471559
of Leadership & Organizational StudiesYammarino
© The Authors 2013
Reprints and permission: http://www.
JLO20210.1177/1548051812471559Journal
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Articles
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
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 1900
The 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
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016
Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies
20(2) 149­–155
© The Authors 2013
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1548051812471559
http://jlo.sagepub.com
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).
1
Binghamton 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
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.
Definition
In 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 Analysis
This overall definition of leadership is relatively straight-
forward. There is a prominence of levels of analysis both in
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016
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.
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 Made
Throughout 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 Consequences
Many leadership approaches over the past 100+ years of
systematic research have typically included similar ante-
cedents or precursors as well as similar consequences or
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016
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.
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 Practice
Based 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 2025
The “future” here is speculation about roughly the next
decade or so of systematic scholarly, scientific leadership
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016
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 Issues
First, 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
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 Areas
As 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.
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016
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 Agenda
Overall 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
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
Conclusion
This 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.
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016
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
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.
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016
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.