Cited by 2,058Leadership and Management in OrganizationsEmployee Performance and LeadershipJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior

An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories

Yukl, Gary·1999·The Leadership Quarterly

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s1048-9843(99)00013-2

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yukl, G.
Affiliations
State University of New York (US)
Corresponding author
Yukl, Gary
Venue
The Leadership Quarterly
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1999
Volume
10
Issue
2
Pages
285-305
ISSN
1048-9843 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1964585266
Cited by
2,058
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 34 · 2025: 52 · 2024: 71 · 2023: 106 · 2022: 105 · 2021: 104 · 2020: 110 · 2019: 99 · 2018: 118 · 2017: 141 · 2016: 126 · 2015: 120 · 2014: 103 · 2013: 111 · 2012: 106
FWCI
62.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
The Leadership Quarterly (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Leadership and Management in Organizations
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Employee Performance and Leadership
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Keywords
transformational leadership, charismatic leadership, leadership theory, construct validation, theory testing, effective leadership

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review