See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276183421

Effective Leadership Behavior: What We Know and What Questions Need

More Attention

Article  in  Academy of Management Executive · December 2012

DOI: 10.5465/amp.2012.0088

CITATIONS

195

1 author:

Gary Yukl

University at Albany, The State University of New York

91 PUBLICATIONS   13,634 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Gary Yukl on 20 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

A R T I C L E S

Effective Leadership Behavior: What We Know andWhat Questions Need More Attentionby Gary Yukl

Executive OverviewExtensive research on leadership behavior during the past half century has yielded many different behaviortaxonomies and a lack of clear results about effective behaviors. One purpose of this article is to describewhat has been learned about effective leadership behavior in organizations. A hierarchical taxonomy withfour meta-categories and 15 specific component behaviors was used to interpret results in the diverse andextensive literature and to identify conditions that influence the effectiveness of these behaviors. Limita-tions and potential extensions of the hierarchical taxonomy are discussed, and suggestions for improvingresearch on effective leadership behavior are provided.

The essence of leadership in organizations isinfluencing and facilitating individual and col-lective efforts to accomplish shared objectives.

Leaders can improve the performance of a team ororganization by influencing the processes that de-termine performance. An important objective inmuch of the leadership research has been to iden-tify aspects of behavior that explain leader influ-ence on the performance of a team, work unit, ororganization. To be highly useful for designingresearch and formulating theories, leader behaviorcategories should be observable, distinct, measur-able, and relevant for many types of leaders, andtaxonomies of leader behaviors should be compre-hensive but parsimonious.

Thousands of studies on leader behavior and itseffects have been conducted over the past halfcentury, but the bewildering variety of behaviorconstructs used for this research makes it difficultto compare and integrate the findings (Bass, 2008;Yukl, in press). The behavior taxonomies guidingpast research have substantial differences in thenumber and type of behaviors they include. Some

taxonomies have only a few broadly defined be-havior meta-categories, whereas other taxonomieshave a larger number of narrowly defined behaviorcategories. Some taxonomies are intended tocover the full range of leader behaviors, whereasothers include only the behaviors identified in aparticular leadership theory. Some taxonomiesdescribe leader behaviors used to motivate indi-vidual subordinates, whereas other taxonomies de-scribe behaviors used to lead groups or organiza-tions. Some taxonomies include other types ofconstructs along with behaviors, such as leaderroles, skills, and values. Additional confusion iscreated by lack of consistency in the use of cate-gory labels. Sometimes different terms are used torefer to the same type of behavior, and sometimesthe same term is used for different forms ofbehavior.

The primary purpose of this article is to reviewwhat has been learned about effective leadershipbehavior from research conducted over more thanhalf a century. To integrate results from a largenumber of studies with many different ways of

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

66 NovemberAcademy of Management Perspectives

Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s express written permission.Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amp.2012.0088

classifying and measuring leadership behavior, itwas first necessary to develop a comprehensivebehavior taxonomy. The article begins by describ-ing how decades of behavior research provides thebasis for a hierarchical taxonomy with four broadmeta-categories and 15 specific component be-haviors. Next is a brief overview of research onthe effects of widely used behavior categories, fol-lowed by a more detailed description of what hasbeen learned about the relevance of each specificbehavior in the hierarchical taxonomy. Severalconditions that influence the effects of the behav-iors are described, and the need for more researchon them is explained. The article ends with asummary and suggestions for improving futureresearch.

ResearchonBehavior Taxonomies

The method used most often to identify catego-ries of leadership behavior is factor analysisof behavior description questionnaires. This

method is most useful when clear, relevant itemsare selected for the initial questionnaire and re-spondents are able to remember the leader’s pastbehavior and provide accurate ratings. Unfortu-nately, the selection of behavior items for a ques-tionnaire is usually influenced by preconceptionsabout effective leadership or the desire to developa measure of key behaviors in a leadership theory.The sample of respondents is seldom systematic,and the accuracy of most behavior questionnairesis seriously reduced by respondent biases and at-tributions. Finally, the basic assumptions of factoranalysis (high correlation among examples fromthe same category) do not apply very well when abehavior category includes several alternativeways to achieve the same objective and a leaderneeds to use only one or two of them. The limi-tations of this method may help to explain thesubstantial differences among leader behaviortaxonomies.

Another common method for identifying dis-tinct behavior categories is to have subject matterexperts sort behavior descriptions into categoriesbased on similarity of purpose and content, butthis method also has limitations. The selection ofcategories may be biased by prior assumptions andimplicit leadership theories, and disagreements

among subject matter experts are not easily re-solved. A behavior taxonomy is more likely to beuseful if it is based on multiple methods and issupported by research on the antecedents andoutcomes of the behaviors.

From 1950 to 1980 most of the research onleadership behavior was focused on explaininghow leaders influence the attitudes and perfor-mance of individual subordinates. In the earlysurvey research, factor analysis of leadership be-havior questionnaires found support for twobroadly defined behavior categories involvingtask-oriented and relations-oriented behaviors.Different labels were used for these meta-catego-ries, including initiating structure and consider-ation (Fleishman, 1953; Halpin & Winer, 1957),production-centered and employee-centered lead-ership (Likert, 1961), instrumental and supportiveleadership (House, 1971), and performance andmaintenance behavior (Misumi & Peterson,1985). The specific behaviors defining the twometa-categories varied somewhat from one taxon-omy to another, and some relevant behaviorswere not adequately represented in any of thesetaxonomies. Finding the two meta-categories wasa good start, but researchers failed to conductsystematic follow-up research to build on the ini-tial discoveries.

Leadership behaviors directly concerned withencouraging and facilitating change did not getmuch attention in the early leadership research.Change behaviors are more relevant for execu-tives than for the low-level leaders studied inmuch of the early research, and they are moreimportant for the dynamic, uncertain environ-ments that have become so common for organi-zations in recent decades. In the 1980s one or twospecific change-oriented behaviors were includedin questionnaires used to measure charismatic andtransformational leadership, but leading changewas still not explicitly recognized as a distinctmeta-category. Researchers in Sweden and theUnited States (Ekvall & Arvonen, 1991; Yukl,1999; Yukl, Gordon, & Taber, 2002) eventuallyfound evidence for the construct validity of aleading-change meta-category. The classificationof change-oriented behavior as a distinct and

2012 67Yukl

meaningful meta-category provided importantnew insights about effective leadership.

In most of the early research on leadershipbehavior the focus was on describing how leadersinfluence subordinates and internal activities inthe work unit. Leader behavior descriptions wereusually obtained from subordinates who had littleopportunity to observe their leaders interactingwith people outside the work unit. Thus, it is notsurprising that few leadership studies examinedexternal (“boundary-spanning”) behavior, andonly a few leader behavior taxonomies includedany external behaviors (e.g., Stogdill, Goode, &Day, 1962). However, in the late 1970s and early1980s, descriptive research on managers foundthat it is important to influence bosses, peers, andoutsiders as well as subordinates (Kaplan, 1984;Kotter, 1982; Mintzberg, 1973), and later researchon teams found that boundary-spanning behavioris important for effective team performance (e.g.,Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Joshi, Pandey, & Han,2009; Marrone, 2010). The importance anduniqueness of external leadership behavior pro-vides justification for classifying it as a separatemeta-category.

Hierarchical Behavior Taxonomy

The hierarchical taxonomy proposed in thisarticle describes leadership behaviors usedto influence the performance of a team, work

unit, or organization. The four meta-categoriesand their component behaviors are shown inTable 1. Each meta-category has a differentprimary objective, but the objectives all involvedeterminants of performance. For task-orientedbehavior the primary objective is to accomplishwork in an efficient and reliable way. For rela-tions-oriented behavior the primary objective isto increase the quality of human resources andrelations, which is sometimes called “humancapital.” For change-oriented behavior the pri-mary objectives are to increase innovation, col-lective learning, and adaptation to the externalenvironment. For external leadership behaviorthe primary objectives are to acquire necessaryinformation and resources, and to promote anddefend the interests of the team or organization.In addition to these differences in primary objec-

tives, each meta-category includes unique specificbehaviors for achieving the objectives. The rele-vance of each component behavior depends onaspects of the situation, and the effect is notalways positive for the primary objective or forother outcomes.

The proposed taxonomy builds on the exten-sive factor analysis research by Yukl and col-leagues (2002), and it also reflects findings inother taxonomic research linking specific behav-iors to the performance of a team or organization.The three meta-categories in the Yukl and col-leagues (2002) taxonomy were retained, but an-other component on task-oriented behavior(problem solving) was added, consulting and del-egating were combined into a broader relations-oriented component (empowering), and takingrisks to promote change was included in a broaderchange-oriented component (advocating change).The new taxonomy also includes a fourth meta-category (external behavior). Two of the compo-nent behaviors (networking and representing)were not included in the questionnaire used forthe Yukl and colleagues (2002) research, and thethird component (external monitoring) was intheir questionnaire but it was included in thechange-oriented meta-category.

Table1Hierarchical Taxonomyof LeadershipBehaviors

Task-oriented ClarifyingPlanningMonitoring operationsProblem solving

Relations-oriented SupportingDevelopingRecognizingEmpowering

Change-oriented Advocating changeEnvisioning changeEncouraging innovationFacilitating collective learning

External NetworkingExternal monitoringRepresenting

68 NovemberAcademy of Management Perspectives

OverviewofResearchonEffects ofLeaderBehavior

Much of the research on effects of leader be-havior has been guided by popular leadershiptheories that emphasized one or two broadly

defined behaviors. Early leadership theories suchas path-goal theory (House, 1971), leadership sub-stitutes theory (Kerr & Jermier, 1978), situationalleadership theory (Hersey & Blanchard, 1977),and the managerial grid (Blake & Mouton, 1964)emphasized task-oriented and relations-orientedbehavior, and these meta-categories were used inmuch of the research conducted from 1960 to1980. Reviews and meta-analyses of results fromhundreds of studies concluded that both meta-categories are related to independent measures ofleadership effectiveness (DeRue, Nahrgang, Well-man, & Humphrey, 2011; Judge, Piccolo, &Ilies, 2004).

Since the 1980s, much of the research on theeffects of leadership behavior has been based ontheories of transformational and charismatic lead-ership (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999; Bass, 1985;Conger & Kanungo, 1987; House, 1977; Shamir,House, & Arthur, 1993). As in the earlier re-search, most of these studies reported results onlyfor composite scores on behavior meta-categoriesincluded in the theory. Reviews and meta-analy-ses of this research found that transformationalleadership was related to indicators of leadershipeffectiveness in a majority of studies, but resultswere inconsistent for transactional leadership andcharismatic leadership (De Groot, Kiker, & Cross,2000; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Lowe, Kroeck, &Sivasubramaniam, 1996; Wang, Oh, Courtright,& Colbert, 2011; Yukl, 2013).

The research on effects of broadly defined be-haviors has limitations that make the results dif-ficult to interpret. The limitations include differ-ences in the way behavior is defined and measuredfrom study to study, use of composite scores basedon diverse component behaviors that do not havethe same effects, the exclusion of other relevantbehaviors likely to be confounded with the mea-sured behaviors, and over-reliance on weak re-search methods such as same-source survey stud-ies. The results found for independent measures of

leadership effectiveness were much weaker thanresults found for same-source measures, especiallywhen objective performance measures wereused (Burke et al., 2006; Kaiser, Hogan, &Craig, 2008).

The popularity of survey research on meta-categories may have inhibited research on effectsof specific behaviors, because the number of stud-ies on them is much smaller. The research oneffects of specific leadership behaviors includedseveral types of studies. Some studies used a be-havior description questionnaire, but other studiesused behavior descriptions from observation, dia-ries, or critical incidents. Several multiple-casestudies used interviews, records, and other datacollection methods to investigate how leader de-cisions and actions influenced performance for ateam or organization, and the behavior of effectiveand ineffective leaders was usually compared. Afew studies used laboratory or field experiments inwhich leader behavior was manipulated to assessthe effects on subordinate performance. The find-ings in this research provide evidence that each ofthe 15 specific behaviors in the proposed taxon-omy is relevant for effective leadership.

Effectivenessof Specific LeaderBehaviors

In this section, the relevance of each specificcomponent behavior is briefly explained, andthe research linking it to effective leadership is

cited. The research includes studies on dyadic,group, and organizational leadership. Most studiesexamined effects of behavior by individual leadersand included an independent source of informa-tion about leadership effectiveness, such as ratingsby superiors or objective performance measures.

Task-OrientedBehaviors

As noted earlier, the primary purpose of task-oriented behaviors is to ensure that people, equip-ment, and other resources are used in an efficientway to accomplish the mission of a group or or-ganization. Specific component behaviors includeplanning and organizing work-unit activities, clar-ifying roles and objectives, monitoring work-unitoperations, and resolving work-related problems.

2012 69Yukl

Planning

This broadly defined behavior includes makingdecisions about objectives and priorities, organiz-ing work, assigning responsibilities, scheduling ac-tivities, and allocating resources among differentactivities. More specifically, activity planning in-volves scheduling activities and assigning tasks ina way that will accomplish task objectives andavoid delays, duplication of effort, and wastedresources. Project planning includes identifyingessential action steps; determining an appropriatesequence and schedule for them; deciding whoshould do each action step; and determining whatsupplies, equipment, and other resources are nec-essary. The planning often requires informationprovided by other people such as subordinates,peers, bosses, and outsiders. Negative forms of thisbehavior include making plans that are superficialor unrealistic. Several types of research provideevidence that planning can enhance a leader’seffectiveness, including survey studies (e.g., Kim& Yukl, 1995; Shipper, 1991; Shipper & Dillard,2000; Shipper & Wilson, 1992; Yukl, Wall, &Lepsinger, 1990), incident and diary studies(e.g., Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Morse & Wag-ner, 1978; Yukl & Van Fleet, 1982), and mul-tiple-case studies (e.g., Kotter, 1982; Van Fleet& Yukl, 1986).

Clarifying

Leaders use clarifying to ensure that people under-stand what to do, how to do it, and the expectedresults. Clarifying includes explaining work re-sponsibilities; assigning tasks; communicating ob-jectives, priorities, and deadlines; setting perfor-mance standards; and explaining any relevantrules, policies, and standard procedures. Settingclear, specific, and challenging but realistic goalsusually improves performance by a group (Locke& Latham, 1990). Negative forms of clarifyinginclude failing to provide clear assignments, set-ting vague or easy goals, providing inconsistentinstructions that create role ambiguity, and givingexcessively detailed directions (micromanaging).Evidence that clarifying can enhance leadershipeffectiveness is provided by survey studies (e.g.,Kim & Yukl, 1995; Shipper, 1991; Shipper &

Dillard, 2000; Shipper & Wilson, 1992; Yukl &Kanuk, 1979; Yukl et al., 1990), incident anddiary studies (e.g., Amabile, Schatzel, Moneta, &Kramer, 2004; Yukl & Van Fleet, 1982), compar-ative case studies (e.g., Van Fleet & Yukl, 1986),an executive team simulation study (Zalatan,2005), a laboratory experiment (Kirkpatrick &Locke, 1996), and field experiments (Latham &Baldes, 1975; Latham & Yukl, 1976).

Monitoring

Leaders use monitoring to assess whether peopleare carrying out their assigned tasks, the work isprogressing as planned, and tasks are being per-formed adequately. Information gathered frommonitoring is used to identify problems and op-portunities and to determine if changes are neededin plans and procedures. Information from moni-toring can also be used to guide the use of rela-tions-oriented behaviors such as praise or coach-ing. There are many different ways to monitoroperations, including directly observing activities,examining recorded activities or communications,using information systems, examining required re-ports, and holding performance review sessions.Negative examples include types of monitoringthat are intrusive, excessive, superficial, or irrele-vant. Evidence that monitoring can improve lead-ership effectiveness is provided by survey studies(e.g., Kim & Yukl, 1995; Wang, Tsui, & Xin,2011; Yukl et al., 1990), studies using direct ob-servation or diaries (e.g., Amabile et al., 2004;Brewer, Wilson, & Beck, 1994; Komaki, 1986),comparative case studies (e.g., Peters & Austin,1975; Van Fleet & Yukl, 1986), and a laboratoryexperiment (Larson & Callahan, 1990).

Problem Solving

Leaders use problem solving to deal with disrup-tions of normal operations and member behaviorthat is illegal, destructive, or unsafe. Serious dis-ruptions of the work usually require leadershipintervention, and other terms for problem solvinginclude “crisis management” and “disturbancehandling.” Effective leaders try to quickly identifythe cause of the problem, and they provide firm,confident direction to their team or work unit asthey cope with the problem. It is important to

70 NovemberAcademy of Management Perspectives

recognize the difference between operationalproblems that can be resolved quickly and com-plex problems likely to require change-orientedbehaviors and involvement by other leaders. Prob-lem solving also includes disciplinary actions inresponse to destructive, dangerous, or illegal be-havior by members of the work unit (e.g., theft,sabotage, violation of safety regulations, falsifica-tion of records). Problem solving can be proactiveas well as reactive, and effective leaders take theinitiative to identify likely problems and deter-mine how to avoid them or minimize their adverseeffects. Many things can be done to prepare thework unit or organization to respond effectively topredictable types of disruptions such as accidents,equipment failures, natural disasters, health emer-gencies, supply shortages, computer hacking, andterrorist attacks. Negative forms of problem solv-ing include ignoring signs of a serious problem,making a hasty response before identifying thecause of the problem, discouraging useful inputfrom subordinates, and reacting in ways that cre-ate more serious problems. Evidence that problemsolving is related to leadership effectiveness isprovided by survey studies (e.g., Kim & Yukl,1995; Morgeson, 2005; Yukl & Van Fleet, 1982;Yukl et al., 1990), studies using critical incidentsor diaries (e.g., Amabile et al., 2004; Boyatzis,1982; Yukl & Van Fleet, 1982), and comparativecase studies (e.g., Van Fleet & Yukl, 1986).

Relations-OrientedBehaviors

Leaders use relations-oriented behaviors to en-hance member skills, the leader–member relation-ship, identification with the work unit or organi-zation, and commitment to the mission. Specificcomponent behaviors include supporting, devel-oping, recognizing, and empowering.

Supporting

Leaders use supporting to show positive regard,build cooperative relationships, and help peoplecope with stressful situations. Examples includeshowing concern for the needs and feelings ofindividual team members, listening carefully whena member is worried or upset, providing supportand encouragement when there is a difficult or

stressful task, and expressing confidence thatsomeone can perform a difficult task. Supportingalso includes encouraging cooperation and mutualtrust and mediating conflicts among subordinates.A significant relationship between supporting andleadership effectiveness was found in survey stud-ies (e.g., Dorfman, Howell, Cotton, & Tate, 1992;Kim & Yukl, 1995; McDonough & Barczak, 1991;Yukl & Van Fleet, 1982; Yukl et al., 1990), instudies using incidents or diaries (e.g., Amabile etal., 2004; Druskat & Wheeler, 2003; Yukl & VanFleet, 1982), and in a laboratory experiment(Gilmore, Beehr, & Richter, 1979). Negativeforms of supporting include hostile, abusive be-havior. Research on abusive supervision finds thatit reduces trust, elicits resentment, and invitesretaliation (Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007; Tep-per, 2000).

Developing

Leaders use developing to increase the skills andconfidence of work-unit members and to facilitatetheir career advancement. Examples of developinginclude providing helpful career advice, informingpeople about relevant training opportunities,making assignments that allow learning from ex-perience, providing developmental coachingwhen it is needed, asking a group member toprovide instruction to a new member, arrangingpractice sessions or simulations to help membersimprove their skills, and providing opportunitiesto apply new skills on the job. Developing ismostly done with a subordinate or team, but someaspects may be used with a colleague or an inex-perienced new boss. A positive relationship be-tween developing subordinate skills and indicatorsof leadership effectiveness was found in surveystudies (e.g., Kim & Yukl, 1995; Yukl et al., 1990),in research using critical incidents and interviews(e.g., Morse & Wagner, 1978), in comparativecase studies (e.g., Bradford & Cohen, 1984; Ed-mondson, 2003b; Peters & Austin, 1985), and inan experiment (Tannenbaum, Smith-Jentsch,Salas, & Brannick, 1998).

Recognizing

Leaders use praise and other forms of recognitionto show appreciation to others for effective per-

2012 71Yukl

formance, significant achievements, and impor-tant contributions to the team or organization.Recognizing may involve an award presented in aceremony, or the leader’s recommendation for atangible reward such as a pay increase or bonus.Effective leaders are proactive in looking forthings that deserve recognition, and they providerecognition that is sincere, specific, and timely.Negative examples include providing excessiverecognition for trivial achievements, failing torecognize an important contribution, and takingcredit for another person’s ideas or achievements.Evidence for the positive effects of praise andrecognition on subordinate performance is pro-vided by survey research (e.g., Kim & Yukl, 1995;Shipper, 1991; Shipper & Wilson, 1992; Yukl &Kanuk, 1979), research with incidents or diaries(e.g., Amabile et al., 2004; Atwater, Dionne,Avolio, Camobreco, & Lau, 1996), and descrip-tive case studies (e.g., Kouzes & Posner, 1987;Peters & Waterman, 1982). A field experimentfound that increased use of praise by supervisorsimproved performance by employees (Wikoff, An-derson, & Crowell, 1983).

Empowering

Leaders can empower subordinates by giving themmore autonomy and influence over decisionsabout the work. One empowering decision proce-dure called consultation includes asking otherpeople for ideas and suggestions and taking theminto consideration when making a decision. Aneven stronger empowering decision procedurecalled delegation involves giving an individual orgroup the authority to make decisions formerlymade by the leader. When used in appropriateways, empowerment can increase decision quality,decision acceptance, job satisfaction, and skill de-velopment (Vroom & Yetton, 1973; Yukl, inpress). Ineffective forms of the behavior includeusing the supposedly empowering decision proce-dures in a way that allows no real influence, andgiving too much autonomy or influence to peoplewho are unable or unwilling to make gooddecisions.

The term “participative leadership” is some-times used to describe extensive use of empower-ing decision procedures, and many studies have

assessed the effects on subordinate attitudes andperformance. Meta-analyses of this research founda weak positive relationship with leadership effec-tiveness (e.g., Miller & Monge, 1986; Spector,1986; Wagner & Gooding, 1987). Stronger evi-dence that specific empowering decision proce-dures are related to leadership effectiveness hasbeen provided by survey studies that measured aleader’s use of consultation and delegation (e.g.,Kim & Yukl, 1995; Shipper & Wilson, 1992; Yuklet al., 1990), by research with critical incidentsand diaries (e.g., Amabile and colleagues, 2004;Druskat & Wheeler, 2003), by comparative casestudies (e.g., Bradford & Cohen, 1984; Edmond-son, 2003b; Kanter, 1983; Leana, 1986), and byfield experiments (Bragg & Andrews, 1973; Coch& French, 1948; Korsgaard, Schweiger, & Sapi-enza, 1995).

Change-OrientedBehaviors

Leaders use change-oriented behaviors to increaseinnovation, collective learning, and adaptation toexternal changes. Specific component behaviorsinclude advocating change, articulating an inspir-ing vision, encouraging innovation, and encour-aging collective learning. The first two compo-nent behaviors emphasize leader initiation andencouragement of change, whereas the secondtwo component behaviors emphasize leader facil-itation of emergent change processes.

Advocating Change

Explaining why change is urgently needed is a keyleadership behavior in theories of change manage-ment (e.g., Kotter, 1996; Nadler et al., 1995).When changes in the environment are gradualand no obvious crisis has occurred, people may failto recognize emerging threats or opportunities.Leaders can provide information showing howsimilar work units or competitors have better per-formance. Leaders can explain the undesirableoutcomes that are likely to occur if emerging prob-lems are ignored or new opportunities are ex-ploited by competitors. Influencing people to ac-cept the need for change involves increasing theirawareness of problems without creating an exces-sive level of distress that causes either denial ofthe problem or acceptance of easy but ineffective

72 NovemberAcademy of Management Perspectives

solutions (Heifetz, 1994). Resistance to change iscommon in organizations, and courage is requiredto persistently push for it when the leader’s careeris at risk. It is easier to gain support for makinginnovative changes when a leader can frame un-favorable events as an opportunity rather than athreat. The leader can propose a strategy for re-sponding to a threat or opportunity, but involvingpeople with relevant expertise usually results in abetter strategy and more commitment to imple-ment it. Negative forms of the behavior includeadvocating a costly major change when only in-cremental adjustments are necessary (McClelland,Liang, & Barker, 2009), or advocating acceptanceof a costly new initiative without considering theserious risks and obstacles (Finkelstein, 2003). Ev-idence that advocating relevant change is relatedto effective leadership is provided by comparativecase studies (e.g., Beer, 1988; Edmondson, 2003b;Heifetz, 1994; Kotter & Cohen, 2002; Tichy &Devanna, 1986) and by an experiment using asimulated team task (Marks, Zaccaro, & Ma-thieu, 2000).

Envisioning Change

An effective way for leaders to build commitmentto new strategies and initiatives is to articulate aclear, appealing vision of what can be attained bythe work unit or organization. A vision will bemore inspiring and motivating if it is relevant tothe values, ideals, and needs of followers and iscommunicated with colorful, emotional language(e.g., vivid imagery, metaphors, stories, symbols,and slogans). An ambitious, innovative vision isusually risky, and members of the team or organi-zation are more likely to accept it if the leader canbuild confidence that they will be successful (Na-dler, 1988). However, an appealing vision basedon false assumptions and wishful thinking candivert attention from innovative solutions thatare more likely to be successful (Mumford, Scott,Gaddis, & Strange, 2002). Consistently pursuing arisky and unrealistic vision is a major reason forserious performance declines in organizations witha charismatic leader (Finkelstein, 2003). Evidencethat articulating an appealing and inspiring visionis relevant for effective leadership is provided bysurvey studies (e.g., Baum, Locke, & Kirkpatrick,

1998; Elenkov, Judge, & Wright, 2005; Keller,2006; Kim & Yukl, 1995; Wang, Tsui, & Xin,2011; Yukl et al., 1990), comparative case studies(e.g., Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Emrich, Brower,Feldman, & Garland, 2001; Kotter & Cohen,2002; Roberts, 1985; Tichy & Devanna, 1986),and laboratory experiments (e.g., Awamleh &Gardner, 1999; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996).

Encouraging Innovation

There are many ways leaders can encourage, nur-ture, and facilitate creative ideas and innovationin a team or organization. Other terms that de-scribe aspects of this behavior include “intellec-tual stimulation” and “encouraging innovativethinking.” Leaders can encourage people to lookat problems from different perspectives, to thinkoutside the box when solving problems, to exper-iment with new ideas, and to find ideas in otherfields that can be applied to their current problemor task. By creating a climate of psychologicalsafety and mutual trust, a leader can encouragemembers of the team or organization to suggestnovel ideas. Leaders can also help to create anorganizational culture that values creativity andentrepreneurial activities, they can provide oppor-tunities and resources to develop new products orservices, and they can serve as champions or spon-sors for acceptance of innovative proposals. Evi-dence linking this type of change behavior toindicators of effective leadership is provided bysurvey studies (e.g., Bass & Yammarino, 1991;Elenkov, Judge, & Wright, 2005; Howell & Avo-lio, 1993; Keller, 2006; Waldman, Javidan, &Varella, 2004; Zhu, Chew & Spangler, 2005),comparative case studies (e.g., Edmondson,2003b; Eisenhardt, 1989; Kanter, 1983; Peters &Austin, 1985), a laboratory experiment (Red-mond, Mumford, & Teach, 1993), and a fieldexperiment (Barling, Weber, & Kelloway, 1996).

Facilitating Collective Learning

There are many ways leaders can encourage andfacilitate collective learning of new knowledgerelevant for improving the performance of a groupor organization (Berson, Nemanich, Waldman,Galvin, & Keller, 2006; Popper & Lipshitz, 1998).Collective learning may involve improvement of

2012 73Yukl

current strategies and work methods (exploita-tion) or discovery of new ones (exploration).Leaders can support internal activities used todiscover new knowledge (e.g., research projects,small-scale experiments) or activities to acquirenew knowledge from external sources. Leaders canuse practices that facilitate learning by an opera-tions team (e.g., after-activity reviews, bench-marking) or a project development team (e.g.,providing resources and opportunity to test newideas). By helping to create a climate of psycho-logical safety, leaders can increase learning frommistakes and failures. To enhance collectivelearning from both successes and failures, leadersmust avoid common tendencies to misinterpretcauses and over-generalize implications (Baumard& Starbuck, 2005). Leaders can help their teamsto better recognize failures, analyze their causes,and identify remedies to avoid a future recurrence(Cannon & Edmondson, 2005). Leaders can alsoinfluence how new knowledge or a new technol-ogy is diffused and applied by explaining why it isimportant, guiding the process of learning how touse it, and encouraging the use of knowledge-sharing programs. Leaders can help people de-velop a better understanding about the determi-nants of organizational performance. Moreaccurate, shared mental models will improve stra-tegic decisions and organizational performance.Evidence that facilitating collective learning isrelated to effective leadership is provided by com-parative case studies (e.g., Baumard & Starbuck,2005; Beer, 1988; Edmondson, 1999; Edmondson2002, 2003a) and by experiments with teams (e.g.,Ellis, Mendel, & Nir, 2006; Tannenbaum, Smith-Jentsch, & Behson, 1998).

External LeadershipBehaviors

In addition to influencing internal events in thework unit, most leaders can facilitate performancewith behaviors that provide relevant informationabout outside events, get necessary resources andassistance, and promote the reputation and inter-ests of the work unit. Three distinct externalbehaviors include networking, external monitor-ing, and representing.

Networking

It is important for most leaders to build and main-tain favorable relationships with peers, superiors,and outsiders who can provide information, re-sources, and political support (Ibarra & Hunter,2007; Kaplan, 1984; Kotter, 1982; Michael &Yukl, 1973). Networking includes attendingmeetings, professional conferences, and ceremo-nies; joining relevant associations, clubs, and so-cial networks; socializing informally or communi-cating with network members; and usingrelationship-building tactics (e.g., finding com-mon interests, doing favors, using ingratiation). Inaddition to developing their own networks, lead-ers can encourage relevant networking by subor-dinates. Networking is a source of informationthat facilitates other leadership behaviors, butthere are potential costs if it is overdone (e.g.,time demands, role conflicts). Evidence that net-working can facilitate leadership effectiveness isprovided by survey studies (e.g., Kim & Yukl,1995; Yukl et al., 1990); studies with incidentdiaries, interviews, or observation (e.g., Amabileet al., 2004; Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Druskat &Wheeler, 2003; Luthans, Rosenkrantz, & Hen-nessey, 1985); and comparative case studies (e.g.,Katz & Tushman, 1983; Tushman & Katz, 1980).

External Monitoring

This external behavior includes analyzing infor-mation about relevant events and changes in theexternal environment and identifying threats andopportunities for the leader’s group or organiza-tion. Information may be acquired from the lead-er’s network of contacts with outsiders, by study-ing relevant publications and industry reports, byconducting market research, and by studying thedecisions and actions of competitors and oppo-nents. Other terms for external monitoring are“environmental scanning” or “scouting.” The ex-tent to which top executives accurately perceivethe external environment of their organization isrelated to financial performance (Bourgeois,1985), and it is more important when the envi-ronment is dynamic and competitive. For a teamor work unit in an organization, the importance ofexternal monitoring depends on how much their

74 NovemberAcademy of Management Perspectives

performance is likely to be affected by externalevents. Likewise, the need to closely monitorevents in other subunits is determined by depen-dence on them. Evidence that external monitor-ing is related to indicators of effective leadership isprovided by survey research (Dol-linger, 1984), research with critical incidents anddiaries (e.g., Druskat & Wheeler, 2003; Katz &Tushman, 1981; Luthans et al., 1985), researchwith comparative cases (e.g., Geletkanycz &Hambrick, 1997; Grinyer, Mayes, & McKiernan,1990; Van Fleet & Yukl, 1986), and a study usingan executive team simulation (Zalatan, 2005).

Representing

Leaders usually represent their team or organiza-tion in transactions with superiors, peers, and out-siders (e.g., clients, suppliers, investors, and jointventure partners). Representing includes lobbyingfor resources and assistance, promoting and de-fending the reputation of the team or organiza-tion, negotiating agreements, and coordinatingrelated activities. Other terms used to describethis type of leadership responsibility include “pro-moter,” “ambassador,” and “external coordinator.”Leaders of project teams have more successfulprojects when they have sufficient influence toobtain essential resources and support from topmanagement (Katz & Allen, 1985). For workunits that have high interdependence with othersubunits of the organization or with outsiders suchas suppliers, clients, and distributors, it is impor-tant for the leaders to coordinate activities, re-solve disagreements, and buffer work-unit mem-bers from interference (Ancona & Caldwell,1992). Top executives need to influence externalstakeholders whose confidence and support areimportant to the success and survival of theorganization (Fanelli & Misangyi, 2006). Repre-senting also includes some political tactics thatcan be used to influence decisions relevant for aleader’s work unit or organization, but research onthe use of political tactics by leaders in organiza-tions is still very limited. Evidence that represent-ing is related to effective leadership is provided byresearch using survey questionnaires (e.g., Ancona& Caldwell, 1992; Dorfman, Howell, Cotton, &Tate, 1992; Yukl, Wall, & Lepsinger, 1990), re-

search with incident diaries and interviews (e.g.,Amabile et al., 2004; Ancona & Caldwell, 1992;Campbell, Dunnette, Arvey, & Hellervik, 1973;Druskat & Wheeler, 2003), and comparative casestudies (e.g., Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Edmond-son, 2003b; Kanter, 1983; Van Fleet &Yukl, 1986).

FutureResearch

Much of the research on effects of leader be-havior has examined how often the behavioris used, but the effects also depend on other

conditions that are seldom considered. To im-prove leadership theory and practice we need toknow more about how much the behaviors areused, when they are used, how well they are used,why they are used, who uses them, the context fortheir use, and joint effects on different outcomes.This part of the article explains the need for moreresearch on the quality and timing of behavior,patterns of behavior, leader skills, leader values,trade-offs for multiple outcomes, situational vari-ables, the joint effects of multiple leaders, and thejoint effects of behavior and formal programs.

QualityandTimingofBehavior

Most leader behavior studies emphasize how muchthe behavior is used rather than how well it isused. Few studies have examined the quality andtiming of the behavior or checked the possibilityof a non-linear relationship between behavior andthe performance criterion. There is growing evi-dence that most types of leadership behavior canbe overused as well as underused, and the optimalamount of behavior is often a moderate amountrather than the maximum amount (e.g., Fleish-man & Harris, 1962; Gebert, Boerner, & Lan-wehr, 2003; Pierce & Aguinis, in press). For ex-ample, too much clarifying can limit innovation,empowerment of subordinates, and developmentof their problem-solving skills, but too much au-tonomy can result in coordination problems,lower efficiency, and inconsistent treatment ofclients. Even when doing more of a behaviordoes not reduce the benefits or have negative sideeffects, spending more time than necessary on abehavior means that the leader is losing the op-portunity to use more beneficial types of behavior.

2012 75Yukl

Timing is often a critical determinant of effec-tiveness for a behavior, and acting too early or toolate can reduce the effectiveness of many behav-iors. For example, taking action to avoid a prob-lem or resolve it quickly is usually more effectivethan waiting until the problem becomes very se-rious and difficult to resolve. Praise for an achieve-ment or contribution is usually more effectivewhen it is given promptly rather than waitingmonths to mention it in a formal performancereview. Research is needed to identify optimallevels of the behaviors and when the behaviors aremost likely to be effective.

PatternsofBehavior

In most research on the effects of leader behaviorthe focus is on the independent effects of eachmeta-category or individual behavior, but in manycases the effects depend in part on what otherbehaviors the leader uses. To understand why aleader is effective requires that we examine howdifferent behaviors interact in a mutually consis-tent way. The effective pattern of behavior mayinvolve multiple components of the same meta-category or component behaviors from differentmeta-categories. For example, monitoring opera-tions is useful for discovering problems, but unlesssomething is done to solve the problems, moni-toring will not contribute to leader effectiveness.Monitoring is more effective when used togetherwith other behaviors such as problem solving,coaching, and recognizing.

The descriptive research on effective leaderssuggests that they use complementary behaviorswoven together into a complex tapestry, and thewhole is greater than the sum of the parts (Kaplan,1988). Similar results were found in research usingincident diaries from team members (Amabile etal., 2004). The pattern of specific componentbehaviors is usually more important than howmuch each behavior is used, and more than onepattern of behavior may be used to accomplish thesame outcome. Sometimes it is necessary for aleader to find an appropriate balance for behaviorsthat appear inconsistent, such as directing versusempowering (Kaiser & Overfield, 2010). Moreresearch is needed to determine how interacting

behaviors are used effectively by leaders in differ-ent situations.

MultipleOutcomesandTrade-Offs

Each specific type of leadership behavior can in-fluence more than one type of outcome or perfor-mance determinant. For example, developing isclassified as a relations-oriented behavior becausethe primary objective is usually to help peopleimprove their capabilities and advance their ca-reers. But some types of developing are used toimprove performance in the current job (a taskobjective) or facilitate the successful use of aninnovative new technology (a change objective).Consulting with team members about the actionplan for a new project may increase member com-mitment (human relations), improve the use ofavailable personnel and resources (efficiency), andidentify more innovative ways to satisfy clients(adaptation).

Specific behaviors with positive outcomes formore than one objective are desirable and canincrease a leader’s effectiveness. However, someleader behaviors have unintended side effects thatare negative rather than positive. A behavior canhave positive effects for some outcomes and neg-ative effects for other outcomes. For example,delegating responsibility for determining how todo a task to someone with little experience mayincrease learning for the person, but it can reduceshort-term efficiency (e.g., more errors, slower taskcompletion, lower quality). Some decisions in-tended to benefit employees (e.g., increasing payand benefits) may increase costs and reduce short-term financial performance. Some decisions in-tended to reduce costs can reduce human relationsand resources (i.e., downsizing can result in lesscommitment for remaining employees and loss ofunique knowledge). Some decisions made to re-duce costs (e.g., reducing research activities, out-sourcing operations that involve unique knowl-edge) can also reduce future adaptation. Thetrade-offs for different outcomes are described byleadership theories such as competing values the-ory (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983) and flexibleleadership theory (Yukl, 2008). More research isneeded to discover how effective leaders use spe-cific behaviors that enhance multiple outcomes,

76 NovemberAcademy of Management Perspectives

minimize negative side effects, and balance diffi-cult trade-offs.

SituationalVariables

The effects of a leader’s behavior also depend onthe situation. Each meta-category includes behav-iors that are often relevant for influencing perfor-mance outcomes, but aspects of the situation de-termine which component behaviors are relevant.Effective leaders analyze the situation and identifythe specific behaviors that are relevant. The abil-ity to use a wide range of specific behaviors andadapt them to the situation is sometimes called“behavioral flexibility,” and it is related to effec-tive leadership (Hart & Quinn, 1993; Hooijberg,1996; Yukl & Mahsud, 2010). Unfortunately,most studies on situational moderator variableshave used behavior meta-categories, and the re-sults are weaker and more difficult to interpret fora broad category than for specific behaviors. Forexample, the research testing contingency theo-ries about the effects of task-oriented and rela-tions-oriented behaviors failed to find strong, con-sistent results (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Ahearne, &Bommer, 1995). There has been less research onsituational moderators for the other meta-catego-ries, and there is little systematic research to iden-tify situations where specific leadership behaviorsare most likely to impact performance outcomes.More research is needed to learn how leadersadapt their behavior to changing situations and toassess the importance of behavioral flexibility fordifferent types of leaders. The common practice ofexamining one situational variable at a time is lessuseful than examining how the situational vari-ables that define common situations for leadersjointly determine which behaviors are mostrelevant.

Leader Skills

Skills involve the ability to perform some type ofactivity or task, and some studies on effectiveleadership use skills rather than observable behav-iors as the independent variables. Different tax-onomies have been proposed for classifying skills,and some scholars define them more broadly thanothers. The early research identified three broadlydefined skills (Katz, 1955; Mann, 1965): Techni-

cal skills are primarily concerned with things, in-terpersonal skills are primarily concerned withpeople, and conceptual skills are primarily con-cerned with ideas and concepts. Other types ofskills that have been used in leadership researchinclude political skills (Ferris, Treadway, Perrewé,Brouer, Douglas, & Lux, 2007), administrativeskills, and competencies involving the ability touse specific types of behavior such as planning andcoaching (e.g., Mumford, Campion, & Morgeson,2007). Skills are not equivalent to actual behav-ior, but they can help us understand why someleaders are able to select relevant behaviors anduse them more effectively. A combination of skillsand traits can help to explain why some leadersare able to recognize what pattern of behavior isrelevant, how much of each behavior is optimal,and when to use the behaviors. The research onhow skills can enhance the effects of leader be-havior is still very limited, and more studies areneeded to discover how a leader’s skills and per-sonality traits influence the choice of behaviorsand leader flexibility in adapting behavior to dif-ferent situations.

LeaderValuesand Integrity

The effects of the specific component behaviorsalso depend on how much the leader is trusted bypeople he or she wants to influence. Most types ofleadership behavior can be used in ethical or un-ethical ways, and a leader who is not trusted willhave less influence. Leader values and integritydid not get much attention in the early researchon effective leadership, but interest in them hasincreased in recent years (Brown & Trevino,2006). Values such as honesty, altruism, compas-sion, fairness, courage, and humility are empha-sized in servant leadership theory (Greenleaf,1970), spiritual leadership theory (Fry, 2003), andauthentic leadership theory (Avolio, Gardner,Walumbwa, Luthans, & Mayo, 2004; George,2003). Proponents of these theories contend thatleaders whose behavior reflects these values willbe more effective. However, research on thesesubjects is still very limited, and more studies areneeded to understand how leader values influencethe use of the specific behaviors and the effects ofthe behaviors.

2012 77Yukl

Multiple LeadersandShared Leadership

Most of the research on the outcomes of leader-ship behavior examines relationships only for in-dividual leaders. However, organizations havemany leaders who can influence important deci-sions and determine how successfully they areimplemented (Mintzberg, Raisinghani, & Theo-ret, 1976; Schweiger, Anderson, & Locke, 1985).Sometimes two or more leaders have shared re-sponsibility for an activity or project, and some-times leaders have different but interdependentresponsibilities. The performance of an organiza-tion depends in part on the level of cooperationand coordination among interdependent leaders(Yukl, 2008; Yukl & Lepsinger, 2004). It is moredifficult to achieve a high level of cooperationwhen the leaders do not share the same objectivesor have the same priorities. In some cases, oneleader’s actions to improve subunit performancecan be detrimental to the performance of othersubunits and the overall organization. For exam-ple, a subunit leader may gain control of resourcesthat other subunits need and could use more ef-fectively. Several scholars have discussed howshared or distributed leadership is related to teamor organizational effectiveness (e.g., Brown &Gioia, 2002; Carson, Tesluk, & Marrone, 2007;Denis, Lamothe, & Langley, 2001; Friedrich,Vessey, Schuelke, Ruark, & Mumford, 2009;Pearce & Conger, 2003). However, more researchis needed to discover how the use of the specificbehaviors by different leaders can influence theireffectiveness.

BehaviorsandFormalPrograms

Management programs and systems can enhancethe effects of direct leadership behaviors. For ex-ample, encouraging innovative thinking is morelikely to increase innovation when an organiza-tion has a climate of psychological safety for risktaking and appropriate rewards for creative ideasabout improving products and processes. Programsand structures can also limit the use of leadershipbehaviors or nullify their effects. For example, it isdifficult to empower subordinates when they mustfollow elaborate rules and standard procedures fordoing the work. Management programs and sys-

tems can also serve as substitutes for some types ofdirect behaviors. For example, company-widetraining programs for widely relevant skills canreduce the amount of training that managers needto give their immediate subordinates. Top execu-tives have responsibility for implementing andrevising programs, and the effectiveness of pro-grams depends on support by lower-level manag-ers. The effects of leader behavior and manage-ment programs have been examined separately,but more systematic research is needed to examinetheir joint and interacting effects on organiza-tional performance.

SummaryandRecommendations

The proposed hierarchical taxonomy facilitatesthe integration of important findings in re-search on leader behavior constructs and re-

search about the effects of specific behaviors onteam or organizational performance. More thanhalf a century of research provides support for theconclusion that leaders can enhance the perfor-mance of a team, work unit, or organization byusing a combination of specific task, relations,change, and external behaviors that are relevantfor their situation. Why the behaviors are impor-tant for effective leadership is explained better bytheories about the determinants of group and or-ganizational performance than by leadership the-ories focused on motivating individual followers.A limitation of the conclusions about effectiveleadership is that enhancing performance is notthe only basis for evaluating effectiveness, and theimportance accorded different criteria affects theselection of relevant behaviors for a taxonomy.

The hierarchical taxonomy can be used to ex-plain results found in the extensive research onbehavior meta-categories not used in the taxon-omy, such as transformational and transactionalleadership. The results found in survey research ontransformational leadership can be explained aseffects of specific behaviors used to compute thecomposite score for each leader (e.g., Yukl, 1999;Yukl, O’Donnell, & Taber, 2009). Individualizedconsideration includes supporting and develop-ing, inspirational motivation includes envision-ing change, and intellectual stimulation in-cludes aspects of encouraging innovation.

78 NovemberAcademy of Management Perspectives

Idealized influence is primarily a measure ofperceived leader integrity involving consistencybetween leader actions and espoused values.Transactional leadership includes one task-ori-ented behavior (monitoring), one relations-ori-ented behavior (recognizing), and communica-tion of reward contingencies, which are usuallyspecified by the formal compensation program.

The taxonomy described in this articleshould not be viewed as the final solution forclassifying leadership behavior. Behavior con-structs are conceptual tools, and there is no ob-jective reality for them. They are most usefulwhen they can be measured accurately, they canpredict and explain leader influence on importantoutcomes, and they can improve leadership devel-opment programs. Future research may discoveradditional component behaviors that should beincluded (e.g., implementing change). Some com-ponent behaviors may need to be expanded toinclude forms of the behavior not explicitly in-cluded in the current descriptions. Some of thebroader component behaviors in the current tax-onomy may need to be subdivided in the future ifit is found that narrower components would pro-vide a better explanation of leadership effective-ness. However, at this time it does not appearworthwhile to make the taxonomy any more com-plex. The current version is easy to remember andeasy to use for developing an observation checklistor a coding guide (the behavior definitions areprovided in the appendix).

Future research may also provide justificationfor adding more meta-categories, and a possiblecandidate is ethical and socially responsible lead-ership. One component of this meta-categorycould be leadership behavior that encourages eth-ical practices. Some examples are communicatingethical standards, encouraging ethical conduct,modeling ethical behavior, and opposing unethi-cal conduct. Another component could be lead-ership behavior that encourages corporate socialresponsibility. Examples include making decisionsthat consider the needs of different stakeholders,encouraging support of worthy community serviceactivities, encouraging improvements in productsafety, and recommending practices that reduceharmful effects for the environment. Leadership

decisions and actions intended to benefit employ-ees, customers, or the environment are controver-sial if they do not also benefit the organization(Cameron, 2011; Waldman, 2011; Waldman &Siegel, 2008). Research on the effects of ethicaland responsible leadership is still very limited, andmore research is needed to identify relevant be-haviors and assess their short-term and long-termeffects. The focus of this article is on leadershipbehaviors intended to improve performance, andmore research is needed to determine if ethicaland responsible leadership should be included as aseparate meta-category in a taxonomy for describ-ing performance-enhancing behaviors.

The hierarchical taxonomy provides a broadperspective for understanding the types of behav-ior that determine how effective a leader will be,but the specific component behaviors are muchmore useful than the meta-categories for develop-ing better contingency theories and practicalguidelines for leaders. Moderator variables forsome of the specific behaviors have been suggested(Yukl, 2013), but more research is needed on thejoint effects of situational variables. Other rele-vant conditions that need more attention in fu-ture research include non-linear relationships be-tween behavior and outcomes, reciprocalcausality, lagged effects, effects for different out-comes, effects of negative forms of the behaviors,effects of different combinations of specific behav-iors, mediating processes that explain why thebehaviors influence performance, the joint effectsof multiple leaders, multi-level effects of behav-iors, and joint effects for behaviors and programs.

When designing future studies on leadership itis important to select research methods that areappropriate for the type of knowledge soughtrather than merely using a method that is familiaror convenient. Each research method has limita-tions, and it is desirable to use multiple methodswhenever feasible. Strong research methodsshould be used more often, including longitudinalfield studies and experiments with manipulationof leader behaviors in simulated teams or organi-zations to assess immediate and delayed effects.More studies should include incident diaries orvideo recording of leaders. When behavior ques-tionnaires are used, more effort should be made to

2012 79Yukl

improve measurement accuracy and minimize re-spondent biases (e.g., train respondents to under-stand and recognize the behaviors). If a survey isconducted for a sample of homogeneous leaders(e.g., project team managers, coaches of athleticteams, public administrators), it should includesome behavior items that are directly relevant forthe sample rather than relying only on a behaviorquestionnaire with generic examples. Leadershipeffectiveness should be assessed from the perspec-tive of multiple stakeholders and with multiplecriteria that include objective measures of workunit or organizational performance.

Finally, it is important to recognize that observ-able leadership behaviors are not the same asskills, values, personality traits, or roles. Theseother constructs can be useful for understandingeffective leadership, but they differ in importantways from observable behaviors. When feasible,future studies should investigate how the differenttypes of constructs jointly explain leader influenceon work unit performance and other outcomes.

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

S. J. (2004). Leader behaviors and the work environmentfor creativity: Perceived leader support. Leadership Quar-terly, 15(1), 5–32.

Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Bridging theboundary: External activity and performance in organi-zational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 634–665.

Atwater, L. E., Dionne, S. D., Avolio, B. J., Camobreco,J. F., & Lau, A. W. (1996). Leader attributes and behaviorspredicting emergence of leader effectiveness (Technical Re-port 1044). Alexandria, VA. U.S. Army Research Insti-tute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-exam-ining the components of transformational and transac-tional leadership using the multifactor leadership ques-tionnaire. Journal of Occupational and OrganizationalPsychology, 72, 441–462.

Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans,F., & Mayo, D. R. (2004). Unlocking the mask: A lookat the process by which authentic leaders impact fol-lower attitudes and behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 15,801–823.

Awamleh, R., & Gardner, W. L. (1999). Perceptions ofleader charisma and effectiveness: The effects of visioncontent, delivery, and organizational performance. Lead-ership Quarterly, 10(3), 345–373.

Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Effects oftransformational leadership training on attitudinal and

financial outcomes: A field experiment. Journal of Ap-plied Psychology, 81, 827–832.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expec-tations. New York: Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (2008). Handbook of leadership: Theory, research,and managerial applications (4th ed.). New York: FreePress.

Bass, B. M., & Yammarino, F. J. (1991). Congruence of selfand others’ leadership ratings of naval officers for under-standing successful performance. Applied Psychology: AnInternational Review, 40(4), 437–454.

Baum, R. J., Locke, E. A., & Kirkpatrick, S. (1998). Alongitudinal study of the relation of vision and visioncommunication to venture growth in entrepreneurialfirms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 43–54.

Baumard, P., & Starbuck, W. H. (2005). Learning fromfailures: Why it may not happen. Long Range Planning,38, 281–298.

Beer, M. (1988). The critical path for change: Keys tosuccess and failure in six companies. In R. H. Kilmann &T. J. Covin (Eds.), Corporate transformation: Revitalizingorganizations for a competitive world (pp. 17–45). SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Berson, Y., Nemanich, L. A., Waldman, D. A., Galvin,B. M., & Keller, R. T. (2006). Leadership and organiza-tional learning: A multiple levels perspective. LeadershipQuarterly, 17, 577–594.

Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid.Houston: Gulf Publishing.

Bourgeois, L. J. (1985). Strategic goals, perceived uncer-tainty, and economic performance in volatile environ-ments. Academy of Management Journal, 3, 548–573.

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

Bradford, D. L., & Cohen, A. R. (1984). Managing forexcellence: The guide to developing high performance orga-nizations. New York: John Wiley.

Bragg, J., & Andrews, I. R. (1973). Participative decisionmaking: An experimental study in a hospital. Journal ofApplied Behavioral Science, 9, 727–735.

Brewer, N., Wilson, C., & Beck, K. (1994). Supervisorybehavior and team performance amongst police patrolsergeants. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psy-chology, 67, 69–78.

Brown, M. E., & Trevino, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership:A review and future directions. Leadership Quarterly,17(6), 595–616.

Brown, M. W., & Gioia, D. A. (2002). Making things click:Distributive leadership in an online division of an offlineorganization. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 397–419.

Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G. F., Salas,E., & Halpin, S. M. (2006). What types of leadershipbehaviors are functional in teams? Leadership Quarterly,17, 288–307.

Cameron, K. (2011). Responsible leadership as virtuousleadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 98, 25–35.

Campbell, J. P., Dunnette, M. D., Arvey, R. D., & Heller-vik, L. W. (1973). The development and evaluation ofbehaviorally based rating scales. Journal of Applied Psy-chology, 57, 15–22.

80 NovemberAcademy of Management Perspectives

Cannon, M. D., & Edmondson, A. C. (2005). Failing tolearn and learning to fail (intelligently): How great or-ganizations put failure to work to improve and innovate.Long Range Planning Journal, 38(3), 299–320.

Carson, J., Tesluk, P., & Marrone, J. (2007). Shared lead-ership in teams: An investigation of antecedent condi-tions and performance. Academy of Management Journal,50, 1217–1234.

Coch, L., & French, J. R. P. Jr. (1948). Overcoming resis-tance to change. Human Relations, 1, 512–532.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. (1987). Toward a behavioraltheory of charismatic leadership in organizational set-tings. Academy of Management Review, 12, 637–647.

De Groot, T., Kiker, D. S., & Cross, T. C. (2000). Ameta-analysis to review organizational outcomes relatedto charismatic leadership. Canadian Journal of Adminis-trative Sciences, 17(4), 356–371.

Denis, J. L., Lamothe, L., & Langley, A. (2001). The dy-namics of collective leadership and strategic change inpluralistic organizations. Academy of Management Jour-nal, 44(4), 809–837.

DeRue, D. S., Nahrgang, J., Wellman, N., & Humphrey,S. E. (2011). Trait and behavioral theories of leadership:An integration and meta-analytic test of their relativevalidity. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 7–52.

Dollinger, M. J. (1984). Environmental boundary spanningand information processing effects on organizational per-formance. Academy of Management Journal, 27(2), 351–368.

Dorfman, P. W., Howell, J. P., Cotton, B. C. G., & Tate,U. (1992). Leadership within the “discontinuous hi-erarchy” structure of the military. In K. E. Clark, M. B.Clark, & D. P. Campbell (Eds.), Impact of leadership(pp. 399 – 416). Greensboro, NC: Center for CreativeLeadership.

Druskat, V. U., & Wheeler, J. V. (2003). Managing from theboundary: The effective leadership of self-managed workteams. Academy of Management Journal, 46(4), 435–457.

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learningbehavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly,44, 350–383.

Edmondson, A. (2003a). Framing for learning: Lessons insuccessful technology implementation. California Man-agement Review, 45(2), 34–54.

Edmondson, A. (2003b). Speaking up in the operatingroom. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1419–1452.

Edmondson, A. C. (2002). The local and variegated natureof learning in organizations: A group-level perspective.Organization Science, 13, 128–146.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Making fast strategic decisions inhigh-velocity environments. Academy of ManagementJournal, 32(3), 543–576.

Ekvall, G., & Arvonen, J. (1991). Change-centeredleadership: An extension of the two-dimensional model.Scandinavian Journal of Management, 7, 17–26.

Elenkov, D. S., Judge, W., & Wright, P. (2005). Strategicleadership and executive innovation influence: An in-ternational multi-cluster comparative study. StrategicManagement Journal, 26, 665–682.

Ellis, S., Mendel, R., & Nir, M. (2006). Learning fromsuccessful and failed experience: The moderating role ofkind of after-event review. Journal of Applied Psychology,91(3), 669–680.

Emrich, C. G., Brower, H. H., Feldman, J. M., & Garland,H. (2001). Images in words: Presidential rhetoric, cha-risma, and greatness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46,527–557.

Fanelli, A., & Misangyi, V. F. (2006). Bringing outcharisma: CEO charisma and external stakeholders.Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 1049–1061.

Ferris, G. R., Treadway, D. C., Perrewé, P. L., Brouer, R. L.,Douglas, C., & Lux, S. (2007). Political skill in organi-zations. Journal of Management, 33, 290–320.

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

Fleishman, E. A. (1953). The description of supervisorybehavior. Personnel Psychology, 37, 1–6.

Fleishman, E. A., & Harris, E. F. (1962). Patterns of lead-ership behavior related to employee grievances and turn-over. Journal of Applied Psychology, 15, 43–56.

Friedrich, T. L., Vessey, W. B., Schuelke, M. J., Ruark,G. A., & Mumford, M. D. (2009). A framework forunderstanding collective leadership: The selective utili-zation of leader and team expertise within networks.Leadership Quarterly, 20(6), 933–958.

Fry, L. W. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership.Leadership Quarterly, 14(6), 693–727.

Gebert, D., Boerner, S., & Lanwehr, R. (2003). The risks ofautonomy: Empirical evidence for the necessity of bal-ance in promoting organizational innovativeness. Cre-ativity and Innovation Management, 12(1), 41–49.

Geletkanycz, M. A., & Hambrick, D. C. (1997). The exter-nal ties of top executives: Implications for strategicchoice and performance. Administrative Science Quar-terly, 42, 654–681.

George, B. (2003). Authentic leadership: Rediscovering thesecrets to creating lasting value. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gilmore, D. C., Beehr, T. A., & Richter, D. J. (1979).Effects of leader behaviors on subordinate perfor-mance and satisfaction: A laboratory experiment withstudent employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64,166 –172.

Grinyer, P. H., Mayes, D., & McKiernan, P. (1990). Thesharpbenders: Achieving a sustained improvement inperformance. Long Range Planning, 23, 116–125.

Halpin, A. W. & Winer, B. J. (1957). A factorial study ofthe leader behavior descriptions. In R. M. Stogdill &A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description andmeasurement. Columbus, OH: Bureau of Business Re-search, Ohio State University.

Hart, L. S., & Quinn, E. R. (1993). Roles executives play:CEOs, behavioral complexity, and firm performance.Human Relations, 46(5), 543–575.

Heifetz, R. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Cam-bridge, MA: Belknap Books of Harvard University Press.

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1977). The management oforganizational behavior (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall.

2012 81Yukl

Hooijberg, R. (1996). A multidimensional approach towardleadership: An extension of the concept of behavioralcomplexity. Human Relations, 49(7), 917–947.

House, R. J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effective-ness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 321–339.

House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leader-ship. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: Thecutting edge (pp. 189–207). Carbondale, IL: SouthernIllinois University Press.

Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformationalleadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, andsupport for innovation: Key predictors of consolidatedbusiness unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,78, 891–902.

Ibarra, H., & Hunter, M. (2007). How leaders create and usenetworks. Harvard Business Review, 85(1), 40–47.

Joshi, A., Pandey, N., & Han, G. H. (2009). Bracketingteam boundary spanning: An examination of task-based,team-level, and contextual antecedents. Journal of Orga-nizational Behavior, 30, 731–759.

Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational andtransactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of theirrelative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5),755–768.

Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Ilies, R. (2004). The forgot-ten ones? The validity of consideration and initiatingstructure in leadership research. Journal of Applied Psy-chology, 89(1), 36–51.

Kaiser, R. B., Hogan, R., & Craig, S. B. (2008). Leadershipand the fate of organizations. American Psychologist,63(2), 96–110.

Kaiser, R. B., & Overfield, D. V. (2010). Assessing flexibleleadership as a mastery of opposites. Consulting Psychol-ogy Journal: Practice and Research, 62, 105–118.

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

Kaplan, R. E. (1984). Trade routes: The manager’s networkof relationships. Organizational Dynamics, Spring, 37–52.

Kaplan, R. E. (1988). The warp and woof of the generalmanager’s job. In F. D. Schoorman & B. Schneider(Eds.), Facilitating work effectiveness (pp. 183–211). Lex-ington, MA: Lexington Books.

Katz, R. (1955). Skills of an effective administrator. HarvardBusiness Review, 33–42.

Katz, R., & Allen, T. J. (1985). Project performance and thelocus of influence in the R&D matrix. Academy of Man-agement Journal, 28, 67–87.

Katz, R., & Tushman, M. L. (1981). An investigation intothe managerial roles and career paths of gatekeepers andproject supervisors in a major R&D facility. R&D Man-agement, 11, 103–110.

Katz, R., & Tushman, M. L. (1983). A longitudinal study ofthe effects of boundary spanning supervision on turnoverand promotion in research and development. Academy ofManagement Journal, 26, 437–456.

Keller, R. T. (2006). Transformational leadership, initiatingstructure, and substitutes for leadership: A longitudinalstudy of research and development project team perfor-mance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 202–210.

Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership:Their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behav-ior and Human Performance, 22, 375–403.

Kim, H., & Yukl, G. (1995). Relationships of self-reportedand subordinate-reported leadership behaviors to mana-gerial effectiveness and advancement. Leadership Quar-terly, 6, 361–377.

Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1996). Direct andindirect effects of three core charismatic leadership com-ponents on performance and attitudes. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 81, 36–51.

Komaki, J. L. (1986). Toward effective supervision: Anoperant analysis and comparison of managers at work.Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(2), 270–279.

Korsgaard, M. A., Schweiger, D. M., & Sapienza, H. J.(1995). Building commitment, attachment, and trust instrategic decision-making teams: The role of proceduraljustice. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 60–84.

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

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

Kotter, J. P., & Cohen, D. S. (2002). The heart of change:Real-life stories of how people change their organizations.Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1987). The leadershipchallenge: How to get extraordinary things done in organiza-tions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Larson, J. R., & Callahan, C. (1990). Performancemonitoring: How it affects work productivity. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 75, 530–538.

Latham, G. P., & Baldes, J. J. (1975). The “practical signif-icance” of Locke’s theory of goal setting. Journal of Ap-plied Psychology, 60, 122–124.

Latham, G. P., & Yukl, G. A. (1976). Effects of assigned andparticipative goal setting on performance and satisfac-tion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(2), 166–171.

Leana, C. R. (1986). Predictors and consequences of dele-gation. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 754–774.

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

Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996).Effectiveness of correlates of transformational and trans-actional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQliterature. Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385–425.

Luthans, F., Rosenkrantz, S. A., & Hennessey, H. W.(1985). What do successful managers really do? An ob-servational study of managerial activities. Journal of Ap-plied Behavioral Science, 21, 255–270.

Mann, F. C. (1965). Toward an understanding of the lead-ership role in formal organization. In R. Dubin, G. C.Homans, F. C. Mann, & D. C. Miller (Eds.), Leadershipand productivity. San Francisco: Chandler.

Marks, M. A., Zaccaro, S. J., & Mathieu, J. E. (2000).Performance implications of leader briefings and team-interaction training for team adaptation to novel envi-ronments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 971–986.

Marrone, J. A. (2010). Team boundary spanning: A multi-level review of past research and proposals for the future.Journal of Management, 36, 911–940.

82 NovemberAcademy of Management Perspectives

McClelland, P. L., Liang, X., & Barker, V. L. (2009). CEOcommitment to the status quo: Replication and exten-sion using content analysis. Journal of Management, 36,1251–1277.

McDonough, E. F., & Barczak, G. (1991). Speeding up newproduct development: The effects of leadership style andsource of technology. Journal of Product Innovation Man-agement, 8, 203–211.

Michael, J., & Yukl, G. (1993). Managerial level and sub-unit function as determinants of networking behavior inorganizations. Group and Organization Management, 18,328–351.

Miller, K. I., & Monge, P. R. (1986). Participation, satis-faction, and productivity: A meta-analytic review. Acad-emy of Management Journal, 29, 727–753.

Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. NewYork: Harper & Row.

Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D., & Theoret, A. (1976). Thestructure of unstructured decision processes. Administra-tive Science Quarterly, 21, 246–275.

Misumi, J., & Peterson, M. (1985). The performance-main-tenance (PM) theory of leadership: Review of a Japaneseresearch program. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30,198–223.

Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive super-vision and workplace deviance and the moderating ef-fects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 92(4), 1159–1168.

Morgeson, F. P. (2005). The external leadership of self-managed teams: Intervening in the context of novel anddisruptive events. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 497–508.

Morse, J. J., & Wagner, F. R. (1978). Measuring the processof managerial effectiveness. Academy of ManagementJournal, 21, 23–35.

Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange,J. M. (2002). Leading creative people: Orchestratingexpertise and relationships. Leadership Quarterly, 13,705–750.

Mumford, T. V., Campion, M. A., & Morgeson, F. P.(2007). The leadership skills strataplex: Leadership skillrequirements across organizational levels. LeadershipQuarterly, 18, 154–166.

Nadler, D. A. (1988). Organizational frame bending: Typesof change in the complex organization. In R. H. Kilmann& T. J. Covin (Eds.), Corporate transformation: Revitaliz-ing organizations for a competitive world (pp. 66–83). SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Nadler, D. A., Shaw, R. B., Walton, A. E., et al. (1995).Discontinuous change: Leading organizational transforma-tion. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). Shared leadership:Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Peters, T. J., & Austin, N. (1985). A passion for excellence:The leadership difference. New York: Random House.

Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H., Jr. (1982). In search ofexcellence: Lessons from America’s best-run companies.New York: Harper & Row.

Pierce, J. R., & Aguinis, H. (in press). The too-much-of-a-good-thing effect in management. Journal of Manage-ment.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Ahearne, M., & Bom-mer, W. H. (1995). Searching for a needle in a haystack:Trying to identify the illusive moderators of leadershipbehaviors. Journal of Management, 21, 423–470.

Popper, M., & Lipshitz, R. (1998). Organizational learningmechanisms: A structural and cultural approach to or-ganizational learning. Journal of Applied Behavioral Sci-ence, 34(2), 161–179.

Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model ofeffectiveness criteria: Toward a competing values ap-proach to organizational analysis. Management Science,29, 363–377.

Redmond, M. R., Mumford, M. D., & Teach, R. J. (1993).Putting creativity to work: Leader influences on subor-dinate creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human De-cision Processes, 55, 120–151.

Schweiger, D. M., Anderson, C. R., & Locke, E. A. (1985).Complex decision making: A longitudinal study of pro-cess and performance. Organizational Behavior and Hu-man Decision Processes, 36, 245–272.

Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). Themotivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4, 1–17.

Shipper, F. (1991). Mastery and frequency of managerialbehaviors relative to subunit effectiveness. Human Rela-tions, 44, 371–388.

Shipper, F., & Dillard, J. E., Jr. (2000). A study of impend-ing derailment and recovery of middle managers acrosscareer stages. Human Resource Management, 39(4), 331–345.

Shipper, F., & Wilson, C. L. (1992). The impact of mana-gerial behaviors on group performance, stress, and com-mitment. In K. Clark, M. B. Clark, & D. P. Campbell(Eds.), Impact of leadership (pp. 119–129). Greensboro,NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

Spector, P. E. (1986). Perceived control by employees: Ameta-analysis of studies concerning autonomy and par-ticipation at work. Human Relations, 39, 1005–1016.

Stogdill, R. M., Goode, O. S., & Day, D. R. (1962). Newleader behavior description subscales. Journal of Psychol-ogy, 54, 259–269.

Tannenbaum, S. I., Smith-Jentsch, K., & Behson, S. J.(1998). Training team leaders to facilitate team learningand performance. In J. A. Cannon-Bowers & E. Salas(Eds.), Making decisions under stress: Implications for indi-vidual and team training (pp. 247–270). Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.

Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision.Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178–190.

Tichy, N. M., & Devanna, M. A. (1986). The transforma-tional leader. New York: John Wiley.

Tushman, M. L., & Katz, R. (1980). External communica-tion and project performance: An investigation into therole of gatekeepers. Management Science, 26, 1071–1085.

Van Fleet, D. D., & Yukl, G. (1986). Military leadership: Anorganizational perspective. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

2012 83Yukl

Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership anddecision making. Pittsburgh, PA: University of PittsburghPress.

Wagner, J. A., & Gooding, R. Z. (1987). Shared influenceand organizational behavior: A meta-analysis of situa-tional variables expected to moderate participation-out-come relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 30,524–541.

Waldman, D. A. (2011). Moving forward with the conceptof responsible leadership: Three caveats to guide theoryand research. Journal of Business Ethics, 98, 75–83.

Waldman, D. A., Javidan, M., & Varella, P. (2004). Char-ismatic leadership at the strategic level: A new applica-tion of upper echelons theory. Leadership Quarterly, 15,355–380.

Waldman, D. A., & Siegel, D. (2008). Defining the sociallyresponsible leader. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 117–131.

Wang, G., Oh, I.-S., Courtright, S. H., & Colbert, A. E.(2011). Transformational leadership and performanceacross criteria and levels: A meta-analytic review of 25years of research. Group and Organization Management,36, 223–270.

Wang, H., Tsui, A. H., & Xin, K. R. (2011). CEO leader-ship behaviors, organizational performance, and em-ployee attitudes. Leadership Quarterly, 22, 92–105.

Wikoff, M., Anderson, D. C., & Crowell, C. R. (1983).Behavior management in a factory setting: Increasingwork efficiency. Journal of Organizational Behavior Man-agement, 4, 97–128.

Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluative essay on current concep-tions of effective leadership. European Journal of Workand Organizational Psychology, 8, 33–48.

Yukl, G. (2008). How leaders influence organizational ef-fectiveness. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 708–722.

Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Engle-wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Yukl, G., Gordon, A., & Taber, T. (2002). A hierarchicaltaxonomy of leadership behavior: Integrating a half cen-tury of behavior research. Journal of Leadership and Or-ganizational Studies, 9, 15–32.

Yukl, G., & Kanuk, L. (1979). Leadership behavior andeffectiveness of beauty salon managers. Personnel Psychol-ogy, 32, 663–675.

Yukl, G., & Lepsinger, R. (2004). Flexible leadership: Creatingvalue by balancing multiple challenges and choices. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Yukl, G., & Mahsud, R. (2010). Why flexible, adaptiveleadership is important. Consulting Psychology Journal,62(2), 81–93.

Yukl, G., O’Donnell, M., & Taber, T. (2009). Leader be-haviors and leader member exchange. Journal of Mana-gerial Psychology, 24(4), 289–299.

Yukl, G., & Van Fleet, D. (1982). Cross-situational, multi-method research on military leader effectiveness. Orga-nizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 87–108.

Yukl, G., Wall, S., & Lepsinger, R. (1990). Preliminaryreport on validation of the managerial practices survey.In K. E. Clark & M. B. Clark (Eds.), Measures of leader-ship (pp. 223–238). West Orange, NJ: Leadership Libraryof America.

Zalatan, K. A. (2005). Inside the black box: Leadershipinfluence on team effectiveness (Unpublished DoctoralDissertation). University of Albany School of Business.

Zhu, W., Chew, I. K. H., & Spangler, W. D. (2005). CEOtransformational leadership and organizationaloutcomes: The mediating role of human-capital-enhanc-ing human resource management. Leadership Quarterly,16(1), 39–52.

AppendixDefinitionsof15Specific LeadershipBehaviorsPlanning: develops short-term plans for the work; deter-mines how to schedule and coordinate activities to usepeople and resources efficiently; determines the action stepsand resources needed to accomplish a project or activity.Clarifying: clearly explains task assignments and memberresponsibilities; sets specific goals and deadlines for impor-tant aspects of the work; explains priorities for differentobjectives; explains rules, policies, and standard procedures.Monitoring: checks on the progress and quality of the work;examines relevant sources of information to determine howwell important tasks are being performed; evaluates theperformance of members in a systematic way.Problem Solving: identifies work-related problems that candisrupt operations, makes a systematic but rapid diagnosis,and takes action to resolve the problems in a decisive andconfident way.Supporting: shows concern for the needs and feelings ofindividual members; provides support and encouragementwhen there is a difficult or stressful task, and expressesconfidence members can successfully complete it.Recognizing: praises effective performance by members;provides recognition for member achievements and contri-butions to the organization; recommends appropriate re-wards for members with high performance.Developing: provides helpful feedback and coaching formembers who need it; provides helpful career advice; en-courages members to take advantage of opportunities forskill development.Empowering: involves members in making important work-related decisions and considers their suggestions and con-cerns; delegates responsibility and authority to members forimportant tasks and allows them to resolve work-relatedproblems without prior approval.Advocating Change: explains an emerging threat or oppor-tunity; explains why a policy or procedure is no longerappropriate and should be changed; proposes desirablechanges; takes personal risks to push for approval of essentialbut difficult changes.Envisioning Change: communicates a clear, appealing vi-sion of what could be accomplished; links the vision tomember values and ideals; describes a proposed change ornew initiative with enthusiasm and optimism.Encouraging Innovation: talks about the importance ofinnovation and flexibility; encourages innovative thinking

84 NovemberAcademy of Management Perspectives

and new approaches for solving problems; encourages andsupports efforts to develop innovative new products, ser-vices, or processes.Facilitating Collective Learning: uses systematic proceduresfor learning how to improve work unit performance; helpsmembers understand causes of work unit performance; en-courages members to share new knowledge with each other.Networking: attends meetings or events; joins professionalassociations or social clubs; uses social networks to build andmaintain favorable relationships with peers, superiors, and

outsiders who can provide useful information or assistance.External Monitoring: analyzes information about events,trends, and changes in the external environment to identifythreats, opportunities, and other implications for the workunit.Representing: lobbies for essential funding or resources;promotes and defends the reputation of the work unit ororganization; negotiates agreements and coordinates relatedactivities with other parts of the organization or withoutsiders.

2012 85Yukl

View publication statsView publication stats