Search results

This issue is a selected bibliography covering the subject of leadership.

In the current dynamic world, organizations required rapid changes to meet the increasing demands of their customers. On the other hand, the practice side claims that the majority of the organizational change attempts fail due to resistance from the employee side. Based on the behavioral theory of leadership, the authors examined the relationship between ethical leadership and organizational change with moderated mediation effect of behavioral resistance to change and commitment to change on the stated relationship.

Data were obtained from 333 employees, selected at random, in three waves (i.e. pre-change, during change and post-change) using survey methods from services sector organizations operating in Pakistan.

The authors found that ethical leadership was positively linked to organizational change and this relation was partially mediated by the commitment to change. Further, behavioral resistance to change weakened the relationship between ethical leadership and commitment to change.

The current study illuminates the importance of ethical leaders in the organizational change process, and empirical findings also gave an important direction to build change commitment in employees to reach positive results. Further, change leaders should use ethical practices in the workplace during organizational change initiatives to deal with behavioral resistance to change.

This study links ethical leadership with organizational change using the behavioral theory of leadership, an unexplored area in the existing literature that gives a new insight to academia and practice side officials to successfully implement any organizational change initiative.

For many of the current leadership theories, models, and approaches, the answer to the question posed in the title, “Is leadership more than ‘I like my boss’?,” is “no,” as there appears to be a hierarchy of leadership concepts with Liking of the leader as the primary dimension or general factor foundation. There are then secondary dimensions or specific sub-factors of liking of Relationship Leadership and Task Leadership; and subsequently, tertiary dimensions or actual sub-sub-factors that comprise the numerous leadership views as well as their operationalizations (e.g., via surveys). There are, however, some leadership views that go beyond simply liking of the leader and liking of relationship leadership and task leadership. For these, which involve explicit levels of analysis formulations, often beyond the leader, or are multi-level in nature, the answer to the title question is “yes.” We clarify and discuss these various “no” and “yes” leadership views and implications of our work for future research and personnel and human resources management practice.

To consider how leadership theories have helped or hindered raising the profile of women in management and leadership roles.

This paper traces the earlier leadership theories through to the contemporary research on transactional and transformational leadership styles and offers a viewpoint on how each theory has contributed, or otherwise, to an awareness and acceptance of women in management and leadership roles.

In 1990, research began to report gender differences in leadership styles with female managers being seen in positive terms as participative, democratic leaders. More recent work reports that women are believed to exhibit more transformational leadership style than their male colleagues, and this is equated with effective leadership.

All of the earlier theories on leadership excluded women and this exacerbated the problem of women not being seen as an appropriate fit in a management or leadership role. Recent findings clearly describe that the transformational qualities of leadership that women exhibit are required by the flatter organisational structures of today. Therefore, a more positive outcome for women advancing to senior roles of management or leadership may be observed in the future.

The paper reviews the major leadership theories, and links these to a timeframe to illustrate how women were not visible in a management context until relatively recently. Such an omission may have contributed to the continuing low numbers of women who advance to senior management and leadership roles.

While the Ohio State leadership approach had been forgotten for several decades, scholars in the field of leadership have begun revisiting the validity and the role of leader consideration and initiating structure. Building on self-expansion theory, this study suggest the effects of leader consideration and initiating structure on employee task performance. Also, integrating self-expansion theory and regulatory fit theory, the purpose of this paper is to propose and examine the moderating role of employee regulatory focus on the relationship between the Ohio State leadership behaviors and employee task performance, which was mediated by emloyees’ creative behavior as well as citizenship behavior.

To test the hypothesized model of this study, cross-sectional data were collected using questionnaires. Pairs of survey packages, which included group-member surveys and a group-leader survey, were handed out to employees in organizations. The authors collected data from 47 groups and 143 group members in 25 private companies in the Republic of Korea, including from financial, technology, manufacturing, and research and development organizations.

The results showed that leader consideration exerts significant effects on employee task performance. Also, the authors found the moderating role of employee regulatory promotion focus on the relationship between leader consideration/initiating structure and employee task performance, which were mediated by creative behavior and citizenship behavior.

This study contributes to the advancement of the Ohio State leadership approach by integrating self-expansion theory and regulatory fit theory to investigate the distinct mechanisms and boundary conditions of its leadership process. The current study also contributes to the literature on extra-role behavior that the Ohio State leadership behavioral dimensions can be considered as one of the antecedents of employees’ creative and citizenship behavior.

Leadership perhaps has the unique and dubious distinction of being the most researched and written about and yet the least understood topic in organisational behaviour. Despite or possibly because of the lack of understanding and common agreement on what leadership is and/or should be, the subject continues to attract researchers' interest. The latest comprehensive review by Bass, for example, referenced over 5000 independent studies. This accumulation of research and writing has also resulted in a fair number of controversies in the area. Some of the more prominent issues include the following:

The current Industry 4.0 era is considered not only as a process that dominates technological developments but also as a process that influences the leadership styles. Management 4.0 is essential for businesses to find and apply the appropriate technologies in the age of Industry 4.0. The leadership styles that business managers will adopt in order to be successful in this process and to survive in an intensely competitive environment can play an important role. At this point, a significant problem arises: identifying leadership styles that will bring success. In this context, the primary purpose of this chapter is to explain the modern leadership styles that business managers can adopt or follow in the age of Industry 4.0. In line with this purpose, the chapter first describes the historical development of leadership, leadership theories and modern leadership styles, such as transactional, transformational, technological, strategic, visionary and agile leadership, and all these concepts are discussed based on the Industry 4.0 perspective.

The potential of a probabilistic developmental model of leadership with a possible vast array of organisational applications, suggested by a recent study, is evaluated in light of the historical development of the leadership construct and to suggest directions for the future. The historical development of leadership theories is explored, the model presented, and its potential and limitations discussed.