Leadership

The present study tests a model of moderated mediation in the relationship between transformational leadership and follower emotional strain. Based on the job demands-resources model, we suggest that transformational leaders may be able to decrease follower emotional strain by providing social support. It is also proposed that a protective effect of social support from a transformational leader will depend on the employees’ level of professional ambition. Mediation by social support may be stronger for ambitious employees, such that transformational leadership may be associated with less emotional strain for these employees (moderated mediation). A sample of 199 employees participated in a cross-sectional study in Germany. Results confirmed the hypothesized moderated mediation indicating a health-promoting effect of supervisory social support for ambitious employees (not found for low levels of ambition). The study suggests that the idea of a general positive effect of transformational leadership on followers’ emotional strain is not appropriate.

This paper addresses a new perspective how leadership can be conceptualized in times of dispersed and team working structures. The dispersed leadership theory in teams proposes three distinguishing types of leadership, which include interactional leadership exerted by leaders; team leadership provided by team members; and structural leadership influenced by work and organizational factors (i.e., task, organizational structures, and customers). It is assumed that these three types of leadership simultaneously exert influence on follower’s attitudes and behaviors in teams. We outline the theory, review empirical evidence based on the model and discuss the strengths and limitations. In conclusion, we discuss relevant emerging topics for future studies.

Recent theoretical and empirical research focused on the role of affect in the process of leadership. It was proposed that followers’ interpersonal affect toward their supervisor biases the assessment of transformational leadership. In order to extend this work, the present study focused on other important, additional leadership constructs (i.e. transactional, laissez-faire, consideration, initiating structure, leader–member exchange, and ethical leadership). Utilizing data from eight empirical studies (total sample size N = 2213), it was found that liking considerably impacted the assessment of all of these leadership constructs. In addition, the convergence between these leadership constructs was biased by liking. Overall, the role of liking in the leadership process was highlighted.

This study explores whether the internalization of emotional regulation affects well-being and examines further whether authoritarian leadership can moderate the relationship between such internalization of emotional regulation and employee well-being. A total of 271 working adults who were employed by Chinese enterprises in Taiwan participated in this study. All hypotheses were tested using hierarchical regression analyses. The study showed that controlled emotional regulation through external regulation is significantly negatively associated with such indicators of well-being as mental and physical health, whereas autonomous emotional regulation through integrated regulation is significantly positively associated with such indicators of well-being as mental and physical health. The study also found that authoritarian leadership may moderate the relationship between autonomous emotional regulation through identified or integrated regulation and the well-being indicators.

The author contextualizes recent developments in sociocognitive approaches to leadership by drawing on psychoanalytic conceptions of self-identity. It is argued that psychoanalytic views of the self are complementary to contemporary social-cognitive approaches, although historical divergences in these literatures have impeded mutual dialogue. This initiative at dialogue examines charismatic, schema, and self-identity theories of leadership within a psychoanalytic framework, arguing that when self-identity is viewed broadly, convergences between these approaches become apparent. A broad view of the self makes notions of authority central to the construction of personal identities, underscores the ambivalence and relationality of self-processes, and highlights the normative assumptions underlying followership that may be difficult to theorize with contemporary sociocognitive approaches.

Transformational leadership has undergone a critical reassessment. Rather than examining the state of the science or the conceptual confusion and contradictions inherent in the ongoing stream of transformational leadership research, this article adopts an historical perspective, looking back on the founding era of this influential concept. In particular, the article evaluates the use of Lee Iacocca, who became the personification of the transformational leadership ideal. While placing Iacocca's appeal into a particular socio-historical context, the article offers a critical weighing of that devise. This use of Iacocca as a personification and embodiment of the transformational leadership construct was, at best, a highly romanticized take on an individual. At worse, the use of Iacocca was misleading and disingenuous. The article concludes that two core flaws of transformational leadership—over-attribution and romanticizing traditional leadership behaviors—were present from the inception.