Leadership Process Models: A Review and Synthesis: Journal of Management July 2017
Leadership Process Models: A Review and Synthesis: Journal of Management July 2017
Leadership Process Models: A Review and Synthesis: Journal of Management July 2017
net/publication/309858845
CITATIONS READS
76 10,453
3 authors:
John Antonakis
University of Lausanne
140 PUBLICATIONS 7,423 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Joerg Dietz on 25 September 2017.
Thomas Fischer
University of Lausanne
Joerg Dietz
University of Lausanne
John Antonakis
University of Lausanne
Email: [email protected]
______________________
ABSTRACT
“how” and “why” questions and provide more complete explanations about phenomena. Our
taxonomy to integrate previous research: The taxonomy distinguishes the target’s level (i.e.,
leadership processes that affect either the target’s development or leverage of resources. Our
review indicates that the predominantly studied leadership “meta” process model looks at the
or behavioral leveraging factors. This “meta” model points to several important and understudied
processes including a leader’s influence on the target’s development or work context. We also
identify two largely overlooked yet critical issues for leadership process research: Modeling the
role of time and that of multiple processes through which leadership effects manifest themselves
in organizations. Using our taxonomy, we provide several reflection points that can guide the
models.
spatial milieu. In this process, leadership variables, such as a leader’s behaviors, affect a distal
outcome like team performance through more proximate mediating constructs such as follower
motivation (Antonakis, Day & Schyns, 2012); the term “leadership” implies that a leader has a
greater impact on a single follower than vice versa. Identifying such processes is challenging
because the effects on mediating constructs or on outcomes do not necessarily occur within the
same temporal and spatial dimensions (cf. Senge, 2014). Yet, such process knowledge is crucial
for two reasons. Process models inform about the “how” and “why” of effects and thereby allow
assessing generalizability and boundary conditions (Dubin, 1976). Moreover, such knowledge
helps practitioners to make the right choices: Whether, for example, a values- or incentives-
based leadership approach is more effective in raising performance depends on the mechanisms
behind these approaches (e.g., identification versus reward contingencies) in the specific context,
We organize and clarify leadership processes to identify challenges and opportunities for
future research. We use the term “process” to refer to the mechanism that explains the causal
relationship between inputs (e.g., leader behaviors) and outputs (e.g., performance), following an
input-process-output logic (see Hutzschenreuter & Kleindienst, 2006; Van de Ven, 1992 on
strategy process research); that is, “process” refers to a cause-mediator-effect logic. Thus, we
synthesize and assess research linking leadership with performance and performance-related
outcomes (e.g., turnover due to hiring and training costs as well as productivity losses) via its
mediating mechanisms; of course, as will be evident later, finding mediation does not guarantee
1
Leadership Process Models
Our review focuses on articles published since 1990 given that research on leadership
processes began in earnest only after Baron and Kenny’s (1986) work on mediation (see online
Appendix 1). We provide guidance and theoretical undergirding for developing causally
rigorous, process-oriented leadership models. We complement related reviews that have studied
leadership theories per se, levels of analysis, outcomes (but not mediators of leadership), or the
organization of leadership along its loci and influence mechanisms (e.g., see DeChurch, Hiller,
Murase, Doty & Salas, 2010; Dinh, Lord, Gardner, Meuser, Liden & Hu, 2014; Hernandez,
Eberly, Avolio & Johnson, 2011; Hiller, DeChurch, Murase & Doty, 2011). Such work provides
an understanding of how different leadership theories are supposed to operate. With our review,
we add insights on how leadership effects unfold via mediating mechanisms across levels and
time. In this way, we address van Knippenberg and Sitkin’s (2013) concern about the scarcity of
mediational explanations in leadership theories; and, we heed the call of Davis and Marquis
Our review makes three key contributions. First, we present a two-way taxonomy along
levels of analysis and types of leadership processes; the latter refers to whether a leader
provides a basis for illustrating the mechanisms through which leadership unfolds and for
pinpointing foci and gaps of past research. Second, our review provides a foundation for process
theorizing by elaborating on two key aspects: (a) the explicit treatment of time in leadership
research and (b) the need to consider multiple leadership processes simultaneously. Leadership
research has given temporality short shrift, although understanding how leadership unfolds over
time is integral for theoretical precision and practical relevance. Hence, we put forward
2
Leadership Process Models
discuss that mono-mediator reasoning can easily result in discovering “specious mediators,”
mediators that appear to channel an effect but do in fact not do so. Third, using our taxonomy,
we suggest reflection points to guide theorizing and testing of sufficiently robust yet practically
executable models. We illustrate the usefulness of these reflection points with an example from
empowering leadership.
The remainder of our review has four sections. First, to organize the reviewed research,
research has modeled time and make suggestions for taking the dynamic nature of leadership into
account. Third, we address the risk of “specious mediators” and the need to model multiple
leadership processes. Fourth, we offer reflection points to guide developing and testing
leadership process theories and conclude with recommendations for future leadership process
research.
in our field having the highest 5-year impact factors—publish work on leadership (see online
Appendix 2); these journals have mean and median two-year impact factors of 3.08 and 3.04 and
five-year impact factors of 4.97 and 4.33 respectively. Then, we searched in Web of Science
articles that were published between 1990 and 2015 in these journals. The search terms were
either “leader*,” “manager,” “executive”, “CEO”, “top management team”, or “TMT” plus
as previous researchers have done too (Antonakis, Bendahan, Jacquart & Lalive, 2010; Bergh &
3
Leadership Process Models
Perry, 2006). We excluded articles that did not cover leadership, did not propose or test a
mediation model, studied outcomes that were unrelated to performance (e.g., CEO
compensation), or were retracted. The final sample consisted of 205 articles, which the first
author coded. Of these articles, around 92% were quantitative empirical, 3% theoretical, 2.5%
reviews, 2% meta-analyses, and 0.5% qualitative empirical articles. To ensure reliable coding, a
Ph.D. student in organizational behavior independently coded a sample of 20 articles having 136
coding events. Expected agreement of the two coders, due to chance was 29.87%; the coders
agreed on 78.68% of events. The agreement statistic, κ = .70, SE = .05, z = 15.30, p < .001,
showed that agreement was better than chance and “substantial” (Landis & Koch, 1977).
Disagreements were then resolved and the coders agreed in 100% of the cases.
In coding the articles, it became evident that research on leadership process models can
be organized along two dimensions: (a) the influenced entity’s level of analysis and (b) the type
of leadership process (see Table 1 for exemplary mediating constructs and articles; also see
The targets or their attributes such as their skills or motivation in the case of individuals,
supposedly change due to leadership influences. The rationale for the target-centric dimension
level of analysis lies in the multi-level effects of leadership (Yammarino, Dionne, Chun &
Dansereau, 2005). For example, although interpersonally skilled leaders might be effective at the
individual level, their performance might suffer from an inability to form high-performing teams
4
Leadership Process Models
(Hogan & Kaiser, 2005); leaders might even become destructive if they steered their followers in
a direction opposed to the legitimate interests of the organization (Krasikova, Green & LeBreton,
2013). In the coded articles, the vast majority of mediators referred to targets, indicating a
prevalence of leadership mediation models that combine leader-related predictors with target-
For the dimension type of leadership process, we identify if leaders affect performance
through developing resources or leveraging them. For example, at the team level, a leader can (a)
support learning processes and thereby affect the development or exploration of new skills, or (b)
increase team efficacy and thereby affect leverage or exploitation of skills. Similarly, leaders can
shape development and leverage of organizational resources, or they can manage the external
relations and provide access to resources for their organization (e.g., through networking). We
use the term “development” as the set of resource-enlarging concepts ranging from individual-
and/or team-level mentoring (Higgins & Kram, 2001) and coaching (Hackman & Wageman,
2005) to team (Day, Gronn & Salas, 2004) and organizational-level learning (Vera & Crossan,
2004). “Leveraging” refers to the impact on constructs like efficacy that facilitate the use of
resources, such as the expertise of followers or the information to which a team has access.
The rationale for the dimension “type of leadership process” is derived from an
perform or the willingness to better exploit resources. Moreover, access to resources from a
higher level (see the diagonally upward pointing arrows in Figure 1) is conceptually similar to
the notion of opportunities in the A-M-O framework. For instance, access to budgets provided by
5
Leadership Process Models
the organization can raise the performance of a team. Examples of securing access to extra-
organizational resources are leading regional and industry clusters (Sydow, Lerch, Huxham &
Hibbert, 2011) as well as boundary spanning and tightening activities (Somech & Khalaili,
2014). Together, developing resources, leveraging them, and acquiring resources from higher
such as strategic human resource management (strategic HRM; Wright & Snell, 1991). Strategic
HRM shares with leadership a key concern: Which kind of inputs (e.g., human resources or
followers) do organizations need and how do organizations develop and leverage the inputs for
desired outcomes (e.g., job performance)? In strategic HRM, staff is developed via training;
appraisals and compensation practices serve to leverage the potential of the staff, and recruitment
from the labor market creates opportunities for raising the quality of the staff. Leadership and
strategic HRM are both goal-directed influence processes, just with different inputs and foci in
varying contexts.
Having explained the selection and coding of articles and our categorization method, we
report the results of our review. Figure 2 provides an overview of the most commonly studied
predictors, mediators, and outcomes. The most frequently used predictors are leader-related (e.g.,
variables (e.g., LMX), and contextual factors (e.g., environmental uncertainty) (see online
Appendix 3). Among mediators, target-centric constructs dominate (e.g., followers’ justice
perceptions). The three most often studied predictors point to a prevalence of theories of
transformational leadership, LMX, and traits in mediation models. Dinh et al. (2014, see their
6
Leadership Process Models
Table 3) had also identified these predictors as being among the most heavily examined
Gardner, Dinh, Hu, Liden & Lord, 2016), transformational and trait approaches emerged as focal
theories.
Leadership mediation research focuses mostly on the individual level, followed by the
team level and, to a lesser extent, the organizational and extra-organizational levels. Most
research at the individual level and the team level addresses leveraging processes, which we can
parse out into cognitive, affective, mixed cognitive-affective, and behavioral constructs. Nearly
half of the individual-level leveraging mediators are cognitive constructs (see online Appendix
research, such as accounting for multiple mediation paths, avoiding same-source variance, using
exogenous and instrumental variables, and including time lags (see also online Appendix 5 for
and various methodological shortcomings. First, whereas much research examines leverage
mediators, studies of leadership influences via developmental mediators (Day & Dragoni, 2015)
or job enrichment variables (Oldham, Hackman, Smith & Hitt, 2005) are rare (see Figure 3). We
speculate that a fascination with the direct influences of leaders on followers relative to indirect
influences by, for example, designing work flows, partially explains the uneven distribution of
7
Leadership Process Models
mediating constructs. Another reason might be the ease with which data on follower-related
mediators can be obtained, for example, through questionnaire measures. Future research should
benefit from attending to job characteristics, objectively defined, as mediating constructs (e.g.,
see Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006, though their measures were subjective).
Second, our results point to two major research camps: (a) organizational behavior-type
research at mostly the individual and team levels and (b) upper echelon and strategic leadership
research at mostly the team and organization levels. Whereas organizational behavior-type
research typically examines influences on leveraging resources, upper echelon research normally
links CEO or top management team characteristics (i.e., inputs) to strategic decisions and
corporate performance (Finkelstein, Hambrick & Cannella, 2009). The two camps can cross-
fertilize each other, for example, in studying TMT processes (Carmeli, Schaubroeck & Tishler,
Third, our review reveals that numerous theoretical and methodological concerns
undermine the ability of research on leadership processes to inform policy. Many mediation
models are neither fully and robustly tested nor correctly specified to ensure correct
identification of causal effects. Furthermore, most mediation models ignore the temporal
review of the treatment of time in past leadership research, we discuss why modeling time is
important and give recommendations for how to include time in leadership process models.
Process research has to take the role of time serious (Langley, Smallman, Tsoukas & Van
de Ven, 2013). In the same way, leadership process research needs to study how effects unfold
8
Leadership Process Models
over time. Yet, despite several pleas over the decades (Day, 2014; Day & Lord, 1988; Shamir,
2011), conceptual and empirical work in leadership has neglected the role of time. Addressing
this gap, we (a) reveal implicit assumptions about time in leadership research, (b) discuss
different temporal configurations of leadership, (c) elaborate on unfolding time (i.e., how long it
takes for effects to materialize) and persistence of leadership effects, and (d) caution against
using non-theory-based time lags. In doing so, we complement recent methodological efforts to
find optimal time lags (Dormann & Griffin, 2015) with conceptual considerations to examine
leadership processes.
in which the mediator and outcome are measured relatively soon after the manipulation, as well
measure the cause before mediators and outcomes, respectively. Moreover, most studies rely on
questionnaire measures, which can distort inferences about time. Such designs make implicit
temporal assumptions regarding the immediacy of effects and/or a stable equilibrium among
these effects. Given a research context in which such assumptions are met, no specific modeling
of time is required. Otherwise, as we discuss below, careful attention needs to be paid to the role
immediately affects an outcome y. For example, a manipulated leader behavior (x) immediately
causes a perception (e.g., m), which promptly affects an outcome (y). Burris (2012) built on these
assumptions, when he manipulated voice and subsequently measured the mediators perceived
9
Leadership Process Models
loyalty and threat as well as the criteria performance ratings and endorsement of ideas. If,
an underestimation of results.
stable equilibrium of effects. That is, a cross-sectional design is only appropriate when the
predictor x, the mediator m, and the outcome y are stable and the relationships among them do
not fluctuate over time. Stated differently, x must be constant across time and must consistently
have the same impact on m, which must have a constant effect on y. Studies of the effects of
stable leader traits on managerial performance via the mediating process transformational leader
behavior (e.g., Cavazotte, Moreno & Hickmann, 2012) probably meet this assumption.
stable equilibrium of effects hold, we judge it likely that many studies violate these assumptions
and, thus, produce, flawed findings. Moreover, questionnaire measures of leadership can
undermine inferences about time for three reasons. First, such measures are retrospective
accounts, which are prone to distortion from peak-end effects and duration neglect (Fredrickson
& Kahneman, 1993), hindsight bias, social desirability (Golden, 1992), and performance cue-
effects (Lord, Binning, Rush & Thomas, 1978). Day (2014) argued that questionnaires might
even capture raters’ expectations of future leader behavior. Second, questionnaire measures
rarely specify the period of time for which a leadership behavior is assessed, thereby rendering
perspective ignores that behaviors can be geographically and temporally rooted, thus possibly
misrepresenting what leaders do in situ (Hoffman & Lord, 2013). In sum, retrospectivity,
10
Leadership Process Models
unspecified time frames, and person-whole approaches severely limit inferences about
can be seen as episodes where actions intersect with a context (Rousseau & Fried, 2001). Seen
through an event-based perspective, repeated leadership behaviors are events; and repeated
sampling of these events allows tracing within-individual differences over time. Moreover, as
events, leadership behaviors have effects that unfold in space and time and cause new events
(e.g., behaviors of targets) (Morgeson, Mitchell & Liu, 2015). That is, leadership behaviors
enacted at one point in time in one location, and not broad behavioral tendencies of leaders,
affect temporally and locally situated follower attributes, such as their attitudes; it is these
Event-based thinking invites reflection about temporal configurations above and beyond
immediacy and stability of effects. Drawing on Mitchell and James (2001), we apply four such
leadership process research (Ancona, Goodman, Lawrence & Tushman, 2001; Shipp & Cole,
2015). For simplicity, we use basic xm relations, but an extension to xmy relations (i.e.,
events), a predictor x affects an outcome m, but the effect of x on m changes over time. For
example, the effect of charisma on follower performance might fade or increase over time.
Latent growth curve models can capture such change, be it linear, exponential, or piecewise (in
11
Leadership Process Models
subsequent one-off treatments, x affects m differently (i.e., in terms of effect size or direction of
the effect). For example, a leader’s speeches about task significance might have a strong initial
effect (Grant, 2008) but later renditions might not work as well. In other words, the effectiveness
of leader behaviors might depend on the history of these behaviors (George & Jones, 2000).
changed level of m in turn affects x (i.e., the “simultaneity” problem in econometrics). Self-
enforcing spirals are likely frequent in leadership, given that performance as an outcome variable
and motivation as a mediating variable tend to be reciprocally related (Antonakis et al., 2010).
For example, a leader’s charisma motivates followers to perform; they perform better and as a
result attribute more charisma to the leader via the “performance-cue effect”, which makes
followers even more motivated to perform, which again leads to a higher attribution of charisma.
and subsequently causes m to change again. For example, research on emotions as a predictor of
emotions can change on a by-event basis (Brief & Weiss, 2002) and so can their impact on
outcome variables. Hence, the repeated measurement of x and m is necessary to uncover the
Although variables can be temporally unstable even in the absence of outside influences,
instability include the magnitude of change, rate of change, durability, and the type of change
(discontinuous, periodical, and trending) (Monge, 1990). Emotions and cognitions as the most
frequently studied mediators are often inherently varying. Yet, in our sample of articles, one-shot
12
Leadership Process Models
measurements of these variables dominated. Thus, the dynamic nature of processes remains
ignored leading to potentially false inferences (c.f. Zaheer, Albert & Zaheer, 1999).
processes is rare. In the reviewed articles, 66% did not include time lags in their design (Table
2), thereby implicitly assuming a stable equilibrium of effects. False temporal assumptions make
for inaccurate conclusions: When leadership studies provide a static snapshot of a temporal
phenomenon, the risk of drawing erroneous conclusions and misinforming policy arises. Yet, the
processes. Below, we lay foundations for time-sensitive leadership research by reflecting on how
long it takes for leadership effects to unfold (unfolding time) and how long these effects last
(persistence).
Only if effects are measured after they have unfolded and before they have faded, one can
find interpretable results (Mitchell & James, 2001). Hence, time is a key boundary condition in
management research (Whetten, 1989). In general, the more proximal the source and target of an
effect are, the faster an effect unfolds. In addition, the higher the target’s level of analysis, the
slower effects unfold and the longer they last because target constructs at higher levels tend to be
more inert and less transient than those at lower levels (illustrated by the downward vertical
arrow in Figure 1). In other words, it is more difficult to change an organization than a person.
On the basis of our taxonomy (Table 1 and Figure 1), we provide four generic guidelines for
modeling time.
simple for same-level effects, because the target’s (i.e., mediator or outcome) level of analysis
13
Leadership Process Models
typically coincides with the source’s (i.e., predictor) hierarchical position. The higher the level is,
the less immediate is an influence process and the more inert is the target. Thus, same-level
effects at a higher level unfold more slowly but last longer than do effects at a lower level.
To illustrate unfolding time and persistence of same-level effects, contrast the effects of a
CEO’s communication style on organizational performance via organizational morale with those
Organizational morale and organizational performance are relatively inert constructs (c.f. Tripsas
& Gavetti, 2000). Moreover, effects of a CEO’s communication style are likely filtered before
they affect these outcomes. Therefore, such effects take time to unfold but persist longer than do
team or individual-level effects. By comparison, team leaders and their subordinates (a) are
usually co-located, (b) interact directly, and (c) communicate relatively frequently. The effect
reaches the target directly and unfiltered, and, thus, unfolds relatively fast.
Cross-level effects. The temporality of cross-level effects is less straightforward than that
of same-level effects. We suppose that cross-level effects unfold the more slowly, the higher the
hierarchical level of the source and the higher the level of analysis of the target are because
Additionally, the higher the target’s level, the longer an effect persists because higher-level
targets’ states and actions are more inert relative to those of lower-level targets. Importantly, in
cross-level effects, the hierarchical level of the source affects only unfolding time but not
persistence. The latter depends uniquely on the target’s level (i.e., its inertia).
supervisor’s speech on a follower’s self-efficacy. On one hand, the influence process of the
CEO’s speech on the follower, relative to that of a supervisor’s speech, is less immediate,
14
Leadership Process Models
because the former needs to trickle down across levels. Therefore, the effects of a CEO’s speech
take longer to unfold than do those of a supervisor’s speech. On the other hand, an individual
supervisors influences it. Hence, the persistence of effects caused by a CEO’s actions and the
persistence of effects caused by a supervisor’s actions on the same target are identical, when
As a further illustration of the importance of the level of analysis of the target for
understanding the role of time in cross-level effects, consider the effect of a CEO’s speech on
team efficacy versus the effect of the same speech on the self-efficacy of an individual follower.
The effect on team efficacy is more persistent than that on self-efficacy because team efficacy is
less transient than self-efficacy. The effect on team efficacy relative to that on self-efficacy also
takes longer to unfold because a CEO’s speech has a less immediate effect on a higher-level
construct like team efficacy than on a lower-level construct like self-efficacy, although the CEO
paribus, effects in the process category development (e.g., training) take longer to unfold and
persist longer than do effects in the category leveraging (e.g., motivation) (see the horizontal
arrow in Figure 1) (Shamir, 2011). Generally speaking, effects of mediators in the development
category are more inert, or less bounded in time and space, than are those of mediators in the
leveraging category. For example, in order to raise followers’ service performance, a leader
provides stress training to enhance followers’ skills for maintaining positive moods towards
customers, or a leader gives a pep talk to cheer employees up. The development of skills takes
longer and, hence, has more delayed and persistent effects on followers’ affective states than
15
Leadership Process Models
does the influence of a pep talk. The effects of the latter may vanish as soon as another affective
Behavioral versus cognitive and emotional effects. Within the leverage category,
effects on the behavior of targets typically take longer to unfold and persist longer than do effects
on cognitions or emotions of targets. For example, the effects of positive feedback by a leader on
followers’ behaviors are more delayed and last longer than do those on followers’ moods. In
summary, taking into account levels of analysis and the type of leadership process informs
processes, we conclude with a cautionary note. Our point is not that every study must use lags
and event-based methods, both of which pose several challenges (Ployhart & Vandenberg,
2010). Time lags and repeated-measures designs (where a variable is measured at multiple points
of time) are not uniformly applicable best practices; depending on the process studied, a cross-
sectional design may do well too (e.g., when predictors, like leader traits, are stable, and when
the phenomenon is in equilibrium). Unlike general calls for longitudinal research (e.g., Jermier &
Kerr, 1997)—for us “longitudinal” means having repeated measures and modeling temporal
effects—we call for the explicit treatment of time as a variable in theory and design: Theory
must model time and must dictate the use of lagged designs.
Furthermore, we reiterate that temporal order, which results from time lags, is a necessary
but not sufficient condition of causality (Antonakis et al., 2010). A very simple example makes
this point: If x and y both depend on z, using x at time 1 to predict y at time 2 does not solve the
endogeneity problem. The variable z will likely correlate with itself over time and thus explain
16
Leadership Process Models
part of the relation between x at time 1 and y at time 2; thus, such a lag (i.e., x at time 1) is only
coefficients are the only ones that can be interpreted, are used as predictors. An example is the
study by Gong, Huang, and Farh (2009) which measured the predictors employees’ learning
employee self-efficacy at time 1 and the second-step mediator creativity and the final outcome
employee performance at time 2. Omitted variables at the leader or follower level (e.g.,
creativity at time 2 and can thus distort the estimate of the effect of self-efficacy on creativity.
The example shows that simple time lags are not a panacea for other short-comings, such as
As a further note on repeated measurements, apart from the threat of carry-over effects,
both the temporal stability of variables and the stability of effects on these variables are criteria
for deciding on repeated-measures designs. Hence, fluctuating variables, such as affect, point to
the utility of repeated measurement. If, however, effects on these variables are stable, for
measures of the latter should be consistent over time, even in presence of intra-individual
emotional fluctuations or when taking into account other effects. Thus, if relations between
In summary, leadership research has so far largely ignored time. By (a) making
assumptions about time explicit in theoretical models, (b) considering leadership behaviors as
events, (c) allowing for alternative temporal configurations of time, (d) understanding how
leadership processes unfold over time and persist, and (e) by the theory-driven use of time lags
17
Leadership Process Models
and repeated measures, leadership research can move closer to more accurate models that reflect
the temporality of the phenomenon. Treating time explicitly is a must-do for any process theory
of leadership. Modeling time alone, however, does not guarantee sound leadership process
models. Such models must also take into account that a leadership event may trigger several
processes simultaneously that unfold via multiple paths. In the next section, we elaborate why it
influence need to be taken into account. Otherwise, specious mediators might be detected: They
look like the “real thing” and give significant results, but do not capture the true causal process.
Surprisingly, this serious conceptual risk is largely overlooked. We address this challenge below.
If a predictor could simultaneously affect other, related constructs in addition to the focal
mediator, a variable can falsely appear to be a mediator (i.e., be a specious mediator), if a true
causal mediator had been left out in the model. Hence, it is imperative to model and test such
As an example, perceived justice has been found to mediate the impact of monitoring
alternative mediator is trust in the supervisor (Pillai, Schriesheim & Williams, 1999), which is
likely also affected by monitoring and related to perceived justice. Then, if trust but not justice
18
Leadership Process Models
perceptions affected OCBs, justice perceptions would appear as a significant mediator if trust is
not included in the model. Findings from the model excluding trust are not interpretable because
the effect of trust on the parameter estimate for perceived justice is unknown: Perceived justice
might be a mediator although likely with less of an impact than the estimate suggests, or worse,
it might be a specious mediator. Such a specious mediator can only be uncovered by including
true and correlated mediators like trust in the model. Given that a cause like monitoring might
have a multitude of proximal effects that are also correlated with trust and perceived justice and
which have an effect on OCB too, the risk of ignoring relevant mediators and detecting specious
Multiple mediation paths are modeled in 37% of the coded quantitative empirical articles
(see Table 2); two methodological challenges likely contribute to this low rate: (a) dealing with
same-source bias, when data on the studied variables cannot be obtained from different sources,
and (b) identifying exogenous predictors for each mediator. Although we strongly advocate
collecting data from different sources and splitting samples, same-source data is sometimes hard
to avoid in leadership mediation models. In fact, 79% of the coded quantitative studies suffer
from same-source sampling, which may engender endogeneity bias, that is, biased estimates due
to causally incorrect model specification. Furthermore, only 26% of the studies used exogenous
predictors, which also makes most studies prone to endogeneity bias (see Table 2).
instrumental-variable estimation and sequential experiments can be used. As concerns the first
(Antonakis et al., 2010; Podsakoff, MacKenzie & Podsakoff, 2012), only 2% of our coded
19
Leadership Process Models
studies used that statistical technique (see Table 2). A critical precondition for instrumental
(Podsakoff et al., 2012): They must meet the condition of being invariant to changes in the
endogenous variables or their omitted causes. Candidates for instrumental variables include fixed
leader traits like personality, intelligence, and age, if there has not been selection on these traits;
other potential “instruments” are geographic factors (e.g., temperature), determined factors (e.g.,
election cycles, latitude), historical factors, or exogenous “shocks” (see Antonakis et al., 2010).
Experiments are very useful too because manipulated variables, which are by definition
With respect to sequential experiments, different cause-effect relationships (e.g., from the
predictor to the mediator and from the mediator to the effect) are examined in separate
instance, one might first test the effect of structural empowerment on empowering leadership,
establishing causal chains (Eden, Stone-Romero & Rothstein, 2015; Spencer, Zanna & Fong,
2005), but they are not a panacea for challenges in testing mediation. The experimental
manipulation of the mediator needs to be executed with surgical precision to avoid manipulating
more than one mediating process per independent variable. Otherwise, results become non-
interpretable due to experimental side-effects on the criterion (Bullock, Green & Ha, 2010).
Furthermore, an underexplored avenue, which could help shed light on the multi-paths
nature of leadership effects is to study its processes in natural settings (Denis, Langley & Sergi,
20
Leadership Process Models
2012). For Pettigrew (1997), processual analysis deals with phenomena that are multi-level and
temporally connected and, hence, require holistic explanations. Therefore, research designs
originating from naturally occurring data, whether from case studies (Yin, 1994), archival or
(Conger, 1998) could help uncover proposed process-driven mechanisms of leadership and help
build theory. To make robust empirical inference, as with quantitative research, there are many
methodological issues that must be considered in pattern matching, whether these relations are
ultimately quantified or not (Maxwell, 2010); these issues concern sampling (cf. Denrell, 2003)
to ensure that outcomes vary via contrasting cases of, for example, high and low performing
teams (cf. Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007), and valid coding and classification of data so as to
ensure replicability, reliability, and trustworthiness of findings among other issues (Patton,
2002).
To sum up, process-based thinking about leadership requires paying attention to two
largely ignored aspects of theorizing: First, modeling temporal configurations, and second,
taking into account that multiple processes can evolve simultaneously. We are not aware of a
leadership theory that sufficiently addresses these challenges. In the next section, we demonstrate
how the use of our taxonomy (Table 1) can help in developing and testing process theories of
leadership.
To help stimulate process thinking, we present four reflection points and illustrate their
leadership is a fitting candidate for a process theory because “empowering” points to action in
flux and an emerging process (c.f. Tsoukas & Chia, 2002). Our fictitious study can help
21
Leadership Process Models
advancing research from addressing the input-output question of “does empowering team
leadership have a causal effect on team performance?” to speaking to process questions. Such
questions include, if effects exist, “what causes empowering leadership (i.e., it is an endogenous
construct)3?”, “how, or through which paths and how fast do they unfold and how long do they
last?” Despite the conceptual piece by Conger and Kanungo (1988) and much published research
(e.g., Logan & Ganster, 2007; Spreitzer, 1995; Stewart, 2006), what determines empowering
leadership, how and for how long empowering leadership affects outcomes is not well
understood (House, 1996; Zhang & Bartol, 2010). Some research has addressed individual-level
creative process engagement, and intrinsic motivation (Spreitzer, 1995; Zhang & Bartol, 2010).
Yet, studies on team-level mediators, such as information sharing and team efficacy (e.g.,
With regard to the field of leadership in general, opportunities for developing process
understudied domains. Apart from researching in understudied domains, both pure input-output
studies that largely ignore processes and moderation studies invite reflection about the
mechanisms behind their presumed effects. Moderating effects can point to mediating variables
that both the moderator and the predictor affect (Baron & Kenny, 1986). Once researchers have
settled on a leadership process to be studied, they have to address the complexity of these
processes, which, for example, operate through multiple paths. Complex phenomena require
complex research questions, and the answer to these questions might be models that are perhaps
22
Leadership Process Models
points on the basis of our taxonomy: (1) a within-cell check for similar processes at the same
level, (2) across-cells checks for similar processes at other levels or alternative processes in
another type-of-process category, (3) a plausibility check for completeness in inputs, processes,
and outputs, and (4) a check on temporal specification. On one hand, going through the four
checks helps determining variables to be included but, equally important, also variables to be
excluded from empirical testing to avoid throwing in the “kitchen sink” (cf. Green, Tonidandel &
Cortina, 2016). On the other hand, the four checks raise awareness about competing explanations
for leadership effects and limitations resulting from ignoring these explanations.
Reflection Point 1: Within-Cell Check for Similar Processes at the Same Level
determine which type of process the focal mediator represents (i.e., resource development or
leverage) and at which level of analysis (e.g., team level) it takes places. A comparison of the
mediator to other mediators in the same cell follows. This comparison, which is similar to
embedding a variable into a nomological network of related constructs, can result in more
precise theorizing by ensuring the fit between the supposed process and the mediator. Moreover,
this check can detect important alternative mediators while ruling out irrelevant ones, thereby
preventing the discovery of specious mediators. Lastly, this check ensures that the mediator
variable is conceptually not too close to the predictor or the outcome, thus mitigating the risk of
23
Leadership Process Models
empowerment climate, which refers to the extent that empowerment is expected, supported, and
rewarded in the team, falls into the leverage cell at the team level in Table 1. Another mediator in
this cell is team efficacy as the shared belief that the team can complete its projects. Comparing
both variables reveals that empowerment climate has specific motivating effects for pushing
team members in the direction of empowered behaviors, whereas team efficacy has a more
general motivating effect that raises effort and persistence. Weighing the conceptual necessity
and empirical cost of including team efficacy into the study design, we retain team efficacy due
to its potential relation to team empowerment climate. We also question whether empowerment
climate is not a too obvious candidate for mediating effects of empowering leadership. We
Reflection Point 2: Across-Cells Checks for Processes at Other Levels and of Alternative
Types
increase comprehensiveness and help identify alternative explanations. The vertical across-cells
check aids in spotting potential cross-level processes or homologous processes at other levels.
This check also stimulates considerations about the level of analysis for a given process. What is
thought to be a process occurring between individual leaders and individual followers might turn
out to be a team-level process, in particular, when followers influence each other. Or, what is
The horizontal across-cells check primarily serves to raise awareness about the interplay
between the development of factors contributing to performance, such as skills, and their
24
Leadership Process Models
mediators in the leverage category are conditional on the presence of a minimum level of skills,
knowledge, and abilities to be leveraged. Although reflection about process models should be
mediators is not a must. Rather, the conditions have to be in place for development or leverage
mediators to operate.
For our example of empowering leadership, a vertical across-cells check suggests that for
the causal chain from empowering leadership to team empowerment climate and ultimately team
performance there might be a homologous process at the individual level. We, therefore, ensure
measuring relevant constructs at the individual level too. The question also arises whether effects
of empowering leadership at the team level are dependent on enabling conditions at the
organizational level, for example, in terms of organizational structure (Kanter, 1977). In our
study, the teams are nested within one organization. Thus, we cannot assess enabling conditions
at a higher level, which is a limitation and might help explain potential null findings, although
developmental processes play a role in addition to the leverage processes mediated by team
empowerment climate. For example, might skills for initiative-taking that leaders have
developed in team members contribute to both empowerment climate and team performance?
We cannot rule this possibility out, and one potential solution could be a panel design, that is,
measuring empowering leadership, empowerment climate, and performance at more than one
point in time.
25
Leadership Process Models
Reflection Point 3: Plausibility Check for Completeness in Inputs, Processes, and Outputs
In this check, researchers evaluate their process model through two complementary
approach. In back-tracking, the starting point is the outcome (e.g., team performance), from
which researchers seek to uncover proximal causes (cf. Juran, 1992); these can include mediators
as well as distal causes, such as exogenous predictors. Back-tracking moves from the right of the
input-process-output logic to the left, thus, fostering multi-causal reasoning. When studying
effects of leader behaviors or styles, back-tracking points to three common challenges: (1)
Taking into account overlapping conceptualizations of these behaviors, such as those of servant
leadership and empowering leadership (Amundsen & Martinsen, 2014; Van Dierendonck, 2011);
(2) embedding an isolated leadership behavior into a broader theory of leadership, such as the
full-range theory of leadership (Antonakis & House, 2014); and, (3) considering that leadership
behaviors or styles are endogenous predictors that result from other factors, such as leader traits.
immediate (i.e., mediators) and remote outcomes (i.e., criteria) of this cause (cf. Durand &
Vaara, 2009). Forward-tracking proceeds from the left of the input-process-output logic to the
deductive reasoning that challenges existing assumptions about processes (cf. Alvesson &
Sandberg, 2011). In tandem, back-tracking and forward tracking can balance holistically oriented
grand theorizing with more micro thinking about processes or mechanisms (c.f. Weber, 2006).
is caused by empowerment climate even when considering competing causes and if the latter is
caused by factors other than empowering leadership. Empowerment climate, for instance, might
26
Leadership Process Models
also result from instrumental leadership, such that leaders organize work in a way that facilitates
House, 2014). We decide not to assess servant leadership given its conceptual similarity, to the
point of redundancy, to empowering leadership and because our focus is on process testing rather
than construct validation. Moreover, to embed empowering leadership with other leader
behaviors upon which its effects might be based, we decide measuring and controlling for
proximal outcomes other than empowerment climate and distal outcomes other than team
performance. For example, empowering leadership should also affect team morale, which, in
turn, is likely related to team performance. Hence, we include morale as a competing mediator in
our model.
In this check, researchers specify how the modeled constructs evolve over time. Initially,
relationships among the constructs. For example, do effects unfold immediately, are they in a
stable equilibrium, or is the temporal configuration more complex (e.g., unstable predictor-
outcome relationship or systemic predictor variation)? Next, the taxonomy helps modeling
unfolding time and persistence of effects by offering these insights: (a) Processes at lower levels
unfold faster and persist less than do those at higher levels; (b) mediators and outcomes at higher
levels of analysis are more inert than are those at lower levels (c) in terms of different types of
processes, effects due to resource development take and last longer than do leverage effects; and
27
Leadership Process Models
(d) within the leverage category behavioral processes unfold more slowly and persist longer than
For our example of empowering leadership, the question of the temporality of constructs
and that of the relationships among them point to current limits in understanding empowering
performance given that stable contextual forces restrict the variance of the latter. In terms of
climate are more likely, the more consistently leaders engage in these behaviors. Moreover,
effects of empowering leadership on team empowerment climate and those of the latter on team
performance should unfold relatively slowly. Hence, cross-sectional relationships between these
pairs of variables might be weaker than longitudinal ones. Therefore, a relatively long time lag
(e.g., three to twelve months) is appropriate for measuring empowering leadership, team
Overall, the above example shows how the four reflection points can help developing a
solid theoretical foundation of a leadership process. By leading to more accurate and more
comprehensive models, the reflection points also inform decisions about study designs and
measures, including which constructs to measure, and when and how often to measure them.
Before making concluding comments, we highlight three challenges that our review
reveals and that our reflection points help address: Future leadership process research needs to be
28
Leadership Process Models
(a) multi-process, (b) multi-level, and (c) time-sensitive to allow for enhanced scientific
Future leadership process research takes into account that leadership produces effects via
multiple paths. For instance, not only socialized but also personalized identification mediates
clarifies the need for including both constructs as mediators within one model (see Kark, Shamir
& Chen, 2003). Moreover, predictors of leadership often operate in tandem, and, thus, modeling
similar but different leadership styles simultaneously prevents the under-specification of models.
Future research must correct, for example, the bad practice of modeling the effects of
transformational leadership without accounting for transactional leadership (e.g., Gong et al.,
2009; Kovjanic, Schuh & Jonas, 2013)—although the former is supposed to “build-on” and
“augment” the latter (Hater & Bass, 1988)—as well as instrumental forms of leadership too
Future leadership process research builds multi-level models that reflect the multi-layered
reality of leadership in organizations (c.f. Heath & Sitkin, 2001). Conducting cross-level checks
in our taxonomy aids in building such models, which offer more comprehensive views of
leadership effects and can resolve contradictions in the literature. For instance, leader behaviors
can directly influence followers at the individual level but they also create structures that serve as
“substitutes for leadership” at the team or organizational level. Thus, the comprehensive
examination of “substitutes for leadership” and leadership might show how the former do not
29
Leadership Process Models
Future leadership process research develops theories of how effects unfold over time and
space. Such theories inform the choice of time lags, thereby avoiding biased model estimates.
Our guidelines for modeling time serve as a first step towards temporal specification in theory
and empirics. Equally important, temporal specification of the unfolding time and persistence of
leadership effects helps practitioners determining the timing of their actions. For example,
leaders might consider balancing the short-term effects of appealing to followers’ emotions with
the long-term effects of shaping the work context to drive performance in both the near and
distant future.
Concluding Comments
The purpose of our article was to review mediation research on leadership and provide
foundations for developing more complete process theories of leadership. We trust that we will
stimulate research on leadership that is true to its definition as a social and goal-directed
influence process that unfolds in space and time. We recognize that we have set an ambitious
research agenda and we look forward to seeing research that will rise to our challenge. To
conclude, as Shamir (2011) wisely said in his eponymous article: “Leadership takes time.” So
30
Leadership Process Models
REFERENCES
Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. 2011. Generating research questions through problematization.
Academy of Management Review, 36(2): 247-271.
Amundsen, S., & Martinsen, Ø. L. 2014. Empowering leadership: Construct clarification,
conceptualization, and validation of a new scale. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(3): 487-
511.
Ancona, D. G., Goodman, P. S., Lawrence, B. S., & Tushman, M. L. 2001. Time: A new
research lens. Academy of Management Review, 26(4): 645-663.
Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P., & Lalive, R. 2010. On making causal claims: A review
and recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(6): 1086-1120.
Antonakis, J., Day, D. V., & Schyns, B. 2012. Leadership and individual differences: At the cusp
of a renaissance. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(4): 643-650.
Antonakis, J., & House, R. J. 2014. Instrumental leadership: Measurement and extension of
transformational–transactional leadership theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 25: 746-771.
Ayoko, O. B., & Chua, E. L. 2014. The importance of transformational leadership behaviors in
team mental model similarity, team efficacy, and intra-team conflict. Group &
Organization Management, 39(5): 504-531.
Balkundi, P., & Kilduff, M. 2006. The ties that lead: A social network approach to leadership.
The Leadership Quarterly, 17(4): 419-439.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. 1986. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6): 1173.
Barrick, M. R., Thurgood, G. R., Smith, T. A., & Courtright, S. H. 2015. Collective
organizational engagement: Linking motivational antecedents, strategic implementation,
and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 58(1): 111-135.
Bergh, D. D., & Perry, J. 2006. Some predictors of SMJ article impact. Strategic Management
Journal, 27(1): 81-100.
Beyer, J. M., Chattopadhyay, P., George, E., Glick, W. H., & Pugliese, D. 1997. The selective
perception of managers revisited. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3): 716-737.
31
Leadership Process Models
Bezuijen, X. M., Dam, K., Berg, P. T., & Thierry, H. 2010. How leaders stimulate employee
learning: A leader–member exchange approach. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 83(3): 673-693.
Blumberg, M., & Pringle, C. D. 1982. The missing opportunity in organizational research: Some
implications for a theory of work performance. Academy of Management Review, 7(4):
560-569.
Bollen, K. A. 1996. An alternative two stage least squares (2SLS) estimator for latent variable
equations. Psychometrika, 61(1): 109-121.
Bollen, K. A. 2012. Instrumental variables in sociology and the social sciences. Annual Review
of Sociology, 38: 37-72.
Bollen, K. A., & Curran, P. J. 2006. Latent curve models: A structural equation perspective.
Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley-Interscience.
Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. 2002. Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace. Annual
Review of Psychology, 53(1): 279-307.
Bullock, J. G., Green, D. P., & Ha, S. E. 2010. Yes, but what’s the mechanism?(don’t expect an
easy answer). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(4): 550.
Carmeli, A., Schaubroeck, J., & Tishler, A. 2011. How CEO empowering leadership shapes top
management team processes: Implications for firm performance. The Leadership
Quarterly, 22(2): 399-411.
Cavazotte, F., Moreno, V., & Hickmann, M. 2012. Effects of leader intelligence, personality and
emotional intelligence on transformational leadership and managerial performance. The
Leadership Quarterly, 23(3): 443-455.
Collins, C. J., & Clark, K. D. 2003. Strategic human resource practices, top management team
social networks, and firm performance: The role of human resource practices in creating
organizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Journal, 46(6): 740-751.
Conger, J. A. 1998. Qualitative research as the cornerstone methodology for understanding
leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 9(1): 107-121.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. 1988. The empowerment process: Integrating theory and
practice. Academy of Management Review, 13(3): 471-482.
32
Leadership Process Models
Crossley, C. D., Cooper, C. D., & Wernsing, T. S. 2013. Making things happen through
challenging goals: Leader proactivity, trust, and business-unit performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 98(3): 540.
Davis, G. F., & Marquis, C. 2005. Prospects for organization theory in the early twenty-first
century: Institutional fields and mechanisms. Organization Science, 16(4): 332-343.
Day, D. V. 2014. 3 Time and leadership. Time and Work, Volume 2: How Time Impacts Groups,
Organizations and Methodological Choices: 30.
Day, D. V., & Dragoni, L. 2015. Leadership development: An outcome-oriented review based on
time and levels of analyses. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Organizational Behavior, 2(1): 133-156.
Day, D. V., Gronn, P., & Salas, E. 2004. Leadership capacity in teams. The Leadership
Quarterly, 15(6): 857-880.
Day, D. V., & Lord, R. G. 1988. Executive leadership and organizational performance:
Suggestions for a new theory and methodology. Journal of Management, 14(3): 453-464.
DeChurch, L. A., Hiller, N. J., Murase, T., Doty, D., & Salas, E. 2010. Leadership across levels:
Levels of leaders and their levels of impact. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(6): 1069-1085.
Denis, J.-L., Langley, A., & Sergi, V. 2012. Leadership in the plural. The Academy of
Management Annals, 6(1): 211-283.
Denrell, J. 2003. Vicarious learning, undersampling of failure, and the myths of management.
Organization Science, 14(3): 227-243.
Dinh, J. E., Lord, R. G., Gardner, W. L., Meuser, J. D., Liden, R. C., & Hu, J. 2014. Leadership
theory and research in the new millennium: Current theoretical trends and changing
perspectives. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1): 36-62.
Dormann, C., & Griffin, M. A. 2015. Optimal time lags in panel studies. Psychological Methods,
20(4): 489.
Druskat, V. U., & Wolff, S. B. 1999. Effects and timing of developmental peer appraisals in self-
managing work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(1): 58.
Dubin, R. 1976. Theory building in applied areas. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, 17: 39.
Durand, R., & Vaara, E. 2009. Causation, counterfactuals, and competitive advantage. Strategic
Management Journal, 30(12): 1245-1264.
33
Leadership Process Models
Eden, D., Stone-Romero, E. F., & Rothstein, H. R. 2015. Synthesizing results of multiple
randomized experiments to establish causality in mediation testing. Human Resource
Management Review, 25(4): 342-351.
Edmondson, A. C. 2003. Speaking up in the operating room: How team leaders promote learning
in interdisciplinary action teams. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6): 1419-1452.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. 2007. Theory building from cases: Opportunities and
challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1): 25-32.
Finkelstein, S., Hambrick, D. C., & Cannella, A. A. 2009. Strategic leadership: Theory and
research on executives, top management teams, and boards: Oxford University Press,
USA.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Kahneman, D. 1993. Duration neglect in retrospective evaluations of
affective episodes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(1): 45.
George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. 2000. The role of time in theory and theory building. Journal of
Management, 26(4): 657-684.
Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. 2004. The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of
organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2): 209-226.
Golden, B. R. 1992. Research notes. The past is the past—or is it? The use of retrospective
accounts as indicators of past strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 35(4): 848-860.
Gong, Y., Huang, J.-C., & Farh, J.-L. 2009. Employee learning orientation, transformational
leadership, and employee creativity: The mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy.
Academy of Management Journal, 52(4): 765-778.
Grant, A. M. 2008. The significance of task significance: Job performance effects, relational
mechanisms, and boundary conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1): 108-124.
Green, J. P., Tonidandel, S., & Cortina, J. M. 2016. Getting Through the Gate Statistical and
Methodological Issues Raised in the Reviewing Process. Organizational Research
Methods: 1094428116631417.
Groves, K. S. 2005. Linking leader skills, follower attitudes, and contextual variables via an
integrated model of charismatic leadership. Journal of Management, 31(2): 255-277.
Hackman, J. R., & Wageman, R. 2005. A theory of team coaching. Academy of Management
Review, 30(2): 269-287.
34
Leadership Process Models
Hater, J. J., & Bass, B. M. 1988. Superiors' evaluations and subordinates' perceptions of
transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(4): 695.
Heath, C., & Sitkin, S. B. 2001. Big‐B versus Big‐O: What is organizational about organizational
behavior? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(1): 43-58.
Heimeriks, K. H., & Duysters, G. 2007. Alliance capability as a mediator between experience
and alliance performance: An empirical investigation into the alliance capability
development process. Journal of Management Studies, 44(1): 25-49.
Hernandez, M., Eberly, M. B., Avolio, B. J., & Johnson, M. D. 2011. The loci and mechanisms
of leadership: Exploring a more comprehensive view of leadership theory. The Leadership
Quarterly, 22(6): 1165-1185.
Higgins, M. C., & Kram, K. E. 2001. Reconceptualizing mentoring at work: A developmental
network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(2): 264-288.
Hill, N. S., Kang, J. H., & Seo, M.-G. 2014. The interactive effect of leader–member exchange
and electronic communication on employee psychological empowerment and work
outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(4): 772-783.
Hiller, N. J., DeChurch, L. A., Murase, T., & Doty, D. 2011. Searching for outcomes of
leadership: A 25-year review. Journal of Management, 37(4): 1137-1177.
Ho, V. T., & Pollack, J. M. 2014. Passion isn't always a good thing: Examining entrepreneurs'
network centrality and financial performance with a dualistic model of passion. Journal of
Management Studies, 51(3): 433-459.
Hoffman, E. L., & Lord, R. G. 2013. A taxonomy of event-level dimensions: Implications for
understanding leadership processes, behavior, and performance. The Leadership Quarterly,
24(4): 558-571.
Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. 2005. What we know about leadership. Review of General
Psychology, 9(2): 169.
Houghton, J. D., Pearce, C. L., Manz, C. C., Courtright, S., & Stewart, G. L. 2015. Sharing is
caring: Toward a model of proactive caring through shared leadership. Human Resource
Management Review, 25(3): 313-327.
House, R. J. 1996. Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory.
The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3): 323-352.
35
Leadership Process Models
Hunter, E. M., Neubert, M. J., Perry, S. J., Witt, L., Penney, L. M., & Weinberger, E. 2013.
Servant leaders inspire servant followers: Antecedents and outcomes for employees and the
organization. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(2): 316-331.
Hunter, S. T., Bedell-Avers, K. E., & Mumford, M. D. 2007. The typical leadership study:
Assumptions, implications, and potential remedies. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(5): 435-
446.
Hutzschenreuter, T., & Kleindienst, I. 2006. Strategy-process research: What have we learned
and what is still to be explored. Journal of Management, 32(5): 673-720.
Jawahar, I. 2010. The mediating role of appraisal feedback reactions on the relationship between
rater feedback-related behaviors and ratee performance. Group & Organization
Management, 35(4): 494-526.
Jermier, J. M., & Kerr, S. 1997. “Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement”—
Contextual recollections and current observations. The Leadership Quarterly, 8(2): 95-101.
Juran, J. M. 1992. Juran on quality by design: The new steps for planning quality into goods and
services: Simon and Schuster.
Kanter, R. M. 1977. Men and women of the corporation: Basic books.
Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. 2003. The two faces of transformational leadership:
Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2): 246.
Kearney, E., Gebert, D., & Voelpel, S. C. 2009. When and how diversity benefits teams: The
importance of team members' need for cognition. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3):
581-598.
Kellett, J. B., Humphrey, R. H., & Sleeth, R. G. 2006. Empathy and the emergence of task and
relations leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(2): 146-162.
Kirkman, B. L., Tesluk, P. E., & Rosen, B. 2004. The impact of demographic heterogeneity and
team leader-team member demographic fit on team empowerment and effectiveness.
Group & Organization Management, 29(3): 334-368.
Kovjanic, S., Schuh, S. C., & Jonas, K. 2013. Transformational leadership and performance: An
experimental investigation of the mediating effects of basic needs satisfaction and work
engagement. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 86(4): 543-555.
36
Leadership Process Models
Krasikova, D. V., Green, S. G., & LeBreton, J. M. 2013. Destructive leadership: A theoretical
review, integration, and future research agenda. Journal of Management, 39(5): 1308-
1338.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.
Biometrics: 159-174.
Langley, A., Smallman, C., Tsoukas, H., & Van de Ven, A. H. 2013. Process studies of change
in organization and management: Unveiling temporality, activity, and flow. Academy of
Management Journal, 56(1): 1-13.
Leroy, H., Dierynck, B., Anseel, F., Simons, T., Halbesleben, J. R., McCaughey, D., Savage, G.
T., & Sels, L. 2012. Behavioral integrity for safety, priority of safety, psychological safety,
and patient safety: A team-level study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(6): 1273.
Logan, M. S., & Ganster, D. C. 2007. The effects of empowerment on attitudes and performance:
The role of social support and empowerment beliefs. Journal of Management Studies,
44(8): 1523-1550.
Lord, R. G., Binning, J. F., Rush, M. C., & Thomas, J. C. 1978. The effect of performance cues
and leader behavior on questionnaire ratings of leadership behaviorr. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 21(1): 27-39.
Lyons, J. B., & Schneider, T. R. 2009. The effects of leadership style on stress outcomes. The
Leadership Quarterly, 20(5): 737-748.
Maxwell, J. A. 2010. Using Numbers in Qualitative Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(6): 475–
482.
Meuser, J. D., Gardner, W. L., Dinh, J. E., Hu, J., Liden, R. C., & Lord, R. G. 2016. A Network
Analysis of Leadership Theory: The Infancy of Integration. Journal of Management.
Mitchell, T. R., & James, L. R. 2001. Building better theory: Time and the specification of when
things happen. Academy of Management Review, 26(4): 530-547.
Monge, P. R. 1990. Theoretical and analytical issues in studying organizational processes.
Organization Science, 1(4): 406-430.
Morgeson, F. P., Mitchell, T. R., & Liu, D. 2015. Event System Theory: An event-oriented
approach to the organizational sciences. Academy of Management Review, 40(4): 515-537.
37
Leadership Process Models
Ngo, H. y., Foley, S., & Loi, R. 2009. Family friendly work practices, organizational climate,
and firm performance: A study of multinational corporations in Hong Kong. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 30(5): 665-680.
Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. 1993. Justice as a mediator of the relationship between
methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management
Journal, 36(3): 527-556.
Oldham, G. R., Hackman, J. R., Smith, K., & Hitt, M. 2005. How job characteristics theory
happened. The Oxford handbook of management theory: The process of theory
development.
Olson, B. J., Parayitam, S., & Bao, Y. 2007. Strategic decision making: The effects of cognitive
diversity, conflict, and trust on decision outcomes. Journal of Management, 33(2): 196-
222.
Patton, M. Q. 2002. Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3 ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif.:
Sage Publications.
Pettigrew, A. M. 1997. What is a processual analysis? Scandinavian Journal of Management,
13(4): 337-348.
Piccolo, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. 2006. Transformational leadership and job behaviors: The
mediating role of core job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2): 327-
340.
Pillai, R., Schriesheim, C. A., & Williams, E. S. 1999. Fairness perceptions and trust as
mediators for transformational and transactional leadership: A two-sample study. Journal
of Management, 25(6): 897-933.
Ployhart, R. E., & Vandenberg, R. J. 2010. Longitudinal research: The theory, design, and
analysis of change. Journal of Management, 36(1): 94-120.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2012. Sources of method bias in social
science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology,
63: 539-569.
Rousseau, D. M., & Fried, Y. 2001. Location, location, location: Contextualizing organizational
research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(1): 1-13.
Senge, P. M. 2014. The fifth discipline fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a learning
organization: Crown Business.
38
Leadership Process Models
Shamir, B. 2011. Leadership takes time: Some implications of (not) taking time seriously in
leadership research. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(2): 307-315.
Shaver, J. M. 2005. Testing for mediating variables in management research: Concerns,
implications, and alternative strategies. Journal of Management, 31(3): 330-353.
Shipp, A. J., & Cole, M. S. 2015. Time in individual-level organizational studies: What is it, how
is it used, and why isn’t it exploited more often? Annual Review of Organizational
Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2(1): 237-260.
Simonton, D. K. 2003. Qualitative and Quantitative Analyses of Historical Data. Annual Review
of Psychology, 54: 617-640.
Somech, A., & Khalaili, A. 2014. Team boundary activity its mediating role in the relationship
between structural conditions and team innovation. Group & Organization Management,
39(3): 274-299.
Spencer, S. J., Zanna, M. P., & Fong, G. T. 2005. Establishing a causal chain: Why experiments
are often more effective than mediational analyses in examining psychological processes.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6): 845.
Spreitzer, G. M. 1995. Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions,
measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5): 1442-1465.
Srivastava, A., Bartol, K. M., & Locke, E. A. 2006. Empowering leadership in management
teams: Effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 49(6): 1239-1251.
Stewart, G. L. 2006. A Meta-Analytic Review of Relationships Between Team Design Features
and Team Performance. Journal of Management, 32(1): 29-55.
Sydow, J., Lerch, F., Huxham, C., & Hibbert, P. 2011. A silent cry for leadership: Organizing for
leading (in) clusters. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(2): 328-343.
Tripsas, M., & Gavetti, G. 2000. Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: Evidence from digital
imaging. Strategic Management Journal, 21(10-11): 1147-1161.
Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. 2002. On organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational change.
Organization Science, 13(5): 567-582.
Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R. E., Lowe, K. B., & Carsten, M. K. 2014. Followership theory: A
review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1): 83-104.
39
Leadership Process Models
Uzzi, B. 1997. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of
embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly: 35-67.
Van de Ven, A. H. 1992. Suggestions for studying strategy process: A research note. Strategic
Management Journal, 13(5): 169-188.
Van Dierendonck, D. 2011. Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management,
37(4): 1228-1261.
Van Knippenberg, D., & Sitkin, S. B. 2013. A critical assessment of charismatic-
transformational leadership research: Back to the drawing board? The Academy of
Management Annals, 7(1): 1-60.
Vera, D., & Crossan, M. 2004. Strategic leadership and organizational learning. Academy of
Management Review, 29(2): 222-240.
Weber, K. 2006. From nuts and bolts to toolkits theorizing with mechanisms. Journal of
Management Inquiry, 15(2): 119-123.
Whetten, D. A. 1989. What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management
Review, 14(4): 490-495.
Williams, E. A., Scandura, T. A., & Gavin, M. 2009. Understanding team-level career mentoring
by leaders and its effects on team-source learning: The effects of intra-group processes.
Human Relations.
Wooldridge, J. M. 2002. Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Wright, P. M., & Snell, S. A. 1991. Toward an integrative view of strategic human resource
management. Human Resource Management Review, 1(3): 203-225.
Yammarino, F. J., Dionne, S. D., Chun, J. U., & Dansereau, F. 2005. Leadership and levels of
analysis: A state-of-the-science review. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(6): 879-919.
Yin, R. K. 1994. Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Yukl, G. 2008. How leaders influence organizational effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly,
19(6): 708-722.
Zaccaro, S. J., Connelly, S., Repchick, K. M., Daza, A. I., Young, M. C., Kilcullen, R. N.,
Gilrane, V. L., Robbins, J. M., & Bartholomew, L. N. 2015. The influence of higher order
40
Leadership Process Models
cognitive capacities on leader organizational continuance and retention: The mediating role
of developmental experiences. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(3): 342-358.
Zaheer, S., Albert, S., & Zaheer, A. 1999. Time scales and organizational theory. Academy of
Management Review, 24(4): 725-741.
Zhang, H., Kwong Kwan, H., Everett, A. M., & Jian, Z. 2012. Servant leadership, organizational
identification, and work‐to‐family enrichment: The moderating role of work climate for
sharing family concerns. Human Resource Management, 51(5): 747-767.
Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. 2010. Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The
influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process
engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1): 107-128.
Zhu, W., Chew, I. K., & Spangler, W. D. 2005. CEO transformational leadership and
organizational outcomes: The mediating role of human–capital-enhancing human resource
management. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(1): 39-52.
41
Leadership Process Models
NOTES
1
Not modeling multiple paths would be feasible if the researcher knows, for whatever
reason, that an “instrument” (x) of the mediator m1 directly affects only m1 and no other
construct that is correlated with m1 (an instrument is an exogenous variable that does not
correlate with the regression’s error term). Suppose that the true model is xm1y and that m1
is endogenous with respect to y because both depend on an omitted cause q (endogenous means
that m1 correlates with the disturbance of y, in this case due to q). The instrumental variable
estimator (Antonakis et al., 2010) like two-stage least squares, uses the exogenous part of the
variance in x to isolate the true effect of m1 on y and will provide a consistent estimate for the
effect of m1 on y when x is used as an instrument. But, suppose the modeler examined the effect
of m2 on y, as suggested in Figure 4, and that (a) m2 and m1 correlate, (b) x is a cause of m2, but
variable, the following instrumental-variable model will provide a significant but incorrect
estimate for the effect of m2 on y: xm2y, what we call “specious mediation.” If however, the
modeler knows of another true cause of m2 (i.e., suppose z is a true cause of m2 that is largely
orthogonal to x), the following instrumental variable model will show that m2 does not cause y:
instrumented by x and z, will provide the same estimates as the two piecewise models xm1y
and zm2y. Yet different instruments and mediators are usually correlated. We thus suggest
that researchers theorize, investigate and test the most likely mediation paths in one rather than in
must only be included in the equation predicting the mediator (i.e., the m equation) and must be
42
Leadership Process Models
excluded from the equations predicting the dependent variable/s (i.e., the y equation); only extra
exogenous predictors, beyond the excluded instruments, can be included both in the mediator
and in the y equation (Antonakis et al., 2010; Wooldridge, 2002), to test “partial mediation
effects.” Also, the instruments must be strongly related to the mediators; and, if the endogenous
mediator, m, is a true cause of y, then the instrument must also correlate with y (Bollen, 2012).
Fulfilling these conditions is a necessary for parameter identification (Wooldridge, 2002). Such
models, whether with or without latent variables, can be estimated via two-stage least squares or
when studying its natural variation in the field, it is important control for omitted variables or to
“instrument” empowerment because this type of leader behavior could (a) be driven by
organizational level factors, selection factors, and leader traits, which may also correlate with the
outcomes too, or (b) be simultaneously caused by the outcome (e.g., if team members are more
conscientious, better workers, and are able to handle more responsibility, then the leader
“empowers” them).
43
Leadership Process Models
Table 1
Task-specific self-efficacy
(Lyons & Schneider, 2009)
Perceived usefulness of feedback
(Jawahar, 2010)
Specific and difficult goals
(Bezuijen, Dam, Berg & Thierry,
2010)
44
Leadership Process Models
Elaboration of task-related
information (Kearney et al.,
2009)
Team priority of safety (Leroy et
al., 2012)
Task conflict (Olson, Parayitam
& Bao, 2007)
Challenging unit goals (Crossley,
Cooper & Wernsing, 2013)
Note: Articles with a “*” were not mediation models from the sample of 657 articles; we have
chosen to portray them here so as to provide readers with information for a more integrative
understanding of leadership.
45
Leadership Process Models
Table 2
Modeling multiple Avoiding same source Use of exogenous Use of instrumental Use of time lag(s)
mediation paths sampling predictor variable approach
46
Leadership Process Models
Figure 1
Note: In our review, we focus on the gray area. Furthermore, we discuss the dashed arrows in
47
Leadership Process Models
Figure 2
Figure 3
Note: Depending on the level of analysis, the target is either the individual follower, the team, the organization as a whole, or the extra-
organizational environment.
49
Leadership Process Models
Figure 4
Note: Including the true mediator in the empirical model avoids finding a specious mediator
and is thus a necessary but still not sufficient condition for obtaining proper parameter
estimates. In order to test the model with the two endogenous mediators m1 and m2 (and with
q an unknown and omitted cause), one needs also a second exogenous predictor that is related
to either m1 or m2, or both, and to estimate the model using an instrumental variable
estimator. Otherwise, the empirical model will be causally unidentified (Antonakis et al.,
2010).
50
Leadership Process Models
ONLINE APPENDIX 1
40
20
0
51
Leadership Process Models
ONLINE APPENDIX 2
The journals included in our search, and listed here in order of five-year impact factor,
are the following (the numbers in parentheses refer to number of articles we found in the
journal, first referring to the total sample and the second to the randomly picked sample):
Academy of Management Journal (61; 31), Journal of Management (44; 18), Journal of
Applied Psychology (128; 69), Administrative Science Quarterly (5; 2), Organization Science
(15;11), Personnel Psychology (22; 12), Journal of International Business Studies (9;4),
Strategic Management Journal (14; 5), Journal of Management Studies (20;12), International
Journal of Management Reviews (1; 1), Academy of Management Perspectives (0; 0), Journal
of Organizational Behavior (68; 32), The Leadership Quarterly (112; 61), Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes (31; 17), Organization Studies (7; 4), Human
Psychology (20; 12), Research in Organizational Behavior (1; 1), Management Science (2; 2),
Human Relations (16; 6), Academy of Management Learning & Education (2; 2),
Management and Organization Review (8; 3), Group & Organization Management (38; 25),
Human Resource Management Journal (4; 3), Human Resource Management (24; 13).
52
Leadership Process Models
ONLINE APPENDIX 3
Predictors of Leadership
Characteristics 39
Leader
Behavior 106
behavior
Relationship 24
Dyad
Contextual factors 32
Context
Note: The predictors of the 189 quantitative-empirical studies were assigned to one of the six
categories. In total, there are 267 coding events; thus some studies used multiple types of
predictors (e.g., leader behavior and contextual factors). Overall, 156 (more than 82%) studies
used at least one leader-level predictor.
53
Leadership Process Models
ONLINE APPENDIX 4
Development Leverage
190 (55%)
i) Cognitive: 87 (25%)
ii) Affective: 44 (13%)
iii) Behavioral: 34 (10%)
iv) Cognitive-affective: 19 (5%)
v) Other: 6 (2%)
Task-specific
9 (3%)
66 (19%)
i) Cognitive: 28 (8%)
ii) Affective: 10 (3%)
iii) Behavioral: 20 (6%)
iv) Cognitive-affective: 6 (2%)
v) Other: 2 (1%)
Task specific
15 (4%)
Organizational 0 General
8 (2%)
Task specific
External 7 (2%)
Note: In total, in the 205 studies, 347 mediators were coded (some studies had multiple
mediators). Out of these, 92% could be assigned to one of the target-centric categories. Also
note that all percentages are rounded to zero-decimal numbers.
54
Leadership Process Models
ONLINE APPENDIX 5
25
20
15
10
5
0
Total articles
Avoiding CMV Multiple paths
Exog. predict. Time lags
Note: In the above figure we show the raw numbers of article and coded trends. However, to
better understand the trends over time, note that as a percentage of total articles, these trends
are negative over time. That is, with time, the research designs are getting weaker and
significantly so for all except time-lags (at p ≤ .05).
55