module 4 discussion

66 Academy af Management Perspectives Navember

A R T I C L E S

Effective Leadership Behavior: What We Know and What Questions Need More Attention by Gary YukI

Executive Overview Extensive research on leadership behavior during the past half century has yielded many different behavior taxonomies and a lack of clear results about effective behaviors. One purpose of this article is to describe what has been learned about effective leadership behavior in organizations. A hierarchical taxonomy with four meta-categories and 15 specific component behaviors was used to interpret results in the diverse and extensive literature and to identify conditions that influence the effectiveness of these behaviors. Limita- tions and potential extensions of the hierarchical taxonomy are discussed, and suggestions for improving research on effective leadership behavior are provided.

The essence of leadership in organizations isinfluencing and facilitating individual and col-lective efforts to accomplish shared objectives. Leaders can improve the performance of a team or organization by influencing the processes that de- termine performance. An important objective in much of the leadership research has been to iden- tify aspects of behavior that explain leader influ- ence on the performance of a team, work unit, or organization. To be highly useful for designing research and formulating theories, leader behavior categories should be observable, distinct, measur- able, and relevant for many types of leaders, and taxonomies of leader behaviors should be compre- hensive but parsimonious.

Thousands of studies on leader behavior and its effects have been conducted over the past half century, but the bewildering variety of behavior constructs used for this research makes it difficult to compare and integrate the findings (Bass, 2008; Yukl, in press). The behavior taxonomies guiding past research have substantial differences in the number and type of behaviors they include. Some

taxonomies have only a few broadly defined be- havior meta-categories, whereas other taxonomies have a larger number of narrowly defined behavior categories. Some taxonomies are intended to cover the full range of leader behaviors, whereas others include only the behaviors identified in a particular leadership theory. Some taxonomies describe leader behaviors used to motivate indi- vidual subordinates, whereas other taxonomies de- scribe behaviors used to lead groups or organiza- tions. Some taxonomies include other types of constructs along with behaviors, such as leader roles, skills, and values. Additional confusion is created by lack of consistency in the use of cate- gory labels. Sometimes different terms are used to refer to the same type of behavior, and sometimes the same term is used for different forms of behavior.

The primary purpose of this article is to review what has been learned about effective leadership behavior from research conducted over more than half a century. To integrate results from a large number of studies with many different ways of

Gary Yukl ([email protected]) is a Professor in the School of Business at the University of Albany.

Copyright of the Atodemy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder's express written permission. Users may print, download, or emoil ortkles for individual use only. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amp.2012.0088

2012 YukI 67

classifying and measuring leadership behavior, it was first necessary to develop a comprehensive behavior taxonomy. The article begins by describ- ing how decades of behavior research provides the basis for a hierarchical taxonomy with four broad meta-categories and 15 specific component be- haviors. Next is a brief overview of research on the effects of widely used behavior categories, fol- lowed by a more detailed description of what has been learned about the relevance of each specific behavior in the hierarchical taxonomy. Several conditions that influence the effects of the behav- iors are described, and the need for more research on them is explained. The article ends with a summary and suggestions for improving future research.

Research on Behavior Taxonomies

The method used most often to identify catego-ries of leadership behavior is factor analysisof behavior description questionnaires. This method is most useful when clear, relevant items are selected for the initial questionnaire and re- spondents are able to remember the leader's past behavior and provide accurate ratings. Unfortu- nately, the selection of behavior items for a ques- tionnaire is usually influenced by preconceptions about effective leadership or the desire to develop a measure of key behaviors in a leadership theory. The sample of respondents is seldom systematic, and the accuracy of most behavior questionnaires is seriously reduced by respondent biases and at- tributions. Finally, the basic assumptions of factor analysis (high correlation among examples from the same category) do not apply very well when a behavior category includes several alternative ways to achieve the same objective and a leader needs to use only one or two of them. The limi- tations of this method may help to explain the substantial differences among leader behavior taxonomies.

Another common method for identifying dis- tinct behavior categories is to have subject matter experts sort behavior descriptions into categories based on similarity of purpose and content, but this method also has limitations. The selection of categories may be biased by prior assumptions and implicit leadership theories, and disagreements

among subject matter experts are not easily re- solved. A behavior taxonomy is more likely to be useful if it is based on multiple methods and is supported by research on the antecedents and outcomes of the behaviors.

From 1950 to 1980 most of the research on leadership behavior was focused on explaining how leaders influence the attitudes and perfor- mance of individual subordinates. In the early survey research, factor analysis of leadership be- havior questionnaires found support for two broadly defined behavior categories involving task-oriented and relations-oriented behaviors. Different labels were used for these meta-catego- ries, including initiating structure and consider- ation (Fleishman, 1953; Halpin & Winer, 1957), production-centered and employee-centered lead- ership (Likert, 1961), instrumental and supportive leadership (House, 1971), and performance and maintenance behavior (Misumi & Peterson, 1985). The specific behaviors defining the two meta-categories varied somewhat from one taxon- omy to another, and some relevant behaviors were not adequately represented in any of these taxonomies. Finding the two meta-categories was a good start, but researchers failed to conduct systematic follow-up research to build on the ini- tial discoveries.

Leadership behaviors directly concerned with encouraging and facilitating change did not get much attention in the early leadership research. Change behaviors are more relevant for execu- tives than for the low-level leaders studied in much of the early research, and they are more important for the dynamic, uncertain environ- ments that have become so common for organi- zations in recent decades. In the 1980s one or two specific change-oriented behaviors were included in questionnaires used to measure charismatic and transformational leadership, but leading change was still not explicitly recognized as a distinct meta-category. Researchers in Sweden and the United States (Ekvall & Arvonen, 1991; Yukl, 1999; Yukl, Gordon, & Taber, 2002) eventually found evidence for the construct validity of a leading-change meta-category. The classification of change-oriented behavior as a distinct and

Academy af Management Perspectives Navember

meaningful meta-category provided important new insights about effective leadership.

In most of the early research on leadership behavior the focus was on describing how leaders influence subordinates and internal activities in the work unit. Leader behavior descriptions were usually obtained from subordinates who had little opportunity to observe their leaders interacting with people outside the work unit. Thus, it is not surprising that few leadership studies examined external ("boundary-spanning") behavior, and only a few leader behavior taxonomies included any external behaviors (e.g., Stogdill, Goode, & Day, 1962). However, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, descriptive research on managers found that it is important to influence bosses, peers, and outsiders as well as subordinates (Kaplan, 1984; Kotter, 1982; Mintzberg, 1973), and later research on teams found that boundary-spanning behavior is important for effective team performance (e.g., Ancona &. Caldwell, 1992; Joshi, Pandey, &. Han, 2009; Marrone, 2010). The importance and uniqueness of external leadership behavior pro- vides justification for classifying it as a separate meta-category.

Hierarchical Behavior Taxonomy

The hierarchical taxonomy proposed in thisarticle describes leadership behaviors usedto influence the performance of a team, work unit, or organization. The four meta-categories and their component behaviors are shown in Table 1. Each meta-category has a different primary objective, but the objectives all involve determinants of performance. For task-oriented behavior the primary objective is to accomplish work in an efficient and reliable way. For rela- tions-oriented behavior the primary objective is to increase the quality of human resources and relations, which is sometimes called "human capital." For change-oriented behavior the pri- mary objectives are to increase innovation, col- lective learning, and adaptation to the external environment. For external leadership behavior the primary objectives are to acquire necessary information and resources, and to promote and defend the interests of the team or organization. In addition to these differences in primary objec-

Toble 1 Hierarchical Taxonomy of Leadership Behaviors

Task-oriented

Relations-oriented

Change-oriented

External

Clarifying Planning Monitoring operations Problem solving Supporting Developing Recognizing Empowering Advocating change Envisioning change Encouraging innovation Focilitating collective learning Networking External monitoring Representing

tives, each meta-category includes unique specific behaviors for achieving the objectives. The rele- vance of each component behavior depends on aspects of the situation, and the effect is not always positive for the primary objective or for other outcomes.

The proposed taxonomy builds on the exten- sive factor analysis research by Yukl and col- leagues (2002), and it also reflects findings in other taxonomic research linking specific behav- iors to the performance of a team or organization. The three meta-categories in the Yukl and col- leagues (2002) taxonomy were retained, but an- other component on task-oriented behavior (problem solving) was added, consulting and del- egating were combined into a broader relations- oriented component (empowering), and taking risks to promote change was included in a broader change-oriented component (advocating change). The new taxonomy also includes a fourth meta- category (external behavior). Two of the compo- nent behaviors (networking and representing) were not included in the questionnaire used for the Yukl and colleagues (2002) research, and the third component (external monitoring) was in their questionnaire but it was included in the change-oriented meta-category.

2012 Yukl 69

Overview of Research on Effects of Leader Behavior

i uch of the research on effects of leader he- havior has been guided by popular leadership theories that emphasized one or two broadly

defined behaviors. Early leadership theories such as path-goal theory (House, 1971), leadership suh- stitutes theory (Kerr & Jermier, 1978), situational leadership theory (Hersey & Blanchard, 1977), and the managerial grid (Blake & Mouton, 1964) emphasized task-oriented and relations-oriented behavior, and these meta-categories were used in much of the research conducted from 1960 to 1980. Reviews and meta-analyses of results from hundreds of studies concluded that hoth meta- categories are related to independent measures of leadership effectiveness (DeRue, Nahrgang, Well- man, &. Humphrey, 2011; Judge, Piccolo, &. Hies, 2004).

Since the 1980s, much of the research on the effects of leadership hehavior has been based on theories of transformational and charismatic lead- ership (Avolio, Bass, &. Jung, 1999; Bass, 1985; Conger & Kanungo, 1987; House, 1977; Shamir, House, &. Arthur, 1993). As in the earlier re- search, most of these studies reported results only for composite scores on behavior meta-categories included in the theory. Reviews and meta-analy- ses of this research found that transformational leadership was related to indicators of leadership effectiveness in a majority of studies, hut results were inconsistent for transactional leadership and charismatic leadership (De Groot, Kiker, & Cross, 2000; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996; Wang, Oh, Courtright, &. Colbert, 2011; Yukl, 2013).

The research on effects of hroadly defined he- haviors has limitations that make the results dif- ficult to interpret. The limitations include differ- ences in the way behavior is defined and measured from study to study, use of composite scores based on diverse component behaviors that do not have the same effects, the exclusion of other relevant behaviors likely to be confounded with the mea- sured hehaviors, and over-reliance on weak re- search methods such as same-source survey stud- ies. The results found for independent measures of

leadership effectiveness were much weaker than results found for same-source measures, especially when objective performance measures were used (Burke et a l , 2006; Kaiser, Hogan, &. Craig, 2008).

The popularity of survey research on meta- categories may have inhihited research on effects of specific hehaviors, hecause the number of stud- ies on them is much smaller. The research on effects of specific leadership behaviors included several types of studies. Some studies used a he- havior description questionnaire, but other studies used hehavior descriptions from ohservation, dia- ries, or critical incidents. Several multiple-case studies used interviews, records, and other data collection methods to investigate how leader de- cisions and actions influenced performance for a team or organization, and the hehavior of effective and ineffective leaders was usually compared. A few studies used laboratory or field experiments in which leader behavior was manipulated to assess the effects on suhordinate performance. The find- ings in this research provide evidence that each of the 15 specific hehaviors in the proposed taxon- omy is relevant for effective leadership.

Effectiveness of Specific Leader Behaviors

I n this section, the relevance of each specificcomponent behavior is hriefly explained, andthe research linking it to effective leadership is cited. The research includes studies on dyadic, group, and organizational leadership. Most studies examined effects of behavior hy individual leaders and included an independent source of informa- tion about leadership effectiveness, such as ratings hy superiors or objective performance measures.

Taslt-Oriented Behaviors As noted earlier, the primary purpose of task- oriented behaviors is to ensure that people, equip- ment, and other resources are used in an efficient way to accomplish the mission of a group or or- ganization. Specific component hehaviors include planning and organizing work-unit activities, clar- ifying roles and ohjectives, monitoring work-unit operations, and resolving work-related prohlems.

70 Academy af Management Perspectives Navember

Planning This broadly defined behavior includes making decisions about objectives and priorities, organiz- ing work, assigning responsibilities, scheduling ac- tivities, and allocating resources among different activities. More specifically, activity planning in- volves scheduling activities and assigning tasks in a way that will accomplish task objectives and avoid delays, duplication of effort, and wasted resources. Project planning includes identifying essential action steps; determining an appropriate sequence and schedule for them; deciding who should do each action step; and determining what supplies, equipment, and other resources are nec- essary. The planning often requires information provided by other people such as subordinates, peers, bosses, and outsiders. Negative forms of this behavior include making plans that are superficial or unrealistic. Several types of research provide evidence that planning can enhance a leader's effectiveness, including survey studies (e.g., Kim & Yukl, 1995; Shipper, 1991; Shipper &. DiUard, 2000; Shipper & Wilson, 1992; Yukl, Wall, & Lepsinger, 1990), incident and diary studies (e.g., Ancona &. Caldwell, 1992; Morse & Wag- ner, 1978; Yukl & Van Fleet, 1982), and mul- tiple-case studies (e.g., Kotter, 1982; Van Fleet & Yukl, 1986).

Clorifying Leaders use clarifying to ensure that people under- stand what to do, how to do it, and the expected results. Clarifying includes explaining work re- sponsibilities; assigning tasks; communicating ob- jectives, priorities, and deadlines; setting perfor- mance standards; and explaining any relevant rules, policies, and standard procedures. Setting clear, specific, and challenging but realistic goals usually improves performance by a group (Locke &. Latham, 1990). Negative forms of clarifying include failing to provide clear assignments, set- ting vague or easy goals, providing inconsistent instructions that create role ambiguity, and giving excessively detailed directions (micromanaging). Evidence that clarifying can enhance leadership effectiveness is provided by survey studies (e.g., Kim & Yukl, 1995; Shipper, 1991; Shipper &

DiUard, 2000; Shipper & Wilson, 1992; Yukl & Kanuk, 1979; Yukl et a l , 1990), incident and diary studies (e.g., Amabile, Schatzel, Moneta, &. Kramer, 2004; Yukl & Van Fleet, 1982), compar- ative case studies (e.g.. Van Fleet & Yukl, 1986), an executive team simulation study (Zalatan, 2005), a laboratory experiment (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996), and field experiments (Latham & Baldes, 1975; Latham & Yukl, 1976).

Monitoring Leaders use monitoring to assess whether people are carrying out their assigned tasks, the work is progressing as planned, and tasks are being per- formed adequately. Information gathered from monitoring is used to identify problems and op- portunities and to determine if changes are needed in plans and procedures. Information from moni- toring can also be used to guide the use of rela- tions-oriented behaviors such as praise or coach- ing. There are many different ways to monitor operations, including directly observing activities, examining recorded activities or communications, using information systems, examining required re- ports, and holding performance review sessions. Negative examples include types of monitoring that are intrusive, excessive, superficial, or irrele- vant. Evidence that monitoring can improve lead- ership effectiveness is provided by survey studies (e.g., Kim & Yukl, 1995; Wang, Tsui, & Xin, 2011; Yukl et a l , 1990), studies using direct ob- servation or diaries (e.g., Amabile et a l , 2004; Brewer, Wilson, & Beck, 1994; Komaki, 1986), comparative case studies (e.g., Peters & Austin, 1975; Van Fleet & Yukl, 1986), and a laboratory experiment (Larson & Callahan, 1990).

Problem Solving Leaders use problem solving to deal with disrup- tions of normal operations and member behavior that is illegal, destructive, or unsafe. Serious dis- ruptions of the work usually require leadership intervention, and other terms for problem solving include "crisis management" and "disturbance handling." Effective leaders try to quickly identify the cause of the problem, and they provide firm, confident direction to their team or work unit as they cope with the problem. It is important to

2012 Yukl 71

recognize the difference between operational problems that can be resolved quickly and com- plex problems likely to require change-oriented behaviors and involvement by other leaders. Prob- lem solving also includes disciplinary actions in response to destructive, dangerous, or illegal be- havior by members of the work unit (e.g., theft, sabotage, violation of safety regulations, falsifica- tion of records). Problem solving can be proactive as well as reactive, and effective leaders take the initiative to identify likely problems and deter- mine how to avoid them or minimize their adverse effects. Many things can be done to prepare the work unit or organization to respond effectively to predictable types of disruptions such as accidents, equipment failures, natural disasters, health emer- gencies, supply shortages, computer hacking, and terrorist attacks. Negative forms of problem solv- ing include ignoring signs of a serious problem, making a hasty response before identifying the cause of the problem, discouraging useful input from subordinates, and reacting in ways that cre- ate more serious problems. Evidence that problem solving is related to leadership effectiveness is provided by survey studies (e.g., Kim &. Yukl, 1995; Morgeson, 2005; Yukl & Van Eleet, 1982; Yukl et al., 1990), studies using critical incidents or diaries (e.g., Amabile et al., 2004; Boyatzis, 1982; Yukl & Van Eleet, 1982), and comparative case studies (e.g.. Van Eleet & Yukl, 1986).

Relations-Oriented Behaviors Leaders use relations-oriented behaviors to en- hance member skills, the leader-member relation- ship, identification with the work unit or organi- zation, and commitment to the mission. Specific component behaviors include supporting, devel- oping, recognizing, and empowering.

Supporting

Leaders use supporting to show positive regard, build cooperative relationships, and help people cope with stressful situations. Examples include showing concern for the needs and feelings of individual team members, listening carefully when a member is worried or upset, providing support and encouragement when there is a difficult or

stressful task, and expressing confidence that someone can perform a difficult task. Supporting also includes encouraging cooperation and mutual trust and mediating conflicts among subordinates. A significant relationship between supporting and leadership effectiveness was found in survey stud- ies (e.g., Dorfman, Howell, Cotton, &Tate, 1992; Kim & Yukl, 1995; McDonough & Barczak, 1991; Yukl & Van Eleet, 1982; Yukl et a l , 1990), in studies using incidents or diaries (e.g., Amabile et a l , 2004; Druskat & Wheeler, 2003; Yukl & Van Eleet, 1982), and in a laboratory experiment (Gilmore, Beehr, <St Richter, 1979). Negative forms of supporting include hostile, abusive be- havior. Research on abusive supervision finds that it reduces trust, elicits resentment, and invites retaliation (Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007; Tep- per, 2000).

Developing

Leaders use developing to increase the skills and confidence of work-unit members and to facilitate their career advancement. Examples of developing include providing helpful career advice, informing people about relevant training opportunities, making assignments that allow learning from ex- perience, providing developmental coaching when it is needed, asking a group member to provide instruction to a new member, arranging practice sessions or simulations to help members improve their skills, and providing opportunities to apply new skills on the job. Developing is mostly done with a subordinate or team, but some aspects may be used with a colleague or an inex- perienced new boss. A positive relationship be- tween developing subordinate skills and indicators of leadership effectiveness was found in survey studies (e.g., Kim & Yukl, 1995; Yukl et a l , 1990), in research using critical incidents and interviews (e.g., Morse & Wagner, 1978), in comparative case studies (e.g., Bradford & Cohen, 1984; Ed- mondson, 2003b; Peters &. Austin, 1985), and in an experiment (Tannenbaum, Smith-Jentsch, Salas, & Brannick, 1998).

Recognizing

Leaders use praise and other forms of recognition to show appreciation to others for effective per-

72 Academy of Management Perspectives Navember

formance, significant achievements, and impor- tant contributions to the team or organization. Recognizing may involve an award presented in a ceremony, or the leader's recommendation for a tangible reward such as a pay increase or bonus. Effective leaders are proactive in looking for things that deserve recognition, and they provide recognition that is sincere, specific, and timely. Negative examples include providing excessive recognition for trivial achievements, failing to recognize an important contribution, and taking credit for another person's ideas or achievements. Evidence for the positive effects of praise and recognition on subordinate performance is pro- vided by survey research (e.g., Kim & Yukl, 1995; Shipper, 1991; Shipper & Wilson, 1992; Yukl & Kanuk, 1979), research with incidents or diaries (e.g., Amabile et a l , 2004; Atwater, Dionne, Avolio, Camobreco, &. Lau, 1996), and descrip- tive case studies (e.g., Kouzes & Posner, 1987; Peters &. Waterman, 1982). A field experiment found that increased use of praise by supervisors improved performance by employees (Wikoff, An- derson, &. Crowell, 1983).

Empowering Leaders can empower subordinates by giving them more autonomy and influence over decisions about the work. One empowering decision proce- dure called consultation includes asking other people for ideas and suggestions and taking them into consideration when making a decision. An even stronger empowering decision procedure called delegation involves giving an individual or group the authority to make decisions formerly made by the leader. When used in appropriate ways, empowerment can increase decision quality, decision acceptance, job satisfaction, and skill de- velopment (Vroom &. Yetton, 1973; Yukl, in press). Ineffective forms of the behavior include using the supposedly empowering decision proce- dures in a way that allows no real influence, and giving too much autonomy or influence to people who are unable or unwilling to make good decisions.

The term "participative leadership" is some- times used to describe extensive use of empower- ing decision procedures, and many studies have

assessed the effects on subordinate attitudes and performance. Meta-analyses of this research found a weak positive relationship with leadership effec- tiveness (e.g.. Miller &. Monge, 1986; Spector, 1986; Wagner & Gooding, 1987). Stronger evi- dence that specific empowering decision proce- dures are related to leadership effectiveness has been provided by survey studies that measured a leader's use of consultation and delegation (e.g., Kim & Yukl, 1995; Shipper & Wilson, 1992; Yukl et al., 1990), by research with critical incidents and diaries (e.g., Amabile and colleagues, 2004; Druskat & Wheeler, 2003), by comparative case studies (e.g., Bradford & Cohen, 1984; Edmond- son, 2003b; Kanter, 1983; Leana, 1986), and by field experiments (Bragg & Andrews, 1973; Coch & French, 1948; Korsgaard, Schweiger, & Sapi- enza, 1995).

Change-Oriented Behaviors

Leaders use change-oriented behaviors to increase innovation, collective learning, and adaptation to external changes. Specific component behaviors include advocating change, articulating an inspir- ing vision, encouraging innovation, and encour- aging collective learning. The first two compo- nent behaviors emphasize leader initiation and encouragement of change, whereas the second two component behaviors emphasize leader facil- itation of emergent change processes.

Advocating Change Explaining why change is urgently needed is a key leadership behavior in theories of change manage- ment (e.g., Kotter, 1996; Nadler et al., 1995). When changes in the environment are gradual and no obvious crisis has occurred, people may fail to recognize emerging threats or opportunities. Leaders can provide information showing how similar work units or competitors have better per- formance. Leaders can explain the undesirable outcomes that are likely to occur if emerging prob- lems are ignored or new opportunities are ex- ploited by competitors. Influencing people to ac- cept the need for change involves increasing their awareness of problems without creating an exces- sive level of distress that causes either denial of the problem or acceptance of easy but ineffective

2012 Yukl 73

solutions (Heifetz, 1994). Resistance to change is common in organizations, and courage is required to persistently push for it when the leader's career is at risk. It is easier to gain support for making innovative changes when a leader can frame un- favorable events as an opportunity rather than a threat. The leader can propose a strategy for re- sponding to a threat or opportunity, but involving people with relevant expertise usually results in a better strategy and more commitment to imple- ment it. Negative forms of the behavior include advocating a costly major change when only in- cremental adjustments are necessary (McClelland, Liang, & Barker, 2009), or advocating acceptance of a costly new initiative without considering the serious risks and obstacles (Finkelstein, 2003). Ev- idence that advocating relevant change is related to effective leadership is provided by comparative case studies (e.g.. Beer, 1988; Edmondson, 2003b; Heifetz, 1994; Kotter & Cohen, 2002; Tichy & Devanna, 1986) and by an experiment using a simulated team task (Marks, Zaccaro, & Ma- thieu, 2000).

Envisioning Change

An effective way for leaders to build commitment to new strategies and initiatives is to articulate a clear, appealing vision of what can be attained by the work unit or organization. A vision will be more inspiring and motivating if it is relevant to the values, ideals, and needs of followers and is communicated with colorful, emotional language (e.g., vivid imagery, metaphors, stories, symbols, and slogans). An ambitious, innovative vision is usually risky, and members of the team or organi- zation are more likely to accept it if the leader can build confidence that they will be successful (Na- dler, 1988). However, an appealing vision based on false assumptions and wishful thinking can divert attention from innovative solutions that are more likely to be successful (Mumford, Scott, Gaddis, &. Strange, 2002). Consistently pursuing a risky and unrealistic vision is a major reason for serious performance declines in organizations with a charismatic leader (Finkelstein, 2003). Evidence that articulating an appealing and inspiring vision is relevant for effective leadership is provided by survey studies (e.g., Baum, Locke, &. Kirkpatrick,

1998; Elenkov, Judge, & Wright, 2005; Keller, 2006; Kim & Yukl, 1995; Wang, Tsui, & Xin, 2011; Yukl et al., 1990), comparative case studies (e.g., Bennis &. Nanus, 1985; Emrich, Brower, Feldman, & Garland, 2001; Kotter & Cohen, 2002; Roberts, 1985; Tichy & Devanna, 1986), and laboratory experiments (e.g., Awamleh & Gardner, 1999; Kirkpatrick «Si Locke, 1996).

Encouraging Innovation

There are many ways leaders can encourage, nur- ture, and facilitate creative ideas and innovation in a team or organization. Other terms that de- scribe aspects of this behavior include "intellec- tual stimulation" and "encouraging innovative thinking." Leaders can encourage people to look at problems from different perspectives, to think outside the box when solving problems, to exper- iment with new ideas, and to find ideas in other fields that can be applied to their current problem or task. By creating a climate of psychological safety and mutual trust, a leader can encourage members of the team or organization to suggest novel ideas. Leaders can also help to create an organizational culture that values creativity and entrepreneurial activities, they can provide oppor- tunities and resources to develop new products or services, and they can serve as champions or spon- sors for acceptance of innovative proposals. Evi- dence linking this type of change behavior to indicators of effective leadership is provided by survey studies (e.g., Bass &. Yammarino, 1991; Elenkov, Judge, & Wright, 2005; Howell & Avo- lio, 1993; Keller, 2006; Waldman, Javidan, & Varella, 2004; Zhu, Chew & Spangler, 2005), comparative case studies (e.g., Edmondson, 2003b; Eisenhardt, 1989; Kanter, 1983; Peters & Austin, 1985), a laboratory experiment (Red- mond, Mumford, &. Teach, 1993), and a field experiment (Barling, Weber, & Kelloway, 1996).

Facilitating Collective Learning

There are many ways leaders can encourage and facilitate collective learning of new knowledge relevant for improving the performance of a group or organization (Berson, Nemanich, Waldman, Galvin, «Si Keller, 2006; Popper & Lipshitz, 1998). Collective learning may involve improvement of

74 Academy of Management Perspectives November

current strategies and work methods (exploita- tion) or discovery of new ones (exploration). Leaders can support internal activities used to discover new knowledge (e.g., research projects, small-scale experiments) or activities to acquire new knowledge from external sources. Leaders can use practices that facilitate learning by an opera- tions team (e.g., after-activity reviews, bench- marking) or a project development team (e.g., providing resources and opportunity to test new ideas). By helping to create a climate of psycho- logical safety, leaders can increase learning from mistakes and failures. To enhance collective learning from hoth successes and failures, leaders must avoid common tendencies to misinterpret causes and over-generalize implications (Baumard &. Starhuck, 2005). Leaders can help their teams to better recognize failures, analyze their causes, and identify remedies to avoid a future recurrence (Cannon &. Edmondson, 2005). Leaders can also influence how new knowledge or a new technol- ogy is diffused and applied hy explaining why it is important, guiding the process of learning how to use it, and encouraging the use of knowledge- sharing programs. Leaders can help people de- velop a better understanding about the determi- nants of organizational performance. More accurate, shared mental models will improve stra- tegic decisions and organizational performance. Evidence that facilitating collective learning is related to effective leadership is provided by com- parative case studies (e.g., Baumard &. Starbuck, 2005; Beer, 1988; Edmondson, 1999; Edmondson 2002, 2003a) and by experiments with teams (e.g., Ellis, Mendel, & Nir, 2006; Tannenhaum, Smith- Jentsch, & Behson, 1998).

Externai Leadership Behaviors In addition to influencing internal events in the work unit, most leaders can facilitate performance with hehaviors that provide relevant information about outside events, get necessary resources and assistance, and promote the reputation and inter- ests of the work unit. Three distinct external hehaviors include networking, external monitor- ing, and representing.

Networking It is important for most leaders to huild and main- tain favorable relationships with peers, superiors, and outsiders who can provide information, re- sources, and political support (Iharra & Hunter, 2007; Kaplan, 1984; Kotter, 1982; Michael & Yukl, 1973). Networking includes attending meetings, professional conferences, and ceremo- nies; joining relevant associations, clubs, and so- cial networks; socializing informally or communi- cating with network members; and using relationship-huilding tactics (e.g., finding com- mon interests, doing favors, using ingratiation). In addition to developing their own networks, lead- ers can encourage relevant networking by subor- dinates. Networking is a source of information that facilitates other leadership behaviors, but there are potential costs if it is overdone (e.g., time demands, role conflicts). Evidence that net- working can facilitate leadership effectiveness is provided by survey studies (e.g., Kim &. Yukl, 1995; Yukl et al., 1990); studies with incident diaries, interviews, or ohservation (e.g., Amabile et al., 2004; Ancona &. Caldwell, 1992; Druskat & Wheeler, 2003; Luthans, Rosenkrantz, & Hen- nessey, 1985); and comparative case studies (e.g., Katz & Tushman, 1983; Tushman &. Katz, 1980).

External Monitoring This external hehavior includes analyzing infor- mation about relevant events and changes in the external environment and identifying threats and opportunities for the leader's group or organiza- tion. Information may be acquired from the lead- er's network of contacts with outsiders, by study- ing relevant publications and industry reports, by conducting market research, and hy studying the decisions and actions of competitors and oppo- nents. Other terms for external monitoring are "environmental scanning" or "scouting." The ex- tent to which top executives accurately perceive the external environment of their organization is related to financial performance (Bourgeois, 1985), and it is more important when the envi- ronment is dynamic and competitive. For a team or work unit in an organization, the importance of external monitoring depends on how much their

2012 Yukl 75

performance is likely to be affected by external events. Likewise, the need to closely monitor events in other subunits is determined by depen- dence on them. Evidence that external monitor- ing is related to indicators of effective leadership is provided by survey research (Dol- linger, 1984), research with critical incidents and diaries (e.g., Druskat & Wheeler, 2003; Katz &. Tushman, 1981; Luthans et a l , 1985), research with comparative cases (e.g., Celetkanycz & Hambrick, 1997; Grinyer, Mayes, &. McKieman, 1990; Van Fleet & Yukl, 1986), and a study using an executive team simulation (Zalatan, 2005).

Representing

Leaders usually represent their team or organiza- tion in transactions with superiors, peers, and out- siders (e.g., clients, suppliers, investors, and joint venture partners). Representing includes lobbying for resources and assistance, promoting and de- fending the reputation of the team or organiza- tion, negotiating agreements, and coordinating related activities. Other terms used to describe this type of leadership responsibility include "pro- moter," "ambassador," and "external coordinator." Leaders of project teams have more successful projects when they have sufficient influence to obtain essential resources and support from top management (Katz & Allen, 1985). For work units that have high interdependence with other subunits of the organization or with outsiders such as suppliers, clients, and distributors, it is impor- tant for the leaders to coordinate activities, re- solve disagreements, and buffer work-unit mem- bers from interference (Ancona &. Caldwell, 1992). Top executives need to influence external stakeholders whose confidence and support are important to the success and survival of the organization (Fanelli &. Misangyi, 2006). Repre- senting also includes some political tactics that can be used to influence decisions relevant for a leader's work unit or organization, but research on the use of political tactics by leaders in organiza- tions is still very limited. Evidence that represent- ing is related to effective leadership is provided by research using survey questionnaires (e.g., Ancona &. Caldwell, 1992; Dorfman, Howell, Cotton, &. Täte, 1992; Yukl, Wall, & Lepsinger, 1990), re-

search with incident diaries and interviews (e.g., Amabile et a l , 2004; Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Campbell, Dunnette, Arvey, &. Hellervik, 1973; Druskat & Wheeler, 2003), and comparative case studies (e.g., Ancona &. Caldwell, 1992; Edmond- son, 2003b; Kanter, 1983; Van Fleet & Yukl, 1986).

Future Research uch of the research on effects of leader be- havior has examined how often the behavior

lis used, but the effects also depend on other conditions that are seldom considered. To im- prove leadership theory and practice we need to know more about how much the behaviors are used, when they are used, how well they are used, why they are used, who uses them, the context for their use, and joint effects on different outcomes. This part of the article explains the need for more research on the quality and timing of behavior, patterns of behavior, leader skills, leader values, trade-offs for multiple outcomes, situational vari- ables, the joint effects of multiple leaders, and the joint effects of behavior and formal programs.

Quality and Timing of Behavior Most leader behavior studies emphasize how much the behavior is used rather than how well it is used. Few studies have examined the quality and timing of the behavior or checked the possibility of a non-linear relationship between behavior and the performance criterion. There is growing evi- dence that most types of leadership behavior can be overused as well as underused, and the optimal amount of behavior is often a moderate amount rather than the maximum amount (e.g., Fleish- man & Harris, 1962; Gebert, Boemer, & Lan- wehr, 2003; Pierce &. Aguinis, in press). For ex- ample, too much clarifying can limit innovation, empowerment of subordinates, and development of their problem-solving skills, but too much au- tonomy can result in coordination problems, lower efficiency, and inconsistent treatment of clients. Even when doing more of a behavior does not reduce the benefits or have negative side effects, spending more time than necessary on a behavior means that the leader is losing the op- portunity to use more beneficial types of behavior.

76 Academy of Management Perspectives November

Timing is often a critical determinant of effec- tiveness for a behavior, and acting too early or too late can reduce the effectiveness of many behav- iors. Eor example, taking action to avoid a prob- lem or resolve it quickly is usually more effective than waiting until the problem becomes very se- rious and difficult to resolve. Praise for an achieve- ment or contribution is usually more effective when it is given promptly rather than waiting months to mention it in a formal performance review. Research is needed to identify optimal levels of the behaviors and when the behaviors are most likely to be effective.

Patterns of Behavior In most research on the effects of leader behavior the focus is on the independent effects of each meta-category or individual behavior, but in many cases the effects depend in part on what other behaviors the leader uses. To understand why a leader is effective requires that we examine how different behaviors interact in a mutually consis- tent way. The effective pattern of behavior may involve multiple components of the same meta- category or component behaviors from different meta-categories. Eor example, monitoring opera- tions is useful for discovering problems, but unless something is done to solve the problems, moni- toring will not contribute to leader effectiveness. Monitoring is more effective when used together with other behaviors such as problem solving, coaching, and recognizing.

The descriptive research on effective leaders suggests that they use complementary behaviors woven together into a complex tapestry, and the whole is greater than the sum of the parts (Kaplan, 1988). Similar results were found in research using incident diaries from team members (Amabile et a l , 2004). The pattern of specific component behaviors is usually more important than how much each behavior is used, and more than one pattern of behavior may be used to accomplish the same outcome. Sometimes it is necessary for a leader to find an appropriate balance for behaviors that appear inconsistent, such as directing versus empowering (Kaiser & Overfield, 2010). More research is needed to determine how interacting

behaviors are used effectively by leaders in differ- ent situations.

Multiple Outcomes and Trade-Off s Each specific type of leadership behavior can in- fluence more than one type of outcome or perfor- mance determinant. Eor example, developing is classified as a relations-oriented behavior because the primary objective is usually to help people improve their capabilities and advance their ca- reers. But some types of developing are used to improve performance in the current job (a task objective) or facilitate the successful use of an innovative new technology (a change objective). Consulting with team members about the action plan for a new project may increase member com- mitment (human relations), improve the use of available personnel and resources (efficiency), and identify more innovative ways to satisfy clients (adaptation).

Specific behaviors with positive outcomes for more than one objective are desirable and can increase a leader's effectiveness. However, some leader behaviors have unintended side effects that are negative rather than positive. A behavior can have positive effects for some outcomes and neg- ative effects for other outcomes. Eor example, delegating responsibility for determining how to do a task to someone with little experience may increase learning for the person, but it can reduce short-term efficiency (e.g., more errors, slower task completion, lower quality). Some decisions in- tended to benefit employees (e.g., increasing pay and benefits) may increase costs and reduce short- term financial performance. Some decisions in- tended to reduce costs can reduce human relations and resources (i.e., downsizing can result in less commitment for remaining employees and loss of unique knowledge). Some decisions made to re- duce costs (e.g., reducing research activities, out- sourcing operations that involve unique knowl- edge) can also reduce future adaptation. The trade-offs for different outcomes are described by leadership theories such as competing values the- ory (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983) and flexible leadership theory (Yukl, 2008). More research is needed to discover how effective leaders use spe- cific behaviors that enhance multiple outcomes.

2012 Yukl 77

minimize negative side effects, and balance diffi- cult trade-offs.

Situational Variahles The effects of a leader's behavior also depend on the situation. Each meta-category includes behav- iors that are often relevant for influencing perfor- mance outcomes, but aspects of the situation de- termine which component behaviors are relevant. Effective leaders analyze the situation and identify the specific behaviors that are relevant. The abil- ity to use a wide range of specific behaviors and adapt them to the situation is sometimes called "behavioral flexibility," and it is related to effec- tive leadership (Hart &. Quinn, 1993; Hooijberg, 1996; Yukl & Mahsud, 2010). Unfortunately, most studies on situational moderator variables have used behavior meta-categories, and the re- sults are weaker and more difficult to interpret for a broad category than for specific behaviors. For example, the research testing contingency theo- ries about the effects of task-oriented and rela- tions-oriented behaviors failed to find strong, con- sistent results (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Aheame, &. Bommer, 1995). There has been less research on situational moderators for the other meta-catego- ries, and there is little systematic research to iden- tify situations where specific leadership behaviors are most likely to impact performance outcomes. More research is needed to learn how leaders adapt their behavior to changing situations and to assess the importance of behavioral flexibility for different types of leaders. The common practice of examining one situational variable at a time is less useful than examining how the situational vari- ables that define common situations for leaders jointly determine which behaviors are most relevant.

Leader Skills Skills involve the ability to perform some type of activity or task, and some studies on effective leadership use skills rather than observable behav- iors as the independent variables. Different tax- onomies have been proposed for classifying skills, and some scholars define them more broadly than others. The early research identified three broadly deflned skills (Katz, 1955; Mann, 1965): Techni-

cal skills are primarily concerned with things, in- terpersonal skills are primarily concerned with people, and conceptual skills are primarily con- cerned with ideas and concepts. Other types of skills that have been used in leadership research include political skills (Ferris, Treadway, Perrewé, Brouer, Douglas, &. Lux, 2007), administrative skills, and competencies involving the ability to use specific types of behavior such as planning and coaching (e.g., Mumford, Campion, & Morgeson, 2007). Skills are not equivalent to actual behav- ior, but they can help us understand why some leaders are able to select relevant behaviors and use them more effectively. A combination of skills and traits can help to explain why some leaders are able to recognize what pattern of behavior is relevant, how much of each behavior is optimal, and when to use the behaviors. The research on how skills can enhance the effects of leader be- havior is still very limited, and more studies are needed to discover how a leader's skills and per- sonality traits influence the choice of behaviors and leader flexibility in adapting behavior to dif- ferent situations.

Leader Values and Integrity The effects of the specific component behaviors also depend on how much the leader is trusted by people he or she wants to influence. Most types of leadership behavior can be used in ethical or un- ethical ways, and a leader who is not trusted will have less influence. Leader values and integrity did not get much attention in the early research on effective leadership, but interest in them has increased in recent years (Brown &. Trevino, 2006). Values such as honesty, altruism, compas- sion, fairness, courage, and humility are empha- sized in servant leadership theory (Greenleaf, 1970), spiritual leadership theory (Fry, 2003), and authentic leadership theory (Avolio, Gardner, Walumbwa, Luthans, & Mayo, 2004; George, 2003). Proponents of these theories contend that leaders whose behavior reflects these values will be more effective. However, research on these subjects is still very limited, and more studies are needed to understand how leader values influence the use of the specific behaviors and the effects of the behaviors.

78 Academy af Management Perspectives November

Multiple leaders and Shared Leadership Most of the research on the outcomes of leader- ship behavior examines relationships only for in- dividual leaders. However, organizations have many leaders who can influence important deci- sions and determine how successfully they are implemented (Mintzberg, Raisinghani, & Theo- ret, 1976; Schweiger, Anderson, & Locke, 1985). Sometimes two or more leaders have shared re- sponsibility for an activity or project, and some- times leaders have different but interdependent responsibilities. The performance of an organiza- tion depends in part on the level of cooperation and coordination among interdependent leaders (Yukl, 2008; Yukl & Lepsinger, 2004). It is more difficult to achieve a high level of cooperation when the leaders do not share the same objectives or have the same priorities. In some cases, one leader's actions to improve subunit performance can be detrimental to the performance of other subunits and the overall organization. For exam- ple, a subunit leader may gain control of resources that other subunits need and could use more ef- fectively. Several scholars have discussed how shared or distributed leadership is related to team or organizational effectiveness (e.g.. Brown &. Gioia, 2002; Carson, Tesluk, &. Marrone, 2007; Denis, Lamothe, &. Langley, 2001; Friedrich, Vessey, Schuelke, Ruark, &L Mumford, 2009; Pearce &. Conger, 2003). However, more research is needed to discover how the use of the specific behaviors by different leaders can influence their effectiveness.

Behaviors and Formal Programs Management programs and systems can enhance the effects of direct leadership behaviors. For ex- ample, encouraging innovative thinking is more likely to increase innovation when an organiza- tion has a climate of psychological safety for risk taking and appropriate rewards for creative ideas about improving products and processes. Programs and structures can also limit the use of leadership behaviors or nullify their effects. For example, it is difficult to empower subordinates when they must follow elaborate rules and standard procedures for doing the work. Management programs and sys-

tems can also serve as substitutes for some types of direct behaviors. For example, company-wide training programs for widely relevant skills can reduce the amount of training that managers need to give their immediate subordinates. Top execu- tives have responsibility for implementing and revising programs, and the effectiveness of pro- grams depends on support by lower-level manag- ers. The effects of leader behavior and manage- ment programs have been examined separately, but more systematic research is needed to examine their joint and interacting effects on organiza- tional performance.

Summary and Recommendations

The proposed hierarchical taxonomy facilitatesthe integration of important findings in re-search on leader behavior constructs and re- search about the effects of specific behaviors on team or organizational performance. More than half a century of research provides support for the conclusion that leaders can enhance the perfor- mance of a team, work unit, or organization by using a combination of specific task, relations, change, and external behaviors that are relevant for their situation. Why the behaviors are impor- tant for effective leadership is explained better by theories about the determinants of group and or- ganizational performance than by leadership the- ories focused on motivating individual followers. A limitation of the conclusions about effective leadership is that enhancing performance is not the only basis for evaluating effectiveness, and the importance accorded different criteria affects the selection of relevant behaviors for a taxonomy.

The hierarchical taxonomy can be used to ex- plain results found in the extensive research on behavior meta-categories not used in the taxon- omy, such as transformational and transactional leadership. The results found in survey research on transformational leadership can be explained as effects of specific behaviors used to compute the composite score for each leader (e.g., Yukl, 1999; Yukl, O'Donnell, & Taber, 2009). Individualized consideration includes supporting and develop- ing, inspirational motivation includes envision- ing change, and intellectual stimulation in- cludes aspects of encouraging innovation.

2012 Yukl 79

Idealized influence is primarily a measure of perceived leader integrity involving consistency between leader actions and espoused values. Transactional leadership includes one task-ori- ented hehavior (monitoring), one relations-ori- ented hehavior (recognizing), and communica- tion of reward contingencies, which are usually specified hy the formal compensation program.

The taxonomy described in this article should not be viewed as the final solution for classifying leadership hehavior. Behavior con- structs are conceptual tools, and there is no oh- jective reality for them. They are most useful when they can he measured accurately, they can predict and explain leader influence on important outcomes, and they can improve leadership devel- opment programs. Future research may discover additional component behaviors that should he included (e.g., implementing change). Some com- ponent behaviors may need to be expanded to include forms of the behavior not explicitly in- cluded in the current descriptions. Some of the hroader component hehaviors in the current tax- onomy may need to he suhdivided in the future if it is found that narrower components would pro- vide a better explanation of leadership effective- ness. However, at this time it does not appear worthwhile to make the taxonomy any more com- plex. The current version is easy to remember and easy to use for developing an observation checklist or a coding guide (the hehavior definitions are provided in the appendix).

Future research may also provide justification for adding more meta-categories, and a possihle candidate is ethical and socially responsible lead- ership. One component of this meta-category could he leadership behavior that encourages eth- ical practices. Some examples are communicating ethical standards, encouraging ethical conduct, modeling ethical hehavior, and opposing unethi- cal conduct. Another component could he lead- ership behavior that encourages corporate social responsibility. Examples include making decisions that consider the needs of different stakeholders, encouraging support of worthy community service activities, encouraging improvements in product safety, and recommending practices that reduce harmful effects for the environment. Leadership

decisions and actions intended to henefit employ- ees, customers, or the environment are controver- sial if they do not also benefit the organization (Cameron, 2011; Waldman, 2011; Waldman & Siegel, 2008). Research on the effects of ethical and responsible leadership is still very limited, and more research is needed to identify relevant be- haviors and assess their short-term and long-term effects. The focus of this article is on leadership behaviors intended to improve performance, and more research is needed to determine if ethical and responsihle leadership should he included as a separate meta-category in a taxonomy for descrih- ing performance-enhancing behaviors.

The hierarchical taxonomy provides a broad perspective for understanding the types of behav- ior that determine how effective a leader will be, but the specific component behaviors are much more useful than the meta-categories for develop- ing better contingency theories and practical guidelines for leaders. Moderator variables for some of the specific behaviors have heen suggested (Yukl, 2013), but more research is needed on the joint effects of situational variables. Other rele- vant conditions that need more attention in fu- ture research include non-linear relationships be- tween behavior and outcomes, reciprocal causality, lagged effects, effects for different out- comes, effects of negative forms of the hehaviors, effects of different combinations of specific behav- iors, mediating processes that explain why the hehaviors influence performance, the joint effects of multiple leaders, multi-level effects of behav- iors, and joint effects for behaviors and programs.

When designing future studies on leadership it is important to select research methods that are appropriate for the type of knowledge sought rather than merely using a method that is familiar or convenient. Each research method has limita- tions, and it is desirahle to use multiple methods whenever feasible. Strong research methods should be used more often, including longitudinal field studies and experiments with manipulation of leader hehaviors in simulated teams or organi- zations to assess immediate and delayed effects. More studies should include incident diaries or video recording of leaders. When hehavior ques- tionnaires are used, more effort should be made to

Academy of Management Perspectives Navember

improve measurement accuracy and minimize re- spondent biases (e.g., train respondents to under- stand and recognize the behaviors). If a survey is conducted for a sample of homogeneous leaders (e.g., project team managers, coaches of athletic teams, public administrators), it should include some behavior items that are directly relevant for the sample rather than relying only on a behavior questionnaire with generic examples. Leadership effectiveness should be assessed from the perspec- tive of multiple stakeholders and with multiple criteria that include objective measures of work unit or organizational performance.

Finally, it is important to recognize that observ- able leadership behaviors are not the same as skills, values, personality traits, or roles. These other constructs can be useful for understanding effective leadership, but they differ in important ways from observable behaviors. When feasible, future studies should investigate how the different types of constructs jointly explain leader influence on work unit performance and other outcomes.

References Amabile, T. M., Schatzel, E. A., Moneta, G. B., & Kramer,

S. J. (2004). Leader behaviors and the work environment for creativity: Perceived leader support. Leadership Quar- terly, 15(1), 5-32.

Ancona, D. G., & Galdwell, D. F. (1992). Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organi- zational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 6 3 4 - 665.

Atwater, L. E., Dionne, S. D., Avolio, B. J., Gamobreco, J. F., & Lau, A. W. (1996). Leader attributes and behaviors predicting emergence of leader effectiveness (Technical Re- port 1044). Alexandria, VA. U.S. Army Research Insti- tute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. 1. (1999). Re-exam- ining the components of transformational and transac- tional leadership using the multifactor leadership ques- tionnaire, joumai of Occupatiorwl and Organizational Psychology, 72, 441-462.

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

Awamleh, R., & Gardner, W. L. (1999). Perceptions of leader charisma and effectiveness: The effects of vision content, delivery, and organizational performance. Lead- ership Quarterly, 10(3), 345-373.

Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Effects of transformational leadership training on attitudinal and

financial outcomes: A field experiment, journal of Ap- pUed Psychobgy, 81, 827-832.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyoryi expec- tations. New York: Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (2008). Haruibook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.

Bass, B. M., & Yammarino, F. J. (1991). Gongruence of self and others' leadership ratings of naval officers for under- standing successful performance. Applied Psychology: An Intemational Review, 40(4), 437-454.

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

Baumard, P., & Starbuck, W. H. (2005). Learning from failures: Why it may not happen. Long Range Planning, 38, 281-298.

Beer, M. (1988). The critical path for change: Keys to success and failure in six companies. In R. H. Kilmann & T. J. Govin (Eds.), Corporate transformation: Revitalizing organizations for a competitive world (pp. 17-45). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Berson, Y., Nemanich, L. A., Waldman, D. A., Galvin, B. M., & Keller, R. T. (2006). Leadership and organiza- tional learning: A multiple levels perspective. Leadership Quarterly, J 7, 577-594.

Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston: Gulf Publishing.

Bourgeois, L. J. (1985). Strategic goals, perceived uncer- tainty, and economic performance in volatile environ- ments. Academy of Management journal, 3, 548-573.

Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). The competent manager. New York: John Wiley.

Bradford, D. L., & Gohen, A. R. (1984). Mana^ng far excellence: The guide to developing high performance orga- nizations. New York: John Wiley.

Bragg, J., & Andrews, I. R. (1973). Participative decision making: An experimental study in a hospital, joumai of Applied Behaviaral Science, 9, 727-735.

Brewer, N., Wilson, G., & Beck, K. (1994). Supervisory behavior and team performance amongst police patrol sergeants, journal of Occupational and (Drganizational Psy- chology, 67, 69-78.

Brown, M. E., & Trevino, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595-616.

Brown, M. W., & Gioia, D. A. (2002). Making things click: Distributive leadership in an online division of an offline organization. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 397-419.

Burke, G. S., Stagl, K. G., Klein, G., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Halpin, S. M. (2006). What types of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? Leadership Quarterly, 17, 288-307.

Gameron, K. (2011). Responsible leadership as virtuous leadership, journal of Business Ethics, 98, 25-35.

Gampbell, J. P., Dunnette, M. D., Arvey, R. D., & Heller- vik, L. W. (1973). The development and evaluation of behaviorally based rating scales, journal of Applied Psy- chobgy, 57, 15-22.

2012 Yukl 81

Cannon, M. D., &. Edmondson, A. C. (2005). Failing to learn and learning to fail (intelligently): How great or- ganizations put failure to work to improve and innovate. Long Range Planning Journal, 38(3), 299-320.

Carson, J., Tesluk, P., & Marrone, J. (2007). Shared lead- ership in teams: An investigation of antecedent condi- tions and performance. Academy of Management Jourrud, 50, 1217-1234.

Coch, L., & French, J. R. P. Jr. (1948). Overcoming resis- tance to change. Human Relations, I, 512-532.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. (1987). Toward a behavioral theor\' of charismatic leadership in organizational set- tings. Academy ofManagement Review, 12, 637-647.

De Groot, T., Kiker, D. S., & Cross, T. C. (2000). A meta-analysis to review organizational outcomes related to charismatic leadership. Canadian Journal of Adminis- trative Sciences, 17(4), 356-371.

Denis, ]. L., Lamothe, L., &. Langley, A. (2001). The dy- namics of collective leadership and strategic change in pluralistic organizations. Academy of Management Jour- nal, 44(4), 809-837.

DeRue, D. S., Nahrgang, J., Wellman, N., & Humphrey, S. E. (2011). Trait and behavioral theories of leadership: An integration and meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 7-52.

DoUinger, M. J. (1984). Environmental boundary spanning and information processing effects on organizational per- formance. Academy of Maruigement Journal, 27(1), 3 5 1 - 368.

Dorfman, P. W., Howell, J. P., Cotton, B. C. C , & Täte, U. (1992). Leadership within the "discontinuous hi- erarchy" structure of the military. In K. E. Clark, M. B. Clark, & D. P. Campbell (Eds.), impact of leadership (pp. 3 9 9 - 4 1 6 ). Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

Druskat, V. U., &. Wheeler, J. V. (2003). Managing from the boundary: The effective leadership of self-managed work teams. Acaiiem î o/Management Joumai, 46(4), 435-457.

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350-383.

Edmondson, A. (2003a). Framing for learning: Lessons in successful technology implementation. CaUfomia Man- agement Review, 45(1), 34-54.

Edmondson, A. (2003b). Speaking up in the operating room. Joumai of Maruigement Studies, 40, 1419-1452.

Edmondson, A. C. (2002). The local and variegated nature of learning in organizations: A group-level perspective. Organizadon Science, 13, 128-146.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments. Academy of Management Joumai, 32(3), 543-576.

Ekvall, G., &. Arvonen, ]. (1991). Change-centered leadership: An extension of the two-dimensional model. Scarulmavian Jourruil of Maruigement, 7, 17-26.

Elenkov, D. S., Judge, W., &. Wright, P. (2005). Strategic leadership and executive innovation influence: An in- ternational multi-cluster comparative study. Strategic Management Joumai, 26, 665-682.

Ellis, S., Mendel, R., &. Nir, M. (2006). Learning from successful and failed experience: The moderating role of kind of after-event review. Joumai of Applied Psychology, 9J (3), 669-680.

Emrich, C. G., Brower, H. H., Feldman, J. M., & Garland, H. (2001). Images in words: Presidential rhetoric, cha- risma, and greatness. Administrative Scieru:e Quarterly, 46, 527-557.

Fanelli, A., & Misangyi, V. F. (2006). Bringing out charisma: CEO charisma and external stakeholders. Academy ofManagement Review, 3i(4), 1049-1061.

Ferris, G. R., Treadway, D. C , Perrewé, P. L., Brouer, R. L., Douglas, C , & Lux, S. (2007). Political skill in organi- zations. Joumai of Maruigement, 33, 290-320.

Finkelstein, S. (2003). Why smart executives fail. New York: Portfolio.

Fleishman, E. A. (1953). The description of supervisory behavior. Personnel Psychology, 37, 1-6.

Fleishman, E. A., & Harris, E. F. (1962). Patterns of lead- ership behavior related to employee grievances and turn- over. Jourrud of Applied Psychology, 15, 43-56.

Friedrich, T. L., Vessey, W. B., Schuelke, M. J., Ruark, G. A., & Mumford, M. D. (2009). A framework for understanding collective leadership: The selective utili- zation of leader and team expertise within networks. Leadership Quarterly, 20(6), 933-958.

Fry, L. W. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 14(6), 693-727.

Gebert, D., Boemer, S., & Lanwehr, R. (2003). The risks of autonomy: Empirical evidence for the necessity of bal- ance in promoting organizational innovativeness. Cre- atiwt̂ i and lnrwvaticm Management, Í2(l), 41-49.

Geletkanycz, M. A., &. Hambrick, D. C. (1997). The exter- nal ties of top executives: Implications for strategic choice and performance. Administrative Science Quar- terly, 42, 654-681.

George, B. (2003). AutHentic ¡eaders/iip: Rediscovering the secrets to creating lasting value. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gilmore, D. C , Beehr, T. A., & Richter, D. J. (1979). Effects of leader behaviors on subordinate perfor- mance and satisfaction: A laboratory experiment with student employees. Jourrud of Applied Psychology, 64, 166-172.

Grinyer, P. H., Mayes, D., & McKieman, P. (1990). The sharpbenders: Achieving a sustained improvement in performance. Long Range Planning, 23, 116-125.

Halpin, A. W. & Winer, B. J. (1957). A factorial study of the leader behavior descriptions. In R. M. Stogdill & A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description arui measurement. Columbus, OH: Bureau of Business Re- search, Ohio State University.

Hart, L. S., & Quinn, E. R. (1993). Roles executives play: CEOs, behavioral complexity, and firm performance. Human Relations, 46(5), 543-575.

Heifetz, R. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Cam- bridge, MA: Belknap Books of Harvard University Press.

Hersey, P., &. Blanchard, K. H. (1977). The management of organizational behavior (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

82 Academy of Management Perspectives Navember

Hooijberg, R. (1996). A multidimensional approach toward leadership: An extension of the concept of behavioral complexity. Human Relations, 49(7), 917-947.

House, R. J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effective- ness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 321-339.

House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leader- ship. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189-207). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated business unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychobgy, 78, 891-902.

Ibarra, H., & Hunter, M. (2007). How leaders create and use networks. Harvard Business Review, 85(1), 4 0 - 4 7.

Joshi, A., Pandey, N., & Han, G. H. (2009). Bracketing team boundary spanning: An examination of task-based, team-level, and contextual antecedents. Journal of Orga- nizational Behavior, 30, 731-759.

Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755-768.

Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Hies, R. (2004). The forgot- ten ones? The validity of consideration and initiating structure in leadership research. Journal of Applied Psy- chohgy, 89(1), 3 6 - 5 1.

Kaiser, R. B., Hogan, R., & Craig, S. B. (2008). Leadership and the fate of organizations. American Psychologist, 63(2), 96-110.

Kaiser, R. B., & Overfield, D. V. (2010). Assessing flexible leadership as a mastery of opposites. Consulting Psychol- ogy Journal: Practice and Research, 62, 105-118.

Kanter, R. M. (1983). The change masters. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Kaplan, R. E. (1984). Trade routes: The manager's network of relationships. Organizational Dynamics, Spring, 37-52.

Kaplan, R. E. (1988). The warp and woof of the general manager's job. In F. D. Schoorman & B. Schneider (Eds.), Facilitating work effectiveness (pp. 183-211). Lex- ington, MA: Lexington Books.

Katz, R. (1955). Skills of an effective administrator. Harvard Business Review, 33-42.

Katz, R., & Allen, T. J. (1985). Project performance and the locus of influence in the R&D matrix. Academy of Man- agement Journal, 28, 67-87.

Katz, R., & Tushman, M. L. (1981). An investigation into the managerial roles and career paths of gatekeepers and project supervisors in a major R&.D facility. R&D Man- agement, II, 1 0 3 - 1 1 0 .

Katz, R., & Tushman, M. L. (1983). A longitudinal study of the effects of boundary spanning supervision on turnover and promotion in research and development. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 437-456.

Keller, R. T. (2006). Transformational leadership, initiating structure, and substitutes for leadership: A longitudinal study of research and development project team perfor- mance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 202-210.

Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behav- ior and HuTnan Performance, 22, 375-403.

Kim, H., & Yukl, G. (1995). Relationships of self-reported and subordinate-reported leadership behaviors to mana- gerial effectiveness and advancement. Leadership Quar- terly, 6, 361-377.

Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1996). Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic leadership com- ponents on performance and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychohgy, 8 1 , 3 6 - 5 1 .

Komaki, J. L. (1986). Toward effective supervision: An opérant analysis and comparison of managers at work. Journal of Applied Psychohgy, 71(2), 270-279.

Korsgaard, M. A., Schweiger, D. M., & Sapienza, H. J. (1995). Building commitment, attachment, and trust in strategic decision-making teams: The role of procedural justice. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 60-84.

Kotter, J. P. (1982). The ge-neral managers. New York: Free Press.

Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston: Harvard Busi- ness School Press.

Kotter, J. P., & Cohen, D. S. (2002). The heart of change: Real-üfe stories of how people change their organizations. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1987). The leadership challenge: How to get extraordinary things done in organiza- tions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Larson, J. R., & Callahan, C. (1990). Performance monitoring: How it affects work productivity. Journal of Applied Psychohgy, 75, 530-538.

Latham, G. P., & Baldes, J. J. (1975). The "practical signif- icance" of Locke's theory of goal setting. Journal of Ap- plied Psychohgy, 60, 122-124.

Latham, G. P., & Yukl, G. A. (1976). Effects of assigned and participative goal setting on performance and satisfac- tion. Journal of Applied Psychohgy, 61(2), 166-171.

Leana, C. R. (1986). Predictors and consequences of dele- gation. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 754-774.

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

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

Luthans, F., Rosenkrantz, S. A., & Hennessey, H. W. (1985). What do successful managers really do? An ob- servational study of managerial activities. Journal of Ap- plied Behavioral Science, 2 1 , 2 5 5 - 2 7 0 .

Mann, F. C. (1965). Toward an understanding of the lead- ership role in formal organization. In R. Dubin, G. C. Homans, F. C. Mann, & D. C. Miller (Eds.), Leadership and productivity. San Francisco: Chandler.

Marks, M. A., Zaccaro, S. J., & Mathieu, J. E. (2000). Performance implications of leader briefings and team- interaction training for team adaptation to novel envi- ronments. Journal of Applied Psychohgy, 85, 971-986.

Marrone, J. A. (2010). Team boundary spanning: A multi- level review of past research and proposals for the future. Journal o/Management, 36, 911-940.

2012 Yukl 83

McClelland, P. L., Liang, X., & Barker, V. L. (2009). CEO commitment to the status quo: Replication and exten- sion using content analysis. Joumai of Management, 36, 1251-1277.

McDonough, E. F., & Barczak, G. (1991). Speeding up new product development: The effects of leadership style and source of technology. Joumai of Product Innovation Man- agement, 8, 203-211.

Michael, J., & Yukl, G. (1993). Managerial level and sub- unit function as determinants of networking behavior in organizations. Group and Organization Management, 18, 328-351.

Miller, K. I., & Monge, P. R. (1986). Participation, satis- faction, and productivity: A meta-analytic review. Acad- emy of Management Journal, 29, 727-753.

Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York: Harper & Row.

Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D., & Theoret, A. (1976). The structure of unstructured decision processes. Administra- tive Science Quarterly, 21, 2 4 6 - 2 7 5 .

Misumi, J., & Peterson, M. (1985). The performance-main- tenance (PM) theory of leadership: Review of a Japanese research program. Administrative Scier\ce Quarterly, 30, 198-223.

Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive super- vision and workplace deviance and the moderating ef- fects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Joumai of Applied Psychobgy, 92(4), 1159-1168.

Morgeson, F. P. (2005). The external leadership of self- managed teams: Intervening in the context of novel and disruptive events. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 497- 508.

Morse, J. J., & Wagner, F. R. (1978). Measuring the process of managerial effectiveness. Academy of Maruigement Joumai, 21, 23-35.

Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. M. (2002). Leading creative people: Orchestrating expertise and relationships. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 705-750.

Mumford; T. V., Campion, M. A., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). The leadership skills strataplex: Leadership skill requirements across organizational levels. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 154-166.

Nadler, D. A. (1988). Organizational frame bending: Types of change in the complex organization. In R. H. Kilmann & T. J. Covin (Eds.), Corporate transformation: Revitaliz- ing organizations for a competitive world (pp. 66-83). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Nadler, D. A., Shaw, R. B., Walton, A. E., et al. (1995). Discontinuous change: Leading organizatiorvil transforma- tion. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. Tliousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Peters, T. J., &. Austin, N. (1985). A passion fen- excellence: The leadership difference. New York: Random House.

Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H., Jr. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America's best-run companies. New York: Harper & Row.

Pierce, J. R., & Aguinis, H. (in press). The too-much-of-a- good-thing effect in management. Joumai of Manage- ment.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Aheame, M., & Bom- mer, W. H. (1995). Searching for a needle in a haystack: Trying to identify the illusive moderators of leadership behaviors. Joumai of Management, 21, 423-470.

Popper, M., & Lipshitz, R. (1998). Organizational learning mechanisms: A structural and cultural approach to or- ganizational learning. Joumai of Applied Behavioral Sci- ence, 34(1), 161-179.

Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Toward a competing values ap- proach to organizational analysis. Management Science, 29, 363-377.

Redmond, M. R., Mumford, M. D., & Teach, R. J. (1993). Putting creativity to work: Leader influences on subor- dinate creativity. Organizatioruxl Behavior and Human De- cision Processes, 55, 120-151.

Schweiger, D. M., Anderson, C. R., & Locke, E. A. (1985). Complex decision making: A longitudinal study of pro- cess and performance. (Drganizatiorwl Behavior and Hu- man Decision Processes, 36, 245-272.

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

Shipper, F. (1991). Mastery and frequency of managerial behaviors relative to subunit effectiveness. Human Rela- tions, 44, 371-388.

Shipper, F., & Dillard, J. E., Jr. (2000). A study of impend- ing derailment and recovery of middle managers across career stages. Human Resource Management, 39(4), 3 3 1 - 345.

Shipper, F., & Wilson, C. L. (1992). The impact of mana- gerial behaviors on group performance, stress, and com- mitment. In K. Clark, M. B. Clark, & D. P. Campbell (Eds.), Impact of leadership (pp. 119-129). Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

Spector, P. E. (1986). Perceived control by employees: A meta-analysis of studies concerning autonomy and par- ticipation at work. Human Relations, 39, 1005-1016.

Stogdill, R. M., Goode, O. S., & Day, D. R. (1962). New leader behavior description subscales. Joumai of Psychol- ogy, 54, 259-269.

Tannenbaum, S. L, Smith-Jentsch, K., & Behson, S. J. (1998). Training team leaders to facilitate team learning and performance. In J. A. Cannon-Bowers & E. Salas (Eds.), Making decisions under stress: Implications for indi- vidual and team training (pp. 247-270). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Jourrwl, 43(1), 178-190.

Tichy, N. M., &. Devanna, M. A. (1986). The trans/orma- tional leader. New York: John Wiley.

Tushman, M. L., & Katz, R. (1980). External communica- tion and project performance: An investigation into the role of gatekeepers. Management Science, 26, 1071-1085.

Van Fleet, D. D., & Yukl, G. (1986). MiÜtary leadership: An organizational perspective. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Academy of Management Perspectives November

Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and decision making. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Wagner, J. A., & Gooding, R. Z. (1987). Shared influence and organizational behavior: A meta-analysis of situa- tional variables expected to moderate participation-out- come relationships. Academy of Management journal, 30, 524-541.

Waldman, D. A. (2011). Moving forward with the concept of responsible leadership: Three caveats to guide theory and research, journal of Business EtMcs, 98, 75-83.

Waldman, D. A., Javidan, M., & Varella, P. (2004). Ghar- ismatic leadership at the strategic level: A new applica- tion of upper echelons theory. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 355-380.

Waldman, D. A., & Siegel, D. (2008). Defining the socially responsible leader. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 117-131.

Wang, G., Oh, l.-S., Gourtright, S. H., & Golbert, A. E. (2011). Transformational leadership and performance across criteria and levels: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of research. Group and Organz?:ation Marmgement, 36, 223-270.

Wang, H., Tsui, A. H., & Xin, K. R. (2011). GEO leader- ship behaviors, organizational performance, and em- ployee attitudes. Leadership Quarterly, 22, 92-105.

Wikoff, M., Anderson, D. G., & Growell, G. R. (1983). Behavior management in a factory setting: Increasing work efficiency, journal of Organizaticmal Behavior Man- agement, 4, 97-128.

Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluative essay on current concep- tions of effective leadership. European joumai of Work and Organizaticmal Psychology, 8, 33-48.

Yukl, G. (2008). How leaders influence organizational ef- fectiveness. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 708-722.

Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Engle- wood Gliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Yukl, G., Gordon, A., & Taber, T. (2002). A hierarchical taxonomy of leadership behavior: Integrating a half cen- tury of behavior research, journal of Leadership arvi Or- ganizational Studies, 9, 15-32.

Yukl, G., & Kanuk, L. (1979). Leadership behavior and effectiveness of beauty salon managers. Personnei Psychol- ogy, 32, 663-675.

Yukl, G., & Lepsinger, R. (2004). Flexible leadership: Creating value by balancing multiple challenges ar\d choices. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Yukl, G., & Mahsud, R. (2010). Why flexible, adaptive leadership is important. Gonsuiting Psychology journal, 62(1), 81-93.

Yukl, G., O'Donnell, M., & Taber, T. (2009). Leader be- haviors and leader member exchange, journal of Mana- gerial Psychobgy, 24(4), 289-299.

Yukl, G., & Van Fleet, D. (1982). Gross-situational, multi- method research on military leader effectiveness. Orga- nizaticmal Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 87-108.

Yukl, G., Wall, S., & Lepsinger, R. (1990). Preliminary report on validation of the managerial practices survey. In K. E. Glark & M. B. Glark (Eds.), Measures of leader- ship (pp. 223-238). West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of America.

Zalatan, K. A. (2005). Inside the black box: Leadership influence on team effectiveness (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). University of Albany School of Business.

Zhu, W., Ghew, I. K. H., & Spangler, W. D. (2005). GEO transformational leadership and organizational outcomes: The mediating role of human-capital-enhanc- ing human resource management. Leadership Quarterly, 16(1), 39-52.

Appendix Definitions off 15 Speciffic Leadership Behaviors Planning: develops short-term plans for the work; deter- mines how to schedule and coordinate activities to use people and resources efficiently; determines the action steps and resources needed to accomplish a project or activity. Clarifying: clearly explains task assignments and member responsibilities; sets specific goals and deadlines for impor- tant aspects of the work; explains priorities for different objectives; explains rules, policies, and standard procedures. Monitoring: checks on the progress and quality of the work; examines relevant sources of information to determine how well important tasks are being performed; evaluates the performance of members in a systematic way. Problem Solving: identifies work-related problems that can disrupt operations, makes a systematic but rapid diagnosis, and takes action to resolve the problems in a decisive and confident way. Supporting: shows concern for the needs and feelings of individual members; provides support and encouragement when there is a difficult or stressful task, and expresses confldence members can successfully complete it. Recognizing: praises effective performance by members; provides recognition for member achievements and contri- butions to the organization; recommends appropriate re- wards for members with high performance. Developing: provides helpful feedback and coaching for members who need it; provides helpful career advice; en- courages members to take advantage of opportunities for skill development. Empowering: involves members in making important work- related decisions and considers their suggestions and con- cerns; delegates responsibility and authority to members for important tasks and allows them to resolve work-related problems without prior approval. Advocating Change: explains an emerging threat or oppor- tunity; explains why a policy or procedure is no longer appropriate and should be changed; proposes desirable changes; takes personal risks to push for approval of essential but difficult changes. Envisioning Change: communicates a clear, appealing vi- sion of what could be accomplished; links the vision to member values and ideals; describes a proposed change or new initiative with enthusiasm and optimism. Encouraging Innovation: talks about the importance of innovation and flexibility; encourages innovative thinking

2012 Yukl 85

and new approaches for solving problems; encourages and supports efforts to develop innovative new products, ser- vices, or processes. Facilitating Collective Learning: uses systematic procedures for learning how to improve work unit performance; helps members understand causes of work unit performance; en- courages members to share new knowledge with each other. Networking: attends meetings or events; joins professional associations or social clubs; uses social networks to build and maintain favorable relationships with peers, superiors, and

outsiders who can provide useful information or assistance. External Monitoring: analyzes information about events, trends, and changes in the external environment to identify threats, opportunities, and other implications for the work unit. Representing: lobbies for essential funding or resources; promotes and defends the reputation of the work unit or organization; negotiates agreements and coordinates related activities with other parts of the organization or with outsiders.

Copyright of Academy of Management Perspectives is the property of Academy of Management and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.