1989JOM

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/237935280
Managerial Leadership: A Review of Theory and Research
Article in Journal of Management · June 1989

DOI: 10.1177/014920638901500207
CITATIONS READS
1,540 81,799
1 author:
Gary Yukl
University at Albany, The State University of New York
102 PUBLICATIONS 26,074 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Gary Yukl on 20 March 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Management
1989. Vol. 15, No. 2, 251-289
Managerial Leadership: A Review of

TIneory and Researcti
Gary Yukl
State University of New York at Albany
This article reviews and evaluates major theories of leadership and

summarizes ftndings from empirical research on leadership. Major
topics and controversies include leadership versus management.
leader traits and skills, leader behavior and activities, leader power
and influence, situational determinants of leader behavior, situational
moderator variables, transformational leadership, importance of
leadership for organizational effectiveness, and leadership as an attri-
butional process. Methodological issues in leadership research and
implications for improving managerial practice are discussed also. An
integrating conceptual framework is presented to show how the differ-
ent theories and lines of research ftt together.
Introduction
The study of leadership has been an important and central part of the literature
on management and organization behavior for several decades. The books, arti-
cles, and papers on the subject now number in the several thousands, and the pub-
lication of new manuscripts continues at a high rate. The field is truly an inter-
disciplinary one. Publications on leadership can be found in a large variety of
professional and practitioner journals in several disciplines, including manage-
ment, psychology, sociology, political science, public administration, and edu-
cational administration. The Leadership Quarterly, a new joumal devoted exclu-
sively to leadership, was initiated in 1989.
The literature includes periodic review articles on leadership, such as those by
House and Baetz (1979), Jago (1982), and Van Fleet and Yukl (1986). Books that
review leadership theory and research include Leadership in Organizations by
Yukl (1981, 1989) and The Handbook of Leadership by Bass (1981). A revised
edition of the latter book is expected to appear in 1989. Leading-edge papers on
advanced aspects of leadership theory, methodology, and research can be found
in the published leadership symposia edited by Jerry Hunt and his colleagues
(e.g.. Hunt, Baliga, Dachler, & Schriesheim, 1988; Hunt, Hosking, Schriesh-
eim, & Stewart, 1984; Hunt, Sekaran, & Schriesheim, 1982). Practitioner-ori-
Address all correspondence to Gary Yukl, Department of Management, State University of New York. Al-
bany, NY 12222.
Copyright 1989 by the Southern Management Association 0149-2063/89/52.00.
251
252 GARY YUKL
ented books on managerial leadership include those hy Bradford and Cohen

(1984), Kotter (1988), Kouzes and Posner (1987), and Peters and Austin (1985).
The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the literature on lead-
ership in formal organizations, with an emphasis on trends and developments in
the 198O's. The massive size and scope of the literature precludes detailed de-
scriptions of individual studies or an exhaustive listing of every leadership refer-
ence. Instead, major theories will he described briefly, general findings in de-
scriptive and hypothesis-testing research will be summarized, and important
issues and controversies will be identified. Implications for the improvement of
management practice will be presented throughout the review rather than in a sep-
arate section. The article begins by examining the continuing controversy over
definitions of leadership.
Definitions of Leadership
Researchers usually define leadership according to their individual perspective
and the aspect of the phenomenon of most interest to them. After a comprehen-
sive review of the leadership literature, Stogdill (1974, p. 259) concluded that
"there are almost as many definitions of leadership as there are persons who have
attempted to define the concept." Leadership has been'defined in terms of indi-
vidual traits, leader behavior, interaction pattems, role relationships, follower
perceptions, infiuence over followers, infiuence on task goals, and influence on
organizational culture. Most definitions of leadership involve an infiuence proc-
ess, but the numerous definitions of leadership that have been proposed appear to
have little else in common. They differ in many respects, including important dif-
ferences in who exerts infiuence, the purpose of infiuence attempts, and the man-
ner in which infiuence is exerted. The differences are not just a case of scholarly
nitpicking. They refiect deep disagreement about identification of leaders and
leadership processes. Differences between researchers in their conception of
leadership lead to differences in the choice of phenomena to investigate and to dif-
ferences in interpretation of the results.
One major controversy involves the issue of leadership as a distinct phenome-
non. Some theorists believe that leadership is no different from the social influ-
ence processes occurring among all members of a group, and these theorists view
leadership as a collective process shared among the members. The opposing view
is that all groups have role specialization, including a specialized leadership role.
This view assumes that there is usually one person who has much more infiuence
than other members and who carries out some leadership functions that cannot be
shared without jeopardizing the success of the group's mission. As we will see
later in this review, the relative popularity of these two perspectives on leadership
may be tilting toward increased emphasis on shared leadership.
Some theorists would limit the definition of leadership to an exercise of infiu-
ence resulting in enthusiastic commitment by followers, as opposed to indifferent
compliance or reluctant obedience. Proponents of this view argue that a person
who uses authority and control over rewards and punishments to manipulate or
coerce followers is not really "leading'' them. The opposing view is that this def-
inition is too restrictive, because it excludes infiuence processes that are impor-
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 15, NO. 2, 1989
MANAGERIAL LEADERSHIP 253
tant for understanding why a manager or administrator is effective or ineffective

in a given situation. These theorists argue that the initial definition of leadership
should not predetermine the answer to the research question of what makes a
leader effective.
A similar controversy continues over the differences between leadership and
management. It is obvious that a person can be a leader without being a manager,
and a person can be a manager without leading. Indeed, some managers do not
even have subordinates (e.g., a "manager" of financial accounts). Nobody has
proposed that managing and leading are equivalent, but the degree of overlap is
a point of sharp disagreement. Some writers contend that the two are qualitatively
different, even mutually exclusive. For example, Bennis and Nanus( 1985, p. 21)
propose that "managers are people who do things right and leaders are people
who do the right thing." Zaleznik (1977) proposed that managers are concerned
about how things get done and leaders are concerned with what things mean to
people. The essential distinction appears to be that leaders influence commit-
ment, whereas managers merely carry out position responsibilities and exercise
authority. A contrary view is taken by writers who see considerable overlap be-
tween leadership and management and find no good purpose served by assuming
it is impossible to be both a manager and leader at the same time. For example,
see the rebuttals to Zaleznik in letters to the editor by some prominent executives
(Harvard Business Review, 1977, July-August).
It is neither feasible nor desirable at this point in the development of the disci-
pline to attempt to resolve the controversy over the appropriate definition of lead-
ership. For the time being, it is better to use the various conceptions of leadership
as a source of different perspectives on a complex, multifaceted phenomenon.
Whenever feasible, leadership research should be designed to provide informa-
tion relevant to the entire range of definitions, so that over time it will be possible
to compare the utility of different concepts and arrive at some consensus on the
matter. Thus, leadership is defined broadly in this article to include infiuencing
task objectives and strategies, infiuencing commitment and compliance in task
behavior to achieve these objectives, infiuencing group maintenance and identi-
fication, and influencing the culture of an organization. The terms manager and
leader will be used interchangeably.
Findings pyom Major Approaches

The field of leadership is presently in a state of ferment and confusion. Most of
the theories are beset with conceptual weaknesses and lack strong empirical sup-
port. Several thousand empirical studies have been conducted on leadership ef-
fectiveness, but most of the results are contradictory and inconclusive. In 1974,
after making an extensive review of more than 3000 leadership studies, Stogdill
(p. vii) concluded: "Four decades of research on leadership have produced a be-
wildering mass of findings.... the endless accumulation of empirical data has not
produced an integrated understanding of leadership."
The confused state of the field can be attributed in large part to the disparity of
approaches, the narrow focus of most researchers, and the absence of broad the-
ories that integrate findings from the different approaches. Leadership has been
254 GARY YUKL
Studied in different ways, depending on the researcher's conception of leadership

and methodological preferences. Most of the studies divide naturally into distinct
lines of research and can be classified according to whether the primary focus is
on power-influence, leader behavior, leader traits, or situational factors that inter-
act with behavior, traits, or power. Most researchers deal only with a narrow as-
pect of leadership and ignore the other aspects. The research on leader power has
not examined leadership behavior except for explicit influence attempts, and there
has been little concem for traits except ones that are a source of leader influence.
The trait research has shown little concem for direct measurement of leadership
behavior or influence, even though it is evident that the effects of leader traits are
mediated by leadership behavior and influence. The behavior research has seldom
included leader traits, even though they influence a leader's behavior, and power
is seldom considered, even though some behavior is an attempt to exercise and
strengthen power. Situational theories examine how the situation enhances or nul-
lifies the effects of selected leader behaviors or traits, rather than taking a broader
view of the way traits, power, behavior, and situation all interact to determine
leadership effectiveness.
Although we have not yet achieved a grand theory of leadership, progress con-
tinues in developing a better understanding of leadership traits, behavior, power,
and situational factors. Major findings from the different lines of research are ex-
amined next.
Power-Influence Approach
Much of the research coming under the power-influence approach attempts to
explain leadership effectiveness in terms of the amount of power possessed by a
leader, the types of power, and how power is exercised. Power is important not
only for influencing subordinates, but also for influencing peers, superiors, and
people outside the organization, such as clients and suppliers. One major ques-
tion addressed by research and theory is the source of power for individuals, and
the way characteristics of the individual and the situation interact in determining
how much power a person has. A related question is the way power is gained or
lost through reciprocal influence processes. Parallel to the micro-level analysis of
power for individuals is a macro-level analysis of power for organizational sub-
units and coalitions (Mintzberg, 1983). At this level, leadership effectiveness is
often evaluated in terms of the organization's adaptation to a changing environ-
ment. Major research questions and fmdings are considered separately.
7. What are the different types and sources of power? There is much concep-
tual confusion about the concepts of power and influence in the leadership liter-
ature. Sometimes power is defmed as potential influence, and other times as en-
acted or realized influence. Sometimes power is viewed as influence over the
attitudes and behavior of people, and sometimes as influence over events. Efforts
to understand power usually involve distinctions among various sources or fomis
of power.
One distinction that continues to be widely accepted is the dichotomy between
personal power stemming from attributes of the person, and position power stem-
ming from attributes of the situation. For example, control over information is a
source of position power; expertise is a source of personal power. However, the
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT. VOL. 15. NO. 2. 1989
two forms of power are not mutually exclusive. Control over infonnation may en-
hance a person's relative expertise in comparison to others who lack the infor-
mation. As research has progressed, it has become more evident that an interac-
tion model (i.e., person x position) is likely to prove more useful than an
additive model (i.e., person + position) for explaining why some people have
more power than others. McCall (1978) proposed that the combination of being
in the right place at the right time with the right resources gives a person power.
It is not enough for a person to have expertise or infonnation; there must also be
the opportunity to use expertise to solve problems for others who are dependent
upon the person, or to use exclusive information to infiuence decisions.
The power typology proposed by French and Raven (1959) is also widely ac-
cepted. Most research on this power typology has floundered on the issue of
measurement, which is complicated by the fact that potential infiuence is largely
a matter of perceptions. Power depends on the target person's perceptions of the
agent's attributes, resources, and credibility. The questionnaires used in leader-
ship research to measure reward, coercive, expert, legitimate, and referent power
are deficient in several respects (Podsakoff & Schriesheim, 1985; Yukl, 1989).
Until this measurement problem is solved, not much progress is likely in research
on the implications of different types of power for leader effectiveness. It is also
unclear whether the French and Raven typology adequately depicts all of the dif-
ferent types of power now recognized by researchers.
2. How is power acquired and lost by leaders? The study of reciprocal infiu-
ence processes between leader and followers has been an important line of re-
search for leaming about emergent leadership and the acquisition of power by
leaders. Social Exchange Theory (Hollander, 1978) describes the process by
which greater status and expert power are accorded someone who demonstrates
loyalty to the group and competence in solving problems and making decisions.
Innovative proposals are a source of increased expert power and when successful,
but leaders lose power if failure occurs and it is attributed to poor judgment, ir-
responsibility, or pursuit of self-interest at the expense of the group. Research on
exchange theory is very limited, but generally supportive. Research on charis-
matic leadership provides additional evidence about the acquisition of infiuence,
and it is generally consistent with the research on expert power. Demonstration of
exceptional expertise may result in attributions of charisma by subordinates if the
leader implements innovative strategies that involve high risk of personal loss
(Conger & Kanungo, 1988).
The manner in which characteristics of the person and position combine to de-
termine relative power is described by Strategic Contingencies Theory (Brass,
1984, 1985; Hickson, Hinings, Lee, Schneck, & Pennings, 1971; Salancik &
Pfeffer, 1977). The amount of power gained by demonstrating competence in
solving problems depends on how important the problems are for the operations
of other organizational units and for the overall performance of the organization.
Acquiring and maintaining power also depend on the extent to which the person
has unique skills and resources that are difficult to replace.
3. How is power exercised by effective leaders? Research on the use of different
forms of power by leaders suggests that effective leaders rely more on personal
256 GARY YUKL
power than on position power. Howevef, methodological limitations of this re-

search (Podsakoff & Schriesheim, 1985; Yukl, 1981) raise doubts about the cor-
rolary implication that position power is ineffective and unnecessary. Research
on positive reward behavior and use of punishment suggest that both can be used
to infiuence behavior by subordinates in some situations (Arvey & Ivancevich,
1980; Podsakoff, Todor, Grover, & Huber, 1984; Podsakoff, Todor, & Skov,
1985). Other research suggests that legitimate power is a major source of daily
infiuence on routine matters for managers in formal organizations (Katz & Kahn,
1978; Thambain & Gemmill, 1974). Thus, a more tenable proposition is that ef-
fective leaders rely on a combination of power sources (Kotter, 1985; Yukl & Ta-
ber, 1983). They develop referent and expert power to supplement their position
power, and they use it to make non-routine requests and motivate commitment to
tasks that require high effort, initiative, and persistence.
The manner in which power is exercised largely determines whether it results
in enthusiastic commitment, passive compliance, or stubborn resistance. Effec-
tive leaders exert both position power and personal power in a subtle, easy fashion
that minimizes status differentials and avoids threats to the self-esteem of sub-
ordinates. In contrast, leaders who exercise power in an arrogant, manipulative,
domineering manner are likely to engender resistance (McCall, 1978; Sayles,
1979; Taber& Yukl, 1983).
A new bridge between the power and behavior approaches is research on the
infiuence tactics used by managers. Researchers have identified a variety of in-
fiuence tactics used by managers, including rational persuasion, exchange of
benefits, pressure tactics, ingratiation, appeal to authority, consultation, and in-
spirational appeals (Kipnis, Schmidt, & Wilkinson, 1980; Mowday, 1978; Porter,
Allen, & Angle, 1981; Schilit & Locke, 1982; Yukl & Falbe, 1989). Effective
leaders probably use a variety of tactics and select tactics that are appropriate for
the situation (Kotter, 1985; Yukl, 1989). The choice of infiuence tactics varies
somewhat with the status of the target person and the objective of the infiuence
attempt (Kipnis et al., 1980; Yukl & Falbe, 1989). In addition to overt infiuence
attempts, there are a number of indirect tactics for exercising power, including in-
tentional role modeling, ecological control or situational engineering, and polit-
ical tactics such as forming coalitions, coopting opponents, gaining control over
key decisions, and institutionalizing power (Pfeffer, 1981; Porter, Allen & Angle,
1981; Yukl, 1989).
4. How much power should a leader have ? The amount of position power nec-
essary for leadership effectiveness depends on the nature of the organization,
task, and subordinates. Leaders who lack sufficient position power to make nec-
essary changes, reward competent subordinates, and punish or expel chronic
troublemakers will find it difficult to develop a high performing organization.
Thus, it is usually desirable for a leader to have at least a moderate amount of po-
sition power. The capacity to provide satisfactory benefits and facilitate the work
of the group depends on the leader's upward and lateral infiuence in the organi-
zation as well as on downward position power. Upward and lateral infiuence can
be viewed as a source of increased position power, but it is also a way of bypass-
ing the constraints of formal authority to get things accomplished.
On the other hand, too much position power entails the risk that the leader will
be tempted to rely on it exclusively and neglect alternative forms of influence,
such as persuasion, participation, and inspirational appeals. This path leads to re-
sentment and rebellion. It is a common theme in literature that great power can
corrupt a leader to misuse it (McClelland, 1975; Zaleznik, 1970). Some evidence
on this question is provided in laboratory research by Kipnis (1972), who found
that leaders with greater reward power used it more to influence subordinates, de-
valued the worth of subordinates, maintained more social distance from subor-
dinates, and attributed subordinate effort to leader use of power rather than to
subordinate motivation. Thus, the optimal amount of power may be a moderate
amount, and it is desirable to have some organizational constraints on a leader's
use of power (Yukl, 1981).
Behavior Approach
The behavior approach emphasizes what leaders and managers actually do on
the job, and the relationship of behavior to managerial effectiveness. Major re-
search questions and findings are reviewed briefly.
1. What is the nature of managerial work? Research on the nature of manage-
rial work relies mostly on descriptive methods such as direct observation, diaries,
and anecdotes obtained from interviews. One line of behavior research has been
concemed with discovering what activities are typical of managerial work. Re-
views ofthe earlier research have been published by Mintzberg (1973), McCall,
Morrison, and Hannan (1978), and McCall and Segrist (1980). More recent stud-
ies include those by Gabarro (1985), Kanter (1983), Kotter (1982), Kurke and
Aldrich (1983), and Kaplan (1986). The typical pattem of managerial activity re-
flects the dilemmas faced by most managers. Relevant information exists only in
the heads of people who are widely scattered within and outside of the organi-
zation. Managers need to make decisions based on information that is both in-
complete and overwhelming, and they require cooperation from many people
over whom they have no formal authority. The descriptive research shows that
managerial work is inherently hectic, varied, fragmented, reactive, and disor-
derly. Many activities involve brief oral interactions that provide an opportunity
to obtain relevant up-to-date infonnation, discover problems, and influence peo-
ple to implement plans. Many interactions involve people other than subordi-
nates, such as lateral peers, superiors, and outsiders.
Descriptive research on managerial decision making and problem solving pro-
vides additional insights into the nature of managerial work (Cohen & March,
1986; McCall, & Kaplan, 1985; Mintzberg & McHugh, 1985; Quinn, 1980;
Schweiger, Anderson & Locke, 1985; Simon, 1987). Decision processes are
highly political, and most planning is informal and adaptive to changing condi-
tions. Effective managers develop a mental agenda of short- and long-term objec-
tives and strategies (Kotter, 1982). The network of relationships inside and out-
side of the manager's unit is used to implement plans and strategies. For plans
involving significant innovations or affecting the distribution of power and re-
sources, the manager must forge a coalition of supporters and sponsors, which
may involve expanding the network of contacts and allies (Kanter, 1983; Kaplan,
1984). Effective managers are able to recognize relationships among the streams
258 GARY YUKL
of problems, issues, and opportunities they encounter. By relating problems to

each other and to informal objectives, a manager can find opportunities to solve
more than one problem at the same time (Isenberg, 1984; McCall & Kaplan,
1985).
2. How should managerial behavior be classifted? The earlier research fo-
cused on activity pattems and how managers spend their time, but research in re-
cent years has examined the content of managerial activities, using content cate-
gories referred to as managerial roles, functions, and practices. A major question
is how to classify behavior in a way that facilitates research and theory on man-
agerial effectiveness. Confusion has been created by a proliferation of behavior
constructs and competing taxonomies. Except for task-oriented and relationship-
oriented behavior, there has been little agreement about what categories of behav-
ior are meaningful. However, task and relationship behaviors are too abstract to
provide a basis for understanding how leaders handle the specific role require-
ments confronting them. Further progress in the behavior research requires a shift
in focus to more specific aspects of behavior (Yukl, 1981).
Major taxonomies used to classify observations of managerial activities in-
clude Mintzberg (1973) and Luthans and Lockwood (1984). Major taxonomies of
leadership or managerial behaviors include Stogdill (1974) and Yukl (1987). Ma-
jor taxonomies for describing managerial position responsibilities include those
by Carroll and Gillen (1987) and Page and Tomow (1987). Despite differences in
purpose, scope, method of development, and level of abstraction, some com-
monalities are evident among the behavior categories in the various taxonomies.
A promising taxonomy that appears capable of integrating most earlier behavior
research has been proposed by Yukl (1989). The behaviors are generic ones ap-
plicable to all types of leaders and organizations, and they may occur in interac-
tions with subordinates, peers, superiors, or outsiders. Of course, the specific
form of the behavior varies from context to context. All of the behaviors are rel-
evant for leadership effectiveness, but their relative importance varies across sit-
uations.
3. What types of managerial behavior are related to effectiveness? Another
line of behavior research has sought to indentify aspects of leader and manager
behavior associated with effective leadership. The research method is to examine
differences in behavior pattems between effective and ineffective leaders. Prog-
ress has been impeded by difficulties in the conceptualization and measurement
of leadership behavior.
A large majority of studies have used a two-factor conception of leadership be-
havior in terms of task-oriented behavior and relationship-oriented behavior, usu-
ally defmed in terms of the Ohio State leadership scales (Fleishmen, 1953; Halpin
& Winer, 1957). Hundreds of studies have examined the correlation of leader in-
itiating Stmcture and Consideration with subordinate satisfaction and perform-
ance. In a few laboratory and field experiments, leader task and relationship be-
havior have been manipulated to determine their effects. Findings in this line of
research have been contradictory and inconclusive in the U.S., except for the gen-
erally positive relationship found between consideration and subordinate satis-
faction. In Japan, researchers have found more consistent evidence that substan-
tial amounts of task-oriented and relationship-oriented behavior are both required

for leadership effectiveness (Misumi, 1985; Misumi & Peterson, 1985). How-
ever, this research emphasizes the situational relevance of the behaviors as op-
posed to some simplistic interpretation such as more is always better.
Participative leadership is another aspect of behavior that has been the subject
of many studies. The research includes laboratory experiments, field experi-
ments, and correlational field studies. Several recent reviews have attempted to
summarize this research (Cotton, Vollrath, Froggatt, Lengneck-Hall, & Jen-
nings, 1988; Miller &Monge, 1986; Schweiger & Leana, 1986; Wagner & Good-
ing, 1987). The various reviewers do not agree, and the research evidence overall
is not sufficiently strong and consistent to draw any firm conclusions. Thus, after
35 years of research on participative leadership, we are left with the conclusion
that it sometimes results in higher satisfaction and performance, and other times
does not. However, this conclusion is in sharp contrast to the findings from de-
scriptive case studies of effective managers. Participation and empowerment of
subordinates is an integral part of the leadership style found to be characteristic
of effective managers in this research (e.g., Bradford & Cohen, 1985; Kanter,
1979; Kouzes & Posner, 1988; Peters & Austin, 1985; Peters and Waterman,
1982). The effectiveness of power sharing and delegation tends to be supported
also by research on self-managed groups (Manz & Sims, 1987).
Some other, more narrowly defined managerial behaviors have been linked to
leadership effectiveness in recent years. The largest number of studies involves
positive reward behavior. A review of this literature by Podsakoff, Todor, Grover
and Huber (1984) found that praise and contingent rewards usually increase sub-
ordinate satisfaction and performance. The importance of recognition and appro-
priate rewards has been noted also in case studies of effective organizations (Pe-
ters & Austin, 1985; Peters & Waterman, 1982).
The next largest number of studies is on clarifying roles and objectives, which
is a component of Initiating Structure. Clarifying (e.g., giving instructions,
coaching, explaining policies, setting priorities, setting deadlines, setting stand-
ards) was related to managerial effectiveness in four out of six samples in ques-
tionnaire research reported by Yukl, Wall, and Lepsinger (1988). Setting spe-
cific, challenging, but realistic goals is an important component of clarifying
behavior, and there is ample evidence in the motivation literature from field ex-
periments that a "tell and sell" approach to goal setting by the manager results
in better subordinate performance than no goals or "do your best" instructions
(e.g., Locke & Latham, 1984; Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981).
Evidence for the importance of other managerial behaviors is provided by de-
scriptive research and by some questionnaire studies with an independent crite-
rion of managerial effectiveness. A number of studies found relationships be-
tween planning and managerial effectiveness, although effective planning was
usually informal and flexible rather than formal and rigid (Carroll & Gillen,
1987; Kanter, 1983; Kotter, 1982; Yukl, Wall, & Lepsinger, 1988). Problem-solv-
ing behavior was also related to managerial effectiveness in some of these same
studies. In observational research, Komaki (1966) found that monitoring was re-
lated to the effectiveness of supervisors, and a similar result was found in some
260 GARY YUKL
questionnaire research (Yukl, Wall, & Lepsinger, 1988). Motivating behaviors

(e.g., emphasizing the importance of the work, inspiring enthusiasm, role mod-
eling) were related to leadership effectiveness in questionnaire research (Yukl,
Wall, & Lepsinger, 1988), in research involving content analysis of biographies
for famous military leaders (Van Fleet & Yukl, 1986b), and in critical incident
research with air force officers (Yukl & Van Fleet, 1982). Evidence that network-
ing behavior is related to advancement comes from observation research on man-
agers (Luthans, Rosencrantz, & Hennessey, 1985), and networking behavior was
found to be important for managerial effectiveness in research using interviews
with managers (Kaplan, 1986; Kotter, 1982).
In summary, several types of managerial behaviors were found to be related to
managerial effectiveness. Although this research is still very limited, perhaps the
findings will end the long fixation on consideration and initiating structure and
encourage researchers to examine more specific behaviors when seeking to un-
derstand leadership effectiveness.
Trait Approach
The trait approach emphasizes the personal attributes of leaders. Early lead-
ership theories attributed success to possession of extraordinary abilities such as
tireless energy, penetrating intuition, uncanny foresight, and irresistible persu-
asive powers. Hundreds of trait studies were conducted during the 193O's and
194O's to discover these elusive qualities, but the massive research effort failed
to find any traits that would guarantee leadership success (Stogdill, 1974). Never-
theless, as the evidence accumulates from better designed research and new re-
search methods, the trait research is slowly discovering how leader traits relate to
leadership behavior and effectiveness. The focus of much of the recent trait re-
search has been on managerial motivation and specific skills, whereas earlier re-
search focused more on personality traits and general intelligence. Some re-
searchers now attempt to relate traits to specific role requirements for different
types of managerial positions.
/. What traits are related to leadership effectiveness? The search for traits rel-
evant for effective leadership has continued over the years, and some different
methodologies have been employed in recent years. For example, Boyatzis
(1982) used "behavior event interviews," a variation of the critical incident
method, to infer traits and skills from incidents reported by managers. McCall
and Lombardo (1983) used interviews with managers to gather descriptions of
managers who advanced into middle or top management but subsequently "de-
railed" and were unsuccessful. These and other studies find a rather consistent
pattem of results. Traits that relate most consistently to managerial effectiveness
or advancement include high self-confidence, energy, initiative, emotional ma-
turity, stress tolerance, and belief in intemal locus of control. With respect to in-
terests and values, successful managers tend to be pragmatic and results oriented,
and they enjoy persuasive activities requiring initiative and challenge (Bass,
1981; Yukl, 1989).
Managerial motivation is one of the most promising predictors of effective-
ness. A program of research on managerial motivation conducted over the years
by Miner and his colleagues (Berman & Miner, 1985; Miner, 1978) found that the
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 15. NO. 2. 1989
most relevant components of managerial motivation were desire for power, desire
to compete with peers, and a positive attitude toward authority figures. Research
by McClelland and other investigators (e.g., McClelland & Boyatzis, 1982;
McClelland & Bumham, 1976; Stahl, 1983) found evidence that effective leaders
in large, hierarchical organizations tend to have a strong need for power, a fairly
strong need for achievement, and a relatively weaker need for affiliation. Effec-
tive managers have a socialized power orientation due to high emotional maturity.
They are more interested in building up the organization and empowering others
than in personal aggrandizement or domination of others. The optimal pattem of
managerial motivation is somewhat different for entrepreneurs, who tend to have
a dominant need for achievement and a strong need for independence.
2. What skills are related to leader effectiveness? Skills are another promising
predictor of leader effectiveness. Technical skills, conceptual skills, and inter-
personal skills are necessary for most leadership roles (Bass, 1981; Hosking &
Morley, 1988; Katz, 1955; Mann, 1965). However, the relative importance of the
three types of skills varies greatly from situation to situation. In addition, the op-
timal mix of specific component skills and the nature of the technical expertise
required by a leader vary greatly from one type of organization to another (Boy-
atzis, 1982; Kotter, 1982; Shetty & Peery, 1976). Even for the same type of or-
ganization, the optimal pattem of traits and skills may vary depending upon the
prevailing business strategy (Gupta & Govindarajan, 1984; Szilagyi &
Schweiger, 1984). Some specific skills such as analytical ability, persuasiveness,
speaking ability, memory for details, empathy, tact, and charm are probably use-
ful in all leadership positions.
3. How do traits interact to influence leader effectiveness? One of the key prin-
ciples coming out of the trait approach is the idea of balance. In some cases bal-
ance means a moderate amount of some trait such as need for achievement, need
for affiliation, self-confidence, risk taking, initiative, decisiveness, and asser-
tiveness, rather than either a very low or a very high amount of the trait. In other
cases, balance means tempering one trait with another, such as tempering a high
need for power with the emotional maturity required to ensure that subordinates
are empowered rather than dominated. Sometimes balance must be achieved be-
tween competing values (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983). Concem for the task must
be balanced against concem for people (Blake & Mouton, 1982). Concem for a
leader's own needs must be balanced against concem for organizational needs.
Concem for the needs of subordinates must be balanced against concem for the
needs of peers, superiors, and clients. Desire for change and innovation must be
balanced against need for continuity and predictability. Balance is not only a
question of individual leaders. In some cases balance involves different leaders in
a management team who have complementary attributes that compensate for each
other's weaknesses and enhance each other's strengths (Bradford & Cohen,
1984).
Situational Approach
The situational approach emphasizes the importance of contextual factors such
as the leader's authority and discretion, the nature of the work performed by the
leader's unit, the attributes of subordinates, and the nature of the extemal envi-
262 GARY YUKL
ronment. This research and theory falls into two major subcategories. One line of
research treats leader behavior as a dependent variable: researchers seek to dis-
cover how the situation influences behavior and how much variation occurs in
managerial behavior across different types of managerial positions. The other,
line of research seeks to discover how the situation moderates the relationship be-
tween leader attributes or behavior and leader effectiveness.
/. What aspects ofthe situation influence leader behavior? One theory for de-
scribing how the situation influences managerial behavior is Role Theory (Kahn,
Wolfe, Quinn, & Snoelk, 1964). The role expectations from superiors, peers,
subordinates, and outsiders are a major influence on a leader's behavior. Leaders
adapt their behavior to role requirements, constraints, and demands of the lead-
ership situation. Other theories have identified key aspects of the situation that
create demands and constraints on a manager. According to Stewart's (1976,
1982) Demands-Constraints-Choices Theory, the pattern of interactions and how
much time is spent with subordinates, peers, superiors, and outsiders depends on
the nature of the work, and whether it is self-generating or reactive, repetitive or
variable, uncertain or predictable, fragmented or sustained, hurried or unhurried.
Another theory is the Multiple Influence Model (Hunt & Osbom, 1982; Osbom
& Hunt, 1975), which emphasizes the infiuence of macro-level situational deter-
minants such as level of authority in the organization, size of work unit, function
of work unit, technology, centralization of authority, lateral interdependence, and
forces in the external environment. Research on situational determinants is still
very limited, and results are difficult to interpret due to confounding among dif-
ferent aspects of the situation. Nevertheless, it is evident that leader behavior is
strongly infiuenced by the situation. Some recent studies of situational effects on
managerial behavior include the following: Fry, Kerr, and Lee (1988); Hammer
and Turk (1987); Kaplan (1986); Leana (1986); Luthans, Rosencrantz, and Hen-
nessey (1985); Mulder, deJong, Koppelaar, and Verhage (1986); Pavett and Lau
(1983); Podsakoff (1982), Sims and Manz, 1984; Yukl and Carrier (1986).
2. How much discretion do leaders have and how is it related to effectiveness?
Despite the situational demands and pressures, managers have choices in what
aspects of the job to emphasize, how to allocate time, and with whom to interact
(Kotter, 1982; Stewart, 1982). Managerial effectiveness depends in part on how
well a manager understands demands and constraints, copes with demands, over-
comes constraints, and recognizes opportunities. Effective leaders are able to
reconcile the role confiicts caused by incompatible role expectations from differ-
ent role senders, and they take advantage of role ambiguity as an opportunity for
discretionary action. They seek to expand their range of choices, exploit oppor-
tunities, and shape the impressions formed by others about their competence and
expertise (Kahn etal. 1964; Kieser, 1984; Pfeffer & Salancik, 1975; Tsui, 1984;
Stewart, 1982). Over the long run, effective leaders act to modify the situation to
increase their discretion (Yukl, 1981).
3. How do leaders interpret information about subordinate performance? At-
tribution Theory uses cognitive processes to explain how leaders interpret per-
formance information, especially evidence of substandard performance. Green &
Mitchell (1979) described the reaction of a manager to poor performance by a
subordinate as a two-stage process, which includes attribution of causality and

selection of a response. Managers will try to determine whether poor perform-
ance is due to something internal to the subordinate (e.g., lack of effort, lack of
ability) or is due to extemal problems beyond the subordinate's control (e.g., ob-
stacles and constraints, inadequate resources or support, insufficient informa-
tion, bad luck). The theory specifies the types of infonnation considered by man-
agers and the way it is interpreted. The type of attribution made by a manager
influences the manager's response. When an extemal attribution is made, the
manager will try to change the situation, such as by providing more resources,
providing assistance in removing obstacles, providing better information, or
changing the task to reduce inherent difficulties. For an intemal attribution of in-
sufficient ability, the manager's likely response is to provide detailed instmction
or coaching, monitor the subordinate more closely, set easier goals and deadlines,
or switch the subordinate to an easier task. For an intemal attribution of insuffi-
cient subordinate effort, the manager's likely response is to give directive or non-
directive counseling, monitor the subordinate more closely, find new incentives
and inducements, or give a waming, reprimand, or punishment. Several studies
have confirmed the major propositions of the model (e.g., James & White, 1983;
Mitchell, Green, & Wood, 1981; Mitchell & Liden, 1982; Wood & Mitchell,
1981).
4. What aspects of the situation serve as moderator variables? Situational the-
ories are based on the assumption that different behavior pattems (or trait pat-
tems) will be effective in different situations and that the same behavior pattem
is not optimal in all situations. A variety of situational theories describe how as-
pects of the situation moderate the relationship between leader behavior (or traits)
and outcomes. Despite considerable research effort to test the theories, major im-
provements in our understanding of managerial effectiveness have not resulted.
With a few exceptions, it is still not possible to make confident predictions about
the optimal behavior pattem for a leader in a given situation. Due to the promi-
nence of the situational theories, they will be reviewed in more detail in the next
section ofthis article.
Situational Theories of Leader Effectiveness

This section briefly describes nine situational theories of leader effectiveness,
reviews the empirical support for each theory, and evaluates its conceptual ade-
quacy. Theories concemed with charismatic and transformational leadership will
be reviewed later in this article.
Path-Goal Theory
Path-Goal Theory (Evans, 1970; House, 1971; House & Mitchell, 1974) pro-
poses that leaders motivate higher performance by acting in ways that influence
subordinates to believe valued outcomes can be attained by making a serious ef-
fort. Aspects of the situation such as the nature of the task, the work environ-
ment, and subordinate attributes determine the optimal amount of each type of
leader behavior for improving subordinate satisfaction and performance. Reviews
of this research (Evans, 1986;Indvik, 1986; 1988) find that some studies support
264 GARY YUKL
some aspects ofthe theory. However, methodological limitations ofthe validation

research, such as over-reliance on questionnaire data from the same respondents
and difficulties in measuring intervening motivational processes, suggest that the
theory has yet to be adequately tested. The theory also has some conceptual lim-
itations. Expectancy theory is a weak conceptual underpinning (Schriesheim &
Kerr, 1977). Path-goal theory focuses on subordinate motivation as the explana-
tory process for the effects of leadership, and the theory ignores other explanatory
processes such as a leader's influence on task organization, resource levels, and
skill levels (Yukl, 1981). Some ofthe propositions are based on questionable as-
sumptions, such as the assumption that role ambiguity is always unpleasant and
the assumption that expectancies will be increased by leader clarification of role
requirements (Stinson & Johnson, 1975). Finally, like most leader behavior the-
ories developed during the 1970's, the initial propositions of Path-Goal Theory
(House, 1971) were formulated in terms of broad behavior categories, thereby re-
ducing the likelihood of finding strong relationships to criterion variables. Al-
though some improvements were made in the revision by House and Mitchell
(1974), further conceptual refinement is needed. For example, it would be better
to replace instrumental leadership with narrower task-oriented behaviors such as
clarifying roles, setting specific objectives, giving contingent rewards, planning
the work, problem solving, and monitoring. As yet, only a few studies have ex-
plored this possibility (e.g., Fulk & Wendler, 1982; Yukl & Clemence, 1984).
Situational Leadership Theory

Hersey and Blanchard's Situational Leadership Theory (1969; 1988) proposes
that the optimal amount of task and relations behavior depends upon subordinate
maturity. The theory prescribes different pattems ofthe two behaviors, depending
on a subordinate's confidence and skill in relation to the task. The theory has
been popular at managerial workshops but not with leadership scholars, (iily a
few studies have tested the theory (Blank, Weitzel, & Green, 1986; Hambleton &
Gumpert, 1982; Vecchio, 1987), and they find only partial, weak support for it.
A number of writers have pointed out conceptual weaknesses in the theory, in-
cluding ambiguous constructs, oversimplification, and lack of intervening ex-
planatory processes (e.g., Blake & Mouton, 1982; Graeff, 1983; Yukl, 1989).
Leader Substitutes Theory
According to Leadership Substitutes Theory (Kerr & Jermier, 1978) supportive
and instrumental leadership by designated hierarchical leaders is redundant or ir-
relevant in some situations. Various characteristics ofthe subordinates, task, and
organization serve as substitutes for hierarchical leadership or neutralizers of its
effects. Only a few studies have been conducted to test propositions about spe-
cific substitutes and neutralizers (Freeston, 1987; Howell & Dorfman, 1981,
1986; Jermier & Berkes, 1979; Kerr & Jermier, 1978; Podsakoff et al., 1984).
This research was reviewed recently by Mclntosh (1983). Some support was
found for some hypotheses, but it is still too early to assess the validity and utility
ofthe model.
The model has a number of conceptual limitations (Yukl, 1989). The theory
fails to provide a detailed rationale for each substitute and neutralizer, with ex-
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 15, NO. 2, t989
planations of underlying causal relationships. A sharper focus on explanatory

processes would help to differentiate between substitutes that reduce the impor-
tance of a leadership behavior and substitutes that involve the same leadership be-
havior by persons other than the designated leader. For example, the importance
of leader direction may be reduced by conditions that make the job of subordi-
nates simple and repetitive (e.g., automation or formalized standard procedures)
or by the existence of other sources of necessary guidance and coaching (e.g.,
prior professional training, outside trainers, instmction by experienced co-work-
ers). Another limitation of the theory is reliance on categories of leader behavior
that are defined too broadly to be linked closely to situational conditions. A few
studies have attempted to address these limitations (Howell & Dorfman, 1986;
Howell, Dorfman, & Kerr, 1986; Jermier & Berkes, 1979). With appropriate re-
vision, the theory holds promise as an altemative perspective on the situational
determinants of leader effectiveness.
Normative Decision Theory

Normative Decision Theory (Vroom & Yetton, 1973) identifies the decision
procedures most likely to result in effective decisions in a particular situation.
The moderator variables are characteristics of the immediate situation that deter-
mine whether a particular decision procedure will increase or decrease decision
quality and acceptance. Research on the model has been reviewed recently by
Vroom and Jago (1988). In general, results have supported the model, but some
decision rules were supported better than others, and some limiting conditions
were found (Crouch & Yetton, 1987; Ettling & Jago, 1988; Field, 1982; Heilman,
Homstein, Cage, & Herschlag, 1984; Tjosvold, Wedley, & Field, 1986). The
model is probably the best of the situational theories. It focuses on specific as-
pects of behavior rather than broad behaviors, it includes meaningful intervening
variables, and it identifies important situational moderator variables. However,
the model deals with only a small part of leadership and has a number of concep-
tual weaknesses such as lack of parsimony, oversimplification of decison proc-
esses, and the implicit assumption that managers have the skills to use each de-
cision procedure (Crouch & Yetton, 1987; Field, 1979; Yukl, 1989).
Vroom and Jago (1988) proposed a revised version of the model, designed to
correct some of the weaknesses in the earlier version. The Vroom-Yetton model
tells managers what not to do, but does not indicate the optimal decision proce-
dure. The revision incorporates additional criteria, it allows a manager to deter-
mine the relative priority of different criteria, and it reduces the feasible set to a
single best procedure based on these priorities. It is too early to evaluate the va-
lidity and utility of the revised model. Vroom and Jago (1988) report that it was
more effective in initial tests. However, the added complexity makes it more dif-
ficult to understand and use. Even the original model was unnecessarily complex
for daily use, and the new version may be even less appealing to managers, given
the hectic, fragmented nature of their work.
LPC Contingency Theory
Fiedler's (1967, 1978) Contingency Theory deals with the moderating infiu-
ence of position power, task stmcture, and leader-member relations on the rela-
266 GARY YUKL
tionship between a leader trait called LPC and leader effectiveness. The model
specifies that high LPC leaders are more effective in some situations and low
LPC leaders are more effective in other situations. The interpretation of LPC
scores has changed several times over the years, and after more than 20 years of
research, the meaning is still not clear. Fiedler regards LPC as an indicator of a
leader's motive hierarchy, with affiliation needs dominant for high LPC leaders
and task-achievement needs dominant for low LPC leaders. Rice (1978) proposed
that research on LPC favors a value-attitude interpretation such that low LPC
leaders value task success whereas high LPC leaders value interpersonal success.
A large number of studies have been conducted to test the model. Reviews by
Strube and Garcia (1981) and Peters, Hartke, and Pohlmann (1985) conclude that
the research tends to support the model, although not for every octant and not as
strongly for field studies as for laboratory studies. However, methodological
problems in the validation research such as weak measures, possible confounding
of variables, and questionable analyses have been pointed out by several writers
(see reviews by Vecchio, 1983; Yukl, 1989). Moreover, the model has serious
conceptual deficiencies that limit its utility for explaining leadership effective-
ness, such as its narrow focus on a single leader trait, ambiguity about what the
LPC scale really measures, absence of explanatory processes, and failure to in-
clude medium LPC leaders (see reviews by Vecchio, 1983; Yukl, 1989). Contro-
versy continues regarding the relevance of research on the Leader Match training
program based on the model (e.g., Chemers & Fiedler, 1986; Fiedler & Chemers,
1982; Jago & Ragan, 1986a, 1986b).
LMX Theory
Vertical Dyad Linkage Theory, now called Leader-Member Exchange Theory,
describes how leaders develop different exchange relationships over time with
different subordinates (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Graen & Cashman,
1975). Some subordinates are given greater infiuence, autonomy, and tangible
benefits in retum for greater loyalty, commitment, and assistance in performing
administrative duties. The theory is situational only in the sense that leaders treat
subordinates differently depending on whether they are part of the in-group or
out-group. The theory has been extended to include a manager's upward relation-
ships. A leader who has a favorable exchange relationship with his or her own
boss has more potential for establishing a special exchange relationship with sub-
ordinates (Cashman, Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1976).
At the present time LMX theory is more descriptive than prescriptive. It de-
scribes a typical process of role making by leaders, but it does not specify what
pattem of downward exchange relationships is optimal for leadership effective-
ness. Some of the more recent studies have focused on the benefits to be gained
by a leader from developing special exchange relationships. A special upward ex-
change relationship was found to be a key predictor of a manager's advancement
in the organization in longitudinal research conducted in Japan (Wakabayashi &
Graen, 1984). A special downward exchange relationship with a subordinate re-
sults in greater loyalty and performance by the subordinate (Graen, Novak, &
Summerkamp, 1982; Graen, Scandura, & Graen, 1986; Scandura & Graen,
1984; Vecchio & Gobdel, 1984).
However, the theory has never been clear about the desirability of having
sharply differentiated in-groups and out-groups. A sharply differentiated in-
group is likely to create feelings of resentment and undermine team identification
among subordinates who are excluded from the in-group. The choice is not be-
tween sharply differentiated relationships and treating all subordinates the same.
Some aspects of a special exchange relationship such as greater delegation of re-
sponsibility and sharing of administrative functions may occur for a few subor-
dinates without precluding the leader from developing a relationship of mutual
trust, supportiveness, respect, and loyalty with the other subordinates. It is not
necessary to treat all subordinates exactly the same, but each should perceive that
he or she is an important and respected member of the team rather than a ' ' second
class citizen." It is likely that effective leaders establish some degree of special
exchange relationship with all subordinates, not just with a few favorites.
Even as a descriptive theory, LMX Theory has a number of conceptual weak-
nesses. Some important issues, such as the process of role-making, have not re-
ceived enough attention, either in the theory itself or in the research conducted to
test it (Dienesh & Liden, 1986; Vecchio, 1983; Vecchio & Gobdel, 1984). Re-
search on the basis for selecting in-group members is still very limited, and it is
still not clear how this selection occurs (Duchon, Green, & Taber, 1986; Kim &
Organ, 1982). The measures of LMX need further refinement, and it is important
to make a clearer separation between measures of the quality of relationship
(e.g., perceptions of mutual tmst, loyalty, and respect), measures of specific
leader behavior (e.g., delegating, consulting, praising, supporting, rewarding,
coaching, mentoring, monitoring) and measures of outcomes (e.g., perform-
ance, tumover).
Cognitive Resources Theory
This theory examines the conditions under which a leader's cognitive re-
sources (e.g., intelligence, experience, and technical expertise) are related to
group performance (Fiedler, 1986; Fiedler & Garcia, 1987). Situational variables
such as interpersonal stress, group support, and task complexity determine
whether a leader's intelligence and experience enhance group performance. The
theory proposes that a leader's cognitive resources affect group performance only
when the leader is directive and the task unstructured. According to the theory,
leader intelligence is related to group performance only when stress is low, be-
cause high stress interferes with the use of intelligence to solve problems and
make decisions. Leader experience will be related to group performance under
high stress but not under low stress, presumably because experienced leaders rely
mostly on experience for solving problems when under high stress, whereas they
rely mostly on intelligence under low stress.
Cognitive resource theory is new and not much research has been conducted
yet to evaluate it. The available evidence is reviewed by Fiedler and Garcia
(1987). Most of the validation studies to date have methodological deficiencies,
such as reliance on surrogate measures of experience (e.g., time in job) that may
be contaminated by extraneous variables, and failure to measure intervening
processes such as decision processes and decision quality. The theory also has
serious conceptual weaknesses. It emphasizes general intelligence at a time when
268 GARY YUKL
most trait research on managerial effectiveness has moved on to more specific

skill constructs such as analytical ability, planning skills, inductive and deductive
reasoning, and creativity in solution generation. Finally, the intervening proc-
esses used to explain the moderated relationships are still very sketchy and in-
complete.
Multiple Linkage Model
The Multiple Linkage Model (Yukl, 1981, 1989) was developed to help ad-
vance theory and research on effective managerial behavior in different situa-
tions. The current version of the model begins with the assumption that work unit
performance depends primarily on six intervening variables: member effort,
member ability, organization of the work, teamwork and cooperation, availabil-
ity of essential resources, and (for middle and lower managers) extemal coordi-
nation with other parts of the organization. Some situational variables directly in-
fluence the intervening variables, and other situational variables determine the
relative importance of each intervening variable in a particular situation. Leaders
can influence these intervening variables in a number of ways, although the ef-
fects of leader behavior depend in part on the situation. In the short term, most
leader actions are intended to correct deficiencies in the intervening variables,
whereas in the long term, leaders seek to make the situation more favorable by
actions such as implementing improvement programs, initiating new products or
activities, forming coalitions to gain more control over resources, modifying the
formal structure, and changing the culture of the unit. The short-term actions are
intended to raise the intervening variables up to their short-term maximum levels,
whereas the long-term actions are intended to raise this "ceiling" to higher lev-
els.
The multiple linkage model was based on findings in prior research; as yet, lit-
tle new research has been conducted to test and refine the model. The major con-
ceptual weakness of the model is the lack of specific propositions about which
leader behaviors influence which intervening variables in which situations. It is
still more of a general framework for describing causal linkages among sets of
variables than a formal theory with precise propositions. As will be seen later in
this article, the model is easily expanded to incorporate most other leadership the-
ories.
Leader-Environment-Follower-Interaction Theory
Wofford (1982) proposed a situational theory that is remarkably similar to the
earlier versions of the Multiple Linkage Model (Yukl, 1971, 1981). Subordinate
performance is dependent on four intervening variables: ability to do the work,
task motivation, clear and appropriate role perceptions, and the presence or ab-
sence of environmental constraints. A leader can influence subordinate perfor-
mance by influencing the intervening variables. In each case there is diagnostic
behavior to assess deficiencies in the intervening variables, and corrective behav-
ior to deal with any deficiencies that are found. Effective leaders avoid deficien-
cies in subordinate ability by using improved selection procedures, increased
training, or redesign of the job to match subordinate skills. In order to achieve
optimal levels of subordinate motivation, effective leaders select subordinates
with a high need for achievement, set specific but challenging goals, and provide
appropriate feedback and encouragement. The leader may also use incentives,
participation, competition, job redesign, or communication of high expectations
to increase motivation. To achieve role accuracy and clarity, effective leaders use
instruction, guidance, feedback, goal setting, formalization, or job redesign. To
deal with constraints in the work environment, effective leaders reorganize the
work, modify technology, provide resources, and remove physical constraints.
Leader behavior is infiuenced in tum by leader traits, situational variables, and
feedback from the intervening and outcome variables.
As in the Multiple Linkage Model, situational variables have direct infiuence
on the intervening variables and serve also to moderate the effects of leader be-
havior on the intervening variables. However, LEFI Theory does not make an ex-
plicit distinction between short term actions to correct deficiencies in intervening
variables and long-term actions to improve the situation. Like most of the situa-
tional theories, the complexity of LEFI Theory makes it difficult to test more than
a small part at a time. Wofford and Srinivasan (1983) report supportive results for
some of the hypotheses from laboratory experiments with students in which
leader behavior was manipulated. Much more research is needed, however, be-
fore the theory can be properly evaluated.
TVansformational and Charismatic Leadership

In the 198O's management researchers suddenly became very interested in
charismatic leadership and the transformation and revitalization of organizations.
These subjects are especially relevant at a time when many companies in the
United States have finally acknowledged the need to make major changes in the
way things are done in order to survive in the face of increasing economic com-
petition from foreign companies. The distinction between charismatic and trans-
formational processes, and between positive and negative charisma is one of the
most interesting subjects of the research and theory (e.g., Bass, 1985; Harrison,
1987; Howell, 1988; Kets de Vries & Miller, 1985; Kuhnert & Lewis, 1987; Mus-
ser, 1987; Schein, 1985).
Transformational leadership refers to the process of infiuencing major changes
in the attitudes and assumptions of organization members and building commit-
ment for the organization's mission, objectives, and strategies. The concept de-
scribes a leadership process that is recognized primarily by outcomes such as ma-
jor changes in the culture and strategies of an organization or social system.
Transformational leadership involves infiuence by a leader on subordinates, but
the effect of the infiuence is to empower subordinates to participate in the process
of transforming the organization. Thus, transformational leadership is usually
viewed as a shared process, involving the actions of leaders at different levels and
in different subunits of an organization, not just those of the chief executive
(Burns, 1978).
Charismatic leadership is defined more narrowly and refers to perception that
a leader possesses a divinely inspired gift and is somehow unique and larger than
life (Weber, 1947). Followers not only trust and respect the leader, as they would
with a transformational leader, but they also idolize or worship the leader as a su-
270 GARY YUKL
perhuman hero or spiritual figure (Bass, 1985). According to House (1977), the
indicators of charismatic leadership include follower's trust in the correctness of
the leader's beliefs, unquestioning acceptance ofthe leader, affection for the
leader, and willing obedience. Thus, with charismatic leadership, the focus is on
an individual leader rather than on a leadership process that may be shared among
multiple leaders.
In contrast to the leadership theories described earlier in this article, the theo-
ries of transformational and charismatic leadership are broader in scope; they si-
multaneously involve leader traits, power, behavior, and situational variables. As
such, this work represents an important step toward greater integration in the
leadership literature. Theory development is still at an early stage, and there is
still not much empirical research to test the few theories that have been proposed.
It is still not evident whether transformational and charismatic leadership are
squarely in the mainstream of leadership literature dealing with the day-to-day
managing of organizations, or whether they are a unique form of leadership found
only in exceptional circumstances such as severe political and economic crises.
Major theories of charismatic and transformational leadership and findings in em-
pirical research are reviewed in the remainder of this section.
House's Charismatic Leadership Theory
House (1977) proposed a theory that identifies how charismatic leaders behave,
how they differ from other people, and the conditions under which they are most
likely to fiourish. As noted earlier, the theory specifies indicators of charismatic
leadership that involve attitudes and perceptions of followers about the leader.
The theory also specifies leader traits that increase the likelihood of being per-
ceived as charismatic, including a strong need for power, high self-confidence,
and strong convictions. Behaviors typical of charismatic leaders include impres-
sion management to maintain follower confidence in the leader, articulation of an
appealing vision that defines the task in terms of idealogical goals to build fol-
lower commitment, communication of high expectations for followers to clarify
their expectations, and expression of confidence in followers' ability to build
their self-confidence. In addition, charismatic leaders set an example in their own
behavior for followers, and if necessary they act to arouse follower motives ap-
propriate for the task. As yet there has not been much empirical research to test
the theory, but supporting evidence for some of the propositions was found in
studies by House, Woycke, and Fodor (1988) and Howell and Frost (in press).
Research on the "pygmalion effect," wherein followers perform better when a
leader expresses confidence in them, also supports some aspects of the theory
(Eden, 1984; Eden & Shani, 1982). Bass (1985) noted some conceptual limita-
tions and recommended extending the theory to include additional traits, behav-
iors, indicators of charisma, and facilitating conditions. For example, he pro-
posed that charismatic leaders are more likely to appear in the situation where
formal authority has failed to deal with a severe crisis and traditional values and
beliefs are questioned.
Conger and Kanungo Charismatic Theory
The version of charismatic theory proposed by Conger and Kanungo (1987,
1988) is based on the assumption that charisma is an attributional phenomenon.
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT VOL. 15, NO. 2, 1989
Followers attribute charismatic qualities to a leader based on their observations of

the leader's behavior and outcomes associated with it. The behaviors are not as-
sumed to be present in every charismatic leader to the same extent, and the rela-
tive importance of each behavior for attribution of charisma varies somewhat with
the situation. The behaviors include the following: (a) enthusiastically advocating
an appealing vision that is highly discrepant from the status quo, yet still within
the latitude of follower acceptance, (b) making self-sacrifices and risking per-
sonal loss of status, money, or membership in the organization in the pursuit of
the espoused vision, and (c) acting in unconventional ways to achieve the es-
poused vision. Traits enhancing attributions of charisma include (a) self-confi-
dence, (b) impression management skills, (c) the cognitive ability needed to as-
sess the situation and identify opportunities and constraints for implementing
strategies, and (d) the social sensitivity and empathy required to understand the
needs and values of followers. With respect to power, attributed charisma is more
likely for a leader who relies mostly on expert and referent power to influence fol-
lowers rather than authority or participation. As for situational variables, charis-
matic leaders are more likely to emerge when there is a crisis requiring major
change or followers are otherwise dissatisfied with the status quo. However, even
in the absence of a genuine crisis, a leader may be able to create dissatisfaction in
order to demonstrate superior expertise in dealing with the problem in unconven-
tional ways.
The theory was based in part on results from earlier research on charismatic
leaders, and in part on new research by Conger and Kanungo (1987) comparing
charismatic to non-charismatic executives. The theory appears promising, but as
yet there is not enough research to evaluate it.
Burns' Theory of Transforming Leadership
This early theory of transformational leadership was developed mostly from

descriptive research on political leaders. Bums (1978) described leadership as a
process of evolving inter-relationships in which leaders influence followers and
are influenced in turn to modify their behavior as they meet responsiveness or re-
sistance. Transformational leadership is viewed as both a micro-level influence
process between individuals and as a macro-level process of mobilizing power to
change social systems and reform institutions. According to Bums, transforma-
tional leaders seek to raise the consciousness of followers by appealing to higher
ideals and values such as liberty, justice, equality, peace, and humanitarianism,
not to baser emotions such as fear, greed, jealousy, or hatred. Followers are ele-
vated from their' 'everyday selves" to their "better selves.'' For Bums, transfor-
mational leadership may be exhibited by anyone in the organization in any type
of position. It may involve people influencing peers or superiors as well as sub-
ordinates. Bums contrasted transformational leadership with transactional lead-
ership, in which followers are motivated by appealing to their self-interest. He
also differentiated transformational leadership from influence based on bureau-
cratic authority, which emphasizes legitimate power and respect for rules and tra-
dition.
272 GARY YUKL
Bass' Theory of Transformational Leadership

Building on the earlier theory by Bums, Bass (1985) proposed a more detailed
theory to describe transformational processes in organizations and to differentiate
between transformational, charismatic, and transactional leadership. Bass de-
fined transformational leadership in terms of the leader's effect on followers.
Leaders transform followers by making them more aware of the importance and
values of task outcomes, by activating their higher-order needs, and by inducing
them to transcend self-interest for the sake of the organization. As a result of this
infiuence, followers feel trust and respect toward the leader, and they are moti-
vated to do more than they originally expected to do.
Bass views transformational leadership as more than just another term for char-
isma. Charisma is defined as a process wherein a leader infiuences followers by
arousing strong emotions and identification with the leader. Bass considers char-
isma a necessary but not sufficient condition for transformational leadership. Two
other components of transformational leadership besides charisma are intellectual
stimulation and individualized consideration. Intellectual stimulation is a process
wherein leaders increase follower awareness of problems and infiuence followers
to view problems from a new perspective. Individualized consideration is a sub-
set of behaviors from the broader category of consideration, and it includes pro-
viding support, encouragement, and developmental experiences to followers.
Charisma, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration interact to
infiuence changes in followers, and the combined effects distinguish between
transformational and charismatic leadership. Transformational leaders seek to
empower and elevate followers, whereas in charismatic leadership, the opposite
sometimes occurs. That is, some charismatic leaders seek to keep followers weak
and dependent, and to instill personal loyalty rather than commitment to ideals.
Bass defined transactional leadership in broader terms than Bums, and it in-
cludes not only the use of incentives to infiuence effort, but also clarification of
the work needed to obtain rewards. Bass views transformational and transactional
leadership as distinct but not mutually exclusive processes, and he recognizes
that the same leader may use both types of process at different times in different
situations.
Research to test this new theory is still in the early stages. Most of the research
to date has involved the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. This question-
naire was developed by Bass (1985) to measure leadership behavior, but scales for
charisma and intellectual stimulation appear to measure intervening outcomes
rather than behavior. The questionnaire asks respondents if they have greater en-
thusiasm, effort, and new ways of thinking as a result of something the leader did,
but specific, observable behaviors causing these outcomes are not identified.
Most of the research using the questionnaire has found a correlation between
transformational leadership and various criteria of leader effectiveness (Bass,
1985; Bass, Avolio, & Goodheim, 1987; Bass, Waldheim, Aviolo, & Bebb,
1987; Waldheim, Bass, & Einstein, 1987). However, the limitations of the ques-
tionnaire and the likelihood of attributional errors even in studies with an inde-
pendent criterion make it difficult to draw any firm conclusions. Future research
should use a greater variety of methods for measuring leadership behavior and
should not be limited to the narrow range of behaviors represented in the Multi-
factor Leadership Questionnaire. The descriptive research on charismatic and
transformational leadership provides clues about additional transformational be-
haviors that could be included. Finally, when transformational leadership is com-
pared to more traditional types of managerial behavior, it is essential to include in
the latter category a full range of managerial behaviors (e.g., planning, problem
solving, clarifying, monitoring, consultation and delegation, networking, recog-
nizing, rewarding, team building, informing, etc.).
Descriptive Research
Most of the research on charismatic and transformational leadership has been
descriptive and qualitative. For example, in several major studies of transforma-
tional leadership, interviews were conducted with leaders previously identified as
transformational on the basis of questionnaire responses, peer nominations, or
because their organization was known to have undergone a major revitalization
or transformation of strategy and culture (Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Gibbons, 1986;
Peters & Austin, 1985; Tichy & Devanna, 1986). In this research, the usual ap-
proach is to analyze the descriptive infonnation to identify common themes and
characteristic behaviors, traits, and influence processes for effective transforma-
tional leaders. Some of the descriptive research on charismatic leaders consists of
intensive case studies of a single leader (e.g., Roberts, 1985; Roberts & Bradley,
1988; Trice & Beyer, 1986). Some of the research involves content analysis of the
activities and behavior of famous leaders as described in biographical accounts,
or content analysis of a leader's speeches and writings (e.g.. Bums, 1978; House,
Woycke, & Fodor, 1988; Van Fleet & Yukl, 1986a; Westley & Mintzberg, 1988;
Willner, 1984). In still another approach, Yukl and Van Fleet (1982) analyzed
critical incidents describing effective behavior by military officers to identify
characteristic examples of inspirational behavior.
The descriptive research tends to be too imprecise for reaching firm conclu-
sions about specific relationships, but it provides some insights into the nature of
transformational and charismatic leadership. The studies rather consistently find
that it is important for the leader to articulate a clear and appealing vision relevant
to the needs and values of followers. Communication of this vision is facilitated
by the leader's actions, by what the leader attends to, and by the use of emotional
appeals, symbols, metaphors, rituals, and dramatic staged events. The intellec-
tual components of the vision appear important for influencing how followers in-
terpret events and for persuading followers that the leader's strategy for attaining
the vision is feasible. Contrary to one of the propositions by Conger and Kan-
ungo, some of the descriptive research suggests that a successful vision is more
likely to be developed through a participative process than unilaterally (Bennis &
Nanus, 1985; Roberts, 1985). Perhaps the unique contribution of the leader is to
collect and integrate the components of a vision provided by followers, then make
the vision come alive through persuasive articulation.
An Integrating Conceptual FVamework
Despite the prevailing pattem of segmentation in research on leadership over
the past 40 years, the number of studies that straddle more than one approach is
274 GARY YUKL
slowly increasing, and the different lines of research are gradually converging
(House, 1988b; Yukl, 1989). When the sets of variables from different ap-
proaches are viewed as part of a larger network of interacting variables, they ap-
pear to be inter-related in a meaningful way. Figure 1 provides an integrating con-
ceptual framework that encompasses each of the important sets of variables
relevant for leadership effectiveness. Most leadership theories can be incorpo-
rated into this model.
The conceptual framework is based on the assumption that organizational ef-
fectiveness, in terms of end-result variables, is mediated by a core set of inter-
vening variables, similar to those in Yukl's Multiple-Linkage Model. As in
House's (1971) Path-Goal Theory, Wofford's (1982) LEFI Theory, Vroom and
Yetton's (1973) Normative Decision Theory, and some of the charismatic lead-
ership theories, leaders can directly infiuence intervening variables such as sub-
ordinate motivation in a variety of ways. Infiuence attempts are embedded in a
leader's broader managerial behavior, and a leader's position power and personal
power are viewed as moderators of the effects of this behavior. As in Yukl's
Figure 1: An Integrating Conceptual Framework
Leader Characteristics
Need Achievetnent
Need Power
Self-confidence
Emotiotial Maturity
Technical Skills
Conceptual Skills
Interpersonal Skills
Managerial Behavior Intervening Variables End-Result Variables

Planning Recognizing Follower Effort Unit Performance
Prob. Solving Rewarding Ability & Role Clarity Profitability
Clarifying Supporting Organization of Work Survival & Growth
Monitoring Mentoring Cooperation Goal Attainment
Informing Networking Resource Adequacy Member Satisfaction
Motivating Consulting Extemal Coordination
Conflict Mgt. Representing
Situational Variables
Position Power
Nature of Subordinates
Task/Technology
Organization Structure
Nature of Environment
Extemal Dependencies
Social-Political Forces
Organization Culture

(1981) Multiple Linkage Model and Hersey and Blanchard's (1988) Situational
Leadership Theory, leaders can indirectly influence intervening variables and re-
sulting outcomes by taking actions to reduce constraints, expand choices, and
make the situation more favorable. Once again, power, influence tactics, and po-
litical tactics are involved in these processes. One indirect approach is to modify
the culture of the organization, as described in some of the literature on transfor-
mational leadership. Like Leadership Substitutes Theory, the integrating model
recognizes that leadership is only one of many determinants of the intervening
variables and end results; the possibility that a leader's influence may be over-
whelmed by stronger situational influences is explicitly acknowledged. Like So-
cial Exchange Theory and LMX Theory, the integrating model allows for recip-
rocal influence processes; leader behavior is both an independent and dependent
variable at the same time. Leader behavior is influenced by a variety of factors,
including aspects of the situation dealt with by Stewart's (1982) Demands - Con-
straints - Choices Theory and by Hunt and Osbom's (1982) Multiple Influence
Model. Leader behavior is influenced also by leader traits and values, role expec-
tations, and interpretation of feedback about the state of intervening and outcome
variables. Thus, the integrating framework also incorporates elements of role the-
ory, theories of managerial motivation, and attribution theory.
As integrative research continues, this sketchy conceptual framework may be
transformed eventually into a full-fledged theory. For now the framework pro-
vides a helpful guide for the design of integrative research and mini-theory.
Current Issues and Controversies

A number of major controversies have been evident in the leadership literature
during the 198O's. They include questions about the importance of leadership,
debates about the appropriate methods to use in studying leadership, and argu-
ments about the existence of leadership as a separate phenomenon apart from the
normal processes of social systems. As noted in the introduction to this article,
these controversies are reflected in disagreements about the proper way to defme
leadership. Each controversy will be reviewed briefly.
Is Leadership Important?
Most leadership research makes the explicit or implicit assumption that lead-
ership is an important determinant of organizational effectiveness. However,
some writers question this assumption (Brown, 1982; Pfeffer, 1977). Pfeffer pro-
posed that organizational effectiveness depends primarily on factors beyond the
leader's control, such as the economic conditions, market conditions, govem-
mental policies, and technological change. The new CEO ofa mature company
inherits an organization with various strengths and weaknesses, and the potential
for making improvements is severely limited by intemal political constraints and
extemal market conditions. A similar argument has been made for constraints on
the influence of lower-level leaders (Kerr, Hill, & Broedling, 1986).
Research on top leadership succession is relevant to the question of leadership
importance. Succession studies examine changes in performance occurring after
changes in leadership (Lieberson & O'Connor, 1972; Pfeffer & Davis-Blake,
276 GARY YUKL
1986; Smith, Carson, & Alexander, 1984; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1977b; Thomas,
1988; Weiner & Mahoney, 1981). It is assumed that, if leadership is important,
changes in top leadership should be associated with changes in the performance
ofthe organization. These studies demonstrate the difficulty of doing research on
leadership importance. Selection of an appropriate criterion of organizational
performance has been a particular problem. Day and Lord (1989) found that re-
sults from the studies by Salancik and Pfeffer (1977b) and Lieberson and O'Con-
nor (1972) were understated due to methodological problems such as failure to
correct for the effects of organization size, failure to correct dollar-denominated
criteria for effects of inflation, use of inappropriate criteria that are not influenced
directly by leaders (e.g., stock prices), and failure to allow enough time for new
leaders to influence quantitative performance outcomes. Methodological prob-
lems in succession research are also discussed by Thomas (1988).
After methodological problems are taken into account, the succession research
suggests that chief executives are able to exert a moderate influence on organi-
zational performance over a period of several years. The magnitude of this influ-
ence is likely to depend both on the leader's skills and on some situational con-
ditions, such as whether there is a performance crisis at the time of succession,
whether there is an inside or outside successor, and how much support the suc-
cessor has from key stockholders to make major changes in strategy (Brady &
Helmich, 1984; House & Singh, 1987).
Is Leadership Merely an Attributional Phenomenon?
A number of writers have argued that the importance of leadership is exagger-
ated by the need for people to explain events in a way that fits their assumptions
and implicit theories (Calder, 1977; Meindl, Ehrlich, & Dukerich, 1985; Pfeffer,
1977). Organizations are complex social systems of patterned interactions among
people. In their effort to understand the causes, dynamics, and outcomes of or-
ganizational processes, people interpret events in simple, human terms. Stereo-
types, implicit theories, and simplified assumptions about causality help people
make sense out of events that otherwise would be incomprehensible. One espe-
cially prevalent explanation of organizational events is to attribute causality to the
influence of leaders. Leaders are pictured as heroic figures who are capable of
determing the fate of their organizations. There is a mystical, romantic quality
associated with leadership, similar to that for other stereotyped heroes in our cul-
ture, such as the lone cowboy who single-handedly vanquishes the bad guys, and
the secret agent who acts alone to save the world from nuclear destruction.
The emphasis on leadership as a cause of organizational events reflects a com-
mon cultural bias toward explaining experience primarily in terms of the rational
actions of people, as opposed to uncontrollable natural forces, actions by super-
natural beings, or random events not susceptible to human comprehension. A
related cause is the widespread faith in human organizations as rational, goal-ori-
ented systems that fulfill the needs of members and contribute to the general wel-
fare of society. The people who occupy positions of top leadership in organiza-
tions symbolize the promise of organizations in modem civilization (Meindl,
Ehrlich, & Dukerich, 1985).
The attributional biases about leaders are exploited and magnified by political
leaders and top executives who seek to create the impression that they are in con-
trol of events. Symbols and rituals, such as elaborate inaugural ceremonies, rein-
force the perceived importance of leaders (Pfeffer, 1977). Successes are an-
nounced and celebrated; failures are suppressed or downplayed. Symbolic action
is most likely when situational constraints and unpredictable events make it im-
possible for management to exert much influence over organizational perform-
ance. In this situation it is all the more important to maintain the impression that
organizational leaders know what they are doing and are making good progress
toward attaining organizational objectives (Bettman & Weitz, 1983; Salancik &
Meindl, 1984; Staw, McKechnie, & Puffer, 1983).
The attributional research demonstrates a bias for people to exaggerate the im-
portance of leadership as a cause of organizational performance, but this research
fails to show that leaders have no influence on performance. Together with the
succession research, the attribution research demonstrates that an accurate con-
ception of leadership importance lies between the two extremes of heroic leader
and impotent figurehead. How an organization performs is determined by a va-
riety of extemal and intemal factors. The intemal factors include leadership proc-
esses at all levels, not just the competence and actions of the CEO (Bames & Kri-
ger, 1986; Bradford & Cohen, 1984; Bums, 1978). Indeed, Bradford and Cohen
contend that the stereotype of the heroic leader undermines effective leadership by
a chief executive. The heroic manager is expected to be wiser and more coura-
geous than anyone else in the organization and to know everything that is hap-
pening in it. However, these expectations are unrealistic, and leaders are seldom
able to live up to them. Shared responsibility for leadership functions and em-
powerment of subordinates is more effective than heroic leadership, but it is un-
likely to occur as long as people expect the leader to take full responsibility for
the fate of the organization.
What Methods Should Be Used for Studying Leadership?

Controversies about the nature of leadership are related to debates about the ap-
propriate research methodology for studying it. One controversy concems the rel-
ative advantage of quantitative, hypothesis-testing research and descriptive-qual-
itative research (Morgan & Smircich, 1980; Morey & Luthans, 1984; Strong,
1984). Proponents of attribution theory argue that the quantitative methods used
in most leadership research are biased toward exaggeration of leadership impor-
tance. For example, subordinates asked to rate the behavior of a leader are likely
to attribute more desirable behaviors to leaders of high performing groups than to
leaders of low performing groups, even though the actual behavior of the leaders
is the same (Lord, Bining, Rush, & Thomas, 1978; Mitchell, Larson, & Green,
1977). The type of behavior questionnaires used in most of the research on lead-
ership behavior have come under severe attack, and there are serious reservations
about their validity (Cronshaw& Lord, 1987; Lord, 1985; Phillips & Lord, 1982;
Rush, Thomas, & Lord, 1977; Schriesheim & Kerr, 1977). Questionnaires and
rating forms that use fixed-response items are known to be susceptible to a vari-
ety of biases, especially when the items do not involve specific, observable be-
278 GARY YUKL
haviors (Goia & Sims, 1985). Accurate measurement is unlikely when respon-
dents are given the difficult task of retrospectively rating how often or how much
a leader exhibited some behavior over a period of several months or years.
As the limitations of questionnaire-correlational research have become more
apparent, some leadership researchers have turned to qualitative, descriptive
methods such as observation, interviews, and intensive case studies. However,
these methods also have limitations (House, 1988a; Martinko & Gardner, 1984,
1985; Miles, 1979). Standards for the application and evaluation of qualitative
methods are not as explicit as those for traditional quantitative methods, and
interpretations based on qualitative methods are sometimes very subjective. The
data collection methods in qualitative-descriptive research are also susceptible to
biases and distortions. Information obtained from critical incidents and inter-
views may be biased by selective memory for aspects of behavior consistent with
the respondent's stereotypes and implicit theories about effective leadership. Di-
rect observation is susceptible to selective attention and biased interpretation of
events by the observer due to stereotypes and implicit theories. When an observer
or interviewer has information about unit performance, attribution errors may oc-
cur also. Finally, qualitative research can be just as superficial as much of the
quantitative research. In some observation studies the observer merely checks off
predetermined categories to classify events, rather than writing narrative descrip-
tions of them to be coded at a later time. This highly structured observation may
focus attention away from the most interesting aspects of the events being ob-
served, and unlike narrative description, it precludes other researchers from ver-
ifying the coding or reclassifying events in terms of different category systems.
It is rare to find observational studies in leadership that include supplementary
methods such as interviews with key figures to discover the context and meaning
of events. An exception is the study by Morris, Crowson, Hurwitz, and Porter-
Gehrie (1981). However, as these researchers point out, there are risks as well as
benefits from supplementary interviews. When observers ask leaders about their
behavior, they increase the likelihood of becoming involved in the very processes
under observation, thereby risking objectivity.
The limitations of each type of methodology make it imperative to use multiple
methods in research on leadership (Jick, 1979; Luthans & Lockwood, 1984; Yukl
& Van Fleet, 1982). It is also important to select methods that are appropriate for
the type of knowledge sought, rather than merely using whatever method seems
most convenient. The purpose ofthe research should dictate the methodology and
choice of samples, not the other way around. Unfortunately, much ofthe research
literature in leadership appears to be the result of uninspired researchers seeking
yet another use for a questionnaire or test laying around on the shelf. Finally, if
leadership involves interactive, interpersonal, and attributional processes in so-
cial systems, then we need to develop better research methods to deal with the
complex nature of these processes. Some rarely used methods that appear to have
promise for studying leadership include protocol anaysis (Schweiger, 1983),
stimulated recall (Burgoyne & Hodgson, 1984), realistic simulations (Kaplan,
Lombardo, & Mazique, 1985), and detailed ethnographic analysis (Strong,
1984).
Conclusions
Critics bemoan the lack of progress in leadership research. However, despite
the fact that the yield of knowledge is much less than would be expected from the
immense literature on leadership, we have made some real progress in unraveling
the mysteries surrounding this subject (House, 1988a; Yukl, 1989). The last dec-
ade has seen a significant increase in the scope of inquiry and variety of meth-
odology. Some interesting trends are beginning to emerge in the theory and re-
search of the 198O's. The pendulum appears to be swinging back from extreme
situationalism to a more balanced theoretical perspective. The possibility that
some propositions are generally applicable is being reconsidered, even though
general principles must be applied differently in different situations. For exam-
ple, the universal proposition that effective leaders have high concem for both the
task and people is not inconsistent with the situational proposition that leaders act
in different ways depending on the situation (Blake & Mouton, 1982; Sashkin &
Fulmer, 1988; Yukl, 1989). In another emerging trend, the pendulum appears
poised to swing away from a focus on individual leaders toward conceptions of
leadership as a shared process embedded in social systems (Bums, 1978; Crouch
& Yetton, 1988; Dachler, 1984; Hosking & Morley, 1988). Since most of the pre-
vailing theories are simple, unidirectional models of causality that focus on what
a leader does to subordinates, new theories are needed to describe interactive
leadership processes that unfold over time in social systems.
It is interesting to note that much of the "new" wisdom found in the literature
on transformational leadership repeats themes of the 196O's, although the pre-
scriptions are often clothed in different jargon. The need to empower subordi-
nates and develop a sense of ownership for what goes on in the organization
echoes the emphasis on power sharing, mutual trust, and participative decision-
making by writers such as Argyris (1964), McGregor (1960), and Likert (1967).
The emphasis on developing human potential and activating higher-order needs
in the service of the organization echoes the earlier humanistic concem for qual-
ity of work life and supportive relationships. If anything is new, it is perhaps the
awareness of political processes in organizations, the recognition that symbolic
processes and management of meaning are as important as management of
things, and the awareness that leadership processes are embedded in the culture
of the organization, shaping it and being shaped by it (Schein, 1985; Pfeffer,
1981).
Another important trend is the growing awareness that leadership concepts and
theories proposed by social scientists are subjective efforts to interpret ambigu-
ous events in a meaningful way, not precise descriptions of real events and im-
mutable natural laws (Astley, 1985; Dachler, 1988). Social scientists interpret
events for practitioners, just as leaders interpret events for followers, and the inter-
pretation is itself a reflection of the prevailing culture and values (Calas & Smir-
cich, 1988). Perhaps this awareness will help to make leadership researchers a lit-
tle more humble about their theories and measures, and practitioners a little less
preoccupied with finding the latest secret remedy for leadership success.

280 GARY YUKL
References
Argyris, C. (1964). Integrating the individual and the organization. New York: Wiley.
Arvey, R.D., & Ivancevich, J.M. (1980). Punishment in organizations: A review, propositions,
and research suggestions. Academy of Management Review, 5, 123-132.
Astley, W.G. (1985). Administrative science as socially constructed truth. Administrative Science
Quarterly. 30,491-513.
Barnes, L.B., & Kriger, M.P. (1986, Fall). The hidden side of organizational leadership. Sloan
Management Review, pp. 15-25.
Bass,B.M.(1981). Handbook of leadership: Revised and expanded edition. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J., & Goodheim, L. (1987). Biography and the assessment of transforma-
tional leadership at the world class level. Journal of Management, 13, 7-20.
Bass, B.M., Waldman, D.A., Avolio, B.J., & Bebb, M. (1987). Transformational leadership and
the falling dominoes effect. Group and Organization Studies, 12, 73-87.
Bennis, W.G., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York: Harper
&Row.
Berman, F.E., & Miner, J.B. (1985). Motivation to manage at the top executive level: A test of the
hierarchic role-motivation theory. Personnel Psychology, 38, 377-391.
Blake, R.R., & Mouton, J.S. (1982). Management by grid principles or situationalism: Which?
Group and Organization Studies, 7, 207-210.
Blank, W, Weitzel, J.R., & Green, S.G. (1986). Situational leadership theory: A test of under-
lying assumptions. Paper presented at the meeting of the Academy of Management, Chicago.
Boyatzis, R.E. (1982). The competent manager New York: Wiley.
Bradford, D.L., & Cohen, A.R. (1984). Managing for excellence: The guide to developing high
performance organizations. New York: Wiley.
Brady, G.F, & Helmich, D.L. (1984). Executive succession: Toward excellence in corporate lead-
ership. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Brass, D.J. (1984). Being in the right place: A structural analysis of individual differences in an
organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 518-539.
Brass, D.J. (1985). Technology and the structuring of jobs: Employee satisfaction, performance,
and influence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35, 216-240.
Brown, M.C. (1982). Administrative succession and organizational performance: The succession
effect. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 245-273.
Burgoyne, J.G., & Hodgson, V.E. (1988). An experiental approach to understanding managerial
action. In J.G. Hunt, D.M. Hosking, C.A. Schriesheim, & R. Stewart (Eds.), Leaders and
managers: An international perspective on managerial behavior and leadership (pp. 163-178).
New York: Pergamon Press.
Bums, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Calas, M.B., & Smircich, L. (1988). Reading leadership as a form of cultural analysis. In J.G.
Hunt, B.R. Baliga, H.P Dachler, & C.A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Emerging leadership vistas (pp.
201-226). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Calder, B.J. (1977). An attribution theory of leadership. In B.M. Staw & G.R. Salancik (Eds.),
New direction in organizational behavior (pp. 179-204). Chicago: St. Clair.
Carroll, S.J., Jr., & Gillen, D.J. (1987). Are the classical management functions useful in describ-
ing managerial work? Academy of Management Review, 12, 38-51.
Cashman, J., Dansereau, F Jr., Graen, G., & Haga, W.J. (1976). Organizational understructure
and leadership: A longitudinal investigation of the managerial role-making process. Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human Performance, 15, 278-296.
Chemers, M.M., & Fiedler, F.E. (1986). The trouble with assumptions: A reply to Jago and Ragan.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 560-563.
Cohen, M.D., & March, J.G. (1986). Leadership and ambiguity: The american college president
(2nded.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Conger, J.A., & Kanungo, R. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in or-
ganizational settings. Academy of Mangement Review, 12, 637-647.
Conger, J.A., & Kanungo, R.N. (1988). Behavioral dimensions of charismatic leadership. In J.A.
Conger & R.N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational
effectiveness (pp. 78-97). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cotton, J.L., Vollrath, D.A., Froggatt, K.L., Lengneck-Hall, M.L., & Jennings, K.R. (1988).
Employee participation: Diverse forms and different outcomes. Academy of Management Re-
view. 13. 8-22.
Crouch, A., & Yetton, P. (1987). Manager behavior, leadership style, and subordinate performance:
An empirical extension ofthe Vroom-Yetton conflict rule. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes. 39. 384-396.
Crouch, A., & Yetton, P. (1988). The management team: An equilibrium model of management
performance and behavior. In J.G. Hunt, B.R. Baliga, H.P. Dachler, & C.A. Schriesheim
(Eds.), Emerging leadership vistas (pp. 107-127). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Dachler, H.R (1984). Commentary on refocusing leadership from a social systems perspective.
Leaders and managers: International perspectives on managerial behavior and leadership.
New York: Pergamon Press.
Dachler, H.P. (1988). Constraints on the emergence of new vistas in leadership and management
research: An epistemological overview. In J.G. Hunt, B.R. Baliga, H.P. Dachler, & C.A.
Schriesheim (Eds.), Emerging leadership vistas (pp. 261-285). Lexington, MA: Lexington
Books.
Dansereau, E, Jr., Graen, G., & Haga, W.J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership
within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation ofthe role making process. Organi-
zational Behavior and Human Performance. 13. 46-78.
Day, D.V, & Lord, R.G. (1989). Executive leadership and organizational performance. yo«rna/o/
Management.
Dienesh, R.M., & Liden, R.C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique
and further development. Academy of Management Review. II. 618-634.
Duchon, D., Green, S.G., &Taber, T.D. (1986). Vertical dyad linkage: A longitudinal assessment
of antecedents, measures, and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 56-60.
Eden, D. (1984). Self-fulfilling prophecy as a management tool: Harnessing pygmalion. Academy
of Management Review. 9, 64-73.
Eden, D., & Shani, A.B. (1982). Pygmalion goes to boot camp: Expectancy, leadership and trainee
perfonnancc. Jourrml of Applied Psychology. 67. 194-199.
Ettling, J.T., & Jago, A.G. (1988). Participation under conditions of confiict: More on the validity
of the Vroom-Yetton model. Journal of Management Studies, 25,73-83.
Evans, M.G. (1970). The effects of supervisory behavior on the path-goal relationship. Organi-
zational Behavior and Human Performance. 5, 277-298.
Evans, M.G. (1986). Path-goal theory of leadership: A meta analysis. Unpublished manuscript.
University of Toronto.
Fiedler, F.E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fiedler, F.E. (1978). The contingency model and the dynamics ofthe leadership process. In L. Ber-
kowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 59-112). New York: Academic
Press.
Fiedler, F.E. (1986). The contribution of cognitive resources to leadership performance. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology. 16, 532-548.
Fiedler, F.E., & Chemers, M.M. (1982). Improving leadership effectiveness: The leader match
concept (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Fiedler, F.E., & Garcia, J.E. (1987). New approaches to leadership: Cognitive resources and or-
ganizational performarwe. New York: Wiley.
Field, R.H.G. (1979). A critique of the Vroom-Yetton contingency model of leadership behavior.
Academy of Management Review. 4. 249-257.
Field, R.H.G. (1982). A test of the Vroom-Yetton normative model of leadership. Journal of Ap-
plied Psychology. 67, 523-532.
Fleishman, E.A. (1953). The description of supervisory behavior Personnel Psychology, 37. 1-6.
Freeston, K. (1987). Leader substitutes in educational organizations. Educational Administration
Quarterly. 23(2), 45-59.
French, J., & Raven, B.H. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies of
social power (pp. 150-167). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.

282 GARY YUKL
Frost, D,C. (1983). Role perceptions and behaviors ofthe immediate superior moderating effects
on the prediction of leadership effectiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Perform-
ance, 31, 123-142.
Fry, L.W., Kerr, S., & Lee, C. (in press). Effects of leader behaviors under different levels of task
interdependence. Human Relations.
Fulk, J., & Wendler, E.R. (1982). Dimensionality of leader-subordinate interactions: A path-goal
investigation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 241-264.
Gabarro, J.J. (1985, May-June). When a new manager takes charge. Harvard Business Review, pp.
110-123.
Gersein, M., & Reisman, H. (1983). Strategic selection: Matching executives to business condi-
tions. Sloan Management Review, 24(2), 33-49.
Gioia, D. A., & Sims, H.P., Jr. (1985). On avoiding the influence of implicit leadership theories in
leader behavior descriptions. Journal of Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45, 217-
237.
Graeff, C L . (1983). The situational leadership theory: A critical review. Academy of Management
Review, 8, 285-296.
Graen, G., & Cashman, J.F. (1975). A role making model of leadership in formal organizations: A
developmental approach. In J.G. Hunt & L.L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership frontiers (pp. 143-
165). Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.
Graen, G., Novak, M., &Sommerkamp, P. (1982). The effects of leader-member exchange and job
design on productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment model. Organizational Be-
havior and Human Performance, 30, 109-131.
Graen, G.B., Scandura, T.A., & Graen, M.R. (1986). A field experimental test of the moderating
effects of growth need strength on productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 484-491.
Green, S.G., & Mitchell, T.R. (1979). Attributional processes of leaders in leader-member ex-
changes. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23, 429-458.
Gupta, A.K., & Govindarajan, V. (1984). Business unit strategy, managerial characteristics, and
business unit effectiveness at strategy implementation. Academy of Management Journal, 27,
25-41.
Halpin, A.W, & Winer, B.J. (1957). A factorial study of the leader behavior descriptions. InR.M.
Stogdill & A.E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description and measurement (pp. 39-51).
Columbus: Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University.
Hambleton, R.K., & Gumbert, R. (1982). The validity of Hersey and Blanchard's theory of leader
effectiveness. Group and Organization Studies, 7, 225-242.
Hamner, T.H., &Turk, J.M. (1987). Organizational determinants of leader behavior and authority.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 647-682.
Harrison, R. (1987, Autumn). Harnessing personal energy: How companies can inspire employees.
Organizational Dynamics, pp. 4-21.
Heilman, M.E., Homstein, H.A., Cage, J.H., & Herschlag, J.K. (1984). Reactions to prescribed
leader behavior as a function of role perspective: The case ofthe Vroom-Yetton Model. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 69, 50-60.
Hersey, P., &Blanchard, K.H. (1969). Life cycle theory of leadership. Training and Development
Journal, 23(2), 26-34.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K.H. (1988). Management of organizational behavior (5th ed.). Engle-
wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hickson, D.J., Hinings, C.R., Lee, C.A., Schneck, R.S., & Pennings, J.M. (1971). A strategic
contingencies theory of intra-organizational power. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 216-
229.
Hollander, E.R (1978). Leadership dynamics: A practical guide to effective relationships. New
York: Free Press.
Hosking, D.M., & Morley, LE. (1988). The skills of leadership. In J.G. Hunt, B.R. Baliga, H.P
Dachler, & C A . Schriesheim (Eds.), Emerging leadership vistas (pp. 80-106). Lexington,
MA: Lexington Books.
House, R.J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly,
16, 321-339.

House, R.J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J.G. Hunt & L.L. Larson (Eds.),
Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189-207). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University
Press.
House, R.J. (1988a). Leadership research: Some forgotten, ignored, or overlooked findings. In
J.G. Hunt, B.R. Baliga, H.P. Dachler, & C.A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Emerging leadership vistas
(pp. 245-260). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
House, R.J. (1988b). Power and personality in organizations. In B.M. Staw (Ed.), Research in Or-
ganizational Behavior (Vol. 10, pp. 305-357). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
House, R.J., & Baetz, M.L. (1974). Leadership: Some empirical generalizations and new research
directions. In B.M. Staw (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. I, pp. 341-423).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
House, R.J., & Mitchell, T.R. (1974). Path-goal theory of leadership. Contemporary Business, 3,
81-98.
House, R.J., Woycke, J., & Fodor, E.M. (1988). Charismatic and non charismatic leaders: Differ-
ences in behavior and effectiveness. InJ.A. Conger & R.N. Kunungo (Eds.), Charismatic lead-
ership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness (pp. 98-121). San Francisco, CA: Jos-
sey-Bass.
Howell, J.M. (1988). Two faces of charisma: Socialized and personalized leadership in organiza-
tions. In J.A. Conger & R.N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in
organizational effectiveness (pp. 213-236). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Howell, J.M., & Frost, P. (in press). A laboratory study of charismatic leadership. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes.
Howell, J.P, & Dorfman, PW. (1981). Substitutes for leadership: Test of a construct. Acarfemyo/
Management Journal, 24, 714-728.
Howell, J.P, & Dorfman, PW. (1986). Leadership and substitutes for leadership among profes-
sional and nonprofessional workers. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 22, 29-46.
Howell, J.P, Dorfman, P W., & Kerr, S. (1986). Moderator variables in leadership research. Acad-
emy of Management Review, II. 88-102.
Hunt, J.G., Baliga, B.R., Dachler, H.P, & Schriesheim, C.A. (1988). Emerging leadership vis-
tas. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Hunt, J.G., Hosking, D.M., Schriesheim, C.A., & Stewart, R. (1984). Leaders and managers:
International perspectives on managerial behavior and leadership. New York: Pergamon Press.
Hunt, J.G., & Osbom, R.N. (1982). Toward a macro-oriented model of leadership: An odyssey. In
J.G. Hunt, U. Sekaran, & C. Schriesheim (Eds.), Leadership: Beyond establishment views
(pp. 196-221). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Hunt, J.G., Sekaran, U., & Schriesheim, C.A. (1982). Leadership: Beyond establishment views.
Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Ilgen, D.R., Mitchell, T.R., & Fredrickson, J.W (1981). Poor performers: Supervisor's and sub-
ordinate's responses. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 27. 386-410.
Indvik, J. (1986). Path-goal theory of leadership: A meta-analysis. In Proceedings ofthe Academy
of Management Meetings. 189-192.
Indvik, J. (1988, August). A more complete testing of path-goal theory. Paper presented at the
meeting of the Academy of Management, Anaheim, CA.
Isenberg, D.J. (1984, November-December). How senior managers think. Harvard Business Re-
view, pp. 81-90.
Jago, A.G. (1982). Leadership: Perspectives in theory and research. Management Science, 28.
315-336.
Jago, A.G., & Ragan, J.W. (1986a). Some assumptions are more troubling than others: A rejoinder
to Chemers and Fiedler. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 564-565.
Jago, A.G., & Ragan, J.W. (1986b). The trouble with leader match is that it doesn't match Fied-
ler's contingency model. Journal of Applied Psychology. 71, 555-559.
Jago, A.G., & Vroom, VH. (1989). An evaluation of two alternatives to the Vroom/Yetton nor-
mative model. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 347-355.
James, L.R., & White, J.F (1983). Cross situational specificity in manager's perceptions of sub-
ordinate performance, attributions, and leader behaviors. Personnel Psychology, 36, 809-856.
284 GARY YUKL
Jermier, J.M., & Berkes, L.J. (1979). Leader behavior in a police command bureaucracy: A closer
look at the quasi-military model. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 1-23.
Kahn, R.L., Wolfe, D.M., Quinn, R.P., & Snoek, J.D. (1964). Organizationaistress: Studies in
role conflict and ambiguity. New York: Wiley.
Kanter, R.M. (1979, July-August). Power failures in management circuits. Harvard Business Re-
view, 57; pp. 65-75.
Kanter, R.M. (1982, July-August). The middle manager as innovator. Harvard Business Review,
pp. 95-105.
Kanter, R.M. (1983). The change masters. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Kaplan, R.E. (1984, Spring). Trade routes: The manager's network of relationships. Organiza-
tional Dynamics, pp. 37-52.
Kaplan, R.E. (1986). The warp and woof of the general manager's job. (Technical Report #27).
Greensboro, NC: Center For Creative Leadership.
Kaplan, R.E., Lombardo, M.M., & Mazique, M.S. (1985). A mirror for managers: Using simu-
lation to develop management teams. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 21, 241-253.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R.L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York:
Wiley.
Katz, R.L. (1955, January-February). Skills of an effective administrator. Harvard Business Re-
view, pp. 33-42.
Kerr, S., Hill, K.D., & Broedling, L. (1986). The first-line supervisor: Phasing out or here to stay?
Academy of Management Review, II, 103-117.
Kerr, S., & Jermier, J.M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement. Or-
ganizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22, 375-403.
Kets de Vries, M.F.R., & Miller, D. (1985). Narcissism and leadership: An object relations per-
spective. Human Relations, 38, 583-601.
Kieser, A. (1984). How does one become an effective manager? In J.G. Hunt, D. Hosking, C.A.
Schriesheim, & R. Stewart (Eds.), Leaders and managers: International perspectives on man-
agerial behavior and leadership (pp. 90-94). New York: Pergamon Press.
Kim, K.I., & Organ, D.W. (1982). Determinants of leader-subordinate exchange relationships.
Group and Organization Studies, 7, 77-89.
Kipnis, D. (1972). Does ^vjex corm^Xl Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 33-41.
Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S.M., & Wilkinson, \. (1980). Intra-organizational influence tactics: Explo-
rations in getting one's way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 440-452.
Komaki, J. (1986). Toward effective supervision: An operant analysis and comparison of managers
at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 270-278.
Kotter, J.P. (1982). The general managers. New York: Free Press.
Kotter, J.P (1985). Power and influence: Beyond formal authority. New York: The Free Press.
Kotter, J.P (1988). The leadership factor. New York: The Free Press.
Kouzes, J.M., & Posner, B.Z. (1987). The leadership challenge: How to get extraordinary things
done in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kuhnert, K. W., & Lewis, P. (1987). Transactional and transformational leadership: A constructive/
developmental analysis. Academy of Management Review, 12, 648-657.
Kurke, L., & Aldrich, H. (1983). Mintzberg was right: A replication and extension of the nature
of managerial work. Management Science, 29, 975-984.
Leana, C R . (1986). Predictors and consequences of delegation. Academy of Management Journal,
29, 754-774.
Lieberson, S., & O'Connor, J.F. (1972). Leadership and organizational performance: A study of
large corporations. American Sociological Review, 37, 117-130.
Likert, R. (1967). The human organization: Its management and value. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Locke, E.A., & Latham, G.P. (1984). Goal setting: A motivational technique that works. Engle-
Locke, E.A., Shaw, K.N., Saari, L.M., & Latham, G.P (1982). Goal setting and task perform-
ance. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 125-152.
Luthans, F., & Lockwood, D.L. (1984). Toward an observation system for measuring leader be-
havior in natural settings. In J.G. Hunt, D. Hosking, C.A. Schriesheim, & R. Stewart (Eds.),
Leaders and managers: International perspectives on managerial behavior and leadership (pp.
117-141). New York: Pergamon Press.
Luthans, F , Rosenkrantz, S.A., & Hennessey, H.W. (1985). What do successful managers really
do? An observational study of managerial activities. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 21,
255-270.
Mann, EC. (1965). Toward an understanding of the leadership role in formal organizations. In R.
Dubin,G.C. Homans,F.C. Mann, & D.C. WiWtr (^A^.), Leadership and productivity ('(>^. (A-
103). San Francisco: Chandler.
Manz, C . C , &Sims, H.P, Jr. (1987). Leading workers to lead themselves: The extemal leadership
of self-managing work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 106-128.
Margerison, C., & Glube, R. (1979). Leadership decision making: An empirical test of the Vroom
and Yetton Model. Journal of Management Studies, 16, 45-55.
Martinko, M.J., & Gardner, W.L. (1984). The observation of high-performing educational man-
agers: Methodological problems and managerial implications. In J.G. Hunt, D.M. Hosking,
C.A. Schriesheim, & R. Stewart (Eds.), Leaders and managers: An international perspective
on managerial behavior and leadership (pp. 142-162). New York: Pergamon Press.
McCall, M.W. (1978). Power, influence, and authority: The hazards of carrying a sword (Techni-
cal Report #10). Greensboro, NC: Center For Creative Leadership.
McCall, M.W., & Segrist, C.A. (1980). In pursuit of the manager's job: Building on Mintzberg
(Technical Report # 14). Greensboro, NC: Center For Creative Leadership.
McCall, M.W., & Kaplan, R.E. (1985). Whatever it takes: Decision makers at work. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
McCall, M.W., & Lombardo, M.M. (1983). Off the track: Why and how successful executives get
derailed (Technical Report #21). Greensboro, NC: Center For Creative Leadership.
McCall, M.W, Morrison, A.M., & Hannan, R.L. (1978). Studies of managerial work: Results
and methods. (Technical Report #9). Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
Mclntosh, N.J. (1988, August). Substitutes for leadership: Review, critique, and suggestion. Paper
presented at the meeting of the Academy of Management, Anaheim, CA.
Meindl, J.R., Eriich, S.B., & Dukerich, J.M. (1985). The romance of leadership. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 30, 78-102.
Miller, K.L, & Monge, PR. (1986). Participation, satisfaction, and productivity: A meta-analytic
review. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 727-753.
Miner, J.B. (1978). Twenty years of research on role motivation theory of managerial effectiveness.
Personnel Psychology, 31, 739-760.
Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York: Harper & Row.
Mintzberg, H. (1983). Power in and around organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Mintzberg, H., & McHugh, A. (1985). Strategy formation in an adhocracy. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 30, 160-197.
Misumi, J. (1985). The behavioral science of leadership: An interdisciplinary Japanese research
program. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
Misumi, J., & Peterson, M. (1985). The performance-maintenance (PM) theory of leadership: Re-
view of a Japanese research program. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 198-223.
Mitchell, T.R., & Kalb, L.S. (1981). Effects of outcome knowledge and outcome valence on su-
pervisor's evaluation. yoM/-na/o//4p/7//'erf/'5)'c/io/og)', 66, 604-612.
Mitchell, T.R., Larson, J.R., Jr., & Green, S.G. (1977). Leader behavior, situational moderators,
and group performance: An attributional analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Per-
formance, 18, 254-268.
Mitchell, T.R., & Liden, R.C. (1982). The effects of social context on performance evaluations.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 29, 241-256.
Morgan, G., & Smircich, L. (1980). The case for qualitative research. Academy of Management
Review, 5, 491-500.
Morris, V.C., Crowson, R.L., Hurwitz, E., Jr., & Porter-Gehrie, C. (1981). The urban principal.
Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.
Mowday, R. (1978). The exercise of upward influence in organizations. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 23, 137-156.

286 GARY YUKL
Mulder, M., DeJong, R.D., Koppelaar, L., & Verhage, J. (1986). Power, situation, and leaders'
effectiveness: An organizational study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 566-570.
Musser, S.J. (1987). The determination of positive and negative charismatic leadership. Unpub-
lished manuscript, Messiah College, Grantham, PA.
Osbom, R.N., & Hunt, J.G. (1975). An adaptive-reactive theory of leadership: The role of macro
variables in leadership research. In J.G. Hunt & L.L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership Frontiers (pp.
27-44). Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.
Page, R., & Tomow, W. W. (1987, April). Managerial job analysis: Are we farther along? Paper pre-
sented at the Second Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psy-
chology, Atlanta.
Pavett, C , & Lau, A. (1983). Managerial work: The influence of hierarchical level and functional
specialty. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 170-177.
Peters, L.H., Hartke, D.D., & Pohlman, J.T. (1985). Fiedler's contingency theory of leadership:
An application ofthe meta-analysis procedures of Schmidt and Hunter. Psychological Bulletin,
97, 274-285.
Peters, T.J., & Austin, N. (1985). A passion for excellence: The leadership difference. New York:
Random House.
Peters, T.J., & Waterman, R.H., Jr. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America's best-
run companies. New York: Harper & Row.
Pfeffer, J. (1977). The ambiguity of leadership. Academy of Management Review, 2, 104-112.
Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. Marshfield, MA: Pittman.
Pfeffer, J., & Davis-Blake, A. (1986). Administrative succession and organizational performance:
How administrator experience mediates the succession effect. Academy of Management Jour-
nal, 29, 72-83.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G.R. (1975). Determinants of supervisory behavior: A role set analysis.
Human Relations, 28, 139-153.
Podsakoff, PM. (1982). Determinants of a supervisor's use of rewards and punishments: A litera-
ture review and suggestions for future research. Organizational Behavior and Human Perform-
ance, 29, 58-83.
Podsakoff, P.M., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1985). Field studies of French and Raven's bases of power:
Critique, reanalysis, and suggestions for future research. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 387-411.
Podsakoff, P.M., & Todor, W.D. (1985). Relationships between leader reward and punishment be-
havior and group processes and productivity. Journal of Management, II, 55-73.
Podsakoff, PM., Todor, W.D., Grover, R.A., & Huber, VL. (1984). Situational moderators of
leader reward and punishment behavior: Fact or fiction? Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 34, 21-63.
Podsakoff, P M., Todor, W D., & Skov, R. (1982). Effects of leader contingent and non-contingent
reward and punishment behaviors and subordinate performance and satisfaction. Academy of
Management Journal, 25. 810-821.
Porter, L.W, Allen, R.W, & Angle, H.L. (1981). The politics of upward influence in organiza-
tions. In L.L. Cummings and B.M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 3,
pp. 109-149). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Quinn, J.B. (1980). Formulating strategy one step at a time. Journal of Business Strategy, /42-63.
Quinn, R.E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Towards a com-
peting values approach to organizational analysis. Management Science, 29, 363-377.
Rice, R.W. (1978). Construct validity of the least preferred co-worker score. Psychological Bulle-
tin, 85, 1199-1237.
Roberts, N.C. (1985). Transforming leadership: A process of collective action. Human Relations,
38, 1023-1046.
Roberts, N . C , & Bradley, R.T (1988). Limits of charisma. In J.A. Conger & R.N. Kanungo
(Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness (pp. 253-
275). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Rush, M . C , Thomas, J . C , & Lord, R.G. (1977). Implicit leadership theory: A potential threat to
the internal validity of leader behavior questionnaires. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 20, 93-nO.
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT VOL. 15, NO. 2, 1989

Salancik, G.R., & Meindl, J.R. (1984). Corporate attributions as strategic illusions of manage-
ment control. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 238-254.
Salancik, G.R., & Pfeffer, J. (1977a, Winter). Who gets power and how they hold on to it: A stra-
tegic contingency model of power. Organizational Dynamics, pp. 3-21.
Salancik, G.R., & Pfeffer, J. (1977b). Constraints on administrative direction: The limited influ-
ence of mayors on city budgets. Urban Affairs, 12, 474-498.
Sashkin, M., & Fulmer, R.M. (1988). Toward an organizational leadership theory. In J.G. Hunt,
B.R. Baliga, H.F Dachler, & C A . Schriesheim (Eds.), Emerging leadership vistas (pp. 51-
65). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Sayles, L.R. (1979). What effective managers really do and how they do it. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Scandura, T.A., & Graen, G.B. (1984). Moderating effects of initial leader-member exchange sta-
tus on the effects of leadership intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 428-436.
Scandura, T.A., Graen, G.B., & Novak, M.A. (1986). When managers decide not to decide au-
tocratically: An investigation of leader-member exchange and decision influence. Journal of Ap-
plied Psychology, 71, 579-584.
Schein, E.H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schriesheim, C.A., & Kerr, S. (1977). Theories and measures of leadership: A critical appraisal.
In J.G. Hunt & L.L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 9-45). Carbondale, IL:
Southern Illinois University Press.
Schilit, W.K., & Locke, E.A. (1982). A study of upward influence in organizations. Administra-
tive Science Quarterly, 27, 304-316.
Schweiger, D.M. (1983). Is the simultaneous verbal protocol a viable method for studying mana-
gerial problem solving and decision making? Academy of Management Journal. 26, 185-192.
Schweiger, D.M., Anderson, C.R., & Locke, E.A. (1985). Complex decision making: A longi-
tudinal study of process and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Proc-
esses, 36, 245-272.
Schweiger, D.M., & Leana, C.R. (1985). Participation in decision making. In E.A. Locke (Ed.),
Generalizing from laboratory to field settings (pp. 147-166). Boston: Heath-Lexington.
Shetty, Y.K., & Perry, N.S. (1976). Are top executives transferable across companies. Business
Horizons, 19(3), 23-28.
Simon, H. (1987). Making managerial decisions: The role of intuition and emotion. Academy of
Management Executive, I. 57-64.
Sims, H.P, Jr., & Manz, C C . (1984). Observing leader verbal behavior: Toward reciprocal deter-
mination in leadership theory. Journal of Applied Psychology. 69, lll-Zil.
Sims, H.R, Jr., & Szilagyi, A.D. (1975). Leader reward behavior and subordinate satisfaction and
performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 14, 426-437
Smith, J.E., Carson, K.P, & Alexander, R. A. (1984). Leadership: It can make a difference. Acad-
emy of Management Journal, 27, 765-776.
Stahl, M.J. (1983). Achievement, power and managerial motivation: Selecting managerial talent
with the job choice exercise. Personnel Psychology, 36, 775-789.
Staw, B.M., McKechnie, PL, & Puffer, S.M. (1983). The justification of organizational perform-
ance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 582-600.
Stewart, R. (1976). Contrasts in management. Maidenhead, Berkshire, England: McGraw-Hill
UK.
Stewart, R. (1982). Choices for the manager: A guide to understanding managerial work. Engle-
Stogdill, R.M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of the literature. New York: Free Press.
Strong, PM. (1984). On qualitative methods and leadership research. In J.G. Hunt, D.M. Hosk-
ing, C A . Schriesheim, & R. Stewart (Eds.), Leaders and managers: An international per-
spective on managerial behavior and leadership, (pp. 204-208). New York: Pergamon Press.
Strube, M.J., & Garcia, J.E. (1981). A meta-analytic investigation of Fiedler's contingency model
of leadership effectiveness. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 307-321.
Szilagyi, A.D., & Schweiger, D.M. (1984). Matching managers to strategies: A review and sug-
gested framework. Academy of Management Review, 9, 626-637

288 GARY YUKL
Thambain, H.J., & Gemmill, G.R. (1974). Influence styles of project managers: Some project per-
formance correlates./lcarfem}'<j/"ManagememyoMrna/, 17, 216-224.
Thomas, A.B. (1988). Does leadership make a difference to organizational performance? Admin-
istrative Science Quarterly, 33, 388-400.
Tjosvold, D., Wedley, W C , & Field, R.H.G. (1986). Constructive controversy: The Vroom-Yet-
ton model and managerial decision making. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 7, 125-138.
Trice, H.M., & Beyer, J.M. (1986). Charisma and its routinization in two social movement orga-
nizations. Research in Organization Behavior (Vol. 8, pp. 113-164). Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
Tsui, A. (1984). A role set analysis of managerial reputation. Organizational Behavior and Human
Van Fleet, D.D., & Yukl, G. (1986a). A century of leadership research. In D. A. Wren (Ed.), One
hundredyears of management (pp. 12-23). Academy of Management.
Van Fleet, D.D., & Yukl, G. (1986h). Military leadership: An organizational perspective. Green-
wich, CT: JAI Press.
Vecchio, R.P. (1983). Assessing the validity of Fiedler's contingency model of leadership effec-
tiveness: A closer look at Strube and Garcia. Psychological Bulletin, 93, 404-408.
Vecchio, R.P. (1987). Situational leadership theory: An examination of a prescriptive theory, yowr-
nal of Applied Psychology, 72, 444-451.
Vecchio, R.P, & Gobdel, B.C. (1984). The vertical dyad linkage model of leadership: Problems
and prospects. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 5-20.
Vroom, V.H., & Jago, A.G. (1988). The new leadership: Managing participation in organiza-
tions. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Vroom, V.H., & Yetton, P.W. (1973). Leadership and decision making. Pittsburgh: University of
Pittsburgh Press.
Wagner, J.A., & Gooding, R.Z. (1987). Shared influence and organizational behavior: A meta-
analysis of situational variables expected to moderate participation-outcome relationships.
Academy of Management Journal, 30, 524-541.
Wakabayashi, M., & Graen, G.B. (1984). The Japanese career progress study: A seven-year fol-
lowup. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 603-614.
Waldman, D.A., Bass, B.M., & Einstein, WO. (1987). Effort, performance and transformational
leadership in industrial and military service. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 60, 1-10.
Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organizations. (T. Parsons, Trans.). New
York: Free Press.
Weiner, N., & Mahoney, T. A. (1981). A model of corporate performance as a function of environ-
mental, organizational, and leadership influences. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 453-
470.
Westley, F.R., & Mintzberg, H. (1988). Profiles of strategic visison: Levesque and lacocca. In J.A.
Conger and R.N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elusivefactor in organizational
effectiveness (pp. 161-212). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Willner, A.R. (1984). The spellbinders: Charismatic political leadership. New Haven: Yale Uni-
versity Press.
Wofford, J.C. (1982). An integrative theory of leadership. Journal of Management, 8, 27-47.
Wofford, J . C , & Srinivasan, TN. (1984). Experimental tests of leader-environment-follower in-
teraction theory of leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32, 33-54.
Wood, R. E., & Mitchell, T.R.(1981). Manager behavior in a social context: The impact of impres-
sion management on attributions and disciplinary actions. Organizational Behavior and Human
Yukl, G. (1971). Toward a behavioral theory of leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human
Yukl, G. (1981). Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Yukl, G. (1987, August). A new taxonomy for integrating diverse perspectives on managerial be-
havior. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association , New York.
Yukl, G. (1989). Leadership in organizations, second edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
Yukl, G., & Carrier, H. (1986). An exploratory study on situational determinants of managerial be-
havior. Proceedings of the Eastern Academy of Management Meetings, 174-177.
Yukl, G., & Clemence, J. (1984). A test of path-goal theory of leadership using questionnaire and
diary measures of behavior. Proceedings of the twenty-first annual meeting of the Eastern Acad-
emy of Management, 174-177.
Yukl, G., & Falbe, C (1989). Influence tactics in upward, downward, and lateral relations. Un-
published manuscript. State University of New York, Albany.
Yukl, G., & Lepsinger, R. (in press). An integrating taxonomy of managerial behavior: Implica-
tions for improving managerial effectiveness. In J.W. Jones, B.D. Steffy, and D.W. Bray (Eds.),
Applying psychology in Business: The manager's handbook. Lexington, MA: Lexington Press.
Yukl, G., & Nemeroff, W. (1979). Identification and measurement of specific categories of lead-
ership behavior: A progress report. In J.G. Hunt and L.L. Larson (Eds.), Crosscurrents in
leadership (pp. 164-200). Carbondale: Southem Illinois University Press.
Yukl,G., & Taber, T. (1983, March-April). The effective use of managerial power. Personnel, pp.
37-44.
Yukl, G., & Van Reet, D. (1982). Cross-situational, multi-method research on military leader ef-
fectiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 87-108.
Yukl, G., Wall, S., & Lepsinger, R. (1988, October). Preliminary report on validation of the man-
agement practices survey. Paper presented at the Center For Creative Leadership conference on
Psychological Characteristics of Leaders, San Antonio.
Zaleznik, A. (1970, May-June). Power and politics in organizational life. Harvard Business Re-
view, pp. 47-60.
Zaleznik, A. (1977, May-June). Managers and leaders: Are they different? Harvard Business Re-
view, pp. 67-78.

View publication stats

1989JOM

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1989JOM

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1989JOM

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Managerial Leadership: A Review of Theory and Research

Article in Journal of Management · June 1989

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Managerial Leadership: A Review of

This article reviews and evaluates major theories of leadership and

Copyright 1989 by the Southern Management Association 0149-2063/89/52.00.

ented books on managerial leadership include those hy Bradford and Cohen

tant for understanding why a manager or administrator is effective or ineffective

Findings pyom Major Approaches

Studied in different ways, depending on the researcher's conception of leadership

power than on position power. Howevef, methodological limitations of this re-

of problems, issues, and opportunities they encounter. By relating problems to

tial amounts of task-oriented and relationship-oriented behavior are both required

questionnaire research (Yukl, Wall, & Lepsinger, 1988). Motivating behaviors

subordinate as a two-stage process, which includes attribution of causality and

Situational Theories of Leader Effectiveness

some aspects ofthe theory. However, methodological limitations ofthe validation

Situational Leadership Theory

planations of underlying causal relationships. A sharper focus on explanatory

Normative Decision Theory

most trait research on managerial effectiveness has moved on to more specific

TVansformational and Charismatic Leadership

Followers attribute charismatic qualities to a leader based on their observations of

Burns' Theory of Transforming Leadership

This early theory of transformational leadership was developed mostly from

Bass' Theory of Transformational Leadership

Figure 1: An Integrating Conceptual Framework

Managerial Behavior Intervening Variables End-Result Variables

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 15, NO. 2, 1989

Current Issues and Controversies

What Methods Should Be Used for Studying Leadership?

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 15, NO. 2, 1989

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 15, NO. 2, 1989

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 15, NO. 2, 1989

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 15, NO. 2, 1989

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT VOL. 15, NO. 2, 1989

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 15, NO. 2, 1989

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 15, NO. 2, 1989

You might also like