LITERATURE REVIEW

Article

Enhancing our understanding of vision in organizations: Toward an integration of leader and follower processes

Yair Berson Bar-Ilan University, Israel

David A. Waldman Arizona State University, USA

Craig L. Pearce MEF University, Turkey

Abstract We put forth a theoretical model that considers alternative paths toward the formation of vision in collectives. We view vision as being shaped by a combination of hierarchical leader vision and shared leadership processes involving followers. As such, these paths balance leader- and follower-centric approaches to understand the formation of vision. A feature of our approach is that we emphasize some key processes and moderators; specifically, the role of the content of the vision of the leader, leader deontic fairness, and collective identification among members of the collective. We consider research implications including the measurement of shared vision, as well as practical implications pertaining to its relevance for such important outcomes as organizational learning.

Keywords Leadership, shared leadership, shared vision

Paper received 15 March 2015; revised version accepted 31 March 2015.

Corresponding author:

Yair Berson, Department of Psychology, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Tel Aviv 5290002, Israel.

Email: [email protected]

Organizational Psychology Review 2016, Vol. 6(2) 171–191

ª The Author(s) 2015 Reprints and permission:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/2041386615583736

opr.sagepub.com

Organizational Psychology Review

Enhancing our understanding of vision in organizations: Toward an integration of leader and follower processes

The articulation of a clear and compelling

vision is frequently heralded as a central aspect

of being an effective leader (e.g., Baum,

Locke, & Kirkpatrick, 1998; Greer, Homan,

De Hoogh, & Den Hartog, 2012; Halevy,

Berson, & Galinsky, 2011; Kohles, Bligh, &

Carsten, 2012; Nanus, 1992; Waldman &

Yammarino, 1999). Indeed, since the 1980s,

leadership researchers have highlighted exemp-

lary or outstanding leaders as both inspirational

and visionary (Bass, 1985; Conger & Kanungo,

1998). Social psychologists (e.g., Haslam &

Platow, 2001) suggest that visions facilitate a

sense of social self for group members. Strategic

management scholars have also emphasized

the importance of vision (e.g., Hitt & Ireland,

2002). As stated by Hybels (2002, p. 31),

‘‘Vision is at the very core of leadership . . . Vision is the fuel that leaders run on. It’s the

energy that creates action.’’ Overall, different

scholars representing differing perspectives and

disciplines seem to concur that vision is central

to effective leadership.

Moreover, we recognize that leader vision,

and shared vision on the part of members of a

collective, is not an end goal in and of itself.

Rather, leaders and members share a vision in

order to facilitate common goals, perspectives,

and outcomes. Prior work has associated leader

vision with a number of organizational out-

comes (Bass & Bass, 2008), such as venture

growth (e.g., Baum et al., 1998). Relatedly, in a

study of product and process innovation teams,

Pearce and Ensley (2004) found a significant

relationship between shared vision and several

aspects of team dynamics, as well as team

innovation. Furthermore, when groups share a

vision, individuals may be more active and

motivated to contribute to the exploration of

new knowledge and exploitation of existing

knowledge (Berson, Da’as, & Waldman, 2015;

Berson, Nemanich, Waldman, Galvin, & Keller,

2006). In short, it seems clear that vision, espe-

cially when it is broadly shared, is essential for

critical organizational outcomes.

Unfortunately, despite immense interest and

recognition as an important phenomenon by

both executives and academics alike, an under-

standing of vision, and especially the processes

through which it becomes shared, remains

somewhat elusive. For example, in a survey of

business practices, CEOs ranked vision among

the highest topics of importance to them, but

nevertheless one that remains unclear, and

about which they expect to learn more from

organizational scholars (London Business School,

2008). Scholars, too, have called for more

research on vision that goes beyond the role of

the style of the leader, to emphasize content and

communication of the vision to followers (e.g.,

Stam, Lord, van Knippenberg, & Wisse, 2014;

D. van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013). In a recent

conceptualization, Stam et al. (2014) high-

lighted the role of a leader’s vision communi-

cation in forming follower acceptance of the

vision of the leader. Another study found indi-

vidual differences among followers’ regulatory

focus (Stam, van Knippenberg, & Wisse, 2010).

Our concern here, however, is to go beyond

vision acceptance and offer a theory that

addresses the processes (as well as boundary

conditions) through which a vision of a hier-

archical leader becomes shared by followers.

As such, our approach is both leader- and

follower-centric. We argue that leaders and

followers together construct a shared vision,

and we offer a model that integrates the role of

both of these parties in vision formation. We do

so by addressing alternative paths toward shared

vision. Specifically, we pursue three, inter-

related goals. First, we delineate the espousal of

a hierarchical leader’s vision from the forma-

tion of a followers’ shared vision. Second, we

examine both leader- and follower-oriented

processes and conditions that facilitate the

172 Organizational Psychology Review 6(2)

formation of a shared vision. And, finally, we

emphasize vision formation as a shared process

in which followers take an active role. Orga-

nizational scholars generally define leader

vision as a future-oriented articulation or image

of an organization’s direction that emphasizes

desired outcomes (Berson, Shamir, Avolio, &

Popper, 2001; Conger & Kanungo, 1998; Frese,

Beimel, & Schoenborn, 2003; Nanus, 1992;

Stam et al., 2014). As an example, in the early

1960s, when President Kennedy proposed a

vision that the United States should put a man

on the moon by the end of that decade, his

future-oriented articulation was certainly viewed

as ambitious, but not outside the realm of possi-

bility. On the other hand, if he had proposed that

the United States should commit to put a man

on Mars by the end of that decade, his future-

oriented articulation would have been seen as

illusionary or foolish, rather than visionary. Fur-

ther, as compared to strategic goals, leader vision

tends to be somewhat less concrete, encompass a

broader time span, and may contain a higher

content of idealistic values or beliefs, rather

than simply business or economically oriented

content (Sully de Luque, Washburn, Waldman,

& House, 2008). Kennedy’s vision emphasized

values and beliefs that included innovation,

change, and exploration, all of which the

American people found to be appealing.

Although there is a connection between

leader vision and followers’ shared vision, the

linkage is not clear in the leadership literature.

An exception is the work of Stam et al. (2014)

that links the leader’s vision to collective effort

by emphasizing the role of the vision in forming

followers’ self-concept regarding the future of

the collective (possible selves). According to

this theory, collective pursuit of a leader’s

vision depends on individual- and collective-

level processes, such as elaboration (active

cognitive integration of the leader’s vision),

perceptions of collective possible self, and

pursuit of the vision. In line with extant work

(e.g., Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993), these

processes depend on identification with the

collective and motivation to process the vision.

Stam et al. (2014) emphasized the cognitive

processes associating a leader’s vision with the

actual sharing of the vision by followers. We

build on their work by delineating the role of

ethical processes in the formation of shared

vision and by portraying implications for

organizational outcomes.

Second, and in line with the aforementioned,

we address some of the challenges associated

with the implications of sharing a vision to

organizational outcomes. For instance, while

most previous research (Baum et al., 1998; De

Hoogh et al., 2004) has focused on the benefits

of sharing a vision, we highlight some chal-

lenges associated with the outcomes of sharing,

specifically the facilitation of group identity.

Our primary contention is that a more complete

understanding of visioning processes should

include a consideration of the qualities on the

part of leaders that will help determine whether

their visions generate identification on the part

of followers which, in turn, will engender the

creation of a shared vision by followers. As

described next, we focus on leaders’ abilities to

convey deontic fairness, or ‘‘a moral commitment

to fairness that rises above self-interest’’ (Folger,

2001, p. 3). Leaders who express concerns for

deontic justice take into consideration the welfare

of others in addition to their own self-interests.

When leaders imbue deontic fairness, followers

are more likely to view their vision as facilitating

identification and view their leader as a role

model, thereby increasing their identification

with the visionary role of the leader.

Third, we recognize that the vast majority of

leadership theory and research in general, and

visionary leadership in particular, has focused

on individual leaders who occupy formal hier-

archical roles. A broader perspective would

suggest the depiction of leadership as a process

of influence occurring within organizations in

which formal leaders are only a part (Day,

2000; Day & Harrison, 2007). Such a con-

ceptualization is indicative of theory and

research on complexity leadership (Uhl-Bien,

Berson et al. 173

Marion, & McKelvery, 2007), as well as

leadership capacity (Day, Gronn, & Salas,

2004). Regarding the latter, Day et al. (2004),

suggested that the overall leadership capac-

ity of an organizational entity is a form of

social capital that involves the sharedness,

distributedness, and connectivity of all mem-

bers of an entity. Indeed, the field of leadership

has seen increasing interest in shared and col-

lective forms of leadership (Yammarino, Salas,

Serban, Shirreffs, & Shuffler, 2012). We con-

tend that individuals other than formal leaders

are not only passive recipients of visionary

communication; instead, they can actively

partake in vision formation.

But with that said, we also contend that there

is a role for hierarchical leadership in our

understanding of shared vision. In accepting his

Network of Scholars award at the Academy of

Management in 2012, the late Boas Shamir

lamented about trends to essentially ‘‘throw the

baby out with the bath water’’ in leadership

theory and research. The ‘‘baby’’ in this instance

is singular, hierarchical leadership. In our

attempt to better understand shared vision, the

current model identifies connections between

such traditional thinking regarding leadership

and more emerging ideas pertaining to shared

and collective forms of leadership. We view

vision formation as a process in which both

leaders and followers can collectively construct

and contribute to a shared vision.

Thus, the overall purpose here is to add

theoretical clarity to the concept of vision in

terms of its meaning and processes that occur

when it becomes shared between leaders and

followers. We take a multiperspective approach,

whereby we build upon theories of charis-

matic and transformational leadership, which

largely include vision as a central aspect (e.g.,

Conger & Kanungo, 1998; Nanus, 1992). We

also build upon growing theories pertaining to

social identity (Hogg, 2001; D. van Knippenberg

& Hogg, 2003; D. van Knippenberg, van

Knippenberg, De Cremer, & Hogg, 2004), and

shared leadership (e.g., Pearce & Conger, 2003;

Yammarino et al., 2012). In addition, we pro-

vide practical implications for managers seek-

ing to better understand their role in the creation

of shared vision. We begin by first considering

the concept of shared vision.

What is shared vision?

We argue that an important but still unclear

aspect of vision involves the extent to which

individuals collectively engage in forming and

sharing a vision. The idea of sharing, while less

established when it comes to visionary leader-

ship, has aspects that are similar to other con-

structs. Theory and research in social cognition

(e.g., Ledgerwood & Liviatan, 2010) would

suggest that shared understanding among team

members leads to social recognition and vali-

dation of experiences, making these experi-

ences more factual and objective. Furthermore,

accumulating research on teams shows that

aspects of sharing have implications for effec-

tive team processes, such as knowledge inte-

gration and ultimately for team performance

(H. K. Gardner, Gino, & Staats, 2012).

The notion of shared mental models repre-

sents an example of a similar, prominent con-

cept in the literature. In their review of literature

pertaining to this concept, Klimoski and

Mohammed (1994) noted that researchers have

interpreted it in a diverse manner, especially

with regard to what it is that is actually shared

among individuals. However, cognitive elements

appear to be emphasized with a focus on common

beliefs and knowledge pertaining to an organi-

zational unit’s tasks and technology, the nature of

problems facing the unit, and so forth, as well as

actions that should be taken. Mathieu, Heffner,

Goodwin, Salas, and Cannon-Bowers (2000) also

emphasized how shared mental models serve to

help people in a collective to commonly describe,

explain, and predict events in their environ-

ment. In short, shared mental models evolve

to address different tasks and help members to

conceptualize and process information about

174 Organizational Psychology Review 6(2)

their group, other group members, equipment,

and the environment in which they work.

In an attempt to link shared mental models and

vision, Mumford and Strange (2002) considered

how the former describe collective perceptions

of systems as they currently exist, as opposed to

their potential future state. Their work is in line

with Klimoski and Mohammed (1994) who

suggested that mental models originate in order

to allow individuals to determine the causes

of events and phenomena, thereby helping to

predict future events and courses of action. In

contrast, Mumford and Strange (2002) argued

that shared visions describe collective percep-

tions of systems as they ought to exist in a more

prescriptive mode. Thus, although shared mental

models provide the cognitive foundation, shared

visions ‘‘may represent something more or

something different’’ (Mumford & Strange,

2002, p. 114).

One thing that may distinguish shared vision

from shared mental models is that the former

involves a common emotional commitment on

the part of a collective of individuals. Various

authors have suggested that shared vision

reflects positive emotions, such as hope, exci-

tement, and enthusiasm (Ashkanasy & Daus,

2002; Humphrey, 2002). These emotions help

to maintain the sharing of a vision despite the

ambiguity, setbacks, or fears that might be

faced in its pursuit (Barsade & Gibson, 2007). It

follows that shared vision is oriented toward

emotionally charged ideals or change that pro-

vides personal meaning for leaders and fol-

lowers alike.

Thus, on the basis of the previous discussion,

we define shared vision as a descriptive and

prescriptive mental model for the preponderance

of individuals (i.e., leader and followers) to

whom the vision pertains. Further, shared

vision: (a) provides an agreed-upon image or

understanding of a collective’s future-oriented

direction that is ambitious but acceptable on

the part of followers; and (b) implies wide-

spread emotional commitment and enthusiasm

for carrying it out.

Yet, to a large extent, there is an assumption

in the leadership literature that a vision will

naturally become shared because of a combi-

nation of visionary behaviors or communication

on the part of a hierarchical leader, combined

with favorable attributions toward the leader on

the part of followers (Conger & Kanungo,

1998; Galvin, Waldman, & Balthazard, 2010;

Shamir, 1991). The assumption is that if a

leader engages in visionary behavior or com-

munication as described before, followers will

have confidence in the leader and naturally

coalesce around, and become excited by, his or

her vision, that is, share the vision. We argue

next that this assumption is overly simplistic. It

is quite possible for a formal leader to articulate

a vision that does not become widely shared

among followers, and subsequently, does not

realize significant impact upon important orga-

nizational outcomes.

In sum, we make a distinction between hier-

archical leader vision articulation and shared

vision. With that said, we also consider condi-

tions under which leader vision may indeed

ultimately translate into shared vision. In the

model presented and in what follows, we

provide clarity to visionary leadership by

presenting a balanced view of hierarchical

leaders, followers, and their interaction in

vision formation and sharing processes.

Path 1: The hierarchical leader vision route

In Figure 1 we present a model of visionary

leadership in which the ultimate formation of

shared vision plays a key role. Our focus is at

the level of a relatively independent collective

or unit in which the senior-most, hierarchical

leader, as well as members, can have an impact

on vision formation. The current model and our

discussion have two distinguishing features.

First, through vision articulation, it is possible

for a hierarchical leader to affect shared vision

formation, although we identify aspects of the

context and the leader that are likely to serve

Berson et al. 175

as moderators. Second, unlike previous

research and theory, we suggest that members

of a collective, other than a hierarchical leader,

can have an integral role in the formation of

shared vision. Specifically, through processes

akin to shared leadership (e.g., Pearce & Conger,

2003; Wang, Waldman, & Zhang, 2014) and

through exchanges among leaders and followers,

the input of members into vision formation also

helps to shape shared vision. We refer to the

latter path as a coproduction process. Thus, we

see two possible paths through which shared

vision may be affected.

We first consider a path focusing on the role

of hierarchical leaders. Our model shows that

the vision of a hierarchical leader is only

indirectly linked to the ultimate sharing of

vision. As has been suggested by previous

theory and research (e.g., Kark, Shamir, &

Chen, 2003; Mumford, Antes, Caughron, &

Friedrich, 2008), aspects of collective identifi-

cation are likely to be affected by leader vision.

They involve cognitive and emotional oneness

or alignment with an organization and one’s

leader, respectively (Ashforth, Harrison, & Cor-

ley, 2008; Sluss & Ashforth, 2007). Collective

identification reflects ‘‘the different mechan-

isms through which one’s identity is developed,

maintained, and bounded’’ (Zhang, Chen,

Chen, Liu, & Johnson, 2012, p. 22). Our

theoretical contribution is to show how collec-

tive identification facilitates the effects of

follower-related processes on their involvement

in vision formation, as well as in the creation of

a shared vision. As such, collective identifica-

tion allows for linking the effects of the hier-

archical leader vision and shared vision.

Moreover, we suggest potential moderators of

how leader vision may impact identification. In

a later section, we further delineate identifica-

tion by considering how identification with the

leader role may come into play in the second or

coproduction path shown in Figure 1.

The role of content prototypicality

We draw on concepts from social identification

(Tajfel, 1972) and self-categorization (Turner,

1985) theories, especially with regard to

applications of these approaches to leadership

by Hogg, van Knippenberg, and colleagues

(e.g., Hogg, 2001; Hogg, Hains, & Mason,

1998; D. van Knippenberg et al., 2004; B. van

Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005). Spe-

cifically, we propose that to begin to understand

the link between leader vision and collective

and relational identification, aspects of identi-

fication that have been shown to be both con-

ceptually and empirically correlated (Sluss &

Ashforth, 2008; Zhang et al., 2012), we must

Shared leadership

P3

P4

P5 P6

Collective identification

P1

P2

Hierarchical leader vision

Content prototypicality

Deontic leader

fairness

Leader– member

collective exchanges

Shared vision

Organizational members

involvement in vision formation

Visionary leader role

identification on the part of

organizational members

Figure 1. Alternative paths toward shared vision.

176 Organizational Psychology Review 6(2)

first understand the role of content proto-

typicality of the leader’s vision. Managers are

more likely to be viewed as fulfilling leadership

roles in collectives to the extent that they, and

their values, are prototypical of the existing

collective identity of an organizational unit

(e.g., Hogg, 2010; Hogg et al., 1998; D. van

Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003). Collectives may

form prototypes around a variety of themes or

values, such as client/customer service, fairness

or concern for employees, innovation, and even

survival and beating the competition. Processes

such as conformity occur when members share

a common prototype, or in Hogg’s terms, have

an ‘‘ingroup prototype’’ (Hogg, 2001, p. 200).

Extensive research provides support for these

arguments (e.g., Hogg, 2010; Hogg et al., 1998;

D. van Knippenberg et al., 2004).

Thus, we argue that on the basis of social

identity theory, a leader can use vision to

reinforce an ideal prototype that strengthens the

shared representations of members, while sup-

planting, to some degree, their personal iden-

tities. Leaders use visions to portray an ideal

state that members would aspire to achieve

(Bass, 1985; Shamir et al., 1993). In other

words, a leader’s vision can foster identification

when it includes images of the ideal proto-

typical state of the collective, thereby serving to

strengthen members’ identification with that

collective. One would expect a stronger match-

ing with prototypes when leaders use content

in their visions that is more consistent with

members’ existing concerns or expectations for

the collective. Thus, visions support the social

self (defined by ‘‘we’’), or in social identifica-

tion terms, can lead somewhat to the deperso-

nalization of the self-categorization of members

(Haslam & Platow, 2001; Hogg, 2001).

In short, we contend that through the espousal

of vision, a leader may capture and strengthen

the values, concerns, or foresight that already

exist throughout the collective or organization,

that is, by representing the prototypes of

members in the content of his or her vision. As

such, vision can serve as social glue shifting

followers’ self-categorization to focus on col-

lective, rather than their personal, identities

(Tajfel, 1972; van Vugt & Hart, 2004). Visions

can support or strengthen a collective identity

by providing members with contextualized

information or cues that increase the salience of

what is held in common (e.g., values) among

them. Members, in turn, determine the proto-

typicality of the content of the vision by asses-

sing the degree to which the message represents

idealized characteristics of the organization,

with which they can identify (Giessner & van

Knippenberg, 2008).

Prototypicality should also help to link

leader vision to a stronger sense of identifica-

tion with the leader him or herself. Followers

will want to identify personally with leaders

who are prototypical of their collectives. It may

also be that the ideological leaders depicted by

Mumford et al. (2008) will tend to use vision in

the manner described here in order to appeal to

like-minded followers. In short, when there is a

match between leader vision and content pro-

totypicality of that vision, organizational mem-

bers’ sense of identification, with both the leader

and the collective, is likely to be enhanced.

Hence, we propose that:

Proposition 1: The relationship between

leader vision and collective identification

will be moderated by content prototypicality

of the leader’s vision. Hierarchical leader

vision characterized by content that is consis-

tent with the idealized prototype of the orga-

nization held by members will yield stronger

collective identification, as compared with a

nonprototypical vision.

The moderating effect of deontic leader fairness

As depicted in Figure 1, we view deontic leader

fairness, and the underlying beliefs and values

that constitute it, to be key in understanding

how shared vision might form through the

interplay between formal leaders and other

Berson et al. 177

organizational members. Despite the immense

interest in fairness and justice, more attention is

needed to leader fairness (D. van Knippenberg,

De Cremer, & van Knippenberg, 2007), and in

particular missing is work on the role of

leader fairness in visionary leadership (D. van

Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013). When it comes

to facilitating the effects of leader vision on

collective identification, we believe that deon-

tic fairness is of special importance.

The concept of deontic fairness (Folger,

2001) has recently gained interest in the orga-

nizational psychology literature (e.g., Mitchell,

Vogel, & Folger, 2014; Reich & Hershcovis,

2015; Skarlicki & Rupp, 2010). Deontic fair-

ness has to do with ‘‘the motivational conse-

quences instigated when people react to others

who violate . . . the moral norms of interpersonal conduct’’ (Folger, 2001, p. 6). Individuals

motivated by deontic fairness emphasize plur-

alistic rather than egotistic motivation and a

sense of duty and obligation to social norms,

rights, and morals (Reich & Hershcovis, 2015).

As such, deontic fairness differs from classic

forms of justice, such as distributive, proce-

dural, and interactional justice, that have been

associated with effective leadership (cf. D. van

Knippenberg et al., 2007). That is, these more

classic forms of justice deal with self-serving

needs of followers, while deontic fairness is

more oriented toward followers’ perceptions of

whether the needs of others are being justly

met. Yet, deontic fairness may be especially

relevant for visionary leaders who attempt to set

values and expectations at a higher level,

beyond the needs of individual organizational

members (Shamir et al., 1993).

As implied by deontic fairness, leaders will

attempt to do what is right to set norms and

expectations for the collective. When followers

view their leader’s motivation as deontic, they

are more likely to appreciate the vision of the

leader as more powerful in terms of its effects

on collective identification. Such a vision will

be seen as more socially responsible in its

emphasis on the betterment of the collective

entity and various stakeholder groups. Although

we know little about deontic leader motivation,

leader fairness in general has been linked with

several positive outcomes such as commitment

and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB),

and is an aspect of ethical leadership (Brown &

Trevino, 2006; D. van Knippenberg et al.,

2007).

Leaders who deemphasize deontic motives,

on the other hand, may pursue individual deal-

making to achieve perceptions of fairness,

specifically on the part of in-group members, or

be motivated by personal benefit to achieve

personal goals. Such leaders are less likely to

broadly demonstrate care for others, or dis-

play authenticity in terms of aligning actions

and words (W. L. Gardner & Avolio, 1998;

Greenbaum, Mawritz, & Piccolo, 2015). To date,

work on deontic motivation has focused on fol-

lower responses to abusive leaders (Mitchell

et al., 2014), but has not examined leader

motives. Drawing from work on leader per-

sonalized orientation, we expect that such

leaders will tend to aggrandize their own

personal image and accomplishment, rather

than the purpose of furthering the greater goals

of the collective. They will orchestrate those

events and their aftermath to symbolize their

own greatness (W. L. Gardner & Avolio, 1998),

and they will emphasize allegiance to them-

selves (i.e., especially with in-group members),

rather than the greater collective (Hogan,

Curphy, & Hogan, 1994).

Despite these differences in deontic moti-

vation, leaders who are both high and low on

deontic fairness may be capable of espousing

vision. However, we argue that vision coupled

with a more deontic orientation is more likely to

achieve collective identification. Such a leader

is further likely to get members to believe that

as a leader, he or she truly has the interests of

the greater collective at heart when the leader

espouses vision.

A different picture is likely to emerge for a

leader who is low on deontic motivation. Many

organizational members, especially those who

178 Organizational Psychology Review 6(2)

do not feel like they are part of the in-group,

will tend to be more suspicious about the

leader’s motives and hence less eager to iden-

tify with the leader’s vision. Such a vision

might not stress mutual or collective efforts as

much as a vision of a leader who espouses

deontic fairness. In addition, the lack of emphasis

on deontic justice may engender less positive

perceptions and attributions over time regarding

the leader and his/her vision. In sum:

P2: The relationship between leader vision

and collective identification will be moder-

ated by the leader deontic fairness. Visions

of leaders who are high on deontic fairness

will yield greater collective identification,

as compared with visions of leaders with less

deontic motivation.

In addition to moderating the effects of

leader vision on collective identity, we expect

leader deontic fairness to also moderate the

effect of the leader vision on members’ visionary

leader role identification. Leader role identity is

‘‘the sub-component of one’s identity that relates

to being a leader or how one thinks of oneself as

a leader’’ (Day & Harrison, 2007, p. 365). More

specifically, it reflects an internalized state

whereby an individual incorporates the leader

role into his or her self-concept (Waldman,

Galvin, & Walumbwa, 2012). Ashforth and

Mael (1996) predicted that occupational and

role-based identities, such as leader role identity,

would take on increasing importance in man-

agement research.

Shin and Zhou (2007, p. 1711) suggested

that ‘‘external intervention can facilitate a

team’s development of shared and distributed

leadership capacity.’’ In other words, it is pos-

sible for formal or hierarchical leaders to

have an impact on the capacity of followers to

engage in leadership. A likely first step in this

direction is the enhancement of leader role

identification on the part of followers. Role

modeling may represent an important mechan-

ism through which the vision of the leader

helps followers to identify with the leader role

(Bandura, 1986, 1999). Followers of visionary

leaders with deontic justice motives are likely

to emulate their leaders and view them as

mentors and role models (Bass, 1985). Through

such effects on followers, leaders are likely to

garner favorable follower attention and seem

attractive or credible, which is essential for

role modeling processes (Brown, Trevino, &

Harrison, 2005; Wood & Bandura, 1989). Fur-

thermore, they are likely to give off cues that

individuals other than themselves must also

take responsibility for the leader role. That is,

followers may be challenged to look at the

narrow boundaries of their own jobs, and thus

reevaluate their own potential for leadership.

Whereas the direct effect of leader vision on

role identification on behalf of organizational

members can be derived from the charismatic

leadership literature (Bass, 1985), herein we

emphasize the moderating role of deontic

leader fairness on this relationship. Specifi-

cally, we expect that the vision of leaders who

display deontic motivation will yield more or

broader role modeling on behalf of their fol-

lowers, as compared with visions of leaders

who show less pluralistic motivations. When

the leader shows deontic fairness, his or her

vision will be more powerful in terms of its

effects on leader role identification.

In total, these arguments suggest that

P3: Deontic leader fairness will moderate the

effects of the leader vision on visionary

leader role identification on the part of orga-

nizational members.

Coproduction path: The role of organizational members in creating shared vision

Conger and Kanungo (1998, p. 142) purported

that ‘‘the ‘visionary leader’ is more mythology

than reality,’’ and to a large extent, the leader’s

role is to capture the foresight that often exists

throughout a collective. Indeed, there is

Berson et al. 179

evidence to suggest that vision formation can,

and oftentimes should, be more of a process

involving multiple individuals, rather than a

single leader in isolation (Nanus, 1992; Pearce

& Ensley, 2004; Yukl, 2002). In a similar vein,

Senge (1990) stated that broader involvement

would allow for the building of a common

vision based upon personal visions of individ-

uals, thus fostering energy and commitment.

More recent studies of shared leadership sup-

port each of these lines of reasoning (e.g.,

Ensley, Hmieleski, & Pearce, 2006; Pearce &

Sims, 2002). In line with this thinking, we

outline next the role of members of the collec-

tive, partially driven and moderated by the

leader, in the formation of a shared vision.

Organizational member involvement in vision formation

The antecedents of shared leadership in general,

and follower involvement in vision formation

more specifically, are not altogether clear (Yam-

marino et al., 2012). As a general principle, when

one identifies with a particular role, it results in

behaviors that are aligned with that particular

identification (Thatcher & Zhu, 2006). Accord-

ingly, we would expect that when members

identify with the leader role, there will be more of

a tendency to get involved in vision formation.

Manz and Sims (2001) posited a model of lead-

ership that emphasized leader empowerment of

followers as the critical ingredient in the devel-

opment of followers into self-leaders. Bligh,

Pearce, and Kohles (2006) built on this work and

purported that trust and confidence were pre-

cursors of shared leadership in groups. Further,

they described self-leadership as the fundamental

expression of leader role identification and inex-

tricably linked to shared leadership.

When a leader conveys a vision that appeals

to followers, he or she does so by largely

increasing their identification with the leader

him or herself, as well as with the greater col-

lective (Kark et al., 2003; Shamir et al., 1993).

We argue here that such identification will

ultimately manifest itself in followers’ moti-

vation to share a vision. Reicher, Haslam, and

Hopkins (2005) described how a leader can

help to form a shared vision by first engender-

ing a sense of unity by, for example, stressing

language emphasizing ‘‘we’’ versus ‘‘I’’ and the

inclusion of a broad spectrum of organizational

members. This process of social identity instan-

tiation leads to a shared social identity without

which members are not as likely to take part in

the formation of shared vision (Reicher et al.,

2005). Only when individuals feel a ‘‘sense of

we-ness,’’ will they be ready to act as a col-

lective (Haslam, Eggins, & Reynolds, 2003, p.

88). That is, when members feel like they are

part of a collective identity, they are more likely

to identify with the goals of the collective and

perceive coping with its challenges as their own

purpose at work.

While the direct effects of collective identifi-

cation have been addressed by both the charisma

literature (e.g., Shamir et al., 1993) and leader

social identity theory (e.g., Reicher et al., 2005),

in this paper we argue that collective identifica-

tion may also be an important moderator of the

effects of members’ leader role identification on

their involvement in vision formation. As dis-

cussed before, when followers internalize the

leader role, they are more prone to be involved in

typical leader activities such as crafting a vision.

Building on construal-level theory (Trope &

Liberman, 2010), we expect that such members

will be able to construe their roles in the organi-

zation at a higher level than members who are

‘‘followers’’ (Berson, Halevy, Shamir, & Erez,

2015). Such construal is necessary for vision

formation, as visions tend to be broad, appeal to

large audiences, and are future-oriented (Berson

et al., 2001; Berson & Halevy, 2014).

We expect these effects to be enhanced

when members have collective identification.

In fact, collective identification may be viewed

as a higher self-construal. Individuals who see

themselves as part of a collective are more

likely to have a broader view of their roles and

the goals of their organization than those who

180 Organizational Psychology Review 6(2)

do not identify with the collective. Following

this rationale, when organizational members

have collective identification, they are more

likely to translate their leader role identification

to involvement in vision formation.

In short:

P4: Collective identification will moderate the

effects of visionary leader role identification

on members’ involvement in vision formation.

Figure 1 also depicts an indirect relationship

between follower involvement in vision creation

and the formation of shared vision through

leader–member collective exchange. Specifi-

cally, we argue that a leader and followers

together construct and negotiate a shared vision.

In order for this to happen, however, followers

must be involved in vision formation. When

followers are involved, they have a better

understanding of a vision and its meaning.

Moreover, they are more likely to develop a

common emotional commitment to realizing

the vision. Through both a better understanding

of, and strong commitment to the vision, mem-

bers will be more likely to accept or share it.

Indeed, forming a shared vision involves

input from both followers and leaders. This

rationale builds directly on Burns’s (1978)

notion of transforming leadership. In his semi-

nal book, Burns (1978, p. 20) noted that trans-

forming leadership occurs ‘‘when one or more

persons engage with others in such a way that

leaders and follower raise one another to higher

levels of motivation.’’ He goes on to say that

collective purpose requires leaders and fol-

lowers to depend on each other. Not only fol-

lowers adjust to leaders, but ‘‘leaders may

modify their leadership in recognition of fol-

lowers’ preferences, or in order to anticipate

followers’ responses’’ (p. 426). Building on

Burns’s (1978) work, we recognize the impor-

tance of followers realizing the importance of

change and being involved in vision formation,

which will ultimately help engender shared

vision. Relatedly, Eisenhardt (1989) found that

top management teams that engage in dynamic,

healthy dialogue around the strategy of the firm

are more likely to achieve a common under-

standing of the strategic direction of the firm

and be more committed to it.

Stated differently, we propose that the hier-

archical leader may articulate his or her over-

arching vision and simultaneously pursue a

dialogue that allows followers to shape and

focus that vision (Pearce, 2008). In this manner,

the hierarchical leader would be practicing the

principle of advocacy combined with inquiry,

as espoused by Senge (1990). That is, Senge

suggested that to attain ultimate commitment to

a vision, as opposed to mere compliance, a

leader will inquire about whether an initial

vision put forth by that leader can be modified

or enhanced by followers. Similarly, Yukl

(1999, p. 292) stated that more research is

needed on how leaders might ‘‘encourage fol-

lowers to challenge the leader’s vision or

develop a better one.’’ We should note that true

challenges can only occur when a relatively

broad range of followers and their ideas are

brought into the process, rather than simply

relying on a narrow set of in-group members.

In short, these arguments would suggest that,

perhaps somewhat paradoxically, shared vision

formation might best be viewed as both top-

down and bottom-up processes. A high-level

leader may espouse or ‘‘float’’ a vision down-

ward, which then gets refined through lower

organizational levels before being returned to the

leader. Indeed, to help ensure against a potential

‘‘watering down’’ of the initial vision, an itera-

tive process may ensue of multiple back-and-

forth communication and refinement of vision.

It is possible that through this exchange,

leaders and followers could conceivably take

strong advocacy positions, attempting to con-

vince or even beat down the arguments, values,

or visions of others (Conger & Pearce, 2003).

We expect advocacy combined with inquiry

processes to yield the type of overlapping,

rather than identical or uniform, visions to

which we alluded earlier and will be described

Berson et al. 181

in more depth in what follows. As an example,

Southwest Airlines is known for having a

shared vision that includes such values as

cooperation and customer orientation. How-

ever, employees have the freedom to pursue the

company’s vision according to personal idio-

syncrasies. Specifically, some employees may

use a high degree of levity or unconventional

behavior, while others are allowed to be more

staid or serious. In line with this example, the

work of Burke, Fiore, and Salas (2003) would

suggest the connections between shared lead-

ership processes and overlapping, mental

models of team members as important ingre-

dients in team adaptability.

Another theoretical path to explain this

exchange between leaders and followers may

come from the work on leadership identity

construction process (DeRue & Ashford, 2010).

Building on classic work by Goffman (1959)

and others, they argue that people engage in

‘‘identity work,’’ in which they form, repair,

maintain, and revise their identity. They argue

that individuals may claim or grant a follower

or a leader identity. Borrowing from these ideas,

one can view the vision-building process as a

collective exchange among leaders and fol-

lowers in which each party contributes to vision

formation by maintaining, repairing, or revising

aspects of the vision. As with identity building,

vision creation blurs the identity of leaders and

followers. Both parties may grant and claim

different roles, a process that makes vision-

building more egalitarian and truly shared.

In total, the previous arguments would sug-

gest that leader and member collective invol-

vement in vision formation is a key element of

achieving shared vision. Specifically:

P5: Member involvement in vision formation

will lead to member and leader participation

in a collective vision-building exchange.

P6: Collective exchanges between a leader

and members will ultimately result in the for-

mation of a shared vision.

Additional considerations and implications

We have presented a theoretical model of the

formation of shared vision in a collective.

While the vision of a hierarchical leader plays a

role in the formation of shared vision among

organizational members, a distinction can be

made between the two. A key message in our

model is that effective, shared vision is most

likely to be achieved when shared leadership

processes are occurring, involving input into

vision formation on the part of members of a

collective, beyond the formal or hierarchical

leader. In the remainder of this paper, we will

discuss caveats regarding our model and research

and practical implications.

Caveats regarding the proposed model

We should acknowledge some caveats relevant

to our model. First, given the coproduction

emphasis of our model, there is at least the

possibility that in the pursuit of shared vision,

less bold vision might result because of the

need to satisfy the political concerns of multiple

individuals or groups (Locke, 2003). In turn,

such ‘‘watered-down’’ visions could, at least to

a degree, have a negative impact on certain

outcomes, such as organizational learning. In

reality, collectives are often faced with the need

for learning that is more clearly oriented toward

radical change or exploration (Vera & Crossan,

2004). Furthermore, it is possible to have a

vision that is simply wrong and guides people

in a counterproductive manner (Finkelstein,

Hambrick, & Cannella, 2008). For example, a

leader’s vision may stress certain values or

direction favoring a certain stakeholder group

or socialized cause (e.g., environmental con-

cerns), while overlooking other issues critical

for the success of the greater collective. On the

other hand, there is evidence that a shared

vision enables quick conflict resolution, and it

hastens the decision-making process (Chen,

Lin, & Michel, 2010).

182 Organizational Psychology Review 6(2)

Second, we acknowledge that our model

may be more relevant to followers who display

certain characteristics. Specifically, self-concept

clarity involves the extent to which the con-

tent of an individual’s self-concept is defined

both clearly and confidently (Campbell, 1990;

Howell & Shamir, 2005). As noted by Howell

and Shamir (2005), when followers have high

self-concept clarity, they are likely to want to

exercise greater independent judgment and

critical thinking, while accepting key compo-

nents of leader vision that align well with

their own self-concepts. In short, followers

with high self-concept clarity have a strong

motivation for self-expression in the pursuit of

a collective vision. In contrast, followers with

low self-concept clarity are less likely to have

their own clear set of values, and they do not

exercise independent judgment. As such, they

are highly susceptible to whatever vision is

espoused by the leader, perhaps especially

personalized leaders (Howell & Shamir, 2005),

as opposed to usurping their own individual

manifestations or interpretations of vision. In

other words, instead of inserting their own

ideas or values into vision formation, we expect

them to be more prone to uniformly accept

the vision presented by the leader.

In addition to self-concept clarity, other

individual differences among followers may

make them less receptive to the vision of the

hierarchical leader. For example a recent study

demonstrated that a vision characterized by

promotion (vs. prevention) values would be

more appealing to individuals who are chroni-

cally high on such values (Stam et al., 2010).

Another important source of individual differ-

ences may be followers’ own visions for the

collective. That is, shared vision might be very

difficult when the individual visions of mem-

bers are widely divergent. In short, whereas in

this paper we emphasize the role of the leader’s

vision in the process of shared vision formation

and allude to leader and followers’ interactions

in vision formation, we do not address the role

of individual differences among followers.

Although beyond the scope of the current the-

ory development, individual differences among

followers are highly relevant for vision crafting

and should be addressed in future theoretical

and empirical work.

Third, we should note that the development

of shared vision on the part of existing members

of a collective represents only one possible

process. Another possibility is that shared vision

can be achieved through attrition and selection

processes. That is, instead of emphasizing

processes such as organizational member input,

shared vision might be achieved alternatively

through personnel attrition and selection

designed to form a greater congruence between

leader and follower values. Such congruence

follows from the attraction–selection–attrition

(ASA) model proposed by Schneider (1987). In

line with that model, followers (perhaps espe-

cially those at higher management levels) will

be attracted to, selected by, and retained in a

collective when their beliefs and values are in

line with the entity’s founder or current top

executive (Schneider, 1987; Schneider, Smith,

Taylor, & Fleenor, 1998). In turn, shared values

resulting from ASA processes might form the

basis of shared vision. It might be interesting to

compare the shared vision that results from the

leadership processes described in our model,

versus shared vision that results more on the

basis of ASA. That is, research might examine

which of these processes is most viable in terms

of producing shared rather than uniform vision,

as well as yielding favorable outcomes.

Research implications

The measurement of shared vision represents a

key research challenge relevant to our model.

One possibility is to measure the actual exis-

tence of a shared vision. It could be argued that

shared vision represents a perceptual process,

thus necessitating survey measures. However,

with few exceptions (e.g., Ensley & Pearce, 2001;

Jansen, George, van den Bosch, & Volberda,

2008), we are aware of little research that has

Berson et al. 183

attempted to directly assess the extent to which a

vision is perceptually shared among followers.

The work of Kozlowski and Klein (2000) deal-

ing with levels of analysis issues is relevant to

research of this nature. They proposed that

‘‘bottom-up processes’’ portray how lower level

properties emerge to form collective phenomena

(Kozlowski & Klein, 2000, p. 15). Relevant

to the concept of shared vision, it is possible

for emergence to occur through compilation,

whereby there is theoretical reason to believe

that lower level properties may sometimes

emerge in a discontinuous manner. The result is

a collective-level phenomenon with configural

properties. Kozlowski and Klein (2000) described

how unit properties conceptualized in configural

terms are relatively rare in the organizational

literature, although they are not rare in actual

organizations. More specifically, they noted that

according to dispersion theory, nonuniform

phenomena characterized by potential disagree-

ment, competition, coalition formation, and so

forth, may indeed be quite common.

The extent of shared vision is one such

example. As a potential configural construct,

we propose that it is appropriate to examine

variability indices, such as those examined by

Ensley and Pearce (2001). For instance, in a

particular collective, a researcher might inquire

as to the extent to which a given vision (perhaps

associated with an ongoing change process) is

shared by various members of the collective.

According to some of our previous reasoning,

variability, or lack of shared vision, might be

negatively predictive of the realization of

organizational learning through absorptive

capacity. We should note that research of this

nature can become complex for two reasons.

First, people in lower level units are nested

within higher level units, thus necessitating the

sampling of individuals in different subunits or

at different hierarchical levels (Kozlowski &

Klein, 2000). Second, too much homogeneity,

without concomitant flexibility and autonomy,

might not be beneficial. In other words, it may

be necessary for researchers to simultaneously

assess the degree of variability pertaining to

key values, while also examining the extent to

which individuals or subunits of a collective are

granted flexibility in terms of their respective

pursuit of such values.

Implications for managers

Practicing managers have been inundated with

advice on how to become better leaders. Much

of this advice deals with how and why they

should be more visionary/inspirational (e.g.,

Conger, 1999). At the same time, managers

may be aware of more recent recommendations

for sharing leadership with followers (e.g.,

Pearce, 2008; Pearce & Conger, 2003). The

present model provides a framework for con-

sidering the importance of both streams of

advice.

Specifically, we show how, through their

own visionary leadership, formal or hierarchical

leaders may be able to begin the process of

shared vision formation. On the other hand, we

caution managers that the espousal or commu-

nication of vision does not guarantee that it will

be commonly shared in terms of emotional

commitment or sense of enthusiasm for carry-

ing it out. As such, leaders should be concerned

for how their visions fit within existing values

and beliefs of the collective, as well as the

extent to which those visions are based on

deontic justice, rather than self-serving justice

of targeted members (e.g., in-group members)

or even personalized agendas of leaders. To be

ultimately shared widely, visions should be

more about the benefits for broadly defined

stakeholder groups, and less about the more

narrow ambitions of favored members or the

leader.

The inclusion of both hierarchical and

shared visionary leadership in our model has

several implications for leadership training.

First, although training programs often include

vision crafting modules (e.g., Frese et al.,

2003), such programs tend to focus on leaders

or potential leaders. In line with our model,

184 Organizational Psychology Review 6(2)

leadership training should involve both leaders

and followers who together are critical for the

successful formation of a shared vision. Sec-

ond, while these programs demonstrate the

importance of content and delivery aspects of

visionary leadership (Frese et al., 2003), future

leadership development efforts could also

emphasize how to reinforce values and vision

that are somewhat prototypical of an organiza-

tion. That is, leaders could be trained to use

vision to strengthen the values, concerns, or

foresight that already exists throughout an

organization, while simultaneously promoting

change and new vision. Finally, a practical

outcome of having followers participate in

building shared visionary leadership is the

positive effect on their motivation. Training

programs that involve followers would poten-

tially increase awareness of their essential role

in crafting a shared vision, as well as their

understanding of the potential outcomes of

sharing a vision for the organization.

Our model also depicts how shared, vision-

ary leadership processes may evolve. For

managers seeking the ultimate attainment of a

new vision for their organizations, we suggest a

serious consideration of the type of shared

leadership processes outlined here. At the same

time, we recognize that both of the paths to

shared vision identified in our model pivot on

the notion of a deontic justice orientation on the

part of hierarchical leaders. Leaders with a low

orientation toward deontic justice are not likely

to inspire shared vision; nor are they likely to see

the value or need for pursuing shared leadership.

Moreover, they may also view the latter as a

risky process since their own visions could be

significantly modified. Accordingly, organiza-

tions might focus more attention on leadership

selection in order to de-select those with a

low deontic justice orientation (Awamleh &

Gardner, 1999; W. L. Gardner & Avolio, 1998).

In addition, Brown and Trevino (2006) sug-

gested that organizations may want to provide

ethics training for leaders to help instill values

pertaining to social responsibility.

As mentioned earlier, the principle of

advocacy combined with inquiry (Senge, 1990)

may provide insight for hierarchical leaders

seeking to be both visionary and to engage the

shared leadership capacity of followers. Spe-

cifically, the leader can present visionary ideas,

while simultaneously providing a structure or

process for shared leadership to emerge and

flourish. For example, Nanus (1992) provided

specific mechanisms relevant to shared leader-

ship, such as setting up a vision task force with

information collection and advisory responsi-

bilities regarding the long-term direction of

the firm. We caution, however, that shared

leadership processes are inherently more time-

intensive, thereby potentially delaying ulti-

mate learning and change (Conger & Pearce,

2003; Pearce, 2008). Moreover, as noted

before, they could lead to less bold visions and

change efforts (Locke, 2003).

The current model also suggests that hier-

archical leaders would be wise to gauge the

extent to which espoused visions actually

become shared. It is likely that many leaders

overestimate the actual degree to which visions

are shared by members of a collective. We

suggest that periodic survey efforts, such as that

employed by Ensley and Pearce (2001), might

be conducted in an attempt to gauge just how

shared a vision actually is.

Such efforts could also ascertain the exis-

tence of forces (e.g., autonomy and flexibility)

that might counterbalance any tendencies toward

strict uniformity of vision. Thus, while it may

behoove managers to strive for shared vision, at

the same time, individuals should be allowed

flexibility in terms of how they are encouraged

and rewarded for their contributions to the for-

mation and implementation of vision.

Conclusion

We have attempted to shed theoretical light on

the formation of shared vision in collectives.

Specifically, we identified how multiple paths

to shared vision might be realized, and we

Berson et al. 185

specified the contribution of the hierarchical

leader, as well as the role of other members of a

collective in vision formation. Clearly, these

issues deserve more theoretical and empirical

attention, perhaps especially how shared vision

may oftentimes be effectively coproduced by

both hierarchical leaders and followers. In

addition, we encourage research examining the

potential outcomes of shared vision.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of inter-

est with respect to the research, authorship, and/or

publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the

research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Ashforth, B., Harrison, S., & Corley, K. G. (2008).

Identification in organizations: An examination

of four fundamental questions. Journal of Man-

agement, 34, 325–374.

Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. A. (1996). Organiza-

tional identity and strategy as a context for the

individual. In J. A. C. Baum & J. E. Dutton (Eds.),

Advances in strategic management (Vol. 13, pp.

19–64). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Ashkanasy, N. M., & Daus, C. S. (2002). Emotion in

the workplace: The new challenge for managers.

Academy of Management Executive, 16, 76–86.

Awamleh, R., & Gardner, W. L. (1999). Perceptions

of leader charisma and effectiveness: The effects

of vision content, delivery, and organizational

performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 10,

345–374.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought

and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of per-

sonality. Handbook of Personality, 2, 154–196.

Barsade, S. G., & Gibson, D. E. (2007). Why does

affect matter in organizations? Academy of

Management Perspectives, 21, 36–59.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance

beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free Press.

Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2008). The Bass handbook

of leadership. New York, NY: Free Press.

Baum, J. R., Locke, E. A., & Kirkpatrick, S. A.

(1998). A longitudinal study of the relation of

vision and vision communication to venture

growth in entrepreneurial firms. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 83, 43–54.

Berson, Y., Da’as, R., & Waldman, D. (2015). How

do leaders and their teams bring about organiza-

tional learning and outcomes? Personnel Psy-

chology, 68, 79–108.

Berson, Y., & Halevy, N. (2014). Hierarchy, leader-

ship, and construal fit. Journal of Experimental

Psychology: Applied, 20, 232–246.

Berson, Y., Halevy, N., Shamir, B., & Erez, M.

(2015). Leading from different psychological dis-

tances: A construal-level perspective on vision

communication, goal setting, and follower moti-

vation. The Leadership Quarterly, 26, 143–155.

Berson, Y., Nemanich, L. A., Waldman, D. A.,

Galvin, B., & Keller, R. T. (2006). Leadership

and organizational learning: A multiple levels per-

spective. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 577–594.

Berson, Y., Shamir, B., Avolio, B. J., & Popper, M.

(2001). The relationship between vision strength,

leadership style, and context. The Leadership

Quarterly, 12, 53–73.

Bligh, M., Pearce, C. L., & Kohles, J. (2006). The

importance of self and shared leadership in team

based knowledge work: Toward a meso-level

model of leadership dynamics. Journal of Man-

agerial Psychology, 21(4), 296–318.

Brown, M. E., & Trevino, L. K. (2006). Ethical

leadership: A review and future directions. The

Leadership Quarterly, 17, 595–616.

Brown, M. E., Trevino, L. K., & Harrison, D. A.

(2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning per-

spective for construct development and testing.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 97, 117–134.

Burke, C. S., Fiore, S. M., & Salas, E. (2003). The

role of shared cognition in enabling shared lead-

ership and team adaptability. In C. L. Pearce &

J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing

186 Organizational Psychology Review 6(2)

the hows and whys of leadership (pp. 103–122).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY:

Harper & Row.

Campbell, J. D. (1990). Self-esteem and clarity of the

self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 59, 538–549.

Chen, M. J., Lin, H. C., & Michel, J. G. (2010). Navi-

gating in a hypercompetitive environment: The

roles of action aggressiveness and TMT integration.

Strategic Management Journal, 31, 1410–1430.

Conger, J. A. (1999). Charismatic and transforma-

tional leadership in organizations: An insider’s

perspective on these developing streams of

research. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 145–179.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. (1998). Charismatic

leadership in organizations. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Conger, J. A., & Pearce, C. L. (2003). A landscape of

opportunities: Future research on shared leader-

ship. In C. L. Pearce & J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared

leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of lead-

ership (pp. 285–303). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Day, D. V. (2000). Leadership development: A review

in context. The Leadership Quarterly, 11, 581–613.

Day, D. V., Gronn, P., & Salas, E. (2004). Leadership

capacity in teams. The Leadership Quarterly, 15,

857–880.

Day, D. V., & Harrison, M. M. (2007). A multilevel,

identity-based approach to leadership develop-

ment. Human Resource Management Review,

17, 360–373.

De Hoogh, A. H. B., den Hartog, D. N., Koopman,

P. L., Thierry, H., van den Berg, P. T., van der

Weide, J. G., & Wilderom, C. P. M. (2004).

Charismatic leadership, environmental dynamism,

and performance. European Journal of Work and

Organizational Psychology, 13, 447–471.

DeRue, D. S., & Ashford, S. J. (2010). Who will

lead and who will follow? A social process

of leadership identity construction in organiza-

tions. Academy of Management Review, 35,

627–647.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from

case study research. Academy of Management

Review, 14, 532–550.

Ensley, M. D., Hmieleski, K. M., & Pearce, C. L.

(2006). The importance of vertical and shared

leadership within new venture top management

teams: Implications for the performance of start-

ups. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 217–231.

Ensley, M. D., & Pearce, C. L. (2001). Shared cogni-

tion in top management teams: Implications for

new venture performance. Journal of Organiza-

tional Behavior, 22, 145–160.

Finkelstein, S., Hambrick, D. C., & Cannella, A. A.

(2008). Strategic leadership: Theory and research

on executives, top management teams, and boards.

Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Folger, R. (2001). Fairness as deonance. In S. W.

Gilliland, D. D. Steiner, & D. P. Skarlicki (Eds.),

Research in social issues in management (pp.

3–31). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Frese, M., Beimel, S., & Schoenborn, S. (2003).

Action training for charismatic leadership: Two

evaluations of studies of a commercial training

module on inspirational communication of a

vision. Personnel Psychology, 56, 671–698.

Galvin, B., Waldman, D. A., & Balthazard, P. A.

(2010). Visionary communication qualities as

mediators of the relationship between narcissism

and follower perceptions of charismatic leader-

ship. Personnel Psychology, 63, 509–537.

Gardner, H. K., Gino, F., & Staats, B. R. (2012).

Dynamically integrating knowledge in teams:

Transforming resources into performance. Acad-

emy of Management Journal, 55, 998–1022.

Gardner, W. L., & Avolio, B. J. (1998). The charis-

matic relationship: A dramaturgical perspective.

Academy of Management Review, 23, 32–58.

Giessner, S. R., & van Knippenberg, D. (2008).

‘‘License to fail’’: Goal definition, leader group

prototypicality, and perceptions of leadership effec-

tiveness after leader failure. Organizational Beha-

vior and Human Decision Processes, 105, 14–35.

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in

everyday life. Garden City, NY: Double Day.

Greenbaum, R. L., Mawritz, M. B., & Piccolo, R. F.

(2015). When leaders fail to ‘‘walk the talk’’:

Supervisor undermining and perceptions of

leader hypocrisy. Journal of Management, 41,

929–956.

Berson et al. 187

Greer, L. L., Homan, A. C., De Hoogh, A. H. B., &

Den Hartog, D. N. (2012). Tainted visions: The

effect of visionary leader behaviors and leader

categorization tendencies on the financial perfor-

mance of ethnically diverse teams. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 97, 203–213.

Halevy, N., Berson, Y., & Galinsky, A. D. (2011).

The mainstream is not electable: When vision tri-

umphs over representativeness in leader emer-

gence and effectiveness. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 37, 893–904.

Haslam, S. A., Eggins, R. A., & Reynolds, K. J.

(2003). The ASPIRe model: Actualizing social

and personal identity resources to enhance orga-

nizational outcomes. Journal of Occupational

and Organizational Psychology, 76, 83–113.

Haslam, S., & Platow, M. J. (2001). Your wish is our

command: The role of shared social identity in

translating a leader’s vision into followers’

action. In M. A. Hogg & D. J. Terry (Eds.), Social

identity processes in organizational contexts (pp.

213–228). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

Hitt, M. A., & Ireland, R. A. (2002). The essence of

strategic leadership: Managing human and social

capital. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 9,

3–14.

Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What

we know about leadership effectiveness and per-

sonality. American Psychologist, 49, 493–504.

Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of

leadership. Personality and Social Psychology

Review, 5, 184–200.

Hogg, M. A. (2010). Influence and leadership. In S.

T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & L. Gardner (Eds.),

Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., pp.

1167–1207). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Hogg, M. A., Hains, S. C., & Mason, I. (1998). Iden-

tification and leadership in small groups:

Salience, frame of reference, and leader stereoty-

picality effects on leader evaluations. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 75,

1248–1263.

Howell, J. M., & Shamir, B. (2005). The role of fol-

lowers in the charismatic leadership process:

Relationships and their consequences. Academy

of Management Review, 30, 96–112.

Humphrey, R. H. (2002). The many faces of emo-

tional leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 13,

493–504.

Hybels, B. (2002). Courageous leadership. Grand

Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Jansen, J. J. P., George, G., van den Bosch, F. A. J., &

Volberda, H. W. (2008). Senior team attributes

and organizational ambidexterity: The moderat-

ing role of transformational leadership. Journal

of Management Studies, 45, 982–1007.

Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two

faces of transformational leadership: Empower-

ment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psy-

chology, 88, 246–255.

Klimoski, R., & Mohammed, S. (1994). Team men-

tal model: Construct or metaphor? Journal of

Management, 20, 403–437.

Kohles, J. C., Bligh, M. C., & Carsten, M. K. (2012).

A follower-centric approach to the vision integra-

tion process. The Leadership Quarterly, 23,

476–487.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multi-

level approach to theory and research in organi-

zations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent

processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski

(Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods

in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and

new directions (pp. 3–90). San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Ledgerwood, A., & Liviatan, I. (2010). The price of a

shared vision: Group identity goals and the social

creation of value. Social Cognition, 28, 401–421.

Locke, E. A. (2003). Leadership: Starting at the top.

In C. L. Pearce & J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared

leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of

leadership (pp. 271–284). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

London Business School. (2008). Sumantra Ghoshal

Conference on Managerially Relevant Research.

Retrieved from http://www.london.edu/faculty-

and-research/subject-areas/strategy-and-entre-

preneurship/sumantra-ghoshal-conference-2015/

past-conferences#.VTaJrJOPuSp

Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (2001). The new

superleadership. San Francisco, CA: Berrhett-

Khoeler.

188 Organizational Psychology Review 6(2)

Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Salas,

E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). The influ-

ence of shared mental models on team process

and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,

85, 273–283.

Mitchell, M. S., Vogel, R. M., & Folger, R. (2014).

Third parties’ reactions to the abusive supervision

of coworkers. Journal of Applied Psychology.

Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/

10.1037/apl0000002.

Mumford, M. D., Antes, A. L., Caughron, J. J., &

Friedrich, T. L. (2008). Charismatic, ideological,

and pragmatic leadership: Multi-level influences

on emergence and performance. The Leadership

Quarterly, 20, 144–160.

Mumford, M. D., & Strange, J. M. (2002). Vision and

mental models: The case of charismatic and

ideological leadership. In B. J. Avolio & F. J.

Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and charis-

matic leadership: The road ahead (pp. 109–142).

New York, NY: JAI.

Nanus, B. (1992). Visionary leadership. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Pearce, C. L. (2008, July 7). Follow the leaders. Wall

Street Journal. Retrieved from http://www.wsj.

com/articles/SB121441363110903891

Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). All those years

ago: The historical underpinnings of shared leader-

ship. In C. L. Pearce & J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared

leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of lead-

ership (pp. 1–18). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pearce, C. L., & Ensley, M. D. (2004). A reciprocal

and longitudinal investigation of the innovation

process: The central role of shared vision in prod-

uct and process innovation teams. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 25, 259–278.

Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (2002). Vertical ver-

sus shared leadership as predictors of the effec-

tiveness of change management teams: An

examination of aversive, directive, transactional,

transformational, and empowering leader beha-

viors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and

Practice, 6, 172–197.

Reich, T. C., & Hershcovis, M. S. (2015). Observing

workplace incivility. Journal of Applied Psychol-

ogy, 100, 203–215.

Reicher, S., Haslam, S. A., & Hopkins, N. (2005).

Social identity and the dynamics of leadership:

Leaders and followers as collaborative agents in

the transformation of social reality. The Leader-

ship Quarterly, 16, 547–568.

Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place.

Personnel Psychology, 40, 437–454.

Schneider, B., Smith, D. B., Taylor, S., & Fleenor, J.

(1998). Personality and organizations: A test of

the homogeneity of personality hypothesis. Jour-

nal of Applied Psychology, 83, 462–470.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and

practice of the learning organization. New York,

NY: Doubleday.

Shamir, B. (1991). The charismatic relationship:

Alternative explanations and predictions. The

Leadership Quarterly, 2, 81–104.

Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The

motivational effects of charismatic leadership:

A self-concept theory. Organization Science, 4,

1–17.

Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2007). When is educational

specialization heterogeneity related to creativity

in research and development teams? Transforma-

tional leadership as a moderator. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 92, 1709–1721.

Skarlicki, D. P., & Rupp, D. E. (2010). Dual pro-

cessing and organizational justice: The role of

rational versus experiential processing in third-

party reactions to workplace mistreatment. Jour-

nal of Applied Psychology, 95, 944–952.

Sluss, D. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2007). Relational

identity and identification: Defining ourselves

through work relationships. Academy of Manage-

ment Review, 32, 9–32.

Sluss, D. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2008). How rela-

tional and organizational identification converge:

Processes and conditions. Organization Science,

19, 807–823.

Stam, D., Lord, R. G., van Knippenberg, D., & Wisse,

B. (2014). An image of who we might become:

Vision communication, possible selves, and vision

pursuit. Organization Science, 25, 1172–1194.

Stam, D. A., van Knippenberg, D., & Wisse, B. (2010).

The role of regulatory fit in visionary leadership.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 499–518.

Berson et al. 189

Sully de Luque, M., Washburn, N., Waldman, D. A., &

House, R. J. (2008). Unrequited profit: How stake-

holder and economic values relate to subordinates’

perceptions of leadership and firm performance.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 53, 626–654.

Tajfel, H. (1972). Some developments in European

social psychology. European Journal of Social

Psychology, 2, 307–321.

Thatcher, S. M. B., & Zhu, X. (2006). Changing

identities in a changing workplace: Identification,

identity enactment, self-verification, and tele-

commuting. Academy of Management Review,

31, 1076–1088.

Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level

theory of psychological distance. Psychological

Review, 117, 440–463.

Turner, J. C. (1985). Social categorization and the

self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group

behavior. Advances in Group Processes, 2,

77–122.

Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvery, B. (2007).

Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leader-

ship form the industrial age to the knowledge era.

The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 298–318.

Van Knippenberg, B., & van Knippenberg, D.

(2005). Leader self-sacrifice and leadership effec-

tiveness: The moderating role of leader prototypi-

cality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 25–37.

Van Knippenberg, D., De Cremer, D., & van Knip-

penberg, B. (2007). Leadership and fairness: The

state of the art. European Journal of Work and

Organizational Psychology, 16(2), 113–140.

Van Knippenberg, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2003). A

social identity model of leadership effectiveness

in organizations. Research in Organizational

Behavior, 25, 243–295.

Van Knippenberg, D., & Sitkin, S. B. (2013). A crit-

ical assessment of charismatic-transformational

leadership research: Back to the drawing board?

. The Academy of Management Annals, 7, 1–60.

Van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., De Cre-

mer, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2004). Leadership, self,

and identity: A review and research agenda. The

Leadership Quarterly, 15, 825–856.

Van Vugt, M., & Hart, C. M. (2004). Social identity

as social glue: The origins of group loyalty.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

86, 585–598.

Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2004). Strategic leadership

and organizational learning. Academy of Manage-

ment Review, 29, 222–240.

Waldman, D. A., Galvin, B. M., & Walumbwa, F. O.

(2012). The development of motivation to lead

and leader role identity. Journal of Leadership

& Organizational Studies. Advance online publi-

cation. doi:10.1177/1548051812457416

Waldman, D. A., & Yammarino, F. J. (1999). CEO

charismatic leadership: Levels-of-management

and levels-of-analysis effects. Academy of

Management Review, 24, 266–285.

Wang, D., Waldman, D. A., & Zhang, Z. (2014). A

meta-analysis of shared leadership and team

effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology,

99, 181–198. doi:10.1037/a0034531

Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive

theory of organizational management. Academy

of Management Review, 14, 361–384.

Yammarino, F. J., Salas, E., Serban, A., Shirreffs, K.,

& Shuffler, M. L. (2012). Collectivistic leader-

ship approaches: Putting the ‘‘we’’ in leadership

science and practice. Industrial and Organiza-

tional Psychology: Perspectives on Science and

Practice, 5, 382–402.

Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weak-

nesses in transformational and charismatic lead-

ership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 10,

285–305.

Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th

ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Zhang, S., Chen, G., Chen, X.-P., Liu, D., &

Johnson, M. D. (2012). Relational versus col-

lective identification within workgroups: Con-

ceptualization, measurement development, and

nomological network building. Journal of Manage-

ment. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/

0149206312439421

Author biographies

Yair Berson is a Senior Lecturer of Industria-

l/Organizational Psychology at the Department

190 Organizational Psychology Review 6(2)

of Psychology, Bar-Ilan University in Israel.

His research focuses on visionary leadership,

leadership and individual differences, leader-

ship at strategic levels and its implications for

such phenomena as organizational learning and

change. He has published in such venues as the

Journal of Applied Psychology, Personnel Psy-

chology, Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, Journal of Organizational Behavior,

and the Leadership Quarterly.

David A. Waldman is a Professor of Manage-

ment in the W. P. Carey School of Business at Ari-

zona State University. His research interests focus

largely on leadership processes, including recent

interdisciplinary efforts involving neuroscience.

Professor Waldman’s accomplishments

include over 110 articles in such journals as the

Academy of Management Journal, Academy of

Management Review, Academy of Management

Perspectives, Journal of Applied Psychology,

Personnel Psychology, Administrative Science

Quarterly, Organization Science, Journal of

Management, and The Leadership Quarterly.

He currently is on five editorial review boards

and is a Fellow of the American Psychological

Association and the Society for Industrial and

Organizational Psychology.

Craig L. Pearce, PhD, is University Distin-

guished Professor at MEF University in

Istanbul, Turkey. He has published in top

academic and practitioner journals, such as

Strategic Management Journal, Journal of

Management, Journal of Organizational

Behavior, Leadership Quarterly, Academy of

Management Perspectives, Organizational

Dynamics, and the Wall Street Journal, as

well as three books that have been translated

into 10 languages. Widely cited, he is consid-

ered the foremost authority on shared leader-

ship in organizations.

Berson et al. 191