An integrative process model of leadership: Examining loci, mechanisms, and event cycles.

Eberly, Marion B.; Johnson, Michael D.; Hernandez, Morela; Avolio, Bruce J.

doi:10.1037/a0032244

Cited by 79 publications

(100 citation statements)

References 89 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Eberly et al (2013) extended this framework as they examined how these loci and mechanisms interact through leadership event cycles to generate dynamic leadership processes. They defined an event as an interpersonal interaction that provides a frame of reference for future interpersonal encounters, thereby creating an event cycle (Zahn & Wolf, 1981).…”

Section: Comparitive Analysis: Current Versus Prior Approaches To Leamentioning

confidence: 99%

A Network Analysis of Leadership Theory

Meuser

Gardner

Dinh

et al. 2016

Journal of Management

128

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigated the status of leadership theory integration by reviewing 14 years of published research (2000 through 2013) in 10 top journals (864 articles). The authors of these articles examined 49 leadership approaches/theories, and in 293 articles, 3 or more of these leadership approaches were included in their investigations. Focusing on these articles that reflected relatively extensive integration, we applied an inductive approach and used graphic network analysis as a guide for drawing conclusions about the status of leadership theory integration. All 293 articles included in the analysis identified 1 focal theory that was integrated with 2 or more supporting leadership theories. The 6 leadership approaches most often appearing as the focal theory were transformational leadership, charismatic leadership, strategic leadership, leadership and diversity, participative/shared leadership, and the trait approach to leadership. On the basis of inductive reflections on our analysis, we make two key observations. First, the 49 focal leadership theories qualify as middle-range theories that are ripe for integration. Second, drawing from social network theory, we introduce the term “ theoretical neighborhood” to describe the focal theoretical networks. Our graphical inductive analyses reveal potential connections among neighboring middle-range leadership theories that merit investigation and, hence, identify promising future directions for achieving greater theoretical integration. We provide an online supplement with 10 additional leadership theory graphs and analyses: leadership in teams and decision groups, ethical leadership, leader and follower cognitions, leadership emergence, leadership development, emotions and leadership, implicit leadership, leader-member exchange, authentic leadership, and identity and identification process theories of leadership.

show abstract

Section: Comparitive Analysis: Current Versus Prior Approaches To Leamentioning

confidence: 99%

A Network Analysis of Leadership Theory

Meuser

Gardner

Dinh

et al. 2016

Journal of Management

128

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When the followers perform leader's role it means that they share responsibility, authority and accountability with the leader and in case of a failure or success, the pain or joy must be shared as well. The unfortunate aspect is that the louder and conspicuous voices calling for followers' involvement in lea-E. Mango Open Journal of Leadership dership are not so loud and unequivocal on where and who lies with the leadership authority, overall responsibility and accountability or what is or should be the level of followers' involvement (Kellerman, 2008(Kellerman, , 2012Eberly et al, 2013;Snook et al, 2012).…”

Section: The Followersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They identify self-expansion and boundary conditions, as the common thread, in addition, their effort to show and advocate for an integrating theory that brings leaders and followers together. However, like Hernandez et al (2011), Dansereau et al (2013) is silent about the purposes of lea- While recognizing the efforts of other leadership scholars like Meuser et al (2016), Eberly et al (2013), Hernandez et al (2011), Dinh, Lord, Gardner, Meuser, Liden, & Hu (2014 and Dansereau et al (2013), towards integrating leadership theories. In this paper, I deconstruct the most representative leadership theories and rebuild them into one theory laced with new insights from the broader leadership literature on followers and context while taking into account parsimony, an all-important principle in theory building.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is high time that we should inject some hygiene the leadership field. The hygiene should take the form of integrating the leadership theories or approaches (Eberly, Johnson, Hernandez & Avolio, 2013;Meuser et al, 2016;Glynn & Raffaelli, 2010;Hernandez, Eberly, Avolio & Johnson, 2011;Dansereau, Seitz, Chiu, Shaughnessy & Yammarino, 2013;DeRue, Nahrgang, Wellman & Humphrey, 2011). This paper attempts to bring together the various leadership perspectives in order to tell one whole leadership story.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Rethinking Leadership Theories

Mango¹

2018

OJL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Leadership is governed by over 66 theories which leaves many leaders and leadership scholars searching for an inclusive leadership theory. The existence of too many leadership theories obstructs progressive practice and research of leadership, hence there is need for leadership theory consolidation. This paper is an attempt to integrate leadership theories. The integration efforts are based on representative leadership theories and the review of the wider relevant leadership literature. Initially, the integration was to be built around 66 leadership theories but with further study 44 theories were eliminated to avoid either repetition or miniature issues and it was established that the 22 leadership theories are a good representation of the concepts captured in leadership theories. The review of the 22 leadership theories was enriched with insights from the wider leadership literature. The review and synthesis of leadership theories and the wider relevant leadership literature revealed that leadership is built on six (6) foundational domains, namely: character, characteristics, people practices, institutional practices, context and outcomes (CCPICO). The six domains occasioned the development of an integrative leadership model: ethical and effective leadership (EEL). As a consequence of the EEL model, one, the EEL subdomains are highlighted, two, leadership development based on EEL model is proposed, three, leadership definition that is in line with EEL model is suggested.

show abstract

“…Although there are different categorizations of leadership (25,(46)(47)(48)(49)(50)(51)(52)(53)(54)(55)(56)(57)(58)(59)(60), the majority of classifications systems include some aspects of Goal-oriented leadership which emphasizes the accomplishment of task objectives (11,12). Therefore, the current task was specifically designed to assess the goal-oriented aspect of leadership.…”

Section: Leadership Measures Collected At the End Of Stagementioning

confidence: 99%

Computational and neurobiological foundations of leadership decisions

Edelson

Polanía

Ruff

et al. 2018

Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Decisions as diverse as committing soldiers to the battlefield or picking a school for your child share a basic attribute: assuming responsibility for the outcome of others. This responsibility is inherent in the roles of prime ministers and generals, as well as in the more quotidian roles of firmmanagers, schoolteachers, and parents. Here we identify the underlying behavioral, computational, and neurobiologicalmechanisms that determine the choice to assume responsibility over others. Leaders must take responsibility for others and affect the well-being of individuals, organizations, and nations. We identify the effects of responsibility on leaders' choices at the behavioral and neurobiological level and document the widespread existence of responsibility aversion, i.e., a reduced willingness to make decisions if the welfare of others is at stake. In mechanistic terms, basic preferences towards risk, losses and ambiguity do not explain responsibility aversion which, instead, is driven by a second-order cognitive process reflecting an increased demand for certainty about the best choice when others' welfare is affected. Finally, models estimating levels of information flow between brain regions processing separate choice components, provide the first step in understanding the neurobiological basis of individual variability in responsibility aversion and leadership scores. We identify and characterize the computations and neural mechanisms underlying choices to lead. This file includes:Hyperlinked Table of Contents Materials and Methods Supplementary ResultsFigs. S1 to S8 Tables S1 to S7 References and notes Appendix S1Appendix S22 Participants and sample size determination.We conducted the experiment with two separate samples of participants -marked throughout the manuscript as original and fMRI replication groups. The difference between the groups was that the latter performed the delegation task in the MRI scanner. Previous laboratory experiments on individual versus group decision making have typically used between 30-50 participants (37-39).Power calculations (40) based on the aforementioned studies average effect sizes suggested a stopping criterion of 40 participants as a reasonable estimate to ensure a statistical power of 0.8 (with an alpha level of 0.05). We thus recruited 40 participants for the original group (21 females; age 25.7 ± 0.66 standard error of the mean). In the fMRI replication group, we added, a priori, four additional participants (constituting one unit of participants, see below, resulting in 44 participants; 25 females; age 23.5 ± 0.43). This was done in anticipation of some minor data loss due to issues such as excessive head movement in the scanner, and because the minimum experimental session size could not be under eight participants (see task design below). The data for three participants were not fully collected (two participants failed the test quiz assessing comprehension of the instructions and one participant did not show up for the second stage), resulting in a fi...

show abstract

An integrative process model of leadership: Examining loci, mechanisms, and event cycles.

Cited by 79 publications

References 89 publications

A Network Analysis of Leadership Theory

A Network Analysis of Leadership Theory

Rethinking Leadership Theories

Computational and neurobiological foundations of leadership decisions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About