Strategic leadership research: Moving on

During the last 20 years, the field of strategic leadership has undergone both a rejuvenation and a metamorphosis. We argue that the essence of strategic leadership involves the capacity to learn, the capacity to change, and managerial wisdom. Against this backdrop, we first review issues related to under what conditions, when, and how strategic leadership matters. Next, we selectively review three streams of theory and research. The first is strategic leadership theory and its antecedent, Upper Echelon theory. The second stream of theory and research focuses on what Bryman has labeled the “new” leadership theories. These include charismatic, transformational, and visionary theories of leadership. The last stream of research we classify as the “emergent” theories of leadership. Among these are theories that explore behavioral and cognitive complexity as well as social intelligence. Finally, we attempt to suggest how the “new” and “emergent” theories can be integrated within what we claim is the essence of strategic leadership.     

The leadership of emergence: A complex systems leadership theory of emergence at successive organizational levels

Complexity science reframes leadership by focusing on the dynamic interactions between all individuals, explaining how those interactions can, under certain conditions, produce emergent outcomes. We develop a Leadership of Emergence using this approach, through an analysis of three empirical studies which document emergence in distinct contexts. Each of these studies identifies the same four “conditions” for emergence: the presence of a Dis-equilibrium state, Amplifying actions, Recombination/“Self-organization”, and Stabilizing feedback. From these studies we also show how these conditions can be generated through nine specific behaviors which leaders can enact, including: Disrupt existing patterns through embracing uncertainty and creating controversy, Encourage novelty by allowing experiments and supporting collective action, Provide sensemaking and sensegiving through the artful use of language and symbols, and Stabilize the system by Integrating local constraints. Finally, we suggest ways for advancing a meso-model of leadership, and show how our findings can improve complexity science applications in management.     

Blazing new trails or opportunity lost? Evaluating research at the intersection of leadership and entrepreneurship

More than a decade ago, scholars formally conceptualized the potential synergy between leadership and entrepreneurship scholarship. Our work highlights research accomplishments occurring at the interface of these two intellectual areas as well as identifying untapped possibilities for continued research. We highlight how recent efforts have witnessed a mutual exchange of ideas that present opportunities benefiting both fields. Drawing from four key domains of entrepreneurship previously proposed to mutually inform future leadership research efforts, we make suggestions for integrating entrepreneurial opportunities, the roles of individual and entrepreneurial teams, the modes of organizing entrepreneurial ventures, and differing entrepreneurial environments with key trends important to leadership research, such as servant leadership and leader-member exchange theory. Overall, our work provides an assessment of the state of the art surrounding the coalescence of leadership and entrepreneurship research and sets an agenda for the next decade of research at this intersection.     

Leadership in the digital era: A review of who,what, when,where, and why

Leadership as a social influence process has always involved a complex set of phenomena that demands an interdisciplinary lens. Leadership scholarship has now entered into a digital era. In a digital era, the overall phenomenon is changing, as are the tools through which we study it, demanding a new “lens” through which we view leadership. Yet, this raises the question, to what extent is leadership different in a digital era? In acknowledgement of this trend, a special issue was commissioned at The Leadership Quarterly that sought to stimulate the imagination of leadership scholars and practitioners. In the current work, we begin with a brief review of who, what, when, where and why of digital leadership. We cover leadership in informal contexts (e.g., social media), generalization from face-to-face to virtual contexts, computational modeling, the leveraging of technology (e.g., machine learning; Big Data), as well methodological how-to guides. We then plot a path forward for leadership scholars in the dawn of the digital era.     

Advancing the science of 21st-century leadership development: Theory,research, and practice

Leadership development seeks to understand, predict, and intervene effectively in addressing the questions of how individuals develop as leaders and how collections of individuals develop a capacity for leadership. These questions are attracting scholars interested in the factors and processes involved in developing leaders and leadership. Presented in the special issue is a set of state-of-the-science empirical studies and theory development articles representing 21st century leadership development. We also provide a brief overview of issues related to the leadership development field – broadly construed to include individual leader development – that are especially pertinent and where the research evidence is scarce or contradictory. These areas are theoretical foundations of leadership development, practices and methods of development and talent selection for development, accurately estimating return on investment for leadership development initiatives, the role of time in developing leaders and leadership, understanding and remedying biases and inequities in leadership development, and the role of development in mitigating the so-called dark side of leadership. Although we have learned much about leader and leadership development over the past 20 years, there is an ongoing need for more research and theory development especially with respect to identifying causally and practically relevant knowledge able to inform policy.     

Meso-modeling of leadership: Following James G. (Jerry) Hunt's lead in integrating micro- and macro-perspectives of leadership

This introduction provides a tribute to James G. (Jerry) Hunt as leader of leadership scholars, along with an overview to The Leadership Quarterly special issue on meso-modeling of leadership. Our tribute traces Jerry's evolution from a right-brain, defrocked engineer to a pioneering leadership scholar. Through early and sustained scholarly contributions regarding the importance of context to leadership, Jerry paved the way for meso-modeling perspectives on leadership, such as those reflected in this special issue. We conclude by highlighting the contribution of nine articles that serve to further Jerry's legacy through the advancement of conceptual and empirical insights into meso-level leadership processes.     

Leadership research and cognitive neuroscience: The state of this union

Advances in cognitive neuroscience and other approaches to understanding human behavior from a biological standpoint are only now beginning to filter into leadership research. The purpose of this introduction to the Leadership Quarterly Special Issue on the Biology of Leadership is to outline the organizational cognitive neuroscience approach to leadership research, and show how such an approach can fruitfully inform both leadership and neuroscientific research. Indeed, we advance the view that the further application of cognitive neuroscientific techniques to leadership research will pay great dividends in our understanding of effective leadership behaviors and as such, a future symbiosis between the two fields is a necessity.     

A productive clash of cultures: Injecting economics into leadership research

Research on leadership in economics has developed in parallel to the literature in management and psychology and links between the fields have been sparse. Whereas modern leadership scholars mostly focus on transformational and related leadership styles, economists have mainly emphasized the role of contracts, control rights, and incentives. We argue that both fields could profit from enriching their approach with insights from the other field. We review and synthesize the economics literature on leadership in organizations and discuss how leadership scholars in management and psychology can benefit from the detailed understanding of transactional methods that economists have developed. We link the contributions in economics to a broad set of topics including the foundations of leadership, leader emergence, and leader effectiveness. At the same time, we also point out limitations of the economic approach and outline how the integration of leadership research and economics would broaden the scope of future studies.     

Military leadership: A context specific review

The purpose of this article is to review the literature on military leadership and highlight research opportunities for leadership scholars. The review uses a context specific approach and turns to a simplified version of Hunt's (Hunt, J. G. (1991). Leadership: A new synthesis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage) extended multilevel leadership model as a template to examine the many facets of military leadership. The military leadership literature is stratified into the systems, organizational, and direct levels of leadership with an examination of studies on the critical tasks and individual capabilities required at each level. Additionally, studies on organizational culture and effectiveness at each level are addressed. The article emphasizes that the military is undergoing substantial change as it adjusts to the changing nature of war and a fluid world situation. Based on trends in the military, the review concludes with several general recommendations for future research.     

Complexity leadership in bureaucratic forms of organizing: A meso model

We consider Complexity Leadership Theory [Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity Leadership Theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly.] in contexts of bureaucratic forms of organizing to describe how adaptive dynamics can work in combination with administrative functions to generate emergence and change in organizations. Complexity leadership approaches are consistent with the central assertion of the meso argument that leadership is multi-level, processual, contextual, and interactive. In this paper we focus on the adaptive function, an interactive process between adaptive leadership (an agentic behavior) and complexity dynamics (non-agentic social dynamics) that generates emergent outcomes (e.g., innovation, learning, adaptability) for the firm. Propositions regarding the actions of complexity leadership in bureaucratic forms of organizing are offered.     

The study of followers in leadership research: A systematic and critical review

Despite the significant amount of existing research examining the relationship of follower-related factors with leadership outcomes, there is no systematic, critical review that integrates and helps leadership scholars make sense of this rapidly growing body of research. To address this gap in the literature, we first briefly discuss the leading perspectives explaining the role of followers in leadership. Next, we identify and discuss the most frequently studied theoretical narratives explaining the relationship between follower-related predictors and leadership outcomes. Because theoretical arguments generally make causal claims, we identify and examine how methodological concerns including power analysis, multicollinearity, and endogeneity might prevent researchers from supporting those claims. We further explore how these concerns, when relevant and unaddressed, might affect the reported effect sizes. We provide recommendations to help meaningfully structure the field and seed conversations for theoretical and methodological advancements in research on the role of followers in leadership.     

Situational leadership theory: A test of three versions

Three versions of the leadership dynamics derived from Hersey and Blanchard's Situational Leadership Theory were identified: (1) the original, 1972, statement of the theory; (2) the revised, 2007, theory; and (3) an alternative statement of the theory's essential principle of differential follower response to “autonomy afforded by the leader” in conjunction with “follower developmental level” (as indexed by employee job experience). Survey data collected from 357 banking employees and 80 supervisors, sampled from 10 Norwegian financial institutions, were analyzed for predicted interactions. Results indicated that the 2007 revised theory was a poorer predictor of subordinate performance and attitudes than the original version. The third, alternative, version (which predicted an autonomy × job experience interaction) offered promise for further exploration of the theory's essential principle that employee outcomes are associated with prescribed leader behaviors in combination with follower developmental level, although this version also did not add substantially to accounting for criterion variance.     

Charismatic leadership in business organizations: Some neglected issues

The article reviews some of the recent literature on charismatic leadership and notes that there has been a tendency for research and theorizing to emphasize a number of issues examined by Weber to the relative exclusion of others. Those areas that have been focused upon, have tended to reflect the “applied” emphasis in much research in the field of leadership in organizations. The article takes two areas that were central to Weber's work—routinization of charisma and loss of charisma—to demonstrate that these topics can illuminate and add to our understanding of the operation of charismatic leadership in business and other formal organizations.     

The leadership trilogy: A review of the third decade of The Leadership Quarterly

The present research reviews the most recent ten years, 2010–2019, of the work published in The Leadership Quarterly (LQ). We follow on prior decade-focused reviews published in LQ, including the period 1990–1999 (Lowe & Gardner, 2000) and 2000–2009 (Gardner, Lowe, Cogliser, Moss & Mahoney, 2010). The present work complements and expands the first two reviews by documenting how the field has evolved with new characters, methodologies, and theories emerging while others decline and become less relevant. We extend the story of how LQ emerged from a start-up niche journal, evolved into the predominant outlet for leadership research and new theories, gained awareness of a growing need to reduce construct proliferation, and adopted increasingly sophisticated methodological techniques that call into question some of the field's prior research findings.     

Economic perspectives on leadership: Concepts,causality, and context in leadership research

The fields of leadership and economics have interacted very little until now. The aim of this special issue on “economics and leadership” is to demonstrate the potential benefits of paying attention to and incorporating economic perspectives and methods into leadership research. Specifically, we argue that the field of economics can advance leadership research on three main topics: concepts, causality and context. For each topic, we summarize the state-of-the-art literature and showcase important insights, tools and findings. We also discuss possible critiques of the economic perspective on leadership. The timeliness of this issue is evident from recent discussions on the three C's within the field of leadership research, not least within The Leadership Quarterly itself. Our paper as well as the other six papers in this issue demonstrates that narrowing the gap between economics and leadership is not only beneficial and feasible, but also crucial for the progress of leadership research.     

Is there such a thing as leadership skill? – A replication and extension of the relationship between high school leadership positions and later-life earnings

This paper replicates and extends Kuhn and Weinberger's (2005) “Leadership Skills and Wages”. The original article found that those white males who were club presidents and team captains in high school earned significantly more eleven years later. As the empirical relationship between leadership positions and subsequent earnings includes those characteristics that predate high school and those that are developed because of leadership activity participation in high school, the original study cannot differentiate between leadership skills developed earlier and those developed in high school. We employ propensity score matching on leadership exposure in high school to control for potential endogenous observable selection and provide estimates from instrumental variable regressions to assess the robustness of the original effects to other omitted causes. To investigate the generalizability of the original findings, we also extend the sample by including females and non-white males. Lastly, we investigate how an extension of the initial (11-year) time horizon to almost 50 years affects the coefficient estimates. We can corroborate the original effect that those who occupied leadership positions as captains and presidents earn more 11 years after high school and report higher income some 50 years after high school. We fail, however, to find effects for those who occupied only a role as captain or president solely. Moreover, the findings do not generalize to the samples of females and non-white males. Our findings provide important insights into later-life benefits of early leadership exposure and have implications for those designing leadership training programs and those taking on (or refraining from) leadership positions in early life.     

Research on leadership in a cross-cultural context: Making progress, and raising new questions

It is almost cliché to say that there has been an explosion in the amount of research on leadership in a cross-cultural context. In this review, we describe major advances and emerging patterns in this research domain over the last several years. Our starting point for this update is roughly 1996–1997, since those are the dates of two important reviews of the cross-cultural leadership literature [specifically, House, Wright, and Aditya (House, R. J., Wright, N. S., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). Cross-cultural research on organizational leadership: A critical analysis and a proposed theory. In: P. C. Earley, & M. Erez (Eds.), New perspectives on international industrial/organizational psychology (pp. 535–625). San Francisco, CA) and Dorfman (Dorfman, P. W. (1996). International and cross-cultural leadership research. In: B. J. Punnett, & O. Shenkar (Eds.), Handbook for international management research, pp. 267–349, Oxford, UK: Blackwell)]. We describe the beginnings of the decline in the quest for universal leadership principles that apply equivalently across all cultures, and we focus on the increasing application of the dimensions of culture identified by Hofstede [Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values (Abridged ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage] and others to describe variation in leadership styles, practices, and preferences. We also note the emergence of the field of cross-cultural leadership as a legitimate and independent field of endeavor, as reflected in the emergence of publication outlets for this research, and the establishment of long-term multinational multi-investigator research programs on the topic. We conclude with a discussion of progress made since the two pieces that were our departure point, and of progress yet to be made.