Content uploaded by Inga Minelgaite
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Inga Minelgaite on Jan 24, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Emotion contagion in leadership: Followercentric approach | BEH: www.beh.pradec.eu
- 53 -
Business and Economic Horizons
© 2016 Prague Development Center
Peer-reviewed and Open access journal
ISSN: 1804-5006 | www.academicpublishingplatforms.com
BEH - Business and Economic Horizons
Volume 12 | Issue 2 | 2016 |pp.53-62
The primary version of the journal is the on-line version
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15208/beh.2016.05
Emotion contagion in leadership:
Followercentric approach
Inga Minelgaite Snaebjornsso1, Egle Vaiciukynaite2
1University of Iceland, Iceland
2Kaunas University of Technology, Lithuania
corresponding e-mail: inga.minelgaite@gmail.com
address: Ranargata 12a, 101 Reykjavik, Iceland
The main purpose of this article is to explain leadership process from followercentric
perspective through emotion contagion theory. The article provides overview of
followercentric approaches in leadership research and emotion contagion theory with
the recent developments of (social) neuroscience and psychology, which allowed
examining emotions in a more comprehensive way. Finally, the conceptual model of
emotion contagion in leadership process is presented.
Emotion contagion is rarely addressed in leadership context. This article contributes
to stimulation of this debate and discussion on still underrepresented subjects in
leadership research, such as followercentric approach, importance of emotions in
leader-follower communication, and emotional contagion theory in leadership
context. Moreover, the proposed model is an integrated model that can be considered
in empiric research, including the most recent developments in alternative methods
(e.g. (social) neuroscience methods in leadership), enabling further development of
leadership theory and contributing to leadership effectiveness.
JEL Classifications: M12
Keywords: Emotional contagion, followercentric approach, leader, follower, leadership
Citation: Snaebjornsson I.M., Vaiciukynaite E., 2016. "Emotion contagion in leadership: Followercentric
approach", Business and Economic Horizons, Vol.12(2), pp.53-62, http://dx.doi.org/10.15208/beh.2016.05
Without emotions - without the ability to feel joy and sadness,
anger and guilt - we would really not be human beings at all
(Izard, 1991, p.8)
Introduction
Even though "more articles and books have been written about leadership than about any
other topic in the field of management" (Steers et al., 2012, p.479) our knowledge about
this field is still limited (Barker, 1997). However, leadership maintains its importance in
research due to its crucial significance to human achievement (Gill, 2011). The importance
of leadership lies on its impact on organisational outcomes (Uhl-Bien, Riggio, Lowe, and
Carsten, 2014), competitiveness and performance (Boin, 2005), and society at large
(O’Reilly et al., 2010).
The relevance of leadership for today's business world and its significance is evident,
however this field has been faced with a lot of criticism and even call for end of it
(Kellerman, 2012). The criticism for leadership field originates in few aspects that are
discussed below.
The first issue is a high number of leadership definitions (Schein, 2010; Steers et al., 2012)
and leadership theories (at least 60 theories, see Dinh et al., 2014). On the one hand this
Emotion contagion in leadership: Followercentric approach | BEH: www.beh.pradec.eu
- 54 -
© 2016 Prague Development Center
variety provides a freedom of choice for researcher, however, it also complicates research
- the conceptual, theoretical and empirical choices of the researcher (Snaebjornsson,
2016). Furthermore, it makes comparison and overview of the research difficult or even
impossible (Hamlin, 2005). Even though all leadership definitions have particular focus or
emphasizes one element over the other, however, all of them are similar in regard to four
common elements of leadership: leader, follower, process (communication/interaction),
and goal/aim/purpose (Northouse, 2013). Communication or process of interaction
between leader and follower is of the particular importance, as it impacts weather/how
successfully the overall goal will be achieved. Based on above mentioned, in this article
particular focus is placed on dyadic leader-follower communication.
The second source of criticism stems from a long tradition of leadercentrism in leadership
research (Snaebjornsson, 2016). Shamir (2007) suggests that the focus on follower has
been neglected in leadership researcher, even though research indicates the importance of
the follower in leadership process (Uhl-Bien, et al., 2014; Andreesc and Vito, 2010).
Responding to this line of criticism, this article investigates dyadic leader-follower
communication process from followercentric perspective, presenting and summarising
variety of approaches in leadership literature.
The third issue addressed by the critics of leadership field, is lack of integration in
leadership research where calls for merger of perspectives and paradigms are made
(Anderson et al., 2008; Pearce and Conger, 2003). This type of criticism is particularly
relevant today when broad spectrum of science fields (e.g. social psychology, (social,
cognitive) neuroscience) are presenting research findings (e.g. activity of mirror neurons,
see Watson and Greenberg, 2011; Rizzolatti, 2005) that could benefit leadership theory,
contributing to its development and advancement. As response to this criticism, this
article analyses leadership process (leader-follower dyad) using emotion contagion theory
aiming to contribute to the integration of paradigms in leadership field.
Based on the above outlined, the main question in this article is:
How does emotion
contagion process affect leader - follower interaction in leadership process?
As
mentioned above, the followercentric approach will guide the answer to the research
question of this article.
To summarise, this article discusses emotional contagion in a dynamic follower-leader
relationship, from followercentric perspective, as means to advance our understanding
about complex phenomenon of leadership by integrate existing knowledge. Furthermore,
to propose a conceptual model, based on literature analysis. The aim is to encourage
academic debate on the newest developments in management related fields and attract
attention of organisational leadership scholars to the integration of paradigms and use of
new theoretical lenses in leadership theorizing and research. Latter will enable better
understanding of leadership and consequently contribute to effectiveness in leadership
and leader-follower communication.
Followercentric approaches in leadership research
For decades leadership field was dominated by leadercentric research and neglected focus
on followers (Shamir, 2007). However, literature indicates the benefits of an alternative -
followercentric approach in many aspects of leadership, including assessment of and
attidutes on leader effectiveness (Uhl-Bien et al., 2014; Andreesc and Vito, 2010).
When considering dyadic relationship between follower and leader from followercentric
point of view, it is essential to investigate existing followercentric perspectives in
management literature. Shamir and colleagues (2007) summarised the main directions in
followercentric research and follower’s role in it. The first approach considers followers as
the recipients of leader influence. Here the follower is seen as an implementer of a
dominantly passive role and leadership is viewed as a linear one-way process (Jackson and
Parry, 2011). Second approach in literature views followers as moderators of leader
Emotion contagion in leadership: Followercentric approach | BEH: www.beh.pradec.eu
- 55 -
Business and Economic Horizons
© 2016 Prague Development Center
impact. This view corresponds to the contingency theories of leadership (e.g., situational
leadership, Fiedler, 1967; House, 1971; Vroom and Yetton, 1973) as it highlights the
significance of the context and timing in leadership process. The third approach considers
followers as substitutes for leadership (Kerr and Jermier, 1978). This perspective de-
emphasizes the significance of a leader and hypes the significance of a follower, however,
fails to elaborate on followers’ role in the leadership process. Yet another view in
followercentric leadership sees followers as constructors of leadership. It states that
leadership becomes leadership only if a follower recognizes it as one. The focus here is on
the thoughts of the followers, how they construct the leaders (Jackson and Parry, 2011;
Meindl, 1993; Stech, 2004; Goethals, 2005; Shamir, 2007; Van Knippenberg and Hogg,
2003). One of the newest views presents followers as leaders (as in shared leadership, co-
leadership, distributed leadership). This approach abandons the leader - follower
distinction and considers leadership to be a function that can be shared (see Hock, 1999;
Gronn, 2002; Raelin, 2003; Toegel and Jonsen, 2016). Shamir's et al. (2007) typology ends
by presenting the views where followers are the co-producers of leadership. This is a
broad approach (see Hollander, 1958; Messick, 2004), covering such theories as servant
leadership (Greenleaf and Spears, 2002), leader-member exchange (LMX) (Graen and
Uhl-Bien, 1995) and others. This approach sees leadership as an exchange-based
relationship between leader and follower.
Above summarised variety of followercentric approaches in leadership theories indicates
the awareness of follower’s role in leadership process and effort to redefine leadership
theories accordingly. However, shortcomings of the theories indicate the need for further
development (Uhl-Bien, Riggio, Lowe, and Carsten, 2014).
The focus on followers in leadership research created two streams of research which even
though are overlapping, have very different initial point of departure and underlying
assumptions. The first is followership approach, which stems from a critical stream of
theorizing (Kelley, 2008; Alvesson, and Spicer, 2012) and is focused on researching
followers’ roles in followership. The development of this approach brought some of the
most interesting advances in leadership field (Bligh, 2011). The main criticism toward this
stream comes from the same arguments as criticism of the leader-centric approach:
dependency on a single underlying philosophical paradigm (critical theory) and
concentrating just on one side of leadership (follower on followership vs. leader on
leadership).
The other stream is followercentric approach in leadership. This stream considers
followers’ perspectives of leadership (Meindl, 1993) and in this way deepens leader-centric
analysis (Weick, et al., 2007). This is achieved through the shift of the questions from
leaders to followers, which in return leads to the emergence of new issues and new
questions (Bligh, 2011). However, the follower-centric approach still faces criticism that is
mainly related the limited amount of research employing this perspective and keeping it in
the infancy stage (Bligh, 2011). Calls are made for more follower-focused research,
employing various research methods, in order to bring new insights, develop emerging
theories and test the results (Carsten et al., 2010).
To conclude, followercentric leadership literature suggests the importance of the followers
in leadership process and leader’s influence on the followers (Kaiser et al., 2008; Avolio et
al., 2009). The followers are seen as evaluators of leadership, experiencing it daily and
therefore, able to make the most accurate evaluation of a leader (Spreitzer et al., 2005) and
leadership effectiveness (Hunter et al., 2007). However, it is evident that followercentric
theories of leadership do not take advantage of the most recent developments in other
fields of science (e.g. neuroscience, psychology), resulting in an inability to provide strong
explanation of some of the crucial aspects of the interaction between leader and follower
(e.g. charisma). Therefore, this article analyses follower-leader dyad in regard to emotion
contagion, using emotion contagion theory which is virtually salient in leadership
discourse. Moreover, the follower is a point of departure in further theorising in this
article and when considering leader-follower interaction.
Emotion contagion in leadership: Followercentric approach | BEH: www.beh.pradec.eu
- 56 -
© 2016 Prague Development Center
Emotional contagion
Early psychology and organizational researchers have recognized that emotions and
moods spread between individuals and their impact on individual's performance. The
process that individuals can "catch" the emotions from others during their interaction and
defined as emotional contagion. More recently, neuroscience studies have revealed the
neurological basis of emotional contagion via mirror neurons patterns (Rizzolatti, 2005).
These neuroscientific results provide insights how individuals may observe and imitate
other individual's actions or "catch" emotions of the others during the interaction
(Rizzolatti, 2005; Hatfield et al., 2014). Research provides an explanation how leader may
impact the follower with his emotions even despite the conscious awareness of this
existing. Hence, the process of emotional contagion lies on mimicry and synchrony
mechanisms, emotion experience and feedback (Tee, 2015). Moreover, according to Tee
(2015), emotional contagion may work through the combination of mechanisms such as
emotional, motoric, and cognitive.
Recent literature review suggests that the use of two terms such as "emotional contagion"
(Tee, 2015) or "mood contagion" (Bono and Ilies, 2006; Johnson, 2009) when referring to
the impact on emotion in leader-follower interaction. It was indicated that the terms are
used as synonyms and interchangeably. However such use is incorrect as emotional
contagion refers to automatic processes and is largely without conscious awareness, but
mood contagion includes cognitive process of the emotion appraisal. Furthermore, there
are many definitions for emotions and usually are used interchangeably with the terms of
affect and moods. Therefore, literature reveals that there is a lack of clarity of the emotion
definition (LeDoux, 2012). Emotions are more intense and less stable than moods (or
feelings). Emotions can vary from positive to negative and can be experienced consciously
or unconsciously. On the contrary, moods are a longer-lasting (Goleman et al., 2013).
Moreover, the mood is associated with individuals’ inner experience (Lochnerv, 2016) and
lacks the stimulus of contexts such as environment or event.
Emotion can be analyzed at different levels of analysis such as individual and
organizational levels. Furthermore, based on the psychophysiological and cognitive
appraisal theories of emotion, emotion is defined differently. Psychophysiological theories
of emotion view emotions as individuals'' physical responses to the environment.
According to James (1884) "my thesis on the contrary is that the bodily changes follow directly the
perception of the exciting fact, and that our feeling of the same changes as they occur is the emotion"
(p.189-190). Theory explains that individuals interpret their physical responses and
constitute the cognitive appraisal based on these feelings. On the other hand, appraisal
theories define emotions as the cognitive appraisal to the environment by the individuals
(Frijda, 1988; Izard, 1991). In this article emotion is considered as occurring without
conscious awareness and intensive.
Emotional contagion is defined as "tendency to automatically mimic and synchronize facial
expressions, vocalizations, postures and movements with those of another person and, consequently, to
converge emotionally" (Hatfield et al., 1994, p.5). This implies that individual's tendency to
"catch" other individuals’ emotions is driven primarily by unconscious, automatic motor
mimicry mechanisms. For example, when individuals feel happy (mood) because others
around him feel happy (Walter, 2012). This example presents that the individuals'
subjective experience which is outcome of cognitive systems mechanisms for emotion
appraisal. Moreover, emotional contagion phenomenon is a multilevel phenomenon and
includes psychophysiological, behavioral and social aspects (Barsade, 2002; Tee, 2015).
Hence, emotional contagion includes implicit (primitive) and explicit (cognitive) emotional
contagion (Tee, 2015). However, in this article emotional contagion is considered in a
sense of its broad definition.
To sum up, literature suggests that individual communication is effected by the emotions
of those interacting; moreover the interactors tend to "catch" the emotions of each other
and hence influence each other on emotional, consequently behavioral level.
Emotion contagion in leadership: Followercentric approach | BEH: www.beh.pradec.eu
- 57 -
Business and Economic Horizons
© 2016 Prague Development Center
Emotion contagion in leadership: Conceptual model
Earlier part in the article provides overview of followercentric approaches in leadership
and highlighting difference in focus, however indicating the common aspect:
consideration of a follower as a point of departure in conceptualizing and analysis of
leadership process. The next part described the subtle, however, evident process of
emotion contagion that effects human interaction greatly. After considering both aspects,
the answer to the research question (How does emotion contagion process affect leader -
follower interaction in leadership process?) to this article can be attempted to answer.
Dyadic communication process between follower and leader is considered here in search
of the answer to the research question. The Figure 1 illustrates leader-follower interaction,
in regard to emotion, from followercentric point of view. This model reflects the main
effects of emotion contagion - "catching" the other person's emotions. In this case leader
catches follower's emotion (not its intensity!). Literature review indicated that effect of
follower's emotions on leader is far less researched question that the effects of leader's
emotions on follower.
FIGURE 1. EMOTIONAL CONTAGION PROCESS: FOLLOWER TO LEADER CONTAGION
However as leader - follower communication is a process involving interaction between
two people, the effects of emotion contagion from leader to follower need to be also
considered. Hence, Figure 2 illustrates the other half of the communication process
between leader and follower in emotion contagion process: leader "infecting" follower
with his emotion. Leadership research contains a lot of unanswered questions, particularly
in regard to "soft aspects" of leadership. The example here can be inspirational leadership.
Literature suggests that inspirational leaders inspire followers (Michie and Gooty, 2005).
Consequently, inspired followers can show better performance and achieve goals of
organizations. However, research fails to explain the exact process of "inspiration" - how
does it happen and through which mechanism or levels? As the role of emotions has been
indicated in this process, it can be argued that emotion contagion theory can explain the
"inspiration" effect. Inspirational leadership is attributed to ability to affect followers
emotions (Michie and Gooty, 2005).
However, from literature on emotional contagion is known that well-expressed and high-
intensity (degree of pleasantness) emotions are more contagious (Barsade, 2002). Hence,
inspirational leaders can be considered those leaders who inspire followers through the
high intensity positive emotions, by the process of "contagion". This is consistent with the
research of Sy, Cote and Saavedra (2005), suggesting that leaders have stronger emotional
influence than followers, particularly leader, who are perceived to be effective.
LEADER
Emotion A
FOLLOWER
Emotion contagion in leadership: Followercentric approach | BEH: www.beh.pradec.eu
- 58 -
© 2016 Prague Development Center
FIGURE 2. EMOTIONAL CONTAGION PROCESS: FOLLOWER TO LEADER CONTAGION
When considered together, both processes illustrate the emotion contagion theory in
leader - follower interaction (see Figure 3). However, as the interaction is lasting one, and
arguably with changing emotions (due to "catching" of one other's emotions), this process
should be illustrated as continues, not linear. The Figure 3 illustrates the proposed model
of emotional contagion process in the leader-follower dyad of leadership. The model
indicates the stronger emotional influence of a leader onto a follower. This is due to the
research, indicating stronger emotional "radiance" of a leader (particularly effective leader)
(Sy, Cote and Saavedra, 2005; Michie and Gooty, 2005). Latter research indicate that
charismatic and inspirational leaders tend to have higher intensity emotions and therefore
be more successful in "infecting" followers with their own emotions (Sy, Cote and
Saavedra, 2005; Michie and Gooty, 2005). Therefore, when considered both processes of
contagion (follower to leader and leader to follower), follower’s emotion is
"underrepresented" as being overshadowed by leader’s emotion. During the process of
"co-contagion", sort of neutralization of the initial emotions is being created, where
original emotion is reduced. However, the overall outcome of this process results in
reduction of both original emotions. Implications of such process, particularly in the case
of effective leadership (when leader’s emotional "radiation" is stronger than follower’s, see
Sy, Cote and Saavedra, 2005), can could include situation where follower does not feel
fully "understood" (emotional transference/emotional level) or situation where follower
feels overshadowed by the leader.
FIGURE 3. CONCEPTUAL MODEL: EMOTION CONTAGION IN LEADER-FOLLOWER INTERACTION
Conclusion and discussion
The main purpose of this article was to explain leadership process from the
followercentric perspective through emotion contagion theory. In this article is argued
FOLLOWER
LEADER
Emotion B
FOLLOWER
Emotion A
LEADER
Emotion B
Emotion contagion in leadership: Followercentric approach | BEH: www.beh.pradec.eu
- 59 -
Business and Economic Horizons
© 2016 Prague Development Center
that the dominant stream of research in the followercentric leadership theories considers
(to different degree) followers as more passive receivers of leader’s influence than
proactive in leadership process (Jackson and Parry, 2011). However, the proposed
conceptual model in this article follows a rather narrow and new approach, which assumes
follower as an active receiver of the leadership or co-constructor of it.
Research has shown that leaders can have more "emotional contagion" power (based on
their higher emotional influence, see Sy et al., 2005). Hence, the leader has more influence
on follower then follower has on a leader, when considering their interaction in regard to
emotional exchange. This process may be explained through emotion contagion and
depends on the intensity of leader's emotion.
The followercentric approach in leadership, focusing on the contingency and situational
aspect in leadership process is also of relevance when explaining emotion co-contagion
process between leader and a follower (Hersey and Blanchard, 1977; Fiedler, 1967; House,
1971, Vroom and Yetton, 1973). This view is of relevance with the proposed model on
emotion contagion when considered on a macro level, namely in the view of the
environment and contingency as having an effect on any and all human interaction.
However, it does not define the dyadic process of leadership and does not serve in
interpretation leader-follower emotional contagion.
Yet another view considered in the overview of the followercentric approaches, considers
followers as constructors of leadership through necessity of follower to recognize leader
as being one (Jackson and Parry, 2011; Meindl, 1993; Chen and Meindl, 1991; Stech, 2004,
Gabriel, 1997; Goethals, 2005; Shamir, 2007; Van Knippenberg and Hogg, 2003; Lord,
1985). In the context of proposed conceptual model, this view is useful, particularly when
considering effective leadership. As mentioned above, effective leaders are possibly
emotionally more contagious and could neutralize (negative) primary emotion of a
follower. Changed emotion could lead to follower’s perception about the leader as being
understanding (or being able to effect/influence, e.g. "replace" follower’s bad emotion
with a more positive) and hence, satisfy the initial need of a follower - to be understood.
The above outlined suggest that followercentric approaches of leadership have varying
relevance in the context of emotion contagion theory, even though emotion contagion
theory compliments some of the perspectives of followercentric leadership (e.g.
contingency and situational). However, seems like the most relevant approach of
followercentric leadership in regard to emotion contagion theory, is the view of followers
being the constructors of leadership. Overall, it is suggested that better understanding of
leader - follower interaction process in regard to emotion contagion could help us to
develop further followercentric leadership theories and contribute to the development of
theory of general organisational leadership. The new findings for neuroscience research on
emotions could add another level of understanding about such a complicated
phenomenon as leadership and consequently lead to more effective leadership developing
programs.
Discussion
In accordance to the aims of this study, dominant streams of emotion contagion research
in leadership were outlined and their importance in the leader-follower dyad was argued.
For the future research four areas are proposed that should be addressed. First, there are
diverse definitions used between terms emotion contagion and mood contagion. Thus,
there is a tendency to focus on the broad phenomena of emotional contagion process.
Hence, emotion contagion can be studied as implicit and explicit emotional contagion
process (Tee, 2015). Following literature (see Barsade, 2002; Tee, 2015) this differentiation
approach enables to study emotional contagion process in more detail way. Thus,
researchers should examine organizational outcomes due the emotion process during
leader-follower interactions. Hence, future research should pay more attention to
Emotion contagion in leadership: Followercentric approach | BEH: www.beh.pradec.eu
- 60 -
© 2016 Prague Development Center
aforementioned issues. Secondly, there is a need to consider individual differences in
emotional contagion process. Despite the individual differences in appraisal evaluation,
there are differences in individuals’ brain structure. Thirdly, research should further
examine the different cultural context that may have the impact on emotions. For
example, traditionally, Western cultures’ leaders are more emotional and charismatic and
may express more emotions than Eastern leaders. Finally, based on emotions intangible
nature,
The use of interdisciplinary research approach and the availability of social neuroscience
methods, enables the researcher to capture more information about emotional contagion
process. Hence, future research can integrate a comprehensive methodology (to apply
neuroscience methodology) for the study of contagion emotion process in leader- follower
dyad and enhanced the current literature in leadership theory.
References
Alvesson M. and Spicer, A., 2012. "Critical leadership studies: The case for critical performativity",
Human Relations, 65(3), pp.367-390.
Anderson D.W., Krajewski H.T., Goffin R.D., and Jackson D.N., 2008. "A leadership self-efficacy
taxonomy and its relation to effective leadership", The Leadership Quarterly, 19(5), pp.595-608.
Avolio B.J., Walumbwa F.O., and Weber T.J., 2009. "Leadership: Current theories, research, and
future directions", Annual review of psychology, 60, pp.421-449.
Barker R.A., 1997. "How can we train leaders if we do not know what leadership is?", Human
relations, 50(4), pp.343-362.
Barsade S.G., 2002. "The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior",
Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(4), pp.644-675.
Bligh M.C., 2011. Followership and follower-centered approaches. The Sage handbook of
leadership.
Boin A., 2005. The politics of crisis management: Public leadership under pressure. Cambridge
University Press: UK.
Bono J. E., and Ilies R., 2006. "Charisma, positive emotions and mood contagion", The Leadership
Quarterly, 17(4), pp.317-334.
Carsten M.K., Uhl-Bien M., West B.J., Patera J.L., and McGregor R., 2010. "Exploring social
constructions of followership: A qualitative study", The Leadership Quarterly, 21(3), pp.543-562.
Dinh J. E., Lord R.G., Gardner W.L., Meuser J.D., Liden R.C., and Hu J., 2014. "Leadership theory
and research in the new millennium: Current theoretical trends and changing perspectives", The
Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), pp.36-62.
Fiedler F.E., 1967. A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill.
Frijda N.H., 1988. "The laws of emotion", American psychologist, 43(5), pp.349 -358.
Gill R., 2011. Theory and practice of leadership. Sage.
Goethals G.R., 2005. "The psychodynamics of leadership: Freud’s insights and their vicissitudes",
In: Messick D.M., Kramer R.M., Kimball W.R. (Eds.), The psychology of leadership: New
perspectives and research. New Jersey: TaylorandFrancis.
Goleman D., Boyatzis R., and McKee A., 2013. Primal leadership, with a new preface by the
authors: Unleashing the power of emotional intelligence (3). Boston, US: Harvard Business Review
Press.
Graen G.B., and Uhl-Bien M., 1995. "Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of
leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-
domain perspective", The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), pp.219-247.
Greenleaf R.K. and Spears L.C., 2002. Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate
power and greatness. Paulist Press.
Emotion contagion in leadership: Followercentric approach | BEH: www.beh.pradec.eu
- 61 -
Business and Economic Horizons
© 2016 Prague Development Center
Gronn P., 2002. "Distributed leadership", In: Leithwood, Kenneth A., Hallinger, P. (Eds.) Second
International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration (pp.653-696). Springer
Netherlands.
Hamlin R.G., 2005. "Toward universalistic models of managerial leader effect¬iveness: A
comparative study of recent British and American derived models of leadership", Human Resource
Development International, 8(1), pp.5-25.
Hatfield, E., Bensman, L., Thornton, P. D., and Rapson, R. L., 2014. "New perspectives on
emotional contagion: A review of classic and recent research on facial mimicry and contagion",
Interpersona, 8(2), pp.159-179.
Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., and Rapson, R. L., 1994. Emotional contagion. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Hock D., 1999. Birth of the Chaordic Age. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Hollander E.P., 1958. "Conformity, status, and idiosyncrasy credit", Psychological Review, 65(2),
pp.117-127.
House R.J., 1971. "A path goal theory of leader effectiveness", Administrative Science Quarterly,
16(3), pp.321-339.
Hunter S.T., Bedell-Avers K.E., and Mumford M.D., 2007. "The typical leadership study:
Assumptions, implications, and potential remedies", The Leadership Quarterly, 18(5), pp.435-446.
Izard C.E., 1991. The psychology of emotions. Springer Science and Business Media.
Jackson B., and Parry K., 2011. A very short, fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book about
studying leadership (2nd ed.). London Jago: Sage Publications.
James W., 1884. What is an emotion?, Mind, 9, pp.188-205.
Johnson S.K., 2009. "Do you feel what I feel? Mood contagion and leadership outcomes", The
Leadership Quarterly, 20(5), pp.814-827.
Kaiser R.B., Hogan R., and Craig S.B., 2008. "Leadership and the fate of organizations", American
Psychologist, 63(2), pp.96-110.
Kelley R.E., 2008. "Rethinking followership", In: Riggio R.E., Chaleff I., Lipman-Blumen J. (Eds.),
The art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and organizations, pp.5-16.
Kellerman, B., 2012. The end of leadership. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.
Kerr S., and Jermier J.M., 1978. "Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement",
Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, 22(3), pp.375-403.
LeDoux J., 2012. "Rethinking the emotional brain", Neuron, 73(4), pp.653-676.
Lochner K., 2016. Successful emotions, how emotions drive cognitive performance. Fachmedien
Wiesbaden: Springer.
Meindl J.R., 1993. "Reinventing leadership: A radical, social psychological approach", In:
Murnighan J.K. (Ed.). Social Psychology in Organizations: Advances in Theory and Research,
pp.159-203. USA: Prentice Hall College Div.
Messick D.M., 2004. "On the psychological exchange between leaders and followers", In: Messick
D.M. and Kramer R.M. (Eds.), The Psychology of Leadership: New Perspectives and Research,
pp.81-96. New Jersey: TaylorandFrancis.
Michie S., and Gooty J., 2005. "Values, emotions, and authenticity: Will the real leader please stand
up?", The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), pp.441-457.
Northouse P.G., 2013. Leadership. Theory and practice (6th ed.). USA: Sage Publications.
O'Reilly C.A., Caldwell D.F., Chatman J.A., Lapiz M., and Self W., 2010. "How leadership matters:
The effects of leaders' alignment on strategy implementation", The Leadership Quarterly, 21(1),
pp.104-113.
Pearce C.L., and Conger J.A. (Eds.), 2003. Shared Leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of
leadership.
Raelin J.A., 2003. Creating leaderful organizations: How to bring out leadership in everyone. San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Emotion contagion in leadership: Followercentric approach | BEH: www.beh.pradec.eu
- 62 -
© 2016 Prague Development Center
Rizzolatti C., 2005. "The mirror neuron system and imitation", In: Hurley S., and Chater N. (Eds.),
Perspectives on imitation: From neuroscience to social science, Volume 1 Mechanisms of imitation
and imitation in animals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp.55-76.
Shamir B., 2007. From passive recipients to active co-producers: Followers’ roles in the leadership
process. Follower-centered Perspectives on Leadership: A Tribute to the Memory of James R.
Meindl (9-39). Greenwich: IAP
Shamir B., Pillai R., Bligh M.C., and Uhl-Bien M. (Eds.), 2007. Follower-centered perspectives on
leadership: A tribute to the memory of James R. Meindl. Grenwich: IAP.
Sy T., Côté S., and Saavedra R., 2005. "The contagious leader: Impact of the leader's mood on the
mood of group members, group affective tone, and group processes", Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90(2), pp.295-305.
Snaebjornsson I.M., 2016. Leadership in Iceland and Lithuania: a followercentric perspective (PhD
disertation). Iceland: Haskolaprent.
Spreitzer G., Sutcliffe K., Dutton J., Sonenshein S., and Grant A.M., 2005. "A socially embedded
model of thriving at work", Organization Science, 16(5), pp.537-549.
Stech E. L., 2004. "Psychodynamic approach", In: Northouse P.G., Leadership: Theory and
practice (3rd ed.). London: Sage Publications.
Steers R.M., Sanchez-Runde C., and Nardon L., 2012. "Leadership in a global context: New
directions in research and theory development", Journal of World Business, 47(4), pp.479-482.
Tee E.Y., 2015. "The emotional link: Leadership and the role of implicit and explicit emotional
contagion processes across multiple organizational levels", The Leadership Quarterly, 26(4),
pp.654-670.
Toegel G., and Jonsen K., 2016. "Shared leadership in a global context: Challenges of transferring
control to team members", Advances in Global Leadership, Vol.9, pp.151-185.
Uhl-Bien M., Riggio R. E., Lowe K.B., and Carsten, M.K., 2014. "Followership theory: A review
and research agenda", The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), pp.83-104.
Van Knippenberg D., and Hogg M.A., 2003. "A social identity model of leadership effectiveness in
organizations", Research in Organizational Behaviour, Vol.25, pp.243-295.
Vroom V.H., and Yetton P.W., 1973. Leadership and Decision-making (Vol. 110). USA: University
of Pittsburgh Press.
Watson J.C and Greenberg L.S., 2011. "Empathetic resonance: A neuroscience perspective", In:
Decety J. and Ickes W. (Eds.), The social neuroscience of empathy. Cambridge, US: Massachusetts
Institute of Technology Press, pp.125-137.
