The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Leadership Process Models: A Review and Synthesis
Open accessAbstract
In organizational research, studying “processes” is important for uncovering and understanding the underlying causal mechanisms in a predictor-mediator-outcome logic. Processes answer “how” and “why” questions and provide more complete explanations about phenomena. Our focus in this review is on studies of leadership processes, which we systematically analyze to report on the state of the science. In doing so, we present a two-dimensional target-centric taxonomy to integrate previous research: The taxonomy distinguishes the target’s level (i.e., individual follower, team, organizational, and extraorganizational) as well as the type of 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 effect of leader traits or behaviors on performance-related outcomes through cognitive, affective, 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 development of genuine and thoughtful leadership process theories. We conclude by urging future leadership process research to embrace multiprocess, multilevel, and time-sensitive models.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Spencer, S. J., Zanna, M. P., & Fong, G. T. (2005) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.845 · Cited by 2,452
On making causal claims: A review and recommendations
Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P., & Lalive, R. (2010) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.010 · Cited by 2,441
Self-citationServant Leadership: A Review and Synthesis
van Dierendonck, D. (2011) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206310380462 · Cited by 2,218
Gong, Y., Huang, J.-C., & Farh, J.-L. (2009) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2009.43670890 · Cited by 1,914
Organizational Behavior: Affect in the Workplace
Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. (2002) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135156 · Cited by 1,797
Dinh, J. E., Lord, R. G., Gardner, W. L., Meuser, J. D., Liden, R. C., & Hu, J. (2014) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.005 · Cited by 1,426 · cited 1×
“…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 et al., 2014; Hernandez, Eberly, Avolio, & Johnson, 2011; Hiller, DeChurch, Murase, & Doty, 2011).”
Backgroundvan Knippenberg, D., & Sitkin, S. B. (2013) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520.2013.759433 · Cited by 1,302
Duration neglect in retrospective evaluations of affective episodes.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Kahneman, D. (1993) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.65.1.45 · Cited by 1,228
Followership theory: A review and research agenda
Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R. E., Lowe, K. B., & Carsten, M. K. (2014) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.007 · Cited by 1,213
Grant, A. M. (2008) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.108 · Cited by 1,114
Cited by
Servant Leadership: A systematic review and call for future research
Eva, N., Robin, M., Sendjaya, S., van Dierendonck, D., & Liden, R. C. (2019) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.07.004 · Cited by 1,858
Leadership, creativity, and innovation: A critical review and practical recommendations
Hughes, D. J., Lee, A., Tian, A. W., Newman, A., & Legood, A. (2018) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.03.001 · Cited by 1,080
Leadership behavior and employee well-being: An integrated review and a future research agenda
Inceoglu, I., Thomas, G., Chu, C., Plans, D., & Gerbasi, A. (2018) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.12.006 · Cited by 670
Leadership, creativity and innovation: a meta-analytic review
Lee, A., Legood, A., Hughes, D., Tian, A. W., Newman, A., & Knight, C. (2020) · European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1080/1359432x.2019.1661837 · Cited by 425
Abusive supervision: A systematic review and fundamental rethink
Fischer, T., Tian, A. W., Lee, A., & Hughes, D. J. (2021) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2021.101540 · Cited by 318
Self-citationConstruct redundancy in leader behaviors: A review and agenda for the future
Banks, G. C., Gooty, J., Ross, R. L., Williams, C. E., & Harrington, N. T. (2018) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.12.005 · Cited by 275
Ethical leadership: Mapping the terrain for concept cleanup and a future research agenda
Banks, G. C., Fischer, T., Gooty, J., & Stock, G. (2021) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2020.101471 · Cited by 260
Self-citationBeyond relationship quality: The role of leader–member exchange importance in leader–follower dyads
Lee, A., Thomas, G., Martin, R., Guillaume, Y., & Marstand, A. F. (2019) · Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1111/joop.12262 · Cited by 60
Lee, A., Inceoglu, I., Hauser, O., & Greene, M. (2022) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2020.101426 · Cited by 48
Optimize your leadership pipeline: Leveraging HR analytics for c-suite executive development
Zhu, G., Wang, L., & Hall, D. T. (2023) · International Journal of Manpower · doi:10.1108/ijm-07-2022-0341 · Cited by 9
Metadata
- Authors
- Fischer, T., Dietz, J., & Antonakis, J.
- Venue
- Journal of Management
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2016-12-19
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1726-1753
- ISSN
- 0149-2063 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-1211
- OpenAlex
- W2572534884
- Cited by
- 308
- References
- 22
- FWCI
- 41.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
