http://jlo.sagepub.com/Organizational StudiesJournal of Leadership &

http://jlo.sagepub.com/content/20/2/149The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1177/1548051812471559

2013 20: 149 originally published online 15 January 2013Journal of Leadership & Organizational StudiesFrancis Yammarino

Leadership: Past, Present, and Future  

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of: 

  Midwest Academy of Management

can be found at:Journal of Leadership & Organizational StudiesAdditional services and information for    

  http://jlo.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

 

http://jlo.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

What is This? 

- Jan 15, 2013OnlineFirst Version of Record  

- Apr 18, 2013Version of Record >>

at SETON HALL UNIV on September 12, 2014jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from at SETON HALL UNIV on September 12, 2014jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Journal of Leadership &Organizational Studies 20(2) 149 –155© The Authors 2013Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/1548051812471559http://jlo.sagepub.com

Leadership is one of the most widely researched and dis-cussed topics in all areas of organizational sciences because literally nothing gets accomplished without it. Leadership may be formal, occurring at all levels of management and not just at the top; and it may be informal and emergent, not solely bestowed by title or position. The purpose here is to selectively review, summarize, and integrate some of this past and current work on leadership and to speculate about the future of leadership research. To accomplish this goal, three very broad time periods—called the past (antiquity to about 1900), the present (1900 to 2012), and the future (2012-2025) here—are considered in the leadership research realm.

“Past”: Antiquity to Circa 1900The key defining element of the “past” here is that, for thousands of years, there was no systematic scholarly, sci-entific leadership research. What did exist were Egyptian hieroglyphs for leader, follower, and leadership (see Bass, 2008). A multitude of stories, myths and legends, biogra-phies and case studies, and hero worship of numerous lead-ers throughout history were recorded. These notions are summarized in Bass (2008) and integrated well by Campbell (1949), who makes the simple point that leaders (or arche-typal heroes) are the same, sharing the same outstanding characteristics and qualities, across all cultures and all time periods, and that people (or “followers”) share this ideal-ized view of them.

During this period, attention was paid primarily to the leadership of “world class leaders” and various types of renowned, prominent, or eminent individuals such as rulers of countries and nations (e.g., kings/queens, politicians and gov-ernment officials, and dictators) as well as revolutionaries, military leaders, and some social reformers (Bass, 2008). There

was really no attention paid to the leadership of typical, every-day, lay, or informal leaders or to leaders of lower status or those at lower hierarchical levels below the highest levels in business, industry, and government. The general sense was that by “studying” leaders at the top via biographies, cases studies, and stories (including myths and legends), we could learn about leadership and the qualities and traits that resulted in successful and effective leadership.

What seems clear from these elements is that humans, likely via evolution and biology, desire and need leadership and worship outstanding leaders; and, likely via prototypical and idealized types across various cultures and time periods, leadership is universal. Regarding the first point, Lawrence (2010), for example, conceptualized leadership in terms of four independent yet conflicting evolutionary-based biological drives—to acquire, to defend, to bond, and to comprehend. He explains how, when these drives are fulfilled and balanced long term by leaders who also help their followers to do like-wise, an optimal state of good (moral) leadership will result. Similarly, Yammarino and Dansereau (2009, 2011) presented four evolutionary levels of analysis-based simple theories to explain leader behaviors and leader–follower interactions in dyads, groups. and teams and in various organizational con-texts. To the second point, beyond evolutionary and biological explanations, Campbell’s (1949) archetypal heroes from mythology throughout history possess the universal charac-teristics and attributes we admire and desire in leaders. Such mythopoetic leaders create and sustain highly effective cul-tures (Jarnagin & Slocum, 2007).

471559 JLO20210.1177/1548051812471559Journal of Leadership & Organizational StudiesYammarino© The Authors 2013

Reprints and permission: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

1Binghamton University (SUNY), Binghamton, NY, USA

Corresponding Author:Francis Yammarino, School of Management, Binghamton University (SUNY), 4400 Vestal Parkway East, Binghamton, NY 13902-6000, USA Email: fjyammo@binghamton.edu

Leadership: Past, Present, and Future

Francis Yammarino1

Abstract

Leadership is omnipresent in research in the organizational sciences and related professional practice. In this essay, for an editors’ choice selection, leadership research is selectively reviewed, summarized, integrated, and speculated on using three broad time periods: antiquity to about 1900 (called the “past”), 1900 to the current time (called the “present”), and the next decade or so (called the “future”). Leadership theory, empirical research, and methodologies are considered.

Keywords

leadership, leadership theory, empirical research, methodologies

Articles

at SETON HALL UNIV on September 12, 2014jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from

150 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 20(2)

“Present”: 1900 to Circa 2012

The demarcation line for the “present” here is the start of systematic scholarly, scientific leadership research of more than 100 years involving numerous scholars and a multitude of oftentimes well-conceptualized and sometimes well-tested leadership ideas (for reviews, see Bass, 2008; Dansereau & Yammarino, 1998a, 1998b; Yammarino, Dionne, Chun, & Dansereau, 2005; Yukl, 2010). There are literally thousands of definitions, ideas, views of, and approaches to leadership. Despite this diverse and divergent landscape, there are some commonalities across these definitions and ideas of leader-ship that can be integrated and summarized in terms of (a) an overall definition of leadership, (b) the importance of levels of analysis in leadership, (c) the born versus made issue, (d) the role of antecedents to and consequences of leadership, and (e) some highlights of the implications for professional prac-tice derived from this research.

DefinitionIn terms of definitions, here is one attempt to summarize across all thousands of them:

Leadership is a multi-level (person, dyad, group, col-lective) leader-follower interaction process that occurs in a particular situation (context) where a leader (e.g., superior, supervisor) and followers (e.g., subordinates, direct reports) share a purpose (vision, mission) and jointly accomplish things (e.g., goals, objectives, tasks) willingly (e.g., without coercion).

The key elements of this overall definition are, first, the multilevel aspects that involve levels of analysis. Second, leader–follower interactions are process based and longitu-dinal in nature. Third, it is critical that leaders and followers do things together and that they want to accomplish those things with one another. Another way to think of this overall definition is in terms of a simple Venn diagram of three intersecting circles—labeled as leader (L), followers (F), and situation (S; see Hollander, 1978). Each of the “two-way” intersections of circles is interesting and an important element for the definition: L × S connotes that the leader’s behavior is a function of his or her knowledge, skills, and abilities and the situation; F × S connotes that the followers’ behaviors are a function of their knowledge, skills, and abil-ities and the situation; and L × F connotes the leader–followers interaction process. And where all three circles intersect (L × F × S) is “leadership.”

Levels of AnalysisThis overall definition of leadership is relatively straight-forward. There is a prominence of levels of analysis both in

this definition and in leadership research in general (see Dionne, Chun, et al., 2012; Gooty, Serban, Shumski, Gavin, & Yammarino, 2012; Yammarino & Dansereau, 2008). As noted by Yammarino et al. (2005) in a review of research on 17 major leadership approaches, “Theory without levels of analysis is incomplete; data without levels of analysis is incomprehensible” (p. 904). Likewise, Yammarino and Dansereau (2011) have noted that “. . . we can advance OSL [Organizational Science and Leadership] theory building and theory testing by including lower and higher levels of analysis in theory development and hypothesis genera-tion, measurement, data analysis, and inference drawing” (p. 1045). Levels of analysis are simply the entities of sci-entific study about which we hypothesize and test. For leadership researchers, the critical entities (levels) are per-sons, dyads, groups and teams, and collectives (e.g., orga-nizations and various types of networks).

From a levels of analysis perspective, prior to about 1970, most leadership research focused on the leader as a person, the group that he or she led, and the effectiveness of that group (e.g., Ohio State, Michigan, and Illinois studies of leadership reviewed in Bass, 2008; Yukl, 2010). What these approaches had in common was that leaders were viewed as displaying a common style toward the group as a whole. Leaders were thought to treat everyone in the group the same. Leaders’ styles, based on individual differences, were viewed as varying from group to group; but within each group, a particular leader’s style was consistent toward all subordinates or followers. In general, leadership research during this time focused on style differences between lead-ers, the leader’s common or “average” style toward his or her group as a whole, and differences in group effectiveness based on these different, average leader styles (sometimes called the “Average Leadership Style” approach; see Bass, 2008; Yukl, 2010).

Then in the 1970s, a change occurred in leadership research in terms of levels of analysis. The research focus shifted to within the group and to the multiple leader–follower (superior–subordinate) dyadic relationships in each group. In this work, focusing on dyads within groups, leaders were viewed as treating subordinates (followers) differently, displaying a unique style toward each, based on the leader’s differential relationship with each subordinate (i.e., the “Vertical Dyad Linkage” approach that recog-nized in-groups and out-groups; see Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975). The basis of this differential treatment was performance based in the ideal positive cases, and/or simi-larity, liking or attraction in less than ideal instances. In general, during this time period, leadership was viewed in terms of the parts of the group (i.e., each unique leader–follower dyadic relationship of which the leader was a part as well), a leader’s differential treatment of followers, and the leader’s ability to manage these various dyadic relation-ships relative to one another.

at SETON HALL UNIV on September 12, 2014jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Yammarino 151

In the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s, another set of ideas emerged in leadership research involving other levels of analysis (see Dansereau, Alutto, & Yammarino, 1984; Dansereau & Yammarino, 1998a, 1998b; Yammarino et al., 2005). First, some research, perhaps best captured by the notion of substitutes for leadership (e.g., Dionne, Yammarino, Atwater, & James, 2002; Kerr & Jermier, 1978), suggested that leadership may be replaced, enhanced, or diminished by other factors operating at various levels of analysis (e.g., knowledge, skills, and abilities of individual subordinates or those attributes operating within a team; rules, standard operating procedures, and structures at the organizational level). Second, additional research began to consider superior–subordinate (leader–follower) dyads independent of the work group as freestanding interpersonal relationships. This is sometimes called the independent or “pure” dyad perspective on leadership (e.g., Dansereau et al., 1984; Gooty & Yammarino, 2011; Yammarino & Dansereau, 2009). A key notion here is that the leader, even though he or she was a part of multiple dyads in a group, did not solely control these relationships. Each relationship was unique and influenced by both the leader and the follower. Third, collective-level phenomenon such as multi-team systems (teams of teams), various types of networks (comprising individuals and teams, both formal and informal), and vari-ous shared arrangements (e.g., among multiple individuals or teams) resulted in a number of collectivistic leadership approaches (e.g., Yammarino, Salas, Serban, Shirreffs, & Shuffler, 2012). These approaches are particularly impor-tant in a world that is rapidly “flattening” and dominated by increasingly dynamic technological changes. Work is con-tinuing on all these new multilevel views of leadership.

Born Versus MadeThroughout this more than a century of leadership research, a key question often asked (e.g., Bass, 2008; Campbell, 1949; Yammarino & Dansereau, 2009) is this: Are leaders born or made? The answer is yes, all leaders are born and all leaders are made! Leaders begin with a base level of competencies, typically linked to heredity and early life experiences (i.e., born), and then they can enhance those competencies through later life experiences and learning opportunities in various situations and contexts (i.e., made). Thus, regardless of where leadership competencies start for an individual, leadership and related competencies can be learned, developed, trained, and coached (also see Hollander, 1978; Yukl, 2010).

Antecedents and ConsequencesMany leadership approaches over the past 100+ years of systematic research have typically included similar ante-cedents or precursors as well as similar consequences or

outcomes such that antecedents → leadership → conse-quences (see Bass, 2008; Yukl, 2010). The antecedents or precursors of leadership are often underlying fundamental human processes at various levels of analysis (see Dansereau & Yammarino, 1998a, 1998b). At the individual level, these include affect, cognition, and personality of leaders and fol-lowers. Affective processes include rapid formation of general liking or disliking of leaders and followers. Cognitive processes include how leaders and followers think about things—obtain, store, retrieve, categorize, and use information. Personality is generally represented by the Big Five of neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experi-ence, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. At the dyad level, mutual attraction and exchange between leaders and followers are important fundamental human processes. For instance, similarity on a common interest or characteristic can lead to mutual liking of one another.

At the group and team level, climate and norms are important fundamental human processes, which affect leaders and followers. A key group or team norm is that leaders are predetermined, or that they emerge and fulfill certain functions and create positive climates. At the col-lective level, organizational culture and values are impor-tant fundamental human processes, which influence leaders and followers (e.g., Schein, 2010). Various ele-ments of culture and values can affect or influence the appointment and emergence of various types of leaders and the organizational leadership philosophy and approach (e.g., Jarnagin & Slocum, 2007). In terms of multiple levels of analysis, for leaders and followers, communication is an important fundamental human process that cuts across levels. The methods, media, and technology of communi-cation are critical to the formation, development, and use of leadership.

Most leadership approaches also include similar multi-level consequences or outcomes of leadership (e.g., Bass, 2008; Yukl, 2010), which are various aspects of leadership effectiveness, both soft (e.g., satisfaction, commitment, attachment, loyalty, team building) and hard (e.g., perfor-mance, absenteeism, turnover, physiological stress, safety). At the individual level, high degrees of satisfaction, com-mitment, and loyalty as well as effective and higher indi-vidual performance, lower absenteeism, and less turnover are relevant factors. At the group level, high degrees of cohesion, high morale, and a positive climate as well as objective, effective, and higher group/team performance and lower group absenteeism are important. Team mem-bers’ perceptions of the team cohesiveness and the nature of the climate are as important as the actual cohesiveness and climate. At the organizational level, a positive culture, rec-ognition of internal and external stakeholders, and a multi-faceted mission as well as objective, effective, and higher organizational performance (e.g., stock prices, sales, return on assets, and return on equity) are important.

at SETON HALL UNIV on September 12, 2014jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from

152 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 20(2)

At multiple levels, performance—including quantity and quality of performance as well as general and specific performance—is perhaps the most crucial dependent (out-come) variable in leadership research. Leader perfor-mance, team performance, and, ultimately, the performance of the entire organization via multiple individuals and teams are central concerns. Affect and emotional conta-gion at both the individual and group/team levels can also be a key outcome for leadership. Stress also is relevant at both the individual and team levels and can be an outcome of various leadership approaches. Though some degree of stress may actually enhance performance, excessive degrees can have debilitating consequences. Conflict, both intra-entities and inter-entities (e.g., groups), is relevant at both the team and organization levels and can be a conse-quence of leadership. Some degree of conflict may actu-ally improve performance, but excessive amounts of conflict can be stifling and can have dire consequences. Also, team members’ perceptions of conflicts are as important as the actual conflicts.

Professional PracticeBased on more than a century of this leadership research, multiple prescriptions for professional practice have been offered (e.g., Bass, 2008; Hollander, 1978; Yukl, 2010). In general, at the individual level, leaders need to inspire fol-lowers, treat followers as individuals, spark followers intel-lectually, help followers become committed, interpret the meaning of events for them, pick a good person as second in charge, and try to eliminate their own job thereby giving others a chance to develop and freeing the leaders them-selves to tackle new challenges. At the dyad level, in exchange for high levels of performance, depending on each follower’s needs and wants, leaders ought to provide support, attention, time, resources, and challenging work to followers, encourage high follower performance, and develop and empower them one on one over time.

At the group/team levels, leaders need to share responsi-bility, authority, and tasks to be completed; build cohesion and a welcoming climate; and foster cooperation and mutual trust among team members. At the collective level, leaders need to provide vision and direction; set the mission, goals, and objectives; be the moral and ethical compass and a model of integrity; and think not only short term but also long term for the entire organization. Finally, at multiple levels of analysis, because leadership titles create and set expectations for followers, leaders need to meet these expectations at the individual, dyad, group/team, and col-lective levels of analysis in organizations.

“Future”: 2012 to Circa 2025The “future” here is speculation about roughly the next decade or so of systematic scholarly, scientific leadership

research. These are not predictions per se (no Nostradamus here!), but rather data-driven best guesses given current leadership research trends. In particular, there seems to be at least six key areas or issues in leadership that are cur-rently underdeveloped or underresearched, which require additional work in the next decade and beyond.

Key IssuesFirst, we have many empirical studies (quantitative, quali-tative, and meta-analyses) on leadership, but theory is still ahead of data (see Yammarino & Dansereau, 2009; Yammarino et al., 2005). There remains the lack of a sig-nificant number of studies integrating qualitative and quan-titative methods, using lab and field experimental designs and systematic manipulations to determine causal effects, and that are longitudinal in nature to enhance our under-standing of processes underlying leadership. Second, the leadership field does a pretty good job of considering levels of analysis issues in basic data analysis, but it still lacks explicit consideration in most research on levels of theory for constructs and relationships, levels of measurement for variables, advanced multilevel data analytic techniques, and levels of issues in inference drawing about leadership (Dionne, Chun, et al., 2012; Gooty et al., 2012; Yammarino et al., 2005).

Third, culture and leadership remains an under-researched area. Although the GLOBE project (Dorfman, Javidan, Hanges, Dastmalchian, & House, 2012; House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004) and some other work has helped in this regard, the field still lacks a clear understanding of the universalistic as compared with the culture-specific and the emic as compared with the etic approaches to leadership, especially in a “flat,” technology-challenged, and rapidly changing world (see Steers, Sanchez-Runde, & Nardon, 2012). Fourth, the mystery of the fundamental underlying processes inside the “black box” of leadership remains, although the field is exploring more mediators, moderators, and even moderated media-tion and mediated moderation in leadership! Research on discrete antecedents and precursors of leadership is pretty good, but understanding interactions among these, how they unfold and develop over time, how processual ele-ments affect leadership dynamically, and what are the key life events and experiences that cause leaders to emerge, be selected, and developed is still not very good.

Fifth, although the field is much more cognizant of context, most leadership research is still conducted as if it is context free rather than context dependent or context specific (e.g., Schaubroeck et al., 2012; Yammarino, 1994). And when context is assessed, it is still rather slim in terms of examining both the proximal and distal context. Do we really know when and where one of these three views of leadership (i.e., context-free, context-dependent, and context-specific) is in operation? Sixth, the role of the

at SETON HALL UNIV on September 12, 2014jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Yammarino 153

followers and leader–follower interactions, beyond merely a focus on the leader, has made some real advances in leadership research. The view of leadership is now more typically as a leader–follower interaction process rather than solely a focus on the leader as the primary locus or source of leadership. But this interactive process view still requires additional work to understand the processual and dynamic nuances involved.

New AreasAs in all areas of research, older leadership theories will be replaced by newer theories for further testing in the future. So we might ask: What theories will decline, and which ones will increase in terms of research focus? In terms of the number of published studies, the top three theories cur-rently (see Dionne, Chun, et al., 2012; Gooty et al., 2012; Yammarino et al., 2005)—charismatic/transformational leadership (including authentic leadership), leader–member exchange, and the “bright side” of leadership work that examines the “positive and perky” personality and other traits—will likely decline as greater balance is needed in leadership research. To complement these approaches, additional research is likely that focuses on the “dark side” of leadership (“darkness and doom” traits of leadership like narcissism and hubris); multilevel rather than single-level approaches; and dynamic, nonlinear, and process approaches rather than static, linear, outcome-driven ones.

It also appears that the cognitive revolution will continue in leadership research; and given the rising acknowledg-ment of the importance of the role of emotions for both leaders and followers, there should be new neural–cogni-tive–emotive integrated views of leadership, as the neuro-logical system is involved in both cognitions and emotions. Likewise, biological and genetic views of leadership should become more prominent in research. Although there are about 22,000 genes in humans, it is likely that no leadership gene nor perhaps combination of genes for leadership exist, but biology and evolution still play a key role in our success as leaders and followers (e.g., Lawrence, 2010; Yammarino & Dansereau, 2009, 2011).

Moreover, research will likely return to focus on the hero, actually the “new hero”—the ethical, moral, profes-sional, “green”, socially responsible, and 3P (people, prof-its, and planet) leader—who we seek and who dominates political and social commentary today (e.g., Jarnagin & Slocum, 2007; Schaubroeck et al., 2012). Along with this emphasis on the leader, the new focus on leadership should revolve primarily around team, shared, and collectivistic approaches that seem well-suited for the technologically driven organizations and “flat” world of today (Yammarino et al., 2012). Such a business and social landscape also sug-gests new forms of substitutes for leadership, such as advanced artificial intelligence and robotics systems will emerge in leadership research.

Again, as in other areas of research, older leadership methodologies will be modified and enhanced by newer methodologies and statistical tools for testing new approaches to leadership (e.g., Dionne, Akaishi, et al., 2012; Gooty & Yammarino, 2011). So we might ask: What meth-ods will decline, and which ones will increase in terms of leadership research? In general, single-level, single-time period (cross-sectional), and single-method linear relation-ships studies and approaches will likely be reduced in num-ber; whereas multilevel, multi-time period (longitudinal), and multi-method nonlinear relationships studies will become the norm. In particular, beyond triangulation, stud-ies that are of a qualitative–quantitative methodological blend (e.g., historiometric studies and computerized content analyses) should increase, as should the use of advance net-work analyses and simulation-based and dynamic-modeling methodologies.

In terms of “special applications” in the leadership realm, there will be additional declines and increases in future leadership research. In particular, as demographics and the nature of work change, there will be less research on “white men at the top” (e.g., current CEO samples), in typi-cal or traditional contexts (e.g., large bureaucratic and man-ufacturing organizations), and on cultural differences since the world is getting “flatter” daily. In contrast, there should be more research on women, Hispanics, and other current minorities who are soon to become the majorities! There will be an increased research focus on e-leadership, which is critical in a virtual, distributed, and non-colocated world; on cultural similarity and the universality of leadership in a “flat” world (e.g., Dorfman et al., 2012; Steers et al., 2012); and on leadership in extreme and unusual contexts and cases (e.g., on a voyage to Mars; in a world of biological–chemical–radiological–nuclear terrorism; for assassinated leaders; or for leaders with bipolarism and hyperactivity). Finally, beyond a mere science–practice interface, leader-ship research should become a practice–science–practice blend with problems and issues originating in the “real” world, theories and research (both basic and applied) to find solutions occurring in the scholarly world, and then the practical implementation of these solutions back in the world of work and professional practice.

An AgendaOverall then, there still remains more to be done in the next decade and beyond for leadership research. Here, in bullet-point form, is a research agenda of still needed work for current and future scholars in the realm of lead-ership:

• Additional empirical studies of leadership—especially, experimental and quasi-experimental lab and field studies as well as longitudinal, process-oriented, and dynamic studies

at SETON HALL UNIV on September 12, 2014jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from

154 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 20(2)

• Fuller accounting of context, both conceptually and empirically, in leadership research: whether context dependent, context specific, or context free

• Fuller accounting of culture, both conceptually and empirically, in leadership research: whether culture dependent, culture specific, or culture free (universalistic)

• Better understanding of the “dark side” of leaders and leadership to complement the more advanced knowledge about the “bright side” of leaders and leadership

• Better understanding of biological and genetic components of leadership

• Better understanding of the cognitive–emotional interface in leaders and for leadership

• Additional work on minorities (who will soon be the majorities) in leadership and minority (who will soon be the new majority) leaders

• Complete development of multilevel issues in terms of leadership theory, concepts, construct usage, relationships, measures, data analysis, and inference drawing

ConclusionThis exploration of leadership—past, present, and future—results in three rather straightforward conclusions or les-sons learned. First, leadership is a universal (across all cultures and all time periods) and multilevel phenomenon involving numerous constructs, processes, and entities (e.g., individuals, dyads, groups and teams, and various col-lectives such as organizations, networks, and multiteam systems). Second, leadership theory and theory building without explicit incorporation of multiple levels of analysis is incomplete; and leadership methodology and empirical testing without explicit consideration of multiple levels of analysis is incomprehensible. Third, the history and our understanding of leaders and leadership are by no means concluded or completed. As this is an endless scholarly scientific quest, bring on the next generation of leadership theory and empirical research!

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, author-ship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Bass, B. M. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, & managerial applications (4th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.

Campbell, J. (1949). The hero with a thousand faces. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.

Dansereau, F., Alutto, J. A., & Yammarino, F. J. (1984). Theory testing in organizational behavior: The varient approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organi-zational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46-78.

Dansereau, F., & Yammarino, F. J. (Eds.). (1998a). Leadership: The multiple-level approaches (Part A: Classical and new wave). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

Dansereau, F., & Yammarino, F. J. (Eds.). (1998b). Leadership: The multiple-level approaches (Part B: Contemporary and alternative). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

Dionne, S. D., Akaishi, J., Chen, X., Gupta, A., Sayama, H., Yammarino, F. J., & Bush, B. J. (2012). Retrospective relatedness reconstruction: Applications to adaptive social networks and social sentiment. Organizational Research Methods, 15, 663-692.

Dionne, S. D., Chun, J. U., Hao, C., Serban, A., Yammarino, F. J., & Spangler, W. D. (2012). Levels of analysis incorporation and publication quality: An illustration with transformational/charismatic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 23, 1012-1042.

Dionne, S. D., Yammarino, F. J., Atwater, L. E., & James, L. R. (2002). Neutralizing substitutes for leadership theory: Leader-ship effects and common-source bias. Journal of Applied Psy-chology, 87, 454-464.

Dorfman, P., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., Dastmalchian, A., & House, R. (2012). GLOBE: A twenty year journey into the intriguing world of culture and leadership. Journal of World Business, 47, 504-518.

Gooty, J., Serban, A., Shumski, J., Gavin, M. B., & Yammarino, F. J. (2012). Use and misuse of levels of analysis in leadership research: An illustrative review of leader-member exchange. Leadership Quarterly, 23, 1080-1103.

Gooty, J., & Yammarino, F. J. (2011). Dyads in organizational research: Conceptual issues and multi-level analyses. Organi-zational Research Methods, 14, 456-483.

Hollander, E. P. (1978). Leadership dynamics: A practical guide to effective relationships. New York, NY: Free Press.

House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jarnagin, C., & Slocum, J. W. (2007). Creating corporate cultures through mythopoetic leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 36(3), 288-302.

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

Lawrence, P. R. (2010). Driven to lead: Good, bad, and misguided leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Schaubroeck, J. M., Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., Kozlowski, S. W. J., Lord, R. G., Trevino, L. K., & Peng, A. C. (2012). Embedding

at SETON HALL UNIV on September 12, 2014jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Yammarino 155

ethical leadership within and across organizational levels. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 1053-1078.

Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.

Steers, R. M., Sanchez-Runde, C., & Nardon, L. (2012). Leader-ship in a global context: New directions in research and theory development. Journal of World Business, 47, 479-482.

Yammarino, F. J. (1994). Indirect leadership: Transformational leadership at a distance. In B. M. Bass & B. J. Avolio (Eds.), Improving organizational effectiveness through transforma-tional leadership (pp. 26-47). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Yammarino, F. J., & Dansereau, F. (2008). Multi-level nature of and multi-level approaches to leadership. Leadership Quar-terly, 19, 135-141.

Yammarino, F. J., & Dansereau, F. (2009). A new kind of OB (orga-nizational behavior). Research in Multi-Level Issues, 8, 13-60.

Yammarino, F. J., & Dansereau, F. (2011). Multi-level issues in evolutionary theory, organizational science, and leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 22, 1042-1057.

Yammarino, F. J., Dionne, S. D., Chun, J. U., & Dansereau, F. (2005). Leadership and levels of analysis: A state-of-the-sci-ence review. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 879-919.

Yammarino, F. J., Salas, E., Serban, A., Shirreffs, K., & Shuffler, M. L. (2012). Collectivistic leadership approaches: Putting the “we” in leadership science and practice. Industrial and Orga-nizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 5, 382-402.

Yukl, G. A. (2010). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bio

Francis Yammarino (Ph.D., State University of New York at Buffalo) is SUNY Distinguished Professor of Management and Director of the Center for Leadership Studies at the State University of New York at Binghamton. His research, teaching, and applications focus on leadership and multi-level issues.

at SETON HALL UNIV on September 12, 2014jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from