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.     

E-leadership: Implications for theory, research, and practice

In this article we review literature to build a broad understanding of what constitutes e-leadership in organizations. We propose a framework based on Adaptive Structuration Theory that could be used to study how Advanced Information Technology could influence and is influenced by leadership. According to our framework, the effects of Advanced Information Technology emerge from their interaction with organizational structures of which leadership is a part. Furthermore, organizational structures, including leadership, may themselves be transformed as a result of interactions with Advanced Information Technology. We use our Adaptive Structuration Theory–based framework to pool relevant results and suggestions from a diverse array of literature to provide recommendations for developing a research agenda on e-leadership.     

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.     

Trust in leadership: A multi-level review and integration

Leaders have been argued to play a key role in determining organizational effectiveness across all levels (e.g., individual, team, unit) that exist within organizations. A key component in a leader's ability to be effective within such environments is the degree to which subordinates and co-workers trust him/her. Therefore, it is not surprising that researchers and practitioners alike are interested in identifying the mechanisms through which trust in leadership can be developed as well as those factors which moderate this relationship [e.g., Gillespie, N. A., Mann, L. (2004). Transformational leadership and shared values: The building blocks of trust. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19, 588–607; Kouzes and Posner, 1995; Roberts, K. H., O'Reilly, C. A. (1974). Failures in upward communication in organizations: Three possible culprits. Academy of Management Journal, 17, 205–215; Whitener, E. M. (1997). The impact of human resource activities on employee trust. Human Resource Management Review, 7, 389–404]. Despite this, research that has addressed the factors that foster trust in leaders and the outcomes of this trust has been disjointed and, as yet, no comprehensive model has been presented to systematically examine these factors. Therefore, the purpose of this article will be to present an integrative model of trust in leadership.     

Leadership for organizational adaptability: A theoretical synthesis and integrative framework

One of the biggest challenges facing leaders today is the need to position and enable organizations and people for adaptability in the face of increasingly dynamic and demanding environments. Despite this we know surprisingly little about this topic. In this paper we provide a theoretical synthesis and integrative review of research from strategy, organization theory, innovation, networks, and complexity to provide a framework of leadership for organizational adaptability. Our review shows that leadership for organizational adaptability is different from traditional leadership or leading change. It involves enabling the adaptive process by creating space for ideas advanced by entrepreneurial leaders to engage in tension with the operational system and generate innovations that scale into the system to meet the adaptive needs of the organization and its environment. Leadership for organizational adaptability calls for scholars and practitioners to recognize organizational adaptability as an important organizational outcome, and enabling leadership (i.e., enabling the adaptive process through adaptive space) as a critical form of leadership for adaptive organizations.     

An Examination of the Relationship Between Absorptive Capacity and Organizational Learning,and a Proposed Integration

Since its inception, the concept of absorptive capacity has been closely linked with notions of organizational learning. Yet the precise nature of the relationship between these two concepts has never been established. This relationship is examined in a variety of ways, and it is suggested that the literature on these two concepts shares a conceptual affinity which needs to be delineated. It is suggested that absorptive capacity (a dynamic capability) is a concrete example of organizational learning that concerns an organization's relationship with new external knowledge. Using the 4I Model for organizational learning ( Crossan, M.M., Lane, H.W. and White, R.E. (1999 ). An organizational learning framework: from intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24, 522–537) and Zahra and George's conceptualization of absorptive capacity ( Zahra, S.A. and George, G. (2002 ). Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27, 185–203), this paper proposes an integration of the two concepts.     

Shared Leadership in Commercial Organizations: A Systematic Review of Definitions,Theoretical Frameworks and Organizational Outcomes

The importance of context has been well established in studies of leadership (Bryman, A. and Stephens, M. (1996). The importance of context: qualitative research and the study of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 7, pp. 353–371; Pettigrew, A. and Whipp, R. (1991). Managing Change for Competitive Success. Oxford: Blackwell). However, recent reviews of shared leadership have tended to merge findings across commercial and non‐commercial settings, disregarding contextual differences in these distinctive domains. Acknowledging that the challenges of leadership may vary in different organizational contexts, this paper argues that a focused review of shared leadership in commercial organizations (COs) is needed. The authors thus systematically review findings from over twenty years of empirical research on the practice of shared leadership in commercial organizations, critically reviewing definitions, theoretical dispositions and measurement approaches adopted in the field, before evaluating the impact of shared leadership on performance in this context. Findings from commercial and non‐ commercial organizations are then compared, highlighting significant differences in the conceptualization of shared leadership in these distinct settings. Contributing to theory in this field, a framework is developed, mapping the landscape of current research in commercial contexts, revealing critical gaps in our present understanding of shared leadership processes. Consequently, a model summarizing a proposed research agenda for future studies is provided, highlighting the need for such research to focus on the interactions of individuals as they share in the leadership of their team.     

Implicit Leadership and Followership Theories “in the wild”: Taking stock of information-processing approaches to leadership and followership in organizational settings

For over 30 years information-processing approaches to leadership and more specifically Implicit Leadership Theories (ILTs) research has contributed a significant body of knowledge on leadership processes in applied settings. A new line of research on Implicit Followership Theories (IFTs) has re-ignited interest in information-processing and socio-cognitive approaches to leadership and followership. In this review, we focus on organizational research on ILTs and IFTs and highlight their practical utility for the exercise of leadership and followership in applied settings. We clarify common misperceptions regarding the implicit nature of ILTs and IFTs, review both direct and indirect measures, synthesize current and ongoing research on ILTs and IFTs in organizational settings, address issues related to different levels of analysis in the context of leadership and follower schemas and, finally, propose future avenues for organizational research.     

Thinking outside the box by looking inside the box: Extending the cognitive revolution in leadership research

Follower and leader cognitions play critical roles in many organizational phenomena. In this review, we report and reflect on a decade of cognitive leadership research. Following a brief introduction, the review is divided into two sections—one devoted to individual and dyadic cognition, and the other to collective cognition. We identified three central themes for each section. For individual and dyadic cognition, we identified metacognitive processes and leadership, implicit leadership theories (ILTs), and network based models of ILTs as central themes. For collective cognition, we identified charisma, organizational performance and sensemaking, and transformation and change as central themes. Our goal in this review was to uncover important underlying assumptions of selected studies to illuminate more clearly the path of cognitive leadership research over the past 10 years and its potential paths over the next ten years.     

Leadership efficacy: Review and future directions

The concept of leader efficacy has received relatively little attention in the leadership literature. This is somewhat surprising given that effective leadership requires high levels of agency (i.e., deliberately or intentionally exerting positive influence) and confidence. This review uses existing theory and research on leader efficacy as a point of departure for proposing an expanded and multi-level framework for understanding the domain of leadership efficacy that includes leader, follower, and collective efficacies. The primary goals are to provide a conceptual framework to stimulate future theory and research on building efficacious leadership and to understand how such leadership develops and has implications for effective performance.     

The emotional link: Leadership and the role of implicit and explicit emotional contagion processes across multiple organizational levels

Emotional contagion processes influence a wide range of organizational and leadership outcomes. In this paper, I review emotional contagion research as it relates to multiple levels of analysis within an organization and discuss the extent to which this process can be managed by leaders. The review begins with an explanation of the processes underpinning the emotional contagion process, highlighting the neurological mechanisms that give rise to implicit and explicit forms of emotional contagion. In the following section, I discuss some individual differences that moderate the experience of these two forms of emotional contagion. Subsequently, I review how emotional contagion processes impact leadership outcomes at the interpersonal, group and finally, organizational levels. The purpose of the current review is threefold. The first is to refine understandings of the emotional dynamics of leadership influence from a neurological perspective, highlighting how implicit and explicit emotional contagion underpins much of leader-follower interactions. Second, the review extends on conceptualizations of emotional contagion in leadership interactions often captured at the interpersonal level, and illustrates how the process is relevant in influencing group level organizational leadership outcomes. Third, the review also highlights themes emerging from this area of research, and concludes with directions for further research. Ultimately, the review aims to show how emotional contagion processes are implicated as the ‘emotional links’ across multiple levels in organizations and organizational leadership.     

Bringing the cognitive revolution forward: What can team cognition contribute to our understanding of leadership?

Cognition is a central element of organizational behavior and leaders are seen as key shapers of organizational cognition. Leaders’ influence over organizations often occurs through their influence on the collectives or teams they are leading. Hence, leaders influence organizational outcomes by modeling team cognition. Despite the importance of this relationship for organizational outcomes, there is little integration currently between the leadership and team cognition literatures. To address this gap, we conduct an integrative review. First, we develop a model for leader and team influence based on organizational emergence and leadership complexity theories. Our model makes a distinction between the source of influence over cognition (leader → team, team → leader, reciprocal) and form of cognition emergence (variance reduction, variance enhancement); constraints that shape cognitions that vary in levels (within and between-level, contextual) and focus (individual, interindividual, collective); and leader behaviors (administrative, adaptive, enabling). We apply this model to review and analyze ninety-nine studies in the current literature and then discuss the limitations and future directions drawing on our findings and theoretical model. We contribute a unifying framework of leadership and team emergence that can be expanded and applied to other settings.     

Leadership in complex organizations

This paper asks how complexity theory informs the role of leadership in organizations. Complexity theory is a science of complexly interacting systems; it explores the nature of interaction and adaptation in such systems and how they influence such things as emergence, innovation, and fitness. We argue that complexity theory focuses leadership efforts on behaviors that enable organizational effectiveness, as opposed to determining or guiding effectiveness. Complexity science broadens conceptualizations of leadership from perspectives that are heavily invested in psychology and social psychology (e.g., human relations models) to include processes for managing dynamic systems and interconnectivity. We develop a definition of organizational complexity and apply it to leadership science, discuss strategies for enabling complexity and effectiveness, and delve into the relationship between complexity theory and other currently important leadership theories. The paper concludes with a discussion of possible implications for research strategies in the social sciences.     

Traversing the storm: An interdisciplinary review of crisis leadership

An organizational crisis is a low-probability, high-impact event that threatens the survival of organizations and individuals, often with little warning. In response, people seek clarity, reassurance, and hope from organizational leaders. Yet, crises also vary in nature and impact (e.g., a product failure versus the COVID-19 pandemic), which presents diverse challenges to leaders and differing stakeholder perceptions. Based on a critical analysis of 69 empirical articles, we provide a comprehensive, systematic, interdisciplinary review of the crisis leadership literature. Our review utilizes the Coombs and Holladay (1996) crisis typology, where crises are categorized according to mutually exclusive attributional dimensions (i.e., internal–external and intentional–unintentional). We conduct a thematic analysis of crisis leadership within and across these four crisis categories and find that each is associated with a different leadership theme. We also examine the methodological quality and rigor of the qualitative and quantitative articles in our review. Based on our findings, we also offer suggestions to guide future crisis leadership research, and provide guidance for organizational leaders in how to respond to various crises.     

LMX differentiation: A multilevel review and examination of its antecedents and outcomes

We examine antecedents and outcomes of leader–member exchange (LMX) differentiation, or the variability in LMX patterns within work groups. Individual-level characteristics and behaviors of leaders and followers, group context, and organizational context variables are presented as antecedents. We review and offer theoretical extensions to research examining the outcomes of LMX differentiation at the individual, group, and organizational levels. Our aim is to contribute to a meso-model of leadership and stimulate research that attends to the core element of the LMX model–LMX differentiation.     

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.     

Romancing leadership: Past, present, and future

This paper presents a review of the romance of leadership and the social construction of leadership theory 25 years after it was originally introduced. We trace the development of this theoretical approach from the original formulation of the romance of leadership (RoL) theory as attributional bias through its emergence as a radical, unconventional approach that views leadership as a sensemaking activity that is primarily ‘in the eye of the beholder.’ We subsequently review research published in management and organizational psychology journals, book chapters and special issues of journals from 1985 to 2010. Three overall themes emerged from this review: 1) biases in (mis)attributions of leadership, including attributions for organizational success and failure; 2) follower-centered approaches, including the role of follower characteristics, perceptions, and motivations in interpreting leadership ratings; and 3) the social construction of leadership, including interfollower and social contagion processes, the role of crisis and uncertainty, and constructions and deconstructions of leadership and CEO celebrity in the media. Within each of these themes, we examine developments and summarize key findings. Our review concludes with recommendations for future theoretical and empirical work in this area.     

Polynomial regression analysis and response surface methodology in leadership research

Congruence has served as an important research framework for many leadership research topics. Perhaps the most frequently used methodological/statistical approach for testing the congruence framework is polynomial regression analysis (PRA) with response surface methodology (RSM). As this approach was introduced to organizational sciences more than two decades ago, we can now identify the main issues with the use of this approach in leadership research. To systematically investigate these issues, we first review how PRA and RSM have been used in various leadership studies. We then review the levels-of-analysis and rater model assumptions prevalent in PRA in terms of multilevel techniques, choice of centering options, and issues of endogeneity. Finally, to better understand the inconsistencies and variabilities that exist in leadership research, we review the use of two main RSM features and summarize additional statistical techniques for assessment in this realm. Overall, we aim to promote the rigorousness of this methodology within the study of congruence in leadership research by enhancing its capability in theory testing and building.     

Leadership development:: A review in context

Interest in leadership development is strong, especially among practitioners. Nonetheless, there is conceptual confusion regarding distinctions between leader and leadership development, as well as disconnection between the practice of leadership development and its scientific foundation. The present review examines the field of leadership development through three contextual lenses: (1) understanding the difference between leader development and leadership development (conceptual context); (2) reviewing how state-of-the-art development is being conducted in the context of ongoing organizational work (practice context); and (3) summarizing previous research that has implications for leadership development (research context). The overall purpose is to bridge the practice and science of leadership development by showing the importance of building both human and social capital in organizations. Specific practices that are reviewed include 360-degree feedback and executive coaching, mentoring and networking, and job assignments and action learning. Practices and research are framed in terms of a general need to link leader development, which is primarily based on enhancing human capital, with leadership development that emphasizes the creation of social capital in organizations.