The Leadership Quarterly 30 (2019) 34–58

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Leadership Quarterly

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/leaqua

Review

A review of the effectiveness of empowering leadership T

a,⁎ b b c b
Minyoung Cheong , Francis J. Yammarino , Shelley D. Dionne , Seth M. Spain , Chou-Yu Tsai
a
Pennsylvania State University, School of Graduate Professional Studies at Great Valley, 30 East Swedesford Road, Malvern, PA 19355, United States of America
b
Binghamton University, State University of New York, Center for Leadeship Studies and School of Management, United States of America
c
Concordia University, John Molson School of Business, Canada

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Based on a review of empirical literature on empowering leadership, given incongruent and mixed results, the
Empowering leadership current work suggests reconsidering the effectiveness of empowering leadership. We propose a framework for
Non-linear effects examining the effectiveness of empowering leadership that considers: 1) feasibility of non-linear main effects of
Reverse causation empowering leadership on work-related outcomes, 2) possibility of reverse causation between empowering
Mediating mechanisms and boundary
leadership and work-related outcomes, 3) potential contradictory mediating mechanisms through which em-
conditions
powering leadership influences work-related outcomes, 4) consideration of boundary conditions which could
Levels-of-analysis and multilevel issues
alter the relationships between empowering leadership and work-related outcomes, and 5) consideration of
levels-of-analysis and multilevel issues in empowering leadership. Our framework considers the multifaceted
nature of empowering leadership and offers a guiding tool for advancing future research in this area.

Introduction
Scholars define empowering leadership as a process of sharing
power, and allocating autonomy and responsibilities to followers,
teams, or collectives through a specific set of leader behaviors for em-
ployees to enhance internal motivation and achieve work success
(Ahearne, Mathieu, & Rapp, 2005; Amundsen & Martinsen, 2014a;
Arnold, Arad, Rhoades, & Drasgow, 2000; Sharma & Kirkman, 2015;
Sims Jr, Faraj, & Yun, 2009; Strauss, 1964). The concept of empowering
leadership has been developed in line with a stream of positive scho-
larship (Fineman, 2006; Spreitzer, 1995; Spreitzer & Doneson, 2005)
and, as a consequence, the returns of empowering leadership are often
claimed to be mostly beneficial, humane, and virtuous (Chen, Sharma,
Edinger, Shapiro, & Farh, 2011; Srivastava, Bartol, & Locke, 2006;
Vecchio, Justin, & Pearce, 2010; Yun, Cox, & Sims Jr, 2006; Zhang &
Bartol, 2010). As such, both scholarly and practitioner interest in the
effectiveness of empowering leadership, particularly focused on its
positive side, is on the rise (see Lee, Willis, & Tian, 2018).
But existing research in this realm has been questioned (Forrester,
2000; Honold, 1997; Sharma & Kirkman, 2015; Wilkinson, 1998) and
empirically shown, at least to some degree, to have incongruent and
mixed results regarding the effectiveness of empowering leadership
(Cheong, Spain, Yammarino, & Yun, 2016; Lee, Cheong, Kim, & Yun,
2017; Wong & Giessner, 2018). To better understand the potential
reasons for the inconsistency between the positive theoretical devel-
opments and the mixed empirical results regarding the effectiveness of
empowering leadership (Edmondson & McManus, 2007), we reviewed
empirical literature on empowering leadership to examine its effec-
tiveness, considering not only relationship strength but also direction
(i.e., positive vs negative), non-linear relationships of empowering
leadership with its outcomes, inherently paradoxical aspects of em-
powering leadership, and levels-of-analyses and multilevel issues in-
volved in empowering leadership studies (see Dionne et al., 2014;
Yammarino, Dionne, Chun, & Dansereau, 2005).
Based on the aforementioned scholarly definition of empowering
leadership, we first provide a historical development of the concept as a
foundational point for clarifying and distinguishing the construct from
other closely related leadership concepts such as participative leader-
ship, transformational/charismatic leadership, ethical leadership, self-
leadership, leader-member exchange (LMX), shared leadership, and
path-goal theory of leadership. Then, we review prior literature in the
area and reassess the effectiveness of empowering leadership by con-
sidering: 1) feasibility of non-linear main effects of empowering lea-
dership on work-related outcomes, 2) possibility of reverse causation
between empowering leadership and work-related outcomes, 3) po-
tential contradictory mediating mechanisms through which empow-
ering leadership influences work-related outcomes, 4) consideration of
boundary conditions which could alter the relationships between

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: mxc1016@psu.edu (M. Cheong), fjyammo@binghamton.edu (F.J. Yammarino), sdionne@binghamton.edu (S.D. Dionne),
seth.spain@concordia.ca (S.M. Spain), ctsai@binghamton.edu (C.-Y. Tsai).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.08.005
Received 19 January 2017; Received in revised form 22 August 2018; Accepted 27 August 2018
Available online 08 September 2018
1048-9843/ Published by Elsevier Inc.
M. Cheong et al.
empowering leadership and work-related outcomes, and 5) considera-
tion of levels-of-analysis and multilevel issues in empowering leader-
ship. We assert that overlooking each of these features has contributed
to the inconsistent findings about the effectiveness of empowering
leadership.
Goals and scope of the review
There has been a prior review (Sharma & Kirkman, 2015) and a
meta-analysis of empowering leadership (Lee et al., 2018), and the
overall conclusion was that empowering leadership is generally a de-
sirable leadership construct. But it is as important to examine the ef-
fectiveness of empowering leadership which has displayed conflicting
or mixed empirical results.
A primary objective of the current review is to suggest a need for a
more systematic approach for investigating the effectiveness of em-
powering leadership. To accomplish this, based on a review of the
empirical literature on empowering leadership, we develop a frame-
work to summarize/organize prior work effectively and pinpoint fea-
sible future research directions for empowering leadership, accounting
for the multifaceted nature of empowering leadership, and offering a
guiding tool to advance future studies on empowering leadership.
Our review and suggested framework extends the work of Sharma
and Kirkman (2015) who provided a research model mainly focusing on
investigating two specific lines of inquiry of empowering leadership
research: finding potential predictors and exploring negative outcomes
of empowering leadership. Moreover, while the meta-analysis of Lee
et al. (2018) provided quantitative results of main effects, mediation
and moderation effects of empowering leadership on specific outcomes
(i.e., task performance, OCB, and creativity), meta-analysis may be
somewhat limited with a focus on only variables examined in restricted
samples. Our review is broader in terms of its scope as we were not
interested solely in particular construct/variables and relationships, but
various phenomena that more fully encompass empowering leadership.
Further, whereas the meta-analytic results of Lee et al. (2018)
showed the main effects of empowering leadership on work outcomes
are mostly positive, their results also showed somewhat mixed findings,
rejecting a third of their hypothesized moderating and mediating ef-
fects. In fact, Lee et al. (2018) claimed that one of the striking implica-
tions they found from their meta-analytic results was either negative or
non-significant direct effects of empowering leadership across all their
outcome variables (p.319). This indicates the complex nature of the
effectiveness of empowering leadership warrants further investigation.
Second, in the current review, extending the previous reviews of
empowering leadership, we assessed all studies in terms of the inclusion
of critical aspects of levels of analysis based on the framework devel-
oped by Yammarino et al. (2005) and Dionne et al. (2014). Empowering
leadership research has not always articulated appropriate levels of
analysis for elements of leadership and/or targeted outcomes. More-
over, adding to the complexity, mediators and moderators of empow-
ering leadership can take on levels of analysis different from the lea-
dership itself, which points to the need for a strong levels-based review
of the state of empowering leadership.
Finally, this review and the suggested framework permits some
suggestions for numerous important future directions for empowering
leadership research such as measurement enhancements, fuller con-
sideration of levels-of-analysis and multilevel issues, and consideration
of causal claims involved in the nomological network of empowering
leadership.
Empowering leadership
Historical development of the concept of empowering leadership
has been in line with a stream of supportive leadership (Bowers &
Seashore, 1966), coaching, delegating behaviors covered in situational
leadership theory (Hersey, Blanchard, & Natemeyer, 1979),
35
The Leadership Quarterly 30 (2019) 34–58
participative leadership (Locke & Schweiger, 1979), super leadership
(Manz & Sims Jr., 1990), and individualized leadership specifying the
support of self-worth of followers (Dansereau et al., 1995). Conger and
Kanungo (1988) and Thomas and Velthouse (1990) argued that em-
ployee empowerment as “sharing power” is incomplete and suggested
this conceptualization must include the motivational effect of empow-
erment on followers. As a result, the literature on empowering leader-
ship developed from two different perspectives.
One perspective, which is the approach here, focuses on the man-
agerial practices based on a socio-structure perspective in which a
leader's empowering behaviors play a vital role (Arnold et al., 2000;
Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Manz & Sims Jr., 1990; Strauss, 1964). As
such, scholars conceptualize and validate this unique set of leader be-
haviors, dimensions of empowering leadership, to differentiate it from
other related leadership constructs. For example, Arnold et al. (2000)
identified five key dimensions of empowering leadership: leading by
example, participative decision making, coaching, informing, and
showing individual concern. According to Ahearne et al. (2005), the
dimensions of empowering leadership include: enhancing the mean-
ingfulness of work, fostering participation in decision making, expres-
sing confidence in high performance, and providing autonomy from
bureaucratic constraints. Relatedly, Amundsen and Martinsen (2015)
argued that two core dimension of empowering leadership are au-
tonomy support and development support.
Another perspective, not the subject here, is psychological empow-
erment, which is a cognitive and motivational state comprised of
meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact that mirrors an
employee's psychological reactions toward employee engagement
practices (Spreitzer, 1995; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). Often the
concepts of empowering leadership and psychological empowerment,
two different notions, have been blurred in both conceptual and em-
pirical work, leading to confusion and mixed results.
Essentially, empowering leadership is a specific set of leader behaviors
which may foster psychological empowerment, and in turn enhances
various desirable work outcomes (Maynard, Gilson, & Mathieu, 2012;
Seibert, Wang, & Courtright, 2011; Zhang & Bartol, 2010), implying
that empowering leadership could work as one of the antecedents of
psychological empowerment (e.g., individual-level psychological em-
powerment: Amundsen & Martinsen, 2015; group-level psychological
empowerment: Lorinkova, Pearsall, & Sims, 2013). Specifically, in their
meta-analysis work of psychological empowerment, Seibert et al.
(2011) clearly distinguished the concept of psychological empower-
ment from its related leadership concept, i.e., empowering leadership,
by stating: “Closer integration of leadership and psychological em-
powerment theories appear to be an important development meriting
further investigation” (p. 998). According to Seibert et al. (2011), high
performance managerial practices, leadership, socio-political support
and work design characteristics are contextual antecedents of psycho-
logical empowerment. To avoid any potential confusion, the focus here
is on empowering leadership and its outcomes.
Distinction of Empowering Leadership from Related Leadership
Constructs
As the concept of empowering leadership is based on leader sup-
port-related concepts, the similarities of empowering leadership with
other established leadership concepts are inevitable. Nevertheless, the
aforementioned unique characteristics of empowering leadership dif-
ferentiate it from other leadership constructs that are rooted in leader
support-related concepts, such as participative leadership, transforma-
tional/charismatic leadership, ethical leadership, self‑leadership,
leader-member exchange (LMX), shared leadership, and path-goal
theory of leadership (Amundsen & Martinsen, 2014a; Pearce & Sims Jr,
2002; Tekleab, Sims Jr, Yun, Tesluk, & Cox, 2008), and warrants the
study of empowering leadership as a unique and independent leader-
ship construct (Sharma & Kirkman, 2015). Issues related to construct
M. Cheong et al. The Leadership Quarterly 30 (2019) 34–58

Table 1
Distinction between empowering leadership and related leadership constructs.
Leadership category Focus Central behavioral dimension

1 Empowering leadership
2 Participative leadership
3 Transformational/charismatic leadership
4 Ethical leadership
5 Self-leadership
6 Leader member exchange (LMX)
7 Shared leadership
8 Path-goal theory of leadership
Behavioral approach to leadership Task/relational leader support Provision of autonomy
Behavioral approach to leadership Participative decision making
Behavioral approach to leadership Idealized influence/inspirational motivation
Behavioral approach to leadership Ethical orientation
Focal individual's behavioral strategy
Relationship-based approach to leadership
Collectivistic approach to leadership
Meta-theoretical framework

redundancy in leader behaviors (i.e., leadership) arise as a general cri-
tical concern (Banks, Gooty, Ross, Williams, & Harrington, 2018;
Meuser et al., 2016), and so, construct pruning or securing the “con-
ceptual space” of a specific leadership construct of interest is im-
perative. Empowering leadership requires such an examination. The
notions presented in Table 1 illustrate the conceptual space similarity
and differentiation between empowering leadership and related lea-
dership constructs.
Participative leadership
Participative leadership refers to leader behaviors that engage fol-
lowers in joint decision making and sharing influence in decision
making with followers (Armenakis, Harris, & Mossholder, 1993; Lam,
Huang, & Chan, 2015). The concept of participative leadership devel-
oped from the normative model of leader decision making by Vroom
and Yetton (1973) and Vroom and Jago (2007). The main purpose of
development of the normative decision making model is to understand
a leader's two different decision making styles, autocratic and partici-
pative, and guide the effective choices of those decision making styles
in different situations based on 11 decision heuristics (Vroom & Yetten,
1973).
may be considered a focus on be yourself rather than be ourselves. In line
with this notion, several studies have empirically supported the dis-
tinction between transformational/charismatic leadership and em-
powering leadership (e.g., Amundsen & Martinsen, 2014a; Arnold et al.,
2000; Pearce & Sims Jr, 2002). Moreover, with regards to comparison
of specific sub-dimensions that compose the constructs of transforma-
tional/charismatic leadership and empowering leadership, the primary
dimensions of empowering leadership relate to sharing or providing
autonomy to followers, and involving followers in decision making.
These dimensions are not included in the dimensions which compose
transformational/charismatic leadership (Ahearne et al., 2005; Arnold
et al., 2000).
Ethical leadership
The concept of ethical leadership mainly focuses on leaders' or-
ientation regarding doing what is right, being fair, having integrity, and
guiding others in an ethical manner by communicating about ethics,
ethical rules, and rewarding ethical behaviors of subordinates. In doing
so, ethical leaders transform their followers' accountability for ethical
actions (Brown & Treviño, 2006; Den Hartog, 2015; Dionne et al., 2014;
Hassan, Mahsud, Yukl, & Prussia, 2013; Palanski & Yammarino, 2009).

Participative leadership vs empowering leadership Ethical leadership vs empowering leadership

Although both concepts of participative leadership and empowering
leadership encourage active involvement of followers in the decision
making process, empowering leadership reflects a broader concept and
includes the notion of followers' participative decision making as a sub-
dimension (Ahearne et al., 2005; Arnold et al., 2000). More specifically,
participative leader behaviors are a necessary aspect of, but not suffi-
cient condition for, the construct of empowering leadership.
Transformational/charismatic leadership
Transformational/Charismatic leadership has been a dominant lea-
dership paradigm over the past decades (Day & Antonakis, 2012), and it
refers to a set of leader behaviors composed of four dimensions -
idealized influence, inspirational motivation (the first two dimensions
comprise the construct of charismatic leadership), individualized con-
sideration, and intellectual stimulation - focused on inspiring followers
to share and pursue a vision and motivating them to work for the good
of the group or organization (Bass, 2008; Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999;
Yammarino & Bass, 1990; Yukl, 2002).
Transformational/charismatic leadership vs empowering leadership
Although previous empirical studies have shown high correlations
between transformational/charismatic leadership and empowering
leadership (e.g., Amundsen & Martinsen, 2014a), in contrast to trans-
formational/charismatic leaders, empowering leaders engage in a set of
behaviors which tend to develop each follower's own abilities among
group members (Manz & Sims Jr., 1987, 2001). In other words, this
Although it may be desirable for empowering leaders to be
grounded on an ethical foundation, empowering leadership is different
from the concept of ethical leadership because an empowering leader's
orientation is not centered on an ethical perspective. Not all leaders that
are ethical are necessarily empowering leaders. For example, ethical
leaders may stress ethical principles and rules in various task processes,
but may still retain the majority of decision making or leadership au-
thority by not sharing or allocating those to their followers.
Self-leadership
Self-leadership is a set of strategies that an individual uses to control
and influence his/her own behaviors and actions, indicating that people
look within themselves to find out the sources of motivation and control
of their cognitive states and behaviors (Manz & Sims Jr., 1980).
Self-leadership vs empowering leadership
Although both concepts of self-leadership and empowering leader-
ship can be used as one of the employee empowerment practices that
allow leaders to be reassigned or engaged in other important organi-
zational processes and activities (Markham & Markham, 1995), the
concept of empowering leadership is clearly different from self-lea-
dership. Empowering leadership is a set of leader behaviors intended to
enhance the followers' perceived meaningfulness and confidence to-
ward their work, participation, and latitude of autonomy. In contrast,
self-leadership is a set of focal individual behaviors or strategies that
employees exert over themselves to control their own behaviors. In this

36
M. Cheong et al.
manner, empowering leader behaviors could work as one of the pre-
cursors influencing their followers' self-leadership. Using longitudinal
data, Yun et al. (2006) found that leaders' empowering behaviors po-
sitively affected followers' self-leadership interacting with followers'
need for autonomy.
Leader-member exchange (LMX)
LMX is described as the quality of the leader-member relationship
(Gooty & Yammarino, 2016; Graen & Scandura, 1987; Graen & Uhl-
Bien, 1995; Liden, Erdogan, Wayne, & Sparrowe, 2006). Based on role
theory and social exchange theory, LMX focuses on the differentiated
relationships of leader and members within a group and the overall or
general quality of those relationships (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975;
Graen & Scandura, 1987; Graen & Uhl-bien, 1995) ranging from very
low or no quality at all to very high quality.
LMX vs empowering leadership
Although several empirical studies have shown high correlations
between LMX and empowering leadership (e.g., Amundsen &
Martinsen, 2014a; Hassan et al., 2013), given the definitions of the two
concepts, empowering leadership and LMX are conceptually distinct.
Empowering leadership is a certain set of leader behaviors concerning
delegating responsibility and authority, and enhancing individual mo-
tivation toward their tasks. Previous studies empirically supported the
distinction between LMX and empowering leadership (see Amundsen &
Martinsen, 2014a; Tekleab et al., 2008).
Shared leadership
Shared leadership is a collectivistic approach to leadership that
views leadership as a shared and distributed responsibility among team
members (Yammarino, Salas, Serban, Shirreffs, & Shuffler, 2012).
Pearce and Sims Jr (2002) differentiate the notion of shared leadership
by comparing it with vertical leadership, a traditional view of leader-
ship that posits leadership stems from an appointed or formal leader of
a team. Shared leadership stresses that leadership can emerge from a
context and/or members in teams or organizations (i.e., coworkers,
peers), rather than a designated or formal leader (Pearce & Sims Jr,
2002).
Shared leadership vs empowering leadership
Although the key notion of sharing power by a traditional power
holder (i.e., leader) is a portion of both concepts, in contrast to shared
leadership, empowering leadership is a specific set of leader behaviors
for sharing power, and allocating more autonomy and responsibilities
to followers, teams, or collectives. The fundamental difference between
shared leadership and empowering leadership can be found in the work
of Pearce and Sims (2002) and Ensley, Hmieleski, and Pearce (2006). In
their research, shared leadership was viewed as encompassing different
types of leader behaviors along with its counterpart, vertical leadership.
Specifically, their two studies developed the concepts of vertical em-
powering leadership and shared empowering leadership, and then
empirically tested their effectiveness (Pearce & Sims, 2002; Ensley
et al., 2006).
Moreover, in terms of a levels-of-analysis perspective, shared lea-
dership is developed and studied at the group or collective levels of
analysis and has been considered a phenomenon at mainly those two
levels (Carson, Tesluk, & Marrone, 2007; Pearce & Sims Jr, 2002;
Yammarino et al., 2012). Although explicit articulation of appropriate
levels of analysis in empowering leadership has not been made (see
details below), most studies are focused and conducted at the individual
or group levels of analysis.
37
The Leadership Quarterly 30 (2019) 34–58
Path-goal theory of leadership
Path-goal theory of leadership is a theoretical framework con-
cerning the relationships between task- and person-oriented supervisor
behaviors (leader perspective) and motivation and satisfaction of fol-
lowers and their characteristics (follower perspective), and various
boundary conditions (situational perspective) under which such re-
lationships will be effective within a dyadic framework (House, 1971,
1996; House & Mitchell, 1974). In the newer formulation, House (1996)
escalated path-goal theory to the group level of analysis but provided
no data regarding this notion.
Path-goal theory of leadership vs empowering leadership
A reformulated version of path-goal theory of leadership (House,
1996) touches upon the concept of follower empowerment and spec-
ulates the ways of achieving it through several sets of leader behaviors,
such as path-goal clarifying behavior and achievement-oriented leader
behavior (House, 1996; House & Mitchell, 1974). An essential notion of
path-goal theory of leadership, however, is an active and directive-
laden perspective on leader behavior which could provide followers the
necessary cognitive clarifications to ensure their work and related
procedures would link up with the achievement of work goals and at-
taining relevant rewards (House, 1996).
Thus, this meta-theory which emphasizes integration of various
types of leader behaviors, individual differences of followers, and task
contexts simultaneously to address leadership effectiveness, is different
from the concept of empowering leadership which is a specific leader
behavior style aiming to enhance followers' internal motivation via
sharing power and providing more autonomy.
Measures of empowering leadership
While theoretical distinction is critical for elaboration of the con-
struct of empowering leadership, identifying unique aspects of em-
powering leadership among the other leadership styles is imperative for
the appropriate measurement of empowering leadership as well.
Unique differences between empowering leadership and other leader-
ship models are often represented in various studies which developed
and validated measures of empowering leadership (Ahearne et al.,
2005: Leadership Empowerment Behavior; Amundsen & Martinsen,
2014a: Empowerment Leadership Scale; Arnold et al., 2000: Empow-
ering Leadership Questionnaire; Cox & Sims Jr, 1996: Leadership
Strategies Questionnaire II; Konczak, Stelly, & Trusty, 2000: Leader
Empowering Behavior Questionnaire; Manz & Sims Jr., 1987: Self-
Management Leadership Questionnaire). Unfortunately, while these
studies represent key progress in developing measures for unique em-
powering leadership dimensions, a consistent set of empowering lea-
dership measures has yet to be agreed upon (for details, see Amundsen
& Martinsen, 2014a). However, recently Amundsen and Martinsen
(2014a) argued and tested that the key characteristic of empowering
leadership is support and facilitation of followers' autonomy.
Table 2 presents our review of studies that tested and validated
several measures of empowering leadership. Eight different measures of
empowering leadership are presented, five of which explicitly focus on
individuals, one of which focuses on teams, and two of which focus on
both individuals and teams. Whereas there are some similarities in
these measures and their items, there are also different dimensions,
items, and referents represented in the various measures. Although the
measures developed by Ahearne et al. (2005) and Arnold et al. (2000)
are shown as the most frequently used measures in empowering lea-
dership research (Lee et al., 2018), a more important issue is appro-
priate measurement of empowering leadership at the same level of
analysis as depicted in the theory, models, and hypotheses (see below
and Yammarino et al., 2005).
Moreover, all the empowering leadership measures are explicit
M. Cheong et al. The Leadership Quarterly 30 (2019) 34–58

Table 2
Measures of empowering leadership.
Focal level Dimensions Construct Note Reference

Individual Leadership Empowerment Behavior (LEB): Single composite score Measure was developed based on studies of Ahearne et al. (2005)
Developed - 4 dimensions Conger and Kanungo (1988); Hui (1994); Thomas
1. Enhancing the meaningfulness of work (3 and Tymon (1994)
items)
2. Fostering participation in decision making (2
items)
3. Expressing confidence in high performance
(2 items)
4. Providing autonomy from bureaucratic
constraints (2 items)
Empowerment Leadership Scale (ELS): Second-order term (two-factor Measure was developed based on the studies of Amundsen and
Developed - 2 dimensions model showed the best model Manz (1986); Manz and Sims Jr. (1989); Manz & Martinsen (2014a)
1. Autonomy support (12 items) fit) Sims Jr., 2001; Yukl (2002)
2. Development support (6 items)
Leader Empowering Behavior Questionnaire Second-order term (six-factor Konczak et al. (2000)
(LEBQ): model showed the best model
Developed - 6 dimensions fit)
1. Delegation of authority (3 items)
2. Accountability (3 items)
3. Self-directed decision making (3 items)
4. Information sharing (2 items)
5. Skill development (3 items)
6. Coaching for innovative performance (3
items)
Empowering Leadership: Single composite score Measure was modified based on the studies of Vecchio et al. (2010)
Modified - 3 dimensions Manz and Sims Jr. (1987, 1990, 1995); Pearce
1. Independent action (4 items) and Sims Jr (2002)
2. Opportunistic thinking (3 items)
3. Cooperative action (3 items)
Empowering Leadership: Second-order term Measure was modified based on the study of Zhang and Bartol
Modified - 4 dimensions Ahearne et al. (2005) (2010)
1. Enhancing the meaningfulness of work (3
items)
2. Fostering participation in decision making (3
items)
3. Expressing confidence in high performance
(3 items)
4. Providing autonomy from bureaucratic
constraints (3 items)
Individual & Empowering Leadership Questionnaire (ELQ): Second-order term Measure was modified and used in Srivastava Arnold et al. (2000)
team Developed - 5 dimensions et al. (2006)
1. Leading by example (5 items)
2. Coaching (11 items)
3. Informing (6 items)
4. Participative decision making (6 items)
5. Showing concern (10 items)
Leadership Strategies Questionnaire II (LSQII): Single composite score Measure was borrowed from the study of Pearce Yun et al. (2006)
Borrowed - 6 items and Sims Jr (2002)
1. S/he urges me to assume responsibilities on
my own
2. S/he advices me to solve problems when they
pop up without getting her/his approval.
3. S/he encourages me to search for solutions to
my problems on the job without her/his
supervision.
4. S/he encourages me to find solutions to my
problems at work without her/his direct input.
5. S/he encourages me to work together with
other managers who report to her/his.
6. S/he advises me to coordinate my efforts
with other managers who report to her/his.
(continued on next page)

38
M. Cheong et al. The Leadership Quarterly 30 (2019) 34–58

Table 2 (continued)

Focal level Dimensions Construct Note Reference

Team External Leader Behaviors: Single composite score Measure was used in Kirkman and Rosen (1999); Kirkman and Rosen
Developed - 14 items (only parts of the items Chen et al. (2011) (1997)
were provided in Kirkman & Rosen, 1999)
1. Team leader agreed or disagreed that he or
she gave a team
many responsibilities
2. Asked the team for advice when making
decisions
3. Controlled much of the activity of the team
(reverse coded)
4. Allowed the team to set its own goals
5. Stayed out of the way when the team worked
on its performance
6. Told the team to expect a lot from itself
7. Trust the team

measures. In terms of measurement development perspective, the area Organization Science, Personnel Psychology, Journal of International Busi-
of empowering leadership is unbalanced, and without implicit mea- ness Studies, Strategic Management Journal, Journal of Management Stu-
sures, this limits the range for investigating the effectiveness of em- dies, International Journal of Management Reviews, Academy of Manage-
powering leadership (Chong, Djurdjevic, & Johnson, 2017). A proposed ment Perspectives, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Organizational
possible implicit empowering leadership measure, details of explicit as Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Organization Studies, Human
compared to implicit measurement of empowering leadership, what Resource Management Review, Journal of Occupational and Organizational
implicit measurement means for empowering leadership research, and Psychology, Research in Organizational Behavior, Management Science,
theoretical and practical implications of this measurement approach Human Relations, Academy of Management Learning & Education, Man-
will be fully elaborated below. agement and Organization Review, Group and Organization Management,
Human Resource Management Journal, Human Resource Management,
and, of course, The Leadership Quarterly. We also included the Journal of
Framework for examining the effectiveness of empowering
Leadership and Organizational Studies and Journal of Managerial Psy-
leadership
chology in the searched journal list as these journals primarily empha-
sized the topic of leadership (even though they have lower 5-year im-
To rectify both theoretical and empirical shortcomings surrounding
pact factors).
empowering leadership, a framework for examining the effectiveness of
From these 27 journals, articles were identified through a web-
empowering leadership is proposed. This framework is developed by
based search of the term “empowering leadership”, using the Web of
considering both deductive and inductive views. From a deductive
Science, the electronic data base with the widest coverage, for the last
perspective, the framework is based on a general leadership approach
three and a half decades (1980–2018). We specifically focused on ar-
in prior work (e.g., Bass, 2008; Yammarino, 2012, 2013, 2017; Yukl,
ticles published since 1980, given that the concept of empowering
2002). According to Yammarino (2013), leadership is defined in gen-
leadership started evolving as an independent topic or sub-domain of
eral terms as “a multi-level (person, dyad, group, organizational/col-
the leadership research about this time (Manz & Sims Jr., 1980, 1987,
lective) leader-follower interaction process that occurs in a particular
1990, 1995).
situation (context) where a leader (e.g., superior, supervisor) and fol-
As published empirical studies on examining the effectiveness of
lowers (e.g., subordinates, direct reports) share a purpose (vision,
empowering leadership are the major focus of this review, conceptual
mission) and jointly accomplish things (e.g., goals, objectives, tasks)
articles were excluded and only quantitative studies with at least one
willingly (e.g., without coercion)” (p. 150). This definition compre-
association/correlation between empowering leadership and an ante-
hensively considers the factors which comprise leadership (see Bass,
cedent or outcome were included. Moreover, literature reviews, quali-
2008) and suggests a general way to view the leadership process as
tative studies, and studies solely focused on scale development were
“antecedents → leadership → consequences” (Yammarino, 2012, p.
excluded (see Table 2 for many of these measurement studies).
518).
The initial searches by both electronic and manual means resulted
Applying this notion, the baseline models of the framework pro-
in the identification of 94 published articles. The inclusion criterion of
posed here consider the nomological network of empowering leader-
empirical studies with at least one association/correlation between
ship and includes: 1) effects of empowering leadership on its con-
empowering leadership and an antecedent or outcome was applied to
sequences, 2) effects of antecedents on empowering leadership, 3)
screen the initial searched articles. Method and Results sections of all
mediating mechanisms through which empowering leadership influ-
articles were scanned to determine the final set of articles. After this
ences its consequences, 4) boundary conditions on the relationships
screening process, 47 of 94 published articles were excluded as these
between empowering leadership and consequences, and 5) levels-of-
articles did not meet the inclusion criterion. Thus, 47 published articles
analysis and multilevel issues in empowering leadership.
remained to be reviewed.
From an inductive perspective, prior published empirical research
Additionally, by requesting unpublished empirical studies of em-
on examining the effectiveness of empowering leadership serves as the
powering leadership via the most widely and frequently used academic
foundation for the framework. As such, an extensive literature review
listserves in the field (i.e., OB-List and LDR-Net), we also collected four
was conducted focusing on empirical studies of empowering leadership
unpublished studies of empowering leadership. After applying the same
published in high-quality journals in management, applied psychology,
screening process used for the published empirical studies on empow-
and leadership. Following the most recent systematic review process in
ering leadership, one of the four unpublished studies was excluded as
leadership studies (Fischer, Dietz, & Antonakis, 2017), we selected
this work was a conceptual piece. Thus, three unpublished articles re-
journals that have the highest 5-year impact factors. These journals
mained to be reviewed. In total, our search thus yielded 50 empirical
included: Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Management,
studies for examination.
Journal of Applied Psychology, Administrative Science Quarterly,

39
 Table 3
Empirical studies of empowering leadership.
No. Model Antecedent r Outcome (M indicates a variable used as a mediator) Moderator r Study
M. Cheong et al.

Positive r Negative r

⁎⁎
1 1 – – Self-leadership (I) S1: 0.46 – – – – Amundsen and
Job performance (I) S1: −0.12 Martinsen (2014b)
Psychological empowerment (I) S2: 0.61⁎⁎
Creativity (I) S2: 0.42⁎⁎
2 1 – – – – Posttraumatic stress (I) NA – – Birkeland,
Nielsen, Hansen,
Knardahl, and
Heir (2017)
3 1 – – Firm growth index (O) - Vertical EL: −0.15⁎ – – – – Ensley et al.
Sample 1 (2006)
Firm growth index (O) – Shared EL: 0.21⁎⁎
Sample 1
Firm growth index (O) - Vertical EL: −0.16⁎
Sample 2
Firm growth index (O) – Shared EL: 0.24⁎⁎
Sample 2
4 1&3 – – Self-leadershipM (I) S1: 0.31⁎⁎ – – – – Amundsen and
S2: 0.47⁎⁎ Martinsen (2015)
Psychological empowermentM (I) S1:0.43⁎⁎
S2: 0.49⁎⁎
Job satisfaction (I) S1: 0.46⁎⁎
S2: 0.40⁎⁎
Work effort (I) S1: 0.19⁎⁎

40
Creativity (I) S2: 0.39⁎⁎
5 1&3 – – Career self-efficacyM (I) 0.14⁎⁎ – – – – Biemann et al.
Career satisfaction (I) 0.36⁎⁎ (2015)
Empowering leadership group mean (G) 0.61⁎⁎
Empowering leadership group SD (G) .-19⁎⁎
6 1&3 – – TMT behavioral integrationM (O) 0.30⁎⁎ – – – – Carmeli,
TMT potencyM (O) 0.15 Schaubroeck, and
Firm performance (O) 0.08 Tishler (2011)
7 1&3 – – Self-efficacyM (I) 0.47⁎ Job-induced tensionM 0.15⁎ – – Cheong et al.
Work-role performance (I) 0.04 (I) (2016)
8 1&3 – – LMXM (I) 0.62⁎ – – – – Hassan et al.
Affective commitment (I) 0.34⁎ (2013)
Leader effectiveness (I) 0.67⁎
9 1&3 – – Self-efficacyM (I) 0.49⁎⁎ Deviant behavior (I) −0.16⁎⁎ – – Kim and Beehr
Psychological ownershipM (I) 0.70⁎⁎ (2017)
In-role performance (I) 0.14⁎
10 1&3 – – Team empowermentM (G) 0.45⁎⁎ – – – – Lorinkova et al.
Team mental modelM (G) 0.25⁎⁎ (2013)
Mid-performance (G) −0.24⁎
Final-performance (G) 0.03
11 1&3 – – Knowledge sharingM (G) 0.39⁎⁎ – – – – Srivastava et al.
M
Team efficacy (G) 0.47⁎⁎ (2006)
Team performance (G) 0.09
12 1&3 – – Performance (I) 0.33⁎⁎ Dysfunctional −0.40⁎⁎ – – Vecchio et al.
resistanceM (I) (2010)
Job satisfaction (I) 0.28⁎⁎ Functional resistanceM 0.08
(I)
(continued on next page)
The Leadership Quarterly 30 (2019) 34–58
 Table 3 (continued)

No. Model Antecedent r Outcome (M indicates a variable used as a mediator) Moderator r Study
M. Cheong et al.

Positive r Negative r

M ⁎⁎
13 1&3 – – Job crafting (I) 0.33 Physical complaints (I) −0.11⁎⁎ – – Kim and Beehr
Career satisfaction (I) 0.32⁎⁎ Depression (I) −0.21⁎⁎ (2018)
Career commitment (I) 0.25⁎⁎
14 1&4 – – Job satisfaction (G) −0.13 – – Follower rated empowering leadership (G) 0.09 Amundsen and
Turnover intention (G) 0.27 Martinsen (2014a)
Leader effectiveness (G) −0.07
15 1&4 – – Team knowledge acquisition (G) 0.10 – – HRM system for knowledge-intensive team work (O) −0.07 Chuang, Jackson,
Team knowledge sharing (G) 0.33⁎⁎ and Jiang (2016)
16 1&4 – – Employee voice (I) PDM: 0.29⁎⁎ – – Trust in leader (I) PDM: 0.66⁎⁎ Gao, Janssen, and
CO: 0.28⁎⁎ CO: 0.67⁎⁎ Shi (2011)
17 1&4 – – New venture performance (O): Sample 1 −0.21⁎⁎ – – Dynamism (O): S1 0.11 Hmieleski and
Heterogeneity of TMT (O): S1 0.06 Ensley (2007)
⁎⁎
New venture performance (O): Sample 2 −0.32 Dynamism (O): S2 0.08
Heterogeneity of TMT (O): S2 0.02
18 1&4 – – Creative performance (I) 0.33⁎⁎ – – Resistance to change (I) −0.21⁎⁎ Hon, Bloom, and
Crant (2014)
19 1&4 – – Initiative climate (G) 0.19⁎ – – Initiative-enhancing HRM systems (O) – Hong et al. (2016)
20 1&4 – – Role ambiguity (I) −0.21⁎⁎ – – Employee empowerment expectation (I) 0.24⁎⁎ Humborstad and
Intrinsic motivation (I) 0.40⁎⁎ Kuvaas (2013)
21 1&4 – – Task performance (I) 0.33⁎⁎ – – Follower learning orientation (I) 0.16 Lee et al. (2017)
22 1&4 – – Firm performance (O) 0.17⁎ – – Dissimilarity in informational demographics of TMT (O) −0.01 Ling, Wei,
Overlap in team tenure (O) −0.05 Klimoski, and Wu
(2015)
23 1&4 – – Team performance (G) 0.04 – – Improvisation (G) 0.53⁎⁎ Magni and

41
Task overload (G) 0.25 Maruping (2013)
24 1&4 – – Task proficiency (G): Time 2 0.11 – – Satisfaction with the leader (G): Time1 0.65⁎⁎ Martin et al.
Proactive behaviors (G): Time 2 0.29⁎⁎ (2013)
25 1&4 – – Post-performance (I) 0.04 – – Work experience (I) −0.02 Mathieu, Ahearne,
Technology efficacy (I) 0.00 and Taylor (2007)
Use of sales technology (I) 0.05
26 1&4 – – Leader effectiveness (I) −0.07 – – Empowering leadership (I): Follower rated 0.03 Tekleab et al.
Satisfaction with supervision (I) −0.12 (2008)
Self-leadership (I) −0.02
27 1&4 – – Self-perceived status (I) w/ Encourage 0.63⁎ – – Procedural fairness (I) w/ encourage self-development: S2a 0.37⁎ Van Dijke, De
self-development: S2a Cremer, Mayer,
⁎
Self-perceived status (I) w/ Encourage 0.28 and Van
self-development: S2b Quaquebeke
Self-perceived status (I) w/ encourage 0.37⁎ Procedural fairness (I) w/ encourage self-development: S2b 0.67⁎ (2012)
independent action: S2a
Self-perceived status (I) w/ encourage 0.30⁎
independent action: S2b
OCB (I) w/ Encourage self- 0.46⁎ Procedural fairness (I) w/ encourage independent action: S2a 0.24⁎
development: S2a
OCB (I) w/ encourage self- 0.25⁎
development: S2b
OCB (I) w/ encourage independent 0.49⁎ Procedural fairness (I) 0.65⁎
action: S2a
OCB (I) w/ encourage independent 0.25⁎ W/ encourage independent action: S2b
action: S2b
28 1&4 – – Quality health care (G) – – – Patient condition (G) – Yun, Faraj, and
Team experience (G) – Sims Jr (2005)
29 1&4 – – Self-leadership (I) NA – – Need for autonomy (I) NA Yun et al. (2006)
(continued on next page)
The Leadership Quarterly 30 (2019) 34–58
 Table 3 (continued)

No. Model Antecedent r Outcome (M indicates a variable used as a mediator) Moderator r Study
M. Cheong et al.

Positive r Negative r

⁎
30 1&4 – – Job satisfaction (I) 0.36 – – Empowerment expectations (I) 0.28⁎ Wong and Kuvaas
Psychological empowerment (I) 0.46⁎ (2018)
31 1&4 – – Challenge stress (I) 0.10 – – Need for achievement (I) 0.25⁎ Cheong et al.
Hindrance stress (I) −0.26⁎ (2018a)
Task performance (I) 0.24⁎
32 1&4 – – Leader effectiveness (I) 0.35⁎ – – Proximal future task (I) 0.12⁎ Cheong et al.
Distal future task (I) −0.04 (2018b)
⁎⁎
33 1, 2 & 3 Supervisor-level 0.30 Lower-level collective 0.61 – – – – Margolis and
collective strategic strategic vision (G) Ziegert (2016)
vision (G)
Supervisor 0.59⁎⁎
job satisfaction (G)
34 1, 2 & 3 CEO humility (O) 0.31⁎ TMT integrationM (O) 0.57⁎⁎ – – – – Ou et al. (2014)
Empowering Org. climateM (O) 0.36⁎⁎
Middle manager's work engagement (I) 0.01
Middle manager's affective commitment 0.04
(I)
Middle manager's job performance (I) 0.15⁎
35 1, 3 & 4 – – Self-efficacyM (I) 0.17⁎⁎ – – Employee readiness (I) 0.01 Ahearne et al.
AdaptabilityM (I) 0.22⁎⁎ (2005)
Service satisfaction (I) 0.01
Job performance (I) 0.06
36 1, 3 & 4 – – Team psychological empowermentM (G): 0.52⁎ – – – – Chen, Kirkman,
Freight team Kanfer, Allen, and

42
Team psychological empowermentM (G): 0.38⁎ Rosen (2007)
Receiving team
Team performance (G): 0.54⁎
Freight team
Team performance (G): −0.31
Receiving team
Psychological empowermentM (I): Both NA
teams
LMXM (I): Both teams NA
Individual performance (I): NA
Both teams
37 1, 3 & 4 – – Psychological empowermentM (I) S1: 0.45⁎ Turnover S1: −29⁎ Relationship conflict (G) S1: −0.02 Chen et al. (2011)
S2: 0.27⁎ intentions (I) Study1:
Affective commitmentM (I) S1: 0.20⁎ Experiment
S2: 0.30⁎ Study2: Field
Innovative behavior (I) S1: 0.28⁎ S2: −0.25⁎ S2: −0.35⁎ survey
S2: 0.16⁎
Teamwork behavior (I) S1: 0.21⁎
S2: 0.15⁎
38 1, 3 & 4 – – Employee promotion focusM (WI) NA – – Customer empowering behaviors (WI) NA Dong, Liao,
Employee service creativityM (WI) NA Chuang, Zhou, and
Customer satisfaction (WI) NA Campbell (2015)
(continued on next page)
The Leadership Quarterly 30 (2019) 34–58
 Table 3 (continued)

No. Model Antecedent r Outcome (M indicates a variable used as a mediator) Moderator r Study
M. Cheong et al.

Positive r Negative r

⁎
39 1, 3 & 4 – – Creativity (I) S1: 0.20 – – Organizational support for creativity (I) S1: 0.59⁎⁎ Harris, Li, Boswell,
S2: 0.49⁎⁎ Zhang, and Xie
(S-rated) (2014)
S2: 0.38⁎⁎ S2: 0.47⁎⁎
(C-rated)
Creative process engagementM (I) S2: 0.56⁎⁎
Role clarityM (I) S2: 0.46⁎⁎ Trust in leader (I) S2: 0.52⁎⁎
Insider status (I) S2: 0.34⁎⁎
Organizational commitment (I) S2: 0.34⁎⁎
Task performance (I) S2: 0.30⁎⁎
40 1, 3 & 4 – – Virtual collaborationM (G) 0.53⁎⁎ – – Team geographic dispersion (G) Hill and Bartol
Team performance (G) 0.32 Virtual team work situational judgment (I) (2016)
⁎
41 1, 3 & 4 – – Psychological empowermentM (I) 0.45⁎ – – Organizational support climate (G) 0.58 Li et al. (2017)
Affiliative OCB (I) 0.15⁎
Taking charge (I) 0.23⁎
42 1, 3 & 4 – – Psychological empowermentM (I) 0.33⁎⁎ CynicismM (I) −0.48⁎⁎ Leader-leader exchange (G) 0.26⁎⁎ Lorinkova and
Time theft (I) −0.35⁎⁎ Perry (2017)
43 1, 3 & 4 – – Psychological empowermentM (I) 0.39⁎⁎ – – Power value (I) 0.25⁎⁎ Raub and Robert
In-role service behaviors (I) 0.29⁎⁎ (2010)
Helping (I) 0.28⁎⁎
Extra-role service behaviors (I) 0.26⁎⁎
Service improvement (I) 0.22⁎⁎
44 1, 3 & 4 – – Psychological empowerment climateM (G) 0.39⁎ – – Shared felt accountability (G) 0.34⁎ Wallace, Johnson,
Store sales (G) 0.24⁎ Mathe, and Paul

43
Store service performance (G) 0.33⁎ (2011)
45 1, 3 & 4 – – Leader effectiveness (I) 0.07 Laissez-faire −0.14⁎ Empowering leadership (I): Follower rated 0.03 Wong and
leadershipM (I) Giessner (2018)
M ⁎⁎
46 1, 3 & 4 – – Psychological empowerment (I) 0.59 – – Empowerment role identity (I) 0.35⁎⁎ Zhang and Bartol
Creative process engagementM (I) 0.24⁎⁎ (2010)
Intrinsic motivationM (I) 0.20⁎⁎
Employee creativity (I) 0.24⁎⁎
47 1, 3 & 4 – – Creative self-efficacyM (I): S1 0.33⁎⁎ – – Uncertainty avoidance (I): S1 0.23⁎⁎ Zhang and Zhou
Creative self-efficacyM (I): S2 0.29⁎⁎ Uncertainty avoidance (I): S2 0.31⁎⁎ (2014)
Creativity (I): S1 0.45⁎⁎ Trust in leader (I): S1 0.32⁎⁎
Creativity (I): S2 0.34⁎⁎ Trust in leader (I): S2 0.51⁎⁎
48 1, 3 & 4 – – Harmonious passionM (I) NA – – Role breadth self-efficacy (I) NA Hao, He, and Long
Obsessive passionM (I) NA (2018)
Task performance (I) NA
Employee creativity (I) NA
49 1, 3 & 4 – – Access to resourcesM (I) 0.19⁎⁎ – – Access to resource (I) 0.19⁎⁎ Zhang, Ke, Wang,
Access to informationM (I) 0.14⁎ and Liu (2018)
⁎
Organization-based self-esteemM (I) 0.30⁎⁎ Access to information (I) 0.14
Employee creativity (I) 0.32⁎⁎
50 2 Helping behavior 0.15⁎ – – – – – – Smallfield,
(G) Hoobler, and
Positive affective 0.06 Kluemper (2018)
tone (G)

Note. r = Zero-order correlation of focal variable with empowering leadership variable, * p < .05., ** p < .01 = asterisks are directly excerpted from the correlation tables provided in each original study;
I = Individual-level variable; D = Dyad-level variable; G = Group-level variable; O = Organizational-level variable; Multi. = Multilevel study; BI = Between Individuals; WI = Within Individual; S1 = Study 1;
S2 = Study 2.
The Leadership Quarterly 30 (2019) 34–58
M. Cheong et al. The Leadership Quarterly 30 (2019) 34–58

Fig. 1. A framework for examining the effectiveness of empowering leadership.

Note. Bold lines in each model indicate the proposed line of inquiry suggested in a framework for examining the effectiveness of empowering leadership; In the Model
5, bold lines indicate the same associations between empowering leadership and work-related outcomes at multiple levels of analysis, and dotted arrow indicates, in a
summary fashion, the other possible combinations of multilevel associations among empowering leadership and work-related outcomes.

Then, these empirical studies, summarized in Table 3, were cate-
gorized into five baseline models from our framework, using a template
for reviews developed by Judge, Thoresen, Bono, and Patton (2001). As
applied to our review of empirical studies on empowering leadership,
the five models for examination of effectiveness of empowering lea-
dership are illustrated in Fig. 1.
Model 1. Main effects of empowering leadership on positive and negative
work-related outcomes
The first model within our framework posits main effects of em-
powering leadership on various positive and negative work-related
outcomes. The premise for this model is grounded in the broader lea-
dership literature explicating that a specific set of leader behaviors
fosters or supports the occurrence of specific attitudes and behaviors of
individuals, group/team members, and organizations/collectives (Bass,
2008; Yammarino, 2012, 2013, 2017; Yukl, 2002). Indeed, the majority
of the empirical research in the area of empowering leadership fits into
this model.
Among the 50 empirical articles on empowering leadership re-
viewed here, all followed this model to some extent with outcome-type
variables as mediators, dependent variables, or both. The pattern of the
empirical results for empowering leadership with respect to Model 1
shows that most of the investigated criterion variables are positive

44
M. Cheong et al.
work-related outcomes; and that relationships between empowering
leadership and proximal outcomes (attitude- and motivation-based
outcomes such as psychological empowerment, self-efficacy, intrinsic
motivation, creativity, and LMX) are stronger and more prevalent than
those involving distal outcomes (behavioral- and performance-based
outcomes such as job performance, work-role performance, team per-
formance, and organizational performance).
Specifically, except for the following eight studies, all others in-
cluded and analyzed the relationships between empowering leadership
and positive outcomes: 1) Birkeland et al. (2017) which used post-
traumatic stress as a criterion; 2) Kim and Beehr (2017) which used
deviant behavior (r = −0.16⁎⁎1) as a criterion; 3) Kim and Beehr
(2018) which used physical complaints (r = −0.11⁎⁎) and depression
(r = −0.21⁎⁎) as criteria, 4) Cheong et al. (2016) which used job-in-
duced tension (r = 0.15⁎) as a mediator; 5) Wong and Giessner (2018)
which used laissez-faire leadership (r = −0.14⁎) as a criterion; 6)
Lorinkova and Perry (2017) which used cynicism (r = −0.48⁎⁎) and
time theft (r = −0.35⁎⁎) as criteria; 7) Chen et al. (2011) which used
turnover intension (r = −0.29⁎ in study 1, r = −0.25⁎ in study 2) as a
criterion; and 8) Vecchio et al. (2010) which used dysfunctional re-
sistance (r = −0.40⁎⁎) and functional resistance (r = 0.08) as media-
tors. This is not surprising given the alignment of empowering leader-
ship research with positive scholarship (Fineman, 2006; Spreitzer,
1995; Spreitzer & Doneson, 2005). This pattern of predominantly po-
sitive studies, however, inhibits researchers and practitioners from
tackling a balanced view of effectiveness of empowering leadership. To
gain a more comprehensive understanding of the effectiveness of em-
powering leadership, research should include investigations of the main
effects of empowering leadership on its negative work-related out-
comes.
Moreover, relative to stronger and positive main effects of em-
powering leadership on proximal work-related outcomes (i.e., attitude-
and motivation-based outcomes), the relationships between empow-
ering leadership and its distal work-related outcomes (i.e., behavioral-
and performance-based outcomes) are weak and/or neutral. For ex-
ample, in Cheong et al. (2016), while empowering leadership was po-
sitively and significantly related with followers' self-efficacy
(r = 0.47⁎⁎: a proximal attitude-based outcome used as a mediator), the
relationship between empowering leadership and followers' work-role
performance was weak and not significant (r = 0.04: a distal perfor-
mance-based outcome used as the ultimate dependent variable). Similar
results were also found in a team/group-level study conducted by
Srivastava et al. (2006). In their study, group-level empowering lea-
dership was positively and significantly related with team members'
knowledge sharing and team efficacy (r = 0.39⁎⁎ and 0.47**, respec-
tively: proximal attitude-based outcomes used as mediators), but the
positive relationship between empowering leadership and team per-
formance was weak and not significant (r = 0.09: a distal performance-
based outcome used as the ultimate dependent variable).
Proposed model 1. Consideration of feasibility of non-linear main effects of
empowering leadership on work-related outcomes
Given the above findings, the first proposed model of our framework
suggests examining the feasibility of non-linear relationships between
empowering leadership and its work-related outcomes.
In this case, non-linear relationship does not simply mean the
methods for non-linear data analysis but indicates the linkage between
the concepts, constructs, or variables that do not follow simple linear
relationships. As the interests in various scientific domains have turned
into more complex phenomenon and systems, the explanatory power of
linearity of phenomena become weaker, and instead, the scrutiny of
1
Please note that these asterisks are directly excerpted from the correlation
tables provided in each original study.
45
The Leadership Quarterly 30 (2019) 34–58
non-linear phenomena have captured more attention by researchers
(Guastello, 2007; Sayama, 2015).
The domain of leadership has embraced this research transition.
Based on the concept of complex nature of leadership (Bass, 2008; Yukl,
2002), researchers argue that leadership phenomena are complex and
non-linear in nature (Guastello, 2007; Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2001; Uhl-
Bien, Marion, & McKelvey, 2007). For example, complexity leadership
theory (Uhl-Bien et al., 2007) frames “leadership as a complex inter-
active dynamic from which adaptive outcomes (e.g., learning, innova-
tion, and adaptability) emerge” (p. 298). The main features of complex
systems are that they are emergent—emergence of the situation is based
on non-linear associations between agents in the system—and self-or-
ganizing—non-trivial relationships occur among the agents in the
system (Sayama, 2015). Complexity leadership theory thus focuses on
capturing the non-linearly changeable, unpredictable, temporally-
based, and interactively and causally complex nature of interactive
dynamic mechanisms (Uhl-Bien et al., 2007). Although lacking in em-
pirical evidence, this perspective offers an important building block for
considering the notion of non-linearity in leadership research.
Although empowering leadership is generally considered to be a
desirable leadership approach, its effectiveness has been questioned
and results appear mixed. Along with the emerging interests in the
“dark side” of empowering leadership (Cheong et al., 2016; Wong &
Giessner, 2018), the nature of the non-linearity of empowering lea-
dership may offer insights into the mixed relationships between em-
powering leadership and its effectiveness which may mask underlying
curvilinear trends.
Also, Sharma and Kirkman (2015) proposed the “Too-Much-of-a-
Good-Thing (TMGT)” effect that can be implemented as a meaningful
theoretical anchor explaining the feasibility of non-linear effects of
empowering leadership on its outcomes. Pierce and Aguinis (2013)
presented the TMGT effect to explain the recent increasing body of
paradoxical, counter-theoretical, and anomalous empirical findings
across management subfields. Specifically, they noted that “the TMGT
effect occurs when ordinarily beneficial antecedents (i.e., predictor
variables) reach inflection points after which their relations with de-
sired outcomes (i.e., criterion variables) cease to be linear and positive.
Exceeding these inflection points is always undesirable because it leads
either to waste (no additional benefit) or, worse, to undesirable out-
comes, e.g., decreased individual or organizational performance”
(Pierce & Aguinis, 2013, p. 315).
This conceptual view has been empirically tested by Lee et al.
(2017). Integrating the notion of the TMGT effect and dual task pro-
cessing, they conceptualized and empirically tested a curvilinear re-
lationship between empowering leadership and followers' task perfor-
mance. Using 137 supervisor–subordinate dyads in various types of
organization, they found a, non-monotonic, inverted U-shaped re-
lationship between empowering leadership and followers' task perfor-
mance.
There are other future research possibilities in this domain to fur-
ther examine the U-shaped curvilinear effects of empowering leader-
ship on both positive and negative work-related outcomes. More im-
portantly, the notion of non-linearity of empowering leadership should
be explicated conceptually and replicated empirically in multiple stu-
dies based on specific theory (e.g., behavioral threshold theory of non-
linear effects; see Grijalva, Harms, Newman, Gaddis, & Fraley, 2015)
using multiple methods (e.g., Bayesian analysis, item response theory,
computation modeling) to validate and generalize findings. If this non-
linear trend is continuously detected in various studies along with
multiple reproductions and replications, we may advance the theory of
empowering leadership and demonstrate the non-linear nature of the
empowering leadership and its leadership effectiveness relationships.
Overall, based on the suggested notions of “dark side of empowering
leadership” and the “Too-Much-of-Good-Thing (TMGT) effect” of em-
powering leadership along with the relevant previous empirical find-
ings (Cheong et al., 2016; Lee et al., 2017; Wong & Giessner, 2018),
M. Cheong et al.
propositions regarding the feasible curvilinear effects of empowering
leadership on various work-related outcomes (i.e., in-role or extra-role
performance) are:
Proposition 1a. Empowering leadership will have an inverted U-
shaped relationship with followers' in-role performance.
Proposition 1b. Empowering leadership will have an inverted U-
shaped relationship with followers' extra-role performance.
Also contrasting propositions are proposed:
Proposition 1c. Empowering leadership will have a U-shaped
relationship with followers' in-role performance.
Proposition 1d. Empowering leadership will have a U-shaped
relationship with followers' extra-role performance.
Model 2. Main effects of positive and negative work-related outcomes on
empowering leadership
The second model within our framework posits main effects of po-
sitive and negative work-related outcomes on empowering leadership
(i.e., reverse causation). Though most studies of empowering leadership
have conceptualized and tested the unidirectional linkage of empow-
ering leadership → performance, a basic premise of Model 2 is that
various work-related outcomes, once developed and tested as con-
sequences of empowering leadership, then may lead to leaders engaging
in additional empowering behaviors.
Among the 50 empirical studies on empowering leadership re-
viewed here, none examined potential reverse causation effects, and
three studies explicitly investigated an antecedent of empowering lea-
dership. In their multilevel study, Ou et al. (2014) found Chief Execu-
tive Officers (CEOs) humility was positively and significantly related
(r = 0.31⁎) with TMT members' ratings of empowering leadership of
their CEO. In a similar vein, Margolis and Ziegert (2016) found the level
of supervisors' job satisfaction was positively and significantly related
with their empowering leadership (r = 0.59⁎⁎). Also, the results from
Smallfield et al. (2018) showed that, while positive affective tone was
not significantly related (r = 0.06), group-level helping behavior was
positively and significantly related to empowering leadership
(r = 0.15⁎).
From the current review, there is lack of studies focused on ex-
amining antecedents of empowering leadership. As leadership is a dy-
namic phenomenon that includes recurring reciprocal interactions
among leader and followers, finding answers regarding the question of
why empowering leadership occurs would be an integral part of
broadening our understanding of the phenomenon.
Proposed model 2. Consideration of reverse causation between empowering
leadership and work-related outcomes
The second proposed model of our framework suggests examining
reverse causation which may exist between empowering leadership and
its work-related outcomes. The idea of reverse causation in leadership
research (i.e., follower attitude/performance → leadership style and
behaviors) in general (Graen & Scandura, 1987; Lowin & Craig, 1968;
Staw, 1975) and for empowering leadership in particular is not an
entirely new perspective (Leana, 1986). Sharma and Kirkman (2015)
encouraged researchers to answer questions of why empowering lea-
dership occurs, indicating a need for exploration of various antecedents
of empowering leadership. They provided several propositions to in-
vestigate specific factors which may give rise to empowering leader-
ship: 1) leader-related factors (e.g., power distance, uncertainty
avoidance, collectivism, narcissism), 2) follower-related factors (e.g.,
leader-reported LMX, proactivity), and 3) contextual factors (e.g., job
stressors, senior-level and peer leaders' behaviors). This line of inquiry
is fruitful for future research on empowering leadership to broaden and
46
The Leadership Quarterly 30 (2019) 34–58
deepen the understanding of the effectiveness of empowering leader-
ship and can be achieved via further theoretical development and
empirical tests.
While acknowledging the importance of exploring and seeking out
new categories of antecedents of empowering leadership, we further
argue that one of fundamental facets lacking in this domain is our
understating of causal links among empowering leadership and work-
related outcomes. Simply put, it is not entirely clear whether empow-
ering leadership leads to and increases followers' self-efficacy or task
performance, which have been the typical consequences of empowering
leadership, or vice versa. This may due to the lack of empirical studies
in the area of empowering leadership which robustly test causal rela-
tions among these constructs by using appropriate longitudinal designs,
experiments with random sampling and random assignment, or cross-
lagged designs (for the exceptions, see Lorinkova et al., 2013; Martin,
Liao, & Campbell, 2013).
From this perspective, reverse causation of empowering leadership
and its work-related outcomes could be contemplated and may be one
of the reasons for mixed results in empowering leadership literature.
For example, can it be assumed that a leader provides more empow-
erment to a follower who shows higher-level work-related outcomes,
e.g., self-efficacy, task performance, OCB? In fact, Leana (1986) found
that a specific follower's characteristics such as capability, responsi-
bility, and trustworthiness were positively related to the extent of the
leader's level of delegation. Although these characteristics do not reflect
direct performance of followers, Leana's (1986) study provides the
possibility that the factors which have been perceived as consequences
of empowering leadership also can be considered as feasible ante-
cedents of empowering leadership. Thus, in order to understand the
effectiveness of empowering leadership comprehensively, the plausi-
bility of reverse causation between empowering leadership and the
factors that were once considered solely as its consequences should be
assessed before exploring new categories of antecedents.
The role-based view of followership theory (Carsten, Uhl-Bien, &
Huang, 2017; Uhl-Bien, Riggio, Lowe, & Carsten, 2014) can be a
meaningful theoretical framework supporting the influence of fol-
lowers' traits/characteristics/styles/behaviors as antecedents of (rather
than outcomes of) empowering leadership. The main focus of the role-
based view of followership theory considers how followers, as the
causal agents, influence leader attitudes, behaviors, and outcomes
(Shamir, 2007; Uhl-Bien et al., 2014). Thus, based on followership
theory, we can theorize and then test followers' specific characteristics
(e.g., proactivity, self-regulation focus) and behavior patterns (e.g., in-
role performance, extra-role performance) which can lead their leaders
to exert more empowering leadership and offer more autonomy and
responsibilities toward them. This can be a meaningful approach to
understand the causal links among empowering leadership and tradi-
tionally viewed outcomes as, in fact, antecedents.
Moreover, by integrating various learning theories (e.g., associative
learning, Bayesian learning), the possibility of reverse causation of
empowering leadership and followers' work-related outcomes could be
theorized and tested. For example, as our learning systems are able to
generalize and anticipate the future incidents or actions from past ex-
periences (Watson & Szathmáry, 2016), prior satisfied performance of
specific followers could be used as input information in the algorithm of
leaders' engagement in empowering behaviors toward those followers
(Graen & Scandura, 1987; Scandura, Graen, & Novak, 1986). If the high
level of performance of those followers continues and repeats, leaders
could anticipate another round of high performance from those fol-
lowers in the future. In turn, leaders may decide to engage in empow-
ering behaviors only with those followers and, as such, this pattern
could work in a cyclical manner (also see, Spain, Miner, Kroonenberg, &
Drasgow, 2010).
Based on these theoretical claims and empirical evidence, the
second proposed model of our framework proposes and encourages
robust examination of the causal relations of empowering leadership
M. Cheong et al.
and its positive and negative work-related outcomes using appropriate
data (e.g., longitudinal designs, or at least time-lagged data sets) and
methods (e.g., random sampling and random assignment in experi-
mental studies, propensity score analysis, simultaneous-equation
models, regression discontinuity, differences-in-difference models, and
Heckman selection models) (see Antonakis, Bendahan, Jacquart, &
Lalive, 2010).
Proposition 2a. Followers' past task performance (in-role performance)
will increase leaders' engagement of empowering leadership.
Proposition 2b. Followers' past organizational citizenship behavior
(extra-role performance) will increase leaders' engagement of
empowering leadership.
Model 3. Mediating effects of other variables on the relationships of
empowering leadership and positive and negative work-related outcomes
The third model within our framework posits there are mediators
explaining the mechanisms for relationships between empowering
leadership and positive and negative work-related outcomes. The pre-
mise for this model derives from the literature on various mediators
through which empowering leadership can transmit its effects to asso-
ciated outcomes.
Among the 50 empirical articles reviewed on empowering leader-
ship in the current work, 23 studies follow this approach. From the
review, the pattern of empirical results shows that proximal outcomes,
attitude- and motivation-based outcomes, such as psychological em-
powerment (Amundsen & Martinsen, 2015; Chen et al., 2007; Chen
et al., 2011; Li, Chiaburu, & Kirkman, 2017; Lorinkova et al., 2013;
Lorinkova & Perry, 2017; Raub & Robert, 2010; Wallace et al., 2011;
Wong & Kuvaas, 2018; Zhang & Bartol, 2010), self-efficacy (Ahearne
et al., 2005; Cheong et al., 2016; Dong et al., 2015; Kim & Beehr, 2017;
Srivastava et al., 2006; Zhang & Zhou, 2014), creative process engage-
ment (Harris et al., 2014; Zhang & Bartol, 2010), psychological ownership
(Kim & Beehr, 2017), organization based self-esteem (Zhang et al., 2018),
intrinsic motivation (Dong et al., 2015; Zhang & Bartol, 2010), harmo-
nious- and obsessive-passion (Hao et al., 2018), LMX (Chen et al., 2007;
Hassan et al., 2013), creativity (Amundsen & Martinsen, 2015), affective
commitment (Chen et al., 2011), access to resource, and access to in-
formation (Zhang et al., 2018), role clarity (Harris et al., 2014), job in-
duced tension (Cheong et al., 2016), job crafting (Kim & Beehr, 2018),
resistance (Vecchio et al., 2010), self-leadership (Amundsen & Martinsen,
2015), laissez-faire leadership (Wong & Giessner, 2018), knowledge
sharing (Srivastava et al., 2006), virtual collaboration (Hill & Bartol,
2016), team mental model (Lorinkova et al., 2013), TMT behavioral in-
tegration (Carmeli et al., 2011), TMT potency (Carmeli et al., 2011), and
empowering organization climate (Ou et al., 2014) were used as mediators
to understand the relationship between empowering leadership and
various distal outcomes, behavioral- and performance-based outcomes,
such as job performance, work-role performance, team performance,
and organizational performance.
Prior empirical results with regard to Model 3 show most of the
investigated mediators of empowering leadership processes are positive
attitude- and motivation-based outcomes. More importantly, very few
of these mediators have been tested in more than one study (exceptions
are psychological empowerment, self-efficacy, and creative process
engagement).
Proposed model 3. Consideration of contradictory mediating mechanisms
through which empowering leadership influences work-related outcomes
The third proposed model of our framework suggests examining the
feasible contradictory mechanisms explaining relationships between
empowering leadership and its work related outcomes. These contra-
dictory mediators can lead to spurious relationships among
47
The Leadership Quarterly 30 (2019) 34–58
empowering leadership and positive and negative work-related out-
comes, incurring mixed results for the effectiveness of empowering
leadership. From this perspective, it is proposed to examine both the
upside and the downside effects of empowering leadership, or the
benefits and costs of empowering leadership, and both mechanisms
simultaneously by taking a balanced view of the effectiveness of em-
powering leadership.
This line of inquiry has been empirically tested in the work of
Cheong et al. (2016). Based on the cost of autonomy and role theory
perspectives, they proposed that beyond an enabling process of em-
powering leadership enhancing followers' self-efficacy and perfor-
mance, there is a burdening process in which specific empowering
behaviors of the leader increase followers' job induced tension. This, in
turn, diminishes the positive influence of empowering leadership on
followers' work role performance.
Specifically, Cheong et al. (2016) focused on and constructed a
positive aspect of empowering leadership via enhancement of followers'
self-efficacy. At the same time, they attempt to explain the negative
aspects of empowering leadership, specifically focused on individual's
stress mechanisms (fostered participative decision making, overly pro-
vided autonomy and increased responsibility → role stress, cognitive
distraction → engaging defense mechanism → low performance). Their
results, obtained and analyzed with the multiple methods (i.e., null
hypothesis significance testing and non-informative Bayesian simula-
tion) generally support the contradictory mechanisms (i.e., enabling
and burdening) that exist within empowering leadership and to explain
followers' work role performance.
As shown with Cheong et al.' (2016) findings, it is plausible that the
contradictory mediating mechanisms embedded within the relation-
ships of empowering leadership and its work-related outcomes obfus-
cate the effectiveness of empowering leadership. Therefore, it is im-
portant to seek possible contradictory mediators and relevant
mechanisms through which empowering leadership transmits its effects
to specific work-related outcomes. Specifically, based on the con-
servation of resource theory (Hobfoll, 1989, 2002), contradictory stress
mechanisms within empowering leadership and followers' work per-
formance can be theorized and tested. Features of empowering lea-
dership could stimulate followers' different stress categories in a di-
vergent way, increasing challenge stress (eustress), but decreasing
hindrance stress (distress).
Challenge stress is the type of stress caused from the stressors which
can be perceived by individuals as an opportunity for personal growth
and future gains (e.g., workload, time urgency, job responsibility). On
the other hand, hindrance stress is caused from the stressors which can
be recognized by individuals as obstacles such as role conflict, politics,
and red tape that interfere with achievement of one's valued goals
(Lepine, Lepine, & Jackson, 2004). From the perspective of employee
development, empowering leadership can provide followers an oppor-
tunity for learning and personal growth by making joint decisions, and
engaging in consultation with followers (Yun et al., 2005). In this case,
followers may perceive empowering leadership as learning opportu-
nities rather than obstacles that interfere with their achievements.
Thus, empowering leadership may positively relate with follower
challenge stress, while it may negatively relate with hindrance stress.
These contradictory stress mechanisms of empowering leadership
may become more salient when they are considered along with the
different motivation and information processing styles of followers to-
ward empowering leadership. According to regulatory focus theory
(Higgins, 1997, 1998), individuals form two different types of princi-
ples to guide their motivation and behaviors toward specific situational
cues: promotion focus and prevention focus. While promotion focus (i.e.,
nurturance-related regulation) follows the principle of advancement,
growth, and achievement, prevention focus (i.e., security-related reg-
ulation) adopts the principle of duties, obligation, and necessities.
Previous studies demonstrated that the promotion focus and prevention
focus are orthogonal constructs and individuals with different
M. Cheong et al. The Leadership Quarterly 30 (2019) 34–58

regulatory foci engage in different decision strategies (Wan, Hong, & Kuvaas, 2018), role breadth self-efficacy (Hao et al., 2018), uncertainty
Sternthal, 2009), show different types of sensitivity to feedback avoidance (Zhang & Zhou, 2014), empowerment role identity (Zhang &
(Förster, Grant, Idson, & Higgins, 2001), and this results in different Bartol, 2010), need for autonomy (Yun et al., 2006), technology self-ef-
levels of task-performance and extra-role performance (Gorman et al., ficacy, work experience, and use of sales technology (Mathieu et al., 2007)
2012). are used as moderators.
Accordingly, followers with high promotion focus may perceive The pattern of results with respect to empowering leadership shows
their leaders empowering behaviors as the source of challenge stress most of the investigated moderators are positive work-related variables
rather than hindrance stress, striving to gain personal growth and po- (an exception is team relationship conflict in Chen et al., 2011). More
sitive outcomes. On the contrary, followers with high prevention focus importantly, very few of these moderators have been tested in more
may perceive their leaders empowering behaviors as the source of than one study (exceptions are empowerment related HRM system,
hindrance stress rather than challenge stress, striving to concentrate on organizational support climate, trust in leader, and follower rated em-
evaluating their obligations and duties, and avoid negative outcomes. powering leadership).
In turn, these contradictory stress mechanisms of empowering leader-
ship may differently affect positive and negative work-related out-
Proposed model 4. Consideration of boundary conditions that alter the
comes. Thus, the different effects of contradictory stress mechanisms of
relationships between empowering leadership and work-related outcomes
empowering leadership on work-related outcomes would become more
salient when we consider its boundary conditions (also see Model 4).
The fourth proposed model of our framework posits that moderators
Proposition 3a. Followers' challenge stress will mediate the positive possibly lead to spurious relationships between empowering leadership
relationship between empowering leadership and positive work related and positive and negative work-related outcomes. Results of this review
outcome. showed the majority of studies (29 of 50) of empowering leadership
investigated the role of moderators for the relationships between em-
Proposition 3b. Followers' hindrance stress will mediate the negative
powering leadership and positive and negative work outcomes. Indeed,
relationship between empowering leadership and negative work related
by far the most common means of examining the effectiveness of em-
outcome.
powering leadership has involved the use of moderator variables from
various categories noted above. While expanding the categories of po-
tential moderators that can alter the effects of empowering leadership
Model 4. Moderating effects of other variables on the relationships of
on its work-related outcomes is encouraged, this wide range of mod-
empowering leadership and positive and negative work-related outcomes
erators could be grouped in a more systematic manner based on the
interactionist perspective of leadership (Hughes, Ginnett, & Curphy, 2002).
The fourth model within our framework considers various boundary
Specifically, this perspective argues that the effectiveness of leadership
conditions which could alter the relationships between empowering
could be contingent upon several contextual factors such as contextual/
leadership and positive and negative work-related outcomes. The lit-
situational factors, leader factors, and follower factors. This approach
erature-based premise for this model is that certain conditions exist to
considers the important role of both persons (Schneider, 1987; Zaccaro,
either enhance, neutralize or diminish the effects of leadership in
2007) and situations (Perrow, 1970; Pfeffer, 1977) in leadership stu-
general and empowering leadership in particular on specific outcomes
dies, often searching for the optimal combination of these two main
(Ahearne et al., 2005; Dionne, Yammarino, Howell, & Villa, 2005; Lee
factors affecting leadership effectiveness (Vroom & Jago, 2007).
et al., 2017; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Ahearne, & Bommer, 1995; Yun
Sharma and Kirkman (2015) proposed several propositions to in-
et al., 2005). In other words, a “one-size-fits-all approach” cannot ex-
vestigate feasible antecedents of empowering leadership based on
plain fully the effectiveness of empowering leadership.
contextual factors (e.g., job stressors, senior-level and peer leaders'
Among the 50 empirical articles on empowering leadership re-
behavior), leader-related factors (e.g., power distance, uncertainty
viewed, 29 studies follow this approach. The pattern of empirical re-
avoidance, collectivism, narcissism), and follower-related factors (e.g.,
sults shows a wide range of variables are used as moderators. For
leader-reported LMX, proactivity). Although it is reasonable to examine
clarification purposes, these moderators could be grouped into cate-
these factors as a feasible set of antecedents of empowering leadership,
gories as contextual/situational factors, leader factors, and follower
these factors also can be conceptualized and tested as boundary con-
factors. Regarding contextual/situational factors, empowerment related
ditions on or moderators of empowering leadership and various out-
HRM system (Chuang et al., 2016; Hong, Liao, Raub, & Han, 2016),
comes.
organizational support climate (Harris et al., 2014; Li et al., 2017), power
Specifically, by integrating the notion of a contingency approach to
value (Raub & Robert, 2010), team geographic dispersion (Hill & Bartol,
leadership and conservation of resource theory with the consideration
2016), virtual team work (Hill & Bartol, 2016), level of team improvisation
of individuals' level of psychological needs as a cognitive resource, it is
and task overload (Magni & Maruping, 2013); overlap in team tenure
proposed the effectiveness of empowering leadership on work-related
(Ling et al., 2015), team dynamism (Hmieleski & Ensley, 2007), team
outcomes could be contingent on the level of a key followers' psycho-
relationship conflict (Chen et al., 2011), team experience (Yun et al.,
logical need, need for achievement. Specific behaviors of a leader may
2005), team shared felt accountability (Wallace et al., 2011); dissimilarity
provide incentives that lead followers to attribute the leader's behaviors
in demographics of TMT (Ling et al., 2015), heterogeity of TMT (Hmieleski
as motivational cues and act in a corresponding manner, and the acti-
& Ensley, 2007), patient condition (Yun et al., 2005), and access to re-
vation of individual's motives and degree of fulfillment would differ
source and access to information (Zhang et al., 2018) are used as mod-
depending on follower's levels of psychological motives (McClelland,
erators. In terms of leader factors, trust in leader (Gao et al., 2011; Harris
1987). Followers who have high need for achievement compared to
et al., 2014; Zhang & Zhou, 2014), follower-rated empowering leadership
their counterparts who have a low need for achievement tend to mo-
(Amundsen & Martinsen, 2014a; Tekleab et al., 2008; Wong & Giessner,
tivate themselves and try to engage in self-influence to master their own
2018 – in these studies, leader-rated empowering leadership was used
situation (McClleland, 1987; Spangler, 1992). Thus, they would highly
as an independent variable), leader-leader exchange (Lorinkova & Perry,
value resources such as autonomy, competence, sense of control, and
2017), satisfaction with leader (Martin et al., 2013), and procedural
learning opportunities which could result from their leaders' empow-
fairness of leader behaviors (Van Dijke et al., 2012) are the moderators
ering leadership. From this reasoning:
that are conceptualized and tested. In terms of follower factors, em-
ployee readiness (Ahearne et al., 2005), resistance to change (Hon et al., Proposition 4a. Level of follower's need for achievement will moderate
2014); empowerment expectancy (Humborstad & Kuvaas, 2013; Wong & the relationship between empowering leadership and task performance

48
M. Cheong et al.
such that the followers with higher need for achievement will
strengthen the positive relationship between empowering leadership
and task performance.
Moreover, although temporal-related aspects can play a critical role
in predicting the effectiveness of leadership (Casimir, 2001;
Halbesleben, Novicevic, Harvey, & Buckley, 2003; Mohammed &
Nadkarni, 2011; Trope & Liberman, 2003; Zhang, Wang, & Pearce,
2014), research on this notion remains limited in the leadership area in
general, and on empowering leadership in particular. By integrating a
contingency approach to leadership and a temporal construal level
theory (Liberman & Trope, 1998), the role of temporal distance of task,
a key temporal-related aspect, could be conceptualized as a potential
situational factor influencing the effectiveness of empowering leader-
ship on its work-related outcomes.
As such, grounded in empowerment theory in the area of empow-
ering leadership and in temporal construal level theory in the area of
decision making science and psychology (Liberman & Trope, 1998),
interdisciplinary research questions could be proposed and tested. In
particular, followers' specific work related outcomes could be enhanced
when their leader exerts a directive behavior style characterized by
provision of concrete directions and a performance-goal focus (i.e., low
level construal) for a proximal future task (i.e., low level construal), as a
construal fit would occur in that situation. In a similar but opposite
manner, followers' specific work related outcomes could be fostered
when leaders engage in an empowering behavior style, such as provi-
sion of abstract directions and a learning-goal focus, i.e., high level
construal, for a distal future task (i.e., high level construal), as followers
would experience a construal fit.
Proposition 4b. For a low temporal distance of task (proximal future
task), employees task performance will be enhanced when the leader
engages in a directive behavior style rather than an empowering
behavior style.
Proposition 4c. For a high temporal distance of task (distal future
task), employees task performance will be enhanced when the leader
engages in an empowering behavior style rather than a directive
behavior style.
Model 5. Levels-of-analysis and multilevel issues in the relationships of
empowering leadership and work-related outcomes
The fifth model within our framework posits an alternative view of
examining relationships between empowering leadership and its work-
related outcomes based on levels of analysis perspective. Among the 50
reviewed empirical articles on empowering leadership in the current
work, none of the studies explicitly focused on levels of analysis issues
in empowering leadership.
Organizations are multi-level in nature and each level has its own
appropriate principles, disciplines, and theories (Klein & Kozlowski,
2000). Specifically, levels of analysis refer to the entities or objects of
interest in studies. In organization and management science and lea-
dership, most of our interest is in four core levels of analysis: in-
dividuals, dyads, groups/teams, and organizations/collectives
(Dansereau, Alutto, & Yammarino, 1984; Yammarino & Dansereau,
2008, 2009). It is almost impossible to find a phenomenon relevant to
and occurring in organizations that is levels-free (Chan, 1998;
Dansereau et al., 1984; Klein, Dansereau, & Hall, 1994). Various
scholars in the areas of management and organization science have
noted the importance of clarifying the levels of analysis at which phe-
nomena are expected to reside, and ensuring the correspondence of
measurement of the construct of interest and data analytic techniques,
so as not to draw misleading and inappropriate inferences (Dansereau
et al., 1984; Glick & Roberts, 1984; House, Rousseau, & Thomas-Hunt,
1995; Klein et al., 1994; Rousseau, 1985; Yammarino & Dansereau,
2008, 2009). Moreover, identifying appropriate levels of analysis of
49
The Leadership Quarterly 30 (2019) 34–58
phenomenon that we theorize and test may help explain the mixed,
inconsistent, and contradictory findings regarding the focal phenom-
enon of interest (Dionne et al., 2014; Yammarino et al., 2005).
Proposed model 5. Consideration of clarifying appropriate levels of analysis
and examining multilevel issues in empowering leadership
The fifth proposed model of our framework suggests a fuller con-
sideration of clarifying appropriate levels of analysis and examining
multilevel issues resided in empowering leadership. The field of lea-
dership has established strong precedent in terms of levels of analysis as
different theoretical and testing lenses (Batistič, Černe, & Vogel, 2017;
Dionne et al., 2014; Yammarino et al., 2005). Yammarino (2013) pro-
vided a comprehensive definition of leadership that stresses the im-
portance of viewing leadership as a multi-level process of leader-fol-
lowers interaction. As noted by Yammarino et al., (2005): “Theory
without levels of analysis is incomplete; data without levels of analysis
is incomprehensible” (p. 904). Leadership is a phenomenon relevant at
various levels, and empowering leadership should be considered at
various levels of analysis as well. Identifying appropriate levels of
analysis of empowering leadership and its relationships with outcomes,
as well as appropriate identification of mediators' and moderators'
specific levels of analysis, represents critical foundational elements in
conceptualization and testing to account for mixed, inconsistent, and
contradictory findings of empowering leadership literature. Thus, sev-
eral fundamental research questions are proposed to be investigated in
the area of empowering leadership:
Research Question 1. At what level (individual, dyad, group, or orga-
nizational) does the construct of empowering leadership reside?
Research Question 2. What level (individual, dyad, group, or organi-
zation) would be the most appropriate to analyze the effectiveness of em-
powering leadership on its various outcomes?
Research Question 3. Is empowering leadership a multi-level phenom-
enon?
As such, for the 50 empirical studies on empowering leadership, we
identified levels of analysis (i.e., individual, dyad, group, and organi-
zational levels) and multilevel issues. We used the incorporation of a
levels-of-analysis framework in empowering leadership work to better
comprehend the current state and propose future directions for levels-
of-analysis and multilevel issues for the relationships of empowering
leadership and work-related outcomes.
In particular, based on the etiology of the multilevel paradigm as
described by Mathieu and Chen (2011) and the levels-of-analysis fra-
mework for leadership developed by Yammarino et al. (2005) and
Dionne et al. (2014), we coded the 50 empirical articles on empowering
leadership for an appropriate focus on levels reflected in theory (focal
level to which the theory of interest is designed to apply), levels re-
flected in measurement of empowering leadership (focal unit/referent
to which the measurement of interest is designed to measure), levels of
construct of empowering leadership reflected in data analysis (focal
unit to which the data are assigned for hypothesis testing and statistical
analysis of interest), and levels alignment of theory and data (inference
drawing process).
Additionally, we included the specification of theory, which reflects
the theoretical mechanism of empowering leadership (e.g., self-de-
termination theory, leader-categorization theory, empowerment
theory), and the specification of measurement, which reveals the model
assumptions of the empowering leadership measure (e.g., single com-
posite, second-order term). Moreover, we provided a specification of
the level of the research model reflected in data analysis. All of these
results for levels of analysis issues are summarized in Table 4 with
additional information about the theories summarized in Table 5.
Individual level of analysis
In terms of theory, 22 of 50 empirical studies (44%) of empowering
leadership were reflected at the individual level. That is, the concept of
 Table 4
Incorporation of levels of analysis in empirical studies of empowering leadership.
No. Study Levels reflected in Specification (theory) Levels reflected in Specification Level of construct Level of model reflected Levels alignment of
theory measurement (measurement) reflected in data analysis in data analysis theory and data
M. Cheong et al.

1 Ahearne et al. (2005)
2 Amundsen and Martinsen
(2015)
3 Amundsen and Martinsen
(2014a)
4 Amundsen and Martinsen
(2014b)
5 Biemann et al. (2015)
6 Birkeland et al. (2017)
7 Carmeli et al. (2011)
8 Chen et al. (2007)
9 Chen et al. (2011)
10 Cheong et al. (2016)
11 Cheong et al. (2018a)
12 Cheong et al. (2018b)
13 Chuang et al. (2016)
14 Dong et al. (2015)
I Empowerment theory; self-efficacy I Single composite I I→I Match
I Self-determination theory; job characteristic I Second-order term I I→I Match
model; empowerment theory
I Self-other agreement I Second-order term G Multi. Mismatch
G→I
I Empowerment theory; self-determination; I Second-order term I I→I Match
job characteristic model
Multi. Individual: empowerment theory; LMX; G Single composite I&G Multi. Match
social exchange theory; G → I; I → I
Group: group climate perception
I Burdening process of empowering I Single composite I I→I Match
leadership
G Collective efficacy I Single composite G G→G ?
G Empowerment theory G Single composite G Multi. Match
G → G; G → I
G Empowerment theory G Single composite G Multi. Match
G→I
I Empowerment theory; cost of autonomy; I Single composite I I→I Match
role theory
I Conservation of resource theory I Single composite I I→I Match
I Temporal construal level theory I Single composite I I→I Match
G Empowerment theory G Single composite G G→G Match
I Regulatory focus theory I Single composite BI Multi. Match
BI → WI

50
15 Ensley et al. (2006) G Not specified I Single composite G Multi. ?
G→O
16 Gao et al. (2011) I Not specified G Single composite I I→I ?
17 Hao et al. (2018) I Dualistic model of passion G Single composite G Multi. Mismatch
G→I
18 Harris et al. (2014) I Empowerment theory; role theory I Single composite I I→I Match
19 Hassan et al. (2013) I LMX theory G Single composite I I→I ?
20 Hill and Bartol (2016) G Distributing leadership G Single composite G Multi. Match
G → G; G → I
21 Hmieleski and Ensley G Empowerment theory ? Single composite G Multi. ?
(2007) G→O
22 Hon et al. (2014) Multi Sensemaking perspective G Single composite G Multi. Match
G→I
23 Hong et al. (2016) G Social learning; verbal communication G Single composite G G→G Match
process
24 Humborstad and Kuvaas D Role set theory; self-determination theory I Single composite I Multi. Mismatch
(2013) D→I
25 Kim and Beehr (2017) I Self-efficacy theory; psychological I Second-order term I I→I Match
ownership
26 Kim and Beehr (2018) I Job-demand resource theory I Second-order term I I→I Match
27 Lee et al. (2017) I Empowerment theory; role theory I Single composite I I→I Match
28 Li et al. (2017) G Empowerment theory G Single composite G Multi. Match
G→I
29 Ling et al. (2015) G Empowerment theory G Single composite G Multi. Match
G→O
30 Lorinkova et al. (2013) G Team development model G Single composite G G→G Match
31 Lorinkova and Perry G Empowerment theory; social exchange ? Single composite G Multi. ?
(2017) theory G→I
(continued on next page)
The Leadership Quarterly 30 (2019) 34–58
 Table 4 (continued)

No. Study Levels reflected in Specification (theory) Levels reflected in Specification Level of construct Level of model reflected Levels alignment of
theory measurement (measurement) reflected in data analysis in data analysis theory and data
M. Cheong et al.

32 Magni and Maruping G Job-demand resource theory G Single composite G G→G Match
(2013)
33 Margolis and Ziegert Multi Collective leadership; Sensemaking G Single composite G G→G Match
(2016)
34 Martin et al. (2013) G Self-determination theory; self-efficacy; G Single composite G G→G Match
empowerment theory
35 Mathieu et al. (2007) G Self-efficacy ? Single composite G Multi. ?
G→I
36 Ou et al. (2014) G Social information processing theory I Second-order term G G→G ?
37 Raub and Robert (2010) I Self-determination theory G Single composite I Multi. ?
G→I
38 Smallfield et al. (2018) G Social information processing theory G Single composite G G→G Match
39 Srivastava et al. (2006) G Knowledge sharing perspective; G Second-order term G G→G Match
empowerment theory
40 Tekleab et al. (2008) D Self-other agreement; Self-awareness D Single composite D Multi. Match
perspective D→I
41 Van Dijke et al. (2012) I Relational fairness theory I Single composite I I→I Match
42 Vecchio et al. (2010) D Employee resistance perspective I Single composite I I→I Mismatch
43 Wallace et al. (2011) G Social information processing theory; Social I Single composite G G→G ?
learning theory
44 Wong and Giessner D Expectancy-match perspective; Leader D Single composite D Multi. Match
(2018) categorization theory D→I
45 Wong and Kuvaas (2018) I Met-expectation theory I Single composite I I→I Match
46 Yun et al. (2005) G Contingency theory of leadership G Single composite I I→I Mismatch
47 Yun et al. (2006) Multi Contingency theory of leadership I Single composite G Multi. ?

51
G→I
48 Zhang and Bartol (2010) I Psychological empowerment perspective; I Second-order term I I→I Match
Intrinsic motivation perspective
49 Zhang and Zhou (2014) I Interactionist perspective of creativity I Single composite I I→I Match
50 Zhang et al. (2018) I Self-concept based leadership theory; I Single composite I I→I Match
Creativity theory

Note. I = Individual-level; D = Dyad-level; G = Group-level; O = Organizational-level; Multi. = Multilevel study; BI = Between Individuals; WI = Within Individual;? = indeterminable; I → I = Individual-level em-
powering leadership variable to associated Individual-level variable(s) of focal study; G → G = Group-level empowering leadership variable to associated Group-level variable(s) of focal study; O → O = Organizational-
level empowering leadership variable to Organizational-level variable(s) of focal study; BI → WI = Between-Individual level empowering leadership variable to Within-Individual level variable(s) of focal study; WI →
WI = Within-Individual level empowering leadership variable to Within-Individual level variable(s) of focal study; G → I = Group-level empowering leadership variable to associated Individual-level variable(s) of focal
study; G → O = Group-level empowering leadership variable to associated Organizational-level variable(s) of focal study; O → G = Organizational-level empowering leadership variable to associated Group-level variable
(s) of focal study; O → I = Associated Organizational-level variable(s) of focal study to Individual-level empowering leadership variable.
The Leadership Quarterly 30 (2019) 34–58
M. Cheong et al. The Leadership Quarterly 30 (2019) 34–58

Table 5
Summary of theories applied to empowering leadership at different levels of analysis.
Individual level Dyad level Group level

Theory % Theory % Theory %

Empowerment theory 17.6 Employee resistance perspective 14.3 Empowerment theory 34.6
Role theory 8.8 Expectancy-match perspective 14.3 Social information processing theory 11.5
Self-determination theory 8.8 Leader categorization theory 14.3 Self-efficacy perspective 7.7
Job characteristic model 5.9 Role set theory 14.3 Social learning theory 7.7
Self-efficacy theory 5.9 Self-awareness perspective 14.3 Collective efficacy perspective 3.8
Burdening process of empowering leadership 2.9 Self-determination theory 14.3 Contingency theory of leadership 3.8
Conservation of resource theory 2.9 Self-other agreement 14.3 Distributive leadership perspective 3.8
Cost of autonomy 2.9 Job-demand resource theory 3.8
Creativity theory 2.9 Knowledge sharing perspective 3.8
Dualistic model of passion 2.9 Self-determination theory 3.8
Interactionist perspective of creativity 2.9 Social exchange theory 3.8
Intrinsic motivation perspective 2.9 Team development model 3.8
Job demands-resources theory 2.9 Verbal communication process 3.8
Leader-member exchange theory 2.9 Not specified 3.8
Met-expectation theory 2.9
Psychological empowerment perspective 2.9
Psychological ownership 2.9
Regulatory focus theory 2.9
Relational fairness theory 2.9
Self-concept-based leadership theory 2.9
Self-other agreement 2.9
Temporal construal level theory 2.9
Not specified 2.9

empowering leadership operated at the individual level. Regarding the
theoretical content, 21 different theories were applied to explain the
individual-level empowering leadership processes. Specifically, em-
powerment theory (18%) (e.g., Ahearne et al., 2005), self-determina-
tion theory (9%) (e.g., Amundsen & Martinsen, 2015), and role theory
(9%) (e.g., Cheong et al., 2016) were the most used theoretical fra-
mework. Regarding measurement, 25 of 47 empirical studies (53%;
three studies are indeterminable in terms of levels-of-analysis reflected
in measurement) used an individual-level empowering leadership
measure. Finally, regarding data analysis, 23 of 50 empirical studies
(46%) used an individual-level empowering leadership construct and
the respective analytical techniques to assess the effectiveness of em-
powering leadership on various work-related outcomes.
Dyad level of analysis
In terms of theory, four of 50 empirical studies (8%) of empowering
leadership were reflected at the dyad level. That is, the concept of
empowering leadership operated at the dyad level. Regarding the the-
oretical content, seven different theories (e.g., leader categorization
theory; Wong & Giessner, 2018) were applied to explain dyad-level
empowering leadership processes. Regarding measurement, two of 47
empirical studies (4%; three studies are indeterminable in terms of le-
vels-of-analysis reflected in measurement) used a dyad-level empow-
ering leadership measure. Finally, regarding data analysis, two of 50
empirical studies (4%) used a dyad-level empowering leadership con-
struct and the respective analytical techniques (e.g., polynomial re-
gression) to assess the effectiveness of empowering leadership on var-
ious work-related outcomes.
Group level of analysis
In terms of theory, 20 of 50 empirical studies (40%) of empowering
leadership were reflected at the group level. That is, the concept of
empowering leadership operated at the group level. Regarding the
theoretical content, 13 different theories (e.g., team development
model; Lorinkova et al., 2013) were applied to explain the group-level
empowering leadership processes. Among these 13 theories, empow-
erment theory (35%) (Chen et al., 2007, 2011) was the most frequently
applied theoretical framework. Regarding measurement, 20 of 47 em-
pirical studies (43%; three studies are indeterminable in terms of levels-
of-analysis reflected in measurement) used a group-level empowering
leadership measure. Finally, regarding data analysis, 24 of 50 empirical
studies (48%) used a group-level empowering leadership construct and
the respective analytical techniques to assess the effectiveness of em-
powering leadership on various work-related outcomes.
Organizational level of analysis
Among the searched empirical empowering leadership studies, none
reflected theories, measurement, or data analyses that specifically op-
erated at the organizational level.
Multiple levels
In terms theory, four of 50 empirical studies (8%) of empowering
leadership applied a multi-level framework (e.g., sensemaking per-
spective; group climate) to explain the multilevel empowering leader-
ship processes. Regarding data analysis reflected in research model, 19
of 50 empirical studies (38%) used multilevel techniques (e.g., random
coefficient model) to assess the effectiveness of empowering leadership
as a higher-level construct on various work-related outcomes as a
lower-level construct.
Summary and future directions
On the basis of the coded information in Table 4, Fig. 2 illustrates
the distribution and levels misalignment issues in empowering leader-
ship for different levels of analysis.
First, across the 50 empirical studies, most empowering leadership
research conceptually operated at the individual and group levels.
Empowering leadership studies at the dyad level and at multiple levels
are relatively low in number. We believe this result reflects trends of
leadership research in general and is not limited to the area of em-
powering leadership. Of the four levels of analysis in a typical levels
framework, the dyad level is most poorly understood in terms of its
theory, construct, analysis, and inference drawing (Gooty &
Yammarino, 2011; Yammarino et al., 2005; Yammarino & Gooty,
2017). Given the potential impact of the different temporal dynamics of
leader-follower dyadic relationships (either task-oriented or relations-
oriented) on the degree of employee empowerment over time, applying
process-oriented theories of leader-follower dyads (e.g., individual
leadership: Dansereau et al., 1995; relational leadership theory: Uhl-

52
M. Cheong et al.
Bien, 2006) and related methodologies and analyses would benefit from
exploring and evaluating the phenomenon of empowering leadership at
dyad-level. In addition, no research has studied empowering leadership
at the organizational level.
Second, based on the levels of theory, measurement, and data
analysis as coded in Table 4, Fig. 2 reveals the misalignment issue in
empowering leadership across different levels of analysis. Note that the
gap existing among the lines for theory (i.e., blue cross), analysis (i.e.,
red square), and measurement (i.e., green circle) for each level of in-
terest indicates there is a misalignment issue. In other words, these lines
do not overlap or align completely as they would for appropriate in-
corporation of levels issues in research. In the ideal case, there would be
no gap among the lines for theory, analysis, and measurement for a
particular level. Other than the organizational level, for which there
were no studies, all levels of analysis showed misalignment in terms of
levels of theory, measurement, and analysis. This levels misalignment
issue in empowering leadership may potentially hinder the accuracy of
scientific inference drawing based on the current empirical findings.
To enhance the understanding of empowering leadership through a
levels-of-analysis and multilevel perspective, we suggest future research
should explore the construct of empowering leadership more at the
dyad and organizational levels. In addition, our coding reflects many
different theories were proposed to explain empowering leadership
processes at one specific level. For example, Table 5 suggests 22 dif-
ferent theories were applied to explain empowering leadership pro-
cesses at the individual level. In a sense, researchers could enhance the
current understanding of empowering leadership by carefully in-
tegrating those theories and articulating a parsimonious theoretical
framework of empowering leadership across different levels of analysis.
More importantly, to enhance the accuracy of inference drawing, future
research should also carefully address the alignment issue of levels
among theory, measurement, and data analysis.
As an important step to foster efforts to conduct appropriate levels-
of-analysis and multilevel research in the area of empowering leader-
ship, specific recommendations are offered below. These re-
commendations were originally provided by Yammarino et al. (2005),
and are directly excerpted here with modifications for use in the area of
empowering leadership (see Yammarino et al., 2005, p. 905–906).
Theoretical recommendations for conducting multilevel empowering
leadership research:
1. Define the level of analysis of the unit(s) of empowering leadership,
i.e., the entity (entities) to which theoretical generalizations apply.
2. Define the level of analysis of the associated concepts, constructs,
variables, and relationships of empowering leadership itself and
other related phenomena of interest (e.g., individual level –
53
The Leadership Quarterly 30 (2019) 34–58
Fig. 2. Incorporation of levels of analysis in empirical studies
of empowering leadership in theory, analysis, and measure-
ment.
Note. I = Individual-level study; D = Dyad-level study;
G = Group-level study; O = Organizational-level study;
Multi. = Multilevel study; the gap existing among the lines for
theory (blue cross), analysis (red square), and measurement
(green circle) for each level indicates that there is misalign-
ment issue. (For interpretation of the references to colour in
this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of
this article.)
empowering leadership as an antecedent of followers' psychological
empowerment; dyad – leader-follower empowerment expectation-
behavior mismatch; group – comparing the effectiveness of use of
empowering leadership as vertical leadership approach to shared
leadership approach; collective – the role of empowering leadership
in collective emergence phenomenon such as human capital emer-
gence in organization, emergence of collective intelligence and de-
cision making, and organizational learning).
3. Articulate a theoretical justification for every phenomenon of in-
terest included in #1 and #2 above.
4. Identify the feasible boundary conditions of the phenomenon of
interest, including and based upon levels of analysis, for everything
in #1, #2, and #3 above.
Measurement recommendations for conducting multilevel empowering
leadership research:
1. Construct measures of empowering leadership at the same level of
analysis depicted in the theory, models, and hypotheses.
2. If constructing measures of empowering leadership is not possible,
employ appropriate aggregation (or disaggregation) techniques and
justify the use of these techniques.
3. Further validate a measure of empowering leadership, even an es-
tablished measure, if it has been modified or adapted to account for
various or different levels of analysis than originally intended.
Data analytic technique recommendations for conducting multilevel
empowering leadership research:
1. Permit theory (variables, relationships, and levels of analysis) to
determine the multi-level technique to be used in order to test hy-
pothesized phenomenon of interest related to empowering leader-
ship.
2. Employ appropriate multilevel techniques if the “referent(s)” (en-
tities of interest) are at a level of analysis higher than the individual
level. Multilevel techniques still can be applicable in case the level
of focus of the study resides among “between-individuals concepts”,
e.g., traits, motivation, and “within-individual concepts”, e.g.,
emotion, mood.
Inference drawing recommendations for conducting multilevel empow-
ering leadership research:
1. Include levels of analysis in both theory (i.e., as the entities) of
empowering leadership and data (i.e., as the samples and subjects).
2. State which relationships between empowering leadership and
M. Cheong et al.
associated antecedents, or outcomes hold across different levels of
analysis in terms of multilevel, cross-level, mixed effects, and mixed
determinants models.
Further future research directions
While some of the relationships represented in the specific models in
our proposed framework have been already examined in several em-
pirical studies, many parts of and relationships in the models are not
well tested, or tested at all, and remain unexplored (i.e., Model 2: re-
verse causation; Model 5: levels-of-analysis and multilevel issues of
empowering leadership). The proposed framework can stimulate future
research on empowering leadership while offering researchers and
practitioners a tool or guidelines for explaining why empowering lea-
dership would not always work in a desirable way. Below are some
additional suggested future directions for research on empowering
leadership.
Cross-cultural studies
Culture, as a moderator/boundary condition, may play a significant
role on the effectiveness of empowering leadership. The same leader-
ship style could be perceived differently by followers based on the
cultural cluster in which the followers are embedded, and additionally,
its effectiveness could vary (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, &
Gupta, 2004). For example, in a Confucian Asia cluster, including
countries such as Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, China, South Korea,
and Japan, followers are highly desirous of, feel obligated to, and are
morally responsible to their leaders. It is possible that followers in this
cluster would feel more pressure when their leaders engage in em-
powering leadership toward them as compared to those followers who
are in an Anglo cluster (Canada, United States, Australia, Ireland,
England, South Africa, and New Zealand) which is characterized as an
individualistic society (House et al., 2004).
Along with this individualism-collectivism distinction, the issue of
power distance could possibly influence the effectiveness of empow-
ering leadership on its various work-related outcomes. In their study,
Ju, Ma, Ren, and Zhang (2014) found that interacting with power
distance, empowering leadership influences the extent of employees'
silence. Specifically, results from a three-way interaction of employees
past performance, empowering leadership, and power distance on
employees' silence showed that for employees with high power dis-
tance, performance can strongly reduce employee silence (i.e., proac-
tively voice out) when empowering leadership is high; and, for em-
ployees with low power distance, performance can strongly reduce
employee silence when empowering leadership is low. It is possible to
infer that in a high power distance situation, in order for employees to
voice their opinions, leader's engagement of empowering leadership
alone is not sufficient, but the focal employee's high level of past per-
formance also needs to be considered, which is not the case in a low
power distance situation.
Gender role in empowering leadership
Prior empirical evidence shows there are specific leader styles that
are more effective when female leaders exert such styles rather than
when male leaders display those styles (Eagly, 1987; Eagly, Karau, &
Makhijani, 1995; Yammarino, Dubinsky, Comer, & Jolson, 1997). More
specifically, Eagly et al. (1992, 1995) found that an “interpersonally-
oriented” leadership style and its related characteristics such as high
levels of communal attributes (e.g., friendliness, concern for others,
emotional expressiveness), collaborative, informality, warmth, low
leader control, and participative decision making style, are expected to
be displayed from female leaders, and female leaders who exert such
styles are perceived as successful and effective (Yammarino et al.,
1997).
54
The Leadership Quarterly 30 (2019) 34–58
Characteristics of empowering leadership such as fostering partici-
pative decision making, providing autonomy from bureaucratic con-
straints (Ahearne et al., 2005), showing concern (Arnold et al., 2000),
autonomy support, and development support (Amundsen & Martinsen,
2014a) could well be represent of “interpersonally-oriented” leadership
attributes. Thus, it is plausible that the effects of empowering leader-
ship could vary depending on the gender of the leaders, as a feasible
moderator/boundary condition, who exert an empowering behavior
style. This assertion seems worthy of additional theoretical and em-
pirical investigation, especially at a time of emerging women leaders in
various domains (Adams, 2016; Lemoine, Aggarwal, & Steed, 2016).
Component level-based research
There is a need to further examine the effectiveness of empowering
leadership at the component level (e.g., enhancing the meaningfulness
of work, fostering participation in decision making, expressing con-
fidence in high performance, providing autonomy from bureaucratic
constraints, based on Ahearne et al., 2005) and the relationships of
these components to the overall construct, as well as to other estab-
lished leadership constructs and their components, to appropriately
differentiate empowering leadership from these closely related leader-
ship forms/styles. Empowering leadership is a complex and multi-
dimensional concept, yet previous studies have not tried to isolate the
effects of its components or their combinations. In the area of em-
powering leadership, various issues remain to be addressed at the
component level.
From a substantive perspective, it could be argued that each sub-
dimension of empowering leadership is a necessary, but not sufficient,
aspect to capture the overall notion of empowering leadership (Arnold
et al., 2000; Srivastava et al., 2006; Zhang & Bartol, 2010). Therefore, a
solely component-level study of empowering leadership might not be
appropriate to examine the effectiveness of empowering leadership.
However, it is feasible that each sub-dimension of empowering lea-
dership may have different mediators, moderators, and outcomes,
causing the mixed empirical results regarding the effectiveness of
overall empowering leadership. In this regard, scrutinizing the effects of
each sub-dimension of empowering leadership could be promising for
future research to understand the complex nature of empowering lea-
dership and its effects.
Implicit measurement of empowering leadership
While there are several empowering leadership measures that are
well developed and psychometrically validated (see above Measures of
Empowering Leadership section), all of these measures are explicit
measures.
Explicit measurement is established based on external and semantic
processes occurring when individuals engage in an analysis of the
benefits and costs of their decisions and behaviors. Thus, these better
capture the phenomenon when coupled with similar measures devel-
oped based on semantic processes, such as focal individuals' attitudes or
soft/subjective performance. On the contrary, implicit measurement is
established based on innate and episodic processes occurring auto-
matically and outside of individuals' awareness (Chaiken & Trope,
1999). And these better capture the phenomenon when coupled with
similar measures developed based on episodic processes, such as focal
individual's actual behaviors or hard/objective performance (Spangler,
1992).
“Leader empowering intention/motive” could be one of the possible
implicit empowering leadership measures which assesses focal leaders'
intention or motive to empower their subordinates, assessed using re-
levant implicit association tests, implicit thematic apperception test, or
computerized content analysis (see Chong et al., 2017). Adopting and
developing implicit measures of empowering leadership will contribute
to the domain of empowering leadership both theoretically and
M. Cheong et al.
practically by capturing more relevant empowering leadership phe-
nomena and more accurately testing those.
From a theoretical perspective, investigating the implicit level of
empowering leadership nomological network, which might be different
from explicit level of empowering leadership nomological network,
could comprehend better the automatic, unintentional, and/or un-
conscious processes underlying leaders' empowering behaviors. From a
practical perspective, an implicit measure of empowering leadership
could be used to assess higher management levels of leaders, such as
executives, CEOs, and political leaders. The format of an implicit
measure could be short story telling or writing cued by specific pictures
or sentences. Researchers can then use those data in conjunction with
firm's archival data or public data sources to broaden the scope of re-
search and utilize data at higher levels of analysis (i.e., organization
and collective levels).
Application of the notion of paradox perspective in empowering leadership
Additionally, a suggested future research direction in the area of
leadership in general, and empowering leadership in particular, is a
need for the application of a paradox-examining perspective as one way
to optimize the effectiveness of particular leadership style by the in-
terplay of its seemingly opposite forms or consequences. Specifically,
paradox refers to “contradictory, yet interrelated elements that exist
simultaneously and persist over time” (Smith & Lewis, 2011, p. 382),
and the core notion of a paradox-examining perspective is considering
the existing tension embedded in the system, and therefore, resolving
the tension or achieving work success that depends on attending to
contradictory and interrelated demands simultaneously (Smith & Lewis,
2011; Zheng, Kark, & Meister, 2018). In other words, this is the ability
of reconciliation to achieve optimal results by taking a balanced per-
spective on the factors underpinning the phenomenon of interest, e.g.,
leadership effectiveness and individual, group, and organizational
performance.
From this point of view, it would be beneficial to understand the
phenomenon of effectiveness of empowering leadership by including
and considering it along with the effectiveness of directive leadership,
which seemingly considers as an opposite leadership style from em-
powering leadership (Lorinkova et al., 2013; Martin et al., 2013; Yun
et al., 2005). By adapting the notion of Gupta, Smith, and Shalley
(2006), this interplay between empowering leadership and directive
leadership could be possibly balanced by taking an ambidexterity ap-
proach in which there is a synchronous pursuit of both empowering
leadership and directive leadership via differentiated subunits or in-
dividuals, each of which specialized in either empowering leadership or
directive leadership (i.e., dual leadership: Hunter, Cushenbery, &
Jayne, 2017), and/or via punctuated equilibrium as the temporal differ-
entiation cycling through periods of empowering leadership and di-
rective leadership (e.g., situational leadership: Hersey et al., 1979).
Conclusion
Based on a review of the empirical literature on empowering lea-
dership, the current work suggests reconsidering the effectiveness of
empowering leadership via a five-model/approach framework. Both
researchers and practitioners in this area should acknowledge that the
effectiveness of empowering leadership cannot be comprehended to the
full extent without considering the multifaceted nature of empowering
leadership. We offer the proposed framework for empowering leader-
ship, including the levels of analysis component, as a guiding tool for
advancing future research on empowering leadership.
References
Adams, R. B. (2016). Women on boards: The superheroes of tomorrow? The Leadership
Quarterly, 27(3), 371–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.11.001.
55
The Leadership Quarterly 30 (2019) 34–58
Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J., & Rapp, A. (2005). To empower or not to empower your sales
force? An empirical examination of the influence of leadership empowerment be-
havior on customer satisfaction and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
90(5), 945–955. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.945.
Amundsen, S., & Martinsen, Ø. L. (2014a). Empowering leadership: Construct clarifica-
tion, conceptualization, and validation of a new scale. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(3),
487–511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.009.
Amundsen, S., & Martinsen, Ø. L. (2014b). Self–other agreement in empowering leader-
ship: Relationships with leader effectiveness and subordinates' job satisfaction and
turnover intention. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(4), 784–800. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.leaqua.2014.04.007.
Amundsen, S., & Martinsen, Ø. L. (2015). Linking empowering leadership to job sa-
tisfaction, work effort, and creativity: The role of self-leadership and psychological
empowerment. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 22(3), 304–323.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051814565819.
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.
Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1993). Creating readiness for or-
ganizational change. Human Relations, 46(6), 681–703. https://doi.org/10.1177/
001872679304600601.
Arnold, J. A., Arad, S., Rhoades, J. A., & Drasgow, F. (2000). The empowering leadership
questionnaire: The construction and validation of a new scale for measuring leader
behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(3), 249–269. https://doi.org/10.
1002/(SICI)1099-1379(200005)21:3<249::AID-JOB10>3.0.CO;2-#.
Banks, G. C., Gooty, J., Ross, R. L., Williams, C. E., & Harrington, N. T. (2018). Construct
redundancy in leader behaviors: A review and agenda for the future. The Leadership
Quarterly, 29(1), 236–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.12.005.
Bass, B. M. (2008). The bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial ap-
plications (4th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational
leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 181–217. https://doi.org/10.
1016/S1048-9843(99)00016-8.
Batistič, S., Černe, M., & Vogel, B. (2017). Just how multi-level is leadership research? A
document co-citation analysis 1980–2013 on leadership constructs and outcomes.
The Leadership Quarterly, 28(1), 86–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.10.
007.
Biemann, T., Kearney, E., & Marggraf, K. (2015). Empowering leadership and managers'
career perceptions: Examining effects at both the individual and the team level. The
Leadership Quarterly, 26(5), 775–789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.03.003.
Birkeland, M. S., Nielsen, M. B., Hansen, M. B., Knardahl, S., & Heir, T. (2017). The
impact of a workplace terrorist attack on employees' perceptions of leadership: A
longitudinal study from pre-to postdisaster. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(5), 659–671.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.01.002.
Bowers, D. G., & Seashore, S. E. (1966). Predicting organizational effectiveness with a
four-factor theory of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 11(2), 238–263.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2391247.
Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions.
The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.
004.
Carmeli, A., Schaubroeck, J., & Tishler, A. (2011). How CEO empowering leadership
shapes top management team processes: Implications for firm performance. The
Leadership Quarterly, 22(2), 399–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.02.013.
Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., & Marrone, J. A. (2007). Shared leadership in teams: An
investigation of antecedent conditions and performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 50(5), 1217–1234. https://doi.org/10.2307/AMJ.2007.20159921.
Carsten, M. K., Uhl-Bien, M., & Huang, L. (2017). Leader perceptions and motivation as
outcomes of followership role orientation and behavior. Leadership. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1742715017720306 (Advance online publication).
Casimir, G. (2001). Combinative aspects of leadership style: The ordering and temporal
spacing of leadership behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 12(3), 245–278. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(01)00079-0.
Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (Eds.). (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology. New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at
different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83(2), 234–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.234.
Chen, G., Kirkman, B. L., Kanfer, R., Allen, D., & Rosen, B. (2007). A multilevel study of
leadership, empowerment, and performance in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology,
92(2), 331–346. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.331.
Chen, G., Sharma, P. N., Edinger, S. K., Shapiro, D. L., & Farh, J. L. (2011). Motivating and
demotivating forces in teams: Cross-level influences of empowering leadership and
relationship conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 541–557. https://doi.org/
10.1037/a0021886.
Cheong, M., Spain, S. M., Yammarino, F. J., & Yun, S. (2016). Two faces of empowering
leadership: Enabling and burdening. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(4), 602–616.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.01.006.
Cheong, M., Yammarino, F. J., Spain, S. M., Dionne, S. D., Choi, D., Lee, J., & Yun, S.
(2018a). Empowering and directive leader behaviors, and stress. (Manuscript in pre-
paration).
Cheong, M., Yammarino, F. J., Spain, S. M., Dionne, S. D., Sotak, K. L., Sayama, H., &
Chatterjee, S. (2018). Empowering and directive leadership: Temporal perspective.
(Manuscript in preparation).
Chong, S., Djurdjevic, E., & Johnson, R. E. (2017). Implicit measures for leadership re-
search. In B. Schyns, R. J. Hall, & P. Neves (Eds.). Handbook of methods in leadership
research (pp. 13–47). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
M. Cheong et al.
Chuang, C. H., Jackson, S. E., & Jiang, Y. (2016). Can knowledge-intensive teamwork be
managed? Examining the roles of HRM systems, leadership, and tacit knowledge.
Journal of Management, 42(2), 524–554. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0149206313478189.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory
and practice. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 471–482. https://doi.org/10.
5465/AMR.1988.4306983.
Cox, J. F., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1996). Leadership and team citizenship behavior: A model
and measures. In M. M. Beyerlein, & D. A. Johnson (Vol. Eds.), Advances in inter-
disciplinary studies of work teams. Vol. 3. Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work
teams (pp. 1–41). Greenwich, CT: JAI press.
Dansereau, F., Alutto, J. A., & Yammarino, F. J. (1984). Theory testing in organizational
behavior: The varient approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to
leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role
making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13(1), 46–78.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(75)90005-7.
Dansereau, F., Yammarino, F. J., Markham, S. E., Alutto, J. A., Newman, J., Dumas, M., ...
Lee, S. (1995). Individualized leadership: A new multiple-level approach. The
Leadership Quarterly, 6(3), 413–450. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)
90016-0.
Day, D. V., & Antonakis, J. (Eds.). (2012). The nature of leadership(2nd ed.). Los Angeles,
CA: Sage.
Den Hartog, D. N. (2015). Ethical leadership. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology
and Organizational Behavior, 2, 409–434. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-
032414-111237.
Dionne, S. D., Gupta, A., Sotak, K. L., Shirreffs, K. A., Serban, A., Hao, C., ... Yammarino,
F. J. (2014). A 25-year perspective on levels of analysis in leadership research. The
Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 6–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.002.
Dionne, S. D., Yammarino, F. J., Howell, J. P., & Villa, J. (2005). Substitutes for lea-
dership, or not. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(1), 169–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
leaqua.2004.09.012.
Dong, Y., Liao, H., Chuang, A., Zhou, J., & Campbell, E. M. (2015). Fostering employee
service creativity: Joint effects of customer empowering behaviors and supervisory
empowering leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(5), 1364–1380. https://
doi.org/10.1037/a0038969.
Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., & Makhijani, M. G. (1995). Gender and the effectiveness of
leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 117(1), 125–145. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0033-2909.117.1.125.
Eagly, A. H., Makhijani, M. G., & Klonsky, B. G. (1992). Gender and the evaluation of
leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0033-2909.111.1.3.
Edmondson, A. C., & McManus, S. E. (2007). Methodological fit in management field
research. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1246–1264. https://doi.org/10.
5465/AMR.2007.26586086.
Ensley, M. D., Hmieleski, K. M., & Pearce, C. L. (2006). The importance of vertical and
shared leadership within new venture top management teams: Implications for the
performance of startups. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(3), 217–231. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.02.002.
Fineman, S. (2006). On being positive: Concerns and counterpoints. Academy of
Management Review, 31(2), 270–291. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2006.20208680.
Fischer, T., Dietz, J., & Antonakis, J. (2017). Leadership process models: A review and
synthesis. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1726–1753. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0149206316682830.
Forrester, R. (2000). Empowerment: Rejuvenating a potent idea. Academy of Management
Executive, 14(3), 67–80. https://doi.org/10.5465/AME.2000.4468067.
Förster, J., Grant, H., Idson, C., & Higgins, E. T. (2001). Success/failure feedback, ex-
pectancies, and approach/avoidance motivation: How regulatory focus moderates
classic relations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37(3), 253–260. https://
doi.org/10.1006/jesp.2000.1455.
Gao, L., Janssen, O., & Shi, K. (2011). Leader trust and employee voice: The moderating
role of empowering leader behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(4), 787–798.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.05.015.
Glick, W. H., & Roberts, K. H. (1984). Hypothesized interdependence, assumed in-
dependence. Academy of Management Review, 9(4), 722–735. https://doi.org/10.
2307/258494.
Gooty, J., & Yammarino, F. J. (2011). Dyads in organizational research: Conceptual issues
and multilevel analyses. Organizational Research Methods, 14(3), 456–483. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1094428109358271.
Gooty, J., & Yammarino, F. J. (2016). The leader–member exchange relationship: A
multisource, cross-level investigation. Journal of Management, 42(4), 915–935.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313503009.
Gorman, C. A., Meriac, J. P., Overstreet, B. L., Apodaca, S., McIntyre, A. L., Park, P., &
Godbey, J. N. (2012). A meta-analysis of the regulatory focus nomological network:
Work-related antecedents and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(1),
160–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.07.005.
Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In B.
M. Staw, & L. L. Cumming (Vol. Eds.), Research in organizational behavior. Vol. 9.
Research in organizational behavior (pp. 175–208). Greenwich, CT: JAI press.
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.
Grijalva, E., Harms, P. D., Newman, D. A., Gaddis, B. H., & Fraley, R. C. (2015).
56
The Leadership Quarterly 30 (2019) 34–58
Narcissism and leadership: A meta-analytic review of linear and nonlinear relation-
ships. Personnel Psychology, 68(1), 1–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12072.
Guastello, S. J. (2007). Non-linear dynamics and leadership emergence. The Leadership
Quarterly, 18(4), 357–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.04.005.
Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and
exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 693–706. https://doi.org/10.
5465/amj.2006.22083026.
Halbesleben, J. R., Novicevic, M. M., Harvey, M. G., & Buckley, M. R. (2003). Awareness
of temporal complexity in leadership of creativity and innovation: A competency-
based model. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(4–5), 433–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S1048-9843(03)00046-8.
Hao, P., He, W., & Long, L. R. (2018). Why and when empowering leadership has different
effects on employee work performance: The pivotal roles of passion for work and role
breadth self-efficacy. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 25(1), 85–100.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051817707517.
Harris, T. B., Li, N., Boswell, W. R., Zhang, X. A., & Xie, Z. (2014). Getting what's new
from newcomers: Empowering leadership, creativity, and adjustment in the sociali-
zation context. Personnel Psychology, 67(3), 567–604. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.
12053.
Hassan, S., Mahsud, R., Yukl, G., & Prussia, G. E. (2013). Ethical and empowering lea-
dership and leader effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28(2), 133–146.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02683941311300252.
Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H., & Natemeyer, W. E. (1979). Situational leadership, per-
ception, and the impact of power. Group & Organization Studies, 4(4), 418–428.
https://doi.org/10.1177/105960117900400404.
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12),
1280–1300. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280.
Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational
principle. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 1–46. https://doi.org/10.
1016/S0065-2601(08)60381-0.
Hill, N. S., & Bartol, K. M. (2016). Empowering leadership and effective collaboration in
geographically dispersed teams. Personnel Psychology, 69(1), 159–198. https://doi.
org/10.1111/peps.12108.
Hmieleski, K. M., & Ensley, M. D. (2007). A contextual examination of new venture
performance: Entrepreneur leadership behavior, top management team hetero-
geneity, and environmental dynamism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(7),
865–889. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.479.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress.
American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.
513.
Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of
General Psychology, 6(4), 307–324. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.6.4.307.
Hon, A. H., Bloom, M., & Crant, J. M. (2014). Overcoming resistance to change and
enhancing creative performance. Journal of Management, 40(3), 919–941. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0149206311415418.
Hong, Y., Liao, H., Raub, S., & Han, J. H. (2016). What it takes to get proactive: An
integrative multilevel model of the antecedents of personal initiative. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 101(5), 687–701. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000064.
Honold, L. (1997). A review of the literature on employee empowerment. Empowerment in
Organizations, 5(4), 202–212. https://doi.org/10.1108/14634449710195471.
House, R. J. (1971). A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 16(3), 321–339. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391905.
House, R. J. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated
theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 323–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-
9843(96)90024-7.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004).
Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
House, R. J., & Mitchell, T. R. (1974). Path-goal theory of leadership. Journal of
Contemporary Business, 3, 81–97.
House, R. J., Rousseau, D. M., & Thomas-Hunt, M. (1995). The third paradigm: Meso
organizational research comes to age. Research in Organizational Behavior, 17,
71–114.
Hughes, R. L., Ginnett, R. C., & Curphy, G. J. (2002). Leadership: Enhancing the lessons of
experience. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Hui, C. (1994). Effects of leadership empowerment behaviors and follower's personal control,
voice and self-efficacy on in-role and extra-role performance: An extension and empirical
test of Conger and Kanungo's empowerment process model (Unpublished doctoral dis-
sertation)Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.
Humborstad, S. I. W., & Kuvaas, B. (2013). Mutuality in leader–subordinate empower-
ment expectation: Its impact on role ambiguity and intrinsic motivation. The
Leadership Quarterly, 24(2), 363–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.01.003.
Hunter, S. T., Cushenbery, L. D., & Jayne, B. (2017). Why dual leaders will drive in-
novation: Resolving the exploration and exploitation dilemma with a conservation of
resources solution. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(8), 1183–1195. https://doi.
org/10.1002/job.2195.
Ju, D., Ma, L., Ren, R., & Zhang, Y. C. (2014). Confidence of voice: Effects of performance,
empowering leadership and power distance on silence. In J. Humphreys (Ed.).
Proceedings of the seventy-fourth annual meeting of the academy of managementhttps://
doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2014.15739abstract.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction–job
performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological
Bulletin, 127(3), 376–407. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.3.376.
Kim, M., & Beehr, T. A. (2017). Self-efficacy and psychological ownership mediate the
effects of empowering leadership on both good and bad employee behaviors. Journal
of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 24(4), 466–478. https://doi.org/10.1177/
M. Cheong et al.
1548051817702078.
Kim, M., & Beehr, T. A. (2018). Can empowering leaders affect subordinates' well-being
and careers because they encourage subordinates' job crafting behaviors? Journal of
Leadership and Organizational Studies, 25(2), 184–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1548051817727702.
Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1997). A model of work team empowerment. In R. W.
Woodman, & W. A. Pasmore (Vol. Eds.), Research in organizational change and devel-
opment. Vol. 9. Research in organizational change and development (pp. 131–167).
Greenwich, CT: JAI press.
Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and con-
sequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 58–74.
https://doi.org/10.2307/256874.
Klein, K. J., Dansereau, F., & Hall, R. J. (1994). Levels issues in theory development, data
collection, and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 19(2), 195–229. https://doi.
org/10.5465/AMR.1994.9410210745.
Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. (Eds.). (2000). Multilevel theory, research, and methods in
organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Konczak, L. J., Stelly, D. J., & Trusty, M. L. (2000). Defining and measuring empowering
leader behaviors: Development of an upward feedback instrument. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 60(2), 301–313. https://doi.org/10.1177/
00131640021970420.
Lam, C. K., Huang, X., & Chan, S. C. (2015). The threshold effect of participative lea-
dership and the role of leader information sharing. Academy of Management Journal,
58(3), 836–855. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0427.
Leana, C. R. (1986). Predictors and consequences of delegation. Academy of Management
Journal, 29(4), 754–774. https://doi.org/10.2307/255943.
Lee, A., Willis, S., & Tian, A. W. (2018). Empowering leadership: A meta-analytic ex-
amination of incremental contribution, mediation, and moderation. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 39(3), 306–325. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2220.
Lee, S., Cheong, M., Kim, M., & Yun, S. (2017). Never too much? The curvilinear re-
lationship between empowering leadership and task performance. Group &
Organization Management, 42(1), 11–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1059601116646474.
Lemoine, G. J., Aggarwal, I., & Steed, L. B. (2016). When women emerge as leaders:
Effects of extraversion and gender composition in groups. The Leadership Quarterly,
27(3), 470–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.12.008.
Lepine, J. A., Lepine, M. A., & Jackson, C. L. (2004). Challenge and hindrance stress:
Relationships with exhaustion, motivation to learn, and learning performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 883–891. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.
89.5.883.
Li, N., Chiaburu, D. S., & Kirkman, B. L. (2017). Cross-level influences of empowering
leadership on citizenship behavior organizational support climate as a double-edged
sword. Journal of Management, 43(4), 1076–1102. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0149206314546193.
Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (1998). The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in
near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.
75.1.5.
Liden, R. C., Erdogan, B., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2006). Leader-member ex-
change, differentiation, and task interdependence: Implications for individual and
group performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(6), 723–746. https://doi.
org/10.1002/job.409.
Ling, Y., Wei, L., Klimoski, R. J., & Wu, L. (2015). Benefiting from CEO's empowerment of
TMTs: Does CEO–TMT dissimilarity matter? The Leadership Quarterly, 26(6),
1066–1079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.07.006.
Locke, E. A., & Schweiger, D. M. (1979). Participation in decision-making: One more look.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 1(10), 265–339.
Lorinkova, N., Pearsall, M., & Sims, H. (2013). Examining the differential longitudinal
performance of directive versus empowering leadership in teams. Academy of
Management Journal, 56(2), 573–596. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0132.
Lorinkova, N. M., & Perry, S. J. (2017). When is empowerment effective? The role of
leader-leader exchange in empowering leadership, cynicism, and time theft. Journal
of Management, 43(5), 1631–1654. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314560411.
Lowin, A., & Craig, J. R. (1968). The influence of level of performance on managerial
style: An experimental object-lesson in the ambiguity of correlational data.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3(4), 440–458. https://doi.org/10.
1016/0030-5073(68)90020-2.
Magni, M., & Maruping, L. M. (2013). Sink or swim: Empowering leadership and overload
in teams' ability to deal with the unexpected. Human Resource Management, 52(5),
715–739. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21561.
Manz, C. (1986). Self-leadership: Toward an expanded theory of self-influence processes
in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 585–600 https://doi.org/
10.2307/258312.
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1980). Self-management as a substitute for leadership: A
social learning theory perspective. Academy of Management Review, 5(3), 361–367.
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1980.4288845.
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1987). Leading workers to lead themselves: The external
leadership of self-managing work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32(1),
106–129. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392745.
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1989). Superleadership: Leading others to lead themselves.
New York: Prentice Hall.
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1990). Super-leadership. New York, NY: Berkley Publishing
Group.
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1995). Business without bosses: How self-managing teams are
building high-performing companies. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
57
The Leadership Quarterly 30 (2019) 34–58
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (2001). The new superleadership: Leading others to lead
themselves. Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Margolis, J. A., & Ziegert, J. C. (2016). Vertical flow of collectivistic leadership: An ex-
amination of the cascade of visionary leadership across levels. The Leadership
Quarterly, 27(2), 334–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.01.005.
Marion, R., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2001). Leadership in complex organizations. The Leadership
Quarterly, 12(4), 389–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(01)00092-3.
Markham, S. E., & Markham, I. S. (1995). Self-management and self-leadership reex-
amined: A levels-of-analysis perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(3), 343–359.
https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90013-6.
Martin, S. L., Liao, H., & Campbell, E. M. (2013). Directive versus empowering leadership:
A field experiment comparing impacts on task proficiency and proactivity. Academy
of Management Journal, 56(5), 1372–1395. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0113.
Mathieu, J., Ahearne, M., & Taylor, S. R. (2007). A longitudinal cross-level model of
leader and salesperson influences on sales force technology use and performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 528–537. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.
92.2.528.
Mathieu, J. E., & Chen, G. (2011). The etiology of the multilevel paradigm in management
research. Journal of Management, 37(2), 610–641. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0149206310364663.
Maynard, M. T., Gilson, L. L., & Mathieu, J. E. (2012). Empowerment—Fad or fab? A
multilevel review of the past two decades of research. Journal of Management, 38(4),
1231–1281. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312438773.
McClelland, D. C. (1987). Human motivation. Cambridge, UK: CUP Archive.
Meuser, J. D., Gardner, W. L., Dinh, J. E., Hu, J., Liden, R. C., & Lord, R. G. (2016). A
network analysis of leadership theory: The infancy of integration. Journal of
Management, 42(5), 1374–1403. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316647099.
Mohammed, S., & Nadkarni, S. (2011). Temporal diversity and team performance: The
moderating role of team temporal leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3),
489–508. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2011.61967991.
Ou, A. Y., Tsui, A. S., Kinicki, A. J., Waldman, D. A., Xiao, Z., & Song, L. J. (2014). Humble
chief executive officers' connections to top management team integration and middle
managers' responses. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59(1), 34–72. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0001839213520131.
Palanski, M. E., & Yammarino, F. J. (2009). Integrity and leadership: A multi-level con-
ceptual framework. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(3), 405–420. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.leaqua.2009.03.008.
Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (2002). Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of
the effectiveness of change management teams: An examination of aversive, direc-
tive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors. Group
Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6(2), 172–197. https://doi.org/10.1037/
1089-2699.6.2.172.
Perrow, C. (1970). Organization analysis: A sociological views. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Pfeffer, J. (1977). The ambiguity of leadership. Academy of Management Review, 2(1),
104–112. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1977.4409175.
Pierce, J. R., & Aguinis, H. (2013). The too-much-of-a-good-thing effect in management.
Journal of Management, 39(2), 313–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0149206311410060.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Ahearne, M., & Bommer, W. H. (1995). Searching for a
needle in a haystack: Trying to identify the illusive moderators of leadership beha-
viors. Journal of Management, 21(3), 422–470. https://doi.org/10.1177/
014920639502100303.
Raub, S., & Robert, C. (2010). Differential effects of empowering leadership on in-role and
extra-role employee behaviors: Exploring the role of psychological empowerment and
power values. Human Relations, 63(11), 1743–1770. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0018726710365092.
Rousseau, D. M. (1985). Issues of level in organizational research: Multi-level and cross-
level perspectives. In L. L. Cummings, & B. M. Staw (Vol. Eds.), Research in organi-
zational behavior. Vol. 7. Research in organizational behavior (pp. 1–37). Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
Sayama, H. (2015). Introduction to the modeling and analysis of complex systems. Geneseo,
NY: Open SUNY Textbooks.
Scandura, T. A., Graen, G. B., & Novak, M. A. (1986). When managers decide not to
decide autocratically: An investigation of leader–member exchange and decision
influence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(4), 579–584. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0021-9010.71.4.579.
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40(3), 437–453.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1987.tb00609.x.
Seibert, S. E., Wang, G., & Courtright, S. H. (2011). Antecedents and consequences of
psychological and team empowerment in organizations: A meta-analytic review.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(5), 981–1003. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022676.
Shamir, B. (2007). From passive recipients to active co-producers: Followers' roles in the
leadership process. In B. Shamir, R. Pillai, M. Bligh, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.). Follower-
centered perspective on leadership: A tribute to the memory of James R. Meindl (pp. 9–39).
Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishers.
Sharma, P. N., & Kirkman, B. L. (2015). Leveraging leaders: A literature review and future
lines of inquiry for empowering leadership research. Group & Organization
Management, 40(2), 193–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601115574906.
Sims, H. P., Jr., Faraj, S., & Yun, S. (2009). When should a leader be directive or em-
powering? How to develop your own situational theory of leadership. Business
Horizons, 52(2), 149–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2008.10.002.
Smallfield, J., Hoobler, J. M., & Kluemper, D. H. (2018). How team helping influences
abusive supervision and empowering leadership: The role of team affective tone and per-
formance. (Manuscript in preparation).
Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium
model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381–403. https://doi.
M. Cheong et al.
org/10.5465/amr.2009.0223.
Spain, S. M., Miner, A. G., Kroonenberg, P. M., & Drasgow, F. (2010). Job performance as
multivariate dynamic criteria: Experience sampling and multiway component ana-
lysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 45(4), 599–626. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00273171.2010.498286.
Spangler, W. D. (1992). Validity of questionnaire and TAT measures of need for
achievement: Two meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 140–154. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.140.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions,
measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442–1465.
https://doi.org/10.2307/256865.
Spreitzer, G. M., & Doneson, D. (2005). Musings on the past and future of employee
empowerment. In T. Cummings (Ed.). Handbook of organizational development.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Srivastava, A., Bartol, K. M., & Locke, E. A. (2006). Empowering leadership in manage-
ment teams: Effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance. Academy of
Management Journal, 49(6), 1239–1251. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2006.
23478718.
Staw, B. M. (1975). Attribution of the “causes” of performance: A general alternative
interpretation of cross-sectional research on organizations. Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance, 13(3), 414–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(75)
90060-4.
Strauss, G. (1964). Some notes on power equalization. In H. J. Leavitt (Ed.). The social
science of organizations: Four perspectives. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hail.
Tekleab, A. G., Sims, H. P., Jr., Yun, S., Tesluk, P. E., & Cox, J. (2008). Are we on the same
page? Effects on self-awareness of empowering and transformational leadership.
Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 14(3), 185–201. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1071791907311069.
Thomas, K., & Tymon, W. (1994). Does empowerment always work: Understanding the
role of intrinsic motivation and personal interpretation. Journal of Management
Systems, 6(2), 1–13.
Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An
“interpretive” model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review,
15(4), 666–681. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1990.4310926.
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110(3),
403–421. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.110.3.403.
Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of lea-
dership and organizing. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 654–676. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.007.
Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting
leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly,
18(4), 298–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.04.002.
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.
Van Dijke, M., De Cremer, D., Mayer, D. M., & Van Quaquebeke, N. (2012). When does
procedural fairness promote organizational citizenship behavior? Integrating em-
powering leadership types in relational justice models. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 117(2), 235–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.
10.006.
Vecchio, R. P., Justin, J. E., & Pearce, C. L. (2010). Empowering leadership: An ex-
amination of mediating mechanisms within a hierarchical structure. The Leadership
Quarterly, 21(3), 530–542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.03.014.
Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (2007). The role of the situation in leadership. American
Psychologist, 62(1), 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.1.17.
Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and decision making. Pittsburgh, PA:
University of Pittsburgh Press.
Wallace, J. C., Johnson, P. D., Mathe, K., & Paul, J. (2011). Structural and psychological
empowerment climates, performance, and the moderating role of shared felt ac-
countability: A managerial perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4),
840–850. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022227.
Wan, E. W., Hong, J., & Sternthal, B. (2009). The effect of regulatory orientation and
decision strategy on brand judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(6),
1026–1038. https://doi.org/10.1086/593949.
Watson, R. A., & Szathmáry, E. (2016). How can evolution learn? Trends in Ecology &
Evolution, 31(2), 147–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2015.11.009.
58
The Leadership Quarterly 30 (2019) 34–58
Wilkinson, A. (1998). Empowerment: Theory and practice. Personnel Review, 27(1),
40–56. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483489810368549.
Wong, S. I., & Giessner, S. R. (2018). The thin line between empowering and laissez-faire
leadership: An expectancy-match perspective. Journal of Management, 44(2),
757–783. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315574597.
Wong, S. I., & Kuvaas, B. (2018). The empowerment expectation–perception gap: An
examination of three alternative models. Human Resource Management Journal, 28(2),
272–287. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12177.
Yammarino, F., & Gooty, J. (2017). Multi-level issues and dyads in leadership research. In
B. Schyns, R. Hall, & P. Neves (Eds.). Handbook of methods in leadership research (pp.
229–255). Cheltenham, Glos, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Yammarino, F. J. (2012). Leadership. In V. S. Ramachandran (Vol. Ed.), Encyclopedia of
human behavior(2nd ed.). Vol. 2. Encyclopedia of human behavior (pp. 517–524).
Oxford, UK: Academic Press (Elsevier).
Yammarino, F. J. (2013). Leadership: Past, present, and future. Journal of Leadership and
Organizational Studies, 20(2), 149–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1548051812471559.
Yammarino, F. J. (2017). Leadership. Reference module in neuroscience and biobehavioral
psychology (pp. 1–12). Oxford, UK: Elsevier (and Science Direct). https://doi.org/10.
1016/B978-0-12-809324-5.06474-9.
Yammarino, F. J., & Bass, B. M. (1990). Transformational leadership and multiple levels
of analysis. Human Relations, 43(10), 975–995. https://doi.org/10.1177/
001872679004301003.
Yammarino, F. J., & Dansereau, F. (2008). Multi-level nature of and multi-level ap-
proaches to leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(2), 135–141. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.leaqua.2008.01.001.
Yammarino, F. J., & Dansereau, F. (2009). Multi-level issues in organizational behavior and
leadership. Vol. 8, Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing1–9.
Yammarino, F. J., Dionne, S. D., Chun, J. U., & Dansereau, F. (2005). Leadership and
levels of analysis: A state-of-the-science review. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(6),
879–919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.09.002.
Yammarino, F. J., Dubinsky, A. J., Comer, L. B., & Jolson, M. A. (1997). Women and
transformational and contingent reward leadership: A multiple-levels-of-analysis
perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), 205–222. https://doi.org/10.
2307/257027.
Yammarino, F. J., Salas, E., Serban, A., Shirreffs, K., & Shuffler, M. L. (2012).
Collectivistic leadership approaches: Putting the “we” in leadership science and
practice. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5(4), 382–402. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1754-9434.2012.01467.x.
Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations. Upper-Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Yun, S., Cox, J., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (2006). The forgotten follower: A contingency model of
leadership and follower self-leadership. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(4),
374–388. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940610663141.
Yun, S., Faraj, S., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (2005). Contingent leadership and effectiveness of
trauma resuscitation teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1288–1296. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1288.
Zaccaro, S. J. (2007). Trait-based leadership. American Psychologist, 62(1), 6–16. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.1.6.
Zhang, S., Ke, X., Wang, X. H., & Liu, J. (2018). Empowering leadership and employee
creativity: A dual-mechanism perspective. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12219 (Advance online publication).
Zhang, W., Wang, H., & Pearce, C. L. (2014). Consideration for future consequences as an
antecedent of transformational leadership behavior: The moderating effects of per-
ceived dynamic work environment. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(2), 329–343.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.09.002.
Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee crea-
tivity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and crea-
tive process engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 107–128. https://
doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2010.48037118.
Zhang, X., & Zhou, J. (2014). Empowering leadership, uncertainty avoidance, trust, and
employee creativity: Interaction effects and a mediating mechanism. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 124(2), 150–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
obhdp.2014.02.002.
Zheng, W., Kark, R., & Meister, A. L. (2018). Paradox versus dilemma mindset: A theory of
how women leaders navigate the tensions between agency and communion. The
Leadership Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.04.001.