Pub Date : 2026-01-28DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2026.101949
Emad Noureldeen , Karim Mahran , Ahmed A. Elamer
This study explores the enduring influence of military imprints on corporate leaders and their implications for corporate narrative disclosures. Drawing upon insights from imprinting, upper echelons, and strategic leadership theories, we argue that military experiences shape executives’ decision-making and communication styles persistently. Utilizing a dataset of 29,633 firm-year observations from 2010 to 2021, we find that military imprints translate into distinct communication patterns, evident in a positive tone in corporate disclosures. We further explore the relationship within varying ownership structures, identifying contextual factors that modulate this dynamic. Our findings have withstood rigorous tests for robustness, thereby providing additional strength to the credibility of our research. Our findings contribute to the literature on imprinting theory, leadership, and corporate communication, underscoring the multifaceted influence of military experience on executives’ decision-making and disclosure styles. Simultaneously, it imparts pragmatic insights for both corporate leaders and stakeholders alike.
{"title":"Commanding corporate narratives: How military-experienced leaders shape corporate communication","authors":"Emad Noureldeen , Karim Mahran , Ahmed A. Elamer","doi":"10.1016/j.leaqua.2026.101949","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.leaqua.2026.101949","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This study explores the enduring influence of military imprints on corporate leaders and their implications for corporate narrative disclosures. Drawing upon insights from imprinting, upper echelons, and strategic leadership theories, we argue that military experiences shape executives’ decision-making and communication styles persistently. Utilizing a dataset of 29,633 firm-year observations from 2010 to 2021, we find that military imprints translate into distinct communication patterns, evident in a positive tone in corporate disclosures. We further explore the relationship within varying ownership structures, identifying contextual factors that modulate this dynamic. Our findings have withstood rigorous tests for robustness, thereby providing additional strength to the credibility of our research. Our findings contribute to the literature on imprinting theory, leadership, and corporate communication, underscoring the multifaceted influence of military experience on executives’ decision-making and disclosure styles. Simultaneously, it imparts pragmatic insights for both corporate leaders and stakeholders alike.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48434,"journal":{"name":"Leadership Quarterly","volume":"37 2","pages":"Article 101949"},"PeriodicalIF":9.7,"publicationDate":"2026-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146049238","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-12-22DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2025.101929
Joerg Dietz
What makes leadership and management theories practical? Theories are practical to the extent that practitioners can enact proposed cause (X) − effect (Y) relationships. Accordingly, I distinguish three types of practical theories. Manipulate(X) theories give practitioners levers for action. These theories have causal constructs, whose operationalizations’ levels practitioners can set by themselves. For example, in a theory on charismatic leader signals, practitioners can use fewer or more signals. In select(X) theories, practitioners cannot themselves vary a construct’s levels but select the desired level. An example are trait theories of job performance. They inform practitioners at what trait level to select employees. Lastly, in observe(X) theories, practitioners can only measure levels of a causal construct. For example, managers can measure employee trust, but they cannot fix this trust at a certain level. I focus on manipulate(X) theories because they are actionable and rigorous. I discuss criteria for constructs in such theories (e.g., construct unity) and three flaws undermining the development of manipulate(X) theories: (1) the simplification fallacy involves the abstraction of complex phenomena like culture into single constructs, (2) the endogenous-cause problem, when endogenous constructs are treated as exogenous, and (3) construct conflation, the lumping of several constructs under one label.
{"title":"Building actionable theories: The role of causal constructs","authors":"Joerg Dietz","doi":"10.1016/j.leaqua.2025.101929","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.leaqua.2025.101929","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>What makes leadership and management theories practical? Theories are practical to the extent that practitioners can enact proposed cause (X) − effect (Y) relationships. Accordingly, I distinguish three types of practical theories. <em>Manipulate(X) theories</em> give practitioners levers for action. These theories have causal constructs, whose operationalizations’ levels practitioners can set by themselves. For example, in a theory on charismatic leader signals, practitioners can use fewer or more signals. In <em>select(X) theories</em>, practitioners cannot themselves vary a construct’s levels but select the desired level. An example are trait theories of job performance. They inform practitioners at what trait level to select employees. Lastly, in <em>observe(X) theories</em>, practitioners can only measure levels of a causal construct. For example, managers can measure employee trust, but they cannot fix this trust at a certain level. I focus on manipulate(X) theories because they are actionable and rigorous. I discuss criteria for constructs in such theories (e.g., construct unity) and three flaws undermining the development of manipulate(X) theories: (1) the simplification fallacy involves the abstraction of complex phenomena like culture into single constructs, (2) the endogenous-cause problem, when endogenous constructs are treated as exogenous, and (3) construct conflation, the lumping of several constructs under one label.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48434,"journal":{"name":"Leadership Quarterly","volume":"37 1","pages":"Article 101929"},"PeriodicalIF":9.7,"publicationDate":"2025-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145813908","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-12-10DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2025.101882
Matthieu Jost , Gwendolin B. Sajons , Marianne Schmid Mast
Two important factors for accessing leadership positions are the ability to signal leadership qualities and to be perceived by others as having such qualities. Yet, research shows that women tend to be evaluated less positively when signaling leadership, which can be explained by two mechanisms. First, there may be actual differences in how women and men signal leadership qualities. Second, there may be differences in how women and men are perceived by others when doing so. We tested these two explanations within one setting for the key leadership quality of exerting influence on others. We conducted an experiment with 160 women and 160 men who delivered a speech in which they signaled their ability and intent to perform well in a subsequent real-effort task, with the goal of persuading observers to invest money in their future performance. The speeches (audio and body movements) were transposed onto both women and men avatars. A total of 320 different participants then watched a random subset of six speeches each and made incentivized decisions as to which speaker(s)’ task performance to invest in based on their evaluation of the speeches. Neither actual nor perceived speaker gender predicted speakers’ ability to exert influence in terms of attracting investments. In the context of our study, we thus do not find evidence that women and men differ in their ability to exert influence, or that others are biased towards women when evaluating their speeches.
{"title":"Are women less convincing or perceivers biased? Understanding differential reactions towards men and women’s intentions to exert influence","authors":"Matthieu Jost , Gwendolin B. Sajons , Marianne Schmid Mast","doi":"10.1016/j.leaqua.2025.101882","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.leaqua.2025.101882","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Two important factors for accessing leadership positions are the ability to signal leadership qualities and to be perceived by others as having such qualities. Yet, research shows that women tend to be evaluated less positively when signaling leadership, which can be explained by two mechanisms. First, there may be actual differences in how women and men signal leadership qualities. Second, there may be differences in how women and men are perceived by others when doing so. We tested these two explanations within one setting for the key leadership quality of exerting influence on others. We conducted an experiment with 160 women and 160 men who delivered a speech in which they signaled their ability and intent to perform well in a subsequent real-effort task, with the goal of persuading observers to invest money in their future performance. The speeches (audio and body movements) were transposed onto both women and men avatars. A total of 320 different participants then watched a random subset of six speeches each and made incentivized decisions as to which speaker(s)’ task performance to invest in based on their evaluation of the speeches. Neither actual nor perceived speaker gender predicted speakers’ ability to exert influence in terms of attracting investments. In the context of our study, we thus do not find evidence that women and men differ in their ability to exert influence, or that others are biased towards women when evaluating their speeches.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48434,"journal":{"name":"Leadership Quarterly","volume":"37 1","pages":"Article 101882"},"PeriodicalIF":9.7,"publicationDate":"2025-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145712282","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-11-21DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2025.101926
Lantao Cao, Sibel Ozgen
Research on Upper Echelons (UE) theory and strategic leadership (SL) has grown substantially. Yet, much of this work remains confined to Western contexts, leaving a gap in understanding how UE theory and SL unfold in non-WEIRD settings—those that are not Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic. To address this gap, we focus on China, a non-WEIRD context that contrasts sharply with prevailing Western approaches. Drawing on 273 studies, we develop a contextualized strategic leadership framework that advances understanding of the what, how, when, and why of SL in China. To address the what of SL, we introduce a typology of constructs with China-related salience (attributes that gain salience in China), China-related meaning (attributes that acquire additional nuance), and China-related content (attributes shaped by context). We examine the how and when by highlighting China-related contingencies. We assess how primary studies addressed endogeneity, finding that nearly three-fourths engaged with this issue, with considerable variation in their extensiveness. Our study offers several contributions. First, it provides the first contextually integrated SL review that places the national context at the forefront. Second, it extends SL research beyond a Western-centric lens. Finally, it contributes to broader leadership research by responding to calls for greater consideration of context in leadership studies.
{"title":"Strategic leadership in a non-WEIRD context: An integrative review of strategic leaders in China","authors":"Lantao Cao, Sibel Ozgen","doi":"10.1016/j.leaqua.2025.101926","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.leaqua.2025.101926","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Research on Upper Echelons (UE) theory and strategic leadership (SL) has grown substantially. Yet, much of this work remains confined to Western contexts, leaving a gap in understanding how UE theory and SL unfold in non-WEIRD settings—those that are not Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic. To address this gap, we focus on China, a non-WEIRD context that contrasts sharply with prevailing Western approaches. Drawing on 273 studies, we develop a <em>contextualized strategic leadership framework</em> that advances understanding of the <em>what</em>, <em>how</em>, <em>when</em>, and <em>why</em> of SL in China. To address the <em>what</em> of SL, we introduce a typology of constructs with <em>China-related salience</em> (attributes that gain salience in China), <em>China-related meaning</em> (attributes that acquire additional nuance), and <em>China-related content</em> (attributes shaped by context). We examine the <em>how</em> and <em>when</em> by highlighting China-related contingencies. We assess how primary studies addressed endogeneity, finding that nearly three-fourths engaged with this issue, with considerable variation in their extensiveness. Our study offers several contributions. First, it provides the first contextually integrated SL review that places the national context at the forefront. Second, it extends SL research beyond a Western-centric lens. Finally, it contributes to broader leadership research by responding to calls for greater consideration of context in leadership studies.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48434,"journal":{"name":"Leadership Quarterly","volume":"36 6","pages":"Article 101926"},"PeriodicalIF":9.7,"publicationDate":"2025-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145579793","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-11-17DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2025.101924
Karryna Madison , Nathan Eva , Helen De Cieri , Zen Goh
Leadership scholars frequently use social exchange theory to explain leader-follower relations and the influence of leadership behaviors and styles. Yet, the richness of social exchange theory often contrasts with how it is applied in leadership research. Thus, our problematizing review interrogates how leadership research has operationalized social exchange theory and what has been lost in the process. We surfaced six assumptions that structure how leadership research applies the theory: exchange is defined as transactional, unidirectional and leader-initiated, static, inferred through indirect proxies, enacted by identity-neutral actors, and decontextualized. We show how these assumptions depart from social exchange theory’s original emphasis on emergent reciprocity, negotiated power, and structural embeddedness. Building on this critique, we propose a future research agenda that reconnects leadership research with social exchange theory’s sociological roots, which positions exchange as a dynamic, emergent, and uncertain process influenced by individual identities, negotiated through social interactions, and structured by organizational and cultural contexts.
{"title":"Social exchange theory in leadership research: A problematizing review","authors":"Karryna Madison , Nathan Eva , Helen De Cieri , Zen Goh","doi":"10.1016/j.leaqua.2025.101924","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.leaqua.2025.101924","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Leadership scholars frequently use social exchange theory to explain leader-follower relations and the influence of leadership behaviors and styles. Yet, the richness of social exchange theory often contrasts with how it is applied in leadership research. Thus, our problematizing review interrogates how leadership research has operationalized social exchange theory and what has been lost in the process. We surfaced six assumptions that structure how leadership research applies the theory: exchange is defined as transactional, unidirectional and leader-initiated, static, inferred through indirect proxies, enacted by identity-neutral actors, and decontextualized. We show how these assumptions depart from social exchange theory’s original emphasis on emergent reciprocity, negotiated power, and structural embeddedness. Building on this critique, we propose a future research agenda that reconnects leadership research with social exchange theory’s sociological roots, which positions exchange as a dynamic, emergent, and uncertain process influenced by individual identities, negotiated through social interactions, and structured by organizational and cultural contexts.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48434,"journal":{"name":"Leadership Quarterly","volume":"36 6","pages":"Article 101924"},"PeriodicalIF":9.7,"publicationDate":"2025-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145546292","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-11-11DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2025.101912
Bryan P. Acton , Roseanne J. Foti , Andreas D. Pape , Robert G. Lord
Collective leadership emergence—how influence patterns naturally form in groups without formal designation—is a fundamental social dynamic. Understanding this interactive process unfolding over time is hindered by theory proliferation, creating disconnected perspectives and fragmented knowledge. To address this, we utilize agent-based modeling (ABM) to develop formal, testable theories of the dynamic “how” and “why” behind emergence. We synthesize literature identifying foundational components: observable Behavioral Acts, distinct Internal Structures guiding behavior, and crucial Contextual Factors. Building on this, we formalize two distinct theoretical frameworks capturing different proposed mechanisms underlying emergence, focusing on how internal structures process information. Using a shared ABM architecture, we systematically compare these frameworks under varying Contextual Factors, specifically environmental uncertainty and resource cost. Simulations reveal that the distinct mechanisms produce divergent leadership patterns whose relative influence varies systematically with context. This finding supports integrating these perspectives into a comprehensive, context-contingent dual-process theory. Our work demonstrates how ABM can overcome theory fragmentation by enabling formalization, comparison, and integration of process theories via explicit modeling of contextual contingencies, offering a nuanced understanding of collective leadership emergence.
{"title":"How does collective leadership emerge? A dual-process theory formalized using agent-based modeling","authors":"Bryan P. Acton , Roseanne J. Foti , Andreas D. Pape , Robert G. Lord","doi":"10.1016/j.leaqua.2025.101912","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.leaqua.2025.101912","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Collective leadership emergence—how influence patterns naturally form in groups without formal designation—is a fundamental social dynamic. Understanding this interactive process unfolding over time is hindered by theory proliferation, creating disconnected perspectives and fragmented knowledge. To address this, we utilize agent-based modeling (ABM) to develop formal, testable theories of the dynamic “how” and “why” behind emergence. We synthesize literature identifying foundational components: observable Behavioral Acts, distinct Internal Structures guiding behavior, and crucial Contextual Factors. Building on this, we formalize two distinct theoretical frameworks capturing different proposed mechanisms underlying emergence, focusing on how internal structures process information. Using a shared ABM architecture, we systematically compare these frameworks under varying Contextual Factors, specifically environmental uncertainty and resource cost. Simulations reveal that the distinct mechanisms produce divergent leadership patterns whose relative influence varies systematically with context. This finding supports integrating these perspectives into a comprehensive, context-contingent dual-process theory. Our work demonstrates how ABM can overcome theory fragmentation by enabling formalization, comparison, and integration of process theories via explicit modeling of contextual contingencies, offering a nuanced understanding of collective leadership emergence.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48434,"journal":{"name":"Leadership Quarterly","volume":"37 1","pages":"Article 101912"},"PeriodicalIF":9.7,"publicationDate":"2025-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145509521","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-11-10DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2025.101930
Pauline Schilpzand , Randolfh Nerona , Yiqiong Li , Simon Lloyd D. Restubog , Yasin Rofcanin
In this integrative review, we spotlight the skip-level leader − an often-overlooked yet highly influential figure in organizations. Although empirical interest in skip-level leaders has grown across disciplines, research to date remains dispersed, inconsistent in conceptualization, and disconnected from the broader organizational literature. To provide a clear and comprehensive understanding of skip-level leaders, we organize our review around four key emergent functions, skip level leaders’: 1) direct relationship with employee outcomes, 2) indirect relationship with employee outcomes via direct supervisors, 3) interactive relationship via skip-level leader attributes, and 4) the relationship of employee attributes with skip-level leader attributes (i.e., upward relationship). We present these functions both graphically and thematically as a roadmap for future research. Importantly, existing scholarship on skip-level leadership research is dominated by non-causal studies, limiting the field’s ability to draw robust causal inferences. We critically evaluate the methodological rigor of this literature, and propose remedies to strengthen future scholarship. By systematically reviewing and synthesizing prior work, we bring greater visibility to skip-level leaders as key actors in leadership science and aim to stimulate deeper inquiry into the diverse ways they shape organizational dynamics.
{"title":"Leadership in layers: An integrative review on skip-level leadership and an agenda for future research","authors":"Pauline Schilpzand , Randolfh Nerona , Yiqiong Li , Simon Lloyd D. Restubog , Yasin Rofcanin","doi":"10.1016/j.leaqua.2025.101930","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.leaqua.2025.101930","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>In this integrative review, we spotlight the skip-level leader − an often-overlooked yet highly influential figure in organizations. Although empirical interest in skip-level leaders has grown across disciplines, research to date remains dispersed, inconsistent in conceptualization, and disconnected from the broader organizational literature. To provide a clear and comprehensive understanding of skip-level leaders, we organize our review around four key emergent functions, skip level leaders’: 1) direct relationship with employee outcomes, 2) indirect relationship with employee outcomes via direct supervisors, 3) interactive relationship via skip-level leader attributes, and 4) the relationship of employee attributes with skip-level leader attributes (i.e., upward relationship). We present these functions both graphically and thematically as a roadmap for future research. Importantly, existing scholarship on skip-level leadership research is dominated by non-causal studies, limiting the field’s ability to draw robust causal inferences. We critically evaluate the methodological rigor of this literature, and propose remedies to strengthen future scholarship. By systematically reviewing and synthesizing prior work, we bring greater visibility to skip-level leaders as key actors in leadership science and aim to stimulate deeper inquiry into the diverse ways they shape organizational dynamics.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48434,"journal":{"name":"Leadership Quarterly","volume":"37 1","pages":"Article 101930"},"PeriodicalIF":9.7,"publicationDate":"2025-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145492158","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-11-10DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2025.101922
Allan Lee , Alexander Newman , Gregory R. Maio , Rohit S. Piplani , William S. Harvey
Leadership research has increasingly explored the alignment of values between leaders and followers—commonly referred to as leader–follower value congruence. This review critically examines the theoretical foundations, methodological approaches, and empirical findings associated with this construct. We distinguish between perceived and actual value congruence, identifying a disproportionate focus on perceived congruence (60.19%) and less of a focus on actual congruence (37.86%), with only two studies looking at both perceived and actual congruence (1.94%). While both forms assess value alignment, they differ in how they are measured and conceptualized. Perceived congruence—typically assessed through follower self-reports—is closely tied to relational and attitudinal outcomes yet suffers from conceptual ambiguity and endogeneity bias. In contrast, actual congruence—captured through direct comparisons of leader and follower value profiles—offers more objective insights but remains underutilized. Drawing from the self–other agreement literature, we propose new typological frameworks that consider not only the presence or absence of congruence, but also the accuracy of alignment perceptions. We argue that perceived and actual value congruence are distinct but interrelated constructs whose interaction may shape leadership processes in unique ways. By clarifying these distinctions this review lays the groundwork for a more integrated and methodologically rigorous research agenda on value (mis)alignment in leadership.
{"title":"Leader-follower value congruence: A systematic review of the literature and a future research agenda","authors":"Allan Lee , Alexander Newman , Gregory R. Maio , Rohit S. Piplani , William S. Harvey","doi":"10.1016/j.leaqua.2025.101922","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.leaqua.2025.101922","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Leadership research has increasingly explored the alignment of values between leaders and followers—commonly referred to as leader–follower value congruence. This review critically examines the theoretical foundations, methodological approaches, and empirical findings associated with this construct. We distinguish between perceived and actual value congruence, identifying a disproportionate focus on perceived congruence (60.19%) and less of a focus on actual congruence (37.86%), with only two studies looking at both perceived and actual congruence (1.94%). While both forms assess value alignment, they differ in how they are measured and conceptualized. Perceived congruence—typically assessed through follower self-reports—is closely tied to relational and attitudinal outcomes yet suffers from conceptual ambiguity and endogeneity bias. In contrast, actual congruence—captured through direct comparisons of leader and follower value profiles—offers more objective insights but remains underutilized. Drawing from the self–other agreement literature, we propose new typological frameworks that consider not only the presence or absence of congruence, but also the accuracy of alignment perceptions. We argue that perceived and actual value congruence are distinct but interrelated constructs whose interaction may shape leadership processes in unique ways. By clarifying these distinctions this review lays the groundwork for a more integrated and methodologically rigorous research agenda on value (mis)alignment in leadership.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48434,"journal":{"name":"Leadership Quarterly","volume":"36 6","pages":"Article 101922"},"PeriodicalIF":9.7,"publicationDate":"2025-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145485609","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-11-05DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2025.101927
Bo Shao
Leader interpersonal emotion management (IEM), such as leader humorous behaviors and the provision of emotional support, represents a distinct yet integrative leadership construct that highlights leaders’ deliberate efforts to manage others’ emotions. It extends beyond existing leader behavioral constructs by emphasizing the management of others’ emotions as a fundamental behavioral mechanism underpinning effective leadership. Research on IEM has made notable progress over the past few decades; however, critical limitations remain that hinder further development of the literature. In this article, I clarify the conceptualization of leader IEM as the behavioral processes through which leaders manage the emotions of relevant stakeholders and integrate existing research findings into an input-process-output (IPO) framework. This framework comprises three key components: (a) inputs, which consist of ability, motivation, and opportunity factors; (b) processes, which capture broad strategies and specific tactics organized hierarchically; and (c) outputs, which include both immediate and extended outcomes at multiple levels. I further evaluate methodological rigor and propose directions for future research.
{"title":"Leader interpersonal emotion Management: An Input-Process-Output framework and research agenda","authors":"Bo Shao","doi":"10.1016/j.leaqua.2025.101927","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.leaqua.2025.101927","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Leader interpersonal emotion management (IEM), such as leader humorous behaviors and the provision of emotional support, represents a distinct yet integrative leadership construct that highlights leaders’ deliberate efforts to manage others’ emotions. It extends beyond existing leader behavioral constructs by emphasizing the management of others’ emotions as a fundamental behavioral mechanism underpinning effective leadership. Research on IEM has made notable progress over the past few decades; however, critical limitations remain that hinder further development of the literature. In this article, I clarify the conceptualization of leader IEM as <em>the behavioral processes through which leaders manage the emotions of relevant stakeholders</em> and integrate existing research findings into an input-process-output (IPO) framework. This framework comprises three key components: (a) inputs, which consist of ability, motivation, and opportunity factors; (b) processes, which capture broad strategies and specific tactics organized hierarchically; and (c) outputs, which include both immediate and extended outcomes at multiple levels. I further evaluate methodological rigor and propose directions for future research.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48434,"journal":{"name":"Leadership Quarterly","volume":"37 1","pages":"Article 101927"},"PeriodicalIF":9.7,"publicationDate":"2025-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145441938","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-11-05DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2025.101925
Brett H. Neely Jr , Nathan Eva , Karryna Madison , Mark van Vugt
Facial cues are powerful inputs in impression formation, yet their role in leadership contexts remains contested. Does a leader’s face offer meaningful insight into their qualities and potential, or merely reflect observers’ stereotypes? To address this question, we conducted a multidisciplinary review of 131 empirical articles spanning psychology, management, political science, and related fields. We organized findings around five guiding research questions: theoretical perspectives, trait inferences, leadership outcomes, contextual moderators, and methodological approaches. Across studies, we find that observers commonly infer competence, dominance, trustworthiness, and warmth from leader faces, and that these impressions predict perceptions of effectiveness, leadership emergence, and behavioral outcomes. However, we also identify critical limitations: many studies rely on Western samples, invoke theory without testing mechanisms, and rarely validate trait inferences against objective data. Contextual factors such as threat or cultural norms are often overlooked, and intersectionality is largely absent. Methodologically, studies vary in rigor and causal inference is often weak. We integrate these insights into a conceptual framework and offer a future research agenda that encourages theory-driven, context-sensitive, and methodologically robust work. By clarifying what faces cue, when these cues matter, and how they are studied, this review advances a more integrated science of leader perception.
{"title":"The face of leadership: inferences, impressions, and behavioral consequences","authors":"Brett H. Neely Jr , Nathan Eva , Karryna Madison , Mark van Vugt","doi":"10.1016/j.leaqua.2025.101925","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.leaqua.2025.101925","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Facial cues are powerful inputs in impression formation, yet their role in leadership contexts remains contested. Does a leader’s face offer meaningful insight into their qualities and potential, or merely reflect observers’ stereotypes? To address this question, we conducted a multidisciplinary review of 131 empirical articles spanning psychology, management, political science, and related fields. We organized findings around five guiding research questions: theoretical perspectives, trait inferences, leadership outcomes, contextual moderators, and methodological approaches. Across studies, we find that observers commonly infer competence, dominance, trustworthiness, and warmth from leader faces, and that these impressions predict perceptions of effectiveness, leadership emergence, and behavioral outcomes. However, we also identify critical limitations: many studies rely on Western samples, invoke theory without testing mechanisms, and rarely validate trait inferences against objective data. Contextual factors such as threat or cultural norms are often overlooked, and intersectionality is largely absent. Methodologically, studies vary in rigor and causal inference is often weak. We integrate these insights into a conceptual framework and offer a future research agenda that encourages theory-driven, context-sensitive, and methodologically robust work. By clarifying what faces cue, when these cues matter, and how they are studied, this review advances a more integrated science of leader perception.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48434,"journal":{"name":"Leadership Quarterly","volume":"36 6","pages":"Article 101925"},"PeriodicalIF":9.7,"publicationDate":"2025-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145447290","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号