Relational Leadership Theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing

Relational leadership is a relatively new term in the leadership literature, and because of this, its meaning is open to interpretation. In the present article I describe two perspectives of relational leadership: an entity perspective that focuses on identifying attributes of individuals as they engage in interpersonal relationships, and a relational perspective that views leadership as a process of social construction through which certain understandings of leadership come about and are given privileged ontology. These approaches can be complementary, but their implications for study and practice are quite different. After reviewing leadership research relative to these two perspectives I offer Relational Leadership Theory (RLT) as an overarching framework for the study of leadership as a social influence process through which emergent coordination (e.g., evolving social order) and change (e.g., new approaches, values, attitudes, behaviors, ideologies) are constructed and produced. This framework addresses relationships both as an outcome of investigation (e.g., How are leadership relationships produced?) and a context for action (e.g., How do relational dynamics contribute to structuring?). RLT draws from both entity and relational ontologies and methodologies to more fully explore the relational dynamics of leadership and organizing.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Impact of situational framing and complexity on charismatic,ideological and pragmatic leaders: Investigation using a computer simulation

Revisiting the work of Weber [Weber, M. (1921). The theory of social and economic organizations. New York: Free Press], Mumford and colleagues (e.g., [Strange, J. M., & Mumford, M. D. (2002). The origins of vision: Charismatic versus ideological leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 343?377; Mumford, M.D. (2006). Pathways to outstanding leadership: A comparative analysis of charismatic, ideological and pragmatic leaders. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.]) explored the thesis that in addition to charismatic leadership, there exist at least two additional pathways to outstanding leadership: ideological and pragmatic. Despite the compelling results of initial studies, however, questions remain as to when and under what situational conditions these three leaders operate most effectively. As such, an experiment was conducted to investigate two noteworthy contextual influences: 1) situational congruence with a leader's mental model and 2) environmental complexity. The experiment made use of a computerized leadership simulation where participants took on the role of a university chancellor. Results indicate that leader type, complexity, and situational framing were critical factors in determining leader performance on multiple game performance criteria as well as creative process criteria. Implications and avenues for future research are discussed.     

Authentic Leadership: Getting Back to the Roots of the ‘Root Construct’?

In their 2011 review paper, Gardner et al. (Authentic Leadership: a review of the literature and research agenda. Leadership Quarterly, 22, pp. 1120–1145) concluded that the authentic leadership (AL) construct was still in the first stage of evolution, that of concept introduction and evaluation. At that time, the field was characterized by two types of contribution: conceptual expositions and largely quantitative research seeking to map out its antecedents and consequences, moderators and mediators. The current review aims to: (1) critically evaluate the development of the AL construct to the present time; and (2) taking this evaluation as a point of departure, propose the need for a radical re‐grounding of understanding of AL aimed at countering what the authors believe to be the substantive flaws in both its philosophical underpinnings and empirical grounding. The authors propose that these shortcomings have arisen owing to the failure of existential and other critiques of the dominant (normative and functionalist) discourse of AL to gain traction, and owing to an absence of practice‐based, qualitative research. As a strategic platform for the potential re‐grounding and relaunch of AL, the authors propose a radical return to the existential and practice roots of authenticity as the basis for a broader understanding of ‘authentic leadership’ as a ‘central organizing principle’ in leadership studies. Despite the flaws identified in the AL construct, the authors suggest that the notion of authenticity may still have a valuable role to play in the study of leadership: that role, however, can only be determined through a thorough understanding of AL as a practice‐based phenomenon.     

A 25-year perspective on levels of analysis in leadership research

The purpose of this article is to present a comprehensive 25-year review of the incorporation of levels of analysis into conceptual and empirical leadership research published within Leadership Quarterly throughout its history. We assessed the population of Leadership Quarterly's research (790 research articles) on four key levels of analysis-based issues: (1) explicit statement of the focal level(s) of analysis; (2) appropriate measurement given level of constructs; (3) use of a multi-level data analysis technique; and, (4) alignment of theory and data. Prior reviews regarding levels of analysis incorporation into leadership research have been limited to major research domains. Results revealed that while both conceptual and empirical articles only explicitly state the focal level of analysis in approximately one-third of the articles, appropriate levels-based measurement and alignment between theory and data are relatively strong areas of achievement for the articles within Leadership Quarterly. Multi-level data analysis techniques are used in less than one-fifth of all articles. Although there is room for improvement, there is evidence that Leadership Quarterly is a premier outlet for levels-based leadership research. Given the increasing complexity of organizational science with regard to groups, teams and collectives, Leadership Quarterly has an opportunity to model for organizational research on how to build and test complicated multi-level theories and models.     

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.     

Leadership, levels of analysis, and déjà vu: Modest proposals for taxonomy and cladistics coupled with replication and visualization

In the inaugural issue of LQ's Yearly Review of Leadership, Hunt and Dodge (2000, p. 442) note that, “Within the last two decades, one of the crucial developments in organizational research in general, and in leadership research specifically, is the articulation of specific levels of analysis and their implications for theory building, measurement, and observation.” Their original observations are updated by extending the inferential logic of Yammarino, Dionne, Chun and Dansereau (2005) to determine if any increase in the utilization of a level of analysis perspective has occurred in the last five years. The possible evolution of leadership theory and analysis is discussed, especially with reference to Relational Leadership Theory, Leader–Member Exchange, and Individualized Dyadic Theory. Proposals incorporating taxonomic and visualization tools as a means to help bridge the stakeholder gap are also offered.     

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.     

The intersection of leadership and entrepreneurship: Mutual lessons to be learned

Leadership scholars are quite familiar with the often convoluted and problematic path that leadership theory has taken. Despite these challenges, leadership is currently considered a “mature field” [Hunt, J.G., & Dodge, G.E. (2000). Leader Deja Vu all over again. The Leadership Quarterly, 11 (4), 453–458] even though this maturity has not been achieved without considerable growing pains. Similar to the path that leadership scholars have taken, those who study entrepreneurship also struggle with issues associated with a field in its early stages. This review examines the intersection between the fields of leadership and entrepreneurship with an emphasis on how the path taken by leadership research can inform entrepreneurship and possibly lessen this young field's growing pains. We first identify several areas where these fields theoretically converge (both in the models employed and the research questions addressed). Next, we take a historical perspective of leadership and entrepreneurship by identifying the life cycle stage of each construct or domain. Finally, we conclude with some thoughts on how the entrepreneurship field may avoid (or is avoiding) the pitfalls experienced by those who study leadership.     

Contextual leadership,transformational leadership and the performance of international innovation seeking alliances

In this paper, we examined aspects of contextual leadership [Osborn, R. N., Hunt, J. G., & Jauch, L. R. (2002). Toward a contextual theory of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 797–837] and transformational leadership [Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press] by alliance heads and by executives in the sponsoring firms for a sample of innovation seeking U.S./Japanese alliances in research-intensive sectors. We identified three aspects of performance (a) alliance innovation, (b) the strategic contributions to the U.S. sponsor and (c) the strategic contributions to the Japanese sponsor. We found that (a) knowledge/ information based (contextual dimensions) leadership by the alliance head was associated with higher innovation and strategic contributions to the sponsors and (b) transformational leadership by sponsoring executives was dysfunctional for alliance innovation but contributed positively to the strategic contribution the alliance provided a sponsor and, (c) the linkage between leadership by the alliance head and performance was much more important for some types of alliance governance (administrative) structures than others. That is, we argue that appropriate leadership is embedded in its context.     

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.     

Crisis,charisma, values,and voting behavior in the 2004 presidential election

This study extends Pillai and Williams [1998, Pillai, R., Williams, E.A., Lowe, K.B., & Jung, D.I. (2003). Personality, transformational leadership, trust, and the 2000 U.S. presidential vote. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 161–192] and examines leadership in the context of the 2004 U.S. presidential election. Data were collected at two time periods from respondents in three locations across two major regions of the U.S. Our results indicate that respondents' perception of crisis was related to charismatic leadership in the negative direction for the incumbent George W. Bush and in the positive direction for the challenger John Kerry. For Bush and Kerry the relationship between crisis and voting behavior was mediated by charismatic leadership. For Bush, decisiveness was related to charismatic leadership, which in turn predicted voting behavior. For Kerry, decisiveness and charismatic leadership predicted voting behavior. Implications of the findings for leadership research, in particular with respect to an incumbent and the challenger to an incumbent leader, are discussed.     

Effective Leadership in Superior-Subordinate Dyads

Abstract

This paper describes and experimentally demonstrates the main tenets of an operant theory of leadership. Leadership is characterized in the current paper as involving problem solving operant behavior (Cerutti, 1989; Skinner, 1969) in a social context (Skinner, 1953). The theory was assessed under two experimental analogs modeled from generic formal organizational bureaucratic leader-follower role relations. Under a minimal leadership contingency (MLC) leaders and followers in N = 4 dyads interacted via button pressing and trigger pulling responses, respectively, and they received feedback on counters located on response panels in their separate rooms. Under the MLC every leader button press added a point worth money to one of the follower's counters but the leader received no points worth money based on follower responses. A leadership contingency (LC) was identical to the MLC except that for every 19th follower trigger pull the leader received a point worth money. As anticipated, high rates of leader-follower interaction evolved in all dyads under the LC and appreciably lower rates occurred under the MLC as leader button pressing extinguished under the MLC with repeated exposures to the two contingencies presented in ABABAB fashion. Results were discussed in terms of the theory and data as they may be related to assessment and maintenance of leader-follower interactions and performance in OBM lab and field experiments.     

License to fail? How leader group prototypicality moderates the effects of leader performance on perceptions of leadership effectiveness

Leadership often serves as an explanatory category for performance outcomes (i.e., failure and success). This process can strengthen or weaken leadership effectiveness, because contingent on their performance leaders may gain or lose follower endorsement — the basis of leadership. Drawing on the social identity analysis of leadership, we hypothesized that leader group prototypicality and performance information interact to predict followers' perceptions of leadership effectiveness. Because group prototypical leaders are more trusted by their followers, we hypothesized that group prototypical leaders are evaluated as more effective after failure information than non-prototypical leaders. In contrast, we predicted that both prototypical and non-prototypical leaders should receive similar evaluations of leadership effectiveness after success. We found support for our predictions in a scenario experiment, a cross-sectional field study, and a laboratory experiment.     

What explains cultural differences in leadership styles? On the agricultural origins of participative and directive leadership

Why do we observe either participative or directive leadership in organizations? I test an evolutionary-informed theory suggesting that organizational leadership is currently less participative (i.e., close supervision, rare delegation) among societies that used intensive forms of agriculture in the past. Intensification caused increased social complexity and skewed power distribution, promoting the emergence of directive leaders and eventually shaping followers' preferences for and perceptions of leadership. Combining evidence, secondary data, and methods developed in economics, anthropology, and applied psychology, I document a negative relationship between traditional agricultural intensity and followers' participative leadership prototypes. I then study the link between traditional agriculture and reliance on delegation to subordinates across firms. I discuss competing hypotheses, explore the interplay between traditional agriculture and organizational-level factors, and show that traditional agricultural intensity does not predict most other leadership prototypes and management practices. Implications for leadership theory–with a focus on evolutionary approaches–are finally discussed.     

Self-sacrificial behavior in crisis situations: The competing roles of behavioral and situational factors

As charismatic and transformational leadership theories have broadened their perspective to include situational factors (i.e., crisis), it is important to understand how specific leader behaviors might interact with such situations. Recently, Choi and Mai-Dalton [Leadersh. Q. 10 (1999) 397; Leadersh. Q. 9 (1998) 475] have given both empirical and theoretical attention to the behavior of self-sacrifice, which is an important facet of both Transformational [Organ. Dyn. 13 (1985) 26] and Charismatic Leadership Theories [Acad. Manage. Rev. 12 (1987) 637; House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189–207). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press]. The present experimental study investigates the effects of self-sacrificial behavior, along with the effects of situational crisis on followers' perceptions of their leader's charisma and organizational commitment. Leaders are perceived particularly well when exhibiting self-sacrificial behavior in times of crisis.     

Conceptualizing leadership with respect to its historical–contextual antecedents to power

An attempt is made here to build on the ideas and arguments presented in a recent Leadership Quarterly journal article written by Hunt and Dodge [Leadership Q. Yearly Overview Leadership 11 (2000) 435]. In their article, these authors argue that contemporary leadership researchers tend to neglect the historical–contextual antecedents of the field and as a result are developing many theories that reflect little more than a form of “academic amnesia” and “leadership déjà vu”. The importance of Hunt and Dodge's argument is reinforced through the use here of a form of deconstruction to reveal a lacuna in the leadership literature—the insufficient coverage of power, particularly at what is termed a deep structure level. With the current context of organizational change in mind, this lacuna is shown to have problematic consequences for leadership theory in general. More specifically, the increasing use of dispersed leadership strategies is shown to be particularly problematic. The article proposes a new conceptual framework that begins to address these problems and in so doing provides ideas and challenges for future research in the field.