Leaders are the representatives of the movements that have made history. We picture Martin Luther King, Jr. and his poignant "I Have a Dream" speech when discussing the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s in America. We attribute Indian independence in large part to Mahatma Gandhi, who strongly advocated for nonviolent civil disobedience amid a country torn apart by war. We remember Nelson Mandela as a driving force in the movement to end South African apartheid, even from inside a jail cell. A relatively small number of leaders have exerted a disproportionately large impact on society. As a result, researchers have spent decades trying to understand how they achieved this influence (Bass & Riggio, 2005; Yukl, 2010). Although there remains debate among leadership scholars, perhaps one of the most steadfast pillars of leadership is that it is a process (Stogdill, 1948; Yukl, 2010). Put most simply, leadership involves two parties-leader(s) and followers-who work together to achieve common goals. It is generally agreed upon that leaders, assigned or emergent, use influence strategies, formal and/or informal, to aid in the process of persuading followers toward shared goals. As such, followers, or those holding a temporary or permanent supporting role in goal attainment, play a critical part in advancing both the message and agenda of leaders. What is perhaps most interesting about followers is that they can play an equally critical role either having high contact with their leader (e.g., team leader) or having never met a leader at all (e.g., presidents). This particular point is perhaps why interest in exploring the wide-reaching nature of leader influence and effectiveness has been maintained for over a century. Historically, research on effective leadership was restricted to transformational and charismatic leadership