Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T11:26:46.011Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Does follower role orientation impact leader-directed outcomes? An exploration of the indirect effects of follower role orientation on influence and leader effectiveness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 September 2022

Ashita Goswami ,
Karoline Evans Open the ORCID record for Karoline Evans [Opens in a new window]  and
Patrick T. Coyle Open the ORCID record for Patrick T. Coyle [Opens in a new window]
Ashita Goswami*
Affiliation:
Korn Ferry Institute, Boston, MA, USA
Karoline Evans
Affiliation:
University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, MA, USA
Patrick T. Coyle
Affiliation:
La Salle University, Philadelphia, PA, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Ashita Goswami, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Follower role orientations affect how followers approach the leadership process; however, there has been little insight into how individuals use these role beliefs to influence leader outcomes, particularly through their psychological and social leader-follower relationships. This research examines how co-production, passive, and anti-authoritarian follower role orientations affect a follower's influence on their leader and leader effectiveness indirectly through psychological closeness and relationship quality. The results from two studies suggest co-production role orientation had positive effects on influence on the leader through psychological closeness and on perceived leader effectiveness through closeness and leader-member exchange. Passive role orientation was negatively related to followers' influence on the leader through reduced psychological closeness in study 1, while anti-authoritarian role beliefs were negatively related to closeness in study 2. These findings suggest that when followers believe co-production is critical to the leadership process, closeness with the leader, relationship quality, and perceived leader effectiveness improve.

Keywords

Follower role orientationleader effectivenessleader-follower exchangepsychological closenessrole-based followership
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Management & Organization , First View , pp. 1 - 33
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press in association with the Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbas, A., Ekowati, D., & Suhariadi, F. (2021). Individual psychological distance: A leadership task to assess and cope with invisible change. Journal of Management Development, 40(3), 168–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aghaei, M., Nasr Isfahani, A., Ghorbani, A., & Roozmand, O. (2021). Implicit followership theories and resistance to leaders’ unethical requests: The mediating role of organizational citizenship behavior. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, online ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-06-2021-2830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Almeida, T., Ramalho, N. C., & Esteves, F. (2021). Can you be a follower even when you do not follow the leader? Yes, you can. Leadership, 17(3), 336–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715020987740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ancona, D., & Caldwell, D. (1992). Demography and design - predictors of new product team performance. Organization Science, 3(3), 321–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antonakis, J., & Atwater, L. (2002). Leader distance: A review and a proposed theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(6), 673–704. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00155-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P., & Lalive, R. (2010). On making causal claims: A review and recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(6), 1086–1120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P., & Lalive, R. (2014). Causality and endogeneity: Problems and solutions. In Day, D. V. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of leadership and organizations (pp. 93–117). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1991). The full range of leadership development: Basic and advanced manuals. New York: Bass & Avolio.Google Scholar
Baird, J. E., & Diebolt, J. C. (1976). Role congruence, communication, superior-subordinate relations, and employee satisfaction in organizational hierarchies. Western Speech Communication, 40(4), 260–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570317609373910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, S. D. (2007). Followership: The theoretical foundation of a contemporary construct. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 14(1), 50–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002831207304343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldwin, M. W. (1992). Relational schemas and the processing of social information. Psychological Bulletin, 112(3), 461–484. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.3.461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldwin, M. W. (1997). Relational schemas as a source of if–then self-inference procedures. Review of General Psychology, 1(4), 326–335. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.1.4.326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bass, B. M., & Stogdill, R. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill's handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Becker, T. E. (2005). Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational Research Methods, 8(3), 274–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428105278021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behrend, T. S., Sharek, D. J., Meade, A. W., & Wiebe, E. N. (2011). The viability of crowdsourcing for survey research. Behavior Research Methods, 43(3), 800–813. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0081-0.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bennett, J. B. (1988). Power and influence as distinct personality traits: Development and validation of a psychometric measure. Journal of Research in Personality, 22(3), 361–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(88)90036-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benson, A. J., Hardy, J., & Eys, M. (2016). Contextualizing leaders’ interpretations of proactive followership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(7), 949–966. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blau, P. (1964). Power and exchange in social life. New York: J Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Brouer, R. L., Douglas, C., Treadway, D. C., & Ferris, G. R. (2013). Leader political skill, relationship quality, and leadership effectiveness: A two-study model test and constructive replication. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 20(2), 185–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051812460099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunelle, E. (2013). Leadership and mobile working: The impact of distance on the superior-subordinate relationship and the moderating effects of leadership style. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 4(11), 1–14.Google Scholar
Bunderson, J. S. (2003). Recognizing and utilizing expertise in work groups: A status characteristics perspective. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(4), 557–591. https://doi.org/10.2307/3556637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunderson, J. S., Van Der Vegt, G. S., Cantimur, Y., & Rink, F. (2016). Different views of hierarchy and why they matter: Hierarchy as inequality or as cascading influence. Academy of Management Journal, 59(4), 1265–1289. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carsten, M. K., Harms, P., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2014). Exploring historical perspectives of followership: The need for an expanded view of followers and the follower role. In Lapierre, L. & Carsten, M. K. (Eds.), Followership: What Is It and Why Do people follow (pp. 3–25). United Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
Carsten, M. K., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2012). Follower beliefs in the co-production of leadership: Examining upward communication and the moderating role of context. Zeitschrift Für Psychologie, 220(4), 210–220. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carsten, M. K., Uhl-Bien, M., & Griggs, T. L. (2016). Do you believe what i believe? A theoretical model of congruence in follower role orientation and its effects on manager and subordinate outcomes. In Gentry, W. A., Clerkin, C., Perrewe, P. L., Halbesleben, J., & Rosen, C. C. (Eds.), The role of leadership in occupational stress (Research in Occupational Stress and Well Being) (Vol. 14, pp. 91–114). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carsten, M. K., Uhl-Bien, M., & Huang, L. (2018). Leader perceptions and motivation as outcomes of followership role orientation and behavior. Leadership, 14(6), 731–756. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715017720306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carsten, M. K., Uhl-Bien, M., West, B. J., Patera, J. L., & McGregor, R. (2010). Exploring social constructions of followership: A qualitative study. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 543–562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.03.015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chemers, M. M., Watson, C. B., & May, S. T. (2000). Dispositional affect and leadership effectiveness: A comparison of self-esteem, optimism, and efficacy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(3), 267–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200265001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, F., Bollen, K. A., Paxton, P., Curran, P. J., & Kirby, J. B. (2001). Improper solutions in structural equation models: Causes, consequences, and strategies. Sociological Methods & Research, 29(4), 468–508. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124101029004003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collinson, D. (2006). Rethinking followership: A post-structuralist analysis of follower identities. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(2), 179–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coyle, P. T., & Foti, R. (2015). If you're not with me you're…? examining prototypes and cooperation in leader–follower relationships. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 22(2), 161–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051814550830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crossman, B., & Crossman, J. (2011). Conceptualising followership–a review of the literature. Leadership, 7(4), 481–497. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715011416891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crouch, A., & Yetton, P. (1988). Manager-subordinate dyads: Relationships among task and social contact, manager friendliness and subordinate performance in management groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41(1), 65–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(88)90047-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dachler, H. P., & Hosking, D. M. (1995). The primacy of relations in socially constructing organizational realities. In Hosking, D. M., Dachler, H. P. & Gergen, K. J. (Eds.), Management and organization: Relational alternatives to individualism (pp. 1–29). Burlington, VT: Avebury, Aldershot.Google Scholar
Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development. Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 618–634. https://doi.org/10.2307/258314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange: Integrating the past with an eye toward the future. Journal of Management, 38(6), 1715–1759. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311415280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erickson, D. J., & Krull, D. S. (1999). Distinguishing judgments about what from judgments about why: Effects of behavior extremity on correspondent inferences and causal attributions. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 21(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1207/15324839951036515.Google Scholar
Erkutlu, H., & Chafra, J. (2016). Benevolent leadership and psychological well-being: The moderating effects of psychological safety and psychological contract breach. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 37(3), 369–386. http://doi.org/10.1108/lodj-07-2014-0129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frisina, M. E. (2005). Learn to lead by following. Nursing Management, 36(3), 12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gooty, J., Connelly, S., Griffith, J., & Gupta, A. (2010). Leadership, affect and emotions: A state of the science review. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(6), 979–1004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (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. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, A. M., Parker, S., & Collins, C. (2009). Getting credit for proactive behavior: Supervisor reactions depend on what you value and how you feel. Personnel Psychology, 62(1), 31–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.01128.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, W. E. (1955). “Authoritarianism” and authority. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51(3), 641–643.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gunia, B. C., Sivanathan, N., & Galinsky, A. D. (2009). Vicarious entrapment: Your sunk costs, my escalation of commitment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(6), 1238–1244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.07.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, L. P. (1982). Large sample properties of generalized method of moments estimators. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 50, 1029–1054. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harms, P. D., Wood, D., Landay, K., Lester, P. B., & Lester, G. V. (2018). Autocratic leaders and authoritarian followers revisited: A review and agenda for the future. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(1), 105–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.12.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hausman, J. A. (1978). Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 46, 1251–1271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, A. F., & Rockwood, N. J. (2020). Conditional process analysis: Concepts, computation, and advances in the modeling of the contingencies of mechanisms. American Behavioral Scientist, 64(1), 19–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764219859633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofmann, D. A. (1997). An overview of the logic and rationale of hierarchical linear models. Journal of Management, 23(6), 723–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howell, J. M., & Shamir, B. (2005). The role of followers in the charismatic leadership process: Relationships and their consequences. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 96–112. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, J. L., Bowling, N. A., Liu, M., & Li, Y. (2015). Detecting insufficient effort responding with an infrequency scale: Evaluating validity and participant reactions. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30(2), 299–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-014-9357-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Leader–member exchange and citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 269–277. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.269.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Ilies, R. (2004). The forgotten ones? The validity of consideration and initiating structure in leadership research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 36–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kacmar, K. M., Witt, L. A., Zivnuska, S., & Gully, S. M. (2003). The interactive effect of leader-member exchange and communication frequency on performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 764–772. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.764.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Kellerman, B. (2008). How followers are creating change and changing leaders. Boston, MA: Harvard School Press.Google Scholar
Kelley, R. E. (1992). The power of followership: How to create leaders people want to follow and followers who lead themselves. New York: Doubleday/Currency.Google Scholar
Kyriazos, T. A. (2018). Applied psychometrics: Sample size and sample power considerations in factor analysis (EFA, CFA) and SEM in general. Psychology (Savannah, GA), 9(8), 2207–2230.Google Scholar
Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24(1), 43–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(99)80053-1.Google Scholar
Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader-member exchange theory: The past and potential for the future. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 15, 47–119.Google Scholar
Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lord, R. G., & Dinh, J. E. (2014). What have we learned that is critical in understanding leadership perceptions and leader-performance relations? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 7(2), 158–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1991). Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions and performance. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lord, R. G., & Shondrick, S. J. (2011). Leadership and knowledge: Symbolic, connectionist, and embodied perspectives. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(1), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsh, H. W., & Hau, K.-T. (1999). Confirmatory factor analysis: Strategies for small sample sizes. Statistical Strategies for Small Sample Research, 1, 251–284.Google Scholar
Martin, R., Guillaume, Y., Thomas, G., Lee, A., & Epitropaki, O. (2016). Leader–member exchange (LMX) and performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 69(1), 67–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maslyn, J. M., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2001). Leader–member exchange and its dimensions: Effects of self-effort and other's effort on relationship quality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 697–708. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.4.697.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Michaelis, B., Stegmaier, R., & Sonntag, K. (2009). Affective commitment to change and innovation implementation behavior: The role of charismatic leadership and employees’ trust in top management. Journal of Change Management, 9(4), 399–417. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697010903360608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milliken, F. J., & Lam, N. (2009). Making the decision to speak up or to remain silent: Implications for organizational learning. In Greenberg, J. & Edwards, M. S. (Eds.), Voice and silence in organizations (pp. 225–244). United Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
Napier, B. J., & Ferris, G. R. (1993). Distance in organizations. Human Resource Management Review, 3(4), 321–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/1053-4822(93)90004-N.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oc, B., & Bashshur, M. R. (2013). Followership, leadership and social influence. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(6), 919–934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.10.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, S. K. (2007). ‘that is my job’: How employees’ role orientation affects their job performance. Human Relations, 60(3), 403–434. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726707076684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, S. K., Wall, T. D., & Jackson, P. R. (1997). “That's not my job”: Developing flexible employee work orientations. The Academy of Management Journal, 40(4), 899–929. https://doi.org/10.2307/256952.Google Scholar
Piccolo, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. (2006). Transformational leadership and job behaviors: The mediating role of core job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 327–340. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2006.20786079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 539–569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Popper, M. (2013). Leaders perceived as distant and close. Some implications for psychological theory on leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.06.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, M., & Mayseless, O. (2007). The building blocks of leader development: A psychological conceptual framework. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 28(7), 664–684. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730710823905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36(4), 717–731.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Qin, X., Chen, C., Yam, K. C., Huang, M., & Ju, D. (2020). The double-edged sword of leader humility: Investigating when and why leader humility promotes versus inhibits subordinate deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(7), 693–712. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000456.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (Vol. 1). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2006). On multilevel model reliability estimation from the perspective of structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 13(1), 130–141. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1301_7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ridgeway, C. L., & Berger, J. (1986). Expectations, legitimation, and dominance behavior in task groups. American Sociological Review, 51(5), 603–617. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rim, S., Hansen, J., & Trope, Y. (2013). What happens why? Psychological distance and focusing on causes versus consequences of events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(3), 457–472. doi: 10.1037/a0031024CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roberts, N. C., & Bradley, R. (1988). Limits of charisma. In Conger, J. A. & Kanungo, R. N. (Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness (pp. 253–275). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Shamir, B. (1995). Social distance and charisma: Theoretical notes and an exploratory study. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(1), 19–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90003-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shamir, B. (2007). From passive recipients to active co-producers: Followers’ roles in the leadership process. In Shamir, B., Uhl-Bien, M., Bligh, M. C. & Pillai, R. (Eds.), Follower-centered perspectives on leadership: A tribute to the memory of James R. Meindl (pp. 9–39). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishers.Google Scholar
Shamir, B. (2012). Leadership research or post-leadership research: Advancing leadership theory versus throwing out the baby with the bath water. In Uhl-Bien, M., & Ospina, S. (Eds.), Advancing Relational Leadership Research: A Dialogue Among Perspectives, (pp. 477–500). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishers.Google Scholar
Shondrick, S. J., Dinh, J. E., & Lord, R. G. (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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7(4), 422–445. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spector, P. E., & Brannick, M. T. (2011). Methodological urban legends: The misuse of statistical control variables. Organizational Research Methods, 14(2), 287–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428110369842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
StataCorp. (2019). Stata Statistical Software: Release 16. College Station, TX: StataCorp LLC.Google Scholar
Stock, J., & Yogo, M. (2005). Asymptotic distributions of instrumental variables statistics with many instruments. In Andrews, D., & Stock, J. (Eds.), Identification and inference for econometric models: Essays in honor of Thomas Rothenberg (pp. 80–108). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Story, V., O'Malley, L., & Hart, S. (2011). Roles, role performance, and radical innovation competences. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(6), 952–966. doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2011.06.025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Story, J. S., Youssef, C. M., Luthans, F., Barbuto, J. E., & Bovaird, J. (2013). Contagion effect of global leaders’ positive psychological capital on followers: Does distance and quality of relationship matter? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(13), 2534–2553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sun, S., & van Emmerik, H. I. (2015). Are proactive personalities always beneficial? Political skill as a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(3), 966–975. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037833.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sy, T. (2010). What do you think of followers? Examining the content, structure, and consequences of implicit followership theories. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113(2), 73–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.06.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, G., Martin, R., Epitropaki, O., Guillaume, Y., & Lee, A. (2013). Social cognition in leader–follower relationships: Applying insights from relationship science to understanding relationship-based approaches to leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(S1), S63–S81. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, J. P., Whitman, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (2010). Employee proactivity in organizations: A comparative meta-analysis of emergent proactive constructs. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(2), 275–300. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317910X502359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torres, A., & Bligh, M. (2012). How far can I trust you? The impact of distance and cultural values on leaders’ trustworthiness. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, 9(2), 23–38.Google Scholar
Uhl-Bien, M., & Carsten, M. (2018). Reversing the lens in leadership: Positioning followership in the leadership construct. In Berson, Y., Katz, I., Eilam-Shamir, G., & Kark, R. (Eds.), Leadership now: Reflections on the legacy of Boas Shamir (pp. 195–222). Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing Limited.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uhl-Bien, M., & Pillai, R. (2007). The romance of leadership and the social construction of followership. In Shamir, B., Uhl-Bien, M., Bligh, M. C. & Pillai, R. (Eds.), Follower-centered perspectives on leadership: A tribute to the memory of James R. Meindl (pp. 187–209). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishers.Google Scholar
Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R. E., Lowe, K. B., & Carsten, M. K. (2014). Followership theory: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 83–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanderstukken, A., Schreurs, B., Germeys, F., Van den Broeck, A., & Proost, K. (2019). Should supervisors communicate goals or visions? The moderating role of subordinates’ psychological distance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 49(11), 671–683. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Houwelingen, G., Stam, D., & Giessner, S. (2017). So close and yet so far away: A psychological distance account of the effectiveness of leader appeals. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 47(12), 665–676. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldman, D. A., & Yammarino, F. J. (1999). CEO charismatic leadership: Levels-of-management and levels-of-analysis effects. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 266–285. https://doi.org/10.2307/259082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: Problems and remedies. In Hoyle, R. H. (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 56–75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Xu, A. J., Loi, R., Cai, Z., & Liden, R. C. (2019). Reversing the lens: How followers influence leader–member exchange quality. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 92(3), 475–497. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yagil, D. (1998). Charismatic leadership and organizational hierarchy: Attribution of charisma to close and distant leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 9(2), 161–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(98)90003-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yammarino, F. J., & Dansereau, F. (2008). Multi-level nature of and multi-level approaches to leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(2), 135–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.01.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar