ArticlePDF Available

Effective Leadership Behavior: What We Know and What Questions Need More Attention

December 2012
Academy of Management Perspectives 26(4):66-85

DOI:10.5465/amp.2012.0088

Authors:

University at Albany, State University of New York

Extensive research on leadership behavior during the past half century has yielded many different behavior taxonomies and a lack of clear results about effective behaviors. One purpose of this article is to describe what has been learned about effective leadership behavior in organizations. A hierarchical taxonomy with four meta-categories and 15 specific component behaviors was used to interpret results in the diverse and extensive literature and to identify conditions that influence the effectiveness of these behaviors. Limitations and potential extensions of the hierarchical taxonomy are discussed, and suggestions for improving research on effective leadership behavior are provided.

Hierarchical Taxonomy of Leadership Behaviors

…

Figures - uploaded by Gary Yukl

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Gary Yukl

Content may be subject to copyright.

ARTICLES

Effective Leadership Behavior: What We Know and

What Questions Need More Attention

by Gary Yukl

Executive Overview

Extensive research on leadership behavior during the past half century has yielded many different behavior

taxonomies and a lack of clear results about effective behaviors. One purpose of this article is to describe

what has been learned about effective leadership behavior in organizations. A hierarchical taxonomy with

four meta-categories and 15 specific component behaviors was used to interpret results in the diverse and

extensive literature and to identify conditions that influence the effectiveness of these behaviors. Limita-

tions and potential extensions of the hierarchical taxonomy are discussed, and suggestions for improving

research on effective leadership behavior are provided.

The essence of leadership in organizations is

influencing and facilitating individual and col-

lective efforts to accomplish shared objectives.

Leaders can improve the performance of a team or

organization by influencing the processes that de-

termine performance. An important objective in

much of the leadership research has been to iden-

tify aspects of behavior that explain leader influ-

ence on the performance of a team, work unit, or

organization. To be highly useful for designing

research and formulating theories, leader behavior

categories should be observable, distinct, measur-

able, and relevant for many types of leaders, and

taxonomies of leader behaviors should be compre-

hensive but parsimonious.

Thousands of studies on leader behavior and its

effects have been conducted over the past half

century, but the bewildering variety of behavior

constructs used for this research makes it difficult

to compare and integrate the findings (Bass, 2008;

Yukl, in press). The behavior taxonomies guiding

past research have substantial differences in the

number and type of behaviors they include. Some

taxonomies have only a few broadly defined be-

havior meta-categories, whereas other taxonomies

have a larger number of narrowly defined behavior

categories. Some taxonomies are intended to

cover the full range of leader behaviors, whereas

others include only the behaviors identified in a

particular leadership theory. Some taxonomies

describe leader behaviors used to motivate indi-

vidual subordinates, whereas other taxonomies de-

scribe behaviors used to lead groups or organiza-

tions. Some taxonomies include other types of

constructs along with behaviors, such as leader

roles, skills, and values. Additional confusion is

created by lack of consistency in the use of cate-

gory labels. Sometimes different terms are used to

refer to the same type of behavior, and sometimes

the same term is used for different forms of

behavior.

The primary purpose of this article is to review

what has been learned about effective leadership

behavior from research conducted over more than

half a century. To integrate results from a large

number of studies with many different ways of

Gary Yukl (g.yukl@albany.edu) is a Professor in the School of Business at the University of Albany.

66 NovemberAcademy of Management Perspectives

Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s express written permission.

Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amp.2012.0088

classifying and measuring leadership behavior, it

was first necessary to develop a comprehensive

behavior taxonomy. The article begins by describ-

ing how decades of behavior research provides the

basis for a hierarchical taxonomy with four broad

meta-categories and 15 specific component be-

haviors. Next is a brief overview of research on

the effects of widely used behavior categories, fol-

lowed by a more detailed description of what has

been learned about the relevance of each specific

behavior in the hierarchical taxonomy. Several

conditions that influence the effects of the behav-

iors are described, and the need for more research

on them is explained. The article ends with a

summary and suggestions for improving future

research.

Research on Behavior Taxonomies

The method used most often to identify catego-

ries of leadership behavior is factor analysis

of behavior description questionnaires. This

method is most useful when clear, relevant items

are selected for the initial questionnaire and re-

spondents are able to remember the leader’s past

behavior and provide accurate ratings. Unfortu-

nately, the selection of behavior items for a ques-

tionnaire is usually influenced by preconceptions

about effective leadership or the desire to develop

a measure of key behaviors in a leadership theory.

The sample of respondents is seldom systematic,

and the accuracy of most behavior questionnaires

is seriously reduced by respondent biases and at-

tributions. Finally, the basic assumptions of factor

analysis (high correlation among examples from

the same category) do not apply very well when a

behavior category includes several alternative

ways to achieve the same objective and a leader

needs to use only one or two of them. The limi-

tations of this method may help to explain the

substantial differences among leader behavior

taxonomies.

Another common method for identifying dis-

tinct behavior categories is to have subject matter

experts sort behavior descriptions into categories

based on similarity of purpose and content, but

this method also has limitations. The selection of

categories may be biased by prior assumptions and

implicit leadership theories, and disagreements

among subject matter experts are not easily re-

solved. A behavior taxonomy is more likely to be

useful if it is based on multiple methods and is

supported by research on the antecedents and

outcomes of the behaviors.

From 1950 to 1980 most of the research on

leadership behavior was focused on explaining

how leaders influence the attitudes and perfor-

mance of individual subordinates. In the early

survey research, factor analysis of leadership be-

havior questionnaires found support for two

broadly defined behavior categories involving

task-oriented and relations-oriented behaviors.

Different labels were used for these meta-catego-

ries, including initiating structure and consider-

ation (Fleishman, 1953; Halpin & Winer, 1957),

production-centered and employee-centered lead-

ership (Likert, 1961), instrumental and supportive

leadership (House, 1971), and performance and

maintenance behavior (Misumi & Peterson,

1985). The specific behaviors defining the two

meta-categories varied somewhat from one taxon-

omy to another, and some relevant behaviors

were not adequately represented in any of these

taxonomies. Finding the two meta-categories was

a good start, but researchers failed to conduct

systematic follow-up research to build on the ini-

tial discoveries.

Leadership behaviors directly concerned with

encouraging and facilitating change did not get

much attention in the early leadership research.

Change behaviors are more relevant for execu-

tives than for the low-level leaders studied in

much of the early research, and they are more

important for the dynamic, uncertain environ-

ments that have become so common for organi-

zations in recent decades. In the 1980s one or two

specific change-oriented behaviors were included

in questionnaires used to measure charismatic and

transformational leadership, but leading change

was still not explicitly recognized as a distinct

meta-category. Researchers in Sweden and the

United States (Ekvall & Arvonen, 1991; Yukl,

1999; Yukl, Gordon, & Taber, 2002) eventually

found evidence for the construct validity of a

leading-change meta-category. The classification

of change-oriented behavior as a distinct and

2012 67Yukl

meaningful meta-category provided important

new insights about effective leadership.

In most of the early research on leadership

behavior the focus was on describing how leaders

influence subordinates and internal activities in

the work unit. Leader behavior descriptions were

usually obtained from subordinates who had little

opportunity to observe their leaders interacting

with people outside the work unit. Thus, it is not

surprising that few leadership studies examined

external (“boundary-spanning”) behavior, and

only a few leader behavior taxonomies included

any external behaviors (e.g., Stogdill, Goode, &

Day, 1962). However, in the late 1970s and early

1980s, descriptive research on managers found

that it is important to influence bosses, peers, and

outsiders as well as subordinates (Kaplan, 1984;

Kotter, 1982; Mintzberg, 1973), and later research

on teams found that boundary-spanning behavior

is important for effective team performance (e.g.,

Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Joshi, Pandey, & Han,

2009; Marrone, 2010). The importance and

uniqueness of external leadership behavior pro-

vides justification for classifying it as a separate

meta-category.

Hierarchical Behavior Taxonomy

The hierarchical taxonomy proposed in this

article describes leadership behaviors used

to influence the performance of a team, work

unit, or organization. The four meta-categories

and their component behaviors are shown in

Table 1. Each meta-category has a different

primary objective, but the objectives all involve

determinants of performance. For task-oriented

behavior the primary objective is to accomplish

work in an efficient and reliable way. For rela-

tions-oriented behavior the primary objective is

to increase the quality of human resources and

relations, which is sometimes called “human

capital.” For change-oriented behavior the pri-

mary objectives are to increase innovation, col-

lective learning, and adaptation to the external

environment. For external leadership behavior

the primary objectives are to acquire necessary

information and resources, and to promote and

defend the interests of the team or organization.

In addition to these differences in primary objec-

tives, each meta-category includes unique specific

behaviors for achieving the objectives. The rele-

vance of each component behavior depends on

aspects of the situation, and the effect is not

always positive for the primary objective or for

other outcomes.

The proposed taxonomy builds on the exten-

sive factor analysis research by Yukl and col-

leagues (2002), and it also reflects findings in

other taxonomic research linking specific behav-

iors to the performance of a team or organization.

The three meta-categories in the Yukl and col-

leagues (2002) taxonomy were retained, but an-

other component on task-oriented behavior

(problem solving) was added, consulting and del-

egating were combined into a broader relations-

oriented component (empowering), and taking

risks to promote change was included in a broader

change-oriented component (advocating change).

The new taxonomy also includes a fourth meta-

category (external behavior). Two of the compo-

nent behaviors (networking and representing)

were not included in the questionnaire used for

the Yukl and colleagues (2002) research, and the

third component (external monitoring) was in

their questionnaire but it was included in the

change-oriented meta-category.

Table 1

Hierarchical Taxonomy of Leadership Behaviors

Task-oriented Clarifying

Planning

Monitoring operations

Problem solving

Relations-oriented Supporting

Developing

Recognizing

Empowering

Change-oriented Advocating change

Envisioning change

Encouraging innovation

Facilitating collective learning

External Networking

External monitoring

Representing

68 NovemberAcademy of Management Perspectives

Overview of Research on Effects of

Leader Behavior

Much of the research on effects of leader be-

havior has been guided by popular leadership

theories that emphasized one or two broadly

defined behaviors. Early leadership theories such

as path-goal theory (House, 1971), leadership sub-

stitutes theory (Kerr & Jermier, 1978), situational

leadership theory (Hersey & Blanchard, 1977),

and the managerial grid (Blake & Mouton, 1964)

emphasized task-oriented and relations-oriented

behavior, and these meta-categories were used in

much of the research conducted from 1960 to

1980. Reviews and meta-analyses of results from

hundreds of studies concluded that both meta-

categories are related to independent measures of

leadership effectiveness (DeRue, Nahrgang, Well-

man, & Humphrey, 2011; Judge, Piccolo, &

Ilies, 2004).

Since the 1980s, much of the research on the

effects of leadership behavior has been based on

theories of transformational and charismatic lead-

ership (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999; Bass, 1985;

Conger & Kanungo, 1987; House, 1977; Shamir,

House, & Arthur, 1993). As in the earlier re-

search, most of these studies reported results only

for composite scores on behavior meta-categories

included in the theory. Reviews and meta-analy-

ses of this research found that transformational

leadership was related to indicators of leadership

effectiveness in a majority of studies, but results

were inconsistent for transactional leadership and

charismatic leadership (De Groot, Kiker, & Cross,

2000; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Lowe, Kroeck, &

Sivasubramaniam, 1996; Wang, Oh, Courtright,

& Colbert, 2011; Yukl, 2013).

The research on effects of broadly defined be-

haviors has limitations that make the results dif-

ficult to interpret. The limitations include differ-

ences in the way behavior is defined and measured

from study to study, use of composite scores based

on diverse component behaviors that do not have

the same effects, the exclusion of other relevant

behaviors likely to be confounded with the mea-

sured behaviors, and over-reliance on weak re-

search methods such as same-source survey stud-

ies. The results found for independent measures of

leadership effectiveness were much weaker than

results found for same-source measures, especially

when objective performance measures were

used (Burke et al., 2006; Kaiser, Hogan, &

Craig, 2008).

The popularity of survey research on meta-

categories may have inhibited research on effects

of specific behaviors, because the number of stud-

ies on them is much smaller. The research on

effects of specific leadership behaviors included

several types of studies. Some studies used a be-

havior description questionnaire, but other studies

used behavior descriptions from observation, dia-

ries, or critical incidents. Several multiple-case

studies used interviews, records, and other data

collection methods to investigate how leader de-

cisions and actions influenced performance for a

team or organization, and the behavior of effective

and ineffective leaders was usually compared. A

few studies used laboratory or field experiments in

which leader behavior was manipulated to assess

the effects on subordinate performance. The find-

ings in this research provide evidence that each of

the 15 specific behaviors in the proposed taxon-

omy is relevant for effective leadership.

Effectiveness of Speciﬁc Leader Behaviors

In this section, the relevance of each specific

component behavior is briefly explained, and

the research linking it to effective leadership is

cited. The research includes studies on dyadic,

group, and organizational leadership. Most studies

examined effects of behavior by individual leaders

and included an independent source of informa-

tion about leadership effectiveness, such as ratings

by superiors or objective performance measures.

Task-Oriented Behaviors

As noted earlier, the primary purpose of task-

oriented behaviors is to ensure that people, equip-

ment, and other resources are used in an efficient

way to accomplish the mission of a group or or-

ganization. Specific component behaviors include

planning and organizing work-unit activities, clar-

ifying roles and objectives, monitoring work-unit

operations, and resolving work-related problems.

2012 69Yukl

Planning

This broadly defined behavior includes making

decisions about objectives and priorities, organiz-

ing work, assigning responsibilities, scheduling ac-

tivities, and allocating resources among different

activities. More specifically, activity planning in-

volves scheduling activities and assigning tasks in

a way that will accomplish task objectives and

avoid delays, duplication of effort, and wasted

resources. Project planning includes identifying

essential action steps; determining an appropriate

sequence and schedule for them; deciding who

should do each action step; and determining what

supplies, equipment, and other resources are nec-

essary. The planning often requires information

provided by other people such as subordinates,

peers, bosses, and outsiders. Negative forms of this

behavior include making plans that are superficial

or unrealistic. Several types of research provide

evidence that planning can enhance a leader’s

effectiveness, including survey studies (e.g., Kim

& Yukl, 1995; Shipper, 1991; Shipper & Dillard,

2000; Shipper & Wilson, 1992; Yukl, Wall, &

Lepsinger, 1990), incident and diary studies

(e.g., Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Morse & Wag-

ner, 1978; Yukl & Van Fleet, 1982), and mul-

tiple-case studies (e.g., Kotter, 1982; Van Fleet

& Yukl, 1986).

Clarifying

Leaders use clarifying to ensure that people under-

stand what to do, how to do it, and the expected

results. Clarifying includes explaining work re-

sponsibilities; assigning tasks; communicating ob-

jectives, priorities, and deadlines; setting perfor-

mance standards; and explaining any relevant

rules, policies, and standard procedures. Setting

clear, specific, and challenging but realistic goals

usually improves performance by a group (Locke

& Latham, 1990). Negative forms of clarifying

include failing to provide clear assignments, set-

ting vague or easy goals, providing inconsistent

instructions that create role ambiguity, and giving

excessively detailed directions (micromanaging).

Evidence that clarifying can enhance leadership

effectiveness is provided by survey studies (e.g.,

Kim & Yukl, 1995; Shipper, 1991; Shipper &

Dillard, 2000; Shipper & Wilson, 1992; Yukl &

Kanuk, 1979; Yukl et al., 1990), incident and

diary studies (e.g., Amabile, Schatzel, Moneta, &

Kramer, 2004; Yukl & Van Fleet, 1982), compar-

ative case studies (e.g., Van Fleet & Yukl, 1986),

an executive team simulation study (Zalatan,

2005), a laboratory experiment (Kirkpatrick &

Locke, 1996), and field experiments (Latham &

Baldes, 1975; Latham & Yukl, 1976).

Monitoring

Leaders use monitoring to assess whether people

are carrying out their assigned tasks, the work is

progressing as planned, and tasks are being per-

formed adequately. Information gathered from

monitoring is used to identify problems and op-

portunities and to determine if changes are needed

in plans and procedures. Information from moni-

toring can also be used to guide the use of rela-

tions-oriented behaviors such as praise or coach-

ing. There are many different ways to monitor

operations, including directly observing activities,

examining recorded activities or communications,

using information systems, examining required re-

ports, and holding performance review sessions.

Negative examples include types of monitoring

that are intrusive, excessive, superficial, or irrele-

vant. Evidence that monitoring can improve lead-

ership effectiveness is provided by survey studies

(e.g., Kim & Yukl, 1995; Wang, Tsui, & Xin,

2011; Yukl et al., 1990), studies using direct ob-

servation or diaries (e.g., Amabile et al., 2004;

Brewer, Wilson, & Beck, 1994; Komaki, 1986),

comparative case studies (e.g., Peters & Austin,

1975; Van Fleet & Yukl, 1986), and a laboratory

experiment (Larson & Callahan, 1990).

Problem Solving

Leaders use problem solving to deal with disrup-

tions of normal operations and member behavior

that is illegal, destructive, or unsafe. Serious dis-

ruptions of the work usually require leadership

intervention, and other terms for problem solving

include “crisis management” and “disturbance

handling.” Effective leaders try to quickly identify

the cause of the problem, and they provide firm,

confident direction to their team or work unit as

they cope with the problem. It is important to

70 NovemberAcademy of Management Perspectives

recognize the difference between operational

problems that can be resolved quickly and com-

plex problems likely to require change-oriented

behaviors and involvement by other leaders. Prob-

lem solving also includes disciplinary actions in

response to destructive, dangerous, or illegal be-

havior by members of the work unit (e.g., theft,

sabotage, violation of safety regulations, falsifica-

tion of records). Problem solving can be proactive

as well as reactive, and effective leaders take the

initiative to identify likely problems and deter-

mine how to avoid them or minimize their adverse

effects. Many things can be done to prepare the

work unit or organization to respond effectively to

predictable types of disruptions such as accidents,

equipment failures, natural disasters, health emer-

gencies, supply shortages, computer hacking, and

terrorist attacks. Negative forms of problem solv-

ing include ignoring signs of a serious problem,

making a hasty response before identifying the

cause of the problem, discouraging useful input

from subordinates, and reacting in ways that cre-

ate more serious problems. Evidence that problem

solving is related to leadership effectiveness is

provided by survey studies (e.g., Kim & Yukl,

1995; Morgeson, 2005; Yukl & Van Fleet, 1982;

Yukl et al., 1990), studies using critical incidents

or diaries (e.g., Amabile et al., 2004; Boyatzis,

1982; Yukl & Van Fleet, 1982), and comparative

case studies (e.g., Van Fleet & Yukl, 1986).

Relations-Oriented Behaviors

Leaders use relations-oriented behaviors to en-

hance member skills, the leader–member relation-

ship, identification with the work unit or organi-

zation, and commitment to the mission. Specific

component behaviors include supporting, devel-

oping, recognizing, and empowering.

Supporting

Leaders use supporting to show positive regard,

build cooperative relationships, and help people

cope with stressful situations. Examples include

showing concern for the needs and feelings of

individual team members, listening carefully when

a member is worried or upset, providing support

and encouragement when there is a difficult or

stressful task, and expressing confidence that

someone can perform a difficult task. Supporting

also includes encouraging cooperation and mutual

trust and mediating conflicts among subordinates.

A significant relationship between supporting and

leadership effectiveness was found in survey stud-

ies (e.g., Dorfman, Howell, Cotton, & Tate, 1992;

Kim & Yukl, 1995; McDonough & Barczak, 1991;

Yukl & Van Fleet, 1982; Yukl et al., 1990), in

studies using incidents or diaries (e.g., Amabile et

al., 2004; Druskat & Wheeler, 2003; Yukl & Van

Fleet, 1982), and in a laboratory experiment

(Gilmore, Beehr, & Richter, 1979). Negative

forms of supporting include hostile, abusive be-

havior. Research on abusive supervision finds that

it reduces trust, elicits resentment, and invites

retaliation (Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007; Tep-

per, 2000).

Developing

Leaders use developing to increase the skills and

confidence of work-unit members and to facilitate

their career advancement. Examples of developing

include providing helpful career advice, informing

people about relevant training opportunities,

making assignments that allow learning from ex-

perience, providing developmental coaching

when it is needed, asking a group member to

provide instruction to a new member, arranging

practice sessions or simulations to help members

improve their skills, and providing opportunities

to apply new skills on the job. Developing is

mostly done with a subordinate or team, but some

aspects may be used with a colleague or an inex-

perienced new boss. A positive relationship be-

tween developing subordinate skills and indicators

of leadership effectiveness was found in survey

studies (e.g., Kim & Yukl, 1995; Yukl et al., 1990),

in research using critical incidents and interviews

(e.g., Morse & Wagner, 1978), in comparative

case studies (e.g., Bradford & Cohen, 1984; Ed-

mondson, 2003b; Peters & Austin, 1985), and in

an experiment (Tannenbaum, Smith-Jentsch,

Salas, & Brannick, 1998).

Recognizing

Leaders use praise and other forms of recognition

to show appreciation to others for effective per-

2012 71Yukl

formance, significant achievements, and impor-

tant contributions to the team or organization.

Recognizing may involve an award presented in a

ceremony, or the leader’s recommendation for a

tangible reward such as a pay increase or bonus.

Effective leaders are proactive in looking for

things that deserve recognition, and they provide

recognition that is sincere, specific, and timely.

Negative examples include providing excessive

recognition for trivial achievements, failing to

recognize an important contribution, and taking

credit for another person’s ideas or achievements.

Evidence for the positive effects of praise and

recognition on subordinate performance is pro-

vided by survey research (e.g., Kim & Yukl, 1995;

Shipper, 1991; Shipper & Wilson, 1992; Yukl &

Kanuk, 1979), research with incidents or diaries

(e.g., Amabile et al., 2004; Atwater, Dionne,

Avolio, Camobreco, & Lau, 1996), and descrip-

tive case studies (e.g., Kouzes & Posner, 1987;

Peters & Waterman, 1982). A field experiment

found that increased use of praise by supervisors

improved performance by employees (Wikoff, An-

derson, & Crowell, 1983).

Empowering

Leaders can empower subordinates by giving them

more autonomy and influence over decisions

about the work. One empowering decision proce-

dure called consultation includes asking other

people for ideas and suggestions and taking them

into consideration when making a decision. An

even stronger empowering decision procedure

called delegation involves giving an individual or

group the authority to make decisions formerly

made by the leader. When used in appropriate

ways, empowerment can increase decision quality,

decision acceptance, job satisfaction, and skill de-

velopment (Vroom & Yetton, 1973; Yukl, in

press). Ineffective forms of the behavior include

using the supposedly empowering decision proce-

dures in a way that allows no real influence, and

giving too much autonomy or influence to people

who are unable or unwilling to make good

decisions.

The term “participative leadership” is some-

times used to describe extensive use of empower-

ing decision procedures, and many studies have

assessed the effects on subordinate attitudes and

performance. Meta-analyses of this research found

a weak positive relationship with leadership effec-

tiveness (e.g., Miller & Monge, 1986; Spector,

1986; Wagner & Gooding, 1987). Stronger evi-

dence that specific empowering decision proce-

dures are related to leadership effectiveness has

been provided by survey studies that measured a

leader’s use of consultation and delegation (e.g.,

Kim & Yukl, 1995; Shipper & Wilson, 1992; Yukl

et al., 1990), by research with critical incidents

and diaries (e.g., Amabile and colleagues, 2004;

Druskat & Wheeler, 2003), by comparative case

studies (e.g., Bradford & Cohen, 1984; Edmond-

son, 2003b; Kanter, 1983; Leana, 1986), and by

field experiments (Bragg & Andrews, 1973; Coch

& French, 1948; Korsgaard, Schweiger, & Sapi-

enza, 1995).

Change-Oriented Behaviors

Leaders use change-oriented behaviors to increase

innovation, collective learning, and adaptation to

external changes. Specific component behaviors

include advocating change, articulating an inspir-

ing vision, encouraging innovation, and encour-

aging collective learning. The first two compo-

nent behaviors emphasize leader initiation and

encouragement of change, whereas the second

two component behaviors emphasize leader facil-

itation of emergent change processes.

Advocating Change

Explaining why change is urgently needed is a key

leadership behavior in theories of change manage-

ment (e.g., Kotter, 1996; Nadler et al., 1995).

When changes in the environment are gradual

and no obvious crisis has occurred, people may fail

to recognize emerging threats or opportunities.

Leaders can provide information showing how

similar work units or competitors have better per-

formance. Leaders can explain the undesirable

outcomes that are likely to occur if emerging prob-

lems are ignored or new opportunities are ex-

ploited by competitors. Influencing people to ac-

cept the need for change involves increasing their

awareness of problems without creating an exces-

sive level of distress that causes either denial of

the problem or acceptance of easy but ineffective

72 NovemberAcademy of Management Perspectives

solutions (Heifetz, 1994). Resistance to change is

common in organizations, and courage is required

to persistently push for it when the leader’s career

is at risk. It is easier to gain support for making

innovative changes when a leader can frame un-

favorable events as an opportunity rather than a

threat. The leader can propose a strategy for re-

sponding to a threat or opportunity, but involving

people with relevant expertise usually results in a

better strategy and more commitment to imple-

ment it. Negative forms of the behavior include

advocating a costly major change when only in-

cremental adjustments are necessary (McClelland,

Liang, & Barker, 2009), or advocating acceptance

of a costly new initiative without considering the

serious risks and obstacles (Finkelstein, 2003). Ev-

idence that advocating relevant change is related

to effective leadership is provided by comparative

case studies (e.g., Beer, 1988; Edmondson, 2003b;

Heifetz, 1994; Kotter & Cohen, 2002; Tichy &

Devanna, 1986) and by an experiment using a

simulated team task (Marks, Zaccaro, & Ma-

thieu, 2000).

Envisioning Change

An effective way for leaders to build commitment

to new strategies and initiatives is to articulate a

clear, appealing vision of what can be attained by

the work unit or organization. A vision will be

more inspiring and motivating if it is relevant to

the values, ideals, and needs of followers and is

communicated with colorful, emotional language

(e.g., vivid imagery, metaphors, stories, symbols,

and slogans). An ambitious, innovative vision is

usually risky, and members of the team or organi-

zation are more likely to accept it if the leader can

build confidence that they will be successful (Na-

dler, 1988). However, an appealing vision based

on false assumptions and wishful thinking can

divert attention from innovative solutions that

are more likely to be successful (Mumford, Scott,

Gaddis, & Strange, 2002). Consistently pursuing a

risky and unrealistic vision is a major reason for

serious performance declines in organizations with

a charismatic leader (Finkelstein, 2003). Evidence

that articulating an appealing and inspiring vision

is relevant for effective leadership is provided by

survey studies (e.g., Baum, Locke, & Kirkpatrick,

1998; Elenkov, Judge, & Wright, 2005; Keller,

2006; Kim & Yukl, 1995; Wang, Tsui, & Xin,

2011; Yukl et al., 1990), comparative case studies

(e.g., Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Emrich, Brower,

Feldman, & Garland, 2001; Kotter & Cohen,

2002; Roberts, 1985; Tichy & Devanna, 1986),

and laboratory experiments (e.g., Awamleh &

Gardner, 1999; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996).

Encouraging Innovation

There are many ways leaders can encourage, nur-

ture, and facilitate creative ideas and innovation

in a team or organization. Other terms that de-

scribe aspects of this behavior include “intellec-

tual stimulation” and “encouraging innovative

thinking.” Leaders can encourage people to look

at problems from different perspectives, to think

outside the box when solving problems, to exper-

iment with new ideas, and to find ideas in other

fields that can be applied to their current problem

or task. By creating a climate of psychological

safety and mutual trust, a leader can encourage

members of the team or organization to suggest

novel ideas. Leaders can also help to create an

organizational culture that values creativity and

entrepreneurial activities, they can provide oppor-

tunities and resources to develop new products or

services, and they can serve as champions or spon-

sors for acceptance of innovative proposals. Evi-

dence linking this type of change behavior to

indicators of effective leadership is provided by

survey studies (e.g., Bass & Yammarino, 1991;

Elenkov, Judge, & Wright, 2005; Howell & Avo-

lio, 1993; Keller, 2006; Waldman, Javidan, &

Varella, 2004; Zhu, Chew & Spangler, 2005),

comparative case studies (e.g., Edmondson,

2003b; Eisenhardt, 1989; Kanter, 1983; Peters &

Austin, 1985), a laboratory experiment (Red-

mond, Mumford, & Teach, 1993), and a field

experiment (Barling, Weber, & Kelloway, 1996).

Facilitating Collective Learning

There are many ways leaders can encourage and

facilitate collective learning of new knowledge

relevant for improving the performance of a group

or organization (Berson, Nemanich, Waldman,

Galvin, & Keller, 2006; Popper & Lipshitz, 1998).

Collective learning may involve improvement of

2012 73Yukl

current strategies and work methods (exploita-

tion) or discovery of new ones (exploration).

Leaders can support internal activities used to

discover new knowledge (e.g., research projects,

small-scale experiments) or activities to acquire

new knowledge from external sources. Leaders can

use practices that facilitate learning by an opera-

tions team (e.g., after-activity reviews, bench-

marking) or a project development team (e.g.,

providing resources and opportunity to test new

ideas). By helping to create a climate of psycho-

logical safety, leaders can increase learning from

mistakes and failures. To enhance collective

learning from both successes and failures, leaders

must avoid common tendencies to misinterpret

causes and over-generalize implications (Baumard

& Starbuck, 2005). Leaders can help their teams

to better recognize failures, analyze their causes,

and identify remedies to avoid a future recurrence

(Cannon & Edmondson, 2005). Leaders can also

influence how new knowledge or a new technol-

ogy is diffused and applied by explaining why it is

important, guiding the process of learning how to

use it, and encouraging the use of knowledge-

sharing programs. Leaders can help people de-

velop a better understanding about the determi-

nants of organizational performance. More

accurate, shared mental models will improve stra-

tegic decisions and organizational performance.

Evidence that facilitating collective learning is

related to effective leadership is provided by com-

parative case studies (e.g., Baumard & Starbuck,

2005; Beer, 1988; Edmondson, 1999; Edmondson

2002, 2003a) and by experiments with teams (e.g.,

Ellis, Mendel, & Nir, 2006; Tannenbaum, Smith-

Jentsch, & Behson, 1998).

External Leadership Behaviors

In addition to influencing internal events in the

work unit, most leaders can facilitate performance

with behaviors that provide relevant information

about outside events, get necessary resources and

assistance, and promote the reputation and inter-

ests of the work unit. Three distinct external

behaviors include networking, external monitor-

ing, and representing.

Networking

It is important for most leaders to build and main-

tain favorable relationships with peers, superiors,

and outsiders who can provide information, re-

sources, and political support (Ibarra & Hunter,

2007; Kaplan, 1984; Kotter, 1982; Michael &

Yukl, 1973). Networking includes attending

meetings, professional conferences, and ceremo-

nies; joining relevant associations, clubs, and so-

cial networks; socializing informally or communi-

cating with network members; and using

relationship-building tactics (e.g., finding com-

mon interests, doing favors, using ingratiation). In

addition to developing their own networks, lead-

ers can encourage relevant networking by subor-

dinates. Networking is a source of information

that facilitates other leadership behaviors, but

there are potential costs if it is overdone (e.g.,

time demands, role conflicts). Evidence that net-

working can facilitate leadership effectiveness is

provided by survey studies (e.g., Kim & Yukl,

1995; Yukl et al., 1990); studies with incident

diaries, interviews, or observation (e.g., Amabile

et al., 2004; Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Druskat &

Wheeler, 2003; Luthans, Rosenkrantz, & Hen-

nessey, 1985); and comparative case studies (e.g.,

Katz & Tushman, 1983; Tushman & Katz, 1980).

External Monitoring

This external behavior includes analyzing infor-

mation about relevant events and changes in the

external environment and identifying threats and

opportunities for the leader’s group or organiza-

tion. Information may be acquired from the lead-

er’s network of contacts with outsiders, by study-

ing relevant publications and industry reports, by

conducting market research, and by studying the

decisions and actions of competitors and oppo-

nents. Other terms for external monitoring are

“environmental scanning” or “scouting.” The ex-

tent to which top executives accurately perceive

the external environment of their organization is

related to financial performance (Bourgeois,

1985), and it is more important when the envi-

ronment is dynamic and competitive. For a team

or work unit in an organization, the importance of

external monitoring depends on how much their

74 NovemberAcademy of Management Perspectives

performance is likely to be affected by external

events. Likewise, the need to closely monitor

events in other subunits is determined by depen-

dence on them. Evidence that external monitor-

ing is related to indicators of effective leadership is

provided by survey research (Dol-

linger, 1984), research with critical incidents and

diaries (e.g., Druskat & Wheeler, 2003; Katz &

Tushman, 1981; Luthans et al., 1985), research

with comparative cases (e.g., Geletkanycz &

Hambrick, 1997; Grinyer, Mayes, & McKiernan,

1990; Van Fleet & Yukl, 1986), and a study using

an executive team simulation (Zalatan, 2005).

Representing

Leaders usually represent their team or organiza-

tion in transactions with superiors, peers, and out-

siders (e.g., clients, suppliers, investors, and joint

venture partners). Representing includes lobbying

for resources and assistance, promoting and de-

fending the reputation of the team or organiza-

tion, negotiating agreements, and coordinating

related activities. Other terms used to describe

this type of leadership responsibility include “pro-

moter,” “ambassador,” and “external coordinator.”

Leaders of project teams have more successful

projects when they have sufficient influence to

obtain essential resources and support from top

management (Katz & Allen, 1985). For work

units that have high interdependence with other

subunits of the organization or with outsiders such

as suppliers, clients, and distributors, it is impor-

tant for the leaders to coordinate activities, re-

solve disagreements, and buffer work-unit mem-

bers from interference (Ancona & Caldwell,

1992). Top executives need to influence external

stakeholders whose confidence and support are

important to the success and survival of the

organization (Fanelli & Misangyi, 2006). Repre-

senting also includes some political tactics that

can be used to influence decisions relevant for a

leader’s work unit or organization, but research on

the use of political tactics by leaders in organiza-

tions is still very limited. Evidence that represent-

ing is related to effective leadership is provided by

research using survey questionnaires (e.g., Ancona

& Caldwell, 1992; Dorfman, Howell, Cotton, &

Tate, 1992; Yukl, Wall, & Lepsinger, 1990), re-

search with incident diaries and interviews (e.g.,

Amabile et al., 2004; Ancona & Caldwell, 1992;

Campbell, Dunnette, Arvey, & Hellervik, 1973;

Druskat & Wheeler, 2003), and comparative case

studies (e.g., Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Edmond-

son, 2003b; Kanter, 1983; Van Fleet &

Yukl, 1986).

Future Research

Much of the research on effects of leader be-

havior has examined how often the behavior

is used, but the effects also depend on other

conditions that are seldom considered. To im-

prove leadership theory and practice we need to

know more about how much the behaviors are

used, when they are used, how well they are used,

why they are used, who uses them, the context for

their use, and joint effects on different outcomes.

This part of the article explains the need for more

research on the quality and timing of behavior,

patterns of behavior, leader skills, leader values,

trade-offs for multiple outcomes, situational vari-

ables, the joint effects of multiple leaders, and the

joint effects of behavior and formal programs.

Quality and Timing of Behavior

Most leader behavior studies emphasize how much

the behavior is used rather than how well it is

used. Few studies have examined the quality and

timing of the behavior or checked the possibility

of a non-linear relationship between behavior and

the performance criterion. There is growing evi-

dence that most types of leadership behavior can

be overused as well as underused, and the optimal

amount of behavior is often a moderate amount

rather than the maximum amount (e.g., Fleish-

man & Harris, 1962; Gebert, Boerner, & Lan-

wehr, 2003; Pierce & Aguinis, in press). For ex-

ample, too much clarifying can limit innovation,

empowerment of subordinates, and development

of their problem-solving skills, but too much au-

tonomy can result in coordination problems,

lower efficiency, and inconsistent treatment of

clients. Even when doing more of a behavior

does not reduce the benefits or have negative side

effects, spending more time than necessary on a

behavior means that the leader is losing the op-

portunity to use more beneficial types of behavior.

2012 75Yukl

Timing is often a critical determinant of effec-

tiveness for a behavior, and acting too early or too

late can reduce the effectiveness of many behav-

iors. For example, taking action to avoid a prob-

lem or resolve it quickly is usually more effective

than waiting until the problem becomes very se-

rious and difficult to resolve. Praise for an achieve-

ment or contribution is usually more effective

when it is given promptly rather than waiting

months to mention it in a formal performance

review. Research is needed to identify optimal

levels of the behaviors and when the behaviors are

most likely to be effective.

Patterns of Behavior

In most research on the effects of leader behavior

the focus is on the independent effects of each

meta-category or individual behavior, but in many

cases the effects depend in part on what other

behaviors the leader uses. To understand why a

leader is effective requires that we examine how

different behaviors interact in a mutually consis-

tent way. The effective pattern of behavior may

involve multiple components of the same meta-

category or component behaviors from different

meta-categories. For example, monitoring opera-

tions is useful for discovering problems, but unless

something is done to solve the problems, moni-

toring will not contribute to leader effectiveness.

Monitoring is more effective when used together

with other behaviors such as problem solving,

coaching, and recognizing.

The descriptive research on effective leaders

suggests that they use complementary behaviors

woven together into a complex tapestry, and the

whole is greater than the sum of the parts (Kaplan,

1988). Similar results were found in research using

incident diaries from team members (Amabile et

al., 2004). The pattern of specific component

behaviors is usually more important than how

much each behavior is used, and more than one

pattern of behavior may be used to accomplish the

same outcome. Sometimes it is necessary for a

leader to find an appropriate balance for behaviors

that appear inconsistent, such as directing versus

empowering (Kaiser & Overfield, 2010). More

research is needed to determine how interacting

behaviors are used effectively by leaders in differ-

ent situations.

Multiple Outcomes and Trade-Offs

Each specific type of leadership behavior can in-

fluence more than one type of outcome or perfor-

mance determinant. For example, developing is

classified as a relations-oriented behavior because

the primary objective is usually to help people

improve their capabilities and advance their ca-

reers. But some types of developing are used to

improve performance in the current job (a task

objective) or facilitate the successful use of an

innovative new technology (a change objective).

Consulting with team members about the action

plan for a new project may increase member com-

mitment (human relations), improve the use of

available personnel and resources (efficiency), and

identify more innovative ways to satisfy clients

(adaptation).

Specific behaviors with positive outcomes for

more than one objective are desirable and can

increase a leader’s effectiveness. However, some

leader behaviors have unintended side effects that

are negative rather than positive. A behavior can

have positive effects for some outcomes and neg-

ative effects for other outcomes. For example,

delegating responsibility for determining how to

do a task to someone with little experience may

increase learning for the person, but it can reduce

short-term efficiency (e.g., more errors, slower task

completion, lower quality). Some decisions in-

tended to benefit employees (e.g., increasing pay

and benefits) may increase costs and reduce short-

term financial performance. Some decisions in-

tended to reduce costs can reduce human relations

and resources (i.e., downsizing can result in less

commitment for remaining employees and loss of

unique knowledge). Some decisions made to re-

duce costs (e.g., reducing research activities, out-

sourcing operations that involve unique knowl-

edge) can also reduce future adaptation. The

trade-offs for different outcomes are described by

leadership theories such as competing values the-

ory (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983) and flexible

leadership theory (Yukl, 2008). More research is

needed to discover how effective leaders use spe-

cific behaviors that enhance multiple outcomes,

76 NovemberAcademy of Management Perspectives

minimize negative side effects, and balance diffi-

cult trade-offs.

Situational Variables

The effects of a leader’s behavior also depend on

the situation. Each meta-category includes behav-

iors that are often relevant for influencing perfor-

mance outcomes, but aspects of the situation de-

termine which component behaviors are relevant.

Effective leaders analyze the situation and identify

the specific behaviors that are relevant. The abil-

ity to use a wide range of specific behaviors and

adapt them to the situation is sometimes called

“behavioral flexibility,” and it is related to effec-

tive leadership (Hart & Quinn, 1993; Hooijberg,

1996; Yukl & Mahsud, 2010). Unfortunately,

most studies on situational moderator variables

have used behavior meta-categories, and the re-

sults are weaker and more difficult to interpret for

a broad category than for specific behaviors. For

example, the research testing contingency theo-

ries about the effects of task-oriented and rela-

tions-oriented behaviors failed to find strong, con-

sistent results (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Ahearne, &

Bommer, 1995). There has been less research on

situational moderators for the other meta-catego-

ries, and there is little systematic research to iden-

tify situations where specific leadership behaviors

are most likely to impact performance outcomes.

More research is needed to learn how leaders

adapt their behavior to changing situations and to

assess the importance of behavioral flexibility for

different types of leaders. The common practice of

examining one situational variable at a time is less

useful than examining how the situational vari-

ables that define common situations for leaders

jointly determine which behaviors are most

relevant.

Leader Skills

Skills involve the ability to perform some type of

activity or task, and some studies on effective

leadership use skills rather than observable behav-

iors as the independent variables. Different tax-

onomies have been proposed for classifying skills,

and some scholars define them more broadly than

others. The early research identified three broadly

defined skills (Katz, 1955; Mann, 1965): Techni-

cal skills are primarily concerned with things, in-

terpersonal skills are primarily concerned with

people, and conceptual skills are primarily con-

cerned with ideas and concepts. Other types of

skills that have been used in leadership research

include political skills (Ferris, Treadway, Perrewé,

Brouer, Douglas, & Lux, 2007), administrative

skills, and competencies involving the ability to

use specific types of behavior such as planning and

coaching (e.g., Mumford, Campion, & Morgeson,

2007). Skills are not equivalent to actual behav-

ior, but they can help us understand why some

leaders are able to select relevant behaviors and

use them more effectively. A combination of skills

and traits can help to explain why some leaders

are able to recognize what pattern of behavior is

relevant, how much of each behavior is optimal,

and when to use the behaviors. The research on

how skills can enhance the effects of leader be-

havior is still very limited, and more studies are

needed to discover how a leader’s skills and per-

sonality traits influence the choice of behaviors

and leader flexibility in adapting behavior to dif-

ferent situations.

Leader Values and Integrity

The effects of the specific component behaviors

also depend on how much the leader is trusted by

people he or she wants to influence. Most types of

leadership behavior can be used in ethical or un-

ethical ways, and a leader who is not trusted will

have less influence. Leader values and integrity

did not get much attention in the early research

on effective leadership, but interest in them has

increased in recent years (Brown & Trevino,

2006). Values such as honesty, altruism, compas-

sion, fairness, courage, and humility are empha-

sized in servant leadership theory (Greenleaf,

1970), spiritual leadership theory (Fry, 2003), and

authentic leadership theory (Avolio, Gardner,

Walumbwa, Luthans, & Mayo, 2004; George,

2003). Proponents of these theories contend that

leaders whose behavior reflects these values will

be more effective. However, research on these

subjects is still very limited, and more studies are

needed to understand how leader values influence

the use of the specific behaviors and the effects of

the behaviors.

2012 77Yukl

Multiple Leaders and Shared Leadership

Most of the research on the outcomes of leader-

ship behavior examines relationships only for in-

dividual leaders. However, organizations have

many leaders who can influence important deci-

sions and determine how successfully they are

implemented (Mintzberg, Raisinghani, & Theo-

ret, 1976; Schweiger, Anderson, & Locke, 1985).

Sometimes two or more leaders have shared re-

sponsibility for an activity or project, and some-

times leaders have different but interdependent

responsibilities. The performance of an organiza-

tion depends in part on the level of cooperation

and coordination among interdependent leaders

(Yukl, 2008; Yukl & Lepsinger, 2004). It is more

difficult to achieve a high level of cooperation

when the leaders do not share the same objectives

or have the same priorities. In some cases, one

leader’s actions to improve subunit performance

can be detrimental to the performance of other

subunits and the overall organization. For exam-

ple, a subunit leader may gain control of resources

that other subunits need and could use more ef-

fectively. Several scholars have discussed how

shared or distributed leadership is related to team

or organizational effectiveness (e.g., Brown &

Gioia, 2002; Carson, Tesluk, & Marrone, 2007;

Denis, Lamothe, & Langley, 2001; Friedrich,

Vessey, Schuelke, Ruark, & Mumford, 2009;

Pearce & Conger, 2003). However, more research

is needed to discover how the use of the specific

behaviors by different leaders can influence their

effectiveness.

Behaviors and Formal Programs

Management programs and systems can enhance

the effects of direct leadership behaviors. For ex-

ample, encouraging innovative thinking is more

likely to increase innovation when an organiza-

tion has a climate of psychological safety for risk

taking and appropriate rewards for creative ideas

about improving products and processes. Programs

and structures can also limit the use of leadership

behaviors or nullify their effects. For example, it is

difficult to empower subordinates when they must

follow elaborate rules and standard procedures for

doing the work. Management programs and sys-

tems can also serve as substitutes for some types of

direct behaviors. For example, company-wide

training programs for widely relevant skills can

reduce the amount of training that managers need

to give their immediate subordinates. Top execu-

tives have responsibility for implementing and

revising programs, and the effectiveness of pro-

grams depends on support by lower-level manag-

ers. The effects of leader behavior and manage-

ment programs have been examined separately,

but more systematic research is needed to examine

their joint and interacting effects on organiza-

tional performance.

Summary and Recommendations

The proposed hierarchical taxonomy facilitates

the integration of important findings in re-

search on leader behavior constructs and re-

search about the effects of specific behaviors on

team or organizational performance. More than

half a century of research provides support for the

conclusion that leaders can enhance the perfor-

mance of a team, work unit, or organization by

using a combination of specific task, relations,

change, and external behaviors that are relevant

for their situation. Why the behaviors are impor-

tant for effective leadership is explained better by

theories about the determinants of group and or-

ganizational performance than by leadership the-

ories focused on motivating individual followers.

A limitation of the conclusions about effective

leadership is that enhancing performance is not

the only basis for evaluating effectiveness, and the

importance accorded different criteria affects the

selection of relevant behaviors for a taxonomy.

The hierarchical taxonomy can be used to ex-

plain results found in the extensive research on

behavior meta-categories not used in the taxon-

omy, such as transformational and transactional

leadership. The results found in survey research on

transformational leadership can be explained as

effects of specific behaviors used to compute the

composite score for each leader (e.g., Yukl, 1999;

Yukl, O’Donnell, & Taber, 2009). Individualized

consideration includes supporting and develop-

ing, inspirational motivation includes envision-

ing change, and intellectual stimulation in-

cludes aspects of encouraging innovation.

78 NovemberAcademy of Management Perspectives

Idealized influence is primarily a measure of

perceived leader integrity involving consistency

between leader actions and espoused values.

Transactional leadership includes one task-ori-

ented behavior (monitoring), one relations-ori-

ented behavior (recognizing), and communica-

tion of reward contingencies, which are usually

specified by the formal compensation program.

The taxonomy described in this article

should not be viewed as the final solution for

classifying leadership behavior. Behavior con-

structs are conceptual tools, and there is no ob-

jective reality for them. They are most useful

when they can be measured accurately, they can

predict and explain leader influence on important

outcomes, and they can improve leadership devel-

opment programs. Future research may discover

additional component behaviors that should be

included (e.g., implementing change). Some com-

ponent behaviors may need to be expanded to

include forms of the behavior not explicitly in-

cluded in the current descriptions. Some of the

broader component behaviors in the current tax-

onomy may need to be subdivided in the future if

it is found that narrower components would pro-

vide a better explanation of leadership effective-

ness. However, at this time it does not appear

worthwhile to make the taxonomy any more com-

plex. The current version is easy to remember and

easy to use for developing an observation checklist

or a coding guide (the behavior definitions are

provided in the appendix).

Future research may also provide justification

for adding more meta-categories, and a possible

candidate is ethical and socially responsible lead-

ership. One component of this meta-category

could be leadership behavior that encourages eth-

ical practices. Some examples are communicating

ethical standards, encouraging ethical conduct,

modeling ethical behavior, and opposing unethi-

cal conduct. Another component could be lead-

ership behavior that encourages corporate social

responsibility. Examples include making decisions

that consider the needs of different stakeholders,

encouraging support of worthy community service

activities, encouraging improvements in product

safety, and recommending practices that reduce

harmful effects for the environment. Leadership

decisions and actions intended to benefit employ-

ees, customers, or the environment are controver-

sial if they do not also benefit the organization

(Cameron, 2011; Waldman, 2011; Waldman &

Siegel, 2008). Research on the effects of ethical

and responsible leadership is still very limited, and

more research is needed to identify relevant be-

haviors and assess their short-term and long-term

effects. The focus of this article is on leadership

behaviors intended to improve performance, and

more research is needed to determine if ethical

and responsible leadership should be included as a

separate meta-category in a taxonomy for describ-

ing performance-enhancing behaviors.

The hierarchical taxonomy provides a broad

perspective for understanding the types of behav-

ior that determine how effective a leader will be,

but the specific component behaviors are much

more useful than the meta-categories for develop-

ing better contingency theories and practical

guidelines for leaders. Moderator variables for

some of the specific behaviors have been suggested

(Yukl, 2013), but more research is needed on the

joint effects of situational variables. Other rele-

vant conditions that need more attention in fu-

ture research include non-linear relationships be-

tween behavior and outcomes, reciprocal

causality, lagged effects, effects for different out-

comes, effects of negative forms of the behaviors,

effects of different combinations of specific behav-

iors, mediating processes that explain why the

behaviors influence performance, the joint effects

of multiple leaders, multi-level effects of behav-

iors, and joint effects for behaviors and programs.

When designing future studies on leadership it

is important to select research methods that are

appropriate for the type of knowledge sought

rather than merely using a method that is familiar

or convenient. Each research method has limita-

tions, and it is desirable to use multiple methods

whenever feasible. Strong research methods

should be used more often, including longitudinal

field studies and experiments with manipulation

of leader behaviors in simulated teams or organi-

zations to assess immediate and delayed effects.

More studies should include incident diaries or

video recording of leaders. When behavior ques-

tionnaires are used, more effort should be made to

2012 79Yukl

improve measurement accuracy and minimize re-

spondent biases (e.g., train respondents to under-

stand and recognize the behaviors). If a survey is

conducted for a sample of homogeneous leaders

(e.g., project team managers, coaches of athletic

teams, public administrators), it should include

some behavior items that are directly relevant for

the sample rather than relying only on a behavior

questionnaire with generic examples. Leadership

effectiveness should be assessed from the perspec-

tive of multiple stakeholders and with multiple

criteria that include objective measures of work

unit or organizational performance.

Finally, it is important to recognize that observ-

able leadership behaviors are not the same as

skills, values, personality traits, or roles. These

other constructs can be useful for understanding

effective leadership, but they differ in important

ways from observable behaviors. When feasible,

future studies should investigate how the different

types of constructs jointly explain leader influence

on work unit performance and other outcomes.

References

Amabile, T. M., Schatzel, E. A., Moneta, G. B., & Kramer,

S. J. (2004). Leader behaviors and the work environment

for creativity: Perceived leader support. Leadership Quar-

terly, 15(1), 5–32.

Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Bridging the

boundary: External activity and performance in organi-

zational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 634 –

665.

Atwater, L. E., Dionne, S. D., Avolio, B. J., Camobreco,

J. F., & Lau, A. W. (1996). Leader attributes and behaviors

predicting emergence of leader effectiveness (Technical Re-

port 1044). Alexandria, VA. U.S. Army Research Insti-

tute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-exam-

ining the components of transformational and transac-

tional leadership using the multifactor leadership ques-

tionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational

Psychology, 72, 441– 462.

Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans,

F., & Mayo, D. R. (2004). Unlocking the mask: A look

at the process by which authentic leaders impact fol-

lower attitudes and behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 15,

801– 823.

Awamleh, R., & Gardner, W. L. (1999). Perceptions of

leader charisma and effectiveness: The effects of vision

content, delivery, and organizational performance. Lead-

ership Quarterly, 10(3), 345–373.

Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Effects of

transformational leadership training on attitudinal and

financial outcomes: A field experiment. Journal of Ap-

plied Psychology, 81, 827– 832.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expec-

tations. New York: Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (2008). Handbook of leadership: Theory, research,

and managerial applications (4th ed.). New York: Free

Press.

Bass, B. M., & Yammarino, F. J. (1991). Congruence of self

and others’ leadership ratings of naval officers for under-

standing successful performance. Applied Psychology: An

International Review, 40(4), 437– 454.

Baum, R. J., Locke, E. A., & Kirkpatrick, S. (1998). A

longitudinal study of the relation of vision and vision

communication to venture growth in entrepreneurial

firms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 43–54.

Baumard, P., & Starbuck, W. H. (2005). Learning from

failures: Why it may not happen. Long Range Planning,

38, 281–298.

Beer, M. (1988). The critical path for change: Keys to

success and failure in six companies. In R. H. Kilmann &

T. J. Covin (Eds.), Corporate transformation: Revitalizing

organizations for a competitive world (pp. 17– 45). San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Berson, Y., Nemanich, L. A., Waldman, D. A., Galvin,

B. M., & Keller, R. T. (2006). Leadership and organiza-

tional learning: A multiple levels perspective. Leadership

Quarterly, 17, 577–594.

Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid.

Houston: Gulf Publishing.

Bourgeois, L. J. (1985). Strategic goals, perceived uncer-

tainty, and economic performance in volatile environ-

ments. Academy of Management Journal, 3, 548 –573.

Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). The competent manager. New York:

John Wiley.

Bradford, D. L., & Cohen, A. R. (1984). Managing for

excellence: The guide to developing high performance orga-

nizations. New York: John Wiley.

Bragg, J., & Andrews, I. R. (1973). Participative decision

making: An experimental study in a hospital. Journal of

Applied Behavioral Science, 9, 727–735.

Brewer, N., Wilson, C., & Beck, K. (1994). Supervisory

behavior and team performance amongst police patrol

sergeants. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psy-

chology, 67, 69 –78.

Brown, M. E., & Trevino, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership:

A review and future directions. Leadership Quarterly,

17(6), 595– 616.

Brown, M. W., & Gioia, D. A. (2002). Making things click:

Distributive leadership in an online division of an offline

organization. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 397– 419.

Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G. F., Salas,

E., & Halpin, S. M. (2006). What types of leadership

behaviors are functional in teams? Leadership Quarterly,

17, 288 –307.

Cameron, K. (2011). Responsible leadership as virtuous

leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 98, 25–35.

Campbell, J. P., Dunnette, M. D., Arvey, R. D., & Heller-

vik, L. W. (1973). The development and evaluation of

behaviorally based rating scales. Journal of Applied Psy-

chology, 57, 15–22.

80 NovemberAcademy of Management Perspectives

Cannon, M. D., & Edmondson, A. C. (2005). Failing to

learn and learning to fail (intelligently): How great or-

ganizations put failure to work to improve and innovate.

Long Range Planning Journal, 38(3), 299 –320.

Carson, J., Tesluk, P., & Marrone, J. (2007). Shared lead-

ership in teams: An investigation of antecedent condi-

tions and performance. Academy of Management Journal,

50, 1217–1234.

Coch, L., & French, J. R. P. Jr. (1948). Overcoming resis-

tance to change. Human Relations, 1, 512–532.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. (1987). Toward a behavioral

theory of charismatic leadership in organizational set-

tings. Academy of Management Review, 12, 637– 647.

De Groot, T., Kiker, D. S., & Cross, T. C. (2000). A

meta-analysis to review organizational outcomes related

to charismatic leadership. Canadian Journal of Adminis-

trative Sciences, 17(4), 356 –371.

Denis, J. L., Lamothe, L., & Langley, A. (2001). The dy-

namics of collective leadership and strategic change in

pluralistic organizations. Academy of Management Jour-

nal, 44(4), 809 – 837.

DeRue, D. S., Nahrgang, J., Wellman, N., & Humphrey,

S. E. (2011). Trait and behavioral theories of leadership:

An integration and meta-analytic test of their relative

validity. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 7–52.

Dollinger, M. J. (1984). Environmental boundary spanning

and information processing effects on organizational per-

formance. Academy of Management Journal, 27(2), 351–

368.

Dorfman, P. W., Howell, J. P., Cotton, B. C. G., & Tate,

U. (1992). Leadership within the “discontinuous hi-

erarchy” structure of the military. In K. E. Clark, M. B.

Clark, & D. P. Campbell (Eds.), Impact of leadership

(pp. 399 – 416). Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative

Leadership.

Druskat, V. U., & Wheeler, J. V. (2003). Managing from the

boundary: The effective leadership of self-managed work

teams. Academy of Management Journal, 46(4), 435– 457.

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning

behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly,

44, 350 –383.

Edmondson, A. (2003a). Framing for learning: Lessons in

successful technology implementation. California Man-

agement Review, 45(2), 34 –54.

Edmondson, A. (2003b). Speaking up in the operating

room. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1419 –1452.

Edmondson, A. C. (2002). The local and variegated nature

of learning in organizations: A group-level perspective.

Organization Science, 13, 128 –146.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Making fast strategic decisions in

high-velocity environments. Academy of Management

Journal, 32(3), 543–576.

Ekvall, G., & Arvonen, J. (1991). Change-centered

leadership: An extension of the two-dimensional model.

Scandinavian Journal of Management, 7, 17–26.

Elenkov, D. S., Judge, W., & Wright, P. (2005). Strategic

leadership and executive innovation influence: An in-

ternational multi-cluster comparative study. Strategic

Management Journal, 26, 665– 682.

Ellis, S., Mendel, R., & Nir, M. (2006). Learning from

successful and failed experience: The moderating role of

kind of after-event review. Journal of Applied Psychology,

91(3), 669 – 680.

Emrich, C. G., Brower, H. H., Feldman, J. M., & Garland,

H. (2001). Images in words: Presidential rhetoric, cha-

risma, and greatness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46,

527–557.

Fanelli, A., & Misangyi, V. F. (2006). Bringing out

charisma: CEO charisma and external stakeholders.

Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 1049 –1061.

Ferris, G. R., Treadway, D. C., Perrewé, P. L., Brouer, R. L.,

Douglas, C., & Lux, S. (2007). Political skill in organi-

zations. Journal of Management, 33, 290 –320.

Finkelstein, S. (2003). Why smart executives fail. New York:

Portfolio.

Fleishman, E. A. (1953). The description of supervisory

behavior. Personnel Psychology, 37,1–6.

Fleishman, E. A., & Harris, E. F. (1962). Patterns of lead-

ership behavior related to employee grievances and turn-

over. Journal of Applied Psychology, 15, 43–56.

Friedrich, T. L., Vessey, W. B., Schuelke, M. J., Ruark,

G. A., & Mumford, M. D. (2009). A framework for

understanding collective leadership: The selective utili-

zation of leader and team expertise within networks.

Leadership Quarterly, 20(6), 933–958.

Fry, L. W. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership.

Leadership Quarterly, 14(6), 693–727.

Gebert, D., Boerner, S., & Lanwehr, R. (2003). The risks of

autonomy: Empirical evidence for the necessity of bal-

ance in promoting organizational innovativeness. Cre-

ativity and Innovation Management, 12(1), 41– 49.

Geletkanycz, M. A., & Hambrick, D. C. (1997). The exter-

nal ties of top executives: Implications for strategic

choice and performance. Administrative Science Quar-

terly, 42, 654 – 681.

George, B. (2003). Authentic leadership: Rediscovering the

secrets to creating lasting value. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gilmore, D. C., Beehr, T. A., & Richter, D. J. (1979).

Effects of leader behaviors on subordinate perfor-

mance and satisfaction: A laboratory experiment with

student employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64,

166 –172.

Grinyer, P. H., Mayes, D., & McKiernan, P. (1990). The

sharpbenders: Achieving a sustained improvement in

performance. Long Range Planning, 23, 116 –125.

Halpin, A. W. & Winer, B. J. (1957). A factorial study of

the leader behavior descriptions. In R. M. Stogdill &

A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description and

measurement. Columbus, OH: Bureau of Business Re-

search, Ohio State University.

Hart, L. S., & Quinn, E. R. (1993). Roles executives play:

CEOs, behavioral complexity, and firm performance.

Human Relations, 46(5), 543–575.

Heifetz, R. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Cam-

bridge, MA: Belknap Books of Harvard University Press.

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1977). The management of

organizational behavior (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice Hall.

2012 81Yukl

Hooijberg, R. (1996). A multidimensional approach toward

leadership: An extension of the concept of behavioral

complexity. Human Relations, 49(7), 917–947.

House, R. J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effective-

ness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 321–339.

House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leader-

ship. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The

cutting edge (pp. 189 –207). Carbondale, IL: Southern

Illinois University Press.

Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational

leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and

support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated

business unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,

78, 891–902.

Ibarra, H., & Hunter, M. (2007). How leaders create and use

networks. Harvard Business Review, 85(1), 40 – 47.

Joshi, A., Pandey, N., & Han, G. H. (2009). Bracketing

team boundary spanning: An examination of task-based,

team-level, and contextual antecedents. Journal of Orga-

nizational Behavior, 30, 731–759.

Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and

transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their

relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5),

755–768.

Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Ilies, R. (2004). The forgot-

ten ones? The validity of consideration and initiating

structure in leadership research. Journal of Applied Psy-

chology, 89(1), 36 –51.

Kaiser, R. B., Hogan, R., & Craig, S. B. (2008). Leadership

and the fate of organizations. American Psychologist,

63(2), 96 –110.

Kaiser, R. B., & Overfield, D. V. (2010). Assessing flexible

leadership as a mastery of opposites. Consulting Psychol-

ogy Journal: Practice and Research, 62, 105–118.

Kanter, R. M. (1983). The change masters. New York: Simon

& Schuster.

Kaplan, R. E. (1984). Trade routes: The manager’s network

of relationships. Organizational Dynamics, Spring, 37–52.

Kaplan, R. E. (1988). The warp and woof of the general

manager’s job. In F. D. Schoorman & B. Schneider

(Eds.), Facilitating work effectiveness (pp. 183–211). Lex-

ington, MA: Lexington Books.

Katz, R. (1955). Skills of an effective administrator. Harvard

Business Review, 33– 42.

Katz, R., & Allen, T. J. (1985). Project performance and the

locus of influence in the R&D matrix. Academy of Man-

agement Journal, 28, 67– 87.

Katz, R., & Tushman, M. L. (1981). An investigation into

the managerial roles and career paths of gatekeepers and

project supervisors in a major R&D facility. R&D Man-

agement, 11, 103–110.

Katz, R., & Tushman, M. L. (1983). A longitudinal study of

the effects of boundary spanning supervision on turnover

and promotion in research and development. Academy of

Management Journal, 26, 437– 456.

Keller, R. T. (2006). Transformational leadership, initiating

structure, and substitutes for leadership: A longitudinal

study of research and development project team perfor-

mance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 202–210.

Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership:

Their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behav-

ior and Human Performance, 22, 375– 403.

Kim, H., & Yukl, G. (1995). Relationships of self-reported

and subordinate-reported leadership behaviors to mana-

gerial effectiveness and advancement. Leadership Quar-

terly, 6, 361–377.

Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1996). Direct and

indirect effects of three core charismatic leadership com-

ponents on performance and attitudes. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 81, 36 –51.

Komaki, J. L. (1986). Toward effective supervision: An

operant analysis and comparison of managers at work.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(2), 270 –279.

Korsgaard, M. A., Schweiger, D. M., & Sapienza, H. J.

(1995). Building commitment, attachment, and trust in

strategic decision-making teams: The role of procedural

justice. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 60 – 84.

Kotter, J. P. (1982). The general managers. New York: Free

Press.

Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston: Harvard Busi-

ness School Press.

Kotter, J. P., & Cohen, D. S. (2002). The heart of change:

Real-life stories of how people change their organizations.

Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1987). The leadership

challenge: How to get extraordinary things done in organiza-

tions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Larson, J. R., & Callahan, C. (1990). Performance

monitoring: How it affects work productivity. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 75, 530 –538.

Latham, G. P., & Baldes, J. J. (1975). The “practical signif-

icance” of Locke’s theory of goal setting. Journal of Ap-

plied Psychology, 60, 122–124.

Latham, G. P., & Yukl, G. A. (1976). Effects of assigned and

participative goal setting on performance and satisfac-

tion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(2), 166 –171.

Leana, C. R. (1986). Predictors and consequences of dele-

gation. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 754 –774.

Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996).

Effectiveness of correlates of transformational and trans-

actional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ

literature. Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385– 425.

Luthans, F., Rosenkrantz, S. A., & Hennessey, H. W.

(1985). What do successful managers really do? An ob-

servational study of managerial activities. Journal of Ap-

plied Behavioral Science, 21, 255–270.

Mann, F. C. (1965). Toward an understanding of the lead-

ership role in formal organization. In R. Dubin, G. C.

Homans, F. C. Mann, & D. C. Miller (Eds.), Leadership

and productivity. San Francisco: Chandler.

Marks, M. A., Zaccaro, S. J., & Mathieu, J. E. (2000).

Performance implications of leader briefings and team-

interaction training for team adaptation to novel envi-

ronments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 971–986.

Marrone, J. A. (2010). Team boundary spanning: A multi-

level review of past research and proposals for the future.

Journal of Management, 36, 911–940.

82 NovemberAcademy of Management Perspectives

McClelland, P. L., Liang, X., & Barker, V. L. (2009). CEO

commitment to the status quo: Replication and exten-

sion using content analysis. Journal of Management, 36,

1251–1277.

McDonough, E. F., & Barczak, G. (1991). Speeding up new

product development: The effects of leadership style and

source of technology. Journal of Product Innovation Man-

agement, 8, 203–211.

Michael, J., & Yukl, G. (1993). Managerial level and sub-

unit function as determinants of networking behavior in

organizations. Group and Organization Management, 18,

328 –351.

Miller, K. I., & Monge, P. R. (1986). Participation, satis-

faction, and productivity: A meta-analytic review. Acad-

emy of Management Journal, 29, 727–753.

Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New

York: Harper & Row.

Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D., & Theoret, A. (1976). The

structure of unstructured decision processes. Administra-

tive Science Quarterly, 21, 246 –275.

Misumi, J., & Peterson, M. (1985). The performance-main-

tenance (PM) theory of leadership: Review of a Japanese

research program. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30,

198 –223.

Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive super-

vision and workplace deviance and the moderating ef-

fects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 92(4), 1159 –1168.

Morgeson, F. P. (2005). The external leadership of self-

managed teams: Intervening in the context of novel and

disruptive events. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 497–

508.

Morse, J. J., & Wagner, F. R. (1978). Measuring the process

of managerial effectiveness. Academy of Management

Journal, 21, 23–35.

Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange,

J. M. (2002). Leading creative people: Orchestrating

expertise and relationships. Leadership Quarterly, 13,

705–750.

Mumford, T. V., Campion, M. A., & Morgeson, F. P.

(2007). The leadership skills strataplex: Leadership skill

requirements across organizational levels. Leadership

Quarterly, 18, 154 –166.

Nadler, D. A. (1988). Organizational frame bending: Types

of change in the complex organization. In R. H. Kilmann

& T. J. Covin (Eds.), Corporate transformation: Revitaliz-

ing organizations for a competitive world (pp. 66 – 83). San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Nadler, D. A., Shaw, R. B., Walton, A. E., et al. (1995).

Discontinuous change: Leading organizational transforma-

tion. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). Shared leadership:

Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

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.

Pierce, J. R., & Aguinis, H. (in press). The too-much-of-a-

good-thing effect in management. Journal of Manage-

ment.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Ahearne, M., & Bom-

mer, W. H. (1995). Searching for a needle in a haystack:

Trying to identify the illusive moderators of leadership

behaviors. Journal of Management, 21, 423– 470.

Popper, M., & Lipshitz, R. (1998). Organizational learning

mechanisms: A structural and cultural approach to or-

ganizational learning. Journal of Applied Behavioral Sci-

ence, 34(2), 161–179.

Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model of

effectiveness criteria: Toward a competing values ap-

proach to organizational analysis. Management Science,

29, 363–377.

Redmond, M. R., Mumford, M. D., & Teach, R. J. (1993).

Putting creativity to work: Leader influences on subor-

dinate creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human De-

cision Processes, 55, 120 –151.

Schweiger, D. M., Anderson, C. R., & Locke, E. A. (1985).

Complex decision making: A longitudinal study of pro-

cess and performance. Organizational Behavior and Hu-

man Decision Processes, 36, 245–272.

Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The

motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-

concept based theory. Organization Science, 4, 1–17.

Shipper, F. (1991). Mastery and frequency of managerial

behaviors relative to subunit effectiveness. Human Rela-

tions, 44, 371–388.

Shipper, F., & Dillard, J. E., Jr. (2000). A study of impend-

ing derailment and recovery of middle managers across

career stages. Human Resource Management, 39(4), 331–

345.

Shipper, F., & Wilson, C. L. (1992). The impact of mana-

gerial behaviors on group performance, stress, and com-

mitment. In K. Clark, M. B. Clark, & D. P. Campbell

(Eds.), Impact of leadership (pp. 119 –129). Greensboro,

NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

Spector, P. E. (1986). Perceived control by employees: A

meta-analysis of studies concerning autonomy and par-

ticipation at work. Human Relations, 39, 1005–1016.

Stogdill, R. M., Goode, O. S., & Day, D. R. (1962). New

leader behavior description subscales. Journal of Psychol-

ogy, 54, 259 –269.

Tannenbaum, S. I., Smith-Jentsch, K., & Behson, S. J.

(1998). Training team leaders to facilitate team learning

and performance. In J. A. Cannon-Bowers & E. Salas

(Eds.), Making decisions under stress: Implications for indi-

vidual and team training (pp. 247–270). Washington, DC:

American Psychological Association.

Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision.

Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178 –190.

Tichy, N. M., & Devanna, M. A. (1986). The transforma-

tional leader. New York: John Wiley.

Tushman, M. L., & Katz, R. (1980). External communica-

tion and project performance: An investigation into the

role of gatekeepers. Management Science, 26, 1071–1085.

Van Fleet, D. D., & Yukl, G. (1986). Military leadership: An

organizational perspective. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

2012 83Yukl

Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and

decision making. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh

Press.

Wagner, J. A., & Gooding, R. Z. (1987). Shared influence

and organizational behavior: A meta-analysis of situa-

tional variables expected to moderate participation-out-

come relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 30,

524 –541.

Waldman, D. A. (2011). Moving forward with the concept

of responsible leadership: Three caveats to guide theory

and research. Journal of Business Ethics, 98, 75– 83.

Waldman, D. A., Javidan, M., & Varella, P. (2004). Char-

ismatic leadership at the strategic level: A new applica-

tion of upper echelons theory. Leadership Quarterly, 15,

355–380.

Waldman, D. A., & Siegel, D. (2008). Defining the socially

responsible leader. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 117–131.

Wang, G., Oh, I.-S., Courtright, S. H., & Colbert, A. E.

(2011). Transformational leadership and performance

across criteria and levels: A meta-analytic review of 25

years of research. Group and Organization Management,

36, 223–270.

Wang, H., Tsui, A. H., & Xin, K. R. (2011). CEO leader-

ship behaviors, organizational performance, and em-

ployee attitudes. Leadership Quarterly, 22, 92–105.

Wikoff, M., Anderson, D. C., & Crowell, C. R. (1983).

Behavior management in a factory setting: Increasing

work efficiency. Journal of Organizational Behavior Man-

agement, 4, 97–128.

Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluative essay on current concep-

tions of effective leadership. European Journal of Work

and Organizational Psychology, 8, 33– 48.

Yukl, G. (2008). How leaders influence organizational ef-

fectiveness. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 708 –722.

Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Engle-

wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Yukl, G., Gordon, A., & Taber, T. (2002). A hierarchical

taxonomy of leadership behavior: Integrating a half cen-

tury of behavior research. Journal of Leadership and Or-

ganizational Studies, 9, 15–32.

Yukl, G., & Kanuk, L. (1979). Leadership behavior and

effectiveness of beauty salon managers. Personnel Psychol-

ogy, 32, 663– 675.

Yukl, G., & Lepsinger, R. (2004). Flexible leadership: Creating

value by balancing multiple challenges and choices. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Yukl, G., & Mahsud, R. (2010). Why flexible, adaptive

leadership is important. Consulting Psychology Journal,

62(2), 81–93.

Yukl, G., O’Donnell, M., & Taber, T. (2009). Leader be-

haviors and leader member exchange. Journal of Mana-

gerial Psychology, 24(4), 289 –299.

Yukl, G., & Van Fleet, D. (1982). Cross-situational, multi-

method research on military leader effectiveness. Orga-

nizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 87–108.

Yukl, G., Wall, S., & Lepsinger, R. (1990). Preliminary

report on validation of the managerial practices survey.

In K. E. Clark & M. B. Clark (Eds.), Measures of leader-

ship (pp. 223–238). West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library

of America.

Zalatan, K. A. (2005). Inside the black box: Leadership

influence on team effectiveness (Unpublished Doctoral

Dissertation). University of Albany School of Business.

Zhu, W., Chew, I. K. H., & Spangler, W. D. (2005). CEO

transformational leadership and organizational

outcomes: The mediating role of human-capital-enhanc-

ing human resource management. Leadership Quarterly,

16(1), 39 –52.

Appendix

Deﬁnitions of 15 Speciﬁc Leadership Behaviors

Planning: develops short-term plans for the work; deter-

mines how to schedule and coordinate activities to use

people and resources efficiently; determines the action steps

and resources needed to accomplish a project or activity.

Clarifying: clearly explains task assignments and member

responsibilities; sets specific goals and deadlines for impor-

tant aspects of the work; explains priorities for different

objectives; explains rules, policies, and standard procedures.

Monitoring: checks on the progress and quality of the work;

examines relevant sources of information to determine how

well important tasks are being performed; evaluates the

performance of members in a systematic way.

Problem Solving: identifies work-related problems that can

disrupt operations, makes a systematic but rapid diagnosis,

and takes action to resolve the problems in a decisive and

confident way.

Supporting: shows concern for the needs and feelings of

individual members; provides support and encouragement

when there is a difficult or stressful task, and expresses

confidence members can successfully complete it.

Recognizing: praises effective performance by members;

provides recognition for member achievements and contri-

butions to the organization; recommends appropriate re-

wards for members with high performance.

Developing: provides helpful feedback and coaching for

members who need it; provides helpful career advice; en-

courages members to take advantage of opportunities for

skill development.

Empowering: involves members in making important work-

related decisions and considers their suggestions and con-

cerns; delegates responsibility and authority to members for

important tasks and allows them to resolve work-related

problems without prior approval.

Advocating Change: explains an emerging threat or oppor-

tunity; explains why a policy or procedure is no longer

appropriate and should be changed; proposes desirable

changes; takes personal risks to push for approval of essential

but difficult changes.

Envisioning Change: communicates a clear, appealing vi-

sion of what could be accomplished; links the vision to

member values and ideals; describes a proposed change or

new initiative with enthusiasm and optimism.

Encouraging Innovation: talks about the importance of

innovation and flexibility; encourages innovative thinking

84 NovemberAcademy of Management Perspectives

and new approaches for solving problems; encourages and

supports efforts to develop innovative new products, ser-

vices, or processes.

Facilitating Collective Learning: uses systematic procedures

for learning how to improve work unit performance; helps

members understand causes of work unit performance; en-

courages members to share new knowledge with each other.

Networking: attends meetings or events; joins professional

associations or social clubs; uses social networks to build and

maintain favorable relationships with peers, superiors, and

outsiders who can provide useful information or assistance.

External Monitoring: analyzes information about events,

trends, and changes in the external environment to identify

threats, opportunities, and other implications for the work

unit.

Representing: lobbies for essential funding or resources;

promotes and defends the reputation of the work unit or

organization; negotiates agreements and coordinates related

activities with other parts of the organization or with

outsiders.

2012 85Yukl

Do Academics' Views on Leadership Align with the Literature, and How Does This Impact Their Teaching of Widening Participation Students?

Article

Full-text available

Apr 2025

Ian Fellows

This article offers an interpretative reading of research interview data gathered with seven academics in a small English university that caters predominantly to widening participation students. The original interviews aimed to explore the most effective ways academics can support students in developing leadership capability. For this article, the author revisited the digital recordings of those original interviews and conducted an interpretive reanalysis of the data. This reanalysis aimed to ascertain the extent to which the conceptions of leadership that the academics hold align with the academic literature on the concept. Leadership is notoriously an ill-defined concept, and so, for this article, the author used Yukl’s (2012) taxonomy of leadership behaviours drawn from a systematic review of the literature as the basis for comparative analysis. The literature indicates that developing students’ leadership capability is a desirable educational outcome, but this presupposes that academics understand what the term leadership means. This article explores this by evaluating how well the academics' understanding of the concept of leadership aligned with the literature presented in Yukl’s (2012) taxonomy and considers the implications of this for their teaching. The article concludes with recommendations for adopting a coherent framework for academics to work within, especially for institutions that serve widening participation students. This article contributes to the knowledge of teaching practice by evaluating how well academics understand a concept they are (implicitly or explicitly) expected to teach and recommends further research to develop the scholarship.

Construction of leadership competency model for civil aviation flight cadets: An empirical study from China

Article

Full-text available

Apr 2025

Human factors are often linked to unsafe events in civil aviation transport, with the competency level and decision-making abilities of flight crews playing a significant role. The leadership and teamwork competency of the flight crew in the cockpit directly influences the occurrence of aviation safety incidents. Leadership is a developmental and trainable skill. This study aims to explore the key components of leadership and the competency model for civil aviation flight cadets. Based on classic leadership theories and leadership development theories, the research adopts a qualitative analysis using grounded theory and utilizes Nvivo 11.0 software for data analysis. An initial leadership evaluation index system for flight cadets was developed. Through a survey of 319 civil aviation pilots and using SPSS 26.0 software for data processing, an evaluation index system was established, covering 4 dimensions—core values, leader competency, outstanding thinking, and positive behavior—with 22 indicators. The study also applied AMOS 24.0 software to conduct validation factor analysis and path analysis and construct the BLVT model of leadership development for civil aviation flight cadets. The findings indicate that, within the 4 dimensions of leadership and the BLVT model, core values influence positive behavior through leader competency and outstanding thinking, resulting in appropriate performance by flight cadets. Outstanding thinking directly affects leader competency, thereby driving the leadership development of flight cadets, who form the development of their leadership skills by recognizing their leadership competencies. The results of this study clarify the 4 key elements of leadership composition and development for civil aviation flight cadets, providing valuable insights into leadership training and development. This study significantly contributes to bridging the gap in civil aviation pilot leadership training and offers a clear pathway for enhancing pilot leadership.

The Leader Rating Gap: How Leaders Rate Their Subordinate Leaders

Article

Full-text available

Dec 2024

This study investigates a paradox in leadership assessment, which we term the Leader Rating Gap (LRG). Through content analysis of interviews with 25 West Point cadets and tactical officers, we found that raters primarily cited influence behaviors when describing great leadership in general. However, when evaluating their own subordinate leaders’ job performance, raters emphasized individual performance behaviors over influence behaviors. These findings have implications for leadership development and assessment practices in military and civilian organizations, highlighting the need for organizations to align their leadership evaluation criteria with desired leadership behaviors and outcomes.

Building Institutional Brand Personality: The Effect of the Creative Problem Solving Ability Attributes of School Managers

Article

Full-text available

Jul 2017

The study examined the linkages between creative problem-solving ability attributes and the specific components of the institutional (corporate) brand personality dimensions; as well as the predictive influence of creative problem solving ability attributes on the aggregated institutional brand personality of Ghanaian basic schools. Two hundred and seventy-nine headteachers and 558 teachers provided data using the creative problem-solving ability attributes and brand personality dimensions inventories. The structural equation modelling result showed that the hypothesised model of the linkage between creative problem-solving ability attributes and institutional brand personality fit the data. Results also indicated that divergent thinking had a significant indirect effect on brand personality, with motivation and knowledge showing significant direct effects. The implication of the findings when it comes to school leaders creatively providing solutions and determining the schools brand personality was discussed.

Impact of Strategic Leadership on Organizational Wellbeing with Moderating Effect of External Factors: Evidence from Sri Lanka Police

Article

Full-text available

Apr 2025

This study examines the impact of strategic leadership on organizational well-being, with external factors acting as a moderating influence, using the Sri Lanka Police as a case study. Strategic leadership plays a crucial role in fostering organizational success, particularly in complex and dynamic environments. The research explores key dimensions of strategic leadership, including alignment, decision-making and interpretation, and their effects on financial, social and human resource well-being. Additionally, external factors such as political, regulatory, technological, social, and cultural changes, as well as global crises, were analyzed to determine their moderating effect on the relationship between leadership and well-being. The study employed a quantitative research methodology, utilizing structural equation modeling through AMOS software to analyze the relationships among variables. Factor analysis confirmed the validity of measurement items, leading to the refinement of the dataset. The findings indicate a significant positive relationship between strategic leadership and organizational well-being, particularly in terms of social and human resource well-being. However, financial well-being did not show a statistically significant relationship with strategic leadership. Among external factors, political instability was found to have a negative moderating effect, whereas technological and social changes enhanced the relationship between strategic leadership and organizational well-being. Based on these findings, the study recommends strengthening leadership development programs, implementing participatory leadership approaches, and establishing structured frameworks to address external changes. Policymakers and law enforcement agencies can utilize these insights to refine leadership models and enhance organizational resilience.

European Journal of Education Studies PERCEPTIONS OF TEACHERS AND STUDENTS ON THE PRACTICES OF EDUCATIONAL QUALITY ENHANCEMENT IN DILLA UNIVERSITY: A DIFFERENTIAL STUDY

Article

Full-text available

Apr 2025

Abstract: The study aimed to assess the commitment levels of school leaders in the Sidama Regional State context with respect to enhancing the academic performance of secondary school students. Employing a concurrent embedded design, the research involved 163 teachers and 72 leaders selected from secondary schools using simple random and five supervisors through purposive sampling methods. The validity of data collection instruments was ensured by expert reviewers, and the reliability was checked through pilot testing (Cronbach alpha value = .827). Data collection utilized questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, and document analysis. One-sample t-tests analyzed questionnaire data, while thematic analysis provided insight into qualitative data. Results indicated that school principals show a moderate level of affective commitment to their roles and have better alternatives; they would consider leaving their positions, highlighting the crucial role of leadership commitment in improving students’ academic success and achieving school objectives. Additionally, the study identified challenges faced by principals, including inadequate resources, workload, external interference, limited experience, and low compensation, hindering their motivation to demonstrate the expected commitment levels. Consequently, the study suggests government intervention by providing sufficient financial resources, minimizing external interference, and implementing attractive incentive strategies to increase school leaders’ commitment toward enhancing students’ academic performance.

Paving the way for future leaders in the hospitality industry: a qualitative study of perspectives from experienced hotel general managers in Norway

Article

May 2025
SCAND J HOSP TOUR

Leading change: practical and contextual approaches

Article

Apr 2025

Purpose This study aims to examine how the leadership-as-practice (L-A-P) framework aligns with the socioeconomic approach to management (SEAM) to address complex organizational change. It explores how L-A-P’s emergent, relational leadership principles can be operationalized through SEAM’s participatory tools to foster sustainable and adaptive transformation. Design/methodology/approach A qualitative, comparative case study approach was used, focusing on SEAM interventions in higher education, performing arts and health care. Data was collected through interviews, participatory workshops, stakeholder feedback (mirror effect) and quantitative assessments (hidden cost calculations). Analysis included pattern matching and reflexive interpretation to link empirical evidence with theoretical constructs. Findings The study identifies six key L-A-P aspects – socially constructed leadership, contextual leadership, future-oriented leadership, navigating power dynamics, tool-mediated leadership and holistic and multilevel leadership. These were effectively operationalized through SEAM methods. The intervener emerged as a contextual leader by fostering trust, mediating tensions and tailoring strategies to specific organizational cultures, which enabled transformative outcomes across the three cases. Research limitations/implications The study is based on three cases within specific sectors, limiting generalizability. Future research should explore broader applications of L-A-P and SEAM integration in diverse organizational and cultural contexts and assess long-term impact. Practical implications The findings offer practical insights into how SEAM tools can be used to enact relational leadership, foster collaboration and address hidden costs. Organizations can leverage this integrated framework to drive context-sensitive, sustainable change by engaging employees and aligning socioeconomic goals. Social implications By promoting participatory leadership and transparency, the approach enhances employee engagement and well-being, contributing to inclusive and resilient organizational cultures. Originality/value This research bridges L-A-P’s theoretical principles with SEAM’s practical methodologies, providing a novel perspective on relational and context-sensitive leadership. It highlights how these frameworks complement each other to foster systemic and sustainable organizational change. The study contributes actionable insights for practitioners and enriches leadership and change management literature by showcasing the transformative potential of integrating L-A-P with SEAM.

Uncomfortable But Developmental: How Mindfulness Moderates the Impact of Negative Emotions on Learning

Article

Apr 2025
ACAD MANAG LEARN EDU

Employee Engagement in Corporate Sustainability Initiatives: An Empirical Comparison of Conventional and Modern Working Environment Practices

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2025

Objective: The purpose of this research is to understand the disparities in engagement levels in CSI within traditional and new forms of work arrangement based on the mixed-methods design. Method: The quantitative data were obtained through a survey of 300 employees who were part-time/ full-time employees engaged in sustainable projects, while the qualitative data were derived from 30 semi-structured interviews of the employees and the managers.

Shared Leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership

Book

Jan 2003

Shared Leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership brings together the foremost thinkers on the subject and is the first book of its kind to address the conceptual, methodological, and practical issues for shared leadership. Its aim is to advance understanding along many dimensions of the shared leadership phenomenon: its dynamics, moderators, appropriate settings, facilitating factors, contingencies, measurement, practice implications, and directions for the future. The volume provides a realistic and practical discussion of the benefits, as well as the risks and problems, associated with shared leadership. It will serve as an indispensable guide for researchers and practicing managers in identifying where and when shared leadership may be appropriate for organizations and teams.

A Longitudinal Study of the Effects of Boundary Spanning Supervision on Turnover and Promotion in Research and Development

Article

Sep 1983

Shared Influence and Organizational Behavior: A Meta-Analysis of Situational Variables Expected to Moderate Participation-Outcome Relationships

Article

Sep 1987

Participation, Satisfaction, and Productivity: A Meta-Analytic Review

Article

Dec 1986

Strategic Goals, Perceived Uncertainty, and Economic Performance in Volatile Environments

Article

Sep 1985

L. J. III Bourgeois

Building Commitment, Attachment, and Trust in Strategic Decision-Making Teams: The Role of Procedural Justice

Article

Feb 1995

Project Performance and the Locus of Influence in the R&D Matrix

Article

Mar 1985

The Dynamics of Collective Leadership and Strategic Change in Pluralistic Organizations

Article

Aug 2001

The Nature of Managerial Work

Book

Jan 1973

Henry Mintzberg

A LEADERSHIP SKILLS STRATAPLEX: LEADERSHIP SKILL REQUIREMENTS ACROSS ORGANIZATIONAL LEVELS.

Article

Aug 2003

The article focuses on the leadership skills required across organizational levels. Leadership skill requirements across organizational levels can be usefully described using a strataplex. The term 'strataplex' is derived from the term 'strata' which comes from the word 'stratify' meaning having a number of layers, levels, or classes in an organized system, and the term 'plex' which comes from the word complex, meaning divided into a specified number of parts. Thus, the term 'strataplex' captures the stratified and complex (composite) nature of the leadership skill requirement categories and their relationship with level in the organization. The leadership skills required at various organizational levels can be understood in terms of four general categories: Basic leadership skills, supervisory leadership skills, managerial leadership skills, and executive leadership skills. There are several hypotheses implicit in the leadership skill requirement strataplex. First, it suggests that basic leadership skills are the most fundamental of the leadership skills. Leadership skill requirements will vary by skill type such that basic leadership skill requirements will be the highest, followed by supervisory, managerial, and executive leadership skills respectively. The second hypothesis states that overall leadership skill requirements will be positively related to job level.

Effective Leadership Behavior: What We Know and What Questions Need More Attention

Abstract and Figures

Recommended publications

Implementation Drivers of Data-Based Instruction for Students With Intensive Learning Needs: A Syste...

The Importance of Flexible Leadership

WHY FLEXIBLE AND ADAPTIVE LEADERSHIP IS ESSENTIAL

An integrative model of ladership behavior

Leading Organizational Learning: Reflections on Theory and Research