 .72 .80 Transformational Zhu. (2006) No 55 .58 .72 .67 Transactional Zhu (2006) No 81 .59 .78 .84 Transformational Zhu (2006) No 81 .71 .78 .60 Transactional Zhu (2006) No 73 .69 .70 .89 Transformational Zhu (2006) No 73 .70 .70 .60 Transactional Zhu (2006) No 215 .68 .90 .88 Transformational Zhu (2006) No 215 .68 .90 .69 Transactional 2References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis.15 G.C. Banks et al. / The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2016) xxx–xxx Please cite this article as: Banks, G.C., et al., A meta-analytic review of authentic and transformational leadership: A test for redundancy,The Leadership Quarterly(2016), Avolio, B. J., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2014).Authentic leadership theory, research, and practice: Steps taken and steps that remain. In D. V. Day (Ed.),The Oxford Handbook of Leadership in Organizations. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. Avolio, B., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999).Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership.Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,72,441–462. Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2007).Authentic leadership questionnaire.Menlo Park, CA: Mind Garden. Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., & May, D. R. (2004).Unlocking the mask: A look at the process by which authentic leader’s impact follower attitudes and behaviors.The Leadership Quarterly,15,801–823. *Azanza, G., Moriano, J. A., & Molero, F. (2013).Authentic leadership and organizational culture as drivers of employees’ job satisfaction.Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,29,45–50. *Bamford, M., Wong, C. A., & Laschinger, H. (2013).The influence of authentic leadership and areas on work-life on work engagement of registered nurses.Journal of Nursing Management,21,529–540. Banks, G. C., & McDaniel, M. A. (2011). The kryptonite of evidence-based I-O psychology.Industrial and Organizational Psychology,4,40–44. 1754-9434.2010.01292.x. Banks, G. C., Batchelor, J. H., Seers, A., O’Boyle, E., Jr., Pollack, J., & Gower, K. (2014).What does team-member exchange bring to the party? A meta-analytic review of team and leader social exchange.Journal of Organizational Behavior,35,273–295. Banks, G. C., Kepes, S., & McDaniel, M. A. (2012).Publication bias: A call for improved meta-analytic practice in the organizational sciences.International Journal of Selection and Assessment,20,182–196. Banks, G. C., Kepes, S., & McDaniel, M. A. (2015).Publication bias: Understand the myths concerning threats to the advancement of science. In C. E. Lance, & R. J. Vandenberg (Eds.),More Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends(pp. 36–64). New York, NY: Routledge. Bass, B. M. (1985).Leadership and performance beyond expectations.New York, NY: Free Press. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2004).Multifactor leadership questionnaire: Manual leader form, rater, and scoring key for MLQ (Form 5 ×-Short).Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden. Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999).Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior.The Leadership Quarterly,10,181–217. *Batchelor, J. H. (2011). Leading with emotional labor and affective leadership climate as antecedents to entrepreneurial effectiveness. Unpublished PhD, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA. Supplemental information provided via personal communication. Beal, D. J., Corey, D. M., & Dunlap, W. P. (2002). On the bias of Huffcutt and Arthur’s (1995) procedure for identifying outliers in the meta-analysis ofcorrelations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,583–589. Behson, S. J. (2012).Using relative weights to reanalyze research on the job characteristics model.Journal of Organizational Psychology,12,71–81. *Bezeau, C. (2010). From the Cradle to the Workplace: Attachment and the Reported Provision of Need Support. Unpublished PhD, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC. *Bird, J. J., Wang, C., Watson, J., & Murray, L. (2012).Teacher and principal perceptions of authentic leadership: Implications for trust, engagement, and intention to return.Journal of School Leadership,22,425–461. *Brennan, P. T. (2010). Pursuing success without scandal: Exploring the relationship between transformational and authentic leadership. Unpublished PhD, Capella University, Minneapolis, MN. Briner, R. B., & Rousseau, D. M. (2011).Evidence-based I-O psychology: Not there yet but now a little nearer?Industrial and Organizational Psychology,4,76–82. Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006).Ethical leadership: A review and future directions.The Leadership Quarterly,17,595–616. Burns, J. M. (1978).Leadership.New York, NY: Harper & Row. *Burris, K., Roya, A., Che, Y., & Hanyi, M. (2013).Asian American’s and Caucasians’ implicit leadership theories: Asian stereotypes, transformational, and authentic leadership.Asian American Journal of Psychology,4,258–266. *Cameron, R. K. (2007). Governing ourselves before governing others: An investigation of authentic leadership. Unpublished PhD, Capella University, Minneapolis, MN. Cashman, K. (2003).Awakening the leader within: A story of transformation.Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. *Caza, A., Bagozzi, R. P., Woolley, L., Levy, L., & Caza, B. B. (2010).Psychological capital and authentic leadership: Measurement, gender, and cultural extension. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration,2,53–70. *Černe, M., Dimovski, V., Marič, M., Penger, S., &Škerlavaj, M. (2014).Congruence of leader self-perceptions and follower perceptions of authentic leadership: Understanding what authentic leadership is and how it enhances employees’ job satisfaction.Australian Journal of Management,39,453–471. *Cerne, M., Jaklic, M., & Skerlavaj, M. (2013).Authentic leadership, creativity, and innovation: A multilevel perspective.Leadership,9,63–85. *Chen, C.-C. (2010). The mediating effect of employees’ experience of inclusion and the moderating effect of individual work values on the relationship of authentic leadership style and organizational commitment. Unpublished PhD, Alliant International University. Chiaburu, D. S., Munoz, G. J., & Gardner, R. G. (2013a).How to spot a careerist early on: Psychopathy and exchange ideology as predictors of careerism.Journal of Business Ethics,118 ,473–486. Chiaburu, D. S., Peng, A. C., Oh, I. -S., Banks, G. C., & Lomeli, L. C. (2013b).Employee organizational cynicism antecedents and outcomes: A meta-analysis.Journal of Vocational Behavior,83,181–197. *Chiaburu, D. S., Diaz, I., & Pitts, V. E. (2011).Social and economic exchanges with the organization: Do leader behaviors matter?Leadership and Organization Development Journal,32,442–461. Cianci, A. M., Hannah, S. T., Roberts, R., & Tsakumis, G. T. (2014).The effects of authentic leadership on followers’ ethical decision-making in the face of temptation: An experimental study.The Leadership Quarterly,5,581–594. *Clapp-Smith, R., Vogelgesang, G. R., & Avey, J. B. (2009). Authentic leadership and positive psychological capital: The mediating role of trust at the group level of analysis.Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15,227–240. Supplemental information provided via personal communication. Cohen, J. (1960).A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales.Educational and Psychological Measurement,20,37–46. Cohen, J. (1988).Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd Ed.).Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Cooper, C. D., Scandura, T. A., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2005).Looking forward but learning from our past: Potential challenges to developing authentic leadership theory and authentic leaders.The Leadership Quarterly,16,475–493. *Copeland, M. K. (2009).The impact of authentic, ethical, transformational leadership on leader effectiveness.Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Management of Association, Ashville, NC. *Cottrill, K. R. (2012). Antecedents and outcomes of inclusion: Exploring authentic leadership, organizational climate for ethics, organization-based self-esteem, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Unpublished PhD, Alliant International University, Alhambra, CA. Derue, S. D., Nahrgang, J. D., Wellman, N., & Humphrey, S. E. (2011).Trait and behavioral theories of leadership: An integration and meta-analytic test of their relative validity.Personnel Psychology,64,7–52. Duval, S. J. (Ed.). (2005).The trim and fill method. Chichester, UK: Wiley. Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen, M. L. (2003).Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men.Psychological Bulletin,129,569–591. *Eberly, M. B. (2011). Follower reactions to leader emotions: A cognitive and affective path to leadership effectiveness. Unpublished PhD, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. *Emuwa, A. (2013).Authentic leadership: Commitment to supervisor, follower empowerment, and procedural justice climate.Emerging Leadership Journeys,6,45–65. *Epitropaki, O. (2013).Employment uncertainty and the role of authentic leadership and positive psychological capital.Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Orlando, FL . *Erkutlu, H., & Chafra, J. (2013).Effects of trust and psychological contract violation on authentic leadership and organizational deviance.Management Research Review, 36,828–848. Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2005).Authentic leadership development: Emergent trends and future directions.Authentic leadership theory and prac- tice: Origins, effects, and development(pp. 387–406). 16G.C. Banks et al. / The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2016) xxx–xxx Please cite this article as: Banks, G.C., et al., A meta-analytic review of authentic and transformational leadership: A test for redundancy,The Leadership Quarterly(2016), Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., & Walumbwa, F. (2005).“Can you see the real me?”A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development.The Leadership Quarterly,16,343–372. Gardner, W. L., Cogliser, C. C., Davis, K. M., & Dickens, M. P. (2011).Authentic leadership: A review of the literature and research agenda.The Leadership Quarterly,22, 1120–1145. *Gardner, W. L., Fischer, D., & Hunt, J. G. J. (2009).Emotional labor and leadership: A threat to authenticity?The Leadership Quarterly,20,466–482. Gardner, W. L., Lowe, K. B., Moss, T. W., Mahoney, K. T., & Cogliser, C. C. (2010).Scholarly leadership of the study of leadership: A review ofThe Leadership Quarterly’s second decade, 2000-2009.The Leadership Quarterly,21(6), 922–958. George, W. (2003).Authentic leadership: Rediscovering the secrets to creating lasting value.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. George, W., & Sims, P. (2007).True north: Discover your authentic Leadership. sanFrancisco CA: Jossey-Bass. Geyskens, I., Krishnan, R., Steenkamp, J. -B. E., & Cunha, P. V. (2009).A review and evaluation of meta-analysis practices in management research.Journal of Management,35,393–419. *Giallondardo, L., Wong, C., & Iwasiw, C. (2010).Authentic leadership of preceptors: Predictor of new graduate nurses’ work engagement and job satisfaction.Journal of Nursing Management,18,993–1003. Greenberg, J. (1987).A taxonomy of organizational justice theories.Academy of Management Review,12,9–22. *Guerrero, S., Lapalme, M. -E., & Seguin, M. (2014).Board chair authentic leadership and nonexecutives’ motivation and commitment.Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies,1–14. Hannah, S. T., Walumbwa, F. O., & Fry, L. (2011a).Leadership in action teams: Team leader and members’ authenticity, authenticity strength, and team outcomes. Personnel Psychology,64,771–802. *Hannah, S. T., Walumbwa, F. O., & Fry, L. W. (2011b).Leadership in action teams: Team leader and members’ authenticity, authenticity strength, and team outcomes. Personnel Psychology,64,771–802. *Hassan, A., & Ahmed, F. (2011).Authentic leadership, trust, and work engagement.International Journal of Human and Social Sciences,6,164– 170. Hmieleski, K. M., Cole, M. S., & Baron, R. A. (2012).Shared authentic leadership and new venture performance.Journal of Management,38,1476–1499. *Houghton, J. D., Dawley, D., Bucklew, N., & Munyon, T. (2013).Truly limiting: How authentic leadership and organizational politics affect the performance of organi- zational citizenship behavior.Paper presented at the 2013 Academy of Management Meeting, Orlando, FL, 2013. *Hsiung, H. -H. (2012).Authentic leadership and employee voice behavior: A multi-level psychological process.Journal of Business Ethics,107,349–361. *Huang, L., & Luthans, F. (2013). Authentic leadership and follower voice: The mediating role of voiceself-efficacy in the leader-member exchange context.Unpublished study. Huffcutt, A. I., & Arthur, W. (1995). Development of a new outlier statistic for meta-analytic data.Journal of Applied Psychology,80,327–334. 0021-9010.1080.1032.1327. Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004).Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings.Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Ilies, R., Morgeson, F. P., & Nahrgang, J. D. (2005).Authentic leadership and eudaemonic well-being: Understanding leader–follower outcomes.The Leadership Quarterly,16,373–394. *Illies, R., Curseu, P., Dimotakis, N., & Spitzmuller, M. (2013).Leaders’ emotional expressiveness and their behavioral and relational authenticity: Effects on followers. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,22,4–14. *Jensen, S. M. (2003). Entrepreneurs as leaders: Impact of psychological capital and perceptions of authenticity on venture performance. Unpublished PhD, The University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Lincoln, NE. *Jensen, S. M., & Luthans, F. (2006).Entrepreneurs as authentic leaders: Impact on employees’ attitudes.Leadership and Organizational Development Journal,27, 646–666. Johnson, J. W. (2001). Computer program exchange: Rweight: Computing the relative weight of predictors in a regression.Applied Psychological Measurement,25,342. Johnson, J. W., & LeBreton, J. M. (2004). History and use of relative importance indices in organizational research.Organizational Research Methods,7,238–257.http:// *Joo, B. -K. (2014).Two of a kind? A canonical correlational study of transformational leadership and authentic leadership.European Journal of Training and Development,38,570–587. Jourad, S. M., & Lasakow, P. (1958).Some factors in self-disclosure.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology ,56(1), 91–98. Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity.Journal of Applied Psychology,89, 755–768. Kepes, S., Banks, G. C., & Oh, I. -S. (2012). Avoiding bias in publication bias research: The value of“null”findings.Journal of Business and Psychology. 1007/s10869-012-9279-0. Kepes, S., Banks, G. C., McDaniel, M. A., & Whetzel, D. L. (2012). Publication bias in the organizational sciences.Organizational Research Methods,15,624–662.http://dx. Kepes, S., McDaniel, M. A., Brannick, M. T., & Banks, G. C. (2013). Meta-analytic reviews in the organizational sciences: Two meta-analytic schools on the way to MARS (the meta-analytic reporting standards).Journal of Business and Psychology,28,123–142. *Kiersch, C. E. (2012). A multi-level examination of authentic leadership and organizational justice in uncertain times. Unpublished PhD, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. *Kiyani, K., Saher, N., Saleem, S., & Iqbal, M. (2013).Emotional intelligence (EI) and employee outcomes: The mediating effect of authentic leadership style. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business,5,394–405. Ladkin, D., & Spiller, C. (2013).Authentic leadership: Clashes, convergences and coalescences.Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Ladkin, D., & Taylor, S. S. (2010).Enacting the‘true self’: Towards a theory of embodiedauthentic leadership.The Leadership Quarterly,21,64–74. *Lagan, T. E. (2007).Examining authentic leadership: Development of a four-dimensional scale and identification of a nomological network.University at Albany, State University of New York. *Laschinger, H., & Fida, R. (2014).A time-lagged analysis of the effect of authentic leadership on workplace bullying, burnout, and occupational turnover intentions. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,23,739–753. *Laschinger, H., & Smith, M. L. (2013).The influence of authentic leadership and empowerment on new-graduate nurses’ perceptions of interprofessional collabora- tion.The Journal of Nursing Administration,43,24–29. *Laschinger, H. K., Wong, C. A., & Grau, A. L. (2013).Authentic leadership, empowerment and burnout: A comparison in new graduates and experienced nurses.Journal of Nursing Management,21,541– 552. Leavitt, K., Mitchell, T. R., & Peterson, J. (2010).Theory pruning: Strategies to reduce our dense theoretical landscape.Organizational Research Methods,13,644–667. LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2007).Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement.Organizational Research Methods,11,815–852. LeBreton, J. M., Hargis, M. B., Griepentrog, B., Oswald, F. L., & Ployhart, R. E. (2007).A multidimensional approach for evaluating variables in organizational research and practice.Personnel Psychology,60,475–498. *Lelchook, A. (2012). Antecedents and outcomes of workplace engagement. Unpublished PhD, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI. LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002).The nature and dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis.Journal of Applied Psychology,87,52. *Leroy, H. (2013). Authentic leadership, psychological safety and follower voice: The role of level and contingency of self-esteem. Unpublished. *Leroy, H., Anseel, F., Gardner, W. L., & Sels, L. (2012).Authentic leadership, authentic followership, basic need satisfaction, and work role performance: A cross-level study.Journal of Management. *Leroy, H., Palanski, M. E., & Simons, T. (2012).Authentic leadership and behavioral integrity as drivers of follower commitment and performance.Journal of Business Ethics,107,255–264. *Lewis, T. M. (2010). The influence of authenticity and emotional intelligence on the relationship between self-monitoring and leadership effectiveness. Unpublished PhD, Alliant International University, Alhambra, CA.17 G.C. Banks et al. / The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2016) xxx–xxx Please cite this article as: Banks, G.C., et al., A meta-analytic review of authentic and transformational leadership: A test for redundancy,The Leadership Quarterly(2016), *Li, F., Yu, K. F., Yang, J., Qi, Z., & Fu, J. H. (2014).Authentic leadership, traditionality, and interactional justice in the Chinese context.Management and Organization Review,10,249–273. Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998).Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development.Journal of Management, 24(1), 43–72. Liden, R. C., Panaccio, A., Meuser, J. D., Hu, J., & Wayne, S. J. (2014).Servant leadership: Antecedents, processes, and outcomes. In D. V. Day (Ed.),The Oxford handbook of leadership in organizations. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Liu, H. (2010).When leaders fail: A typology of failures and framing strategies.ManagementCommunication Quarterly,24,232–259. *Liu, Y. (2012). Linking authentic leadership to positive employee health, behavioral engagement, and job performance. Unpublished D.B.A., Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, LA. Lowe,K.B.,&Gardner,W.L.(2000).Ten years ofLeadership Quarterly:Contributions and challenges for the future.The Leadership Quarterly,11(4), 459–514. Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996).Effectiveness correlates of transformation and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature.The Leadership Quarterly,7,385–425. *Lusin, J. M. (2014). Employee perceptions of authentic leadership and outcomes of planned organizational change. Unpublished dissertation. George Washington University. Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. (2003).Authentic leadership development. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. Quinn (Eds.),Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline(pp. 241–261). San Francisco, CA: Barrett-Koehler. Mhatre, K. H., & Riggio, R. E. (2014).Charismatic and transformational leadership: Past, present, and future.The Oxford Handbook of Leadership and Organizations, 221–240. *McClellan, J. L. (2007). A correlational analysis of the relationship between psychological hardiness and servant leadership among leaders in higher education. Unpublished PhD, Gonzaga University, Spokane, WA. *McElrath, M. (2013). The influence of authentic leadership attributes on credibility: How administrative leaders in an academic medical center build, maintain or lose credibility. Unpublished Ed.D., University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA. *Men, L. (2012). The effects of organizational leadership on strategic internal communication and employee outcomes. Unpublished PhD, Universityof Miami, Coral Gables, FL. Messick, S. (1995).Validity of psychological assessment: Validation inferences from persons’ responses and performance as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist,50,741–749. *Milad, M. (2012). What is Authentic Leadership really measuring? The role of leader core self-evaluation, character, and narcissism. UnpublishedPhD, Alliant International University, Alhambra, CA. *Neider, L. L., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2011).The authentic leadership inventory (ALI): Development and empirical tests.The Leadership Quarterly,22, 1146–1164. Neuman, W. L. (2002).Social science research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches(5th ed.). Boston: Allyn &* Bacon. *Nichols, A. L. (2012). Unpublished study. Information provided via personal communication. *Nielsen, M. B. (2013).Bullying in work groups: The impact of leadership.Scandinavian Journal of Psychology,54,127–136. *Norman, S. M. (2006). The role of trust: Implications for psychological capital and authentic leadership.Unpublished PhD, The University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Lincoln, LE. *Norris, H. T. (2013). A study of the relationships between authentic leadership and job satisfaction in a parks and recreation organization. Unpublished dissertation. Nunnally, J. C. (1978).Psychometric theory(2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. O’Boyle, E. H., Forsyth, D. R., Banks, G. C., White, C., & Story, P. A. (2014).A meta-analytic test of redundancy and relative importance of the Dark Triad and five factor model of personality.Journal of Personality,83,644–664. O’Boyle, E. H., Humphrey, R. H., Pollack, J. M., Hawver, T. H., & Story, P. A. (2011).The relationship between emotional intelligence and job performance: A meta-analysis.Journal of Organizational Behavior,32,788–818. Oh, I. -S., Wang, G., & Mount, M. K. (2011).Validity of observer ratings of the five-factor model of personality: A meta-analysis.Journal of Applied Psychology,96, 762–773. *Ozkan, S., & Ceylan, A. (2012).Multi-level analysis of authentic leadership from a Turkish construction engineers perspective.South East European Journal of Economics & Business,101–114. *Peus, C., Wesche, J. S., Strieicher, B., Braun, S., & Frey, D. (2012).Authentic leadership: An empirical test of its antecedents, consequences, and mediating mechanisms. Journal of Business Ethics,107,331–348. Pittinsky, T. L., & Tyson, C. J. (2005).Leader authenticity markers: Findings from a study of perceptions of African American political leaders.Authentic Leadership Theory and Practice: Origins, Effects, and Development,3,155–182. Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986).Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects.Journal of Management,12,531–544. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012).Source of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it.Annual Review of Psychology,63,539–569. *Rahimnia, F., & Sharifirad, M. S. (2015).Authentic leadership and employee well-being: The mediating role of attachment insecurity.Journal of Business Ethics,132, 363–377. *Rego, A., Sousa, F., Marques, C., & Cunha, M. P. (2012).Authentic leadership promoting employees’ psychological capital and creativity.Journal of Business Research,65, 429 –437. *Riggio, R. E., Zhu, W., Maroosis, J. A., & Reina, C. (2010).Virtue-based measurement of ethical leadership: The leadership virtues of questionnaire.Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research,62,235–250. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001).On happiness and human potential: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being.Annual Review of Psychology,52, 141–166. *Schabram, K. (2009). To Thine Own Self Be True: Authentic Leadership and Managerial Training. Unpublished M.Sc., Concordia University, Portland,OR. Schmidt, F. (2010).Detecting and correcting the lies that data tell.Perspectives on Psychological Science,5,233–242. *Seco, V., & Lopes, M. P. (2013).Calling for authentic leadership: The moderator role of calling on the relationship between authentic leadership and work engagement. Open Journal of Leadership,2,95–102. Shamir, B., & Eilam, G. (2005).“What’s your story?”A life-stories approach to authentic leadership development.The Leadership Quarterly,16,395–417. *Shapira-Lishchinsky, O., & Tsemach, S. (2014).Psychological empowerment as a mediator between teachers’ perceptions of authentic leadership and their withdrawal and citizenship behaviors.Educational Administration Quarterly,50, 675–712. *Sosik, J. J., Zhu, W., & Blair, A. L. (2011).Felt authenticity and demonstrating transformational leadership in faith communities.Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management,179–199. Sparrowe, R. T. (2005).Authentic leadership and the narrative self.The Leadership Quarterly,16,419–439. Spell, C. S. (2001).Management fashions: Where do they come from, and are they old wine in new bottles?Journal of Management Inquiry,4,358–373. *Spitzmuller, M., & Illies, R. (2010).Do they [all] see my true self? Leader’s relational authenticity and followers’ assessments of transformational leadership.European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,19,304–332. *Stearns, M. (2012). The relationship of leadership behaviors to staff RN job satisfaction and retention. Unpublished Ed.D., Grand Canyon University, Phoenix, AZ. Tonidandel, S., & LeBreton, J. M. (2011).Relative importance analysis: A useful supplement to regression analysis.Journal of Business and Psychology,26,1– 9. *Tuttle, M. D. (2009). True north or traveled terrain? An empirical investigation of authentic leadership. Unpublished PhD, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL. *Valsania, S. E., Leon, J. A. M., Alonso, F. M., & Cantisano, G. T. (2012).Authentic leadership and its effect on employees’ organizational citizenship behaviors.Psicothema, 24,561–566. van Knippenberg, D., & Sitkin, S. B. (2013).A critical assessment of charismatic-transformational leadership research: Back to the drawing board?The Academy of Management Annals,7(1), 1–60. 18G.C. Banks et al. / The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2016) xxx–xxx Please cite this article as: Banks, G.C., et al., A meta-analytic review of authentic and transformational leadership: A test for redundancy,The Leadership Quarterly(2016), Vevea, J. L., & Woods, C. M. (2005). Publication bias in research synthesis: Sensitivity analysis using a priori weight functions.Psychological Methods,10, 428–443. *Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2008).Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure? Journal of Management,34,89–126. *Wang, H., & Hsieh, C. -C. (2013).The effect of authentic leadership on employee trust and employee engagement. Social behavior and personality.Journal of Behavior and Personality,41,613–624. Wang, G., Oh, I. -S., Courtright, S. H., & Colbert, A. E. (2011).Transformational leadership and performance across criteria and levels: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of research.Group & Organization Management,36,223–270. *Wang, H., Sui, Y., Luthans, F., Wang, D., & Wu, A. Y. (2014).Impact of authentic leadership on performance: Role of followers’ positive psychological capital and re- lational processes.Journal of Organizational Behavior,35,5–21. *Weischer, A. E., Weibler, J., & Peterson, M. (2013).“To thine own self be true”: The effects of enactment and life storytelling on perceived leader authenticity.The Leadership Quarterly,24,477–495. *Wherry, H. M. (2012). Authentic leadership, leader-member exchange, and organizational citizenship behavior: A multilevel analysis. Unpublished PhD, University of Nebraska. *Williams, L. C. (2014). The relationship between authentic leadership and job satisfaction in a university setting. Unpublished dissertation. Capella University, Minneapolis, MN. *Wilson, D. R. (2013). Examining the relationship between authentic leadership behaviors and follower employee engagement. Unpublished PhD, Capella University, Minneapolis, MN. *Wong, C. A., & Cummings, G. G. (2009).The influence of authentic leadership behaviors on trust and work outcomes of health care staff.Journal of Leadership Studies,3, 6–23. *Wong, C. A., & Laschinger, H. (2012).Authentic leadership, performance, and job satisfaction: The mediating role of empowerment.Journal of Advanced Nursing,69, 947–959. *Wong, C. A., Laschinger, H. K., & Cummings, G. G. (2010).Authentic leadership and nurses’ voice behavior and perceptions of care quality.Journal of Nursing Management,18,889–900. *Wood, G. M. (2007). Authentic leadership: Do we really need another leadership theory? Unpublished PhD, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA. *Woolley, L., Caza, A., & Levy, L. (2011).Authentic leadership and follower development: Psychological capital, positive work climate, and gender.Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies,18,438–448. Yammarino, F. J., Dionne, S. D., Schriesheim, C. A., & Dansereau, F. (2008).Authentic leadership and positive organizational behavior: A meso, multi-level perspective. The Leadership Quarterly,19,693–707. *Yemi-Sofumade, H. B. (2012). The relationship between ethical and authentic nurse leadership and the turnover intentions of staff nurses. Unpublished PhD, Capella University, Minneapolis, MN. *Zhu, W. (2006). Authentic leadership and follower moral decision intention: Role of follower moral identity.Unpublished PhD, The University of Nebraska – Lincoln, Lincoln, NE.19 G.C. Banks et al. / The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2016) xxx–xxx Please cite this article as: Banks, G.C., et al., A meta-analytic review of authentic and transformational leadership: A test for redundancy,The Leadership Quarterly(2016),
MSc in Management with HR Contemporary Issues in HRM: Theory and Practice 2016-17 Assignment 1 Please select one of the questions below: Question 1 Uhl-Bien et al (2014: 84) have argued, “our understanding of leadership is incomplete without an understanding of followership”. With reference to the above quotation, critically discuss the view that business has been far too focused on ‘leaders’ as individuals and as a result the role of the follower has been disregarded in the leadership process in organsations today. Reference: Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R.E., Lowe, K.B. and Carsten, M.K., 2014. Followership theory: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), pp.83-104. Question 2 Critically discuss the assertion “that employee engagement is just the latest [management] ‘fad’ and, by implication, has no antecedents” (Beardwell and Thompson, 2014: 417). Reference: Beardwell and Thompson (2014) Human Resource Management. (7th edition) London: Pearson Word length: 2,500 words Submission date: Monday 13th February 2017 at 12 noon (UK time )
Advances in leader and leadership development: A review of 25 years of research and theory David V. Day a,⁎, John W. Fleenor b, Leanne E. Atwater c, Rachel E. Sturm c, Rob A. McKee c aUniversity of Western Australia, AustraliabCenter for Creative Leadership, United StatescUniversity of Houston, United States article infoabstract Article history: Received 1 August 2013 Received in revised form 18 October 2013 Accepted 31 October 2013 Available online 25 November 2013 Editor: Francis J. Yammarino The development of effective leaders and leadership behavior is a prominent concern in organizations of all types. We review the theoretical and empirical literature on leader and leadership development published over the past 25 years, primarily focusing on research published inThe Leadership Quarterly . Compared to the relatively long history of leadership research and theory, the systematic study of leadership development (broadly defined to also include leader development) has a moderately short history. We examine intrapersonal and interpersonal issues related to the phenomena that develop during the pursuit of effective leadership, describe how development emerges with an emphasis on multi-source or 360-degree feedback processes, review longitudinal studies of leadership development, and investigate methodological and analytical issues in leader and leadership development research. Future research directions to motivate and guide the study of leader and leadership development are also discussed. © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Leader development Leadership development 360-degree feedback Self-other agreement Longitudinal research 1. Introduction and overview Leadership development has emerged as an active field of theory building and research, providing a more scientific and evidence-based foundation to augment the long-standing practitioner interest in the topic. This emergence has transpired primarily over the last 10 to 15 years and The Leadership Quarterlyhas played a major role as an important outlet for this work. The purpose of this article is to review those advances, highlight their respective contributions, and identify areas in need of future research. The purpose of this review is to identify advances in scholarly approaches to leader development (intrapersonal, focused on individual leaders), leadership development (interpersonal, focused on enhancing leadership capacity), and related topics that have been featured in this journal over the previous 25 years. The good news is that much has changed. There have been significant contributions to understanding leadership development (broadly defined to also include leader development) as well as multi-source or 360-degree feedback processes. The latter represent important process tools for enhancing leadership development. Although a lot of new knowledge has been generated in the previous 25 years, there is much more that needs to be learned. For that reason we will review the articles and special issues in The Leadership Quarterlysince its beginning that have contributed to these scholarly advances. We will also highlight areas where additional focus is needed in terms of building a stronger evidence-based foundation for leadership development and feedback processes. We begin by elaborating on how and why leadership development is different from the broader field of leadership theory and research. In doing so, we wish to demonstrate that more fully understanding leadership development goes far beyond merely The Leadership Quarterly 25 (2014) 63 –82 ⁎ Corresponding author at: University of Western Australia Business School (M261), 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA, Australia. Tel.: + 61 08 6488 3516. E-mail address: [email protected] (D.V. Day). 1048-9843/$–see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Contents lists available at ScienceDirect The Leadership Quarterly journal homepage: choosing a particular leadership theory and training people in behaviors related to that theory. Leadership development is a complex topic that is deserving of scholarly attention with regard to theory and research independent of what has been studied more generally in the field of leadership.The structure of this review is as follows. First, the content or the “what”of leadership development will be examined to summarize the phenomena that develop and what factors play a role in developing successful leadership skills and potential. This section will include intrapersonal factors (mainly relevant to leader development) as well as interpersonal factors (relating more to leadership development). Second, we consider process issues or the “how”in leadership development. The goal of this section is to describe the ways in which leadership development emerges in organizations and the practices that can be implemented to facilitate effective leadership. Third, we review a series of recent pieces that address aspects of longitudinal studies of leadership development. These are theoretical and empirical contributions that provide valuable insights into the longitudinal nature of leadership development. Fourth, we investigate how leadership development has been assessed or evaluated in the literature, thus promoting a scholarly understanding of evaluation methods in leadership development research. We conclude with an agenda for future research on the topic of leadership development. Whereas many of the pieces we review overlap multiple categories, our hope is that this structural framework provides a clear yet comprehensive understanding of the relevant theory and research pertaining to leadership development. 2. Leader and leadership development: research and theory There is a relatively long history of leadership theory and research spanning more than a century ( Avolio, Reichard, Hannah, Walumbwa, & Chan, 2009 ); however, in comparison, there is a fairly short history of rigorous scholarly theory and research on the topics of leader and leadership development. As noted by Day (2000), the distinction between developing leaders and developing leadership is potentially an important one. Leader development focuses on developing individual leaders whereas leadership development focuses on a process of development that inherently involves multiple individuals (e.g., leaders and followers or among peers in a self-managed work team). But given the keen attention paid to leadership theory historically, there appears to be a widespread misperception that if that the field could just identify and agree on the “correct” leadership theory then the development piece would inevitably follow. It turns out that this is not so simple. Developing individual leaders and developing effective leadership processes involve more than simply deciding which leadership theory is to be used to motivate effective development. This is so because human development involves a complex set of processes that need to be understood. Given that individual leader development occurs in the context of ongoing adult development ( Day, Harrison, & Halpin, 2009), we need to focus on development as much as leadership to shed light on how this process unfolds. One of the reasons leadership theory and research have contributed little to leadership development is a long-standing focus linking personality with leadership. If personality is conceptualized in terms of traits that summarize relatively enduring dispositional tendencies ( House, Shane, & Herold, 1996 ), then its relevance for studying development (i.e., change) is questionable. Another popular approach in leadership research that is likewise limited in its developmental usefulness is the behavioral approach. Although behaviors can be learned, the primary intervention focus associated with leadership behaviors tends to be based on training rather than on longer-term development initiatives. Training typically involves providing proven approaches to solve known problems but the challenges facing contemporary leaders tend to be too complex and ill-defined to be addressed successfully through such relatively short-term training interventions. As a result of these challenges, the nascent fields of leader and leadership development tend to focus less on leadership theory and more on developmental science. In other words, there has been a change in focus associated with studies of leadership development broadly defined, away from leadership research and toward understanding and enhancing developmental processes. Another important difference is that the nature of leadership development is inherently multilevel and longitudinal ( Day, 2011). Specifically, studying development involves mapping and understanding within- and between-person change patterns –as well as those involving groups, teams, and larger collectives –over time. To contribute to greater understanding of how leaders and leadership processes develop and change, relevant theory and research should reflect both the multilevel and the longitudinal nature of development. This longitudinal, multilevel focus means that intrapersonal and interpersonal processes are central to leadership development over time. 3. Intrapersonal content issues in development In terms of intrapersonal content (see Table 1for a summary), a relevant question is what develops as a function of leader development? Additionally, are there individual differences that affect these interventions? Researchers such as Lord and Hall (2005) have noted the importance of individual identity in developing leadership skills and expertise as part of the leader development process. Other researchers have examined issues of cognitive and metacognitive skills at the core of leadership potential ( Marshall-Mies et al., 2000 ), as well as various approaches to understanding the underlying patterns of leadership skills ( Mumford, Campion, & Morgeson, 2007; Mumford, Marks, Connelly, Zaccaro, & Reiter-Palmon, 2000; Mumford et al., 2000 ). Moreover, the role of personality has also been examined as a predictor of leadership styles ( deVries, 2012) as well as leader performance ( Strang & Kuhnert, 2009 ). All of these issues involving skills, experience, learning, and personality are central to the notion of developing the expert leader ( Day et al., 2009; Lord & Hall, 2005). Research and theory on leader self-development also contribute to our conceptual understanding of intrapersonal content issues. 64 D.V. Day et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 25 (2014) 63 –82 3.1. Experience and leaning in developmentAlthough there is a long-held assumption on the part of both practitioners and researchers that experience plays an important role in developing effective leadership, research su ggests that the empirical evidence for this assumption is far from definitive ( Day, 2010). Leadership involves a complex interaction between people and their social and organizational Table 1 Intrapersonal and interpersonal content issues in leadership development. Topics Summary Source Intrapersonal Experience and leaning Leaders’ previous work history as well as the leadership relevance of previous positions held (as opposed to tenure) should be considered in decisions about the kinds of experiences that enhance leader development. Bettin and Kennedy (1990) Leadership development occurring in adolescence can be shaped, in part, by parental modeling. Zacharatos et al. (2000) A leader’s level of experience plays a role in determining how much he or she will learn, but at the same time, not all leaders learn at the same rate or in the same way. Hirst et al. (2004) Skills Although certain kinds of experience may encourage skill development at one point in time in a leader’s career, others might be more advantageous at a different time. Mumford, Marks et al.(2000) Whereas individuals with specific skill types are more inclined to hold senior level leadership positions (such as those who scored high on achievement), there is still a fair amount of diversity in terms of ability, personality, and motivational characteristics across leaders at the same level. Mumford, Zaccaro et al. (2000) Six skills relevant for creative problem solving of high-level leaders include general problem solving, planning and implementation, solution construction, solution evaluation, social judgment, and metacognitive processing (i.e., knowledge of one’s cognitive processes). Marshall-Mies et al. (2000) As leaders assume more senior positions in an organizational, the acquisition of strategic and business skills will be more important for effective performance than the acquisition of interpersonal and cognitive skills. Mumford et al. (2007) Effective leadership entails developing and integrating wisdom, intelligence, and creativity. Sternberg (2008) Identity, meta-cognitive, and self-regulation processes are crucial to the refinement of knowledge structures and information processing capabilities associated with leadership expertise. Lord and Hall (2005) Personality Conscientiousness can be a significant predictor of leader performance. Strang and Kuhnert (2009) Different patterns of personality tend to be more equally representative at junior level leadership positions compared to more senior level positions. Mumford, Zaccaro et al. (2000) Self-development Work orientation, mastery orientation, and career-growth orientation facilitate leader self-development activities. Boyce et al. (2010) Specific organizational-level (i.e., human resources practices) and group-level (i.e., supervisor style) constructs can promote leader self-development. Reichard and Johnson (2011) Interpersonal Social mechanisms The creation of positive learning environments in which education about other groups occurs, innovation is supported, and cultural communication competence is encouraged, facilitates high quality relationships in diverse leader –member dyads. Scandura and Lankau (1996) Leadership development practices can shape social capital development stages (such as networking, mentoring, leadership training, and job assignments) in a variety of ways. Galli and Müller-Stewens (2012) Authentic leadership Authentic leadership development involves “ongoing processes whereby leaders and followers gain self-awareness and establish open, transparent, trusting and genuine relationships, which in part may be shaped and impacted by planned interventions such as training ”(p. 322). Avolio and Gardner (2005) The positive outcomes of authentic leader –follower relationships include heightened levels of follower trust in the leader, engagement, workplace well-being, and sustainable performance. Gardner et al. (2005) Authentic leaders develop authentic followers through positive modeling. Ilies et al. (2005) Positive other-directed emotions (e.g., gratitude, appreciation) will motivate authentic leaders to behave in ways that reflect self-transcendent values (e.g., honesty, loyalty, and equality). Michie and Gooty (2005) The attainment of relational authenticity, wherein followers afford leaders the legitimacy to promote a set of values on their behalf, is challenging for many women in positions of authority, and thus, the development of women leaders should focus on the relational aspects of achieving authenticity as a leader. Eagly (2005) There is a need for empirical evidence evaluating the underlying principles of authentic leadership theory. Cooper et al. (2005)65 D.V. Day et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 25 (2014) 63 –82 environments (Day, 2000). Therefore, simply correlating a leader’s performance with the number of months he or she has been in a job or organization is inadequate (i.e., contaminated and deficient) in capturing the full effects of something as nuanced as experience. Bettin and Kennedy (1990) addressed these conceptualiz ation and measurement concerns by examining several different ways that experience can be measured in organizations. The y argued that a limitation in the research on experience and leader development is the use of tenure or length of time in a job or organization as a proxy for experience. They studied biographies of 84 U.S. Army Captains who all had very similar y ears of experience. Experience was assessed by experts who rated the biographies according to the knowledge, skills, or pra ctice that the Captains gained from their current position and the leadership relevance of previous positions. When measured in this manner, experience was found to be a significant predictor of leadership performance; however, time in service and number of previous positions were unrelated to leadership performance. The results of the Bettin and Kennedy (1990) study suggested that whereas time and experience are not mutually exclusive –it does take time to gain experience –it is important for scholars to be mindful that using time as a proxy for experi ence is l imite d. Moreover, the authors offered leadership scholars an appropriate conceptualization of experience as the relevant skills, knowledge, and practice acquired while holding various jobs that may be relevant to research on the role of experience in leader development. These findings also have practical implications in terms of taking into account individuals’ previous work history as well as the leadership relevance of the previous positions held in making decisions about the kinds of experiences that enhance leader development. Zacharatos, Barling, and Kelloway (2000) extended this focus on individual experience and leader development by studying adolescents’ observations of transformational leadership behaviors exhibited by their respective parents and how this experience was associated with their leadership effectiveness within a team context. Transformational leadership ( Bass & Riggio, 2006)is conceptualized around four interrelated components: (a) idealized influence, (b) inspirational motivation, (c) intellectual stimulation, and (d) individualized consideration, and is one of the most frequently studied leadership approaches in the leadership literature ( Day & Antonakis, 2012). To better understand how transformational leadership behaviors develop in youths, Zacharatos et al. (2000)invoked social learning theory to explain the influence that parental modeling can have on the development of adolescents’ leadership. The research focused on a sample of 112 Canadi an high school students who were members of different sports teams. Adolescents’ perceptions that their parents demonstrated transformational leadership behaviors were associated with a greater likelihood that these adolescents exhibited similar leadership behaviors. Also, those adolescents who displayed transformational behaviors were rated as more satisfying, effective, and effort-evoking leaders by their peers and coaches in their particular team context. In terms of leadership development, this study suggests that development of leadership (particularly transformational leadership) can start in adolescents and is likely shaped, in part, by parental modeling. Inayear-longempiricalstudyofR&Dteams,Hirst, Mann, Bain, Pirola-Merlo, and Richter (2004) examinedtheroleof learning and individual differences in the development of facilit ative leadership behaviors. Facilitative leadership endorses respect and positive relationships among team members, constr uctive conflict resolution, and candid expression of thoughts and attitudes. The authors grounded their hypotheses in action learning theory, proposing that leaders “learn from challenging work, from solving complex problems, and from leading a team, and that they use this knowledge to foster team communication and enhance team performance ”(p. 321). But not all leaders learn at the same rate or in the same way. The authors supported their contention that leaders who are better able to learn from their experiences tended to engage in greater levels of facilitative leadership. This learning of facilitative leadership behaviors was, in turn, associated with higher levels of team reflexivity and performance. Hirst et al. (2004) also found support for their hypotheses that a leade r’s level of experience will determine how much he or she will learn and, further, experience will moderate the relationship between leadership learning and facilitative leadership. Less experienced leaders simply have more to learn and are more likely to encounter novel situations than their more veteran counterparts. The schemas and implicit leadership theories of inexperienced leaders are likely to be less complex or crystallized, and thus are more amenable to chang e. This is not meant to suggest that experienced leaders are incapable of learning or translating that learning into their leadership behaviors, but rather that they must work harder to integrate new knowledge into their established cognitive frameworks. Another important finding from this research involved the time lag (ranging from 4 to 8 months) between leadership learning and facilitative leadership behavior enactment. The authors surmised that this “may reflect the interval between gaining new insight and grasping an understanding of how best to translate this knowledge into leadership behavior ”(p. 322). In other words, it takes time for leaders to progress from a conceptual understanding of their fac ilitative role to the procedural expression of their leadership competence through specific facilitative behaviors. 3.2. Skills and development At the turn of the 21st century, leadership scholars began focusing attention on the particular leadership skills that can be acquired through development processes. For instance, Mumford, Marks et al. (2000)andMumford, Zaccaro et al. (2000) used U.S. military samples to examine the skills acquired over the course of a leader’s career and how these skills are acquired. The researchers examined complex problem-solving skills, creative thinking skills, social judgment skills, solution construction skills, and leader knowledge or expertise. In order to describe changes in these skills from lower to higher level leadership positions, Mumford, Marks et al. (2000) i llustrated that scores on assessments of these skills increased from junior-level positions (e.g., second 66 D.V. Day et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 25 (2014) 63 –82 lieutenant, first lieutenants, and junior captains) to mid-level positions (e.g., senior captains and majors) and from mid-level to upper-level positions (e.g., lieutenant colonels and colonels). They also found that certain skills were more important at certain phases of a leader’s career. In particular, technical training was found to be more strongly related to skill increases moving from junior to mid-level positions whereas more advanced professional training was more strongly related to increases in requisite complex problem-solving skills as leaders moved from mid-level to more senior positions. The findings of Mumford, Marks et al.’s (2000) study of differences in leadership skills across six grade levels of officers in the U.S. Army offer useful theoretical and pr actical implications for those interested inleadership development. Specifically, their findings supported their proposed organization-based model of leader skill development, which suggests that skill development depends on learning as people interact with their environment. It also explains that skill development can occur over a long period of time and that this process is progressive, moving from simple aspects of development to more complex, integrated components. These findings also suggest that whereas certain kinds of experience may encourage skill d eve lop me nt at one po int in time in a leader’s career, others might be more beneficial at a different time. Thus, they recommended that training assignments should be carefully tailored to current developmental needs, which, of course, is easier said than done. In a related study, Mumford, Zaccaro et al. (2000) were interested in identifying types or subgroups of individuals entering into the U.S. Army according to ability, personality, and motivational characteristics, as well as determining which of these types were found in more senior positions. They identified seven different types of individual profiles: Concrete Achieverswere those high on achievement and planning; Motivated Communicatorswere extraverted, dominant, responsible, and high in achievement needs; Limited Defensives were introverted, and scored high in areas of sensing, thinking, and judging; Disengaged Introvertswere also introverted but scored high on intuition, perception, and planning; Social Adaptorswere extraverted, and scored high in feeling, perception, and openness; Thoughtful Innovatorswere introverted, intuitive, achievement-oriented, and open; and Struggling Misfits were those who did not score high on any of the measures. Results suggested that all seven of these groups were well represented in junior officers, with at least 10% to at most 20% of the officers being found in each subgroup. Whereas group representation was more uniform at the junior officer level, a different pattern of group membership emerged at the more senior level. Specifically, members of three of the subgroups –Motivated Communicators, Thoughtful Innovators, and Social Adaptors –were represented with greater or equal frequency at the senior officer level compared to the junior officer level, with Motivated Communicators and Thoughtful Innovators being especially pronounced with 40% and 26% of the sample, respectively. These findings suggest that whereas individuals with specific skills types are more apt to hold upper level leadership positions there is still a good deal of diversity in terms of ability, personality, and motivational characteristics among leadership incumbents at the same level. The authors encouraged practitioners and scholars to recognize that the development process is holistic in nature and that different types of people will be needed to fill different types of organizational leadership roles. In an effort to identify and appropriately measure specific skills related to effective senior-level leaders, Marshall-Mies et al. (2000) created and tested an on-line computer-based cognitive and metacognitive (i.e., knowledge of one’s cognitive processes) skill assessment battery called the Military Leadership Exercises. In doing so, they first identified complex cognitive and metacognitive skills relevant for creative problem solving in high-level leaders. The cognitive skills included general problem solving, planning and implementation, solution construction, solution evaluation, and social judgment. Metacognitive processing was measured as individuals’ awareness of prior understandings as evidenced by their ability to reevaluate these understandings over time in light of new information. The skills were assessed using complex and domain-specific (i.e., geared towards the military) situational leadership scenarios, which were used to predict performance outcomes. This study contributes to our understanding of leader development by describing skills that are important to senior-level leaders as well as by providing a way in which these skills can be measured. Other researchers have since investigated different patterns of skills that are important to leaders and leadership development. In particular, Mumford et al. (2007) presented four leadership skill requirements (cognitive, interpersonal, business, and strategic) as a strataplex , conceptualized as layered (strata) acro ss the organization and segmented (plex) into a specified number of parts. Findings from their study on approximately 1000 juni or, midlevel, and senior managers supported the proposed strataplex approach and demonstrated that specific skill requirements vary by organizational level. In addition, they proposed that as managers are promoted to more senior roles, the acquisition of strategic and business skills will be more important for effective performance than the acquisition of interpersonal and cognitive skills. Sternberg (2008) provided a WICS approach to leadership, which refers to Wisdom, Intelligence, and Creativity Synthesized. This approach is grounded in the notion that effective leadership entails developing and integrating these three types of skills (wisdom, intelligence, and creativity) that all play an important role in decision making. Accordingly, leadership is a process that involves generating ideas (creativity), then analyzing whether the ideas are good or not (intelligence), and then, ideally, acting on the ideas in a way to achieve a common good (wisdom). Sternberg recommends that one way that leadership potential can be developed is through identifying and encouraging this kind of synthesis. Lord and Hall (2005) proposed that leadership development is predicated on progressive skills development. Their approach is based on a general theory of learning and expertise, which suggests that changes in information processing and underlying knowledge structures occur as skills are gradually refined. Thus, through the process of skill development a leader advances through novice, intermediate, and expert skill levels. Each level requires increasingly sophisticated knowledge structures and information processing capabilities within broadly defined task, emotional, social, and self-relevant realms. Compared to Hirst et al. (2004) ,who examined less experienced leaders against more experienced leaders, Lord and Hall focused on the underlying processes involved in moving from a novice (i.e., inexperienced) to an expert (i.e., highly experienced) leader. 67 D.V. Day et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 25 (2014) 63 –82 The development of leadership skills also requires self-motivation. In that regard, identity, meta-cognitive, and self-regulation processes are thought to be crucial to the refinement of knowledge structures and information processing capabilities associated with leadership expertise. Through the course of development, identity progresses from the individual level, in which the self is defined in terms of uniqueness from others, to the relational level, in which the self is defined in terms of roles and relationships, to the collective level, in which the self is defined in terms of group or organizational affiliations ( Lord & Hall, 2005). Concomitant development of meta-cognitive skills enables better knowledge access, goal formation, action, and social reactions, which frees up cognitive resources that can be directed toward effective self-regulation. Self-regulation involves the control and communication of emotions to others. As a leader’s skills progress into the expert domain over time, the identity and behaviors of a leader are increasingly guided by understanding the situation and collaborating with others. 3.3. Personality and development Research has found certain personality traits to be predictive of effective leadership. For example, Strang and Kuhnert (2009) found that the Big Five personality factor of conscientiousness significantly predicted of leader performance as measured by the average rating of three sources (subordinate, peer, and supervisor). Moreover, Mumford, Zaccaro et al. (2000)suggested that patterns of personality can have an impact on leader skill development and performance. Nonetheless, if personality changes relatively little compared with other personal characteristics in adulthood, then it makes sense to evaluate their predictive value in terms of leadership performance. Other approaches will be discussed that examine more malleable constructs that are thought to change as part of leader development processes (e.g., self-efficacy). 3.4. Self-development In terms of understanding leader self-development, Boyce, Zaccaro, and Wisecarver (2010)addressed the relative lack of research on the personal characteristics of individuals who engage in leadership self-development activities. Through an empirical examination of junior military leaders, the authors supported a conceptual model in which dispositional characteristics differentially predict leader development activities. The individual characteristics found to be associated with leader development activities were work orientation (e.g., job involvement and organizational commitment); mastery orientation(greater self-efficacy, conscientiousness, openness to experience, and intellectual maturity); and career-growth orientation(greater career exploration and feedback seeking behaviors). Depending on the strength of their mastery and work orientations, individuals were more or less motivated to engage in self-development activities. Those individuals with a stronger career growth orientation were found to be more skilled at performing self-development activities. Overall, the results indicated that work orientation, mastery orientation, and career-growth orientation play key roles in leader self-development. Further addressing the scarcity of research in the area of self-development of leadership skills, Reichard and Johnson (2011) proposed a multi-level model of leader self-development that describes how leaders are “transformed into continuous self-developers ” (p. 34). In this model organizational-level constructs such as huma n resources practices and resources are linked with group-level phenomena such as norms, supervisor style, and social networks to promote leaders’ motivation to develop their leadership and to engage in continuous self-development behavior. Specifically, HR processes (selection, training, and performance appraisal) create group norms (learning, responsibility, and openness), and support the development of individual leader skills and abilities. These individual-level leader characteristics are m oderated by supportive group norms to engender an individual’s motivation to develop leadership and to engage in continuous self-development. The authors assert that “leader self-development is a cost-effective way for organizations to develop leaders resulting [potentially] in a competitive edge ”(p. 33). 4. Interpersonal content issues in development Given that leadership development is a dynamic process involving multiple individuals spanning various levels of analyses, the content aspects of this process include a variety of interpersonal factors (see Table 1). One such approach to understanding the content of leadership development includes a focus on the development of leader –member exchange (LMX) quality. Another relevant approach examines how leadership development practices shape the development of social capital in organizations. Relatedly, a special issue on authentic leadership emphasized the interactive leader –follower quality of authentic leadership and provided developmental strategies related to this leadership approach. 4.1. Social mechanisms and development Leadership development emphasizes the enactment of leadership built on a foundation of mutual trust and respect ( Day, 2000 ). As a result, it is important to understand the development of social interactions that occur within the leadership process. For instance, Boyd and Taylor (1998) conceptually evaluated how the presence of friendship contributes to either effective or ineffective working relationships in the LMX process. Scandura and Lankau (1996)further extended research on LMX by including the potential role that gender and race relations may play in the process of forging effective exchange qualities. More specifically, these authors described how certain social psychological processes (e.g., self-knowledge, interpersonal skills, communication competence, and cultural competence) and contextual influences (e.g., organizational climate/culture, group/organizational composition, economic environment, and organizational support for diversity) moderate the development of high quality relationships in diverse leader – 68D.V. Day et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 25 (2014) 63 –82 member dyads. They highlighted the importance of leaders creating positive learning environments in which learning about other groups occurs, innovation is supported, and cultural communication competence is encouraged. From this, individuals create more integrated self-concepts that include both intrapersonal and interpersonal dimensions. More recently, Galli and Müller-Stewens (2012) demonstrated how leadership development practices shape the development of social capital in organizations. In contrast to human capital, which focuses primarily on individual leader attributes (i.e., knowledge, skills, and abilities), social capital considers connections and interactions among individuals within a social context. In an effort to understand how leadership development potentially impacts organizational performance, the authors adopted a case study approach to examine the development of social capital at more strategic levels of the firm. They found that social capital differs regarding its intensity and progresses through stag es characterized by contact (e.g., networks, off-sites, mentoring), assimilation (e.g., leadership training, 360-degree feedback), and i dentification (e.g., job assignments, action learning). Also, their results s uggest that leadership development practices vary in their potential impact on social capital development stages; thus, they should be designed accordingly. 4.2. Authentic leadership development In a special issue of The Leadership Quarterly on the topic of authentic leadership, Avolio and Gardner (2005)noted that authentic leadership development involves “ongoing processes whereby leaders and followers gain self-awareness and establish open, transparent, trusting and genuine relationships, which in part may be shaped and impacted by planned interventions such as training ”(p. 322). Thus, the development of authentic leadership is conceptualized as a more complex process than just the development of authentic leaders. The former involves the development of an authentic relationship (i.e., social capital focus) between leaders and their followers; in contrast, the development of authenti c leaders is more intrapersonal in nature (i.e., human capital focus). Avolio and Gardner (2005) highlighted the environmental and organizational forces that have generated interest in the study of authentic leadership and its development. They described the similarities and defining features of authentic leadership theory in comparison to other perspectives of leadership (e.g., transformational, charismatic, servant, and spiritual leadership). In this vein, a model of the relationships between authentic leadership, follower development, and follower performance was presented ( Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May, & Walumbwa, 2005 ). The proposed model highlighted the developmental processes of leader and follower self-awareness and self-regulation, as well as the influence of the leaders’ and followers’ personal histories on authentic leadership and followership. The model also considered the reciprocal effects of an inclusive, ethical, and compassionate organizational climate. Positive modeling was viewed as the primary mechanism through which leaders developed authentic followers and the outcomes of authentic leader –follower relationships included heightened levels of follower trust in the leader, enhanced engagement and workplace well-being, as well as more sustainable performance. Although this approach is commendable for including both leaders and followers in the development process, it is unclear what it offers beyond the well-established effects of leader– member exchange (LMX) theory. Future tests of authentic leadership development will need to control for LMX in demonstrating a unique contribution to the establishment of authentic relationships. Ilies, Morgeson, and Nahrgang (2005) presented a somewhat different model of authentic leader development that focused on the elements of authenticity and the processes through which authentic leadership contributes to the well-being of both leaders and followers. Authentic leaders are expected to consider multiple sides and multiple perspectives of an issue, and gather related information in a relatively balanced manner. Similar to what was proposed by Gardner et al. (2005), the focus is on positive modeling as the primary means used by authentic leaders to influence followers and to generate well-being as a positive outcome of authenticity. Researchers have also stressed the importance of values and behaviors to the understanding and development of authentic leadership. In an investigation of the effects of emotions and values on leader authenticity, Michie and Gooty (2005)posited that emotions and values play a fundamental role in the emergence and development of authentic leadership. The authors’ central thesis was that positive other-directed emotions (e.g., gratitude, appreciation) motivate authentic leaders to behave in ways that reflect self-transcendent values (e.g., honesty, loyalty, equality). By stressing the importance of emotions in understanding leadership and followership, this approach represented a somewhat different and novel perspective on the development of authentic leadership. To further explore the boundary conditions of authentic leadership theory, Eagly (2005)presented a relational view of authenticity in arguing that much more is required of leaders than transparently conveying and acting on their values. Achieving relational authenticity is thought to require that followers afford leaders the legitimacy to promote a set of values on their behalf. Leaders are able to elicit the personal and social identification of followers only when these conditions exist. Eagly suggested that eliciting identification is more difficult for female than male leaders, as it is more generally for members of outsider groups (e.g., minorities, non-natives) who have not traditionally had access to leadership roles. Because of the interactive effects of gender role and leader role requirements, achieving relational authenticity is challenging for many women in positions of authority. The development of women leaders should therefore focus on the relational aspects of achieving authenticity as a leader. Trends toward par ticipative decision making and transformational l eadership may also increase the probability that women and other outsiders will achieve success as leaders. In a critique of authentic leadership approaches, Cooper, Scandura, and Schriesheim (2005)advised researchers in this area to learn from the mistakes made in other areas of leadership research. They suggested that the core propositions of this theory must first be tested by studying the developmental processes that encompass authentic leadership. Authentic leadership theory, therefore, must be examined through experimental investigation s of the hypothesized relationships between its core development 69 D.V. Day et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 25 (2014) 63 –82 processes and essential theoretical constructs. Until the theory has been properly tested (including controlling for the effects of LMX), the authors warned against a rush to push authentic leadership development in practice. 5. Process issues in leadership developmentResearchers have also addressed the role of processin leader and leadership development (see Table 2for a summary of this literature). Specifically, process factors are those that shape the rate or pattern of development over time. In general, these factors can emerge through organizational practices such as mentoring and coaching, 360-degree feedback, leadership training, job assignments, and action learning among others. In particular, research and theory appearing in The Leadership Quarterlyhas contributed significantly to shaping our scholarly understanding of feedback processes, especially 360-degree feedback. Other process factors related to leadership development that have received attention in this journal include self-other agreement ( Fleenor, Smither, Atwater, Braddy, & Sturm, 2010 ) and the use of narratives and life stories (Ligon, Hunter, & Mumford, 2008; Shamir & Eilam, 2005 ). 5.1. Feedback as a process of development Corresponding with the emergence of leadership development as a scholarly field of interest, the use of 360-degree feedback as a developmental process to foster self-awareness and competency development has become a major area of research. 360-degree feedback has become almost ubiquitous in organizations of every type (e.g., corporate, government, non-profit, military, education) and is a prominent process for facilitating development. If used as intended, 360-degree feedback can help people understand systematically the impact of their behavior on others. In general, the approach gathers and reports on ratings of leader behavior and/or effectiveness from multiple sources such as subordinates, peers, bosses, and possibly even external stakeholders such as customers, in addition to self-ratings. These ratings are usually aggregated and therefore remain anonymous, Table 2 Process issues in leadership development. Topics Summary Source 360-degree feedback It is important to consider the pattern of strategic, organizational, and HR-related factors that must be integrated in order to link feedback results to organizational performance. Merely assuming that giving a leader feedback will result in a behavioral change, and ultimately organizational performance improvement, is overly simplistic. Atwater and Waldman (1998) Leaders’ reactions to 360-degree feedback vary as a function of the feedback content as well as other factors about the raters and the organizational climate, including whether or not recipients felt the organization was supportive of their developmental efforts. Facteau et al. (1998) Leaders who are high self-monitors do not receive higher 360-degree feedback ratings, suggesting that the impression management styles of high self-monitors do not significantly influence360-degree ratings. Warech et al. (1998) The administration of two feedback interventions has the ability to improve leader effectiveness more so than a single administration of a feedback intervention. Seifert and Yukl (2010) In terms of how political leaders respond to criticism, others’ supportive reactions are positively related to collaboration and persuasion strategies as a response to criticism, whereas diverting attention and persuasion are related to unsuccessful resolution of the issue. Eubanks et al. (2010) While most leadership development programs have improved leader effectiveness as an ultimate goal, the main roles associated with effective leadership differ according to who is being asked (e.g., focal manager, peers, subordinates, or bosses); hence, effectiveness may be in the eye of the beholder (or evaluator). Hooijberg and Choi (2000) Self-other agreement Leaders who rate themselves similarly to how others rate them are likely to be more effective leaders. Atwater and Yammarino (1992) Self-other agreement does not appear to be related to leadership effectiveness. Fleenor et al. (1996) There is a link between rating agreement and leader effectiveness. Atwater et al. (1998) Whereas self-other agreement appears to be related to leader effectiveness, its relationship to leadership outcomes is complex. Also, self-other agreement can be an important factor in increasing the self-perception accuracy or self-awareness of individuals participating in leadership development programs using multi-source assessments. Fleenor et al. (2010) Self-narrative Authentic leaders can gain self-knowledge, self-concept clarity, and person-role merger, by constructing, developing, and revising the personal narratives they construct about themselves (i.e., life stories). Shamir and Eilam (2005) Continuously revising and updating self-narratives as experiences accrue through written journals or other similar techniques can help enhance the effectiveness of programs and interventions that seek to increase self-awareness. Sparrowe (2005) Various leader performance dimensions can be linked to certain types of experiences. For example, experiences that create optimistic views of others and empathy for their suffering are strongly related to outstanding leader performance. Ligon et al. (2008) 70 D.V. Day et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 25 (2014) 63 –82 with the exception of ratings provided by the supervisor. A major part of the feedback process is in understanding where the perceptions across different sources converge–as well as diverge –in their perceptions of a focal manager ( Hoffman, Lance, Bynum, & Gentry, 2010 ). Attention is also given to how others’ ratings correspond with a leader’s self-ratings. The intended focus is typically on leader development but may also include an evaluative component in some organizations. As 360-degree feedback has evolved as an evidence-based process, much of its developmental focus is on identifying leadership skills and competencies that are perceived by various sources to be effective or ineffective. Because of the interconnected nature of leadership development with 360-degree feedback, these topics will be reviewed together. But to clarify their relationship, leadership development is inherently longitudinal in terms of studying individual and collective change over time; it is multilevel in focusing on intrapersonal and interpersonal changes; and 360-degree feedback is a process used to facilitate this development. It should also be made clear that 360-degree feedback is not a tool such as a personality assessment or other type of psychological inventory. Instead, it is a process of collecting multisource ratings, summarizing these data into an accessible format, and presenting these summaries as a way of fostering self-awareness and the development of individual leaders. This feedback process might be used with larger collectives such as teams and organizations, but its primary use is with individual leaders. Although many of the articles pertaining to 360-degree feedback and leader development have been published in more practitioner-oriented journals, The Leadership Quarterlyhas published a variety of empirically-based articles on the subject of feedback and its relevance to leadership development. One of the fundamental components of effective leadership is self-awareness or self-understanding. Ashford (1989)wrote eloquently on the topic of feedback-seeking behavior and on the importance of recognizing how one is perceived by others in order to develop a more accurate self-view. This self-view subsequently shapes an understanding of one’s own strengths and weaknesses, ultimately influencing decision-making and subsequent behavior. The importance of accurate self-assessment (i.e., enhanced self-awareness) has been extended recently to meta-perceptions, which concern not only how an individual views himself or herself and how others view that individual, but also how the individual thinks others view him or her ( Taylor & Hood, 2011). In the 1990s, interest in the process and outcomes of 360-degree feedback gathered momentum. The use of 360-degree feedback as a development tool was being implemented with varying degrees of success around the world and a number of research questions about what influenced its success were being asked. In an attempt to summarize and highlight what was known about 360-degree feedback from a scholarly perspective, Atwater and Waldman (1998)edited a special issue on 360-degree feedback and leadership development for The Leadership Quarterly. Unfortunately, implementation of 360-degree feedback was apparently ahead of research on its effectiveness in that only two studies were published on the topic in that special issue. But notably, this special issue was one of the first publications to highlight areas in which more research was needed on the use of 360-degree feedback for leadership development. Additionally, the issue was noteworthy for its focus on the potential impact of organizational culture on the implementation of 360-degree feedback processes. In their introduction to the special issue, Atwater and Waldman (1998)recommended that researchers adopt configural approaches to 360-degree feedback by considering the pattern o f strategic, organizational, and human resources-related factors that must be integrated in order to link feedback results to organizational performance. Merely assuming that giving a leader feedback will result in a behavioral change, and ultim ately organizational performance improvement, is overly simplistic. Atwater and Waldman also suggested that researc hers closely examine the link between 360-degree feedback and organizational culture. For example, 360-degree feedback initiatives may be effective only in organizations that have a culture of innovation, behaviorally-based appraisal practices , and developmental strategies. In an attempt to change their culture, some organizations may adopt 360 -degree feedback in hopes that these practices will result in employees becoming more open, participative, and trusting. Nonetheless, it is an empirical question whether 360-degree feedback can have positive effects on organizational culture. It might be that a 360-degree feedback process would not be successful until the organization has an open, participative, and trusting culture. This was one of the areas in which the guest editors cited the need for more research on 360-degree feedback. Another area in need of research was related to the determinants and consequences of developmental goal setting that arise as a result of receiving 360-degree feedback. In an attempt to partially address this need, Facteau, Facteau, Schoel, Russell, and Poteet (1998) examined factors related to leaders’ reactions to 360-degree feedback. Positive reactions to feedback are an important element in the success of 360-degree feedback in that such reactions likely result in leaders seeking additional feedback and setting developmental goals, both of which are critical to fostering development. Lacking favorable reactions to the feedback, positive behavior change is unlikely to occur. Facteau et al. (1998) hypothesized that higher overall other ratings, organizational support, and perceived rater ability would be positively related to the reactions of feedback recipients (acceptance and perceived usefulness of peer and subordinate feedback). Their findings were somewhat mixed. Although they found that overall ratings were positively related to the acceptance of feedback, these ratings were not consistently related to perceived feedback usefulness. For example, the recipient may be very accepting of positive ratings but not find them terribly useful. Whether the feedback was perceived as useful had more to do with the degree to which the recipients felt the organization was supportive of their developmental efforts. Overall, this study provided early evidence that leaders’ reactions to 360-degree feedback vary as a function of the feedback itself as well as other factors about the raters and the organizational climate. Differences in the reactions of the participants to the feedback, therefore, were not simply attributable to the overall ratings provided to these leaders. The study concluded that organizations that wish to implement successful 360-degree feedback systems will need to consider all of the various factors that may contribute to the leaders’ reactions to feedback. 71 D.V. Day et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 25 (2014) 63 –82 Reporting on the positive effects of 360-degree feedback for leadership development,Warech, Smither, Reilly, Millsap, and Reilly (1998) studied the relationship between leader self-monitoring, personality, and 360-degree feedback ratings from peers and subordinates. This was an important question to address because it would be disconcerting if a leader’s degree of self-monitoring (i.e., the desire and ability to fashion a positive image for a particular situation) explained a large amount of variance in 360-degree ratings. That is, if self-monitoring and 360-degree ratings were highly related it might be concluded that such ratings were manipulated to some extent by the impression management styles of high self-monitors. Encouragingly, the authors found that leaders who were high self-monitors did not receive higher overall ratings, thus providing some assurances that 360-degree feedback ratings reflected mainly perceptions of leadership behaviors rather than the result of active impression management. Atwater and Waldman (1998) recognized that these studies ma de significant contributions to our understanding of 360-degree feedback and leadership development but stressed that much more work remained to be done in this area. In particular, it was suggested that future research should focus more squarely on the outcomes of 360-degree feedback. Examples of such outcomes included:(a) the extent to which 360-degree fe edback initiatives can affect orga nizational performance; (b)how often 360-degree feedback should be administered to maintain participant interest and continue the developmental process; and (c) the points in leaders’ careers at which 360-degree feedback will have the most impact. For the most part, these still remain imp ortant but largely unexamined research questions. Seifert and Yukl (2010) did address one of the questions posed above in terms of repetition of the feedback process. They conducted a longitudinal field experiment of middle managers in which half of the managers received one developmental workshop including 360-degree feedback and the other half participated in a follow-up workshop where they received feedback a second time. In each workshop they were provided with a feedback report of their self and other ratings of their influence tactics, as well as a discussion to help them understand the results of the feedback and ways to use it to more effectively influence others in the future. The managers’ overall effectiveness was measured pre-feedback as well as post-feedback. The pre-feedback effectiveness ratings did not differ in the two groups; however, at the second measurement period those who participated in two feedback processes were rated as significantly more effective following feedback than those who received feedback only once. This suggests that additional resources allocated to the feedback process (e.g., doubling the number of feedback sessions) has the potential to improve leader effectiveness. A question that deserves future research attention concerns whether there is compelling economic or financial utility associated with increasing the number of f eedback sessions provided to a leader. Eubanks et al. (2010) took a different approach to looking at feedback in examining how political leaders respond to criticism. They used a historiometric approach to study biographies of 120 world leaders and how the response strategies to the criticism used by the leader related to success in terms of follower reactions and resolution of an issue. Their results demonstrated that others’ supportive reactions were positively related to collaboration and persuasion strategies as a response to criticism, whereas diverting attention and persuasion were related to unsuccessful resolution of the issue. Regarding the ultimate conclusion of the event, both collaboration and confrontation were positively related to the outcome although confrontation was also negatively related to unsupportive reactions by others. It is interesting to speculate about strategies that have differing results for popular opinion versus effective resolution. One could speculate that strategies such as persuasion might be used to influence attitudes while ineffectively resolving the issue. The authors suggested that future research might examine events in which leaders receive praise, the types of behaviors that are praised, as well as follower reactions to the praise. In the political arena –especially in democratic countries –criticism and praise will likely elicit very different reactions depending on whether or not members are from one’s own political party or an adversarial party. Most leadership development programs target, as an ultimate goal, improved leader effectiveness. But the question arises: effectiveness according to whom? Hooijberg and Choi (2000)discovered that the main roles associated with effective leadership differ according to who is being asked (e.g., focal manager, peers, subordinates, or bosses). For example, when considering a monitoring role, focal managers and their subordinates found this to be an important leadership role whereas peers and superiors did not. As another example, the role of facilitator was seen as a component of effectiveness from the perspective of subordinates and peers but not from the perspective of bosses or the managers themselves. These findings provide potentially important implications to the leadership development process because they reinforce the idea that effectiveness may be in the eye of the beholder (or evaluator). Are we developing leaders to align with what superiors or subordinates find to be most important? Is it possible to develop a leader who can succeed in all roles? Hooijberg and Choi suggested that 360-degree feedback is a good starting place for managers in understanding the differing expectations of various constituency groups. 5.2. Self-other agreement as a process of development A debate emerged in the mid-1990s on the topic of self-other agreement (SOA) in ratings and its role in contributing to leader effectiveness. Atwater and Yammarino’s (1992) conclusion that leaders who rated themselves similarly to how others rated them were likely be more effective leaders was questioned ( Fleenor, McCauley, & Brutus, 1996). According to Atwater and Yammarino, so-called over-estimators who rate themselves higher than do others may inaccurately over-estimate their strengths and underestimate their weaknesses, which could adversely affect their leadership effectiveness. Using a categorization scheme that included level of performance (i.e., good versus poor), Fleenor et al. reported that self-other agreement was unrelated to leadership effectiveness. Unfortunately, the categorization approach that was used suffered from methodological shortcomings (e.g., dichotomizing or otherwise truncating continuous data). Using more sophisticated analyses such as polynomial regression, 72 D.V. Day et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 25 (2014) 63 –82 Atwater, Ostroff, Yammarino, and Fleenor (1998)found relationships between rating agreement and leader effectiveness; however, the relationship was more complex than originally believed. In a review of the literature on self-other rating agreement, Fleenor et al. (2010)addressed some of these complexities including issues influencing SOA, as well as optimal measurement and analytic techniques for studying this phenomenon. An important conclusion of this review was that whereas self-other agreement was generally related to leader effectiveness, its relationship to various leadership outcomes was not as straightforward. For example, although self-raters who are in agreement with others’ ratings are generally most effective, in some contexts over- and under-estimators can be effective. Another conclusion was that self-other agreement can be an important factor in increasing the self-perception accuracy or self-awareness of individuals participating in leadership development programs that use 360-degree feedback or other types of multisource assessments. Fleenor et al. (2010) also addressed the implications of using sophisticated analytic tools (e.g., polynomial regression) to study self-other agreement. Although psychometrically the most precise of the available techniques for testing hypotheses about SOA, techniques such as polynomial regression are not very useful for providing feedback on self-other agreement to participants in leader development programs. Instead, simpler and more straightforward approaches are recommended. For example, using comparisons of self-ratings to mean ratings across other rater groups (e.g., subordinates or peers) is useful; however, inter-rater agreement should be assessed prior to using mean ratings. An additional suggestion for optimizing the value of 360-degree feedback to leaders was to provide rater training and incentives to raters to guide them in providing quality feedback. Moreover, the anonymity of raters, especially subordinates, is critical in reducing fears of retribution. As mentioned earlier, the role of the rater and his or her definition of effectiveness should also be considered in interpreting 360-degree feedback ratings. 5.3. Self-narrative as a process of development In addition to investigating how the 360-degree feedback and SOA processes can contribute to leadership development, Shamir and Eilam (2005) advanced a self-narrative approach in which leaders’ self-stories contribute to their ongoing development. Leaders wrote personal narratives about themselves (i.e., life stories) to help provide insight into the self-relevant meanings they attach to their life experiences. The authors focused on authentic leadership and suggested that by constructing, developing, and revising their life stories, leaders gain self-knowledge, self-concept clarity, and person-role merger, which are necessary elements in their development as authentic leaders. As noted by the authors, “leaders gain authenticity when they act and justify their actions on the basis of the meaning system provided by their life-stories ”(p. 396). Complementing this life-story approach, Sparrowe (2005)offered an explanation of the narrative process through which a leader’s authentic self emerges. This perspective is grounded in hermeneutic philosophy (the theory and study of interpretation), proposing that individuals are able to construct their identities from their interpretations of self-narratives created based on their life experiences. An important aspect of these self-narratives is to continuously revise and update them as experiences accrue. Doing so through written journals or other similar techniques can help enhance the effectiveness of programs and interventions that seek to increase self-awareness. Ligon et al. (2008) also considered the role of hermeneutic philosophy in leadership development. Rather than relying on leaders to interpret their own narratives, these researchers analyzed and coded the developmental events from the early lives of outstanding leaders as chronicled in their biographies. The results supported the proposition that outstanding leaders rely on past experience to assist their sense-making efforts. Although this may seem unsurprising, it suggests that leaders may be engaged in assimilating recent experiences with past experiences in building a coherent personal narrative or life story. Also, patterns of early experiences emerged that distinguished leaders based upon their leadership orientation (socialized or personalized) or style (charismatic, ideological, or pragmatic). For instance, socialized leaders had relatively more experiences that helped to anchor their core values, whereas personalized leadership resulted more from “a life riddled with instability and uncertainty”(p. 329). Ligon et al.’s findings regarding leadership style also suggested that ideological leaders tended to make decisions based on the beliefs and values they formed through early anchoring events, rather than engaging in more proactive fact-finding and analysis activities. Conversely, pragmatic leaders tended to make decisions based on facts and analysis, due in part to “originating”events at the beginning of their careers that helped define their long-term goals and plans for action. Moreover, charismatic leaders were found to have experienced more turning-point or life-redirecting events during their formative years. Finally, and perhaps most interestingly, the study demonstrated that various dimensions of leader performance were related to certain types of experiences. For instance, having had experiences that create optimistic views of others and empathy for their suffering is strongly related to outstanding performance. Consistent with the implications noted by others (e.g., Shamir & Eilam, 2005; Sparrowe, 2005), Ligon and colleagues underscored the importance of the life narrative and its theoretical and practical implications for leadership development research and practice. 6. Longitudinal perspectives on leadership development As noted previously in this review, the nature of leadership development is inherently multilevel and longitudinal ( Day, 2011). Thus, it is important for scholars to map and understand intra- and inter-personal change patterns of leaders over time (see Table 3 for a summary and overview). In an attempt to demonstrate the significance of longitudinal research in studying leadership development, Day, Gronn, and Salas (2004) provided a theoretical model outlining how individual leader and follower skills and attributes could contribute to building team leadership capacity. From this model, it was shown how the development 73 D.V. Day et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 25 (2014) 63 –82 of leadership capacity over time can provide for significant leadership resources at subsequent performance episodes. As such, the importance of longitudinal studies was highlighted. This model also was one of the first to attempt to link individual human capital inputs to the development of teamwork, social capital, and shared leadership capacity, among other things. In further elaborating on the longitudinal nature of leader and leadership development, we next focus on conceptual articles related to the longitudinal nature of leadership development as well as the empirical studies described in a special issue ofThe Leadership Quarterly dedicated to longitudinal research. 6.1. Developmental theories applied to leader development In an early conceptual article that considered issues of development over time, Russell and Kuhnert (1992)created a model of leader development based on the integration of three different approaches. Specifically, they combined Kanfer and Ackerman’s (1989)episodic model of skill acquisition with Kegan’s (1982)approach to adult development based on c onstructive-developmental theory (McCauley, Drath, Palus, O’Connor, & Baker, 2006 ), while also incorporating the development of transactional and transformational leadership into the model. Feedback mechanisms were next added to the model to explain changes in leaders’ intellectual capacities, values, and beliefs over time. An important contribution of this approach was the crafting of a longitudinal theoretical perspective on leader development through the integration of literatures on skill a cquisition, adult development, and leadership. Russell and Kuhnert’s (1992) framework provided a summary of what was known at that time about the processes underlying developmental change related to how leaders understand and act on their environment. With this framework, the authors went beyond the contributions made in individual disciplines (e.g., learning theory, individual differences, performance models) to encompass diverse research from the skill acquisition, human development, and personnel selection literatures. The article provided a framework forfutureresearchonhowtransactionalandtransformationalle aders develop, which led to more systematic investigations of the experiences that contribute to the development of leaders. McCauley et al. (2006) reviewed the literature on constructive-developmental theory and its relevance for understanding and predicting leader effectiveness. Constructive-developmental theory is a suite of different theories portraying stage theories of adult development. These approaches are mainly concerned with how a person’s understanding of self and the world becomes more elaborated and complex over time. There are two main features of development considered from this theoretical perspective. The first concerns so-called orders of development (also referred to as levels of psychosocial development), which are organizing principles that guide how individuals gain understanding of themselves and t he external world. Successive orders of development build on and Table 3 Longitudinal research in leadership development. Topics Summary Source Developmental theories Transactional and transformational leader development involves episodic skill acquisition combined with adult constructive development. Feedback enables the evolution of individuals’ intellectual capacities, values, and beliefs. Russell and Kuhnert (1992) Team leadership capacity is an outcome of team processes such as teamwork and team learning, which in turn contribute to team member resources such as knowledge, skills, and abilities, helping to shape subsequent performance. Day et al. (2004) Mixed support was found that a leader’s order of development influences his or her leadership effectiveness and performance. McCauley et al. (2006) A leader’s stage of development is a significant predictor of performance ratings. Strang and Kuhnert (2009) Future developmental experiences and leadership effectiveness are associated with early learning and leadership experiences, as well as developmental factors including temperament, gender, parenting styles, and attachment styles. Murphy and Johnson (2011) Longitudinal studies True longitudinal studies involve the measurement of the same indicators of leadership at multiple points in time; quasi-longitudinal studies measure predictors early in time and assess their impact on leadership outcomes at a later time. Day (2011) Adolescent extraversion is a significant predictor of adult leader emergence and self-ratings of transformational leadership. Reichard et al. (2011) Academic intrinsic motivation during childhood and adolescence is a significant predictor of intrinsic motivation to lead during adulthood. Gottfried et al. (2011) Adolescent extraversion, especially when coupled with social skills, is associated with greater leadership potential. Guerin et al. (2011) Subclinical traits are important moderators of the rate of leader development. While some subclinical traits (i.e., skeptical and imaginative) have a negative relationship with leader development in a military setting others (i.e., cautious, bold, and dutiful) had a positive relationship. Harms et al. (2011) Intelligence is a poor predictor of leadership outcomes. Self-esteem is a strong predictor of leadership role occupancy. Li et al. (2011) Enhanced self-esteem mediates the relationship between positive parenting and leadership potential. Oliver et al. (2011) A strong leader identity acts as a time-varying covariate of leadership effectiveness. An individual’s learning goal orientation may also serve as a moderator of developmental trajectories. Evidence from this study suggests two different classes of developmental trajectories. Day and Sin (2011) 74 D.V. Day et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 25 (2014) 63 –82 transcend the previous orders such that development is from simpler to more complex and interconnected ways of sense-making. The second feature concernsdevelopmental movement involving the change from one order of development to another, usually a higher one, driven by new environmental challenges that demand more complex sense-making abilities. Constructive-developmental theory has been used sporadically in research in the area of leadership development, usually assuming that a leader’s order of development influences his or her leadership effectiveness or managerial performance. Constructive-developmental theory delineates six discrete stages of human development based on the notion that individual differences are a product of how individuals construct or arrange experiences relating to themselves and their social environments ( McCauley et al., 2006). One such study examined the psychosocial development of a sample of West Point cadets over a four-year time period. They found evidence of positive constructive development changes in approximately half of the cadets in the sample and that higher levels of development were positively related to various peer, subordinate, and superior measures of cadet performance as leaders in their junior and senior years ( Bartone, Snook, Forsythe, Lewis, & Bullis, 2007). Despite the generally supportive findings of the Bartone et al.’s (2007)study, in general the proposition about higher levels of development being associated with better leadership effectiveness has found at best mixed support in the empirical literature. McCauley et al. (2006) called for more research integrating constructive-developmental theory with other relevant streams, moving beyond the focus on developmental order to include dynamics of developmental movement, and examining how the theory might relate to teams and organizations. In an attempt to answer this call for more integrative research utilizing constructive-developmental theory, Strang and Kuhnert (2009) investigated the application of this theory along with individual personality to examine their effects on leader performance as measured by 360-degree (i.e., multisource) ratings. In a study of 67 management executives who participated in an executive development program, the authors examined constructive-developmental stage (conceptualized as Leadership Developmental Level; LDL) as a predictor of multisource leader performance ratings. They found that LDL was a significant predictor of performance ratings from all rater sources (subordinates, peers, and supervisors). More importantly though, they also tested the incremental predictive ability of LDL compared to the Big Five personality factors. Their results indicated that LDL accounted for unique variance in leader performance beyond that accounted for by personality (when using the leader performance ratings from subordinates and peers); however, they cautioned that this relationship was relatively weak. Nonetheless, constructive-developmental theory provides a u nique contribution to our current understanding of leadership and represents a fruitful avenue for fut ure leadership development research. Taking a different perspective based on childhood antecedents of leader development, Murphy and Johnson (2011)examined the so-called seeds of leader development that germinate and root at various stages before adulthood. They suggested that relevant developmental experiences may occur more readily during sensitive periods of childhood and adolescence, which influence development during adulthood. The authors advanced a framework that considers the influence of early developmental factors on leader identity and self-regulation, which have a relationship to future developmental experiences and leadership effectiveness. In this framework, early developmental factors including genetics, temperament, gender, parenting styles, attachment styles, and early learning and as well as early learning leadership ex periences such as those associated with education and sports were important to the leader development process. This framework is immersed in contextual factors such as the individual’s developmental stage, societal expectations, and the historical setting. The authors ultimately argued for additional longitudinal examinations of leadership development over the lifespan as a means to help advance current leader development practices. 6.2. Longitudinal studies of leadership development A 2011 special issue of The Leadership Quarterly devoted to longitudinal studies of leadership development represented an important milestone in establishing further evidence for leader development processes and the individual difference factors that shape them. The articles in the issue supported the assertion that leaders are products of their life experiences beginning at an early age; however, multiple forces affect leaders’ development during their respective life spans. For example, personality characteristics can play an important role in the early development of leaders whereas experience plays a more important role in adulthood. This special issue emphasized the importance of early leader development and the need for more long-term, longitudinal studies of leadership development. Taken together, the research presented in the special issue addressed several key questions related to how leadership develops, including: (a) how do the dispositional characteristics of individuals (e.g., intelligence, temperament, and personality) influence development as leaders,(b) what role do life experiences play in the development of leaders,(c) do early leader development efforts help to develop future leaders in organizations and communities, and (d) what are some individual difference factors that shape the trajectories of leader development? Three major longitudinal databases were used in several of the articles in this issue. The Fullerton Longitudinal Study (FLS) started in 1979 with 130 one-year-olds and their families. For the first four years, these children were assessed semi-annually and then annually until they reached the age of 17. Data collection in this program is ongoing. Longitudinal data from United States Military Academy at West Point was collected that focused on the leader development of military cadets over the course of their time at the Academy. The U.S. Department of Labor’s National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 (NLSY79) tracked young people born between 1957 and 1964, and first interviewed in 1979. Three of the special issue articles focused on the effects of personality on leadership development. Using the Fullerton database, Reichard et al. (2011) investigated how the five-factor model of personality (neuroticism, extraversion, openness, conscientiousness, and agreeableness) and intelligence were related to leader emergence and transformational leadership. They found that personality traits predicted leader emergence in early adults. Of the five personality factors, extraversion was the best predictor of leader emergence and 75 D.V. Day et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 25 (2014) 63 –82 self-ratings of transformational leadership. Surprisingly, intelligence was only related to non-work leader emergence. The authors stressed the need for exposure to leadership opportunities for both extraverted and introverted youth to help them develop more fully as leaders in adulthood.Continuing with the Fullerton data, Gottfried et al. (2011)looked at academic intrinsic motivation (motivation for and enjoyment of school learning without external rewards) during childhood and adolescence as a predictor of three aspects of motivation to lead during adulthood. The three aspects of motivation to lead included two intrinsic motives (affective identity motivation and non-calculative motivation) and one extrinsic motivation (social normative motivation). Affective identity motivation to lead concerns the enjoyment of leading, non-calculative motivationconcerns leading for its own sake and not for the purpose of receiving external advantages, and social normative motivationconcerns leading to fulfill one’s duty. The first two of these motives to lead are intrinsic in nature, whereas the third is guided by external forces. The study revealed that academic intrinsic motivation was highly related to the affective identity and non-calculative components of motivation to lead, supporting the authors’ contention that intrinsic motivation is a state that exhibits continuity over the lifetime. Children and adolescents who exhibit academic intrinsic motivation are more likely to become adults who are intrinsically motivated to become leaders. Accordingly, academic intrinsic motivation was unrelated to social normative motivation. In a recurring theme, leader intelligence was of no consequence in predicting motivation to lead. In a related article, Guerin et al. (2011) focused on the roles of extraversion and intelligence in predicting leadership outcomes. This study explored the early antecedents of extraversion by investigating behavior and temperament in childhood. Extraverted adolescents –especially those who possessed good social skills –showed greater leadership potential, whereas intelligence did not appear to be predictive of leadership potential. Also using data from FLS, Oliver and associates (2011) examined the role of supportive parenting in adolescence and transformational leadership in young adults. They found that the relationship between positive parenting and leadership potential was mediated by enhanced self-esteem. Quality parenting and self-esteem were measured during adolescence and self-reported transformational leadership was assessed at age 29 while controlling for the effects of socioeconomic status. This study represented one of the first attempts to investigate these relationships across time. Results supported the hypothesis that a stimulating and supportive environment provided by an adolescent’s family created a more positive self-concept, which in turn positively influenced the subsequent emergence of transformational leader qualities. Thus, the content of familial support during adolescence was related to self-rated leadership outcomes as an adult. Taking a different approach to examining personality in leadership development research, Harms, Spain, and Hannah’s (2011) study went beyond typical personality assessments (e.g., Big Five) in exploring the role of subclinical personality traits on leadership development over time. The authors argued that there is a need for empirical research using large samples of developing leaders over time to examine the potential influence of personality traits in general, and what they see as character flaws in particular, and their respective influences on leader development. Specifically, Harms et al. were interested in idiosyncratic (i.e., subclinical) traits that do not greatly inhibit daily functioning (as would clinical traits or those used to diagnose psychological pathologies) yet have the potential to lead to negative consequences in certain contexts. Examples include subclinical traits of excitable, skeptical, leisurely (e.g., indifferent to requests of others), colorful (e.g., expressive, dramatic, wants to be noticed), and imaginative (e.g., acting or thinking in unusual ways). Using the West Point database, Harms et al. (2011)studied a leader development program that had demonstrated an overall positive effect on participants over a span of three years. The authors found subclinical traits to be important moderators of the rate of leader development (i.e., developmental trajectories) during the program, accounting for 11 –17% of the variance in the changes in leader development. Whereas the authors found that some of the subclinical traits (i.e., skeptical and imaginative) had negative relationships with leader development, they also found that others (i.e., cautious, bold, colorful, and dutiful) had positive relationships. This provides somewhat of a mixed message with regard to subclinical traits, indicating that they may not always have negative influences on leader development. (It should be noted that these relationships were found in a student military sample where traits such as imaginative may not be highly regarded while dutiful would be.) The results of this study also demonstrated that leader development persists over numerous years and that the effects of personality on this process endure over time. From these results, Harms and colleagues proposed that leader development is a dynamic process in which personality factors moderate developmental processes through enhancing or inhibiting personal change over time. They suggested that with additional research, leadership interventions and executive training programs might be tailored to the specific needs or characteristics of the leader. Consistent with the individual difference focus of other articles in this issue, Li, Arvey, and Song (2011)investigated the effect of general mental ability, self-esteem, and familial socioeconomic status on leadership role occupancy (whether an individual occupies a leadership role) and leader advancement (an increase in supervisory scope assessed by the number of assigned subordinates). Additionally, gender was examined as a moderating variable. Using the NLSY79 database, Li et al. found that developmental outcomes were not strongly related to general mental ability (a consistent theme across several studies in the special issue). Specifically, they found self-esteem to be strongly predictive of leadership role occupancy across both genders as well as predictive of the rate of leadership advancement for females. An unusual and unexpected finding was that familial socioeconomic status was negatively related to leader advancement for women. It is unclear why this would be the case (i.e., women from higher socioeconomic families having lower levels of development) and replication of this finding is needed before any strong conclusions can be drawn. Day and Sin (2011) offered yet another perspective on leader development, focusing on developmental trajectories of emerging leaders over a 13-week time span. Within this paradigm, individuals were hypothesized to vary in terms of initial leadership effectiveness levels and follow different developmental trajectories based on different situational and experiential 76 D.V. Day et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 25 (2014) 63 –82 demands, as well as their willingness and ability to learn. The authors found support for the contention that because of its hypothesized impact on individual thinking and behavior assuming a strong leader identity would function as a within-person, time-varying covariate of leadership effectiveness. This echoes the focus on self-identity proposed by authors such asLord and Hall (2005) . Results partially supported an additional hypothesis that an individual’s learning goal orientation (an orientation that focuses on one’s development rather than demonstrations of competence) would serve as a between-person, cross-level moderator of developmental trajectories, suggesting that how individuals construct and manage goals can affect their development as leaders. In an integrative review of the articles addressed in this special issue, Day (2011)discussed the difference between true longitudinal investigations of leadership development and what he termed to be quasi-longitudinal studies (following the distinction made between experimental and quasi-experimental designs). True longitudinal studies involve the measurement of the same indicators of leadership at a minimum of three points in time, whereas quasi-longitudinal studies measure predictors early in time and assess their impact on leadership outcomes at a later time. As noted by Day, both methods have value because they each take a long-lens approach to understanding leadership development and the process of developing leaders over time. Guest Editors Riggio and Mumford (2011) concluded by stating their wishes that this special issue would:(a) encourage more longitudinal research on leader development; (b) draw attention to existing longitudinal databases that are useful for studying the lifelong development of leadership; and (c) encourage more evaluation of leadership development efforts through the use of true longitudinal designs. 7. Evaluation methods in leadership development A significant obstacle to advancing scholarly interest in leader and leadership development over the years can be traced to methodological and analytical issues. In the 1970s, prominent psychologists and psychometricians (e.g., Cronbach & Furby, 1970) questioned whether we could, or even should, attempt to measure change. Since that time the field has advanced rapidly in understanding ways to measure and model change appropriately. We now know much more about longitudinal methods as well as multilevel modeling than we did even a decade ago. And given the multilevel and longitudinal nature of leadership development ( Day, 2011), these are critically important contributions further motivating the advancement of scholarly interest in the topic (see Table 4for a summary). But it is also important to bring rigorous evaluation methods to understanding content, process, and outcome issues in development. As such, the evaluationof developmental interventions is another area that has received theoretical and empirical attention in this journal. In evaluating the effects of leadership development interventions, it should be noted that focusing on job performance and performance change over time is not the most appropriate approach to understanding the development of leaders or leadership. Job performance is affected by many things other than leadership skills. In other words, it is a contaminated as well as deficient criterion if the focus is purportedly on leadership development. Changes in job performance may also have different time lags associated with change compared to those for development. Thus, the appropriate criterion for evaluation efforts is development and its markers rather than performance per se. The field needs to focus on identifying and tracking appropriate markers or proxies of development that go beyond a fixation on rated job performance. A special issue of The Leadership Quarterly , on the evaluation of leadership development interventions was co-edited by Hannum and Craig (2010) . Because of the conceptual and measurement challenges inherent in this type of research, evaluating leadership development is often a complex undertaking. Evaluations of leadership development efforts are made more difficult by the contexts in which they occur. For example, participants in leader development programs may represent different organizations, different functional positions, and position levels, which create difficulties in identifying appropriate control groups and conducting rigorous evaluation studies. Additionally, there may be long time periods between interventions and outcome measurements. Although evaluation methods exist that can meet these challenges, few published studies have focused on the application of these techniques in estimating the behavioral, psychological, or financial effects associated with leadership development initiatives. The Table 4 Evaluation methods in leadership development. Topics Summary Source Social network analysis Social Network Analysis (SNA) can identify the structure of relationships among people, goals, interests, and other entities within an organization. Hoppe and Reinelt (2010) Q-methodology Q-methodology can be an effective method for soliciting participants’ perceptions of outcomes. This method can reduce the individual viewpoints of the participants down to a few factors depicting shared ways of thinking about outcomes. Militello and Benham (2010) Formative and summative evaluation Mixed methods including both summative evaluation and formative evaluation can be used to evaluate leader self-development. Orvis and Ratwani (2010) Hierarchical linear modeling Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) can be used to assess multilevel change over time in a leadership development context. Gentry and Martineau (2010) Return on leadership development investment A method for estimating the return on leadership development investment (RODI) was proposed, along with implications for measuring organizational effectiveness. Avolio et al. (2010)77 D.V. Day et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 25 (2014) 63 –82 aim of this special issue was to present research that demonstrated such methods. Described below are a number of articles from this issue that were particularly innovative.Three articles offered specific techniques for evaluating leadership development interventions. Following Day’s (2000) thinking about the role of social capital in leadership effectiveness, Hoppe and Reinelt (2010)described how Social Network Analysis (SNA) can identify the structure of relationships among people, goals, interests, and other entities within an organization. SNA, for example, can be used to determine if a leadership development intervention resulted in changes in connectivity in an organization. Additionally, the authors presented a typology for classifying different kinds of leadership networks, along with outcomes typically associated with each type of network. The use of Q-methodology as a data collection tool for evaluating an initiative to develop collective leadership was described by Militello and Benham (2010) . According to the authors, Q-methodology can be an effective method for soliciting participants’ perceptions of outcomes. One purpose of this method is to reduce the individual viewpoints of the participants down to a few factors depicting shared ways of thinking about outcomes. It began with the development of a set of statements (the Q-sample) that would be sorted into categories by the participants. To develop the Q-sample, researchers reviewed documents detailing the mission and goals of the initiative being evaluated. They selected statements that were outcome oriented and descriptive of the initiative, which resulted in a Q-sample consisting of 33 statements. Participants then sorted these statements into outcome categories for the purpose of evaluating leader development. This methodology provided a valuable leadership development tool for participants and an evaluation tool for researchers. Relatedly, Orvis and Ratwani (2010) highlighted the application and integration of formative and summative evaluation approaches for leader self-development. Because of the highly individualized nature of self-development, evaluators often face unique challenges when evaluating these initiatives. They recommended using a mixed-methods approach that applies effectiveness attribute taxonomy for a self-development activity. The authors demonstrated a methodology for applying this taxonomy to evaluate the effectiveness of self-development activities and discussed the practical implications of adopting the taxonomy for evaluation purposes. Two articles in this issue described statistically based approaches to leadership development evaluation. Gentry and Martineau (2010) presented an application of hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) for assessing multilevel change over time in a leadership development context. One of the difficulties in evaluating leadership development is measuring whether and how participants change during the initiative. Even when change is an integral part of the design and evaluation of the initiative, uncontrolled events (e.g., missing data) may affect the ability of the evaluators to accurately measure change over time. Using data from a longitudinal school team leadership development initiative, the researchers used HLM procedures to examine chang es that occurred across participating teams. The results demonstrated how to detect whether teams were significantly different on an initial assessment and predicted progress using an intercept-as-outcomes analysis. It also demonstrated how to de tect whether growth rates were different across teams and how these changes could be predicted using a slopes-as-outcomes analysis. An advantage of this type of evaluation approach is that it allows researchers to examine and test whether succe ssful teams improved at faster rates than other teams, rather than merely performing better at the start of the initiative. In another statistical approach to evaluation, a method for estimating the return on leadership development investment (RODI) was proposed ( Avolio, Avey, & Quisenberry, 2010 ), along with its implications for measuring organizational effectiveness. The authors suggested that the decision-making process involved in deciding to invest in leadership development should be similar to the decision-making process used by organizations whenever there is a decision to incur costs for an anticipated future benefit. The authors described how to estimate the return on leadership development using different assumptions, scenarios, length of the intervention, and level of participants engaged in the development program. They found that the expected return on investment from leadership development interventions ranged from a low negative RODI to over 200% depending on a number of factors. Taken together, the articles published in this special issue on the evaluation of leadership development initiatives provided state-of-the-science perspectives on the design, analysis, and interpretation of evaluation research. It is invariably stated that any leadership development initiative must include an evaluation component. Unfortunately, this admonition is often ignored in practice. This special issue provided a “way forward ”for helping researchers and practitioners involved with leadership development by providing sound advice to more fully integrate evaluation in their interventions and why doing so is critical. 8. Summary and future directions The purpose of this review was to identify scholarly advances and contributions to the field of leadership development published mainly in The Leadership Quarterly over its 25-year history. We reviewed both conceptual and empirical articles that collectively examined definitional, content, process, longitudinal, and evaluation issues concerning leader and leadership development. In terms of operationalizing leadership development, Day (2000)posits that leadership is a complex interaction between people and environments that emerges through social systems. He recommends th at scholars and practitioners approach leadership development as a process that transcends but does not replace individual leader dev elopment. Building upon earlier reviews of the field, the present review provides an in-depth look at how the leadership development field (including that of leader development) has evolved. The major insights from the review can be summarized as follows: through the examination of an array of factors including experience, skills, person ality, self-development, s ocial mechanisms, 360-degree feedback, self-other agr eement, and self-narratives, leadership development represents a dynamic process involving multiple interactions that persist over time. The leadership development process tends to start at a young age and is partly influenced by parental modeling. It involves the development and application of a variety of skills (e.g., wisdom, intelligence, and creativity; Sternberg, 2008) and is shaped by factors such as 78 D.V. Day et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 25 (2014) 63 –82 personality and relationships with others. The overall developmental process can be informed by different theories, such as constructive-developmental theory (McCauley et al., 2006) and authentic leadership ( Gardner et al., 2005), and can be measured in a variety of ways including multisource ratings. Wherever possible, developmental practices should be carefully tailored to current developmental needs of the leader. Leadership is something that all organizations care about. But what most interests them is not which leadership theory or model is “right”(which may never be settled definitively), but how to develop leaders and leadership as effectively and efficiently as possible. As such, this is an important area of scholarly research and application with myriad unanswered (and even undiscovered) questions to pursue. We next outline some promising avenues for future research. 8.1. Process-oriented research Because leadership development is a field that is inherently longitudinal in nature, researchers need to focus on conceptualizing process theories related to the development of leaders and leadership over time and testing these models using relevant methodologies. Leadership as a field has perhaps been preoccupied with proposing and testing static models, even those that hypothesize mediation (i.e., causal) effects. Simply put, cross-sectional methods are incomplete and probably inappropriate for testing hypotheses and research questions related to leadership development. This puts a burden on researchers given the difficulties associated with conducting longitudinal research. But if leadership is a process and not a position, and leadership development is a longitudinal process involving possibly the entire lifespan, then we need to put forward comprehensive process models and test them appropriately. 8.2. Choosing relevant outcome variables Researchers need to give serious thought to what is hypothesized to develop as a function of leader or leadership development in a given context. This may involve human capital kinds of variables related to individual knowledge, skills, and abilities, or it maybe things that are even more difficult to assess such as the psychosocial stage of adult development (i.e., orders of development) as proposed in constructive-developmental theory ( McCauley et al., 2006). Adopting good outcomes (in place of job performance) to study models of leader and leadership development is also important. Of course, there should be a link between development and performance in a job or role but that is likely neither immediate nor straightforward. Related to the use of job performance, another outcome of questionable relevance to studies of leader development is the organizational position or role one holds (i.e., leadership role occupancy). As noted, leadership is conceptualized as a process rather than a position, so using position as an outcome in leader development research has limited meaning ( Day, 2011). Although it may be convenient to use such outcomes, it is unclear how to compare positions across different organizations or sectors (e.g., corporate, military, government, or nonprofit). Researchers should always clarify what it is they think will develop over the period that they plan to study leader development processes. In this way, linking process models with relevant outcomes is a pressing research need. 8.3. Focus on personal trajectories of development It has been noted that “one central challenge facing scientific psychology is the development of comprehensive accounts of why humans progress along different life trajectories ”(Smith, 2009, p. 419 ). A related challenge in the leader development field is crafting comprehensive accounts of why individuals progress along different developmental trajectories as leaders. The good news is that we now have the methods and analytical techniques to appropriately chart and understand these kinds of developmental trajectories. However, we need more in the way of theories and process models to guide our research. Examining different trajectories of development is a related and important concern. There is likely little argument that people start at different places in their developmental journeys as leaders and develop at different rates and in different ways over time. For these reasons, we need to more fully examine individual differences in developmental trajectories and whether a typology of trajectories can be devised to help us understand and more accurately predict how people change over time. In practical terms this would provide guidance for enabling us to better learn from those who develop more quickly and effectively and to apply the knowledge to help those who struggle to develop as leaders. Admittedly, this is not easy research to conduct because it requires large samples, a longitudinal focus, and appropriate measurement intervals. Despite these challenges, research on charting and understanding developmental trajectories is an area that deserves future research attention. 8.4. Broadening the Developmental Focus Researchers have tended to examine how individual leaders develop over time. We need to give greater attention to more collective aspects of leadership, whether they are dyadic leader and follower development or even more collective forms such as shared leadership. We know that development tends to occur in an interpersonal context, so incorporating that context into our research designs, methods, and analyses seems like a logical step in advancing the field of leadership development. For that reason, something like social network analysis (e.g., Hoppe & Reinelt, 2010) may be especially appropriate to consider in future studies of leadership development. There is an emerging interest in what some have called network churn or changes in network structure and individual positions within networks over time (e.g., Sasovova, Mehra, Borgatti, & Schippers, 2010). This seems like a logical stream of research to consider in broadening the focus of leadership development. But as we broaden this focus to include collectives, it should be noted that the line between these forms of leadership development and what has historically 79 D.V. Day et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 25 (2014) 63 –82 been considered organization development (OD) becomes blurred. Nonetheless, that should not stop researchers from taking steps to broaden the focus on development and in doing so perhaps will also advance the field of OD. 8.5. Practicing LeadershipWe know from the extensive literature on expertise and expert performance that it generally takes 10 years or 10,000 h of dedicated practice to become an expert in a given field ( Ericcson & Charness, 1994). For this reason, it is highly unlikely that anyone would be able to develop fully as a leader merely through participation in a series of programs, workshops, or seminars. The actual development takes place in the so-called white space between such leader development events. However, we lack a clear idea of the ongoing ways in which people practice to become more expert leaders. Such practice may not be intentional or mindful, which may make it more difficult to study. But this notion of ongoing practice through day-to-day leadership activities is where the crux of development really resides. Rather than focusing on implementing better instructional design or putting together what we hope are more impactful developmental interventions, it might be more productive to take a step back and focus on what happens in the everyday lives of leaders as they practice and develop. 8.6. Self-awareness and 360-degree feedback Another area for future research is related to the use of 360-degree feedback instruments as measures of self-awareness. It is often assumed that individuals with ratings that mirror those provided by their followers (high self-other agreement) are more self-aware. Indeed, self-other agreement is often used as a proxy for self-awareness in leadership research. For instance, Fleenor et al. (2010) suggested that low rating agreement is an indication of low self-awareness, especially for over-estimators. In much of the research in this area, however, self-awareness is measured with the same instrument used to determine rating agreement (i.e., the instrument also contains a scale that measures self-awareness). In order to test the relationship between self-awareness and leader effectiveness, there is a need to develop valid and independent measures of self-awareness. With better measures, it may be possible to more thoroughly investigate the relationships among self-awareness, rating agreement, and effectiveness for leader development purposes. 9. Limitations Although we have attempted to provide a comprehensive review of the scholarly literature on leader and leadership development published over the previous 25 years in this journal, there are areas with potential developmental implications that we have chosen not to review. The predominant reason for this decision is that the focal literature is not sufficiently developed or the implications for leadership development are unclear. Alternatively, it might be argued that there are potential developmental implications associated with just about every published leadership article. That is not very helpful in attempting to summarize and synthesize the most highly relevant literature. In making choices about what to review, we did not address areas such as the genetic bases of leadership ( De Neve, Mikhaylov, Dawes, Christakis, & Fowler, 2013), in which leadership role occupancy was used as the criterion (see criticisms of this outcome discussed previously) and for which it is difficult to argue that leadership can be developed if it is genetically determined; cross-cultural leadership ( Sadri, Weber, & Gentry, 2011 ), whereby there are differing perspectives on what are the most important behaviors or competencies that should be developed; politica l perspectives on leadership ( Ammeter, Douglas, Hochwarter, Ferris, & Gardner, 2004)thattakea somewhat unique position in terms of how effective leader behavior is defined; and a recent special issue on leader integrity ( Simons, Palanski, & Trevino, 2013 ), of which we have little empirical evidence as to how it might be developed. Although there are emerging literatures in these areas, as noted, we have confined this review to research that pertains most directly to the development of leaders and leadership. 10. Conclusion As noted by the eminent leadership scholar John Gardner (1990),“In the mid-21st century, people will look back on our present [leadership development] practices as primitive ”(p. xix). This statement is consistent with our contention that despite the significant advances in understanding leadership development made over the past 25 years, many of which have been published in the pages of The Leadership Quarterly, the field is still relatively immature. This also means the field is replete with opportunities for researchers and theorists. Looking ahead to the ensuing 25 years, it seems certain that if scholars answer the call, the field will continue to progress to a less primitive state. This will stimulate better leadership and, consequently, foster better organizations, communities, and societies. References Ammeter, A. P., Douglas, C., Hochwarter, W. A., Ferris, G. R., & Gardner, W. L. (2004). Introduction to:The Leadership Quarterly special issue on political perspectives in leadership. The Leadership Quarterly,15 (4), 433 –435. Ashford, S. J. (1989). Self-assessments in organizations: A literature review and integrative model. In L. L. Cummings, & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior ,Vol. 11 . (pp. 133 –174)Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Atwater, L. E., Ostroff, C., Yammarino, F. J., & Fleenor, J. W. (1998). Self-other agreement: Does it really matter?Personnel Psychology,51 (3), 577– 598. 80 D.V. Day et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 25 (2014) 63 –82 Atwater, L., & Waldman, D. (1998).360 degree feedback and leadership development. The Leadership Quarterly,9 (4), 423– 426. Atwater, L. E., & Yammarino, F. J. (1992). Does self-other agreement on leadership perceptions moderate the validity of leadership and performance predictions? Personnel Psychology ,45 (1), 141– 164. Avolio, B. J., Avey, J. B., & Quisenberry, D. (2010). Estimating return on leadership development investment. The Leadership Quarterly,21 (4), 633– 644. Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly,16 (3), 315– 338. Avolio, B. J., Reichard, R. J., Hannah, S. T., Walumbwa, F. O., & Chan, A. (2009). A meta-analytic review of leadership impact research: Experimental and quasi-experimental studies. The Leadership Quarterly,20 (5), 764– 784. Bartone, P. T., Snook, S. A., Forsythe, G. B., Lewis, P., & Bullis, R. C. (2007). Psychosocial development and leader performance of military officer cadets. The Leadership Quarterly ,18 (5), 490 –504. Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Bettin, P. J., & Kennedy, J. K. (1990). Leadership experience and leader performance: Some empirical support at last. The Leadership Quarterly,1 (4), 219– 228. Boyce, L. A., Zaccaro, S. J., & Wisecarver, M. Z. (2010). Propensity for self-development of leadership attributes: Understanding, predicting, and supporting performance of leader self-development. The Leadership Quarterly,21 (1), 159– 178. Boyd, N. G., & Taylor, R. R. (1998). A developmental approach to the examination of friendship in leader –follower relationships. The Leadership Quarterly ,9 (1), 1 – 25. Cooper, C. D., Scandura, T. A., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2005). Looking forward but learning from our past: Potential challenges to developing authentic leadership theory and authentic leaders. The Leadership Quarterly,16 (3), 475– 493. Cronbach, L. J., & Furby, L. (1970). How we should measure“change”: Or should we? Psychological Bulletin ,74 (1), 68 –80. Day, D. V. (2000). Leadership development: A review in context. The Leadership Quarterly,11 (4), 581– 613. Day, D. V. (2010). The difficulties of learning from experience and the need for deliberate practice. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice ,3 (1), 41 –44. Day, D. V. (2011). Integrative perspectives on longitudinal investigations of leader development: From childhood through adulthood. The Leadership Quarterly, 22 (3), 561– 571. Day, D. V., & Antonakis, J. (2012). Leadership: Past, present, and future. In D. V. Day, & J. Antonakis (Eds.), The nature of leadership(pp. 3–25) (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Day, D. V., Gronn, P., & Salas, E. (2004). Leadership capacity in teams.The Leadership Quarterly,15 (6), 857 –880. Day, D. V., Harrison, M. M., & Halpin, S. M. (2009). An integrative theory of leadership development: Connecting adult development, identity, and expertise. New York: Psychology Press. Day, D. V., & Sin, H. P. (2011). Longitudinal tests of an integrative model of leader development: Charting and understanding developmental trajectories. The Leadership Quarterly ,22 (3), 545 –560. De Neve, J. E., Mikhaylov, S., Dawes, C. T., Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2013). Born to lead? A twin design and genetic association study of leadership role occupancy. The Leadership Quarterly ,24 (1), 45 –60. deVries, R. E. (2012). Personality predictors of leadership styles and the self-other agreement problem. The Leadership Quarterly,23 (5), 809– 821. Eagly, A. H. (2005). Achieving relational authenticity in leadership: Does gender matter? The Leadership Quarterly,16 (3), 459 –474. Ericcson, K., & Charness, N. (1994). Expert performance: Its structure and acquisition. American Psychologist,49 (8), 725– 747. Eubanks, D. L., Antes, A. L., Friedrich, T. L., Caughron, J. J., Blackwell, L. V., Bedell-Avers, K. E., et al. (2010). Criticism and outstanding leadership: An evaluation of leader reactions and critical outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly,21 (3), 365 –388. Facteau, C. L., Facteau, J. D., Schoel, L. C., Russell, J. E. A., & Poteet, M. L. (1998). Reactions of leaders to 360-degree feedback from subordinates and peers.The Leadership Quarterly ,9 (4), 427– 448. Fleenor, J. W., McCauley, C. D., & Brutus, S. (1996). Self-other rating agreement and leader effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly,7 (4), 487 –506. Fleenor, J. W., Smither, J. W., Atwater, L. E., Braddy, P. W., & Sturm, R. E. (2010). Self-other rating agreement in leadership: A review.The Leadership Quarterly, 21 (6), 1005 –1034. Galli, E. B., & Müller-Stewens, G. (2012). How to build social capital with leadership development: Lessons from an explorative case study of a multibusiness firm. The Leadership Quarterly ,23 (1), 176 –201. Gardner, J. W. (1990). On leadership.New York: The Free Press. Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., & Walumbwa, F. (2005). “Can you see the real me?”A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development. The Leadership Quarterly ,16 (3), 343– 372. Gentry, W. A., & Martineau, J. W. (2010). Hierarchical linear modeling as an example for measuring change over time in a leadership development evaluation context. The Leadership Quarterly ,21 (4), 645– 656. Gottfried, A. E., Gottfried, A. W., Reichard, R. J., Guerin, D. W., Oliver, P. H., & Riggio, R. E. (2011). Motivational roots of leadership: A longitudinal study from childhood through adulthood. The Leadership Quarterly,22 (3), 510 –519. Guerin, D. W., Oliver, P. H., Gottfried, A. W., Gottfried, A. E., Reichard, R. J., & Riggio, R. E. (2011). Childhood and adolescent antecedents of social skills and leadership potential in adulthood: Temperamental approach/withdrawal and extraversion. The Leadership Quarterly,22 (3), 482 –494. Hannum, K. M., & Craig, S. B. (2010). Introduction to special issue on leadership development evaluation. The Leadership Quarterly,21 (4), 581 –582. Harms, P. D., Spain, S. M., & Hannah, S. T. (2011). Leader development and the dark side of personality. The Leadership Quarterly,22 (3), 495– 509. Hirst, G., Mann, L., Bain, P., Pirola-Merlo, A., & Richter, A. (2004). Learning to lead: The development and testing of a model of leadership learning. The Leadership Quarterly ,15 (3), 311– 327. Hoffman, B. J., Lance, C. E., Bynum, B. H., & Gentry, W. A. (2010). Rater source effects are alive and well after all.Personnel Psychology,63(1), 119– 151. Hooijberg, R., & Choi, J. (2000). Which leadership roles matter to whom? An examination of rater effects on perceptions of effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 11 (3), 341– 364. Hoppe, B., & Reinelt, C. (2010). Social network analysis and the evaluation of leadership networks. The Leadership Quarterly,21 (4), 600– 619. House, R. J., Shane, S. A., & Herold, D. M. (1996). Rumors of the death of dispositional research are vastly exaggerated. Academy of Management Review,21 (1), 203– 224. Ilies, R., Morgeson, F. P., & Nahrgang, J. D. (2005). Authentic leadership and eudaemonic well-being: Understanding leader –follower outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly ,16 (3), 373– 394. Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (1989). Motivation and cognitive abilities: An integrative/aptitude-treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition. Journal of Applied Psychology ,74 (4), 657 –690. Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self: Problem and process in human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Li, W. D., Arvey, R. D., & Song, Z. (2011). The influence of general mental ability, self-esteem and family socioeconomic status on leadership role occupancy and leader advancement: The moderating role of gender. The Leadership Quarterly,22 (3), 520 –534. Ligon, G. S., Hunter, S. T., & Mumford, M. D. (2008). Development of outstanding leadership: A life narrative approach. The Leadership Quarterly,19 (3), 312 –334. Lord, R. G., & Hall, R. J. (2005). Identity, deep structure and the development of leadership skill. The Leadership Quarterly,16 (4), 591– 615. Marshall-Mies, J. C., Fleishman, E. A., Martin, J. A., Zaccaro, S. J., Baughman, W. A., & McGee, M. L. (2000). Development and evaluation of cognitive and metacognitive measures for predicting leadership potential. The Leadership Quarterly,11 (1), 135 –153. McCauley, C. D., Drath, W. H., Palus, C. J., O’Connor, P. M., & Baker, B. A. (2006). The use of constructive-developmental theory to advance the understanding of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly ,17 (6), 634– 653. Michie, S., & Gooty, J. (2005). Values, emotions, and authenticity: Will the real leader please stand up? The Leadership Quarterly,16 (3), 441– 457. Militello, M., & Benham, M. K. (2010). “Sorting out”collective leadership: How Q-methodology can be used to evaluate leadership development. The Leadership Quarterly ,21 (4), 620– 632. 81 D.V. Day et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 25 (2014) 63 –82 Mumford, T. V., Campion, M. A., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007).The leadership skills strataplex: Leadership skill requirements across organizational levels. The Leadership Quarterly ,18 (2), 154– 166. Mumford, M., Marks, M. A., Connelly, M. S., Zaccaro, S. J., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2000a). Development of leadership skills: Experience and timing.The Leadership Quarterly ,11 (1), 87 –114. Mumford, M., Zaccaro, S. J., Johnson, J. F., Diana, M., Gilbert, J. A., & Threlfall, K. (2000b). Patterns of leader characteristics: Implications for performance and development. The Leadership Quarterly ,11 (1), 115– 133. Murphy, S. E., & Johnson, S. K. (2011). The benefits of a long-lens approach to leader development: Understanding the seeds of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly ,22 (3), 459– 470. Oliver, P. H., Gottfried, A. W., Guerin, D. W., Gottfried, A. E., Reichard, R. J., & Riggio, R. E. (2011). Adolescent family environmental antecedents to transformational leadership potential: A longitudinal mediational analysis. The Leadership Quarterly,22 (3), 535– 544. Orvis, K. A., & Ratwani, K. L. (2010). Leader self-development: A contemporary context for leader development evaluation. The Leadership Quarterly,21 (4), 657– 674. Reichard, R. J., & Johnson, S. K. (2011). Leader self-development as organizational strategy. The Leadership Quarterly,22 (1), 33 –42. Reichard, R. J., Riggio, R. E., Guerin, D. W., Oliver, P. H., Gottfried, A. W., & Gottfried, A. E. (2011). A longitudinal analysis of relationships between adolescent personality and intelligence with adult leader emergence and transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly,22 (3), 471– 481. Riggio, R. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2011). Introduction to the special issue: Longitudinal studies of leadership development. The Leadership Quarterly,22 (3), 453– 456. Russell, C. J., & Kuhnert, K. W. (1992). New frontiers in management selection systems: Where measurement technologies and theory collide. The Leadership Quarterly ,3 (2), 109 –135. Sadri, G., Weber, T. J., & Gentry, W. A. (2011). Empathic emotion and leadership performance: An empirical analysis across 38 countries. The Leadership Quarterly, 22 (5), 818– 830. Sasovova, Z., Mehra, A., Borgatti, S. P., & Schippers, M. C. (2010). Network churn: The effects of self-monitoring personality on brokerage dynamics. Administrative Science Quarterly ,55 (4), 639 –670. Scandura, T. A., & Lankau, M. J. (1996). Developing diverse leaders: A leader–member exchange approach. The Leadership Quarterly,7 (2), 243 –263. Seifert, C. F., & Yukl, G. (2010). Effects of repeated multi-source feedback on the influence behavior and effectiveness of managers: A field experiment. The Leadership Quarterly ,21 (5), 856– 866. Shamir, B., & Eilam, G. (2005). “What’s your story?”A life-stories approach to authentic leadership development. The Leadership Quarterly,16 (3), 395 –417. Simons, T., Palanski, M., & Trevino, L. (2013). Toward a broader–but still rigorous –definition of leader integrity: Commentary. The Leadership Quarterly,24 (3), 391– 394. Smith, G. T. (2009). Why do different individuals progress along different life trajectories? Perspectives on Psychological Science,4 (4), 415– 421. Sparrowe, R. T. (2005). Authentic leadership and the narrative self. The Leadership Quarterly,16 (3), 419 –439. Sternberg, R. J. (2008). The WICS approach to leadership: Stories of leadership and the structures and processes that support them. The Leadership Quarterly, 19 (3), 360– 371. Strang, S. E., & Kuhnert, K. W. (2009). Personality and leadership developmental levels as predictors of leader performance. The Leadership Quarterly,20 (3), 421– 433. Taylor, S. N., & Hood, J. N. (2011). It may not be what you think: Gender differences in predicting emotional and social competence. Human Relations,64 (5), 627– 652. Warech, M. A., Smither, J. W., Reilly, R. R., Millsap, R. E., & Reilly, S. P. (1998). Self-monitoring and 360-degree ratings.The Leadership Quarterly,9 (4), 449 –473. Zacharatos, A., Barling, J., & Kelloway, E. K. (2000). Development and effects of transformational leadership in adolescents. The Leadership Quarterly,11 (2), 211– 226. 82 D.V. Day et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 25 (2014) 63 –82
Leadership theory and research in the new millennium: Current theoretical trends and changing perspectives Jessica E. Dinh a, Robert G. Lord b, William L. Gardner c, Jeremy D. Meuser d, Robert C. Liden d, Jinyu Hu c aUniversity of Akron, United StatesbDurham University, United KingdomcTexas Tech University, United StatesdUniversity of Illinois at Chicago, United States article info abstract Article history: Received 1 August 2013 Received in revised form 18 October 2013 Accepted 31 October 2013 Available online 28 November 2013 Editor: Francis J. Yammarino Scholarly research on the topic of leadership has witnessed a dramatic increase over the last decade, resulting in the development of diverse leadership theories. To take stock of established and developing theories since the beginning of the new millennium, we conducted an extensive qualitative review of leadership theory across 10 top-tier academic publishing outlets that includedThe Leadership Quarterly ,Administrative Science Quarterly ,American Psychologist ,Journal of Management ,Academy of Management Journal ,Academy of Management Review ,Journal of Applied Psychology ,Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , Organizational Science , andPersonnel Psychology . We then combined two existing frameworks (Gardner, Lowe, Moss, Mahoney, & Cogliser, 2010; Lord & Dinh, 2012) to provide a process- oriented framework that emphasizes both forms of emergence and levels of analysis as a means to integrate diverse leadership theories. We then describe the implications of the findings for future leadership research and theory. Published by Elsevier Inc. Keywords: Leadership theory Levels of analysis Global compositional and compilational forms of emergence Content analysis 1. Introduction Since its inception in 1988 (first issue in 1990), the mission of The Leadership Quarterly(LQ) has been to sustain and catalyze the development of innovative, multi-disciplinary research that advances the leadership field. Nearly 25 years later, this goal, along with many of the journal’s other primary objectives, has been reached ( Gardner, Lowe, Moss, Mahoney, & Cogliser, 2010). As Gardner and colleagues noted in their 20-year review of LQ, leadership research has grown exponentially in the last decade, attracting the interest of talented scholars and practitioners from around the globe who have revolutionized the way we understand leadership phenomena. As their review demonstrates, the number of new leadership theories has grown and the field has advanced from theory that focuses on understanding general leadership processes as they occur over indeterminate amounts of time to a phenomenon that evolves over different time spans depending on the hierarchical level at which leaders are investigated ( Kaiser, Hogan, & Craig, 2008 ). Theories have also developed to understand how micro processes, such as perceptions, emotions, and cognitions (e.g., Bono & Ilies, 2006; Dinh & Lord, 2012; Lee, Aaker, & Gardner, 2000; Trichas & Schyns, 2012 ), and macro processes, such as the social –relational context ( Chang & Johnson, 2010; DeRue & Ashford, 2010; Erdogan, Kraimer, & Liden, 2007; Gardner & Avolio, 1998; Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997 ), dynamically affect follower and leader outcomes. Over the last two decades, leadership scholars have also developed theories to explain a leader’s role within complex The Leadership Quarterly 25 (2014) 36 –62 E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J.E. Dinh),[email protected] (R.G. Lord),[email protected] (W.L. Gardner),[email protected] (J.D. Meuser), [email protected] (R.C. Liden),[email protected] (J. Hu). 1048-9843/$–see front matter. Published by Elsevier Inc. Contents lists available at ScienceDirect The Leadership Quarterly journal homepage: systems for instigating organizational change and managing dynamic social networks (Balkundi & Kilduff, 2006; Balkundi, Kilduff, & Harrison, 2011; Hannah, Lord, & Pearce, 2011; Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2002; Uhl-Bien & Marion, 2009 ). Although the growing diversity of leadership theory has helped create an academic agenda for leadership research in the new millennium, we maintain that there are several challenges that accompany the rapid proliferation of new theoretical perspectives. In this article, we provide a critical review of leadership theory that has emerged since 2000, and we describe the challenges that scholars and practitioners must address to further advance the leadership field. Our search included theories from nine other top-tier journals in addition to LQ, allowing us to offer a broader and more comprehensive review of the topics that have captured the attention of leadership scholars. Rather than provide a detailed summary of the theories that have been identified, this article focuses on addressing one fundamental process-centered issue that is germane to all theories: how has leadership theory and research contributed to our understanding of the processes by which antecedent elements affect outcomes pertaining to leaders, followers, or organizational phenomena ? We believe that attention to processes is important for the following reasons. First, understanding leadership processes can help illustrate the limitations of current theory, and it can assist in the development of a more comprehensive agenda for leadership research in the new millennium with direct relevance to organizational practice ( Langley, Smallman, Tsoukas, & Van de Ven, 2013 ). This is important because leadership is a complex phenomenon that operates across multiple levels of analysis ( Cho & Dansereau, 2010; Wang & Howell, 2010 ), involves multiple mediating and moderating factors (e.g., DeRue, Nahrgang, Wellman, & Humphrey, 2011 ), and takes place over substantial periods of time ( Day & Sin, 2011; Lord & Brown, 2004). However, leadership scholars have more often focused on the isolated effects of leaders or followers at one or another level of analysis and within short time intervals. Such a static approach is reflected in scholarly work on leadership, which has predominantly relied on cross-sectional retrospective survey methodologies ( Gardner et al., 2010; Hunter, Bedell-Avers, & Mumford, 2007; Lowe & Gardner, 2000 ). This approach ignores the cumulated effects of transitory processes, such as emotions, thoughts, reactions, and embodied cognitions, which can fundamentally alter leader development and behavioral outcomes ( Day & Sin, 2011; Lord, Hannah, & Jennings, 2011 ). Second, leadership dynamics involve multiple levels and can produce both top-down and bottom-up emergent outcomes at higher and lower levels of analysis ( Yammarino & Dansereau, 2011; Yammarino, Dionne, Chun, & Dansereau, 2005 ). For example, by shaping organizational climates and cultures, leaders can create ethical norms that guide the moral (or immoral) behavior of groups or collectives in a top-down direction ( Mayer, Kuenzi, Greenbaum, Bardes, & Salvador, 2009; Schaubroeck, Hannah, Avolio, Kozlowski, Lord, et al., 2012 ). Simultaneously, leaders may also appeal directly to individuals by aligning followers’ values and identities to those of the organization ( Brown & Treviño, 2009), enforcing codes of conduct ( Tyler & Blader, 2005), or by modeling ethical (or unethical) behavior ( Brown & Treviño, 2006). Although these processes reflect top-down leadership influences, bottom-up processes, such as the influence of followers and intrapersonal dynamics, are also important in understanding how leaders influence organizations and how leadership outcomes are achieved ( Dinh & Lord, 2012; Howell & Shamir, 2005; Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2002; Shamir, 2007 ). For example, research on meta-cognitive processes and self-complexity describes how dynamic intra-personal constructs can interact over time to increase intrapersonal complexity, which allows individuals to have greater behavioral adaptability in response to varying situations ( Hannah, Woolfolk, & Lord, 2009; Lord et al., 2011 ). At higher levels of analysis, individual complexity allows a variety of social networks to develop into valuable organizational resources ( Balkundi & Kilduff, 2006; Balkundi et al., 2011 ), and it can produce group complexity when team members interact, thereby creating more complex knowledge structures that guide group behavior ( Hannah et al., 2011). At this level, group processes can also aggregate to create intangible organizational resources like social capital ( Polyhart & Moliterno, 2011 ). As these examples show, leadership involves the contribution of multiple actors and bidirectional influence (top-down and bottom-up) that unfolds along different time scales (from minutes to years). Therefore, leadership theory that is narrowly confined to one level of analysis presents an overly restricted static understanding of leadership phenomena. Third, prior research indicates that we know much less about how leaders make organizations effective than how leaders are perceived ( Kaiser et al., 2008 ). We believe this dearth of knowledge on how leaders create effective organizations stems from a focus on leaders and their qualities rather than on how they change processes in other individuals, groups, or organizations. To address these issues in leadership research and theory, this article expands upon an existing classification scheme that was developed by Gardner et al. (2010) and the framework developed by Lord and Dinh (2012, described inSection 3), which maintains that a key aspect of leadership is to structure the way that the inputs of others are combined to produce organizational outputs. The advantage of these classification schemes is that they offer unique insight for organizing theory based on underlying leadership processes ( Lord & Dinh, 2012) and have been successful in organizing leadership research ( Gardner et al., 2010; Lowe & Gardner, 2000 ). By integrating these two classification schemes, we provide several additional contributions to the leadership literature. Though abstract, addressing the nature of emergence provides a set of conceptual tools that can be used at any level of analysis, and it offers the potential for discovering leadership principles that apply at multiple levels. For example, focusing on each theory’s underlying process enables us to organize the extant literature by identifying commonalities among theories. These commonalities may then suggest deeper principles that unite disparate leadership theories. In addition, a framework that can organize theory by levels of analysis is critical because leadership occurs within a social context created by individuals, groups, and larger organizational systems, and the nature of leadership processes may vary with each level. Hence, attention to both levels and process can promote a richer understanding of how simultaneously occurring phenomenon at different levels of analysis interact to influence leadership. Finally, such issues have practical as well as scholarly implications. Currently, practitioners wanting to use scientific research to improve organizational leadership processes must select from a bewildering array of theories that focus on 37 J.E. Dinh et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 25 (2014) 36 –62 competing levels of analysis. Organizing these theories in terms of processes that produce individual, dyadic, group, and organizational outcomes may help practitioners focus on theories that fit with their organization’s core technologies and social systems, and address pressing organizational concerns.To accomplish our objectives, we partitioned this article into three major sections. In Section 2, we provide an overview of the trends in leadership theory that have appeared since the beginning of the new millennium, a description of our data collection method, and conclusions regarding the theories that have remained at the forefront of research and theories that have (re)surfaced since 2000. In Section 3, we provide a more thorough description of our organizing framework, which classifies theories based on each theory’s level of analysis and underlying process, which we use to organize the leadership literature. In Section 4, we offer our conclusions regarding the overall literature and make suggestions for the development of more integrative leadership theory and research, as well as address the practical and theoretical implications of this review to guide future research. 2. Content analysis methods 2.1. Sample We began by searching the 10 journals identified in Table 1known for publishing leadership research that also have high impact factors and regularly appear at the top of journal ranking lists in the field of organizational behavior. We performed a manual search for leadership, restricting our search to articles published between 2000 and September 2012. This search yielded 989 total hits. We downloaded these articles and applied the following two selection criteria. First, the article had to be original research, whether qualitative, quantitative, theoretical, or methodological, thus eliminating such items as letters, editorials, and book reviews. Second, the abstract was reviewed to determine whether leadership was the primary, rather than peripheral focus of the article. Those that failed either or both of these two selection criteria (237 articles) were rejected from inclusion, leaving 752 articles. (A full list of the articles included is available upon request). Table 1 reports the number of articles found in each journal. LQ, as a specialty journal dedicated to the publication of leadership research, dominated our dataset (442 articles), which is to be expected. Journal of Applied Psychologyranked second (125 articles) in terms of the quantity of published leadership research, and amounted to notably more articles than the remainder of journals we examined. Organizational Science(7 articles) andAcademy of Management Review (8 articles) published the fewest number of leadership articles of the journals we examined. 2.2. Coding procedure and categories We coded these articles according to a strict protocol that had been agreed upon by the authors. We also used a Microsoft Access 2010 database that we designed to accommodate the specific fields that we coded. This eliminated common coding errors, such as typos and inconsistent nomenclature and provided for consistency between coders. For each article, our database contains: journal name, year of publication, title, keywords (if available), authors, abstract, type of article, data collection timing and research method, analytical method, leadership theory categorization, level of analysis, form of emergence, and emergence/ theory match/mismatch. Our coding for type of studyinvolved four categories: qualitative, quantitative, theoretical, or methodological. Our data collection timing categories included cross-sectional, cross-sectional with time lag intended to reduce common method variance (e.g., independent variables collected at time 1 and dependent variables collected at time 2), and longitudinal (where the same variables are collected at multiple time points). Our categorization of research methodrefines and expands the list of research strategies listed in Gardner et al. (2010). Specifically, we coded for qualitative (case study), content analysis (the counting of words or phrases in qualitative, interview, or verbatim response data to produce a quantitative dataset for analysis), diary or experiential sampling (which requires participants to answer questions at periodic or at random times determined by the researcher), computer simulation (in which real world conditions are modeled and artificial data produced), lab experiment (which involves the execution of tasks devoid of contextual realities), experimental simulation (similar to a lab experiment, but with an attempt to model or simulate a context), field experiment (conducting experimental tasks or applied Table 1 Number of leadership research articles published in 10 top-tier journals (2000 –2012). Journal Numbers of articles Academy of Management Journal 45 Academy of Management Review 8 Administrative Science Quarterly 30 American Psychologist 13 Journal of Applied Psychology 125 Journal of Management 30 Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes 30 Organizational Science 7 Personnel Psychology 22 The Leadership Quarterly 442 Total number of articles 752 38 J.E. Dinh et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 25 (2014) 36 –62 research), judgment task (which involves participants rating or judging the behavior of others), field survey-primary (data collected by the researcher directly from participants), field survey-secondary (data used in the study are from archival data), sample survey (which attempts to obtain a sample representative of the population of interest), meta-analytic quantitative review, non-meta-analytic qualitative review, and methodology study (in which new methods are described and tested, or existing methods refined). Ouranalytical methodcoding scheme followed Scandura and Williams (2000) and was also used by Gardner and colleagues (2010) . Specifically, we coded for: 1) linear regression; 2) analysis of variance (ANOVA/MANOVA); 3) linear techniques for categorical dependent variables; 4) factor analysis (Exploratory Factor Analysis [EFA]/Confirmatory Factor Analysis [CFA]); 5) Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)/path analysis; 6) multiple-levels-of analysis techniques (e.g., hierarchical linear modeling [HLM]); 7) meta-analytic techniques (e.g., Hunter & Schmidt, 2004); 8) time series/event history techniques; 9) non-parametric techniques; and 10) computer simulation techniques. The leadership theory categorization scheme we employed to classify leadership theories was based on several factors. First, we applied the criteria for theory specified by Bacharach (1989)to guide our identification of theories. Second, we adopted as a starting point the classification scheme that Lowe and Gardner (2000)initially developed andGardner et al. (2010)refined in their reviews of articles published in LQ’s first and second decades, respectively. Note that Gardner et al. (2010)provide a detailed description of the development of this theory classification scheme (see pages 934– 935 and theAppendix A). Third, we augmented the thematic leadership categories throughout the early stages of coding, as we encountered leadership approaches that did not fit the existing category scheme. Our final coding scheme can be found in the Appendix A.Level of analysis andform of emergence were coded using the scheme found in Lord and Dinh (2012)and described inSection 3. In brief, form of emergence describes whether the leadership theory implies that constituent sub-units combine to create higher-order unit-level properties in a way that preserves or alters their fundamental nature. Finally, emergence/theory match /mismatch was a Boolean field indicating if the methods used in the article corresponded to the level of analysis and the form of aggregation implied by the theory. In this test of theory, mismatches occurred most often when the underlying processes implied by theory were not examined at the appropriate level of analysis (e.g., a group-level phenomenon investigated by using individual scores, an event-level phenomenon investigated by aggregated individual scores), or when dynamic and/or longitudinal processes were examined using retrospective survey methods or when data sampling occurred at one point in time. It should be emphasized that theories found within empirical research articles were tested by examining whether the method for capturing the process leading to a particular leadership phenomenon was appropriate based on the underlying processes implied by the theory used, rather than whether the article included specific leadership outcomes. Additionally, it should be noted that across all coded fields, articles often fit more than one category within each coded field. For example, an article may involve meta-analytic and SEM techniques or involve two leadership theories. This was also the case with forms of emergence where articles described simultaneously occurring processes. In order to code this extensive literature, coding was completed by two independent teams. All articles were coded for form of emergence and emergence/theory match/mismatch by the first or second author, and a random subsample of 14 was coded by both authors yielding an agreement of 86% percent. The remaining categories were coded by the remainder of the research team and a random sample of 10% of the coded articles was drawn for blind re-coding by a different member of the research team. We then computed inter-rater reliability agreement for our coded variables at 82.9%. As this exceeded the commonly accepted reliability threshold, we discussed and resolved differences in coding, and then proceeded with analysis. 2.3. The status of the established leadership theories Table 2 contains the leadership theories that emerged from our coding process. We grouped them categorically under established and emergent theories and thematically within those broader categories. Neo-charismatic theories, which emerged historically from charismatic leadership theory, received the most attention from scholars in the new millennium (total 294 instances), with transformational leadership and charismatic leadership, respectively, representing the dominant forms of interest. Leadership and information processing received the second largest quantity of interest (total 194 instances), with leader and follower cognitions and implicit leadership, highlighted by House and Aditya (1997)as an emerging theory at the time, dominating that category. Together, this category takes into account the cognitive structures of leaders, followers, and decision-making. This thematic category also answers questions like “what do I think leadership means?”and “what do I think is important? ”by suggesting that these mental structures are built up in part from experience. These research questions have been investigated since the late 1970s (e.g., Lord, Binning, Rush, & Thomas, 1978), and our findings suggest that this thematic category continues to capture the interest of researchers. Social exchange/relational theories were also quite common (156 instances). Leader –member exchange (LMX), the archetypal social exchange leader –follow dyadic approach that investigates the quality of the relationship experienced within the dyad, appeared in 115 instances. An important LMX advancement during the present millennium can be found in the meta-analysis of Dulebohn, Bommer, Liden, Brouer, and Ferris (2012) , which offers an antecedents and outcomes model of LMX, responding to the call of House and Aditya (1997) for just such a model. Dispositional/trait theories comprised another common thematic category (149 instances). Trait based leadership approaches are still of interest (117 instances) to researchers. However, it is noteworthy that only in 11 instances were traits solely investigated; the 106 remaining investigated traits in concert with at least one other leadership approach in our taxonomy. Judge, Piccolo, and Kosalka (2009)offer a thoughtful review of the trait based approach as well as a trait based model of leadership emergence and effectiveness, including mediators and moderators, which is an example of the advancements in the trait based approach that integrate with other leadership theories. 39 J.E. Dinh et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 25 (2014) 36 –62 Table 2 Frequency, percentage, and overall rank of leadership theories grouped by thematic category (published in 10 top-tier journals, 2000–2012). Established theories Frequency % Rank Emerging theories Frequency % Rank Neo-charismatic theories 294 39 1Strategic Leadership 182 24 1 Transformational leadership 154 20 1 Strategic/top executive 92 12 6 Charismatic leadership 78 10 7 Upper echelons theory 70 9 8 Transactional leadership 35 5 17 Public leadership 20 3 26 Ideological/pragmatic, outstanding leadership 12 2 29 Self-sacrificing leadership 8 1 33 Pygmalion effects 5 b135 Inspirational leadership 2 b138 Leadership and Information Processing 194 26 2Team Leadership 112 15 2 Leader and follower cognition 95 13 5 Leadership in team and decision groups 112 15 4 Implicit leadership 50 7 12 Attribution theories of leadership 29 4 21 Information processing and decision making 20 3 26 Social Exchange/Relational 156 21 3Contextual, Complexity and System Perspectives of Leadership 110 15 3 Leadership Theories Leader-member exchange (LMX) 115 15 3 Contextual theories of leadership 42 6 14 Relational leadership 32 4 18 Social network theories of leadership 31 4 19 Vertical dyadic linkage (VDL) 8 1 33 Complexity Theories of leadership 23 3 23 Individualized leadership 1 b1 39 Integrative leadership 14 2 28 Dispositional/Trait Theories 149 20 4Leader Emergence and Development 102 14 4 Trait theories 117 16 2 Leadership development 67 9 9 Leadership skills/competence 30 4 20 Leadership emergence 35 5 17 Leader motive profile theory 2 b138 Leadership and Diversity; 81 11 5Ethical/Moral Leadership Theories 80 11 5 Cross-Cultural Leadership Leadership and diversity 49 7 13 Authentic leadership theory 31 4 19 Cross-cultural leadership 32 4 18 Ethical leadership theory 24 3 22 Spiritual leadership theory 14 2 28 Servant leadership theory 11 1 30 Follower-Centric Leadership Theories 69 9 6Leading for Creativity, Innovation and Change 72 9 6 Followership theories 54 7 11 Leading for creativity and innovation 39 5 16 Romance of leadership 12 2 29 Leading organizational change 22 3 24 Aesthetic leadership 3 b1 37 Leading for organizational learning and knowledge 11 1 30 Behavioral Theories 64 8 7Identity-Based Leadership Theories 60 8 7 Participative, shared leadership; 41 5 15 Social identity theory of leadership 31 4 19 delegation and empowerment Identity and identification process 29 4 21 Behavioral approaches (OSU/LBDQ) 17 2 27 theories of leadership Leadership reward and punishment behavior 6 1 34 Contingency Theories 55 7 8Other Nascent Approaches 101 13 8 Path-goal theory 10 1 31 Emotions and leadership 59 8 10 Situational leadership theory 10 1 31 Destructive/abusive/toxic leadership 22 3 24 Contingency leadership theory 9 1 32 Biological approaches to leadership 11 1 30 Leadership substitute theory 5 b1 35 E-leadership 4 b136 Adaptive leadership theory 5 b1 35 Leader error and recovery 3 b137 Normative decision model 5 b1 35 Entrepreneurial leadership 2 b137 Cognitive resource theory 4 b136 Life cycle theory 3 b137 Multiple linkage model 2 b138 Flexible leadership theories 2 b138 Power and Influence of Leadership 52 7 9 Power and influence of leadership 31 4 19 Political theory and influence tactics of leadership 21 3 25 Notes: 1. The total frequency exceeds the number of articles because articles often employ multiple theoretical frameworks. 2. Percentage is calculated by using the frequency divided by the total number of articles, i.e., 752. 3. There is a summary frequency and percentage for each paradigm. 40 J.E. Dinh et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 25 (2014) 36 –62 Reflecting a concern with greater social equality, there were many articles that addressed leadership and diversity, and cross-cultural issues (81 instances). Follower-centric leadership theories (69 insta nces) also reflect this trend, and a concern with shared leadership, though not a explicit coding category, seems to have flourished in the past decade (e.g., Pearce, Conger, & Locke, 2008). There are some theories, however, which seem to have attracted less interest during our period of inquiry. While Judge, Piccolo, and Ilies (2004) called for more research into the behavioral approach consisting of initiating structure and consideration, labeling these constructs “the forgotten ones,” researchers have not responded in force. We discovered a relatively modest 17 instances, but these were distributed consistently over our period of inquiry. Another area of dwindling research interest can be found in the classic contingency theory thematic category. Collectively, we found 55 instances investigating one or more of these theories, but as shown in Table 2,these were distributed across ten theories ranging from two to ten articles. This is a notable finding as House and Aditya (1997)placed contingency theories among the dominant approaches in their comprehensive review of the leadership literature at the close of the last millennium. Further, we note that the reformulated path-go al theory, called the values-based leadership theory (House, Shane, & Herold, 1996 ), seems to have been neglected by researchers. However, the bran ch of path-goal theory that led to the charismatic leadership theory and the subsequent neo-charismatic thematic category has captured a great deal of interest. Indeed, House and Aditya (1997, p. 464) ,observedthat “[p]ath-Goal Theory led to conceptualization of the 1976 Theory of Charismatic Leadership …”. 2.4. Emerging leadership theories We note that while significant research is still occurring at the dyadic level, interest in strategic leadership approaches is the most prolific of the emerging leadership theories (182 instances) of any of th e emerging thematic categories. This is a notable shift in research interest given that prior to the present millennium, this was an under-researched topic (Finkelstein & Hambrick , 1996; House & Aditya, 1997 ). The team literature has been recognized as being relevant given that much strategy formation occurs within top management teams. Team leadership has seen a significant increase in the quantity of recent research (112 instances), and a team approach was often combined with more established theories (e.g., 11 with trait, 15 with L MX, and 30 with transformational leadership). This suggests that leadership researchers are beginning to appreciate the social conte xt in which the leader operates and his or her effect on the team as a whole, addressing a global shortcoming of leadership research that often operates at the dyadic level ( House & Aditya, 1997). The systems thematic category consists of contextual, complexity, social network and integrative approaches, each of which attempts to capture various aspects of the contextual features within which leadership phenomena unfold. The fact that this thematic category is the third most prolific of the emerging leadership approaches (110 instances, 15% of the total 752 articles coded) might indicate that context of leadership is no longer the “neglected side of leadership ”(Osborn,Hunt,&Jauch,2002,p.797 ) and that the charge that a“void still exists in the research literature ”(Porter & McLaughlin, 2006, p. 560 ) with regard to the role of context no longer applies, given the increased attention to contextual factors we identified. However, while progress has been made, we still consider this to be an under-researched topic, given the central importance of context to th e emergence and manifestation of leadership processes. A related thematic category, leading for creativity, innovation, and change is another team- and systems-based approach that has seen significant research during our period of inquiry (72 instances). It elaborat es on the processes by which teams and systems adjust over time to dynamic environments. Together, these findings are encouraging and s uggest that leadership researchers are continuing to advance the study of leadership, addressing shortc omings of the research program identified at the close of the last millennium —e.g., the lack of attention to contextual, team, and overall organizational effects of leadership —and are doing so at all organizational levels. The thoughtful review of leadership by House and Aditya (1997)at the close of the last millennium also identified leadership training and development as an opportunity for future research, and our findings suggest that researchers have answered this call as shown by extensive activity in the leader emergence and development thematic category (102 instances). Leadership development (67 instances), the study of methods by which an organization increases within its membership social capital resources necessary to engage in leadership activities ( McCauley, Moxley, & Van Velsor, 1998),and leadership emergence (35 instances), the study of who, and under what conditions, will be recognized as a leader, have together seen an impressive quantity of research our period of inquiry. While leadership development is not a new concept ( Day, 2000), research continues to explore its complexities, addressing questions such as who seeks out developmental opportunities ( Dragoni, Tesluk, Russell, & Oh, 2009 ), why individuals who experience the same developmental opportunity emerge with different learning outcomes ( DeRue, Nahrgang, Hollenbeck, & Workman, 2012 ), and the interaction between traits and experience ( Dinh & Lord, 2012; Van Iddekinge, Ferris, & Heffner, 2009 ) with regard to leadership development. Day (2000)noted that there had been a great amount of interest in charismatic and transformational leadership with respect to leadership development, and called for a broadening of leadership development beyond these two models. However, we found no articles during our period of inquiry that investigated leadership development with charismatic leadership and only five of the 67 articles that investigated transformational leadership, suggesting that Day’s call for a broadening of interest with respect to leadership development is being answered as the preponderance of leadership development research in our dataset (62 of 67) investigates other facets of leadership development. Leadership emergence research, similar to research on leadership development, is also concerned with traits ( Foti & Hauenstein, 2007; Wolff, Pescosolido, & Druskat, 2002 ) and experiences (Avolio, Rotundo, & Walumbwa, 2009 ) that predispose a person to emerge as a leader. Encouragingly, scholars are even investigating this question using a systems approach ( Lichtenstein & Plowman, 2009 ) and in novel team contexts, such as shared leadership ( Carson, Tesluk, & Marrone, 2007) and virtual teams ( Balthazard, Waldman, & Warren, 2009 ). Again, it is promising that researchers are taking a broader view of leadership emergence, investigating traits, behaviors, and experiences in a variety of contexts. Several scholars have noted increased concern with regard to the ethical/moral values-based content of a leader’s behavior (80 instances). We noted four leadership theories, which together share common interest in positive, humanistic behaviors address another 41 J.E. Dinh et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 25 (2014) 36 –62 shortcoming of leadership research identified at the close of the last millennium. Most extant theories, even transformational leadership, failed to (sufficiently) investigate altruistic leader behaviors (Bass, 1999; Brown, Treviño, & Harrison, 2005; Ciulla, 1998; Yukl, 2008). House and Aditya (1997) suggested that extant theories assumed a hedonistic leader, rather than an altruistic one. Research on altruistic and deontic theories has shown increased activity over the period reviewed. Authentic leadership ( Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Gardner, Cogliser, Davis, & Dickens, 2011 ) describes leaders who are self-aware, process positive and negative ego-relevant information in a balanced fashion, achieve relational transparency with close others, and are guided in their actions by an internalized moral perspective (31 instances). Though honesty, trust, and integrity are not new concepts within the leadership domain, ethical leadership theory ( Brown & Treviño, 2006 ) builds on social learning theory and highlights the importance of these behaviors embodied within the leader who reinforces these values through role modeling, rewards and punishments, and communications about ethics in order to set the organization’s moral tone ( Mayer, Aquino, Greenbaum, & Kuenzi, 2012 ). Servant leadership theory (Liden, Panaccio, Meuser, Hu, & Wayne, in press; Liden, Wa yne, Zhao, & Henderson, 2008 ), while older than transformational leadership theory, did not attract researcher attention until the present millennium (see Graham, 1991, for one exception). Perhaps servant leadership was slow to attract researcher interest because the theory was introduced by Robert K. Greenleaf (1970), a retired AT&T manager, rather than a member of the research community. While there exist many multi-dimension taxonomies and corresponding measures for servant leadership, Van Dierendonck (2011) argued thatLiden and colleagues (2008 ;Hu & Liden, 2011 )andVan Dierendonck and Nuijten (2011) present the most promising measures for continued research in this area. Spiritual leadership ( Fry, 2003) encompasses the notion that leaders embody a vision, practice altruistic love, and instill hope, faith, and perseverance in attaining organizational goals. Fry (2003)suggests that spiritual leaders convey an organizational vision that is deeply and personally motivating to followers and develop a nurturing organizational culture of care, appreciation, and support for coworkers that inspires a sense of belonging. Although introduced in the present millennium, these leadership theories have seen an impressive quantity of research within a short time frame. Identity based perspectives are seeing an impressive increase in interest as the millennium progresses (60 instances). In part, this thematic category consists of the newly introduced social identity theory of leadership ( Hogg, 2001), which describes the emergence of a leader as being based on a group member’s resemblance to a prototypical leader as determined by other group members. Given the recent introduction of this theory, it is notable that we discovered 31 instances of this approach. An alternative stream of research stems from Brewer and Gardner’s (1996)articulation of three identity levels (individual, relational, and collective) that can be emphasized by leaders influencing a variety of organizational outcomes ( Chang & Johnson, 2010). This area of research has observed comparable growth with 29 identified instances. We noted a number of other emerging approaches that we could not easily classify into a larger thematic category, as can be seen at the bottom of Table 2. Three of these deserve special recognition because of their increasing popularity. The emotions and leadership category encompasses research investigating the relationship between leader and follower emotions and the practice and experience of leadership. It is notable that of the 59 instances found, 40 occurred during the second half of our period of inquiry (i.e., following the year 2006). Research into “negative ”supervisors, such as destructive or abusive supervision and toxic leadership, investigates leaders who, by their treatment of subordinates, discourage and do harm to the subordinate and the organization. It is notable that of the 22 instances that emerged from our search, 21 of them were found during the second half of our period of inquiry, suggesting that this is a very new, but a very strong area of emerging research. Finally, we noted a modest 11 instances of leadership using biological or neuroscience approaches, a trend in its infancy ( Lee, Senior, & Butler, 2012). This line of research utilizes genetic, biological, or neurological (e.g., electroencephalography) data, asking questions about the inheritability of leadership or how brain activity is associated with the memory of, or exercising of leadership behaviors. Exemplifying the contribution of LQto the advancement of leadership research, 10 of those 11 instances can be found in LQ, and seven of those are in a 2012 a special issue dedicated to this topic. While assuming that all behavior can be explained using genetic and neurological data is a reductionist trap ( Evans, 1977; Lee et al., 2012; Polanyi, 1959 ), it is important to recognize the complexity of human interaction in a social context, and the value that leveraging the advances in cognitive neuroscience can bring to the study of leadership. 2.5. Summary Continuing from Gardner et al. (2010) , leadership theory and research form an important cornerstone of organizational science, and this field has continued to grow in many top-tier publication outlets including LQand others. Our review of the leadership literature shows that several theories continue to spark scholarly interest for understanding specific leadership phenomena (e.g., neo-charismatic leadership theories, leadership and information processing), while interest in other theoretical domains has waned in more recent years (e.g., contingency theory, behavioral approaches). We have also identified several research domains that have grown in popularity over the past five years, suggesting growth of new emergent theories (e.g., destructive leadersh ip, leadership emergence). Together, our review demonstrates the enormity of the leadership field that has proliferated since the new millennium, which we foresee will continue to grow in the coming decades. It is also important to recognize that there are critical voices examining both dominant theories and emerging theories. For example, Yukl (1999) critiqued the conceptual weaknesses of charismatic leadership theory, such as construct ambiguity and lack of description of explanatory process. In a more recent assessment, Van Knippenberg and Sitkin (2013)continued to question the ambiguity of the multi-dimensional definition of charismatic-transformational leadership, its construct validity, and the insufficient specification of causal processes. In an attempt to avoid these pitfalls of theory development and advancement, more vigilant efforts are needed to address these issues early on in the development of emerging theories. For instance, Cooper, Scandura, and Schriesheim (2005) andGardner et al. (2011) provided comprehensive assessments of the construct development of authentic leadership and offered suggestions for future research. However, continued growth in theory and research also 42 J.E. Dinh et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 25 (2014) 36 –62 increases urgency for a method of organizing the extant literature. In the following sections,