A Review of Leadship Theories

European Journal of Training and Development
A review of leadership theories: identifying a lack of growth in the HRD leadership

domain
John R. Turner, Rose Baker,
Downloaded by COMSATS INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY At 21:14 21 January 2019 (PT)
Article information:
To cite this document:
John R. Turner, Rose Baker, (2018) "A review of leadership theories: identifying a lack of growth in
the HRD leadership domain", European Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 42 Issue: 7/8,
pp.470-498, https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-06-2018-0054
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-06-2018-0054
Downloaded on: 21 January 2019, At: 21:14 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 123 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 448 times since 2018*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2012),"Leaders and leadership – many theories, but what advice is reliable?", Strategy &
Leadership, Vol. 41 Iss 1 pp. 4-14 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/10878571311290016">https://
doi.org/10.1108/10878571311290016</a>
(2015),"What matters most in leader selection? The role of personality and implicit leadership
theories", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 36 Iss 4 pp. 360-379 <a
href="https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-06-2013-0087">https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-06-2013-0087</a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:543666 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2046-9012.htm
EJTD
42,7/8 A review of leadership theories:
identifying a lack of growth in the
HRD leadership domain
470 John R. Turner and Rose Baker
Department of Learning Technologies, College of Information,

Received 23 June 2018 University of North Texas, Denton, Texas, USA
Revised 7 July 2018
Accepted 9 July 2018
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to identify the life-cycle of leadership theory from both the human resource
development (HRD) and the organizational/leadership literature while providing a contrast between the two
bodies of literature. The current research identifies which theories are being represented within the HRD
literature, followed by a review of current directions in the leadership fields, primarily from literature in the
organizational and leadership fields. By identifying these two bodies of leadership theories, the following
research question will be answered: How current are the leadership theories provided in the literature of HRD
compared to research that is reported from other external leadership fields?
Design/methodology/approach – This paper examines how leadership theories are represented in the
HRD literature. Data for the current article provide a preview of leadership theories that are used to inform
HRD scholars and scholar–practitioners for a period of 15 years (2000-2015) in the four Academy of Human
Resource Development (AHRD) publications (Advances in Developing Human Resources; Human Resource
Development International; Human Resource Development Quarterly; and Human Resource Development
Review). The four journals within the AHRD were reviewed to identify which leadership theories were being
researched and used to inform members of HRD. The search terms for the current study included “leadership
AND theory,” “team AND leadership,” “leadership AND development” and “team AND development.”
Studies that presented a leadership theory and either described or defined the theory were coded for the
current study. Within this body of literature, there were a total of 74 leadership theories identified (some
repeating), among those there were a total of 20 unique leadership theories. The literature external of HRD
was identified using the ScienceDirect database for 10 years (2007-2017) with the topics limited to “topics–
leadership.” Once the HRD and organizational/leadership literature are presented, a comparison between the
two literature streams will be provided, highlighting any deficiencies within either body of literature and
recommendations for future research efforts for the field of HRD.
Findings – This examination of leadership theory study within HRD and other fields highlights the
deficiencies within either body of literature and offers recommendations for future research efforts for the field
of HRD. In line with the trend in leadership research, HRD should call for more longitudinal and multi-level
research efforts to be conducted as opposed to cross-sectional studies.
Research limitations/implications – The current study is limited in the literature that was used to
collect/code data. Also, the time frame for the HRD literature ended in 2015 due to the long duration required
to review articles and to code the data. Secondary data were obtained from organizational/leadership
literature and are more current because they are more recent. Overall, even with an end date of 2015 for the
HRD literature, the HRD field has not changed too much during this time and the authors recognize some
minor changes, but the research findings are still relevant and the leadership deficits presented are still
realized.
Practical implications – The field of HRD is behind when it comes to leadership theories. This paper
identifies this in an effort to aid researchers, students and practitioners to look beyond the leadership theories
European Journal of Training and
presented in the HRD literature for more relevant and current leadership theories. This paper highlighted a
Development number of newer and current leadership theories and trends for scholars and scholar-practitioners to begin to
Vol. 42 No. 7/8, 2018 focus on; however, this list is only a snapshot and is bounded by the data collected for the current paper.
pp. 470-498
© Emerald Publishing Limited
2046-9012
Originality/value – This paper is original in that it is both critical of leadership research within the HRD
DOI 10.1108/EJTD-06-2018-0054 literature while also providing new directions for the field. The snapshot of where the field of HRD is
compared to the leadership and organizational fields becomes apparent with multiple future directions for HRD
research.
leadership
Keywords Leadership, Collective theories, Global theories, Leadership theories, New theories,
Traditional theories
domain
Paper type Literature review
Leadership matters, greatly (Dorfman et al., 2012). Leadership also matters when managing 471
a team, organization or country (Antonakis and House, 2014). Actions from leaders, good
and bad, have the potential of impacting our daily lives (Eberly et al., 2013). However, even
with today’s vast body of leadership theories, there is still a need to modify or update these
theories to become more applicable to meeting the challenges that come with today’s
globalization and complex environment (e.g. competition, political volatility, economic
turbulence and technological changes; Antonakis and House, 2014).
For example, Antonakis and House (2014) identified Bass’s (1985) full-range
transformational leadership theory as being formalized and tested in a variety of disciplines.
However, as leaders must be responsible for implementing solutions to complex social
issues, rather than just address organizational issues, Antonakis and House (2014) called for
a new type of leadership to be considered, instrumental leadership. Upon further inspection
of the full-range leadership theory, Antonakis and House (2014) identified four critical
leadership functions that had not been considered: strategic structuring and planning,
providing direction and resources, monitoring external environment and monitoring
performance and feedback. These deficits, among others, support recent calls from
researchers to modify the full-range theory to include “aspects of work facilitation and
strategic leadership, as well as transactional and transformational leadership” (Antonakis
and House, 2014, p. 748).
Other calls have been made to abandon transformational leadership (van Knippenberg
and Sitkin, 2013), while others call for a focus on the team level of analysis when viewing the
relationship between the leader and followers as “a collective” (House, 1999). Leadership
impacts not only the individual follower but also teams/groups, departments and whole
organizations (Hiller et al., 2011). Research efforts and new or modified leadership theories
must be positioned in a multilevel, or hierarchical level, framework (Hiller et al., 2011; Dionne
et al., 2014). Also, additional efforts have been made to expand leadership to being more of a
networked construct in which leadership emerges as a network of leaders using a shared or
distributed model of leadership (White et al., 2016).
These examples highlight a primary question regarding leadership research. As a
mature field, there remain questions that researchers are trying to uncover. Antonakis et al.
(2012) identified some questions that remain, such as, what constitutes a trait, are
personality measures inclusive enough, does the big-five inventory drown out other causal
mechanisms and are there other measures for intelligence? If some types of leadership have
not yet been accounted for (e.g. instrumental leadership), what other shortcomings are there?
van Knippenberg and Hogg (2003, p. 244) pointed out that through this body of literature to
ascertain what makes leaders effective, “the quest has only been moderately successful.”
Other researchers extend the question of whether or not leadership matters to: “The more
fitting question seems to be not whether leadership matters, but rather, to what extent does
it matter?” (Fernandez et al., 2010, p. 318). Others raise the question, when does leadership
matter? Calling for researchers to be more critical in examining the evidence of the effects of
leadership (Bligh et al., 2011).
EJTD More active forms of leadership are being called for due to globalization and complexity,
42,7/8 identifying today’s landscape as being “strewn with strategic discontinuity, disequilibrium,
blurring of boundaries, shifting competition, and the need for reinvention, innovation and
knowledge sharing” (O’Connell, 2014, p. 184). A new look at what constitutes leadership
needs to take place, and in doing so, the field of human resource development (HRD) must be
current with the most recent leadership theories. This point is mirrored by Waite (2014) in
472 stating that HRD scholars should utilize leadership research external to HRD to combine
different frameworks that are not available in the HRD literature. In keeping current with
the extant leadership fields, HRD moves beyond looking at the past and moves toward
exploration to uncover new and emerging theories for the field of HRD, a requirement for
HRD to better meet today’s organizational needs (Crane and Hartwell, 2018). Leadership is
one critical means of effectively implementing HRD change and development interventions,
aiding employees to become engaged at work (Song et al., 2012), while assisting HRD
practitioners to develop “workplace cultures that foster learning, humanistic values, and
performance” (Egan et al., 2017, p. 396). As leadership has become “more challenging”
(Ardichvili et al., 2016, p. 278) due to today’s globalization and complexity, HRD is also
challenged with providing new, global and collective models of leadership to aid
practitioners as they navigate today’s landscape.
The current research article is not designed to answer all of these questions, and one
could not expect all of these issues to be addressed in one single article. However, the current
article identifies the life-cycle of leadership theory from both the HRD and the
organizational/leadership literature while providing a contrast between the two bodies of
literature. The current research identifies which theories are being represented within the
HRD literature, followed by a review of current directions in the leadership fields, primarily
from literature in the organizational and leadership fields. By identifying these two bodies of
leadership theories, the following research question will be answered: How current are the
leadership theories provided in the literature of HRD compared to research that is reported
from other external leadership fields? This research will advance the knowledge sharing
efforts between organizational/leadership disciplines and HRD, providing additional
opportunities for future research for HRD’s scholars and scholar–practitioners.
Methodology
The current article examines how leadership theories are represented in the HRD literature.
Data for the current article provide a preview of leadership theories that are used to inform
HRD scholars and scholar–practitioners for a period of 15 years (2000-2015) in the four
Academy of Human Resource Development (AHRD) publications (Advances in Developing
Human Resources; Human Resource Development International; Human Resource
Development Quarterly; and Human Resource Development Review, HRDR). The four
journals within the AHRD were reviewed to identify which leadership theories were being
researched and used to inform members of HRD. The search terms for the current study
included “leadership AND theory,” “team AND leadership,” “leadership AND development”
“team AND development.” Articles that presented a leadership theory and either described
or defined the theory were coded for the current study. Within this body of literature there
were a total of 74 leadership theories identified (some repeating), among those there were a
total of 20 unique leadership theories. The literature external of HRD was identified using
the ScienceDirect database for 10 years (2007-2017) with the topics limited to “topics–
leadership.” Once the HRD and organizational/leadership literature are presented, a
comparison between the two literatures will be provided, highlighting any deficiencies
within either body of literature and recommendations for future research efforts for the field HRD
of HRD. leadership
domain
Human resource development leadership theories
Leadership has been characterized in many different ways and theories within the HRD
literature. For example, Edwards and Turnbull (2013b, p. 49) identified leadership as being
conceptualized in one of three ways: “as ability or skill, as a relationship between leader and 473
follower, or as a dynamic social process.” Others have identified leadership as being “a

complex and multifaceted construct” (Shuck and Herd, 2012, p. 162).
These leadership theories are provided in Table I, along with a summary of the
definitions found for each theory.
The theories identified in Table I are mapped in Figure A1, showing the frequency in
which the leadership theory was found within the HRD literature. As shown in Figure A1,
the most common leadership theory represented in the HRD literature included
transformational leadership theory. This theory included a mix of transformational
leadership, transactional leadership and laissez-faire leadership styles. The second most
common leadership theory found in the HRD literature was emotional intelligence (EI).
Unfortunately, EI has a couple of problems when represented as leadership theory,
primarily it is more indicative of characteristics of a leader, and it is a lower-level personality
measure. Leadership has been identified as being an “emotional process” (Drodge and
Murphy, 2002, p. 421); however, this does not make EI a leadership theory. The authors of
the current research agree that emotions have become an important component/antecedent
to research in the past decade due to the introduction of the theory of EI (Drodge and
Murphy, 2002). Some confusion in the literature is present in that emotions, via EI, is
conflated with leadership. In most areas of research, EI would be identified as a
characteristic of a leader, or as a skill set (Shuck and Herd, 2012), but not as a leadership
theory. Nesbit (2012) supported this view by separating the two constructs. Also, leadership
development efforts have concentrated in developing leaders to control and identify their
own emotions as well as monitor, and relate with, the emotions of their followers (Nesbit,
2012), further identifying EI as a characteristic of a leader rather than as a leadership theory.
Within the body of psychology literature, EI has been identified as a “construct that lies at
the lower levels of personality hierarchies” (van der Linden et al., 2017, p. 45). EI has been
identified as consisting of two components, trait EI and ability EI (Drodge and Murphy,
2002). Trait EI has been empirically identified as a personality trait:” Locating trait EI in
personality space is important, not least because it will allow us to connect the construct to
the mainstream personality literature” (Petrides et al., 2007, p. 274). Other research has
identified EI, not just trait EI, within the lower levels of personality hierarchies constructs
(van der Linden et al., 2017, p. 45). Although most of the HRD literature differentiated EI
from leadership, there remains some confusion between the two constructs, which is why EI
was still listed as one of the leadership theories found within the HRD literature. Future
research efforts within the AHRD are recommended to further identify where EI lies within
the field of HRD (personality, leader characteristic and leadership theory).
Succeeding transformational leadership and EI, leadership theories identified as skills-
and trait-based were the next common theories represented in the HRD literature, followed
by situational leadership and authentic leadership. The leadership theories of charismatic
leadership, ethical leadership, leader-member exchange (LMX) and relational goal were
identified in detail two times in the HRD literature. All other leadership theories listed in
Table I and displayed in Figure A1 were listed once.
474
EJTD
42,7/8
Table I.
HRD leadership
theory descriptions
Theory Summary of definition(s) Source
Affiliated Leadership Adopting an external focus, developing adaptability to changing Cummings and Cummings (2014)
conditions, optimizing curiosity and responsiveness, and honing
abilities to listen, interact, collaborate, and co-create with others
Authentic Leadership A pattern of leadership behavior that draws upon and promotes both Carasco-Saul et al. (2015), Richardson and Denton
positive psychological capacities and a positive ethical climate to (2005)
foster greater self-awareness, and internalized moral perspective,
balanced processing of information, and relational transparency
Charismatic An attribution based on follower perceptions of their leader’s behavior. Clarke (2013), Vredenburgh and Shea-VanFossen
Leadership The shared perspective of the vision and its potential to satisfy (2010)
follower needs
Direct/Indirect A leader’s primary role in early stage processes is to provide the Gilley et al. (2010)
Leadership materials and environment that permit original thinking and novel
idea exchange among teammates. As ideas move through the pipeline,
often iteratively, a leader’s role becomes more direct and critical,
requiring decision making about which ideas receive support and
which do not. These two broad influences, labeled direct and indirect,
represent potentially conflicting roles for the leader
Distributed Provides a distributed view to leadership–where many actors in the D’Annunzio-Green and Francis (2005)
Leadership organization create through their shared expertise
EI An array of emotional and social abilities, competencies, and skills. Collins (2012), Djibo et al. (2010), Drodge and
The subset of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor Murphy (2002), Edwards et al. (2015), Edwards and
one’s own and other’s feelings and emotions. Competencies clustered Turnbull (2013a, 2013c), Horwitz (2005), Kim and
into four dimensions: self-awareness, self-management, social Shim (2003), Nesbit (2012), Shuck and Herd (2012),
awareness, and social skills. Non-cognitive abilities, competencies, and Sofo et al. (2010)
skills that influence one’s ability to succeed in coping with
environmental demands and pressures
Entrepreneurial A form of leadership behavior for highly turbulent, challenging, and Carden and Callahan (2007)
Leadership competitive environments. Competencies include specific abilities to
perform leadership roles and tasks in entrepreneurial environments
Ethical Leadership A model of ethical conduct. Leaders must be perceived as credible and Carden and Callahan (2007), Turnbull and Edwards
legitimate. Leaders engage in behavior that is seen as normatively (2005)
appropriate, motivated by altruism, while gaining followers’ attention
to the ethics of messaging
(continued)
Five Domains Five leadership domains include: strategy, talent management, human Harland (2003)
capital development, execution, and personal proficiency
Leadership Style Leadership can be categorized into two types of behaviors: task and Blakeley and Higgs (2014)
relationship behavior
Leadership A model of the dynamics and factors of leaders in transition within the Ma Rhea (2013)
Transition context of an organization
LMX Theory Emphasizes interactions between leaders and their followers. A Byrd (2007), Noelliste (2013)
relationship-based theory. Three phases to the process of leadership:
stranger, acquaintance, and mature partnerships
Participative Theory Different types of decision makers in leaders: autocratic, democratic, McWhorter et al. (2008)
and laissez-faire
Path-Goal Theory Concerned with the ways in which context influences the effectiveness Brown et al. (2011)
of leadership. Composed of three primary elements: leader style,
subordinate characteristics, and work setting
Relational Goal Emphasis on stability and external focus. Composed of producer role Kim and Shim (2003), Wukitsch et al. (2013)
Theory and director role
Servant Leadership Based on the distribution of power to followers. When leaders Raes et al. (2015)
subscribe to stewardship or servant leadership principles, they work
to serve their followers for the purpose of achieving organizational
objectives. Leaders see themselves as servants
Situational Leader effectiveness depends on how well a leader’s style fits the Ayiro (2009), Bolstorff (2002), Bonebright et al.
Leadership context. The chosen leader style is conditioned upon the task maturity (2012), Godkin and Allcorn (2009), Mensch and
of followers. Leadership contains supportive and directive dimensions Rahschulte (2008), Parry and Sinha (2005), Wenson
and should be used when appropriate to the situation. Four basic (2010)
leadership styles emerge: directing, coaching, supporting, and
delegating
Skills/Trait Approach Focus is on leader’s competencies, what they do, and how they act. Ardichvili and Manderscheid (2008), Ausburn and
Leaders have particular characteristics, or traits, that enabled them to Ausburn (2014), Bagheri and Pihie (2011), Baltodano
emerge as leaders. Leadership is primarily a function of three personal et al. (2012), Bates and Chen (2004), Gilley et al.
skills: technical, human, and conceptual. Leaders are born, not made (2010), McCauley-Smith et al. (2013), McLean et al.
(2005), Muyia and Kacirek (2009)
(continued)
leadership
475
domain
Table I.
HRD
476
EJTD
42,7/8
Table I.
Team Leadership Focuses on dynamics of leadership within the context of groups. Callahan and Rosser (2007)
Associated with leader styles of task- or relationship-oriented
behaviors. Any member of a group may assume the role of leader
Transformational Transformational leaders motivate followers to achieve their goals Browning (2007), Callahan et al. (2007), Collins
Leadership through idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual (2002), Jordan and Troth (2002), Keller (2007),
stimulation, and individualized consideration. Three leadership styles Kennedy et al. (2013), Knapp (2010), Lien et al. (2007),
involve transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire Ligon et al. (2011), London et al. (2005), Longman and
Lafreniere (2012), Margaryan et al. (2004), Marquardt
et al. (2010), Martin et al. (2014), Muir (2014),
Mumford and Gibson (2011), Nieminen et al. (2013),
Polsfuss and Ardichvili (2008), Waples et al. (2011)
The next section takes a brief look at where the field of leadership stands regarding theory HRD
advancements and new trends from literature external to HRD. The current article presents leadership
how leadership theory is portrayed within the organizational/leadership literature,
providing a representation of leadership theories from four different categories; traditional,
domain
newer, collective and global leadership theories. Following is a comparison of how
leadership theories are represented within HRD with those external to HRD.
Recommendations for future research will then be provided.
477
Leadership theories in the literature over time

The classification of leadership theories in published studies has resulted in a variety of
titles for the categories made by the respective researchers. In their review article of
leadership theories, Hiller et al. (2011) identified the most frequent leadership theories over a
period of 25 years using five-year time periods. In their research, Hiller et al. (2011) presented
the most commonly researched theories as strategic (25 per cent), behavior (24 per cent), trait
(17 per cent), transformational (10 per cent), LMX (7 per cent) and others (16 per cent;
percentages rounded up; p. 1164). In reviewing empirical and theoretical articles that
included three or more leadership theories, Meuser et al. (2016, p. 1383) identified six focal
leadership constructs: “charismatic leadership, transformational leadership,
strategic leadership, leadership and diversity, participative/shared leadership, and trait
approaches to leadership”.
In a comprehensive review of leadership research from 2000 to 2009, Gardner et al. (2010)
categorized leadership theories into the following eight sections: trait theories, behavioral
theories, contingency theories, multiple-level approaches, leadership and information
processing, neo-charismatic approaches, other prominent approaches (power), other
approaches and new directions. In reviewing leadership theories for issues relating to levels
of analysis, Yammarino et al. (2005) identified 17 leadership categories. Additional extensive
categorizations were provided by Dionne et al. (2014). A summary of these categorizations,
along with the leadership theories identified in the HRD literature, is provided in Table II.
In comparing the leadership theory classifications identified from literature external of
HRD with those listed within the HRD literature, there are many leadership theories not
represented, or not represented well, by HRD. In Table II, those leadership theories identified
within the HRD literature and in any of the other five classifications have an asterisk next to
the theory’s name. This comparison is by leadership theory name only, with a few exceptions
such as ethical leadership, EI and the five domains theory. For example, ethical leadership
has been represented in the HRD literature and is also listed in the classification provided by
Dionne et al. (2014), but is listed as a group of new directions (ethical, servant, spiritual and
authentic leadership) by Gardner et al. (2010, p. 937) to represent an “eclectic mix of theories
that emerged and/or rose in prominence during the past decade and share a common focus on
the moral components of leadership.” A second example includes EI within the HRD
literature. As discussed previously, EI is not considered a leadership theory but is more
representative of a leader’s characteristics. Although EI is not accounted for by the other
leadership theory classifications found in Table II, characteristics similar to those found in
the theory of EI can be found: emotions of a leader (Dionne et al., 2014), emotions and
leadership (Gardner et al., 2010). A third example involves the five domains of leadership
(McCarthy, 2014), which are composed of the strategist, executor, talent manager, human
capital developer and personal proficiency. Although parts of the five domains of leadership
could be identified, partially, in other leadership theories such as strategic leadership (Hiller
et al., 2011; Meuser et al., 2016) and executive leadership (Dionne et al., 2014), they were not
478
EJTD
42,7/8
Table II.
classifications
Leadership theory
HRD Dionne et al. (2014) Gardner et al. (2010) Hiller et al. (2011) Meuser et al. (2016) Yammarino et al. (2005)
Affiliated *Authentic Behavioral Behavior *Charismatic *Charismatic

Authentic Behavioral Contingency *LMX Leadership and Contingency
diversity
Charismatic *Charismatic Multiple level Strategic *Participative/shared Individualized
approaches
Direct/indirect Charismatic- New Directions *Trait Strategic Influence tactics
ideological-pragmatic
Distributed Cognitive Contextual influence *Transformational *Trait Information processing
and implicit
EI *Collectivistic Development and *Transformative *LMX
identification of
Entrepreneurial Contingency Leaders and Multilevel/
leadership Leaderplex
Ethical Creativity and * Ethical, servant, Multiple linkage
innovation spiritual and
authentic
Five domains Culture and diversity Creativity and Ohio State Model
innovation
Leadership style *Emotions Strategic–executive *Participative
level
Leadership *Ethical * Emotions and *Path–goal
Transition leadership
LMX Executive * Leadership–teams– Romance of
decision groups
Participative * Follower-centric Political and public Self
Path-Goal Leader-follower Complexity theory *Situational
relations
Relational goal * LMX Effects of task, Substitutes for
technology, distance
and virtuality
Servant Leadership Ideological and *Transformational
development pragmatic
Situational Leadership –Destructive Vertical dyad linkage
emergence
(continued)
HRD Dionne et al. (2014) Gardner et al. (2010) Hiller et al. (2011) Meuser et al. (2016) Yammarino et al. (2005)
Skills/Trait Leadership in teams Change–

and groups organizational
Team Motivational Neo–charismatic
Transformational Politics and public Other approaches
Power and influence Diversity
tactics
Spiritual Cross-cultural
Substitutes for Nature of managerial
leadership work
* Trait Other prominent
approaches
* Transformational Power and influence
VDL and
individualized
leadership
Multiple theories
Notes: *= Theories from HRD; EI = emotional intelligence; LMX = leader–member exchange; VDL = vertical dyad linkage
leadership
479
domain
Table II.
HRD
EJTD matched with any of the leadership theories from the other classifications provided in
42,7/8 Table II.
In viewing servant leadership in Table II, it would appear that none of the other
classifications mentioned servant leadership. However, servant leadership was listed under
the category of follower-centric theories (Dionne et al., 2014), and under new directions
(ethical, servant, spiritual and authentic leadership) from Gardner et al. (2010). Team
480 leadership is another theory that, at first glance, is not represented by the external
classifications in Table II. However, team leadership is included in the leadership theories
that Dionne et al. (2014) identified as collectivistic theories in addition to shared leadership,
distributed leadership, participative leadership, network leadership, complexity leadership,
collective leadership, entrepreneurial leadership, complex leadership, self-leadership and
empowering leadership. Likewise, Gardner et al. (2010) included leadership in teams
and decision groups within their new directions category, Meuser et al. (2016) included
participative and shared leadership, and Yammarino et al. (2005) included self-managed
teams within their self-leadership category.
The unique leadership theories that HRD had compared to the external literature
identified in Table II included: affiliated leadership, direct/indirect leadership, distributed
leadership, five domains, leadership style and relational goal theory. These leadership
theories could be expanded upon to further provide a new unique, HRD, perspective of
leadership. In contrast, the leadership theories not covered in the HRD literature include
those theories in Table II that do not have an asterisk next to the theories name or context
(e.g. romance of, substitutes for). These areas identify different directions that HRD scholars
and scholar-practitioners could take to expand the literature within the leadership domain
for HRD. Also, this highlights potential areas of future research for both the HRD field as
well as external leadership fields.
The following section provides a brief review of the research within the leadership
domain over time. Figures A2 and A3 provide a timeline showing the research directions in
leadership within four categories: traditional, new, collective and global leadership theories
(further explained in the next section).
Leadership theories and their evolution

Traced back to the early part of the twentieth century (Avolio et al., 2009), leadership
research has remained steady in providing theories and models of leadership. These theories
have, over the years, emerged through many evolutionary life-cycles, ranging from
individual trait and competency theories, to situational/contingency theories, to leader-
follower (dyad) theories, to more collective theories, including newer global and networking
theories. In their research, Avolio et al. (2009) identified leadership theories up to the late
1970s as traditional theories (e.g. behavioral, contingency, situational). For example, a
number of these theories focused on what personalities constituted good leaders compared
to personalities of bad leaders (Eberly et al., 2013). By comparison, Avolio et al. (2009)
identified leadership theories that took place at the end of the twentieth century and the
beginning of the twenty-first century as newer leadership theories (e.g. charismatic,
inspirational, transformational, or full-range theory of leadership). At the turn of the twenty-
first century, more teams and collective leadership models surfaced (e.g. team leadership,
complexity leadership theory). Today, a new evolution of leadership theories is beginning to
take root and should continue through the middle part of the twenty-first century (e.g.
instrumental leadership, process models and global leadership). For the current research, the
team/collective leadership models are identified as collective theories, and the newer
evolutionary theories are identified as global leadership theories. This positions four classes HRD
of leadership theories, traditional, new, collective and global. leadership
domain
Traditional leadership theories
Trait-based theories
Leadership theory research began in the early nineteenth century with the “great man”
leadership model (Hernandez et al., 2011; Kirkpatrick and Locke, 1991), implying that 481
“leadership qualities were inherited” (Kirkpatrick and Locke, 1991, p. 48). The “great man”
leadership trend evolved into trait-based theories to refer to “general characteristics,
including capacities, motives, or patterns of behavior” (Kirkpatrick and Locke, 1991, p. 48).
Trait-based theories believed that “certain personality characteristics distinguish leaders
from non-leaders” (Hernandez et al., 2011, p. 1169). Extensions from the trait-based research
included neo-trait approaches that emphasized: “the need to understand the psychological
mechanisms through which traits translate into leadership effectiveness” (Hernandez et al.,
2011, p. 1169). Neo-trait theories contend: “Traits alone [. . .] are not sufficient for successful
business leadership–they are only a precondition” (Kirkpatrick and Locke, 1991, p. 49).
Behavior theories
Following the trail-based theories, behavior theories identified specific behaviors as being
associated with successful leaders compared to inherited traits. These theories made a
distinction between task- and people-oriented behaviors, as in the managerial grid
dimensions of production and concern for people (Hernandez et al., 2011). These theories
produced instruments such as the leadership behavior description questionnaire, from the
Ohio State Leadership studies, that helped researchers determine that “leadership behaviors
could be reliably categorized along the dimensions of consideration and initiating structure”
(Hernandez et al., 2011, p. 1169). Similar studies, from the University of Michigan studies,
made a distinction between “employee-centered and production-centered leadership
behaviors” (Hernandez et al., 2011, p. 1169), whereas studies from Harvard University
identified leadership as a dual-role involving task and social behaviors (Hernandez et al.,
2011).
Situational/contingency leadership theories

During this time, leadership research moved away from trait- and behavior-based theories
and began looking at leadership and the environment or situation. Fiedler’s contingency
theory was one of the first theories to look at a leader’s style and the environment:
We have to match the leader’s motivational structure (that is, the goals to which he gives the
highest priority) with the degree to which the situation gives the leader control and influence over
the outcomes of his decisions (Fiedler, 1976, p. 9).
House (1971) and House and Mitchell’s (1974) path-goal theory surfaced during this time,
looking at how leadership styles (directive, supportive, participative, achievement-oriented)
aided in paving the path for employees’ motivation, satisfaction, and performance (House,
1996).
Researchers were also looking at the interactions between leaders and the level of
maturity of their followers. These situational leadership theories indicated that “leaders
should match their behaviors with the followers’ maturity level by moving through the
phases of telling, selling, participating, and delegating” (Hernandez et al., 2011, p. 1170).
Further developments of the situational leadership model included matching the four
EJTD leadership phases with a follower’s development levels (e.g. low to high competence; low to
42,7/8 high commitment; Blanchard, 2010).
Leader-follower models
Research began to shift focus from the leader’s response to followers’ competencies and their
environment, to looking closer at the dyadic relationships between leaders and their
482 followers (Hernandez et al., 2011). These efforts changed the level of analysis from the
individual level (the leader) to the relationship between the leader and follower as the level of
analysis (Hernandez et al., 2011). One example of this is in Lord’s (1977) implicit leadership
theory. Implicit leadership theory originated from Lord’s (1977, p. 131) research on
functional leadership where perceptions of followers are based on stereotypes in which
followers look to confirm their preconceived notion of what a leader should be, before
identifying with a particular leader. From his research, Lord summarized the following: “It is
reasonable to conclude that leadership perceptions in most novel situations will have a
simplified or stereotypic basis.” Implicit theory builds on Lord’s (1977, p. 1171) original
research, stating: “Followers have preconceived notions (implicit theories) about what a
prototypical leader looks like, and [. . .] seek confirming evidence of those notions”.
Newer leadership theories (charismatic, inspirational, transactional, transformational free-

range theory)
Traditional leadership theories have been described as those that concentrate on “leader
behavior in terms of leader-follower exchange relationships, providing direction and
support, and reinforcement behaviors” (Avolio et al., 2009, p. 766). In comparing traditional
leadership models with new leadership approaches, Avolio et al. (2009, p. 766) identified new
models that “emphasized symbolic leader behavior, visionary, inspirational messages,
emotional feelings, ideological and moral values, individualized attention, and intellectual
stimulation.” Of these new models, charismatic and transformational leadership theories
have led the literature over the past 15 years (Avolio et al., 2009), from around 1995 to 2010.
At the turn of the century, these new leadership models were believed to transform followers
to “higher levels of motivation, ability, and performance” (Avolio et al., 2009, p. 766).
Hoffman and Lord (2013) highlighted authentic leadership as consisting of
characteristics of transformational, charismatic and servant leadership theories. An
authentic leader has been described as one who “possesses self-knowledge and a personal
point of view [. . .] identify strongly with their leadership role and act according to their
values and convictions” (Endrissat et al., 2007, p. 207). Other descriptions include leaders
who are “motivated by the well-being of their subordinates, other colleagues, their
organization, and society at large” (Toor and Ofori, 2008). One model of authentic leadership
includes five components: one’s own position, binding commitment, relationship to business,
social proximity and authenticity to be oneself (Endrissat et al., 2007).
Collective models (team leadership, shared leadership, culturally endorsed leadership theory)
Arredondo Trapero and De Lozada (2010, p. 62) called for new leadership models that
required “a new type of leader who is centered in the human aspect.” Centered in the human
aspect refers to understanding the perspective of the followers as well as including them in
the decision-making processes. Other trends show leadership moving from single leadership
roles to models in which “followers and groups exercise shared leadership to initiate
transformative change” (Eberly et al., 2013, p. 427). Collective leadership theories have the
following common features: not leader-centric, involves leadership at multiple levels
(multilevel), involves behaviors and skills not typically studied in leadership, accounts for
both formal and informal leadership, and views leadership as being dynamic (Friedrich HRD
et al., 2014). Some leadership theories within the collective category view leadership as being leadership
socially constructed: “it is as much in the eye of the beholder as in the qualities of the beheld”
(Thomas et al., 2013, p. 5). Implicit leadership theory (ILT) is one example in which the
domain
follower’s leadership schema (a prototype of a leader) is matched with the leader’s attributes.
Implicit leadership theory is one of the collective models that incorporated cognitive
concepts with leadership.
In their research, Friedrich et al. (2014) identified team leadership, shared and distributed 483
leadership, complexity leadership and collective leadership as key theories belonging to the
collective models. Team leadership views leadership as an outcome of team processes rather
than as an input to team processes (Day et al., 2004). Shared and distributed leadership
involve the team level as the unit of analysis with each team member playing a significant
role in the leadership activities of the team (Day et al., 2004). Also, shared and distributed
leadership extends its reach to involve more than one leader, introducing new concepts such
as co-leadership and joint leadership (Day et al., 2004). Shared and distributed leadership can
also extend to multi-team and multi-organizational networks at the macro level. Complexity
leadership theory utilizes complexity theory (complex adaptive systems, CAS) to address
the complex environment that organizations face in today’s current environment. Uhl-Bien
and Marion (2009, p. 632) defined complexity leadership theory as “the study of the
interactive dynamics of complex systems (CAS) embedded within context of larger
organizing systems”. Collective leadership is a multilevel construct in which multiple
individuals are engaged in leadership activities (Contractor et al., 2012). Also, collective
leadership theories identify leadership serving more than one function or role with multiple
agents engaging in different leadership functions or roles at any one–time (Contractor et al.,
2012).
In other literature, team leadership is represented by analyzing a leader’s response to
events (person-parts), viewing events as opposed to analyzing a leader’s characteristics
(person-wholes; Meuser et al., 2016). Utilizing a person-parts level of analysis provides
research that “focuses attention on within-person actions of both leaders and followers
across time and/or events” (p. 1379). Within a team setting, leadership can be shared
depending on the event/task at hand, placing the team member with relevant knowledge
and experience for the current event/task as the leader. The leader within the team changes
as the event or task changes. Aside from providing shared leadership within the team, some
direction is required external to the team. In this context, leadership in teams have been
viewed as consisting of either micro-level or macro-level leadership (Hoffman and Lord,
2013). Micro-level leadership consists of the within team leadership roles that concentrate on
shared leadership dictated by the event or task at hand. In comparison, macro-level
leadership identifies with an external leader that focuses on providing direction, resources
and goals. From a time perspective, micro-level leadership focuses on present events,
whereas macro-level leadership focuses on future events (Hoffman and Lord, 2013).
Akrivou and Bradbury-Huang (2011) utilized constructive developmental theory that
identified two constructs, self-complexity/differentiation and self-integration, for moving
from simple to complex forms of sensemaking. Self-complexity/differentiation is one’s
ability to act “amid a web of complex relationships” (Akrivou and Bradbury-Huang, 2011,
p. 998) while coping with the social demands. Self-integration relates to one’s ability to
harmonize conflict, remain open to other perspectives, and avoids dogmatism (Akrivou and
Bradbury-Huang, 2011).
An extension to the LMX theory involves incorporating informal network perspectives
with LMX (Hernandez et al., 2011). Focusing only on the LMXs ges leads to “a truncated
EJTD understanding of how members become influential” (Sparrowe and Liden, 2005, p. 532). The
42,7/8 influence a leader has is due to their “access to and control [of] valued resources” (Sparrowe
and Liden, 2005, p. 532) and that leaders differ in how they distribute these resources with
their members. Other studies examined leadership through a social network theory
perspective rather than through the lens of LMX (Hernandez et al., 2011). Leadership, from a
network perspective, is positioned among the relationships between individuals as opposed
484 to residing in the attributes of a few (Balkundi and Kilduff, 2005).
The theory of leadership complexity viewed cognitive and behavior complexity
(Hernandez et al., 2011) as being essential for leadership effectiveness (Denison et al., 1995).
As cognitive complexity relates to one’s ability to process two opposing ideas while still
functioning, behavioral complexity relates to one’s ability to exhibit opposing behaviors
“while still retaining some measure of integrity, credibility, and direction” (Denison et al.,
1995, p. 525). Expanding on this theory of leadership complexity, Hooijberg et al. (1997,
p. 381) identified a third concept, social complexity. Social complexity dealt with applying
“important interpersonal skills as empathy, motivation, and communication”. The
composite representation, involving the cognitive, behavioral, and social complexity
concepts was identified as the Leaderplex Model (Hooijberg et al., 1997, p. 403), focusing on
the leader’s ability to “deal dynamically with the virtually endless number of contingencies
occurring in the increasingly fast moving and complex contexts faced by most managerial
leaders”.
Pulling from social identity and self-categorization theories, the social identity model of
leadership effectiveness (SIMOL) identifies “who is being perceived as a leader within a
group setting” (Hernandez et al., 2011, p. 1173). van Knippenberg and Hogg (2003, p. 244)
identified leadership as a collective, or shared, process:
Leadership processes are enacted in the context of a shared group membership, where leaders, as
group members, ask followers, as group members, to exert themselves on behalf of the collective.
Using social identity theory, van Knippenberg and Hogg (2003) posed that individuals
identify not only with their attributes but also with the collective attributes. Through the
processes of “influence, consensual social attraction, attribution, and trust”
(van Knippenberg and Hogg, 2003, p. 251), a group prototype is formed that defines what the
group leadership model will become, making group attributes more salient than individual
attributes.
Pluralized leadership has been characterized as “the existence of multiple leaders in
organizations, whom exert influence through both formal and informal means, and is
“naturally occurring” in complex organizations” (White et al., 2016, p. 280). This leadership
theory merges collective actors interacting when viewing the larger social relationships,
combining leadership with team dynamics.
Global leadership theories (instrumental, process and global)

Within the literature, global leaders have been associated with addressing the challenge of
“adapt[ing] their leadership style to fit local circumstances to achieve corporate objectives”
(Steers et al., 2012, p. 479). Unfortunately, most of the literature on leadership fails to
recognize that the process of leadership “can vary significantly across geographic regions”
(Steers et al., 2012, p. 479). Also, global leadership remains a small field of study with much
remaining to be learned regarding the global leadership processes (Mendenhall et al., 2012).
In response to these deficits in current leadership literature, Steers et al. (2012) recommended
addressing two main items when discussing leadership from a global perspective:
leadership as a cultural construct and indigenous expectations from a leader. Others have
proposed viewing leadership from two separate perspectives, domestic and global HRD
(Mendenhall et al., 2012). leadership
The definitions of global leadership is still in the development stages; however,
Mendenhall et al. (2012, p. 500) derived the following definition of global leadership:
domain
The process of influencing others to adopt a shared vision through structures and methods that
facilitate positive change while fostering individual and collective growth in a context
characterized by significant levels of complexity, flow and presence. 485
This definition identifies the three constructs that incorporate the concept of global
leadership; complexity, flow and presence. As with other global leadership models, multiple
leadership theories and supporting (non-leadership) theories are compiled into one coherent
theory. This is evident from Mendenhall et al.’s (2012) global leadership model that draws
from complexity theory; flow looks at actors across boundaries and presence is associated
with spatial-temporal dimensions. Global leadership, like most other leadership theories
within the global category, is multidimensional in that it must be positioned in the “cross-
cultural, geographical, and socio-political contexts” (Mendenhall et al., 2012, p. 496).
Theories within this category are also multilevel in that they influence, and are influenced
by, many different levels of analysis–including community and political/national.
Leadership models have expanded to include leadership process models. For these
models, it is the “leadership of organizations” (Antonakis et al., 2012, p. 647) that is being
modeled compared to traditional “influence in organizations” analyses. Some
process models identify traits and attitudes as endogenous variables because they have not
been manipulated and do not vary under natural settings (Antonakis et al., 2012).
Exogenous variables include traits; these variables do not vary such as intelligence and
personality (Antonakis et al., 2012). Further development of these process models will aid in
“setting the foundations of more complete leadership theories” (Antonakis et al., 2012, p.
648).
Antonakis and House (2014) presented instrumental leadership as a new model that
incorporated Bass’s (1985) full-range leadership model (transformational, transactional,
laissez-faire) with strategic leadership and pragmatic leadership. Instrumental leadership
involves a leader monitoring the environment and developing strategy and goals to address
these external forces while providing direction and feedback to a follower’s performance
(Antonakis and House, 2014). For instrumental leadership, Antonakis and House (2014)
identified four constructs related to the leader: environmental monitoring, strategy
formulation and implementation, path-goal facilitation and outcome monitoring. To show
how all components of leadership are combined into a comprehensive, new, leadership type,
Antonakis and House (2014, p. 751) provided the following description:
Leaders must know the capabilities of their organization and identify their potential by constant
scanning of the internal and external environment (environmental monitoring). They design
appropriate strategies and communicate specific objectives (strategy formulation) by packaging
them in affect- and morally-laden ways, and getting intrinsic ‘buy-in’ from followers
(transformational leadership). Leaders must identify the tasks followers have to accomplish and
provide appropriate resources (path-goal facilitation), monitor follower performance and give
constructive feedback (outcome monitoring), while paying attention to individual needs, and
intellectually stimulating and inspiring followers (transformational leadership). Leaders must also
use extrinsic motivational means by providing rewards and sanctions contingent on follower
performance (transactional leadership).
Leadership across cultures can be viewed as being either universal or culturally constructed.
The former views leadership as being universal regardless of culture. This perspective
EJTD views leaders facing “common problems across the globe–how to organize, motivate, and
42,7/8 influence others to accomplish organizational goals” (Arvey et al., 2015, p. 1). The latter
views leadership as being “truly epic and are found only in very specific cultures” (Arvey
et al., 2015, p. 2). This perspective has been empirically supported and represented with a
new leadership theory called culturally endorsed leadership theories (CLTs; Arvey et al.,
2015). Research from CLTs has shown that congruence between a CEO’s values and the
486 local cultural values leads to higher firm performance (Arvey et al., 2015).
Discussion
The field of leadership has expanded over the past century to become a mature discipline.
Within the HRD literature, leadership theories have been shown to be a prominent area of
research and a much-needed area of development. This development is needed not only for
the advancement of the field of HRD but also for the development of HRD scholars and
scholar-practitioners. However, even with the vast expansion of leadership theories of
recent, the field still has been identified as having a “lack of integration” (Meuser et al., 2016,
p. 1375). This lack of integration is due to the vast number of new leadership theories that
have been introduced in the literature with little time to test these theories to determine their
place and worth. Meuser et al. (2016, p. 1375) identified this lack of integration as being
problematic and “more difficult to integrate”.
The field of leadership has been identified as being more compartmentalized than
commensurate due to a lack of construct and theory integration (Meuser et al., 2016).
Researchers have called for construct and theory integration to develop more hybrid
theories of leadership (Glynn and Raffaelli, 2010; Meuser et al., 2016). In viewing the field of
HRD, leadership research has been primarily concentrated in the traditional and newer
leadership theory categories, ignoring leadership theories in the emerging collective and
global categories. This point is shown in Figure A2 by the image titled HRD to indicate
where HRD leadership theories are compared to the leadership literature external of HRD.
This deficit of collective and global leadership theories within the HRD literature conflates
this compartmentalization and lack of integration problem. For HRD to stay current, the
literature that it produces must provide pragmatic solutions to relevant issues while
pushing the limits to develop new emerging theories of leadership. This is supported by
Shuck and Herd (2012, p. 157): “As the dynamics of work continue to evolve, so must the
ways in which both scholars and practitioners view leadership and its practice”.
Specific recommendations have already been proposed to the field of leadership as one
attempt to addressing these deficits. These recommendations include:
a reduction in survey measurements;
an increase in the number of studies within submitted articles;
an increase in the researcher’s view or perspective;
an increase in cross-level or multilevel studies;
an increase in control experiments;
adopting new methodologies from other disciplines;
an increase in testing competing models;
an increase in attention to cognitive aspects of leadership; and
addressing how new technologies aid leaders and leadership research. (Garnder
et al., 2010).
Given the current deficit of leadership theories and research within the field of HRD, the HRD
following recommendations for future research are provided, beyond those listed above, as leadership
guidelines to aid in bringing HRD back to the forefront as a leader in leadership theories for
domain
HRD scholars and scholar-practitioners.
Research in the traditional leadership theories has shown a sharp decline over the past
years (Gardner et al., 2010). This decline has been attributed to this line of research reaching
a level of maturity in which “scholars’ interest in these theories has begun to wane as
interest in the New Directions [. . .] has grown” (Gardner et al., 2010, p. 937). In their research,
487
Gardner et al. (2010) identified recent trends in leadership research focusing on the following
new theories: contextual influences on leadership, development, ethical, leading for
creativity, strategic leadership, emotions, leadership in teams and decision groups, political
and public leadership, complexity leadership, virtual leadership, pragmatic leadership,
destructive leadership, and leading change in organizations. Although considerable
advances have been made in specific leadership domains, Gardner et al. (2010, p. 951)
highlighted specific areas that were lacking attention: “Females as leaders, International
Leadership, Leadership Systems and the impact of Technology on leadership”.
To keep current with the field of leadership, HRD should expand research efforts in these
new directions highlighted by Gardner et al. (2010). Also, in line with the current research, it
is recommended that leadership research within the HRD field expand research efforts that
further define and test the leadership theories highlighted under the categories of collective
and global leadership theories. The authors recognize that a few leadership articles have
begun to surface within the HRD literature as the data were collected for the current article
relating to global leadership (Park et al., 2018), collective leadership (Novicevic et al., 2016),
including a special issue in HRDR on indigenous leadership (see HRDR vol. 12, Issue 3,
2016). These are good signs that the field is beginning to expand into newer leadership
theories, however much work is still needed.
Leadership is a multilevel construct, and current leadership theories should be presented
as multilevel theories rather than individual theories. The lack of construct and theory
integration identified in the current article expands to a lack of integrating levels of analysis
when it comes to leadership theories. This lack of integration is problematic for the field of
HRD when trying to develop newer multilevel theories: “a lack of integrative studies may
become problematic when it reinforces multilevel and interdisciplinary barriers” (Meuser
et al., 2016, p. 1377). Multilevel approaches to leadership research is an emerging area of
study as identified by Gardner et al. (2010, p. 936): “Multiple Level Approaches [. . .]
experienced an increase in both the number and proportion of articles.” This growth has
been experienced in two main areas, developing and testing multilevel theories and
combining multilevel perspectives with complementary theories in leadership (Gardner
et al., 2010). Implementing new multilevel theories in leadership will extend the HRD
toolbox, as identified by Tkachenko and Ardichvili (2017) in their discussion of the
multilevel theory cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT). By incorporating the
individual, group and organizational levels of analysis into one theory, Tkachenko and
Ardichvili highlighted the CHAT could facilitate an expansion of workplace learning.
Future research efforts are recommended to develop more current multilevel theories in
leadership and to test these theories using HRD supporting (integrating) theories to extend
HRD’s toolbox. Implications for HRD scholars and scholar-practitioners is that newer
multilevel leadership theories will be developed within the context of HRD, providing better
utility for practitioners. Also, developing new multilevel theories in HRD leadership and
modifying these theories by testing them with HRD integrated theories contributes to HRD’s
EJTD knowledge base and evolves HRD’s theory to today’s age of globalization and complexity
42,7/8 (Turner et al., 2018).
Research relating to team leadership or shared leadership is lacking within the field of
HRD. Team leadership research is recommended to expand within the HRD literature to
better identify when and how leadership roles should be exchanged as well as identifying
the required support from leadership external of the team. The effects that diversity and
488 power have on team leadership is also an area of potential research given that these areas of
study have become prominent areas of research within the HRD literature. Viewing
leadership as events rather than characteristics of the leader will also help extend this area
of research for HRD. By identifying events, new multilevel leadership theories can be
developed for both the micro-level or macro-level of leadership (Hoffman and Lord, 2013)
within the context of HRD. Recent literature in HRD identified social capital theory as
addressing the level of shared-ness across agents, both vertically and horizontally with
work teams and team training highlighted as one such example (Cumberland et al., 2018).
Expanding this line of research to include social capital theory to team or shared leadership
would aid HRD scholars and scholar-practitioners by cultivating a “shared perception
across hierarchical levels” (Cumberland et al., 2018, p. 211), providing benefits at all levels,
within the team and external of the team.
Leadership is a dynamic process that must be adaptive to the environment and responsive
to the needs of the followers, as well as the goals and vision of the executive suite. Being a
dynamic process adds a level of complexity to the construct of leadership, time. In line with the
trend in leadership research, HRD should call for more longitudinal research efforts to be
conducted as opposed to cross-sectional studies. Gardner et al. (2010) identified that the ratio of
cross-sectional studies to longitudinal studies decreased from 4 to 1 in the 1990s to 3 to 1 in the
2000s. This trend is a welcomed trend in that the field has been calling for more longitudinal
studies: “This is a welcome development, as decades long calls for more longitudinal designs
within leadership research” (Gardner et al., 2010, p. 940). The field of HRD favors longitudinal
research over cross-sectional efforts due to the causal nature of typical research questions
(Nimon and Astakhove, 2015). This preference is also attributed to the fact that most of “HRD
studies involve issues of causality or change” (Nimon and Astakhove, 2015, p. 241).
The current study highlighted the strengths in HRD’s leadership research, as well as
identifying areas in which the field of leadership within HRD can grow. This implications
for potential growth provide excellent opportunities for future research within HRD. By
incorporating HRD theories with new emerging and blended leadership theories, scholars
and scholar-practitioners have the potential of placing new leadership theories into the
context of HRD. For example, scholars and scholar-practitioners have the opportunity to
address the areas within the field of leadership that have been identified as lacking (women
as leaders, international leadership, leadership systems) and study them within the context
of HRD (e.g. National Human Resource Development, NHRD). Alternatively, HRD scholars
have the opportunity to implement some of the leadership theories identified in the collective
and global categories (Figure A3), that have not been utilized within HRD literature, using
HRD specific theories (e.g. employee engagement, career development), to expand the
knowledge base that the field of HRD provides. Results from these efforts will aid in HRD’s
effort to inform practitioners, researchers and students who work/study in the area of
leadership.
Conclusion
Leadership matters, “and it matters greatly” (Dorfman et al., 2012, p. 514). Given today’s
complex environment it has become apparent how important effective leadership is to
organizational success: “In light of today’s fluid and dynamic business environment, the HRD
importance of leadership has become increasingly clear” (Kim and Shim, 2003, p. 321). In leadership
their recommendations to the field of HRD, Nimon and Astakhove (2015, p. 244) encouraged
researchers to “engage in some risk taking and spend less time on the low-hanging fruit of
domain
convenient research and more time on research that matters.” The field of HRD could
become an emerging leader in leadership research by expanding its leadership and
supporting theories within the field of HRD.
489
References
Akrivou, K. and Bradbury-Huang, H. (2011), “Executive catalysts: predicting sustainable
organizational performance amid complex demands”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 5,
pp. 995-1009, doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.07.019.
Antonakis, J. and House, R.J. (2014), “Instrumental leadership: measurement and extension of
transformational–transactional leadership theory”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 4,
pp. 746-771, doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.04.005.
Antonakis, J., Day, D.V. and Schyns, B. (2012), “Leadership and individual differences: at the cusp of a
renaissance”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 643-650, doi: 10.1016/j.
leaqua.2012.05.002.
Ardichvili, A. and Manderscheid, S.V. (2008), “Emerging practices in leadership development: an
introduction”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 619-631, doi: 10.1177/
1523422308321718.
Ardichvili, A., Dag, K.N.O. and Manderscheid, S. (2016), “Leadership development: current and
emerging models and practices”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 275-285, doi: 10.1177/1523422316645506.
Arredondo Trapero, F.G. and De Lozada, V.M. (2010), “Differences between the relationship of integrity
and leadership styles according to the model of bernard bass”, Estudios Gerenciales, Vol. 26
No. 114, pp. 59-75, doi: 10.1016/s0123-5923(10)70102-9.
Arvey, R., Dhanaraj, C., Javidan, M. and Zhang, Z.-X. (2015), “Are there unique leadership models in
asia? exploring uncharted territory”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 1-6,
doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.01.003.
Ausburn, L.J. and Ausburn, F.B. (2014), “Technical perspectives on theory in screen-based virtual
reality environments: leading from the future in VHRD”, Advances in Developing Human
Resources, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 371-390, doi: 10.1177/1523422314532125.
Avolio, B.J., Reichard, R.J., Hannah, S.T., Walumbwa, F.O. and Chan, A. (2009), “A Meta-analytic review
of leadership impact research: experimental and quasi-experimental studies”, The Leadership
Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 764-784, doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.06.006.
Ayiro, L.P. (2009), “An analysis of emotional intelligence and the performance of principals in selected
schools in Kenya”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 719-746,
doi: 10.1177/1523422309360958.
Bagheri, A. and Pihie, Z.A.L. (2011), “Entrepreneurial leadership: towards a model for learning and
development”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 447-463,
doi: 10.1080/13678868.2011.601594.
Balkundi, P. and Kilduff, M. (2005), “The ties that lead: a social network approach to leadership”, The
Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 941-961, doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.09.004.
Baltodano, J.C., Carlson, S., Jackson, L.W. and Mitchell, W. (2012), “Networking to leadership in
higher education: national and state-based programs and networks for developing women”,
Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 62-78, doi: 10.1177/
1523422311428926.
EJTD Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations, The Free Press, New York, NY.
42,7/8 Bates, R. and Chen, H.-C. (2004), “Human resource development value orientations: a construct
validation study”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 351-370,
doi: 10.1080/1367886042000218031.
Blakeley, K. and Higgs, M. (2014), “Responsible leadership development – crucible experiences and
power relationships in a global professional services firm”, Human Resource Development
490 International, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 560-576, doi: 10.1080/13678868.2014.954192.
Blanchard, K. (2010), Leading as a Higher Level: Blanchard on Leadership and Creating High
Performing Organizations, (Expanded ed.), FT Press, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Bligh, M.C., Kohles, J.C. and Pillai, R. (2011), “Romancing leadership: past, present, and future”, The
Bolstorff, P.A. (2002), “Supply chain: a framework for expanding the human resource development
professional’s role in technology implementations”, Advances in Developing Human Resources,
Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 533-549, doi: 10.1177/152342202237527.
Bonebright, D.A., Cottledge, A.D. and Lonnquist, P. (2012), “Developing women leaders on campus: a
human resources–women’s center partnership at the university of Minnesota”, Advances in
Developing Human Resources, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 79-95, doi: 10.1177/1523422311429733.
Brown, T., McCracken, M. and O’Kane, P. (2011), “Don’t forget to write’: how reflective learning
journals can help to facilitate, assess and evaluate training transfer”, Human Resource
Development International, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 465-481, doi: 10.1080/13678868.2011.601595.
Browning, B.W. (2007), “Leadership in desperate times: An analysis of endurance: Shackleton’s
incredible voyage through the lens of leadership theory”, Advances in Developing Human
Byrd, M. (2007), “Educating and developing leaders of racially diverse organizations”, Human Resource
Development Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 275-279, doi: 10.1002/hrdq.1203.
Callahan, J.L. and Rosser, M.H. (2007), “Pop goes the program: using popular culture artifacts to educate
leaders”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 269-287, doi: 10.1177/
1523422306298902.
Callahan, J.L., Whitener, J.K. and Sandlin, J.A. (2007), “The art of creating leaders: popular culture
artifacts as pathways for development”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 9 No. 2,
pp. 146-165, doi: 10.1177/1523422306298856.
Carasco-Saul, M., Kim, W. and Kim, T. (2015), “Leadership and employee engagement: proposing
research agendas through a review of literature”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 14
No. 1, pp. 38-63, doi: 10.1177/1534484314560406.
Carden, L.L. and Callahan, J.L. (2007), “Creating leaders or loyalists? Conflicting identities in a
leadership development programme”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 10 No. 2,
pp. 169-186, doi: 10.1080/13678860701347099.
Clarke, N. (2013), “Model of complexity leadership development”, Human Resource Development
International, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 135-150, doi: 10.1080/13678868.2012.756155.
Collins, D.B. (2002), “Performance-Level evaluation methods used in management development studies
from 1986 to 2000”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 91-110, doi: 10.1177/
1534484302011005.
Collins, J.C. (2012), “Identity matters: a critical exploration of lesbian, gay, and bisexual identity and
leadership in HRD”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 349-379,
doi: 10.1177/1534484312446810.
Contractor, N.S., DeChurch, L.A., Carson, J., Carter, D.R. and Keegan, B. (2012), “The topology of
collective leadership”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 994-1011, doi: 10.1016/j.
leaqua.2012.10.010.
Crane, B. and Hartwell, C.J. (2018), “Developing employees’ mental complexity: transformational HRD
leadership as a catalyst in employee development”, Human Resource Development Review,
Advanced online publication, doi: 10.1177/1534484318781439.
leadership
Cumberland, D.M., Alagaraja, M., Shuck, B. and Kerrick, S.A. (2018), “Organizational social captial: ties
domain
between HRD, employee voice, and CEOs”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 17 No. 2,
pp. 199-221, doi: 10.1177/1534484318772488.
Cummings, T.G. and Cummings, C. (2014), “Appreciating organization development: a comparative
essay on divergent perspectives”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 2, 491
pp. 141-154, doi: 10.1002/hrdq.21186.

D’Annunzio-Green, N. and Francis, H. (2005), “Human resource development and the psychological
contract: great expectations or false hopes”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 8
No. 3, pp. 327-344, doi: 10.1080/13678860500199725.
Day, D.V., Gronn, P. and Salas, E. (2004), “Leadership capacity in teams”, The Leadership Quarterly,
Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 857-880, doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.09.001.
Denison, D.R., Hooijberg, R. and Quinn, R.E. (1995), “Paradox and performance: toward a theory of
behavioral complexity in managerial leadership”, Organizational Science, Vol. 6 No. 5,
pp. 524-540, doi: 10.1287/orsc.6.5.524.
Dionne, S.D., Gupta, A., Sotak, K.L., Shirreffs, K.A., Serban, A., Hao, C. and Yammarino, F.J. (2014), “A
25-year perspective on levels of analysis in leadership research”, The Leadership Quarterly,
Djibo, I.J.A., Desiderio, K.P. and Price, N.M. (2010), “Examining the role of perceived leader behavior on
temporary employees’ organizational commitment and citizenship behavior”, Human Resource
Dorfman, P., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., Dastmalchian, A. and House, R. (2012), “GLOBE: a twenty year
journey into the intriguing world of culture and leadership”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 47
No. 4, pp. 504-518, doi: 10.1016/j.jwb.2012.01.004.
Drodge, E.N. and Murphy, S.A. (2002), “Interrogating emotions in police leadership”, Human Resource
Development Review, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 420-438, doi: 10.1177/1534484302238435.
Eberly, M.B., Johnson, M.D., Hernandez, M. and Avolio, B.J. (2013), “An integrative process model of
leadership: examining loci, mechanisms, and event cycles”, American Psychologist, Vol. 68 No. 6,
pp. 427-443, doi: 10.1037/a0032244.
Edwards, G. and Turnbull, S. (2013a), “A cultural approach to evaluating leadership development”,
1523422312467144.
Edwards, G. and Turnbull, S. (2013b), “Special issue on new paradigmes in evaluating leadership
development [editorial]”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 3-9, doi:
10.1177/1523422312467147.
Edwards, G. and Turnbull, S. (2013c), “Special issue on new paradigms in evaluating leadership
development”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 3-9, doi: 10.1177/
1523422312467147.
Edwards, G., Schedlitzki, D., Ward, J. and Wood, M. (2015), “Exploring critical perspectives of toxic and
bad leadership through film”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 17 No. 3,
pp. 363-375, doi: 10.1177/1523422315587903.
Egan, R., Turner, M. and Blackman, D. (2017), “Leadership and employee work passion: propositions
for future empirical investigations”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 16 No. 4,
pp. 394-424, doi: 10.1177/1534484317724634.
Endrissat, N., Müller, W.R. and Kaudela-Baum, S. (2007), “En route to an empirically-based
understanding of authentic leadership”, European Management Journal, Vol. 25 No. 3,
pp. 207-220, doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2007.04.004.
EJTD Fernandez, S., Cho, Y.J. and Perry, J.L. (2010), “Exploring the link between integrated leadership and
public sector performance”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 308-323, doi: 10.1016/j.
42,7/8 leaqua.2010.01.009.
Fiedler, F.E. (1976), “The leadership game: matching the man to the situation”, Organizational
Dynamics, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 6-16, doi: 10.1016/0090-2616(76)90032-2.
Friedrich, T.L., Vessey, W.B., Schuelke, M.J., Mumford, M.D., Yammarino, F.J. and Ruark, G.A. (2014),
“Collectivistic leadership and George C. Marshall: a historiometric analysis of career events”,
492 The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 449-467, doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.10.012.
Gardner, W.L., Lowe, K.B., Moss, T.W., Mahoney, K.T. and Cogliser, C.C. (2010), “Scholarly leadership
of the study of leadership: a review of the leadership quarterly’s second decade, 2000–2009”, The
Gilley, J.W., Morris, M.L., Waite, A.M., Coates, T. and Veliquette, A. (2010), “Integrated theoretical
model for building effective teams”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 12 No. 1,
pp. 7-28, doi: 10.1177/1523422310365309.
Glynn, M.A. and Raffaelli, R. (2010), “Uncovering mechanisms of theory development in an academic
field: Lessons from leadership research”, The Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 4 No. 1,
pp. 359-401, doi: 10.1080/19416520.2010.495530.
Godkin, L. and Allcorn, S. (2009), “Dependent narcissism, organizational learning, and human resource
development”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 484-505, doi: 10.1177/
1534484309345467.
Harland, L.K. (2003), “Using personality tests in leadership development: test format effects and the
mitigating impact of explanations and feedback”, Human Resource Development Quarterly,
Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 285-301, doi: 10.1002/hrdq.1067.
Hernandez, M., Eberly, M.B., Avolio, B.J. and Johnson, M.D. (2011), “The loci and mechanisms of
leadership: exploring a more comprehensive view of leadership theory”, The Leadership
Hiller, N.J., DeChurch, L.A., Murase, T. and Doty, D. (2011), “Searching for outcomes of leadership: a
25-year review”, Journal of Management, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 1137-1177, doi: 10.1177/
0149206310393520.
Hoffman, E.L. and Lord, R.G. (2013), “A taxonomy of event-level dimensions: implications for
understanding leadership processes, behavior, and performance”, The Leadership Quarterly,
Hooijberg, R., Hunt, J.G. and Dodge, G.E. (1997), “Leadership complexity and development of the
leaderplex model”, Journal of Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 375-408, doi: 10.1177/
014920639702300305.
Horwitz, S.K. (2005), “The compositional impact of team diversity on performance: theoretical
considerations”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 219-245, doi: 10.1177/
1534484305275847.
House, R.J. (1971), “A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness”, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 321-339, doi: 10.2307/2391905.
House, R.J. (1996), “Path-goal theory of leadership: lessons, legacy and a reformulated theory”, The
Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 323-352, doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(96)90024-7.
House, R.J. (1999), “Weber and the neo-charismatic leadership paradigm: a response to Beyer”, The
Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10, pp. 307-330, doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00032-6.
House, R.J. and Mitchell, T.R. (1974), “Path-goal theory of leadership”, Journal of Contemporary
Business, Vol. 3, pp. 81-97.
Jordan, P.J. and Troth, A.C. (2002), “Emotional intelligence and conflict resolution: implications for
human resource development”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 4 No. 1,
pp. 62-79, doi: 10.1177/1523422302004001005.
Keller, D. (2007), “Leading on top of the world: lessons from into thin air”, Advances in Developing HRD
Human Resources, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 166-182, doi: 10.1177/1523422306298857.
leadership
Kennedy, F., Carroll, B. and Francoeur, J. (2013), “Mindset not skill set: evaluating in new paradigms of
leadership development”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 10-26,
domain
doi: 10.1177/1523422312466835.
Kim, H.-S. and Shim, S. (2003), “Gender-based approach to the understanding of leadership roles among
retail managers”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 321-342.
493
Kirkpatrick, S.A. and Locke, E.A. (1991), “Leadership: do traits matter?”, Academy of Management
Perspectives, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 48-60, doi: 10.5465/AME.1991.4274679.
Knapp, R. (2010), “Collective (team) learning process models: a conceptual review”, Human Resource
Lien, B.Y.-H., Hung, R.Y. and McLean, G.N. (2007), “Organizational learning as an organization
development intervention in six high-technology firms in Taiwan: an exploratory case study”,
Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 211-228, doi: 10.1002/hrdq.1200.
Ligon, G.S., Wallace, J.H. and Osburn, H.K. (2011), “Experiential development and mentoring processes
for leaders for innovation”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 297-317,
doi: 10.1177/1523422311424708.
London, M., Polzer, J.T. and Omoregie, H. (2005), “Interpersonal congruence, transactive memory, and
feedback processes: an integrative model of group learning”, Human Resource Development
Review, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 114-135, doi: 10.1177/1534484305275767.
Longman, K.A. and Lafreniere, S.L. (2012), “Moving beyond the stained glass ceiling: preparing women
for leadership in faith-based higher education”, Advances in Developing Human Resources,
Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 45-61, doi: 10.1177/1523422311427429.
Lord, R.G. (1977), “Functional leadership behavior: measurement and relation to social power and
leadership perceptions”, Admiistrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 114-133, doi: 10.2307/
2391749.
McCarthy, A. (2014), “Leading during uncertainty and economic turbulence: an investigation of
leadership strengths and development needs in the senior Irish public sector”, Advances in
Developing Human Resources, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 54-73, doi: 10.1177/1523422313509566.
McCauley-Smith, C., Williams, S., Gillon, A.C., Braganza, A. and Ward, C. (2013), “Individual leader to
interdependent leadership: a case study in leadership development and tripartite evaluation”,
1523422312466982.
McLean, G.N., Yang, B., Kuo, M.-H.C., Tolbert, A.S. and Larkin, C. (2005), “Development and initial
validation of an instrument measuring managerial coaching skill”, Human Resource
McWhorter, R.R., Lynham, S.A. and Porter, D.E. (2008), “Scenario planning as developing leadership
capability and capacity”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 258-284,
doi: 10.1177/1523422307313332.
Ma Rhea, Z. (2013), “Alien tutelage: on generalizability and contextualization in leadership
development”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 346-356,
doi: 10.1080/13678868.2012.756158.
Margaryan, A., Collis, B. and Cooke, A. (2004), “Activity-based blended learning”, Human Resource
Development International, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 265-274, doi: 10.1080/13678860410001676574.
Marquardt, M., Ng, C.S. and Goodson, H. (2010), “Team development via action learning”, Advances in
Developing Human Resources, Vol. 12, pp. 241-259, doi: 10.1177/1523422310367810.
Martin, B.O., Kolomitro, K. and Lam, T.C.M. (2014), “Training methods: a review and analysis”, Human
Resource Development Review, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 11-35, doi: 10.1177/1534484313497947.
EJTD Mendenhall, M.E., Reiche, B.S., Bird, A. and Osland, J.S. (2012), “Defining the ‘global’ in global
leadership”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 493-503, doi: 10.1016/j.jwb.2012.01.003.
42,7/8
Mensch, K.G. and Rahschulte, T. (2008), “Military leader development and autonomous learning:
responding to the growing complexity of warfare”, Human Resource Development Quarterly,
Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 263-272, doi: 10.1002/hrdq.1239.
Meuser, J.D., Gardner, W.L., Dinh, J.E., Hu, J., Liden, R.C. and Lord, R.G. (2016), “A network analysis of
494 leadership theory: the infancy of integration”, Journal of Management, Vol. 42 No. 5,
pp. 1374-1403, doi: 10.1177/0149206316647099.

Muir, D. (2014), “Mentoring and leader identity development: a case study”, Human Resource
Mumford, M.D. and Gibson, C. (2011), “Developing leadership for creative efforts: a preface”, Advances
in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 243-247, doi: 10.1177/1523422311425003.
Muyia, H.M. and Kacirek, K. (2009), “An empirical study of a leadership development training program
and its impact on emotional intelligence quotient (EQ) scores”, Advances in Developing Human
Nesbit, P.L. (2012), “The role of self-reflection, emotional management of feedback, and self-regulation
processes in self-directed leadership development”, Human Resource Development Review,
Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 203-226, doi: 10.1177/1534484312439196.
Nieminen, L.R.G., Smerek, R., Kotrba, L. and Denison, D. (2013), “What does an executive coaching
intervention add beyond facilitated multisource feedback? Effects on leader self-ratings and
perceived effectiveness”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 145-176,
doi: 10.1002/hrdq.21152.
Nimon, K.F. and Astakhove, M. (2015), “Improving the rigor of quantitative HRD research: four
recommendations in support of the general hierarchy of evidence [editorial]”, Human Resource
Noelliste, M. (2013), “Integrity: an intrapersonal perspective”, Human Resource Development Review,
Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 474-499, doi: 10.1177/1534484313492333.
Novicevic, M.M., Humphreys, J.H., Popoola, I.T., Poor, S., Gigliotti, R. and Randolp–Seng, B. (2016),
“Collective leadership as institutional work: interpreting evidence from mound bayou”, Human
Resource Development Review, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 590-614, doi: 10.1177/1742715016642510.
O’Connell, P.K. (2014), “A simplified framework for 21st century leader development”, The Leadership
Park, S., Jeong, S., Jang, S., Yoon, S.W. and L’im, D.H.M.F. (2018), “Critical review of global leadership
literature toward an integrative global leadership framework”, Human Resource Development
Review, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 95-120, doi: 10.1177/1534484317749030.
Parry, K.W. and Sinha, P.N. (2005), “Researching the trainability of transformational organizational
leadership”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 165-183, doi: 10.1080/
13678860500100186.
Petrides, K.V., Pita, R. and Kokkinaki, F. (2007), “The location of trait emotional intelligence in
personality factor space”, British Journal of Psychology, Vol. 98 No. 2, pp. 273-289, doi: 10.1348/
000712606X120618.
Polsfuss, C. and Ardichvili, A. (2008), “Three principles psychology: applications in leadership
development and coaching”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 10 No. 5,
pp. 671-685, doi: 10.1177/1523422308322205.
Raes, E., Kyndt, E., Decuyper, S., Van den Bossche, P. and Dochy, F. (2015), “An exploratory study of group
development and team learning”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 5-30.
Richardson, P. and Denton, K.D. (2005), “How to create a high-performance team”, Human Resource
Shuck, B. and Herd, A.M. (2012), “Employee engagement and leadership: exploring the convergence of HRD
two frameworks and implications for leadership development in HRD”, Human Resource
leadership
Sofo, F., Yeo, R.K. and Villafane, J. (2010), “Optimizing the learning in action learning: reflective
domain
questions, level of learning, and coaching”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 12
No. 2, pp. 205-224, doi: 10.1177/1523422310367883.
Song, J.H., Kolb, J.A., Lee, U.H. and Kim, H.K. (2012), “Role of transformational leadership in effective
organizational knowledge creation practices: mediating effects of employees’ work 495
engagement”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 65-101, doi: 10.1002/
hrdq.21120.
Sparrowe, R.T. and Liden, R.C. (2005), “Two routes to influence: Integrating leader-member
exchange and social network perspectives”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 50 No. 4,
pp. 505-535.
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, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 479-482,
doi: 10.1016/j.jwb.2012.01.001.
Thomas G., Martin R. and Riggio R.E. (2013), “Leading groups: leadership as a group
process”, Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 3-16, doi: 10.1177/
1368430212462497.
Tkachenko, O. and Ardichvili, A. (2017), “Cultural-historical activity theory’s relevance to HRD: a
review and application”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 135-157,
doi: 10.1177/1534484317696717.
Toor, S-u-R. and Ofori, G. (2008), “Leadership for future construction industry: agenda for authentic
leadership”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 620-630,
doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.09.010.
Turnbull, S. and Edwards, G. (2005), “Leadership development for organizational change in a new U.K.
University”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 396-413, doi: 10.1177/
1523422305277178.
Turner, J.R., Baker, R. and Kellner, F. (2018), “Theoretical literature review: tracing the life cycle of a
theory and its verified and falsified statements”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 17
No. 1, pp. 34-61, doi: 10.1177/1534484317749680.
Uhl-Bien, M. and Marion, R. (2009), “Complexity leadership in bureaucratic forms of organizing: a meso
model”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 631-650, doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.04.007.
van der Linden, D., Pekaar, K.A., Bakker, A.B., Schermer, J.A., Vernon, P.A., Dunkel, C.S. and
Petrides, K.V. (2017), “Overlap between the general factor of personality and emotional
intelligence: a Meta-analysis”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 143 No. 1, pp. 36-52, doi: 10.1037/
bul0000078.
van Knippenberg, D. and Hogg, M.A. (2003), “A social identity model of leadership effectiveness in
organizations”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25, pp. 243-295, doi: 10.1016/S0191-
3085(03)25006-1.
van Knippenberg, D. and Sitkin, S.B. (2013), “A critical assessment of charismatic–transformational
leadership research: back to the drawing board?”, The Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 7
No. 1, pp. 1-60, doi: 10.1080/19416520.2013.759433.
Vredenburgh, D. and Shea-VanFossen, R. (2010), “Human nature, organizational politics, and human
resource development”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 26-47,
doi: 10.1177/1534484309343094.
Waite, A. (2014), “Leadership’s influence on innovation and sustainability: a review of the literature and
implications for HRD”, European Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 38 Nos 1/2,
pp. 15-39, doi: 10.1108/EJTD-09-2013-0094.
EJTD Waples, E.P., Friedrich, T.L. and Shelton, P.M. (2011), “Closing comments on ‘leading for innovation’:
we’ve only just begun”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 406-413,
42,7/8 doi: 10.1177/1523422311424719.
Wenson, J.E. (2010), “After-coaching leadership skills and their impact on direct reports:
recommendations for organizations”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 13 No. 5,
pp. 607-616, doi: 10.1080/13678868.2010.520485.
White, L., Currie, G. and Lockett, A. (2016), “Pluralized leadership in complex organizations: exploring
496 the cross network effects between formal and informal leadership relations”, The Leadership

Wukitsch, M., Simmons, R. and Hutt, M. (2013), “Rearticulating values through applied theories at
children’s hospital colorad”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 15 No. 3,
pp. 252-269, doi: 10.1177/1523422313487306.
Yammarino, F.J., Dionne, S.D., Chun, J.U. and Dansereau, F. (2005), “Leadership and levels of analysis: a
state-of-the-science review”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 879-919, doi: 10.1016/j.
leaqua.2005.09.002.
Appendix HRD
leadership
domain
497
Figure A1.
HRD leadership
theory frequency of
occurrence
Figure A2.
Leadership theories
time-line, traditional
and newer theories
EJTD
42,7/8
498
Figure A3.
Leadership theories
time-line, collective
and global theories
Corresponding author
John R. Turner can be contacted at: John.Turner@unt.edu
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
This article has been cited by:
1. TurnerJohn R., John R. Turner, BakerRose, Rose Baker, SchroederJae, Jae Schroeder,
JohnsonKaren R., Karen R. Johnson, ChungChih-Hung, Chih-Hung Chung. The global
leadership capacity wheel. European Journal of Training and Development, ahead of print. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]

A Review of Leadship Theories

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Review of Leadship Theories

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

European Journal of Training and Development

A review of leadership theories: identifying a lack of growth in the HRD leadership

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Department of Learning Technologies, College of Information,

follower, or as a dynamic social process.” Others have identiﬁed leadership as being “a

Theory Summary of definition(s) Source

Leadership theories in the literature over time

Afﬁliated Authentic Behavioral Behavior Charismatic *Charismatic

Skills/Trait Leadership in teams Change–

Leadership theories and their evolution

Situational/contingency leadership theories

Newer leadership theories (charismatic, inspirational, transactional, transformational free-

Global leadership theories (instrumental, process and global)

pp. 141-154, doi: 10.1002/hrdq.21186.

pp. 1374-1403, doi: 10.1177/0149206316647099.

Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 280-297, doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.01.004.

You might also like