Assignment 6 310

Promoting More Integrative Strategies for Leadership Theory-Building

Bruce J. Avolio University of Nebraska—Lincoln

The agenda for theory and research in the field of leader- ship studies has evolved over the last 100 years from focuses on the internal dispositions associated with effec- tive leaders to broader inquiries that include emphases on the cognitions, attributes, behaviors, and contexts in which leaders and followers are dynamically embedded and in- teract over time. Leadership theory and research has reached a point in its development at which it needs to move to the next level of integration— considering the dynamic interplay between leaders and followers, taking into account the prior, current, and emerging context—for continued progress to be made in advancing both the science and practice of leadership.

Keywords: authentic leadership development, integrative theories, contingency theories

The field of leadership studies has frequently focusedon the leader to the exclusion of other equally im-portant components of the leadership process (Rost, 1991). Indeed, if the accumulated science of leadership had produced a periodic chart of relevant elements analogous to that in the field of chemistry, one might conclude that leadership studies had traditionally focused too narrowly on a limited set of elements, primarily highlighting the leader yet overlooking many other potentially relevant el- ements of leadership such as the follower and context. Highlighting this issue, Zaccaro and Klimoski (2001) noted,

Most theories of organizational leadership in the psychological literature are largely context free. For example, leadership is typically considered without adequate regard for the structural contingencies that affect and moderate its conduct. We maintain, however, that organizational leadership cannot be modeled effec- tively without attending to such considerations. (p. 12)

Potential Benefits of Taking a More Integrative Focus

By working toward identifying and integrating all of the elements that constitute leadership, researchers can position the field of leadership studies to better address questions such as the degree to which leaders are born versus made; whether what constitutes leadership effectiveness is more universal or culturally specific; whether different forms of leadership, such as charismatic or transformational, are more or less likely to emerge on the basis of the stability or criticality of the context;

and whether one style of leadership is more or less effective depending on the contingencies and demands facing leaders and followers.

Addressing each of the above issues requires an ex- amination of leadership that considers the relevant actors, context (immediate, direct, indirect, etc.), time, history, and how all of these interact with each other to create what is eventually labeled leadership. This recommendation is in line with suggestions made by Marion and Uhl-Bien (2001), who criticized the field of leadership studies for its tendency to follow a more reductionist strategy, concluding that “leaders are one element of an interactive network that is far bigger than they” (p. 414).

Moving toward more integrative strategies for theory- building and testing has also been recommended by Lord, Brown, Harvey, and Hall (2001) with respect to one of the more traditionally leadercentric areas of leadership studies. Lord et al. (2001) discussed what they called a connection- ist-based model of leadership prototype generation to em- phasize how perceptions of leadership are contingent on the context and the dynamic states in which such mental rep- resentations are created. They argued that one’s schema of leadership can be a function of the culture, leader, follower, task, or behavioral inputs and how they each interact to form leadership categories and behavioral scripts. Lord et al. (2001) emphasized that “leadership categories are gen- erated on-the-fly to correspond to the requirements of dif- ferent contexts, tasks, subordinates or maturational stages of a group or organization” (p. 314) and that “leadership perceptions are grounded within a larger social, cultural, task and interpersonal environment” (p. 332). Their model indicates that even one’s internal representation of how leadership is mentally construed and how one makes sense of situations appears to be a function of the proximal (group or task) and distal (organizational or national cul- ture) context in which those mental representations are formed.

I begin the promotion of more integrative theories of leadership by first discussing the importance of followers to what constitutes leadership. I then examine how the inclu-

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Bruce J. Avolio, Gallup Leadership Institute, Department of Management, College of Business, University of Nebraska—Lincoln, CBA 114, P.O. Box 880491, Lincoln, NE 68588-0491. E-mail: [email protected]

25January 2007 ● American Psychologist Copyright 2007 by the American Psychological Association 0003-066X/07/$12.00 Vol. 62, No. 1, 25–33 DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.62.1.25

sion of context found its way into the field of leadership studies, highlighting early work on contingency theories of leadership. This discussion is followed by one of more recent work on leadership, leadership development, and strategic leadership, demonstrating the necessity of advo- cating more integrative strategies to advance the science and practice of leadership.

Examining a Follower Focus Grint (2000) described the field of leadership studies as being theoretically inadequate from its inception because it primarily excluded followers when explaining what consti- tuted leadership. Grint (2005) stated that “it only requires the good follower to do nothing for leadership to fail” (p. 133) and that it is the followers who teach leadership to leaders. Howell and Shamir (2005) concluded that “follow- ers also play a more active role in constructing the leader- ship relationship, empowering the leader and influencing his or her behavior, and ultimately determining the conse- quences of the leadership relationship” (p. 97). Lord, Brown, and Frieberg (1999) asserted, “the follower remains an unexplored source of variance in understanding leader- ship processes” (p. 167).

After reviewing the accumulated research on transfor- mational leadership theory, which has been the most fre- quently researched leadership theory over the last two decades, I could only find three published studies that specifically focused on how follower characteristics mod- erated the effects of leadership on work outcomes (i.e., Dvir & Shamir, 2003; Ehrhart & Klein, 2001; Wofford, Whittington, & Goodwin, 2001). For example, Ehrhart and Klein reported that followers scoring high in achievement orientation, self-esteem, and risk-taking were more likely to be drawn to transformational leaders.

What this research suggests is that a follower’s deci- sion to follow a leader may be a more active process, based on the extent to which the leader is perceived as represent- ing the follower’s values and identity (Howell & Shamir, 2005). Unfortunately, most leadership research has consid- ered the follower a passive or nonexistent element when examining what constitutes leadership. An exception to this conclusion is the work that has been done on relational models of leadership, such as the vertical dyad linkage (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975) or leader–member ex- change theory (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). The main gist of leader–member exchange theory is that the quality of the exchange relationship between leaders and followers will determine the qualities of leadership and outcomes achieved.

Early Beginnings of Exploring the Context Although leadership studies dating back to the early 20th century focused more on the leader than on the context of leadership in which it was observed (Ayman, 2003; Avolio, Sosik, Jung, & Berson, 2003; Day, 2000), there have been some important inquiries into what constitutes leadership throughout human history that included reference to the context. For example, Plato’s philosophical discussions of the moral and ethical purpose of leadership highlighted the relevance of the context.

Similar to discussions of ethical leadership, early writ- ings on what constituted charismatic leadership also fo- cused on the context. Weber (1924/1947) recognized that there were certain unique qualities of leaders that differen- tiated the bureaucratic from the charismatic leader. Weber argued that a social crisis was necessary to promote the emergence of charismatic leaders. Although subsequent research on the emergence of charismatic leadership has challenged Weber’s base assumption (Bass, 1990), the stability of the context remains an important feature in both theoretical and empirical work on what constitutes charis- matic leadership (Bass, 1985; Beyer, 1999; Conger & Ka- nungo, 1988; Klein & House, 1995).

Traditional Contingency Models of Leadership

Emergent contingency models of leadership such as Fie- dler’s (1967) trait contingency model, Vroom and Yetton’s (1973) normative contingency model, House and Mitch- ell’s (1974) path– goal theory, and Hersey and Blanchard’s (1969) situational theory all linked different leadership styles to specific contextual demands that resulted in better performance outcomes—including, in some instances, the nature of the follower in the leader-and-follower equation. Contingency theories of leadership emerged in the litera- ture primarily because prior empirical research examining the link between leadership traits and performance had produced conflicting results (Stogdill, 1974). This led to claims that the achievement of desired outcomes was a function of what some authors termed the fit or match between a leader’s traits, style, and orientation and follower

Bruce J. Avolio

26 January 2007 ● American Psychologist

maturity and situational challenges. Reinforcing this direc- tion, Shartle (1951) reported the best predictors of leader- ship effectiveness were the values or culture of the orga- nization and the behaviors of the leader’s supervisor.

Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1958) defined the contin- gency theorist (and, by extension, the contingency theo- rists’ approach to explaining leadership) as “one who is keenly aware of the forces which are most relevant to his behavior at any given time (and) who is able to behave appropriately in the light of these” (p. 101). Stogdill (1974) sharpened this contextualized view of leadership, stating that “the evidence suggests that leadership is a relation that exists between persons in a social situation, and that per- sons who are leaders in one situation may not necessarily be leaders in other situations” (pp. 63– 64).

Contingencies have been incorporated both ad hoc and post hoc into leadership theory by distinguishing between internal contingencies and external contingencies. External contingencies include facets of the context such as strategy, technology, organizational structure, position, stability, tasks, climate strength, social and physical distance, and culture. Yukl (1999) also suggested that leadership scholars should consider differentiating between these external con- tingencies, using what he termed hard versus soft contin- gencies. For example, for Weber (1924/1947) and Fiedler (1967), the stability of the social context was a hard con- tingency integrated into their respective theories of leader- ship. In contrast, Hofmann, Morgeson, and Gerras (2003) suggested that an organization that has a psychologically safe climate in which workers feel comfortable questioning practices, admitting mistakes, and voicing dissent may represent a soft contingency that moderates the relationship between the leader’s style and follower safety citizenship role behaviors.

A number of leadership theories, such as path– goal theory (see House & Mitchell, 1974), have included in their revised formulations internal contingencies such as per- sonal qualities of leaders, experience of followers, person- ality of followers, gender, motivation, capability, and cul- tural orientation. With respect to leadership development, motivation to learn and to develop oneself could be con- sidered soft internal contingencies, potentially impacting how what constitutes the rate or impact of leadership de- velopment is conceptualized (Avolio, 2005; Avolio & Luthans, 2006; Maurer, 2002).

Judge and Piccolo (2004) completed a meta-analysis examining some of the core research predictions and con- tingencies associated with Avolio and Bass’s full-range model of leadership (see Avolio, 1999; Bass, 1998), which includes both transformational and transactional compo- nents of leadership. Judge and Piccolo (2004) concluded,

the meta-analytic results presented in this study provide the most complete test of the full range of leadership. . . . The results provide important support for the validity of transformational, as well as contingent reward and to some extent, laissez-faire lead- ership. The validity of transformational leadership, in particular, seems to generalize across many situations, including when it is studied in rigorous settings. (p. 765)

However, when Judge and Piccolo examined a number of soft situational contingencies, there was considerable vari- ation in the validity coefficients for both transformational and transactional leadership. For example, they reported that transformational leadership and performance had a correlation of .42 in business versus one of .51 in military settings.

Like many other leadership theories, transformational leadership started out without sufficient attention to con- textual contingencies, with later revisions to the theory incorporating a number of soft contingencies to provide a more complete picture of the relationship between trans- formational leadership and performance. These contingen- cies now include cultural differences, environmental sta- bility, industry type, organizational characteristics, task characteristics, nature of the goals, nature of the perfor- mance criterion, characteristics of followers, and group membership.

One might ask a very practical question: Should this theory, like others in leadership, have started with a more integrative focus that included a broader array of potential contingencies? It can be inferred from Marion and Uhl- Bien’s (2001) comments that researchers need to stop un- derestimating the many potential elements that should be considered from the outset to “fully” explain the complex- ity of leadership.

Conger (2004) clearly answered the above question, criticizing authors who have produced normative theories of leadership such as transformational leadership, stating that “we have been losing an appreciation for the fact that leadership approaches do indeed depend on the situation” (p. 138). It seems many theories in the field of leadership have been “back-filled” with a very narrow set of contin- gencies rather than from the outset using a broader and more integrative strategy that encompasses whatever the field of leadership deems to be core elements to theory- building.

Culture as Context Cross-cultural researchers have begun to examine whether the qualities of desired and effective leadership are contin- gent or universal. A universal cultural theory describes or prescribes aspects of leadership that could apply to any situation (Yukl, 2002), whereas contingent theories either describe or prescribe aspects of leadership that apply in some but not all situations (Yukl, 2002). House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, and Gupta (2004) suggested that integ- rity may generalize across cultural contexts as being a quality desired in all leaders. Yet, even though the con- struct of integrity may be seen as desirable and universal across cultures, other scholars have acknowledged that it could be observed in a variety of forms and still be referred to as high-integrity leadership (Bass, 1997).

An additional challenge to advancing cross-cultural leadership theory and research is that the “exact same” leadership action or behavior may not be viewed in the same way by different leaders or followers within the same culture or between cultures (Lord & Brown, 2004). For example, according to Triandis (1995), allocentrics define

27January 2007 ● American Psychologist

themselves or their identity in terms of the in-groups to which they belong. Allocentrics are more likely to view the actions of leadership as being more desirable and effective to the extent that these focus on what is good for the group versus individual self-interests (Bass, 1985).

In contrast, idiocentrics view the individual as having primacy over in-group goals. Idiocentrics are more moti- vated to satisfy self-interests and personal goals, whether at the expense of group interests or not (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 1995). Idiocentrics may view leadership behaviors that reinforce actions that are good for the overall group as being in conflict with their self-interests and, therefore, less desirable.

The emerging field of cross-cultural leadership re- search has underscored the importance of examining how the inclusion of the context in models of leadership may alter how what constitutes effective or desirable leadership is operationally defined, measured, and interpreted. Inte- gration of culture as a contextual factor in models of leadership necessitates that researchers consider

● the cultural implicit theories of both leaders and followers;

● enacted behaviors and how they are interpreted; ● the broader cultural context in which leaders and

followers interact; ● the duration of the leader–follower relationship; and ● exogenous events that may trigger different inter-

pretations of leadership, such as instability, uncer- tainty, and growth.

Exploring Individual Differences Since the inception of research on what constitutes leader- ship, the focus has been on the role that individual differ- ences like personality and general mental ability play in determining who emerges as a leader and how effective the person is in leadership positions (e.g., Bass, 1990; Chan & Drasgow, 2001; Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002). Highlighting this focus, Carlyle’s (1907) great man theory framed leadership as being primarily focused on specific traits that differentiate effective from ineffective leaders. The accumulated research now shows that there are some universal traits leaders possess that are repeatedly associ- ated with effective leadership, including persistence, toler- ance for ambiguity, self-confidence, drive, honesty, integ- rity, internal locus of control, achievement motivation, and cognitive ability (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001; Kirk- patrick & Locke, 1991; Yukl, 1998).

Although traits were originally thought to be fixed, there now is a growing awareness, expressed by authors such as Dweck and Leggett (1988), that some traits may be more malleable and interact with facets of the context in contributing to leadership emergence and effectiveness. This research stream stems in part from the work of devel- opmental psychologists like Riegel (1975), who suggested that “human development can only be understood by con- ceiving the emergence of behavior over time as a result of an ongoing exchange between the organism and the envi- ronment” (p. 46), and from early work by Graves (1959),

who stated, “Finally, it was assumed that just as the seed must have favorable living circumstances to flower fully so to is man’s ethical potential limited by the life circum- stances which the human develops” (p. 8).

Plomin and Daniels (1987) suggested that “behavior- al-genetics research seldom finds evidence that more than half of the variance for complex traits is due to genetic differences among individuals” (p. 1). Supporting this claim, preliminary evidence from behavioral genetics lead- ership research suggests that 30% of the variance in lead- ership style and emergence can be accounted for by genetic predispositions, while the remaining variance can be attrib- uted to nonshared environmental influences such as indi- viduals being exposed to varying opportunities for leader- ship development (e.g., Arvey, Rotundo, Johnson, Zhang, & McGue, 2006). It seems reasonable to suggest that traits interact with the context and, therefore, that the relationship between one’s traits and leadership emergence will vary as a consequence of the nature of the context.

There has also been some recent discussion in the leadership literature that certain types of events can trigger leadership emergence and nurture its development, yet there is little empirical evidence linking such events to individual dispositions of either leaders or followers (Avolio, 2005; Avolio, Gardner, Walumbwa, Luthans, & May, 2004). This emerging research stream on what the authors have called authentic leadership development un- derscores the importance of a view of leadership that takes into consideration the facets of the context that contribute to and detract from its development.

Evidence regarding the impact that events have on development include children who were exposed to an authoritarian parenting style and were shown later in life to have higher achievement orientation, self-confidence, in- ternal locus of control, and self-efficacy (Baumrind, 1991). For example, Schmitt-Rodermund (2004) investigated the impact of personality and authoritative parenting on ado- lescents’ and business founders’ self-reports of early entre- preneurial competence, reporting higher levels of leader- ship in high school, curiosity, and entrepreneurial skill.

In sum, there appears to be some recognition in the leadership literature that not all traits are fixed with regard to their impact on leadership development, emergence, and success. Moreover, traits themselves may evolve over time and change depending on the dynamic exchange between the leader, follower, and context, suggesting that traits are not either/or but a matter of degree in shaping leadership effectiveness, emergence, and development.

A More Integrative View of Leadership Theory-Building On the basis of a review of the literature, there are some elements that I would deem essential to building more integrative theories of leadership that have well-established lines of research. The broad categories for characterizing these elements include the following:

Cognitive Elements: One element of what constitutes an emergent leadership theory is the way leaders and

28 January 2007 ● American Psychologist

followers interpret their relationships, roles, capabilities, motivation, emotions, challenges, and objectives. Each and every action or reaction is filtered by leaders’ and follow- ers’ implicit models or cognitive categorization schemes– systems. Moving to the next levels—in which behaviors and, in turn, context are examined— each is shaped by the way information is recognized, categorized, processed, in- terpreted, and recalled.

Implicit theories of the self are also particularly rele- vant to understanding leadership and its development. For example, Dweck and Leggett (1988) have made the dis- tinction between entity and incremental theory with respect to how one views traits or predispositions. Entity theory views traits as fixed, whereas incremental theory views them as malleable. Each theory explains different modes of processing regarding what constitutes “the self,” which affects the likelihood of different individuals being more or less willing to embrace leadership development. For exam- ple, for an individual who views leadership as something that can change over time, challenges being confronted will more likely positively trigger or shape development than they will for someone who views leadership as preordained (Maurer, 2002).

Individual and Group Behavior: Going back 50 years in the leadership literature, many prominent models of leadership were built on how leaders behaved—the indi- vidual level (Bass, 1990). Yet it is also known that the perception of such behaviors by followers and the choice by the leader to exhibit them are guided by the intraindi- vidual level and will vary in their impact depending on the nature of followers and context at the group level, includ- ing prior, emerging, and possible future contexts, as de- tailed below. Leadership behaviors can be directed to spe- cific followers or they can be directed toward an entire group of followers. For example, a leader may prime a group of followers to be more promotion oriented, support- ing greater risk-taking, challenge, and innovation (Kark & Van-Dijk, in press), which could emerge as a group-level climate.

Historical Context: Since the inception of leadership studies, attention has been given to what has transpired prior to the emergence of leaders. The characteristics of the historical context provide opportunities for the emergence of different orientations toward leadership (e.g., charis- matic leaders emerge during times of social crises). The historical context can impact what types of leadership and followership are considered acceptable and unacceptable, effective and ineffective.

Proximal Context: The proximal context is what lead- ers and followers are embedded in and includes the work or unit climate, group characteristics, task characteristics, and performance domain. The proximal context is the most immediate in terms of time and in terms of impact on both leaders and followers and their relationships. In contin- gency models, it has been a central feature included to explain leadership effectiveness.

Distal Context: The distal context comprises the or- ganizational culture and characteristics of the broader so- cial– cultural environment such as stability–turbulence, na-

ture of competitors, cycle time in terms of innovation, national events, and culture. One could add here a “distal historical” context that continues to impact current behav- ior (e.g., the civil rights movement) as well as a “proximal historical” context (e.g., the controversy over immigration rights). Leaders and followers interpret, decide, and behave in part on the basis of the distal context they import into current mean making and decision making and in part on the basis of what they may have previously overlooked and now reflect on and reinterpret.

Applying these five facets to the promotion of more integrative theories of leadership, assume that a particular leader somehow gets his or her immediate follower to successfully assume a leadership role, which is a core proposition in transformational leadership theory (Bass, 1985). Examining this leader-and-follower link, one might assume that their respective implicit models of leadership include the belief that leadership is something that can be mutually developed. Connected to these beliefs is the be- havior modeling exhibited by a positively oriented leader who builds the follower’s efficacy to exercise greater re- sponsibility for leadership. For example, the leader may signal his or her belief that followers who identify their core strengths can accelerate their development as leaders (Avolio, 2005; Luthans & Avolio, 2003). Followers may then behave in ways that demonstrate their willingness to assume increased responsibility, which the leader rein- forces through feedback and recognition, completing the cycle for development.

Of course, what is observed at the leader-and-follower level in part is a result of the climate in which each are embedded. Organizational climate refers to shared percep- tions among organization members with regard to the or- ganization’s fundamental properties (i.e., policies, proce- dures, and practices; Reichers & Schneider, 1990). For example, if the follower describes the unit’s climate as “forgiving of mistakes” and “open to new ways of think- ing,” he or she would be more likely to engage in tasks requiring greater responsibilities, discretion, and risk. If the tasks happen to be ones that are of lower risk, the likeli- hood is even higher that followers will engage in develop- ing leadership potential. Overall, the more an organiza- tion’s climate is positively oriented toward developing followers into leaders and has a history of doing so, the more likely followers will be to engage in leadership re- sponsibilities and experiences, creating a climate of en- gagement.

An Integrative View of Authentic Leadership Development

It may seem ironic, given the inordinate amount of atten- tion paid to leadership development, that only recently has there been any serious attempt to formulate a theory of leadership development (Avolio & Luthans, 2006). Most of the attention in the leadership literature has been focused on determining what causes leaders to emerge and be effective. Relatively little effort has been devoted to sys-

29January 2007 ● American Psychologist

tematically explaining how such leaders and leadership develop.

Without a doubt, future research on leadership devel- opment will need to focus on the interaction of genetic and developmental components that foster leadership at differ- ent points across the life span (Ilies, Arvey, & Bouchard, 2006; Plomin, DeFries, McClearn, & McGuffin, 2001) while including a closer examination of relevant contextual factors (Arvey et al., 2006). As noted by Arvey et al. (2006),

what might be of great interest is the question of determining more precisely the kinds of environmental experiences that are most helpful in predicting and/or developing leadership and the ways in which these experiences possibly interact and/or correlate with genetic factors. (p. 16)

Paralleling the field of leadership studies in general, leadership development theory and research has focused on changing the leader, with much less attention given to the interaction of leaders, followers, and context (Avolio, 2005; Day, 2000). It is rather surprising that previous discussions of leadership development have not integrated the context into models of development, ignoring numer- ous authors’ suggestions that coping with difficult situa- tions or challenging events facilitates leadership develop- ment (Maurer, 2002; McCauley & Van Velsor, 2003).

Bray, Campbell, and Grant (1974) reported that high- capacity managers at AT&T exposed to challenging events early in their careers were the most successful over a 10-year period. McCauley (2001) focused on the need to integrate the individual and the context as a strategy for fostering leadership development, suggesting that it is im- portant to “provide a variety of developmental experiences, ensure a high level of ability to learn, and design the context so it supports development” (p. 348). These facets are captured in London and Maurer’s (2003) model of leadership development, which includes establishing the congruence between characteristics of the organization and the individual in shaping the potential for leadership de- velopment. How, then, does one build a theory of leader- ship development without considering the nature of those experiences and contingencies across a person’s life span that contributes positively and/or negatively to leadership development?

Recent work by Avolio and his colleagues (W. L. Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May & Walumbwa, 2005) has attempted to take on the challenge of including up front the core facets described above in explaining what constitutes what they have referred to as authentic leadership devel- opment. Their model of authentic leadership development includes elements of the leader, follower, and context in explaining what actually improves or develops leadership (W. L. Gardner et al., 2005), which was their rationale for choosing the word authentic. For example, the model ex- plicitly shows that the cognitive elements comprising a leader’s development, such as self-awareness and self- regulation of the leader’s behavior, are mirrored in the follower’s development. Gardner et al. take the position that parallel processes are associated with both leader and

follower development and that these processes are embed- ded in a climate, as noted above, that may be more or less facilitative of actual leadership development.

Due to space limitations, I cannot fully describe the authentic leadership development model, but I can offer an example of how its core elements correspond to those identified above as being essential to promoting an inte- grative strategy for building leadership theory (for a more detailed discussion of the model, see W. L. Gardner et al., 2005):

● Cognitive Elements: A key starting point for the model is the focus on leader and follower self- awareness, which includes how individuals view their actual self and translate that into what could be their possible self or selves. It includes what W. L. Gardner et al. (2005) have called balanced process- ing, which refers to how objectively individuals view information about themselves in current as well as projected future contexts and, then, how they determine decisions. Bridging actual and pos- sible selves helps to represent fundamental aspects of leadership development.

● Individual Leader–Follower Behavior: The model incorporates an emphasis on exhibiting authentic leadership behavior, which links to how leaders and followers regulate the translation of their awareness into behaviors–actions that are considered authen- tic, such as regulating transparency in relationships and ethical decision making.

● Historical Context: History is included in terms of the personal background of both leaders and follow- ers and how such history has triggered or stifled development in the past. The model emphasizes that throughout one’s life course, there are many poten- tial trigger events that can stimulate growth and development, in part dependent on the level of leader and follower self-awareness and energy placed in self-reflection activities.

● Proximal Context: The model highlights how an engaged and ethical organizational climate can fa- cilitate the development of authentic, transparent, ethical leaders and followers.

● Distal Context: In W. L. Gardner et al.’s (2005) model, distal context is not specifically presented, but as part of their discussion of leadership devel- opment, they include national or international events that are outside the organization that may shape development.

Although the model of authentic leadership develop- ment starts with a more integrative focus, as this theory evolves, it must remain open to including additional ele- ments, such as internal and external contingencies that may help explain the full complexity involved with how leaders and leadership genuinely develops. Nevertheless, taking a more integrative focus from the outset may lessen the need to include post hoc additions to this theory.

30 January 2007 ● American Psychologist

Conclusions, Future Directions, and Implications The evolution of leadership theory and practice has come to a point at which a more integrative view spanning from genetics to cultural– generational and strategic levels should be considered at the outset when building theories of leadership and leadership development (Hunt & Dodge, 2000). The recommendations in this article go beyond more traditional situational or contingency models to ad- vocate a fuller and more integrative focus that is multilevel, multicomponent, and interdisciplinary and that recognizes that leadership is a function of both the leader and the led and the complexity of the context. Indeed, future leadership theory and research may focus on what Marion and Uhl- Bien (2001) described as leaders dealing with the condi- tions of organizations versus local manifestations. As an example, Marion and Uhl-Bien (2001) said that for leaders to create innovation, they may have to create the conditions that spark innovation rather than creating innovation in the individual per se; in their words, “leaders are part of the dynamic rather than being the dynamic itself” (p. 414).

Focusing on the creation of conditions by leaders, I also advocate that more work needs to be done on the connections created by leadership. For example, there is emerging work linking social network theory to leadership theory, even though to date, “little empirical work has been done on leadership and social networks” (Brass, Ga- laskiewicz, Greve, & Tsai, 2004, p. 800). To the extent that leadership creates the conditions for distinct patterns of relationships between individuals in organizations to create and/or transform social network structures, there is a need to establish linkages between leadership and social network theory. A starting point for exploring this area comes from Balkundi and Kilduff’s (2005) proposed model showing how cognitions in leaders’ and followers’ minds influence the actual social network structures and relationships that are established and that these social networks within and even between organizations ultimately facilitate leadership effectiveness. For example, the leader’s ability to influence others will depend in part on the social network in which that leader is embedded and how positive the network is regarding the leader’s initiatives. In this proposed model, there is a full extension of an integrative framework span- ning cognitive implicit theories through to the external structure of social network relationships and how individ- ual actors and their relationships are embedded in a larger social network structure. In line with the proposed integra- tive framework, Balkundi and Kilduff (2005) concluded, “Our network approach locates leadership not in the at- tributes of individuals but in the relationships connecting individuals” (p. 942).

I suspect that a more integrative focus regarding lead- ership theory and research will become even more relevant as the study of leadership is escalated to more strategic levels. For example, whether one is studying individual top leaders, top management teams, or the entire leadership system in an organization, focusing on ways to integrate the context at multiple levels of analysis into leadership

models will take on increasing importance. Specifically, how the top executives in an organization share leadership and influence that organization’s performance may depend in part on the evolutionary stage of the organization and the stability of the context in which it is presently operating (Lord & Maher, 1991). Rapidly changing contexts will place more pressure on leaders to use the talent and wisdom of their top management teams in arriving at critical deci- sions. At the strategic leadership level, it also becomes important not only that a good decision is made but how that decision is effectively executed across levels of the organization—and again, the context will matter.

This discussion extends to the emerging work in the area of strategic leadership (Boal & Hoojberg, 2001; Canella & Monroe, 1997; Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1996). Various authors have suggested that the executive’s per- sonality and leadership style can impact many aspects of the organization’s strategy and culture. For example, Wald- man, Javidan, and Varella (2004) were interested in exam- ining how the charismatic leadership of firms impact firm performance. They suggested that charismatic leadership at the top can influence subsequent relationships both directly and indirectly through social contagion effects, thus cas- cading strategic influence across levels in terms of its impact on others. Building off of the work of Mischel (1973), Waldman et al. (2004) discussed how uncertain or weak contexts may make employees more receptive to change, which characterizes charismatic leadership. Char- ismatic leaders may prime all of their followers to take greater risks.

In sum, the emerging patterns in leadership research provide support for what John W. Gardner (1990) de- scribed over 15 years ago in his book On Leadership, in which he stated,

Leaders cannot be thought of apart from the historic context in which they arise, the setting in which they function (e.g., elective political office), and the system over which they preside (e.g., a particular city or state). They are an integral part of the system, subject to the forces that affect the system. (p. 1)

In line with Gardner’s arguments, the main thrust of this article has been to promote a more integrative examination of leadership theory-building and research so as to lay the groundwork for a more full understanding of what consti- tutes the best and the worst forms of leadership and how those forms develop.

REFERENCES

Arvey, R. D., Rotundo, M., Johnson, W., Zhang, Z., & McGue, M. (2006). The determinants of leadership role occupancy: Genetic and personality factors. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 1–20.

Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Avolio, B. J. (2005). Leadership development in balance: Made/born. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., & May, D. (2004). Unlocking the mask: A look at the process by which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes and behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 801– 823.

Avolio, B. J., & Luthans, F. (2006). The high impact leader: Moments that matter in authentic leadership development. New York: McGraw-Hill.

31January 2007 ● American Psychologist

Avolio, B. J., Sosik, J. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Leadership models, methods, and applications. In I. B. Weiner (Series Ed.) & W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. Klimoski (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of psy- chology, Vol. 12: Industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 277– 307). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Ayman, R. (2003). Situational and contingency approaches to leadership. In J. A. Antonakis, A. T. Cianciolo, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of leadership (pp. 148 –171). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Balkundi, P., & Kilduff, M. (2005). The ties that lead: A social network approach to leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 941–961.

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

Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership. New York: Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional–transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational boundaries? American Psychologist, 52, 130 –139.

Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and educational impact. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11, 56 –95.

Beyer, J. M. (1999). Taming and promoting charisma to change organi- zations. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 307–330.

Boal, K. B., & Hooijberg, R. (2001). Strategic leadership research: Mov- ing on. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 515–549.

Brass, D. J., Galaskiewicz, J., Greve, H. R., & Tsai, W. (2004). Taking stock of social networks: A multi-level perspective. Academy of Man- agement Journal, 47, 795– 817.

Bray, D., Campbell, R. J., & Grant, D. L. (1974). Formative years in business: A long-term AT&T study of managerial lives. New York: Wiley.

Canella, A. A., Jr., & Monroe, M. J. (1997). Contrasting perspectives on strategic leaders: Toward a more realistic view of top managers. Jour- nal of Management, 23, 213–237.

Carlyle, T. (1907). Heroes and hero worship. Boston: Adams. Chan, K. Y., & Drasgow, F. (2001). Toward a theory of individual

differences and leadership: Understanding the motivation to lead. Jour- nal of Applied Psychology, 86, 481– 498.

Conger, J. A. (2004). Developing leadership capability: What’s inside the black box? Academy of Management Executive, 18, 16 –139.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.

Dansereau, F., Graen, G. B., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitu- dinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 13, 46 –78.

Day, D. V. (2000). Leadership development: A review in context. Lead- ership Quarterly, 11, 581– 614.

Den Hartog, D. N., & Koopman, P. L. (2001). Leadership in organiza- tions. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds). Handbook of industrial, work, and organizational psychology, Vol. 2: Organizational psychology (pp. 166 –187). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dvir, T., & Shamir, B. (2003). Follower developmental characteristics as predictors of predicting transformational leadership: A longitudinal field study. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 327–344.

Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. (1988). A social– cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256 –273.

Ehrhart, M. G., & Klein, K. (2001). Predicting follower’s preference for charismatic leadership: The influence of follower value and personality. Leadership Quarterly, 12, 153–179.

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

Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. C. (1996). Strategic leadership: Top executives and their effects on organizations. Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN: West.

Gardner, J. W. (1990). On leadership. New York: Free Press. Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., & Walumbwa,

F. O. (2005). Can you see the real me? A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 343–372.

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader–member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspec- tive. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219 –247.

Graves, C. W. (1959). An emergent theory of ethical behavior: Based upon an epigenetic model. Retrieved from the Dr. Clare W. Graves Web site: http://www.clarewgraves.com/articles_content/1959/I.html

Grint, K. (2000). The arts of leadership. Oxford, England: Oxford Uni- versity Press.

Grint, K. (2005). Leadership: Limits and possibilities. Hong Kong, China: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1969). Life cycle theory of leadership. Training and Development Journal, 23, 26 –34.

Hofmann, D. A., Morgeson, F. P., & Gerras, S. J. (2003). Climate as a moderator of the relationship between leader–member exchange and content specific citizenship: Safety climate as an exemplar. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 170 –178.

House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

House, R. J., & Mitchell, T. R. (1974). Path– goal theory of leadership. Journal of Contemporary Business, 3, 81–97.

Howell, J. M., & Shamir, B. (2005). The role of followers in the charis- matic leadership process: Relationships and their consequences. Acad- emy of Management Review, 30, 96 –112.

Hunt, J. G., & Dodge, G. E. (2000). Leadership déjà vu all over again. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 435– 458.

Ilies, R., Arvey, R. D., & Bouchard, T. J., Jr. (2006). Darwinism, behav- ioral genetics, and organizational behavior: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 121–141.

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review: Journal of Ap- plied Psychology, 87, 530 –541.

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.

Kark, R., & Van-Dijk, D. (in press). Motivation to lead, motivation to follow: The role of the self-regulatory focus in leadership processes. Academy of Management Review.

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

Klein, K. J., & House, R. J. (1995). On fire: Charismatic leadership and levels of analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 163–198.

London, M., & Maurer, T. J. (2003). Leadership development: A diag- nostic model for continuous learning in dynamic organizations. In J. Antonakis, A. T. Cianciolo, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of leadership (pp. 222–246). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lord, R. G., & Brown, D. J. (2004). Leadership processes and follower self-identity. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lord, R. G., Brown, D. J., & Frieberg, S. J. (1999). Understanding the dynamics of leadership: The role of follower self-concepts in the leader/follower relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human De- cision Processes, 75, 167–203.

Lord, R. G., Brown, D. J., Harvey, J. L., & Hall, R. J. (2001). Contextual constraints on prototype generation and their multi-level consequences for leadership perceptions. Leadership Quarterly, 12, 311–338.

Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1991). Leadership and information-process- ing. Boston: Routledge.

Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Authentic leadership: A positive developmental approach. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 241–258). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Marion, R., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2001). Leadership in complex organizations. Leadership Quarterly, 12, 389 – 418.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224 – 253.

Maurer, T. J. (2002). Employee learning and developmental orientation: Toward an integrative model of involvement in continuous learning. Human Resource Development Journal, 1, 9 – 44.

McCauley, C. (2001). Leader training and development. In S. J. Zaccaro & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), The nature of organizational leadership:

32 January 2007 ● American Psychologist

Understanding the performance imperatives confronting today’s lead- ers (pp. 347–383). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

McCauley, C., & Van Velsor, E. (Eds.). (2003). The Center for Creative Leadership handbook of leadership development. San Francisco: Jos- sey-Bass.

Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a cognitive social reconceptualization of personality. Psychological Review, 80, 253–283.

Plomin, R., & Daniels, D. (1987). Why are children in the same family so different from one another? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 10, 1–16.

Plomin, R., DeFries, J. C., McClearn, G. E., & McGuffin, P. (2001). Behavioral genetics (4th ed.). New York: Worth.

Reichers, A. E., & Schneider, B. (1990). Climate and culture: An evolu- tion of constructs. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture (pp. 5–39). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Riegel, K. F. (1975). Towards a dialectic theory of development. Human Development, 18, 50 – 64.

Rost, J. C. (1991). Leadership for the twenty-first century. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Schmitt-Rodermund, E. (2004). Pathways to successful entrepreneurship: Parenting, personality, early entrepreneurial competence, and interests. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 498 –518.

Shartle, C. L. (1951). Studies of naval leadership: Part I. In H. Guetzdow (Ed.), Group leadership and men (pp. 119 –133). Pittsburgh, PA: Car- negie Press.

Stogdill, R. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York: Free Press.

Tannenbaum, R., & Schmidt, W. H. (1958). How to choose a leadership pattern. Harvard Business Review, 36(2), 95–101.

Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and decision-making. New York: Wiley.

Waldman, D. A., Javidan, M., & Varella, P. (2004). Charismatic leader- ship at the strategic level: A new application of upper echelons theory. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 355–380.

Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization (A. M. Henderson & T. Parsons, Trans.) New York: Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1924)

Wofford, J. C., Whittington, J. L., & Goodwin, V. L. (2001). Follower motive patterns as situational moderators for transformational leader- ship effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Issues, 13, 196 –211.

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

Yukl, G. (1999). Evaluation of the conceptual weaknesses in transforma- tional and charismatic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 285–303.

Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Zaccaro, S. J., & Klimoski, R. J. (Eds.). (2001). The nature of organiza- tional leadership: Understanding the performance imperatives con- fronting today’s leaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

MAIL TO: Name

Address

City State Zip

APA Member # AMPA17

Check enclosed (make payable to APA)

Charge my: VISA MasterCard American Express

Cardholder Name

etaD .pxE.oN draC

Signature (Required for Charge)

BILLING ADDRESS: Street

City State Zip

Daytime Phone

E-mail

ORDER FORM Start my 2007 subscription to American Psychologist! ISSN: 0003-066X

___ $249.00, INDIVIDUAL NONMEMBER ___________ ___ $649.00, INSTITUTION ___________

In DC add 5.75% / In MD add 5% sales tax _______ TOTAL AMOUNT ENCLOSED $ _______

Subscription orders must be prepaid. (Subscriptions are on a calendar year basis only.) Allow 4-6 weeks for delivery of the first issue. Call for international subscription rates.

SEND THIS ORDER FORM TO: American Psychological Association Subscriptions 750 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20002-4242

Or call 800-374-2721, fax 202-336-5568. TDD/TTY 202-336-6123. For subscription information, e-mail: [email protected]

33January 2007 ● American Psychologist