The when and how of psychological Capital’s upward contagion effect: Exploring through a cross-cultural lens

Abstract

The underlying mechanisms through which psychological capital (PsyCap) spreads upward (from followers to leaders) have largely gone unstudied. As such, the focus of this article is to develop some of the theoretical underpinnings of how followership influences leader PsyCap and importantly, highlighting the possible boundary conditions involved in this spread. Specifically, we draw from the resource theory to speculate followers' leader-specific relational models, positive behaviors and LMX as the mechanisms serially underlying PsyCap’s upward contagion effect. Research propositions derived from the conceptual framework are presented. Implications for cross-cultural leadership and future research agenda conclude the article.

Keywords

Psychological capital upward contagion cross-cultural leadership resource theory leader–member exchange

If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more, and become more, you are a leader.

John Quincy Adams

A leader is best when people barely know he exists, when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say: we did it ourselves.

Lao Tzu (circa 500 BC)

The quotations above demonstrate that (a) leadership is more a function of positive and inspirational actions than it is of formal authority/designation and (b) the culture that one comes from determines at least in part what leadership is and how impactful it is. While some argue that more leadership is needed to prepare the next workforce, contemporary academics suggest that this heroic notion is coming to an end (Oc and Bashshur, 2013; Bastardoz and Van Vugt, 2019; Uhl-Bien, 2021; Jackson, 2002; Shen and Abe 2022). In fact, studies on cross-cultural leadership today emphasise the function and significance of positive followership in the leadership process (e.g., Hanges et al., 2016). Touted as ‘influencing upwards’, followers are increasingly seen as being crucial to leveraging the future of cross-cultural leadership and are not just passive beneficiaries of their leaders’ impact (Oc and Bashshur, 2013; Uhl-Bien et al., 2014; Zhu et al., 2023). Even though this view has contributed to some increase in followership studies, their cross-cultural reach is still quite constrained because of two reasons. First, without informing us about the cultural understandings of their frameworks, researchers tend to reify their leadership models and try to place them beyond the group of concepts that are regularly scrutinized for cultural bias (Jackson, 2016). Second, with a predominant focus on leaders’ personality characteristics and their outcomes, there is a dearth of research on the state-like antecedents of cross-cultural leadership development (Bunjak and Černe, 2018; Popper, 2011; Shondrick et al., 2010). Notably, there is emerging evidence that state-like psychological capacities are essential for cross-cultural leadership development (Luthans and Youssef-Morgan, 2017). One such resource that is increasingly being demonstrated as being state-like, measurable, and performance-enhancing is psychological capital or simply PsyCap. Drawing extensively from the intersection of the literatures on positive psychology (Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi, 2000) and positive organizational scholarship (Cameron et al., 2003), Luthans et al. (2007, p.3) define PsyCap as:

… an individual’s positive psychological state of development characterized by: (1) having con;dence (ef;cacy) to take on and put in the necessary effort to succeed at challenging tasks; (2) making a positive attribution (optimism) about succeeding now and in the future; (3) persevering toward goals and, when necessary, redirecting paths to goals (hope) in order to succeed; and (4) when beset by problems and adversity, sustaining and bouncing back and even beyond (resilience) to attain success.

With today’s cross-cultural leadership journeys marked by unforeseen roadblocks, follower positivity in general and follower PsyCap in particular have attracted increasing attention for fostering leadership effectiveness across national boundaries and cultural contexts. (e.g., Avolio and Luthans, 2006; Gardner et al., 2005; Ilies et al., 2005; Luthans and Avolio, 2003; Yammarino et al., 2008; Youssef-Morgan and Luthans, 2013). There is even growing empirical research suggesting the upward contagion effect of PsyCap. As an example, Haar et al. (2014) showed that followers’ PsyCap impacts leaders’ PsyCap. Nevertheless, the following two clinical questions are glaringly unaddressed in the extant PsyCap literature: How could followers spread their PsyCap resources to their leaders? What are the boundary conditions rendering follower PsyCap more or less contagious to leaders?

Addressing these questions, we articulate a model of positive followership influencing upward, ultimately facilitating PsyCap development in leaders. Furthermore, relationship building is essential to the process, whether it be for followership or leadership (Game, 2008; Shamir et al., 2007). By articulating the likely relational processes and moderators involved in the transmission of positivity, we hope to extend the theory and significance of followers' influence in positive leadership. Specifically, we contend that followers embodying high levels of PsyCap will have secure leader-specific relational models (i.e., lower levels of leader-specific attachment anxiety and avoidance) and indulge in positive behaviors (e.g., performance, organizational citizenship behaviors, reduced withdrawal behaviors). With such positive mental models and behaviors, they are expected to drive high-quality relationships with their leaders. This follower-driven LMX is, in turn, expected to enhance leaders’ PsyCap levels. Furthermore, we suggest that such an upward contagion effect depends upon the extent to which leaders perceive power distance and the degree to which there is within-group interdependence among followers.

We organize this article into five main sections. In the first section, we establish the need for studying psychological capital in cross-cultural leadership research relative to other traditional forms of capital. Second, we elaborate on our proposed conceptual framework for the upward contagion effect of PsyCap (see Figure 1). Third, we summarize important theoretical implications of our proposed model. Fourth, we enumerate the implications of our framework for cross-cultural leadership. Finally, we conclude with a consideration of key limitations and needed future research.

Figure 1.

Proposed framework linking follower PsyCap to leader PsyCap.

The relative importance of psycap over personality characteristics for cross-cultural leadership

Organizations use several human resource selection tools. These include the Big Five personality traits (Barrick and Mount, 1991), core self-evaluations (Judge and Bono, 2001), and cognitive mental abilities (Schmidt et al., 1986). Likewise, positive psychology provides many trait-like character strengths and virtues that are known to demonstrate relative stability over time (Lopez and Snyder, 2003). In contrast to hard-wired factors, positive psychological characteristics tend to exhibit some malleability and hence may grow and develop in the course of an individual’s life when powered by certain contextual factors, trigger moments, or deep counseling (Linley and Joseph, 2004). Nevertheless, no immediate change is possible, and hence it is next to impossible to change or develop these traits as part of HRD (i.e., human resource development) initiatives.

As today’s industrial environment is typified by escalating turnover percentages and stress on lean management principles, such long-term HRD initiatives for instilling or developing task-specific abilities, character strengths, virtues, and relatively long-lasting personality traits are cost-ineffective and impossible. Considering the fact that these virtues could only be implanted at an early age and that prospective work candidates are supposed to be endowed with these before getting hired, these HRD initiatives are taken care of by educational institutions at all levels. Thus, at the workplace, these traits are seen only as selection phenomena and not as developmental phenomena.

Furthermore, one of the requisites of cross-cultural leadership is “dynamic capabilities” that enable leaders to reengineer, coalesce, and leverage their culturally diverse followers on a continued basis for staying competitive and germane in today’s fast-changing market conditions (Luthans and Youssef, 2017). While it is certainly important to hire the right leaders based on their human and social capital, dynamic changes in the global markets could easily render “what they know” (i.e., human capital) and “who they know” (i.e., social capital) obsolete in no time. Though related, PsyCap transcends both human and social capital in that it helps them explore “who they are” now and, progressively, “who they are capable of becoming” in the future (Avolio and Luthans, 2006). Importantly, the positive psychological capacities such as efficacy, resilience, optimism, and hope have been shown to be open to intentional development and improvement through training and highly focused “micro-interventions” (Luthans et al., 2014). While leader PsyCap has extensively been shown to influence follower PsyCap, growing work also recognizes the upward contagion of PsyCap. In the next section, we discuss our theoretical model along with the research propositions.

Theoretical model and research propositions

Positive upward contagion effects

Research suggests behavioral modelling as a possible mechanism through which downward and lateral contagion effects operate. Aguinis and Bradley (2015), for instance, conclude that individuals performing at extraordinary levels are likely to spread positivity across all levels in an organization. Consistent with growing neuroscientific and neurophysiological evidence, mimicry, primed by the “mirror neuron system,” is one of the widely suggested mechanisms through which contagion effects are produced (Cattaneo and Rizzolatti, 2009). However, as PsyCap is state-like and not as ephemeral as emotions, it is least likely to operate through just primitive mimicry or behavioral modeling. We propose, that PsyCap contagion, in addition to affective mechanisms, is likely to entail more complex conative, cognitive, and social process mechanisms (Luthans and Youssef-Morgan, 2017).

The cognitive contribution to PsyCap’s upward contagion is expected to be in the form of cognitive modeling. Particularly, we argue that the sublime PsyCap of the follower will not only earn him/her the leader’s admiration, but importantly, also function as a model for the PsyCap of the leader. This is consistent with Norman et al. (2005) theorization that perceivers first take on the states of the individuals (models) they are interacting with and then act in parallel with these states. Drawing from this perspective, we argue that the modeling in upward contagion is not only restricted to perceivable positive behaviors, but also comprises positive cognitions of the high PsyCap follower such as the following: framing demanding yet inspiring goals, agentically pursuing them, generating novel solutions to problems, appraising contextual factors in a positive light, and optimistically anticipating successes now and in the future. As the leader observes his/her follower, he/she is likely to independently master the follower’s positive cognitions which fascinate him/her the most (Wood and Bandura, 1989).

Another classic yet overlooked process that can contribute to PsyCap’s upward contagion is conation (Huitt and Cain, 2005). Whereas emotional contagion is predominantly based on automatic processes, the conative mechanism of PsyCap implies that motivation precedes modeling. Developing a strong liking for the follower’s PsyCap, the leader is likely to develop an internally generated, agentic drive to not only model the follower’s positive cognitions and psychological resources, but also to invest the modeled cognitions and resources in pursuit of challenging goals. Besides the cognitive and conative contributions to PsyCap’s upward contagion, we also speculate a social mechanism. It is well known that social persuasion and social support are important sources of PsyCap efficacy (Bandura, 1997) and PsyCap resilience (Masten, 2001) respectively. We have evidence that social support from managers, co-workers, and followers will lead to overall well-being (e.g., Glaser et al., 1999). Thus, we believe that a leader’s PsyCap can be elevated by his/her follower’s positive yet objective feedback and constructive persuasion to appraise the personal and situational factors in a positive light. Finally, not as powerful a source of PsyCap’s upward contagion as the previous three, the affective mechanism is likely to be a by-product of positive cognitions and agency (Snyder, 2000). In other words, as the leader indulges in conscious modeling of his/her follower’s positive cognitions and resources, and willful investment of these in challenging goals, he/she is likely to experience positive emotions, which, in turn, will positively influence the leader’s PsyCap (Avey et al., 2008). Consistent with the above discussion, we propose that:

Proposition 1

Follower PsyCap is positively related to leader PsyCap.

The process of PsyCap’s upward contagion

Although direct upward contagion of PsyCap is plausible, there could be a process facilitating the transference. In the concluding remarks of their study on the contagion effect of global leaders’ PsyCap on followers, Story et al. (2013) recommend that future research be directed at the exploration of how followers could drive a high-quality relationship with their leaders and whether this, in turn, could influence leaders’ PsyCap. We respond to their call by suggesting that followers’ PsyCap will help them drive high-quality relationships with their leaders through positive, state-like attachment models and positive behaviors.

Leader-specific relational models

Expanding the use of attachment theory (e.g., Bowlby, 1973) and in keeping with the extant empirical espousal to investigate more proximal relational variables to comprehend leader-follower relationships (e.g., Pierce and Lydon, 2001; Sluss and Ashforth, 2007), Game (2008) conceptualized two dimensions of supervisor-specific relational models: attachment anxiety and avoidance to capture followers’ ‘current’ (state-like) secure/insecure attachment models pertaining to their relationships with their leaders/supervisors. Anxiously attached followers, or those who have negative self-images, tend to feel more worthless in relationships and anxious about being approved by their leaders. On the other hand, lack of faith in the dependability and good intentions of one’s leaders characterizes avoidantly attached followers (i.e., those who harbour negative models of their leaders). A sense of ease in relating closely to their leaders and a conviction in the value of their interactions with them are characteristics of securely connected followers (i.e., those having positive models of both themselves and of their leaders). Despite the fact that attachment theory has been used extensively in leadership research, there is a clear lack of information in the literature regarding how followers could deliberately harbour secure relational models towards their leaders and what it might mean for PsyCap’s upward contagion. By addressing this gap, we answer calls of PsyCap scholars (e.g., Dawkins et al., 2013; Luthans and Yousseff-Morgan, 2017) to devote more attention to the mechanisms by which PsyCap impacts positive outcomes.

Followers’ PsyCap and their leader-specific relational models

There is strong evidence that memories of and interactions with the significant other in a relationship context have a considerable impact on relational models (Keller, 2003). Relational models may also be influenced by personality traits and external variables, such as team dynamics and leadership style. We don’t rule out such possibilities, but researchers so far have not attempted to investigate the impact of positive psychological capacities on attachment models. In our opinion, such an investigation is much more pertinent for relationship-specific attachment models. As opposed to global models, relationship-specific attachment models do not encompass the full range and diversity of relationship histories. Given their focus on the current leader-specific attachment (Game, 2008), specific models are state-like and therefore subject to modification. This creates enormous opportunities for the deliberate harboring of healthy relational models. In other words, a follower can develop positive models of both himself or herself and their leader through some desirable internal processes. We now go through how and why PsyCap explains the activation of secure leader-specific relational models.

The underlying assumption of PsyCap is that human potential is far more amenable to intentional growth than has previously been assumed. As a result, a high PsyCap follower will have what Luthans et al. (2015) refer to as an "internalised sense of agency, control, and intentionality.” We contend that this conative mechanism of PsyCap (Youssef and Luthans, 2013) will encourage the follower to uphold a favorable relationship with the leader in addition to enabling the follower to view all leader-follower interactions and behaviours in a positive perspective. We will now go over how each of the PsyCap components contributes to the creation of positive relational models that are specific to leaders.

According to research by Bandura and Locke (2003), individuals high in self-efficacy are less affected by self-doubt and skepticism, As a result, PsyCap efficacy will foster a healthy self-image in the context of follower-leader relationships. The PsyCap's hope component is expected to instill a sense of tenacity in followers to maintain a fruitful relationship with the pertinent other. We propose that, should his/her initial attempts fail, a very hopeful follower will come up with and put into action alternate strategies to keep a positive relationship with the leader. The optimism aspect of PsyCap will likely promote the development of favorable attributions about leaders and the relationship episodes (Carver and Scheier 2002). Last but not least, PsyCap resilience is likely to enable followers to "rebound or bounce back” from bad relationship experiences (Luthans, 2002). Therefore, a highly resilient follower won't allow disagreements and relationship crises to alter his/her leader-specific models. Thus, we formally propose that:

Proposition 2

Followers’ PsyCap is positively related to followers’ secure leader-specific relational models.

Follower’s secure leader-specific relational models and follower behaviors

Further, for a follower to transmit his/her PsyCap resources to the leader, we argue that he/she has to manifest the positivity in terms of behaviors. While relationship-specific attachment security has been shown to be related to positive attachment-related behaviors such as communication, support seeking and giving, and conflict resolution (Fletcher et al., 2006; Simpson and Rholes, 2012), not much is known about the intra- and inter-personal mechanisms by which the specific working models impact behaviors. Collins and Read (1994) suggest that this will be best understood by studying the cognitive–emotion–behavior linkages. Responding to their call, we suggest that followers with secure leader-specific relational models will first make optimistic attributions (cognitive) about the leader-follower relationship episodes. Next, as relationship-specific models are shown to be affect-laden (Collins and Read, 1994), these positive attributions are likely to result in their positive emotions which, in turn, will foster positive behaviors.

The positive behaviors conceptualized in our model are performance, OCBs, and reduced withdrawal behaviors (e.g., absenteeism, turnover, and tardiness). As followers with secure leader-specific relational models have positive views about the trustworthiness of their leaders, they are likely to involve their leaders in performance-related decisions and goal-setting. Moreover, on account of positive self-views, they will effectively leverage their own positive psychological capacities in meeting or even exceeding their performance standards. Thus, followers with secure leader-specific models will outperform their insecure peers.

Next, our theorization of OCBs comprises both OCBOs (i.e., cognition-driven OCBs that aid the organization in general) and OCBIs (i.e., affect-driven OCBs that favor specific individuals in the organization) (Lee and Allen, 2002). The main reason for such a theorization is that a follower with secure leader-specific relational models activated by his/her PsyCap will engage in both intentional (OCBOs) and affective (OCBIs) prosocial behaviors. Research suggests that positive followers step outside their job duties and assist leaders in identifying imminent problems and suggesting realistic solutions (e.g., Li et al., 2013). Finally, we suggest that a follower with leader-specific attachment security will not avoid or disengage from the work environment, tasks, or the organization because of the positive, salient, and impactful influence the leader (attachment figure) has on him/her (Baldwin et al., 1996). Thus, a follower with secure leader-specific relational models is expected to engage in positive behaviors.

Proposition 3

Followers’ secure leader-specific relational models are positively related to their positive behaviors.

Follower’s behaviors and follower-leader relationship quality

Having manifested their positivity in terms of leader-specific working models and positive behaviors, high PsyCap followers are expected to comfortably drive high-quality relationships with leaders. Although extant research has largely focused on leader behaviors as the foremost driver of LMX quality (Nahrgang and Seo, 2016), we argue that examining follower behaviors will contribute to a profounder understanding of LMX development. As LMX theory subsumes a bidirectional resource exchange process (Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995), followers do determine the quality of LMX relationships. Growing (yet modest) research evidence points to the role of follower behaviors on LMX quality. e.g., past studies have attested to the positive influence of followers’ performance on LMX quality (e.g., Bauer and Green, 1996; Liden et al., 1993). Besides performance, other follower behaviors such as followers’ efforts in building the relationship with the leader (Maslyn and Uhl-Bien, 2001), feedback-seeking behavior (Lam et al., 2007), and upward ingratiatory and self-promotion behaviors (Wayne and Ferris, 1990) have been shown to lead to high-quality exchanges. Recently, Xu et al. (2019) found that followers’ taking charge behaviors significantly influence LMX quality.

In the current study, we draw from the resource theory (Foa and Foa, 1980) to explain why positive follower behaviors will promote a high-quality LMX. For leaders to stay resourceful in today’s dynamic and complex markets (characterized by an accelerated rate of knowledge development and acquisition), they cannot and should not depend solely upon their resources such as human capital and social capital. As such, leaders would be encouraged to depend upon followers’ proactive behaviors to meet their workplace challenges (Bindl and Parker, 2011; Fuller et al., 2012; Parker and Collins, 2010; Schmitt et al., 2016). Followers exhibiting higher levels of task performance and OCBs and lower levels of withdrawal behaviors are likely to proactively help their leaders in effectively implementing work policies and procedures (Morrison and Phelps, 1999). From the resource theory perspective, such followers offer an indispensable resource to their leaders, that is, service. Foa and Foa (1980), in their seminal work on resource theory, reason that because service is a particularistic resource, it is more likely to lead to high-quality exchange relationships. In sum, by indulging in positive behaviors, followers have more potential to build high-quality LMX relationships with their leaders.

Proposition 4

Followers’ positive behaviors are positively related to LMX.

Contribution of follower-leader relationship quality to leader PsyCap

As already indicated, LMX research to date, has largely examined follower outcomes such as attitudes and performance. However, little research exists on how LMX impacts leaders. Aiming to fill this gap, we again, draw from Foa and Foa’s (1980) resource theory. Foa and Foa (1980) suggested that any resource could be classified into one of six basic categories: money (i.e., coin/currency), goods (i.e., tangible products), services (i.e., performance, behaviors), status (i.e., expressions conveying high/low esteem), information (i.e., advice/opinions), and affiliation (i.e., expressions of support/comfort). Further expanding the theory, they classified the resource categories along two dimensions: whether the resource is concrete (i.e., goods and services) or abstract (i.e., information and status) and whether the resource is particularistic or universal. Particularistic resources are those where the exchange member identity is important. In contrast, universal resources (i.e., money) are those whose value is unaffected by who provides them. According to the theory, affiliation resources are the most particularistic. For example, we might attach more value to the words of encouragement we receive from some people compared to others. Also ranking high in particularism are status-related and service-related resources.

Adopting a bidirectional perspective to LMX and drawing on Wilson et al.’s (2010) research, we now discuss what resource outcomes leaders obtain as a result of their exchanges with followers and how these outcomes are instrumental to the development of leader PsyCap. Within the realm of universal resources, we expect leaders to benefit more from the information resources. Though leaders can provide followers with any universal resource (such as money, information, and goods), followers (constrained by several organizational factors) are more likely to provide in-kind resources in return. In a high-quality exchange, these in-kind resources might include new skills and abilities that leaders learn from followers or useful lateral information leaders receive about followers’ peers and other teams.

Relative to universal resources, there are fewer organizational constraints when followers provide leaders with particularistic resources. The service-related resources leaders obtain include followers’ performance efforts, high levels of OCBIs (i.e., extra-role behaviors directed toward leaders), and low levels of withdrawal behaviors. By expressing admiration and respect for leaders, followers provide their leaders with status-related resources. Finally, leaders obtain affiliation resources from followers in terms of followers’ commitment and loyalty to them. As the follower-leader exchange relationships are governed by the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960), the receipt of these resources from the followers will create an obligation in the leaders to reciprocate (Erdogan et al., 2004). Thus, leaders will provide followers with work-related resources such as information, challenging assignments, and autonomy. We now explain how this reciprocity can assist the process of PsyCap development in the leader.

We believe that a positive follower in a high-quality dyadic exchange is more likely to make pronounced positive appraisals about his/her leader’s capabilities, decision-making, and behaviors. For example, he/she can boost the leader’s efficacy by persuading the leader to believe that he/she can succeed. A positive follower is more likely to be what Lopez (2013) describes as ‘the caring other person’ that cheers his/her leader toward goal achievement. As such, a leader enjoying a high-quality relationship with a high PsyCap follower is likely to seek the latter’s feedback and involvement (Avolio and Luthans, 2006) in his/her goal-setting processes. Thus, a high-quality LMX can foster the leader’s hope. The leader will have his/her optimism boosted by a high-quality exchange with a follower he/she can trust and who he/she believes takes special interest in him/her (Scandura and Graen, 1984). Furthermore, the follower’s optimistic explanatory style can be motivating (Peterson, 2000) to the leader to build positive expectancies about his/her own future and to follow these expectancies with agency and multiple pathways. A leader’s resilience is also likely to be heightened as a result of the high-quality relationship he/she has with the follower (Masten, 2001). Accordingly, the following is proposed:

Proposition 5

LMX is positively related to leader’s PsyCap.

Leader power distance as a moderator of the follower PsyCap – leader PsyCap relationship

It is crucial to understand that because of the power dynamics and roles involved in the relationship, followers' influence on leaders is probably not going to be as powerful and pervasive as leaders' influence over followers. If we use the parent-child relationship as a comparison, then we would anticipate that parental influences on children will be stronger than children's influences on parents, in areas like personalities, attitudes, and psycap. Drawing from social impact theory (Latane, 1981), we further argue that the strength of follower PsyCap – leader PsyCap relationship depends upon an important contextual variable: leaders’ power distance perceptions.

Power distance is defined as the degree to which people accept the unequal allocation of power at various social levels (Hofstede, 1980, 1991). Because of this, people in high power distance cultures anticipate and accept hierarchies with multiple layers and a significant degree of asymmetric power allocation. People in low power distance cultures, on the other hand, want a classless organization with a more evenly distributed distribution of power among the ranks. Research has shifted away from societal measures of cultural variables, including power distance, in favour of analyses of how individuals perceive culture, including power distance (e.g., Kirkman et al., 2006; Anand et al., 2018; Yang et al., 2007). This is because there is significant individual level variation within a community.

In light of the fact that leaders serve as the official heads of their teams, we claim that the degree to which they value symmetry in the power structure influences how much of an impact their followers may have on their PsyCap. Basing our contention on the social impact theory (Latané, 1981), which argue that leaders who have a high power distance orientation unintentionally diminish the social proximity with their followers, thereby decreasing the consequences of their followers’ PsyCap on them. PsyCap scholars have consistently maintained that the contagion effect of state-like, positive resources is rooted in social learning, observation, and modeling (Story et al., 2013). We contend that the upward contagion effect is likely to be weakened by social distance resulting from leaders’ high power-distance perceptions. Leaders with higher levels of power distance perceptions will be psychologically distant from their followers. This psychological distance coupled with strained communication hinders the important observational, social, and conative mechanisms that we proposed for the direct upward contagion of PsyCap. Follower may be more focused on demonstrating reverence and respect in high power distance cultures than they may be on changing their behaviour in response to a leader’s abilities. Taken together, the direct effect of follower PsyCap on leaders is likely to be less pronounced under conditions of high power distance.

Although not formally depicted in Figure 1, we expect leaders’ power distance perceptions to hinder follower PsyCap’s indirect effect on leaders as well. The more leaders feel that increased distance is desirable, the less followers will be able to harness their PsyCap resources for the formation of secure leader-specific relational models; the less they will engage in positive behaviors; and the less they will strive to develop high quality exchanges with leaders. Thus, leader power distance moderates the underlying mechanims that are conducive to leader PsyCap development. Therefore, we derive the following proposition:

Proposition 6

The positive relationship between follower PsyCap and leader PsyCap is moderated by leaders’ power distance, such that the relationship is stronger when leaders’ power distance is low than when it is high.

Within-group task interdependence as a moderator of the follower PsyCap – leader PsyCap relationship

Indeed, empirical research shows that the association between workplace variables is not consistent across individuals and contexts. Law et al. (2008), for instance, have claimed that when employees are highly interdependent, such as in work teams, the influence of emotional intelligence on job performance may be more prominent. This is due to the fact that a person’s ability to perform socially at his/her best requires consideration of the qualities and limitations of the work context (Eisenberg et al., 2000; Savage, 2002). Therefore, taking into account these work context variables may help to further explain the upward contagion of PsyCap.

Task interdependence is the extent to which people depend on and receive direct assistance from others (such as peers and the supervisor) to complete tasks (Thompson, 1967). We contend that the degree of task dependency within a work group may also influence how leaders react to PsyCap cues from followers. According to social impact theory (Latane, 1981), members of teams with a high task interdependence work more closely with their leaders to obtain resources and expertise. Because of this, we reason that these leaders are more vulnerable to the influence of their followers. In contrast, follower PsyCap is expected to have less of an impact on leader PsyCap when followers act alone in situations with low task dependency. Our assertion draws upon previous theorizing on followership effect on leaders. e.g., Uhl-Bien and Graen (1998) showed that cross-functional work groups with interdependent tasks had larger effects on their leaders than did functional groups with less requirement for staff coordination. Several other empirical studies have also confirmed the positive moderating effect of task interdependence between followership and leadership variables (e.g., Barrick et al., 2007; Kearney and Gebert, 2009; Wang and Howell, 2010).

High task interdependence leads to a greater impact of followers’ PsyCap on leaders, even when it results primarily from follower-follower interdependence (rather than leader-follower interdependence). We assert that because effective leadership of interdependent teams requires leaders to balance follower workload, facilitate effective communication, and resolve follower conflicts on an ongoing basis (Barrick et al., 1998). This deepens the psychological proximity between followers and leaders which in turn creates more opportunities for followers’ PsyCap to have an imprint on leaders. In contrast, the upward contagion of follower PsyCap will be less pronounced for leaders managing teams with lower levels of task interdependence.

Again, though not formally proffered in Figure 1, we expect within-group task-interdependence to moderate the indirect contagion effects as well. For example, we maintain that positive follower characteristics like PsyCap, secure leader-specific attachment and positive behaviours are likely to have stronger effects on LMX and leader PsyCap when followers connect more frequently and share a synergetic work structure. By the same token, we believe that the deleterious effects of low PsyCap, insecure attachment models, and negative behaviors of followers on leaders are likely to be attenuated under conditions of high task interdependence among followers. Thus, we derive the following proposition:

Proposition 7

The positive relationship between follower PsyCap and leader PsyCap is moderated by within-group task interdependence, such that the relationship is stronger when within-group task interdependence is high rather than low.

Summary of our conceptual model and theoretical implications

There is a widespread and urgent cry for dynamic leadership in cross-cultural organizations. Leading across cultural differences requires not just technical and organizational knowledge, but importantly, the dynamic capability to leverage followers’ strengths and psychological resources (Luthans and Youssef, 2017). One such psychological resource that has extensively been shown to contribute to effective leadership is PsyCap. Our proposed model shown in Figure 1 contributes to the PsyCap oeuvre in several ways.

First, it speculates for the first time, the idea that psycap could influence relational models. In the extant attachment literature, it is widely accepted that global attachment style affects specific relational models in a hierarchical structure. However, there is also evidence as to how specific attachment models can be “primed” with a positive mindset. In an interesting study, adults “primed” with words about secure attachment were more open to exploring new experiences than adults “primed” with statements about insecure attachment (Green and Campbell, 2000). It's interesting to note that this effect was independent of their global attachment models. We argue that, as PsyCap facilitates positive cognitive appraisals of past, present, and future events (Luthans and Youssef-Morgan, 2017), it is more likely to activate secure leader-specific relational models (i.e., low scores on anxiety and avoidance) in a follower. Thus, high PsyCap followers will be able to “securely prime” themselves before entering supervisory relationships where their insecure attachment patterns could otherwise cause them to isolate themselves from their leaders. While PsyCap may not change their overriding attachment style, it can help them forge and maintain positive relationships with their leaders.

Second, our model contributes to the much-needed understanding of how positive followers could drive high-quality exchanges with their leaders. In doing so, our model incidentally makes an important contribution to the LMX theory in that it posits the follower behavioral antecedents of LMX. Specifically, we suggest that secure leader-specific models would enable followers exhibit higher levels of performance, organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs), and lower levels of withdrawal behaviors (e.g., absenteeism, turnover, and tardiness). Drawing from the resource theory (Foa and Foa, 1980), we contend that followers with these positive behaviors should develop high-quality relationships with their leaders because these behaviors are important ‘service-related’ resources they provide their leaders with.

A third contribution of our model is that it envisages the LMX benefits that leaders might derive. Researchers typically conceive of LMX advantages from the follower side of the leader/follower dyad. Consequently, enquiry on the benefits that leaders reap from LMX is largely played down, if not entirely overlooked in the literature. Researchers have hypothesized that leaders could gain by enjoying better reputations, more promotional opportunities, improved health outcomes, and a more positive attitude about their own abilities (e.g., Liden et al., 1997; Van Breukelen, Schyns and Le Blanc, 2006). However, these presumptive benefits are largely unsubstantiated. Notably, Liden et al. (1997) argue that more “research is needed on outcomes of LMX for leaders” (p. 73). Addressing this gap, we again draw from Foa and Foa’s (1980) resource theory to explain the positive resource outcomes leaders obtain as a result of high-quality exchanges and how these outcomes develop their PsyCap.

Finally, although our model emphasizes followers’ influence on leaders, it recognizes that leaders (just as followers) are not submissive recipients of followers’ influence. We suggest that the positive upward influence of follower PsyCap will be more pronounced for leaders having lower levels of power distance perceptions and leading teams with high task interdependence.

Implications for cross-cultural leadership

Despite the exponential increase in the demand for global and diverse leaders, these leaders are frequently chosen based only on their organizational and technical knowhow without proper preparation for the interpersonal challenges of managing culturally diverse followers. The relationship skills and cognitive competencies needed for effective leadership of these organizations are grounded in their psychological capital. Organizations will therefore benefit from selecting high PsyCap individuals for cross-cultural leadership roles. Following their hiring, these leaders may be “invested in” through training and development programmes that enhance their PsyCap levels. Particularly, organizations should assist low PsyCap leaders to develop more positive attitudes towards diversity and stronger relationship leadership skills. Notably, Judge (2001) makes the following recommendation based on his research: “Global leadership development programmes need to be tailored to the individual, be long-term in nature, and should be focused on both the inner person and their outer skills.”

Given that high-quality leader-follower relationships are regularly associated with a variety of positive workplace results, global leaders should review the strength of their relationships with each of their direct reports on a regular basis to make sure that everyone has a fair opportunity of being regarded as a high-LMX member (Bolino and Turnley, 2009). To benefit from the positive contagion effects of PsyCap, organizations should also train leaders to appreciate followers’ pro-organizational mindsets and positive behaviors. Failure to do so will discourage followers from proactively enacting constructive improvements to work methods and thereby transferring their PsyCap resources to leaders.

The cultural values continue to impact leadership and followership practices across countries. In other words, leaders have their own perceptions and preferences that could either hinder or promote followers’ influence. To minimize the impact of such leader perceptions on PsyCap’s upward contagion, cognitive therapy-based communication techniques could also be used to help leaders interact with a variety of other people. The value of “thought self-management” in multicultural leadership is demonstrated by Neck and Smith (1997). They suggest that in order to lead more effectively in global settings, leaders should challenge dysfunctional assumptions about followers, figure out how to see challenges as opportunities, and build positive self-talks. These techniques at the individual level will maximize the upward contagion of PsyCap at the workplace.

Conclusions and future research directions

As Milton Berle once said, ‘If opportunity doesn’t knock, build a door’. Informed by the theoretical underpinnings of followership, this study is just a prefatory endeavor at explaining why, how, and when follower PsyCap could influence leader PsyCap. Though our study has many strengths, we recognize some potential limitations and needed future research. Importantly, future researchers wanting to corroborate our theoretical claims must be wary of the fact that absolute causal attributions will be precluded by the absence of experimental manipulation. There may be a number of reasonable alternative explanations for the proposed relationships or even reverse causality. For instance, although we have conceptualized follower PsyCap to influence their secure attachment models, positive behaviors and LMX, it is possible that high quality exchanges enable and reinforce positive follower behaviors. It is also possible that high PsyCap leaders drive high quality exchanges with their followers and this in turn could promote the formation of followers’ positive models of self and others and thus contribute to follower PsyCap development. While such possibilities have hitherto been explored both empirically and conceptually, our study speculates the upward contagion process for the first time. Nevertheless, several plausible alternative explanations of the upward contagion effect might exist. In this section, we present a variety of methodological and conceptual recommendations for future research.

Alternative research designs for upward contagion

As research in the area of PsyCap’s upward contagion is still dawning, we suggest that scholars adopt several alternative research designs to embolden the theoretical claims. As called for by Luthans and Yousseff-Morgan (2017) in their comprehensive review of the PsyCap literature, multilevel, multimethod, and longitudinal research designs should be adopted to study PsyCap’s contagion effects. Following are some illustrative (but not exhaustive) examples of the different approaches to studying PsyCap’s upward contagion effects.

Factors moderating the upward contagion effect at multiple levels

An important future research opportunity concerns the investigation of cross-level interactions where the strength of the follower PsyCap – leader PsyCap relationship may vary as a function of team, organizational, or industry-level variables. As our model already conceptualizes two team-level moderators in leader power distance and within-group task interdependence, PsyCap’s cross-level interactions with other potential team-level variables could further be explored. Team climate is one of the potential moderators of the upward contagion process. The transfer of PsyCap from followers to leaders may be stronger in stimulating and supportive team climates. Additionally, leadership style may facilitate or hinder the upward contagion effect. For example, we can expect the upward contagion effect to be seamless when leaders exhibit more participative or authentic styles of leadership. Contrarily, paternalistic and authoritarian leaders may not be open to absorbing followers’ PsyCap. Relatedly, will leader’s global as well as follower-specific attachment models also play a role in how responsive they are to the influence of follower behaviors and follower PsyCap. Future research should throw light on this.

Future research should also meaningfully conceptualize and confirm other potential cultural moderators. Though we have formally proposed the impact of power distance, other cultural value orientations, such as collectivism, masculinity/femininity (and more) could also moderate the relationship between follower psycap and leader psycap. It could be that the ‘follower to leader’ contagion flow is untroubled in countries with high individualistic orientation. In such cultures, followers will be more encouraged to relate with and feed off their positivity to their leaders. Indeed, Hofstede’s (2001) popular research on global cultural dimensions has found that Asian countries are typified as being high context, high in power distance, and high in collectivism. These cultural variables have been found to moderate a wide array of relationships involving leaders and followers. For example, Hui et al. (2004) found that although there were positive relationships between employees’ job autonomy and satisfaction across cultures, these relationships were significantly stronger in low rather than high power-distance countries. Similarly, although the meta-analysis by Dulebohn et al. (2012) found positive relationships between leader trust and LMX across countries, the relationships were more found to be more pronounced in countries with lower rather than higher levels of collectivism.

Finally, future work should focus on how organizational-level and country-level variables moderate the upward contagion process. For example, it is plausible that the upward contagion effect is more marked when organizational PsyCap is high. Given that positive followership is vital to positive leadership, findings from these multilevel designs should enable organizations to design work practices at the team and organizational levels in ways that promote PsyCap’s upward contagion.

Multilevel mediation

Another complex (yet meaningful) research design concerns the exploration of the upward cascading effects of followers’ PsyCap. Given that positive individuals are likely to spread positivity across all levels in an organization (Aguinis and Bradley, 2015), researchers could consider theorizing a three-level mediation model wherein a follower’s PsyCap (A) spreads to his/her leader’s (B’s) leader (C) through his/her leader (B). For example, in examining the dark side of leadership, Liu et al. (2012) found that team-leader abusive supervision mediated the negative relationship between department leader abusive supervision and team member creativity.

PsyCap’s upward contagion over time

More important, how the specific patterns of these underlying mechanisms work to trigger the upward contagion effect over time has not yet been operationalized or thoroughly inspected empirically. As recommended by Youssef-Morgan (2014), more experimental and longitudinal research will shed light on the malleability of PsyCap’s upward contagion effect over time. The time taken for the transference is a distinguishable criterion that sets PsyCap contagion apart from emotion contagion. We have considerable evidence that emotion contagion operates a lot faster. For example, Friedman and Riggio (1981) found that it took no more than 2 minutes for emotion contagion to occur between individuals who were merely sitting and facing each other in silence. However, PsyCap contagion could be serial and progressive as depicted in our model (See Figure 1). Furthermore, it could be that the upward contagion effect is a function of follower-leader relationship tenure. In this regard, we believe that qualitative and mixed-methods research might be more felicitous for a profounder appreciation of these mechanisms than the customary quantitative studies.

In closing, we agree with Luthans and Youssef-Morgan (2017) that research on PsyCap’s contagion effects can have momentous and far-reaching implications with regard to resource allocation and leadership development. Thus, research that sheds light on how, why, when, and to what extent PsyCap’s upward contagion operates at multiple levels of analysis is of great significance to both individuals and organizations.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The ideas presented here benefitted from conversations with professors at Great Lakes Institute of Management Chennai, India and the Faculty of Business School, The University of Auckland, New Zealand.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

V. Venkatanagarajan

References

Aguinis

Bradley

(2015) The secret sauce for organizational success. Organizational Dynamics 44: 161–168. DOI: 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2015.05.001.

Anand

Vidyarthi

Rolnicki

(2018) Leader-member exchange and organizational citizenship behaviors: contextual effects of leader power distance and group task interdependence. The Leadership Quarterly 29(4): 489–500.

Avey

Wernsing

Luthans

(2008) Can positive employees help positive organizational change? Impact of psychological capital and emotions on relevant attitudes and behaviors. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 44(1): 48–70. DOI: 10.1177/0021886307311470.

Avolio

Luthans

(2006) The High Impact Leader: Moments Matter in Accelerating Authentic Leadership Development. New York: McGraw Hill. Retrieved from: http://www.mheducation.co.in/

Baldwin

Keelan

JPR

Fehr

, et al. (1996) Social-cognitive conceptualization of attachment working models: availability and accessibility effects. Journal of personality and social psychology 71(1): 94.

Bandura

(1997), Self-Ef;cacy: The Exercise of Control, New York: Freeman. Retrieved from: http://www.macmillanlearning.com/Catalog/

Bandura

Locke

(2003) Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology 88(1): 87. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.87.

Barrick

Mount

(1991) The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology 44(1): 1–26.

Barrick

Stewart

Neubert

, et al. (1998) Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology 83(3): 377.

10.

Barrick

Bradley

Kristof-Brown

, et al. (2007) The moderating role of top management team interdependence: implications for real teams and working groups. Academy of Management Journal 50: 544–557.

11.

Bastardoz

Van Vugt

(2019) The nature of followership: evolutionary analysis and review. The Leadership Quarterly 30(1): 81–95. DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.09.004.

12.

Bauer

Green

(1996) Development of leader-member exchange: a longitudinal test. Academy of Management Journal 39(6): 1538–1567.

13.

Bindl

Parker

(2011) Feeling good and performing well? Psychological engagement and positive behaviors at work. In: Albrecht

(ed), Handbook of Employee Engagement: Perspectives, Issues, Research and Practice. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, pp. 385–398.

14.

Bolino

Turnley

(2009) Relative deprivation among employees in lower-quality leader-member exchange relationships. The Leadership Quarterly 20: 276–286. DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.03.001.

15.

Bowlby

(1973) Attachment and Loss: Separation. New York: Basic Books. Retrieved from: http://www.basicbooks.com/

16.

Bunjak

Černe

(2018) Mindfulness–The missing link in the relationship between leader–follower strategic optimism (mis) match and work engagement. Frontiers in Psychology 9: 2444. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02444.

17.

Cameron

Dutton

Quinn

(eds), (2003) Positive Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of a New Discipline. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. Retrieved from: https://www.bkconnection.com/

18.

Carver

Scheier

(2002) The hopeful optimist. Psychological Inquiry 13(4): 288–290. Retrieved from: https://www.routledge.com/india

19.

Cattaneo

Rizzolatti

(2009) The mirror neuron system. Archives of Neurology 66(5): 557–560. DOI: 10.1001/archneurol.2009.41.

20.

Collins

Read

(1994) Cognitive representations of attachment: the structure and function of working models. In: Bartholomew

Perlman

(eds), Attachment Processes in Adulthood. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, pp. 53–90. Retrieved from: https://www.jkp.com/index.php?uk

21.

Dawkins

Martin

Scott

, et al. (2013) Building on the positives: a psychometric review and critical analysis of the construct of psychological capital. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 86(3): 348–370. DOI: 10.1111/joop.12007.

22.

Dulebohn

Bommer

Liden

, et al. (2012) A metaanalysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange: integrating the past with an eye toward the future. Journal of Management 38: 1715–1759.

23.

Eisenberg

Fabes

Guthrie

, et al. (2000) Dispositional emotionality and regulation: their role in predicting quality of social functioning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78: 136–157.

24.

Erdogan

Sparrowe

Liden

, et al. (2004) Implications of organizational exchanges for accountability theory. Human Resource Management Review 14: 19–45. DOI: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2004.02.002.

25.

Fletcher

GJO

Overall

Friesen

(2006) Social cognition in intimate relationships. In: Vangelisti

Perlman

(eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships. New York: Cambridge Press, pp. 353–368. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511606632.020.

26.

Foa

(1980) Resource theory. In: Social Exchange. Boston, MA: Springer, pp. 77–94.

27.

Friedman

Riggio

(1981) Effect of individual differences in nonverbal expressiveness on transmission of emotion. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 6(2): 96–104. DOI: 10.1007/BF00987285.

28.

Fuller

Marler

Hester

(2012) Bridge building within the province of proactivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior 33: 1053–1070. DOI: 10.1002/job.1780.

29.

Game

(2008) Negative emotions in supervisory relationships: the role of relational models. Human Relations 61(3): 355–393. DOI: 10.1177/0018726708088998.

30.

Gardner

Avolio

Luthans

, et al. (2005) Can you see the real me?” A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development. The Leadership Quarterly 16(3): 343–372. DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.003.

31.

Glaser

Tatum

Nebeker

, et al. (1999) Workload and social support: effects on performance and stress. Human Performance 12(2): 155–176. DOI: 10.1080/08959289909539865.

32.

Gouldner

(1960) The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement. American Sociological Review 25: 161–178. DOI: 10.2307/2092623.

33.

Graen

Uhl-Bien

(1995) Relationship-based approach to leadership: development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly 6(2): 219–247. Retrieved from: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/the-leadership-quarterly/

34.

Green

Campbell

(2000) Attachment and Exploration in Adults: Chronic and Contextual Accessibility. Personality.

35.

Haar

Roche

Luthans

(2014, January) Testing the Power of Followership: Do Leaders’ Psychological Capital and Engagement Influence Follower Teams or Vice Versa? InAcademy of Management Proceedings. DOI: 10.5465/ambpp.2014.11058.

36.

Hanges

Aiken

Park

, et al. (2016) Cross-cultural leadership: leading around the world. Current Opinion in Psychology 8: 64–69.

37.

Hofstede

(1980) Culture and organizations. International Studies of Management and Organization 10(4): 15–41.

38.

Hofstede

(1991) Empirical Models of Cultural Differences.

39.

Hofstede

(2001) Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations across Nations. Sage publications.

40.

Hui

Fock

(2004) Empowerment effects across cultures. Journal of International Business Studies 35(1): 46–60.

41.

Huitt

Cain

(2005) An overview of the conative domain. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University, vols. 1-20. Retrieved from: http:/www.edpsycinteractive.org/brilstar/chapters/conative.pdf

42.

Ilies

Morgeson

Nahrgang

(2005) Authentic leadership and eudaemonic well-being: understanding leader–follower outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly 16(3): 373–394. DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.002.

43.

Jackson

(2002) The management of people across cultures: valuing people differently. The University of Michigan and in alliance with the Society of Human Resources Management, 41, pp. 455–475.

44.

Jackson

(2016) Paternalistic leadership: the missing link in cross-cultural leadership studies? International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 16(1): 3–7.

45.

Judge

(2001) Is a leader’s character culture-bound or culture-free? An empirical comparison of the character traits of American and Taiwanese CEOs. Journal of Leadership Studies 8(2): 63–79.

46.

Judge

Bono

(2001) Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with job satisfaction and job performance: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 86(1): 80.

47.

Kearney

Gebert

(2009) Managing diversity and enhancing team outcomes: the promise of transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology 94: 77–89.

48.

Keller

(2003) Parental images as a guide to leadership sensemaking: an attachment perspective on implicit leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly 14(2): 141–160. DOI: 10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00007-9.

49.

Kirkman

Lowe

Gibson

(2006) A quarter century of culture's consequences: a review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede’s cultural values framework. Journal of International Business Studies 37: 285–320.

50.

Lam

Huang

Snape

(2007) Feedback-seeking behavior and leader-member exchange: do supervisor-attributed motives matter? Academy of Management Journal 50(2): 348–363.

51.

Latané

(1981) The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist 36(4): 343.

52.

Law

Wong

Huang

, et al. (2008) The effects of emotional intelligence on job performance and life satisfaction for the research and development scientists in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 25: 51–69.

53.

Lee

Allen

(2002) Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: the role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology 87(1): 131.

54.

Chiaburu

Kirkman

, et al. (2013) Spotlight on the followers: an examination of moderators of relationships between transformational leadership and subordinates’ citizenship and taking charge. Personnel Psychology 66: 225–260. DOI: 10.1111/peps.12014.

55.

Liden

Wayne

Stilwell

(1993) A longitudinal study on the early development of leader-member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology 78(4): 662–674. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.662.

56.

Liden

Sparrowe

Wayne

(1997) Leader-member exchange theory: the past and potential for the future. In: Ferris

(ed), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management Partial. Greenwich, CT: JAI Publishers, vol. 19, pp. 47–119.

57.

Linley

Joseph

(2004) Positive change following trauma and adversity: a review. Journal of Traumatic Stress 17(1): 11–21.

58.

Liu

Liao

Loi

(2012) The dark side of leadership: a three-level investigation of the cascading effect of abusive supervision on employee creativity. Academy of Management Journal 55(5): 1187–1212.

59.

Lopez

(2013) Making Hope Happen. New York, NY: Atria. Retrieved from: http://www.simonandschusterpublishing.com/atria/

60.

Lopez

Snyder

(2003) Positive Psychological Assessment: A Handbook of Models and Measures. American Psychological Association, p. 495.

61.

Luthans

(2002) The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior 23(6): 695–706. DOI: 10.1002/job.165.

62.

Luthans

Avolio

(2003) Authentic leadership: a positive development approach. In: Cameron

Dutton

Quinn

(eds), Positive Organizational Scholarship. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler, pp. 241–258. Retrieved from: https://www.bkconnection.com/

63.

Luthans

Youssef-Morgan

(2017) Psychological capital: an evidence-based positive approach. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 4: 339–366. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113324.

64.

Luthans

Youssef

Avolio

(2007) Psychological capital: Developing the human competitive edge. Oxford: Oxford University Press, vol. 3. Retrieved from: http://global.oup.com/?cc=in

65.

Luthans

Avey

(2014) Building the leaders of tomorrow: the development of academic psychological capital. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 21(2): 191–199.

66.

Luthans

Youssef-Morgan

Avolio

(2015) Psychological Capital and beyond. USA: Oxford University Press.

67.

Maslyn

Uhl-Bien

(2001) Leader-member exchange and its dimensions: effects of self-effort and other’s effort on relationship quality. Journal of Applied Psychology 86: 697–708. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.4.697.

68.

Masten

(2001) Ordinary magic: resilience processes in development. American Psychologist 56(3): 227–239. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.227.

69.

Morrison

Phelps

(1999) Taking charge at work: extrarole efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of Management Journal 42: 403–419. DOI: 10.2307/257011.

70.

Nahrgang

Seo

(2016) How and why high leader–member exchange (LMX) relationships develop: examining the antecedents of LMX. In: Bauer

Erdogan

(eds), The Oxford Handbook of Leader-Member Exchange. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 87–118.

71.

Neck

Smith

(1997) Thought self-management: a self-regulatory approach to diversity management. Journal of Managerial Psychology 12(3/4): 190–204.

72.

Norman

Luthans

(2005) The proposed contagion effect of hopeful leaders on the resiliency of employees and organizations. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 12(2): 55–64.

73.

Bashshur

(2013) Followership, leadership and social influence. The Leadership Quarterly 24(6): 919–934. DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.10.006.

74.

Parker

Collins

(2010) Taking stock: integrating and differentiating multiple proactive behaviors. Journal of Management 36: 633–662. DOI: 10.1177/0149206308321554.

75.

Peterson

(2000) The future of optimism. American Psychologist 55(1): 44–55. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.44.

76.

Pierce

Lydon

(2001) Global and specific relational models in the experience of social interactions. Journal of personality and social psychology 80(4): 613–631. DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.80.4.613.

77.

Popper

(2011) Toward a theory of followership. Review of General Psychology 15(1): 29–36. DOI: 10.1037/a0021989.

78.

Savage

(2002) The role of emotion in strategic behavior. In: Barrett

Salovey

(eds), The Wisdom in Feeling. New York: Guilford Press, pp. 211–236.

79.

Scandura

Graen

(1984) Moderating effects of initial leader–member exchange status on the effects of a leadership intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology 69(3): 428–436. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.69.3.428.

80.

Schmidt

Hunter

Outerbridge

, et al. (1986) The economic impact of job selection methods on size, productivity, and payroll costs of the federal work force: an empirically based demonstration. Personnel Psychology 39(1): 1–29.

81.

Schmitt

Den Hartog

Belschak

(2016) Transformational leadership and proactive work behaviour: a moderated mediation model including work engagement and job strain. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 89(3): 588–610. DOI: 10.1111/joop.12143.

82.

Seligman

Csikszentmihalyi

(2000) Special issue: positive psychology. American Psychologist 55(1): 5–14. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.5.

83.

Shamir

Pillai

Bligh

, et al. (2007) Follower-centered Perspectives on Leadership: A Tribute to the Memory of James R. Meindl. World Scientific.

84.

Shen

Abe

(2022) How do followership behaviors encourage job performance? A longitudinal study. Current Psychology: 1–11.

85.

Shondrick

Dinh

Lord

(2010) Developments in implicit leadership theory and cognitive science: applications to improving measurement and understanding alternatives to hierarchical leadership. The Leadership Quarterly 21(6): 959–978. DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.004.

86.

Simpson

Rholes

(2012) Adult attachment orientations, stress, and romantic relationships. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 45: 279–328. Retrieved from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/bookseries/00652601

87.

Sluss

Ashforth

(2007) Relational identity and identification: defining ourselves through work relationships. Academy of Management Review 32(1): 9–32. DOI: 10.5465/AMR.2007.23463672.

88.

Snyder

(2000) Handbook of Hope. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Retrieved from: https://www-elsevier-com-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/books-and-journals/academic-press

89.

Story

Youssef

Luthans

, et al. (2013) Contagion effect of global leaders’ positive psychological capital on followers: does distance and quality of relationship matter? International Journal of Human Resource Management 24(13): 2534–2553. DOI: 10.1080/09585192.2012.744338.

90.

Thompson

(1967) Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

91.

Uhl-Bien

(2021) Complexity leadership and followership: changed leadership in a changed world. Journal of Change Management 21(2): 144–162. DOI: 10.1080/14697017.2021.1917490.

92.

Uhl-Bien

Graen

(1998) Individual self-management: analysis of professionals’ self-managing activities in functional and cross-functional work teams. Academy of Management Journal 41: 340–350.

93.

Uhl-Bien

Riggio

Lowe

, et al. (2014) Followership theory: a review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly 25(1): 83–104. DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.007.

94.

Van Breukelen

Schyns

Le Blanc

(2006) Leader-member exchange theory and research: accomplishments and future challenges. Leadership 2(3): 295–316. DOI: 10.1177/1742715006066023.

95.

Wang

XHF

Howell

(2010) Exploring the dual-level effects of transformational leadership on followers. Journal of Applied Psychology 95: 1134–1144.

96.

Wayne

Ferris

(1990) Influence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in supervisor-subordinate interactions: a laboratory experiment and field study. Journal of Applied Psychology 75(5): 487.

97.

Wilson

Sin

Conlon

(2010) What about the leader in leader-member exchange? The impact of resource exchanges and substitutability on the leader. Academy of Management Review 35: 358–372. DOI: 10.5465/amr.35.3.zok358.

98.

Wood

Bandura

(1989) Social cognitive theory of organizational management. Academy of Management Review 14(3): 361–384. DOI: 10.5465/AMR.1989.4279067.

99.

Loi

Cai

, et al. (2019) Reversing the lens: how followers influence leader–member exchange quality. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 92: 475–497.

100.

Yammarino

Dionne

Schriesheim

, et al. (2008) Authentic leadership and positive organizational behavior: a meso, multi-level perspective. The Leadership Quarterly 19(6): 693–707. DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.09.004.

101.

Yang

Mossholder

Peng

(2007) Procedural justice climate and group power distance: an examination of cross-level interaction effects. Journal of Applied Psychology 92(3): 681.

102.

Youssef

Luthans

(2013) Developing psychological capital in organizations: cognitive, affective, conative, and social contributions of happiness. In: David

Boniwell

Ayers

(eds), Oxford Handbook of Happiness. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 751–766. Retrieved from: http://global.oup.com/?cc=in

103.

Youssef-Morgan

(2014) Advancing OB research: an illustration using psychological capital. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 21(2): 130–140. DOI: 10.1177/1548051813515512.

104.

Youssef-Morgan

Luthans

(2013). Positive leadership: meaning and application across cultures. Organizational Dynamics, 42(3), 198–208. DOI: 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2013.06.005

105.

Zhu

Tsai

Wang

, et al. (2023) Does leader-follower PsyCap congruence cultivate change-related outcomes? A supervisor-subordinate fit perspective. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 30(1): 25–39.