Which theory examines the characteristics of leaders and the influence these characteristics have on leadership effectiveness?

3.2 Situational and Contingency Approaches

Situational approaches emphasize the role of contextual factors and how they either influence leadership behavior directly or moderate the relationship between leadership and measures of leader effectiveness (i.e., contingency). Several theories have been proposed, each of which stresses the importance of a particular array of situational factors (for reviews, see Bass and Stogdill 2001, Yukl 1998). There is no unified theory from which the most critical situational factors for leadership can be derived.

Fiedler'sContingency Theory concentrates on three situational factors (task structure, quality of leader-member relations, power inherent in the leader's position) that affect the leader's ability to influence followers depending on whether the leader prefers a task-oriented or a people-oriented leadership style. Although the conceptions of Fiedler's theory and the empirical evidence are controversial, overall his work suggests that people-oriented leadership is more influential in moderately favorable situations than task-oriented leadership which works best in very favorable (high task structure, high quality of leader–member relations, high power) or very unfavorable situations.

Path-goal Theory by Robert House concentrates on an array of situational factors (task ambiguity, characteristics of followers, and the work environment) and suggests a situation-sensitive use of either directive, supportive, participative, or achievement oriented leadership styles in order to clarify for subordinates the path between performance and reward. The assumption is that the clearer the path is laid out, the higher is the followers' task motivation and performance. Despite inconclusive research results and conceptual deficiencies, path-goal theory provides a valuable conceptual framework for identifying situational factors relevant to leadership effectiveness.

Vroom and Yetton'sContingency Theory focuses on characteristics of short-term decision-making tasks. Their normative model prescribes the use of different leadership behaviors, ranging from autocratic, through consultative, to group decision-making, depending on the extent to which there is an objectively ‘good’ task solution available and the extent to which the followers' acceptance is required for proper enactment of the decision made. This approach received considerable empirical support and has been successfully used for leadership training purposes.

Implicit Leadership Theory developed by Lord and Maher (1991) is concerned with the cognitive processes of the led when confronted with leaders and leadership attempts. The theory posits that when a certain set of conditions and events is observed (or not), then individuals attribute that leadership has occurred (or not). Thus, leadership is regarded as a subjectively perceived rather than an objective construct. Individuals not only hold conceptions of prototypical leaders and evaluate actual leaders accordingly, but they also use their implicit leadership theories to judge the degree of leadership effectiveness. In so doing, they derive judgments about behavior that they actually have not observed. Implicit leadership theory poses a problem for the assessment of leadership through questionnaires such as the LBDQ because it underlines the long-ignored fact that we don't know whether such questionnaires measure the actual behavior of the leader or the leadership conceptions of the raters. Implicit leadership theory is to be viewed as a contingency approach because it suggests that the better the match between perceived leader attributes and behaviors, and the leadership concept held by the perceivers (the led), the more likely it is that the perceivers actually ‘see’ an individual as a leader (or an excellent leader) and allow the leader to exert leadership influence on them.

One basic message of these and many other situation-oriented approaches is that leaders must be able to flexibly adapt and cope with different and changing circumstances, otherwise they lose their influential status. However, adaptation and coping do not mean accepting situational factors as unchangeable conditions. Thus, we finally turn to power and influence approaches that address the issue of transforming attributes of the led, and the issue of transcending values and concepts so as to create an appealing vision (or a narrow-minded ideology) via leadership influence.

Can Leadership Be Taught and Developed?

While theories of leadership vary, and tend to emphasize different knowledge, skills, abilities, and values, programs designed to enhance a leader's effectiveness also differ significantly in terms of structure, content, and approach. Given the wide swath of programs that fall within the leadership education paradigm, it should not be surprising that the return on time and money invested in leadership development can vary dramatically (Burke and Day, 1986; Collins and Holton, 2004; Avolio et al., 2009, 2010). While a comprehensive and accepted theory related to leadership development remains elusive, compelling evidence suggests that leaders can be educated to be more effective.

Research on job performance has demonstrated that job performance varies as a function of job complexity such that the more complex the job, the more performance variability there will be among individuals holding that job (Hunter et al., 1990). Leaders often have to deal with multiple levels of complexity and lead others through ambiguous situations fraught with varying levels of risk, making leadership roles highly variable in terms of performance. Given the large variability in leadership performance, understanding the specific leadership competencies that account for variance in measurable organizational outcomes can help to focus leadership development efforts on specific competencies linked to specific organizational outcomes identified through applied research on high performing leaders (Ryan et al., 2009). An evaluation of a leadership development program, which was customized to develop specific competencies, identified through applied research, demonstrated favorable return on investment when business unit profitabilities of trained leaders were compared with a control group of untrained leaders in the same organization (Spencer, 2001). Moreover, the potential for training effects of leadership development to ‘cascade’ down through the organization also provides a mechanism by which the Return on Investment (ROI) of training leaders may potentially be magnified.

While the potential for significant, measurable impact from leadership development is great, systematic investigations of leadership development interventions are somewhat rare in the literature as are theories of leadership development. Nonetheless, several research studies and program evaluations have shown that leadership development interventions can have a positive effect on the attitudes, behaviors, and performance of leaders and their followers (Avolio et al., 2010). The first formal meta-analysis of managerial and leadership development initiatives conducted by Burke and Day (1986) analyzed studies published from 1952 to 1982 and found such interventions to be moderately effective. Collins and Holton (2004) extended and updated the previous study by conducting a meta-analysis on 83 intervention studies published between 1982 and 2001 and found moderate to strong effect sizes. Another meta-analysis also showed that the majority of leadership development initiatives both in laboratory and field settings have a positive impact, but this effect varies dramatically based on the type of intervention and the specific theory, which guided the design and implementation of the program (Avolio et al., 2009).

While research has been generally supportive of the positive effects of leadership development initiatives, some significant methodological issues have to be considered. Evaluations of leadership development programs typically focus on one or two specific leadership tasks or skills, for example, communication methods such as discussing performance problems constructively, motivation, or participative problem-solving techniques. Given the complexities associated with the leadership role, it is unlikely that these types of isolated interventions match the desire of organizational stakeholders to develop more capable leaders. Moreover, research that evaluates leadership development tends to be more focused on immediate or short-term outcomes, yet those sponsoring and participating in leadership development initiatives likely expect the effects of such interventions to be more long term.

Though not unique to leadership theory and practice, the wide range of leadership definitions poses a significant methodological challenge to research on leadership education. To test any substantive hypothesis related to leadership, the meanings of variables involved must be specified in observational terms and a method established for how they can be measured. However, as Bass (2008) points out, “There are almost as many definitions of leadership as there are persons who have attempted to define the concept.” As a consequence, generalization about the effectiveness of leadership development becomes problematic, as does the implication of leadership development research for practice. The multiple settings and different populations, which regularly engage in leadership education also introduces unique factors that limit the development of a general theory of leadership development.

Venues traditionally associated with educating leaders have been business schools and universities. While interest in leadership education within university settings has been growing, compelling evidence of the effectiveness of such university-based programs has been elusive, causing many to question the utility of such programs. A notable exception is the competency-based MBA program at the Weatherhead School of Management (WSOM) at Case Western Reserve University (Boyatzis et al., 1994). Longitudinal studies at WSOM have demonstrated that MBA students can improve the emotional, social, and cognitive intelligence competencies that distinguish outstanding leaders and that improvements can be maintained for several years after program completion. The program at WSOM along with 14 other programs were identified as model programs by the Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations (www.eiconsortium.org) due to evaluation data, which demonstrated that these programs had a measurable impact on social and emotional competencies and/or organizational outcomes. Based on model program evaluation, expert panels and applied research, 22 guidelines for best practice were established and now provide a comprehensive framework for developing social and EI competencies in adults (Cherniss et al., 1998).

While universities would seem a natural choice of venue for the education of leaders, critics both outside and inside academia have questioned this assumption. Mintzberg (2004) in his influential book Managers not MBAs argued that several factors work against the development of effective managers in traditional MBA programs and that managing is a practice that cannot be taught in a traditional classroom setting. He argues that teaching theories of management to nonpracticing managers is ineffective as they have a limited amount of relevant experience that can be related to what is being taught. Training in management and leadership should be limited to practicing managers and efforts made to leverage the knowledge and experience of those managers and share with them theories, which help them make sense of their current reality. Sharing of experience, self-reflection, and the necessity of application and experimentation of management theories back on the job lead to the transfer of theories into the practice of effective management and leadership.

Some Individuals Can Effect Change More Than Others

Early leadership research focused on the physiological and psychological traits thought to be associated with exceptional leaders. These ‘great man’ theories of leadership examined the effects of personal characteristics such as height, physical appearance, and intelligence on leaders' emergence and effectiveness. This stream of research has its counterpart in more current studies examining the effects of self-confidence, extraversion, and energy level (e.g., House, 1988). The aim of this approach has been to identify a leadership personality. However, it leaves many crucial questions unanswered, such as whether certain personal characteristics become more important than others depending on the organizational context, and why, regardless of formal authority, followers perceive some people as leaders and not others.

Contingency theories of leadership were advanced to explain how certain personal characteristics made a leader effective in certain situations (e.g., House and Baetz, 1979). For example, leaders who initiated structure raised the productivity and satisfaction of a group working on a boring or simple task but lowered the productivity and satisfaction of a group working on a complex task, while a considerate leader raised the satisfaction and productivity of a group engaged in a boring task but had little effect on a group engaged in a task they found intrinsically interesting. Additionally, research showed that allowing members to participate in decision making increased commitment but depended on the amount of trust the leader had in his or her subordinates as well as the urgency of task completion (Vroom and Jago, 1978). Thus, contingency theories of leadership were more comprehensive than trait theories; however, they still did not account for the interactive effects of leader characteristics and their situational contexts.

Recent research has focused on charismatic and transformational leadership, demonstrating that some individuals influence situations more than others. This research takes an interactional approach by conceptualizing leadership as a personal relationship between the leader and his or her followers. A leader must have certain interpersonal skills in order to inspire followers to set aside their goals and to pursue a common vision. Charismatic leaders are thought to have the ability to change their circumstances by increasing followers' motivation and commitment and, sometimes, to change the direction of the entire organization (e.g., Meindl et al., 1985). However, a leader is only charismatic if followers recognize him or her as such; followers must identify with the vision articulated by the leader. In one particularly exhaustive laboratory study of charismatic leadership (Howell and Frost, 1989), confederates were trained to display qualities of a charismatic leader, such as projecting a dominant presence, articulating a large overarching goal, and displaying extreme confidence in followers' ability to accomplish this goal. In addition, norms were created in each group for either high or low productivity. In contrast to participants working under a considerate or structuring leader, participants working under the charismatic leader displayed higher task performance regardless of the group productivity norm. This finding suggests that leaders mold their styles in response to the situation. Moreover, some leaders are capable of changing the situation itself by changing followers' perceptions and motivation.

2.1 Order Out of Chaos

The trait theory (or great man theory) offered one of the earliest conceptual ways of looking at leadership. This theory holds that there is one best way to lead and that deeply seated personality variables allow certain people to master that best way. According to this theory, there are a number of universal characteristics of personality that determine a leader's effectiveness, without regard to behavior in a given situation. Because leadership is viewed as a set of relatively stable and enduring personal traits or physical properties, specific personality characteristics distinguish effective from ineffective leaders.

The initial search for these universal traits applicable to any setting was not overly successful, however. The results was conflicting, with methodological problems in research design cited as the major reason. Disappointed by the results of these studies, many scholars interested in leadership abandoned this line of research altogether, turning to other approaches to leadership. Recently, however—after a long hiatus in trait research (and with the help of better measuring techniques)—a revival of trait theory has been observed. Those studies that have gone beyond the simplistic, atomistic approach of previous trait studies have identified a number of personality characteristics that consistently emerge, differentiating leaders from nonleaders—dimensions of character that can be mapped into the Big Five model of personality structure (Hogan et al. 1994). These various dimensions can be described in terms of surgency (a broad term that embraces competitiveness, achievement orientation, self-assuredness, and dominance), agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and intelligence (including emotional intelligence). In addition, these studies regularly list factors such as physical energy and extraversion.

Another group of leadership scholars espouses a behavioral theory. Distinguishing between the technical actions of a leader and the human actions, these behaviorists emphasize a set of observable role behaviors rather than traits. Like trait theorists with their individual characteristics, these scholars see certain role behaviors as being universal—that is, as producing leadership effectiveness regardless of the setting. Generally, however, the constructs employed by these scholars have been too rudimentary. This approach often looks at behaviors via dimensions such as consideration versus initiation, or task orientation versus relationship orientation (Bales 1958, Fleishman et al. 1955). Another popular typology with a behavioral slant on leadership contrasts autocratic and democratic approaches (Tannenbaum and Schmidt 1958).

From this approach to leadership behavior, we move on the continuum to contingency theory. Instead of taking the position that leadership traits or behaviors are applicable to any situation, those supporting the contingency theory claim that the emergence of any one style is contingent on the environment in which the leader is operating. According to this point of view, the most effective leader is the one who is able to adapt his or her actions depending on the situation. In the model of one of the most prominent advocates of this point of view, the effectiveness of task- or relationship-oriented leaders depends on the favorableness of the situation as defined by the power of their position, the task structure, and the quality of the leader-member relationship (Fiedler 1967).

Order Out of Chaos

The trait theory (or great man theory) offered one of the earliest conceptual ways of looking at leadership. This theory holds that there is one best way to lead and that deeply seated personality variables allow certain people to master that best way. According to this theory, there are a number of universal characteristics of personality that determine a leader's effectiveness, without regard to behavior in a given situation. Because leadership is viewed as a set of relatively stable and enduring personal traits or physical properties, specific personality characteristics distinguish effective from ineffective leaders.

The initial search for these universal traits applicable to any setting was not overly successful, however. The results were conflicting, with methodological problems in research design cited as the major reason. Disappointed by the results of these studies, many scholars interested in leadership abandoned this line of research altogether, turning to other approaches to leadership. In the early 1990s, however, after a long hiatus in trait research (and with the help of better measuring techniques) a revival of trait theory was observed. Those studies went beyond the simplistic, atomistic approach of previous trait studies and identified a number of personality characteristics that consistently emerged, differentiating leaders from nonleaders – dimensions of character that can be mapped into the Big Five model of personality structure (Hogan et al., 1994). These various dimensions can be described in terms of surgency (a broad term that embraces competitiveness, achievement orientation, self-assuredness, and dominance), agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and intelligence (including emotional intelligence). In addition, these studies regularly listed factors such as physical energy and extraversion.

Another group of leadership scholars espouses a behavioral theory. Distinguishing between the technical actions of a leader and the human actions, these behaviorists emphasize a set of observable role behaviors rather than traits. Like trait theorists with their individual characteristics, these scholars see certain role behaviors as being universal – that is, as producing leadership effectiveness regardless of the setting. Generally, however, the constructs employed by these scholars have been too rudimentary. This approach often looks at behaviors via dimensions such as consideration vs initiation, or task orientation vs relationship orientation (Bales, 1958). Another popular typology with a behavioral slant on leadership contrasts autocratic and democratic approaches (Tannenbaum and Schmidt, 1958).

From this approach to leadership behavior, we move on the continuum to contingency theory. Instead of taking the position that leadership traits or behaviors are applicable to any situation, those supporting the contingency theory claim that the emergence of any one style is contingent on the environment in which the leader is operating. According to this point of view, the most effective leader is the one who is able to adapt his or her actions depending on the situation. In the model of one of the most prominent advocates of this point of view, the effectiveness of task- or relationship-oriented leaders depends on the favorableness of the situation as defined by the power of their position, the task structure, and the quality of the leader–member relationship (Fiedler, 1967).

Level 4: Teams and Leadership

At Level 4 of his model, Ashkanasy (2003a) identified leadership as having a major effect on the moods and feelings of team members. A similar conclusion was reached by Humphrey (2002), who argued the mood management may well be the most critical element of team leadership. This idea is also supported in empirical findings reported by Seong and Choi (2014). If this is so, then it would also follow that a leader's emotional intelligence may be the key. In this regard, George (2000) reasoned that emotionally intelligent leaders engender enthusiasm among team members. This idea was supported in empirical research by Pescosolido (2002), who found that effective leaders tended to perform better than their less effective colleagues when it came to dealing with workplace events that involved strong emotions, and that this contributes to development of stronger team harmony and cohesion.

Although controversial (Antonakis et al., 2009), scholarly evidence is tending increasingly to support the notion that emotional intelligence is related to leadership effectiveness. Thus, in a recent review of 10 years of research into the relationship of emotional intelligence and leader effectiveness, Walter et al. (2011) found overwhelming support across all three ‘streams’ of emotional intelligence identified in Ashkanasy and Daus (2005).

In groups and teams, the principal mechanism for spreading a particular emotional state via emotional contagion (Hatfield et al., 1992), whereby members of a group are ‘infected’ by others' emotional states through mimicking other members' facial expressions, body language, and vocal tone. Given the modeling role of leaders, it follows therefore that contagion should be a major mechanism for leaders to transfer emotional states to team members. In this regard, Goleman et al. (2002) argue that the most effective leaders (which they refer to as ‘primal’ leaders) engender ‘emotional synchronization’ or resonance with their followers. In essence, followers ‘tune in’ to their leader and adopt whatever emotional state the leader is modeling. Empirical support for the role of emotional contagion in groups comes from a study conducted among MBA study groups by Barsade (2002), while Sy et al. (2005) found evidence for leader-to-member contagion. More recently, Tee et al. (2013) found that the effect can go the other way: from followers to the leader.

A corollary of this is that, to be effective, leaders need to manage emotional contagion lest it spirals out of control. In this regard, Humphrey (2008: p. 1) argues that leaders need to “lead with emotional labor” (see also Ashkanasy and Humphrey, 2011b) as a means to regulate their own emotional feelings. Thus effective leaders engage in genuine emotional expression or (at least) deep acting to model the emotions suited to a particular situation; this emotion is then likely to be picked up by group members (via contagion) leading to the whole team adopting the (appropriate) emotion (Sy et al., 2005).

In addition to the direct role of emotion in leader group/team situations, it seems that emotions also play a key role in broader models of leadership. Indeed, there is evidence that a key skill of transformational leaders lies in an ability to help followers to deal with negative emotional events. For example, in a study of R&D teams, Pirola-Merlo et al. (2002) found that leaders could boost performance by helping their followers deal with everyday frustrations and negative moods. McColl-Kennedy and Anderson (2002) found similarly that transformational leaders engendered positive emotion leading to optimism, improved performance, and goal attainment (see also Tsai et al., 2009).

Finally, it is worth noting that there may also be a potential ‘dark side’ to emotional intelligence in the context of leadership. For example, Kilduff et al. (2010) recently suggested that emotional intelligence can be used ‘strategically’ to manipulate others.

Outcomes

The majority of empirical work on authentic leadership has sought to explicate its outcomes, rather than its antecedents (Gardner et al., 2011). Many theoretical propositions regarding these outcomes have been supported. Indeed, this may be part of the reason why authentic leadership has sustained the attention of the scientific community. In this section, we briefly review some of the predicted outcomes and relevant empirical findings. Some outcomes are posited explicitly in models of authentic leadership, whereas others have been derived from those models.

Overall, the Gardner et al. (2011) review suggests that authentic leadership is associated with positive leader (psychological well-being), follower (empowerment, job performance, job satisfaction, organizational citizenship behaviors, organizational commitment, trust in leadership, work engagement, and work happiness), and organizational outcomes (openness of organizational climate and firm financial performance). Authentic leadership was also shown to be negatively associated with undesirable outcomes (e.g., follower burnout and contingent leader self-esteem). Together, these results provide evidence of predictive validity of the authentic leadership construct. Subsequent research provides additional empirical evidence of predictive validity, as authentic leadership has been shown to be positively related to behavioral integrity (Leroy et al., 2012b), perceived leader effectiveness (Moriano et al., 2011), follower extra effort (Moriano et al., 2011), satisfaction with the leader (Moriano et al., 2011; Neider and Schriesheim, 2011), follower basic need satisfaction (Leroy et al., 2012a), follower general satisfaction (Neider and Schriesheim, 2011), follower organizational commitment (Neider and Schriesheim, 2011), follower affective commitment (Leroy et al., 2012b), follower social exchange (Chiaburu et al., 2011), follower creativity (Chiaburu et al., 2011), follower work role performance (Leroy et al., 2012a,b), positive (Woolley et al., 2011) and collective psychological capital (Woolley et al., 2011), organizational citizenship behavior (Walumbwa et al., 2011), positive work environments (Walumbwa et al., 2011), group level performance (Woolley et al., 2011), firm level performance (mediated through top management team positive affective tone; Hmieleski et al., 2012), team trust (Walumbwa et al., 2011), team authenticity (Hannah et al., 2011), and teamwork behavior (Hannah et al., 2011).

Gardner et al. (2011) note that while the research to date is informative, much work remains to advance our understanding of authentic leadership. To do so, they recommend a five-pronged agenda for future research: (1) stronger theory building, (2) expansion of the nomological network, (3) more rigorous and diverse methods, (4) attention to authentic followership, and (5) attention to authentic leadership development. In a separate review of the leadership literature, Avolio et al. (2009) came to a similar conclusion that the measurement of constructs relating to authentic leadership is at an early stage of development. They identify several relevant constructs that have not yet been examined, such as moral perspective, self-concept clarity, psychological well-being, spirituality, and judgment. They also suggest that additional research is needed to examine authentic leadership across different cultural and situational contexts.

One way that the theory building can be enhanced is by more clearly articulating the boundary conditions. Though the intent of research behind authentic leadership is to understand a wide range of phenomena, it is likely that some contexts are not fully supportive of authenticity and authentic leadership (e.g., toxic organizational cultures). While some work on boundary conditions of authentic leadership has been done (Eagly, 2005), more theory and empirical research is needed to explicate these boundaries.

Another area that requires greater research is the interplay between authentic leadership and authentic followership. In their initial conceptualization of authentic leadership, Gardner and associates (Gardner et al., 2005a) posited a parallel process to authentic leadership whereby followers come to function authentically, in part by modeling the authenticity of the leader. In their review of the literature, Gardner et al. (2011) pointed out that the role of authentic followership within authentic leader–follower relationships had not been examined, despite it being a crucial component of authentic leadership theory. In an initial step toward filling this void, Leroy et al. (2012a) demonstrated that work units that were characterized by relatively high levels of authentic leadership provided a supportive context for followers' satisfaction of their basic needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, and thereby fostered authentic followership and elevated levels of follower work role performance. Moving forward, additional research is required to explore the role that authentic leadership plays in facilitating follower authenticity at work, as well as the extent to which authentic followership in turn enables leaders to achieve authenticity.

Leadership

Interest in cross-cultural leadership has grown exponentially with the advent of globalization. Leaders need to be aware of local pursuits, yet enact global thinking; this is augmented by intensified competition, as companies are able to distribute products and services with increasing ease. The resulting challenges of this increased competition have moved organizations to focus on and invest in leader effectiveness (Caligiuri, 2006). This has resulted in lively discussions of what constitute effective leaders as well as how to develop global leaders (Butler et al., 2012; Holt and Seki, 2012; Ng et al., 2009). Yet attaining a unified definition of a global leader and how to develop global leaders remains somewhat elusive (Bird et al., 2010; Gundling et al., 2011). The number and scope of the tools developed to assess assorted aspects of global leadership is impressive. The list is long with tools such as the Global Mindset Inventory (Javidan and Teagarden, 2011), the Global Competencies Inventory (Bird et al., 2010), CQ (Van Dyne et al., 2008), the Leadership Versatility Inventory (Kaplan and Kaiser, 2003), Transition Leadership Wheel (Bunker and Wakefield, 2006), and the Opposite Strengths Inventory (Thomas and Thomas, 2006) being just a few examples of tools that exist to measure various models of global leadership. Often, leadership training is determined by the outcomes of these assessments.

Most models of global leadership assignments have concentrated on expatriate performance and adjustment, not leadership development (Ng et al., 2009). International assignments are seen as ways to develop global leaders; however, few studies have assessed how leaders turn their expatriate learning into experiences that enhance the effectiveness of their actual leadership. From this perspective, the expatriate assignment functions as a form of CCT. Through the integration of research on CQ and experiential learning theories, Ng et al. (2009) address this question of how and why global leaders learn from their international work assignments. In their model, they propose that CQ will act as a moderator, increasing the probability that individuals (expatriates or cosmopolitans) on assignments internationally will be part of four stages of experiential learning theory. Further, they contend that participation in these four stages (experience, reflect, conceptualize, and experiment) will allow leaders to developmentally gain from their experiences during their international assignments. Adopting this developmental perspective of expatriates and cosmopolitans (short-term travelers) is worthy of future study.

Some scholars have made compelling arguments that effective global leadership involves a developmental shift beyond the current competency models. Notably, Holt and Seki (2012) argue that such a shift requires us to question the use of some outdated models of leadership; questioning if we have a Western-centric approach to leadership that is applicable in a global context. They acknowledge that a separate stream of literature about intercultural communication has emerged over the past 30 years; however, even when leadership has been acknowledged, the complexities of leadership have not been addressed in these intercultural communication models. Further, Holt and Seki (2012) suggest that today most leaders operate in a global context and that being successful as a leader in a single context does not equate to being an effective global leader. Instead of simply adding a competency to other leadership abilities, being an effective global leader requires a developmental shift. They propose four developmental shifts including: “(a) developing multicultural effectiveness (MCE), (b) becoming adept at managing paradoxes associated with global work, (c) cultivating the ‘being’ dimension of human experience, and (d) appreciating individual uniqueness in the context of cultural differences” (Holt and Seki, 2012: p. 197). These dimensions cannot be addressed by simply adding competencies to existing leadership models.

There are, however, some existing leadership models that account for cross-cultural differences within their framework (Inceoglu and Bartram, 2012). One of the most noteworthy and comprehensive studies assessing cross-cultural leadership is Project GLOBE (Chhokar et al., 2007; House et al., 2004; House et al., 2014). Carried out in three phases, the first phase was focused on the development of research instruments to assess both societal culture and leadership, which was conducted through the participation of researchers from around the world. From this initial phase, nine cultural dimensions and six global leadership dimensions (comprised of 21 first-order dimensions) emerged. Using the scales developed in the first phase, researchers in the second phase sought to further differentiate attributes of culture and leadership at both the organizational and societal levels focusing on mid-level managers in 62 societies. The second phase was devoted to implementing the surveys to assess the nine core attributes of cultures and six broad dimensions of leadership, with a keen interest in noting whether universal and/or culturally contingent leader characteristics emerged across cultures. Universal leadership characteristics are those seen as important across cultures, while culturally contingent leadership characteristics are seen as concepts influenced by values, beliefs, cognitive schemas, and behaviors that are unique to a culture (Bass, 1997; Den Hartog et al., 1999; Dickson et al., 2012). Culturally contingent leadership characteristics are considered desirable in some cultures, but not others (Den Hartog et al., 1999; Dorfman et al., 2004). The analyses conducted in this stage of the project revealed the existence of both culturally universal and culturally contingent leadership attributes, as well as their impact on leadership. Most recently, the third phase was dedicated to examining the impact and effectiveness of specific CEO leader behaviors on top management team attitudes and firm performance (House et al., 2014). Assessing actual CEO behavior across 24 countries, the results from this phase supported the idea of universal and culturally contingent leader attributes. Together these studies are important for CCT in global leadership, as they greatly enhance our understanding of culture and leadership expectations across many societies. Unfortunately there are a number of practitioners who do not know about this model, and ironically if they do it is the scope of this work that makes it intimidating for practitioners (Holt and Seki, 2012). In order to effectively use the leadership framework promoted in project GLOBE, future CCT methods should be constructed with this model in mind, and be communicated in a way that encourages practitioners to use this research to inform leadership frameworks (e.g., Javidan et al., 2006).

Development of Coaching Expertise

There is a significant body of literature on the development of coaching expertise. While much of this work is atheoretical, there is a recent emphasis among coaching scholars to apply and develop theories and models to guide their inquiry. An exploration of the leadership literature will explore the historical evolution of leadership theory and provide empirical evidence on coach behavior.

Multidimensional Model of Leadership

In the late 1970s, researchers began applying leader behavior concepts to sports. However, there is a considerable gap between the importance assigned to athletic leadership and efforts to systematically understand the leader role in this unique competitive setting. One factor contributing to this gap is that early sport researchers interested in coaching behavior tested their hypotheses using theories developed for the corporate environment. However, there are differences between these two settings, and these differences may contribute to the inconsistent results on coach behaviors in early research. One difference is the disproportionate amount of time spent training and being assessed. In sports, the majority of time is spent practicing, while in the work setting, employees may have one training session a year (Chelladurai, 1978). Furthermore, in sports, there is only one winner, and the life of intact teams is relatively short compared to employment stability in work environments. Therefore, a sport-specific model was needed to study coach behaviors. The integration of the four situational theories delineated above served as the basis for Chelladurai’s Multidimensional Model of Leadership (MML; Chelladurai, 1978; Chelladurai & Carron, 1978).

The MML posits that group performance and member satisfaction are functions of the congruence among three leader behaviors: required, actual, and preferred (Chelladurai, 1978). Situational, leader, and member characteristics are treated as antecedents to the three leader behaviors, while performance and satisfaction are consequences. See Figure 1 for a depiction of the MML (Figure 2).

Figure 1. The multidimensional model of leadership (Chelladurai, 1978; Chelladurai & Carron, 1978).

As demonstrated by the model, situational characteristics (i.e., goals of the team, organizational structure, social norms, cultural values, governmental regulations) directly affect the coach’s required behavior and the team’s preferred behavior. The individual characteristics of group members directly affect the coach’s required behavior and the group members’ preferred behavior. Furthermore, the coach’s actual behavior is influenced by the coach’s personal characteristics, requirements demanded by the situation, and the preferred behaviors of the team members. Consequently, the degree of congruence among the required, actual, and preferred behaviors directly affects the levels of performance and satisfaction of the group members. The embedded feedback loop projects how the actual coach behavior may be a consequence of performance and satisfaction of the group. In order to test the efficacy of this model in sport, Chelladurai and Saleh (1978, 1980) created the Leadership Scale for Sport (LSS). This questionnaire is utilized to measure athlete perceptions of coach behavior (required, actual, preferred) via five dimensions. The dimension of Training and Instruction measures coaches’ teaching behavior; both Democratic Behavior and Autocratic Behavior measure coaches’ decision-making styles; and the two dimensions of Social Support and Positive Feedback measure coaches’ motivational tendencies.

The majority of research using the MML as a framework and the LSS as a tool addresses three distinct facets. The most widely studied facet is the predominantly descriptive work influence of member characteristics on preferred and perceived coach behaviors. The second, and more complex, approach is to determine the congruence between preferred and perceived coach behaviors in relation to athlete satisfaction. Finally, researchers attempt to relate coach behaviors to athlete performance.

5.1 Leader consequences

Consequences of leader behavior can manifest in many objective and subjective outcomes (Yukl, 2012). Although the provision of resources to followers through leader political support is expected to increase individual and unit performance, the focus here is on the exchange-related effects of leader political support, including follower ratings of leader effectiveness and leader reputation.