The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-8269.htm

Leadership
An idea paper on leadership theory
theory integration integration
Gerry Larsson
Department of Security, Strategy and Leadership, 177
Swedish National Defence College, Karlstad, Sweden, and
Jarle Eid
Department of Psychosocial Science, Faculty of Psychology,
University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to pursue an idea on leadership theory integration which
includes two integrative attempts. The first involves three different leadership models
(the developmental/transformational leadership model, the authentic leadership model, and the indirect
leadership model). The second consists of a suggestion of how this integrated model, in turn, can be
integrated into an interactional person-by-situation paradigm including a process-over-time perspective.
Design/methodology/approach – A qualitative analysis of the three existing leadership models
mentioned above was performed. In the second integrative step, the following concepts were added:
individual characteristics (general and stable as well as specific, of importance in a given situation);
contextual characteristics (general more stable contextual profile as well as specific contextual profile in
a given situation); appraisal and sensemaking processes over time; trust; and psychological capital.
Findings – An integrated leadership model is proposed which rests on three explicit hypotheses with
two addendums. Empirical support for the suggested model is evaluated.
Practical implications – The presented idea may be of value in recruitment and selection,
leadership development programmes, and organisational design.
Originality/value – The theoretical integration of existing models is new and could act as a
conceptual bridge.
Keywords Leadership, Modelling, Leadership theory, Integration, Developmental leadership,
Transformational leadership, Authentic leadership, Indirect leadership
Paper type Conceptual paper

Introduction
The aim of this paper is to pursue an idea on leadership theory integration. Thus, it is
not a conventional literature review or meta-analysis. The background is the existence
of a high number of theoretical models (for extensive overviews, see, e.g. Bass and
Bass, 2008; Bryman et al., 2011) and an impression that there is a great deal of
conceptual overlap between them (for another recent comparison of leadership models,
see, e.g. Avolio and Gardner, 2005). The present study includes two integrative
attempts. The first involves three different leadership models. The second consists of a
suggestion of how this integrated model, in turn, can be integrated into an interactional
person-by-situation paradigm including a process-over-time perspective. Finally, some
evaluative reflections will be presented.
Management Research Review
Vol. 35 No. 3/4, 2012
Selection of leadership models and brief summaries pp. 177-191
Several academic disciplines take an interest in the phenomenon of leadership. The q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
2040-8269
present study will be restricted to models which could mainly be classified as social DOI 10.1108/01409171211210109
MRR psychological or organisational psychological. Entering the leadership field from this
35,3/4 delimited perspective, the choice of two of the three selected models is self-evident
judging from publications in international journals during the recent decades. The two
dominating models are the transformational leadership model (Bass, 1998) and the
authentic leadership model (Gardner et al., 2005). The selection of the third model was
directed by a desire to include a broader organisational perspective. This led to a focus
178 on leadership at executive/managerial levels, which, in contrast to first-line
supervisors, to a high degree reflects leadership in indirect form. The organisational
impact of indirect leadership appears to be an under-researched field and one of the few
existing models has been formulated by Larsson et al. (2005, 2007).
A final comment on the selection process concerns transformational leadership. The
model of the late Professor Bernard Bass and Professor Bruce Avolio (Bass, 1998; Bass
and Bass, 2008; Bass and Riggio, 2006) is highly cited and was, according to the ISI
web of science, included in more than 800 new empirical studies in the past decade.
However, a slightly revised version has been suggested; labelled “developmental
leadership (DL)” (Larsson, 2006; Larsson et al., 2003), which will be used here. The main
reason for this is that this model explicitly rests on an interactional person-by-situation
paradigm (Endler and Magnusson, 1976). As will be shown later, this paradigm plays a
central role in the second integrative attempt.
The descriptions of the three leadership models will be brief for space reasons.
Readers are referred to the original sources for detailed presentations.

The developmental (transformational) leadership model

A basic assumption underlying the DL model (Larsson, 2006; Larsson et al., 2003) is
that leadership can be understood against the background of a number of interacting
factors (Figure 1). The interplay between leader and contextual characteristics shapes
leadership actions. This concept of leadership therefore implies an acceptance of an
interactional person-by-situation paradigm (Endler and Magnusson, 1976).
Two main classes of leader qualities are identified in the DL model: basic
prerequisites and desirable competencies. Somewhat simplified, the basic prerequisites
include individual characteristics such as physical fitness, intelligence, creativity,
personality and view-of-life (Yukl, 2002). The model includes four desirable
competences. Task-related competence deals with the leader’s ability to have the
necessary knowledge and skills in relation to the task at hand (Hersey et al., 1969/2001;
Jacobs and Jaques, 1991). Two facets of management-related competence are included
in the DL model: intraorganisational and extraorganisational. Examples of the first are
knowing how to apply the formal rules, to structure, prioritise and make decisions,
coordinate, etc. Examples of the latter are an ability to view one’s own organisation
from the outside and to detect important events in the external world and understand
their significance for one’s own activity. Two facets of social competence are identified:
flexibility and balance in social interactions. Finally, the capacity to cope with stress,
draws on the writings of Lazarus (1991, 1999) and also here two facets are included:
problem-focused coping and emotion-focused coping.
The basic prerequisites affect the development of the desirable competencies. The more
favourable basic prerequisites a leader has, the greater the potential to develop the
desirable competencies and vice versa. The model also implies that a favourable
combination of these two characteristics is a necessary condition for successful leadership.
 Leadership
theory
integration

179

Figure 1.
The DL model
Source: Adapted from Larsson et al. (2003)

However, neither of them is sufficient in itself and one cannot make up for the other.
Although important, they do not constitute a guarantee for successful leadership, because
this is also affected by environmental conditions. The illustration in Figure 1 shows an
overview and shows that groups and organisations mutually influence each other. The
same holds true for organisations and the external world. It should be emphasised that
MRR the environmental characteristics shown in Figure 1 should be regarded as examples of
35,3/4 these kinds of conditions.
According to the model in Figure 1, leadership behaviours labelled as developmental
have three characteristics: the leader acts as an exemplary model; the leader shows
individualised consideration; and the leader demonstrates inspiration and motivation. The
leadership style labelled “conventional” has two subforms: demand and reward, and
180 control. Each of these has a more positively and a more negatively toned expression,
respectively. Finally, the model includes a non-leadership dimension labelled “laissez-faire.”
The conceptualisation of leadership behaviours is heavily influenced by the writings
on transformational leadership and the full range of leadership model (Avolio, 1999;
Bass, 1998). However, some alterations were made from the original American model
(Larsson et al., 2003, for details). One example is the concept of charisma which is central
in the transformational leadership model. In the developmental model it has been
replaced by inspiration because in a Scandinavian leadership culture charisma appears
to evoke negative associations of elitism. Another example of a conceptual difference is
found in the leadership dimension transactional leadership (labelled conventional
leadership in the DL model). Here, the DL model includes two more positive and two
more negative facets, respectively (Figure 1). This appears to have contributed to
improved psychometric properties (Cronbach’s a coefficients) of scales designed to
measure these constructs (Larsson, 2006).

The authentic leadership model

Authenticity has been defined as “owning one’s personal experiences, be they
thoughts, emotions, needs, wants, preferences, or beliefs, processes captured by the
injunction to know ‘oneself’” (Harter, 2005, p. 382). It involves both owning one’s
personal experiences and acting in accordance with one’s true self (Gardner et al., 2005).
Authentic leadership has two fundamental components. The first is the self-awareness
of the leader. Through introspective self-reflection on their values, identity, emotions,
motives and goals, authentic leaders come to understand themselves better. The
second component is self-regulation which consists of four subdimensions. Internalised
regulation means that the regulatory system is guided by the leader’s inner self as
opposed to external forces. Balanced processing refers to leaders who show that they
objectively (unbiased by social norms and past experiences) analyse all relevant data
before reaching a decision. Relational transparency means that one presents one’s
authentic self, as opposed to a faked or distorted self, to others. Authentic behaviour
can be seen as the behavioural correlate of favourable inner reflective and regulatory
processes (Gardner et al., 2005; Walumbwa et al., 2008).
Through processes such as positive modelling and positive emotional contagion,
authentic leaders will contribute to greater self-awareness and inner self-regulation
processes among followers, fostering positive self-development. This, in turn, produces
favourable individual and organisational outcomes (Avolio and Gardner, 2005).

The indirect leadership model

According to the model developed by Larsson et al. (2005), indirect leadership can be
understood as a process beginning with ideas and mental models of higher
organisational-level managers on what to do (visions and goals), as well as how to get it
done (implementation). The influence process then follows two routes that take
place simultaneously. One of these is more action-oriented and could be called the “link.” Leadership
This usually consists of a single individual or a small group of directly subordinate theory
managers. The link passes the messages on to the lower organisational levels. This
influence process can be done with or without the use of formal authority (Dansereau et al., integration
1975). The second pathway is more image-oriented and could be labelled “role model”.
Higher-level managers influence by being favourable – unfavourable role models. Both
kinds of influence are subject to filtering processes between each hierarchical level. This 181
means that information, consciously or unconsciously, is added, left out or distorted. In the
favourable case, the employees at the lower levels trust the link and the higher management.
This is a necessary condition for commitment and active participation. In the unfavourable
case, there is a lack of trust. This breeds redefinitions of the messages and a necessity to rely
on rewards and punishment to obtain obedience. The model is shown in Figure 2.

Integration of selected models

Choice of focus
The comparison and integration of the three leadership models will take its point of
departure at the facet or subfactor level. This is the lowest conceptual level above

Higher Ideas/mental models of

Role
organisational model
WHAT to do HOW to do it
level

Filter

Action-oriented
influence Image-oriented
Intermediate influence
organisational Link
level

Filter

Lower Trust Lack of trust

organisational Commitment to Redefinition of
level WHAT WHAT
Participation Obedience necessary
Figure 2.
The indirect
leadership model
Source: Adapted from Larsson et al. (2005)
MRR empirical observables such as questionnaire or interview responses. It is also the most
35,3/4 specific level, which should add to the trustworthiness of this purely qualitative model
comparison and integration. The factors and facets of the three models are presented in
Table I.
In addition to the factors and facets shown in Table I, the DL model also includes
factors and facets dealing with conventional (transactional) and laissez-fair leadership
182 (Figure 1). These will be included in the following analysis. The action-oriented
influence factors of the indirect leadership model (selection of link and interaction with
the link, not shown in Table I) will be omitted however, as they are clearly related to a
specific aspect of indirect leadership only (Figure 2).

Integration and arguments

Table II shows the outcome of the integration of the three leadership models. As noted
above, the basis for the grouping of the concepts was qualitative – interpreted degree
of conceptual similarity – dissimilarity.
Table II shows that the integrated model suggestion consists of three leadership
behaviour dimensions: authentic/developmental (transformational) leadership,
conventional (transactional) leadership and non-leadership. The two last-mentioned
dimensions are solely derived from the DL model. Within the dimension authentic/DL,
two of the factors – individualised consideration and inspiration and motivation –
stem from the DL model and the indirect leadership models.
Table II also shows that it is within the factor labelled exemplary, authentic model
that all three models mainly overlap. The first aspect deals with expressing one’s value
base in actions. The second group includes various action-oriented aspects of being a
favourable role model or identification object. The third group deals with taking
responsibility for the organisation as well as one’s own actions.
Arguments. As can be seen in Table II, the component self-awareness (values,
identity, emotions and motive/goals) from the authentic leadership model, as well as
parts of the self-regulation component (internalised and balanced processing), are not
included in the presented part of the integrated leadership model. The argument is that,

Developmental leadership Authentic leadership Indirect leadership

Exemplary model Leader self-awareness Image-oriented influence

Value base Values Basic approach
Role model Identity Value base
Responsibility Emotions Responsibility
Individualised consideration Motives/goals Consideration
Caring Leader self-regulation Motivation-driving force
Confronting Internalised Energy
Inspiration and motivation Balanced processing Conscious effort
Encourage participation Relational transparency Inspiration
Encourage creativity Authentic behaviour Appreciation
Encourage participation
Table I. Competence development
Factors and facets or Communication
subfactors of the selected Clear
leadership models Information handling
 Leadership
Dimensions, factors and facets
theory
Authentic/developmental (transformational) leadership behaviours integration
Exemplary, authentic model Value base
Role model Relational transparency, authentic
behaviour, clear communication,
information handling 183
Responsibility
Individualised consideration Caring
Confronting
Inspiration and motivation Encourage participation
Encourage creativity
Energy
Conscious effort
Appreciation
Competence development
Conventional (transactional) leadership behaviours
Demand and reward Seek agreements
Control Take necessary measures
Demand and reward If, but only if, reward Table II.
Control Overcontrol Integration of
Non-leadership behaviours dimensions, factors and
Laissez-faire facets or subfactors

in terms of an interactional person-by-situation paradigm, self-awareness and its four

subdimensions, should theoretically be regarded as belonging to the domain of basic
prerequisites as part of leader characteristics (Figure 1). This could also be regarded as
a confirmation of the claim by Avolio and Gardner (2005) when they label these aspects
as a root construct that underlies leadership.
The concepts internalised self-regulation and balanced processing are also omitted
from the presented part of the integrated leadership model because they, in a similar
fashion to self-awareness, are not regarded as leadership behaviours. Turning to
the interactional person-by-situation paradigm once again, they could theoretically
be regarded as parts of basic psychological prerequisites or basic coping competence
(Figure 1). Thus, self-awareness and parts of self-regulation are not removed from the
suggested integrated leadership model but placed in underlying individual-related
conceptual domains. Thus, will be further explicated below.
Any qualitatively based grouping of concepts will be open to debate. Other
researchers may interpret the content of the factors and facets differently and end up
with a different model. If the questionnaires designed to measure each of the three
leadership models had been used, a qualified guess is that most interscale correlations
would be high. That is at least the typical pattern within each of the models (Bass,
1998; Larsson, 2006; Larsson et al., 2007; Walumbwa et al., 2008).
One possible future task is, of course, to look into the operationalisations and
correlational patterns more in detail. For the time being however, the outcome of the
integration could be regarded as a reasonably face valid picture of central aspects of
leadership, at least when being viewed from an organisational psychological
perspective.
MRR An integrated process-oriented model of leadership
35,3/4 This section draws on the previous leadership model integration, but expands it and
puts it into a broader process-oriented framework. Before introducing this second
model integration however, brief descriptions of five additional theoretical aspects will
be introduced in a summary fashion. They all constitute important aspects of the
integrated model presented below.
184
Individual characteristics
General and stable. There is an almost infinite universe of potential individual traits,
competences, etc. that could be relevant when trying to understand leadership processes.
The broad categories which are highlighted in the DL model (Figure 1) will be used as
illustration here (including self-awareness and parts of self-regulation from the authentic
leadership model, see above). With the exception of the factor management-related
competence, it could be argued that all basic prerequisites and desirable competences
mentioned here are relevant when looking at leaders as well as subordinates. Generally
speaking, the basic prerequisites are assumed to exhibit a higher degree of temporal and
cross-contextual stability than the desirable competences. There is more room for adult
learning and development within the last-mentioned area and a large body of literature
exists within both areas.
Specific, of importance in a given situation. This model component is intended to
capture specific individual traits, competences, skills, etc. that can be of vital
importance in a specific situation. An individual may, for instance, be physically weak,
have a low intelligence level, a neurotic personality, be socially incompetent, etc. but
possess a specific skill which can be crucial in a given situation.

Contextual characteristics
General, more stable contextual profile. In a similar fashion to the above comments on
individual characteristics, there is a richness of potential contextual characteristics that
could be relevant when trying to understand leadership processes. Once again, the broad
categories of the DL model (Figure 1) will be used as point of departure. Beginning at the
group level, social psychological aspects such as norms, roles, cohesion, communication
patterns, etc. are relevant examples. At the organisational level, illustrations of
important aspects include specialisation (horizontal, vertical, and spatial
differentiation), degree of formalisation, centralisation – decentralisation of power
and control, and organisational culture. The last-mentioned factor includes aspects such
as routinised behaviour in the way people interact in the form of rituals, ceremonies, and
verbal discourse. Shared norms in working groups is another component, as is the feeling
or climate that characterises the interaction between members of the organisation, as
well as the interaction with their customers, clients, etc. Finally, the environmental level
includes more distal aspects such as the principal’s goals and resource allocation, as well
as more proximal aspects in a given case such as dynamic stressors, climate conditions,
infrastructural conditions, legal aspects, media contacts, etc. Once again, there exists a
large body of literature on all these aspects.
Specific contextual profile in a given situation. In a parallel fashion to the
presentation above of specific individual characteristics, this model component is
intended to cover specific contextual characteristics that may be of vital importance
in a specific situation. One example, of countless possible, is the organisational praxis Leadership
to reinforce or repress self-reports of own mistakes. theory
integration
Appraisal and sensemaking processes over time
When the person-environment relationship is combined with the subjective process of
appraisal, the personal significance of that relationship comes to the force. Lazarus
(1999) labels this the relational meaning of a given person-environment encounter. 185
He continues:
Appraisals are commonly based on many subtle cues in the environment, what has been
learned from previous experience, and a host of personality variables, such as goals,
situational intentions, and personal resources and liabilities. All this provides a basis for a
decision about how to respond (p. 81).
Because all encounters with the environment are continually changing and generating
feedback about the psychological situation, appraisals are also continually changing.
An individual may, for example, interpret the message of a high-level manager as
threatening, but change his/her appraisal and feel optimism when the message has
been explained in detail by the immediate supervisor.

Trust
Trust is a concept that has received attention in different scientific disciplines (for an
overview, see Kramer, 1999). Worchel (1979) has proposed three different groups of
perspectives: personality psychological models, social psychological models and
sociological-economic models (for an integrative attempt, see, e.g. Shamir and Lapidot,
2003). Focus in this leadership context will be placed on the social psychological perspective
(for reviews, see Burke et al., 2007; Dirks and Ferrin, 2002). Within this framework,
three kinds of trust have been proposed: calculus-, knowledge- and identification-based
trust (Lewicki and Bunker, 1996; Shapiro et al., 1992). The calculus-based form means that
individuals will do what they say because they fear the consequences of not doing what
they say. Knowledge-based trust relies on information – knowing the other sufficiently
well so that the other’s behaviour is anticipatable. Finally, identification-based trust exists
when the parties effectively understand and appreciate the other’s wants (Lewicki and
Bunker, 1996).

Psychological capital
Drawing from the positive psychology literature (Peterson and Seligman, 2004;
Seligman et al., 2005), the term positive organisational behaviour (POB) is intended to
identify a newly emerging focus on a positive approach to developing and managing
human resources in today’s work-place (for a recent review of this emerging literature,
see Luthans et al., 2007a, b). Unlike positive traits, which are characterised by relative
stability over time and applicable across situations, positive state-like capacities
are relatively more open to change and development (Luthans et al., 2010).
The combination of the psychological constructs hope, resilience, optimism,
and self-efficacy represent what has been termed psychological capital or PsyCap,
defined as an individual’s positive psychological state of development (Luthans et al.,
2007a, b). According to these authors (p. 3) PsyCap is characterised by:
MRR (1) having confidence (self efficacy) to take on and put in the necessary effort to succeed at
challenging tasks; (2) making a positive attribution (optimism) about succeeding now and in
35,3/4 the future; (3) persevering toward goals; and (4) when necessary, redirecting paths to goals
(hope) in order to succeed; and when beset by problems and adversity, sustaining and
bouncing back and even beyond (resilience) to attain success.
Such adaptive human functioning involves control and coordination of different
186 attention and memory functions into higher order cognitive functions, which in turn will
influence decision making and ultimately behaviour, given the appropriate
environmental conditions for the expression of that behaviour.

An integrated process model of leadership over time

This section contains an attempt to integrate all the aforementioned theoretical aspects.
The causal relationships suggested in Figure 3 can be formalised in three
hypotheses and two addendums:
H1. The indirect leadership of leaders at higher levels will be positively related
to the direct leadership of their subordinate leaders in that they, if they
appraise the higher leader’s leadership as: (1) him/her being an exemplary,
authentic model, (2) more individually considerate, and (3) more inspiring and
motivating, will experience a situation-related reaction (state) consisting of
trust and psychological capital characterised by self-efficacy, optimism, hope,
and resilience, which leads to an increased likelihood of a will/intention to act
in a similar way in their own direct leadership.
H2. The direct leadership of leaders at intermediate levels will be positively
related to the subordinate individuals’ situation-related reactions consisting of
trust and psychological capital, if the subordinates appraise this leadership

Figure 3.
Integrated leadership
model
 as indicative of him/her being an exemplary, authentic model, individually Leadership
considerate, and inspiring and motivating, which leads to an increased theory
likelihood of a will/intention to behave in a similar way in their own
operational acting. integration
H3. A will/intention among subordinates to act in a way that portrays them as
being an exemplary, authentic model, individually considerate, and inspiring
and motivating, will be positively related to the quality of their operational
187
acting, which leads to a higher likelihood of a positive outcome.
Regarding the three hypothesis, readers are referred to Table II for a specification of
the aspects included in the concepts “exemplary, authentic model,” “individualised
consideration,” and “inspiration and motivation”.
Addendum 1. Filtering in the form of appraisal/sensemaking processes occurs at
each lower hierarchical level. These processes are shaped by an
interaction of contextual characteristics (general and situation
specific) and individual characteristics (general and situation specific).
Addendum 2. Filtering and reactions (trust and psychological capital) on the one hand
and the “soft parts” of the contextual characteristics (organisational
and group level culture, climate, and processes), constantly influence
each other.

Adding a process-over-time perspective. The integrated leadership model presented in

the previous section could be said to reflect the situation at a given point in time. As an
encounter unfolds, conditions, appraisals, reactions, actions, etc. are likely to change
more or less. Figure 4 shows how the integrated leadership model may appear when a
time perspective is added.
Arguments. The H1 suggests that the quality of the indirect leadership of leaders at
higher hierarchical levels affects the trust and psychological capital of their
subordinate managers, which, in turn, will affect the direct leadership of the
last-mentioned group. As noted previously, the available research on indirect
leadership is limited. Support for the hypothesis can be found in the qualitative study
by Larsson et al. (2005) and in the quantitative follow-up study (Larsson et al., 2007).
Related support can also be found in two large-scale military studies on
transformational leadership (Bass et al., 2003; Dvir et al., 2002). Transformational
platoon leaders appeared to get more transformational group leaders, which covaried
with good soldier performance. Recent studies based on the authentic leadership model
similarly confirm the influence of leaders at higher organisational levels on
subordinates through processes of positive modelling (Walumbwa et al., 2008).
The H2 holds that the quality of the direct leadership of intermediate-level leaders
will affect the trust and psychological capital of the followers which, in turn, will affect
their will/intention when it comes to acting. Support regarding trust can be found, for
instance, in a meta-analysis of trust in leadership (Dirks and Ferrin, 2002). Meyerson et al.
(1996) point to the importance of good leadership to the formation of swift trust in
temporary groups. Recently a number of studies have been reported as pointing
to a positive relationship between authentic leadership and the followers’ psychological
capital (Luthans et al., 2007a, b).
MRR
35,3/4

188

Figure 4.
The integrated leadership
model from a time process
perspective

Looking at the H2 from a different angle, research on destructive leadership, including

laissez-faire leadership, shows that this covaries with lack of trust, poorer work-related
health and weaker performance (Einarsen et al., 2007; Skogstad et al., 2007).
The H3 predicts that a will/intention of the subordinates to act in the spirit of their
leader will affect the quality of their operational acting, which, in turn, affects of the
outcome. The last-mentioned aspect, the actual outcome, is probably the most difficult
part in this series of hypotheses to validate. Obvious questions are effective outcome
for whom, in what way, and when (short- and long-term).
As outcomes of organisational activities have multiple determinants, and leadership is
just one of them, one should not expect strong associations. Drawing on results from the
coping and health area (Folkman, 1985), it could be argued that proximal, short-term and
limited aspects – for instance number of mistakes or near misses during a given time
period – will covary more strongly with the followers’ will/intention and actual behaviour,
than distal, long-term complex aspects – for instance the efforts of leaders of the financial
sector to regain the trust of the general public following a global financial crisis.
The Addendum 1, which claims that appraisal/sensemaking processes take place,
and that these processes are shaped by an interaction of contextual and individual
characteristics, has strong empirical support and will not be further commented on
here (see the theory descriptive part above).
The Addendum 2 suggests that there is a constant interplay between how leaders
and subordinates appraise and react to events and the softer aspects of organisational
and group characteristics. This implies that none of them can be claimed to be superior
to the other. It depends on when in time one starts to observe this interaction. This
constant loop should be regarded as an analytical tool. In reality these aspects
are intertwined as leaders and subordinates not only appraise and react to the softer Leadership
side of organisations and groups, but in fact are these organisations and groups. theory
The process-over-time perspective could be illustrated by research on leadership in
extreme situations such as those faced by military officers and disaster relief personnel. integration
There is often a before-phase with preparations, a chaotic initial during-phase, a more
controlled during-phase and an after-phase (Sjöberg et al., 2011). In terms of empirical
support, there is generally speaking a lack of longitudinal time-series analyses of 189
leadership in specific contextual settings.

Overall evaluation and future suggestions

The suggested two integrations of leadership models are, to the best of our knowledge,
new. An assessment of the available research evidence which could be regarded as
supportive indicates that most aspects appear to be reasonably well backed-up. The
need for further research seems to be strongest in two areas. The first concerns
unanswered questions on the impact of indirect and direct leadership, and the
followers’ actions, on actual outcome. The second involves a need for context-specific
longitudinal studies.
Regarding the second area, one possibility to avoid an endless series in various
contexts, would be to theoretically sample study objects. By cross-tabulating contextual
characteristics (positive and negative) with individual characteristics (positive and
negative), four cells are created. The positive-positive and the negative-negative are
probably of less interest as the research results seem fairly predictable. However,
longitudinal studies in settings mainly characterised as positive-negative or vice versa
could hopefully lead to new insights. Although the focus of this paper has been
theoretical, the presented ideas may hopefully also be of value in the future in connection
with recruitment and selection, leadership development programmes, organisational
design, etc.

References
Avolio, B.J. (1999), Full Leadership Development: Building the Vital Forces in Organizations, Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Avolio, B.J. and Gardner, W.L. (2005), “Authentic leadership development: getting to the root of
positive forms of leadership”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 16, pp. 315-38 (special issue).
Bass, B.M. (1998), Transformational Leadership: Industry, Military, and Educational Impact,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associated, London.
Bass, B.M. and Bass, R. (2008), The Bass Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research
& Managerial Applications, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Bass, B.M. and Riggio, R.E. (2006), Transformational Leadership, 2nd ed., Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J., Jung, D.I. and Berson, Y. (2003), “Predicting unit performance by
assessing transformational and transactional leadership”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 88 No. 2, pp. 207-18.
Bryman, A., Collinson, D., Grint, K., Jackson, B. and Uhl-Bien, M. (2011), The Sage Handbook of
Leadership, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Burke, C.S., Sims, D.E., Lazama, E.H. and Salas, E. (2007), “Trust in leadership: a multi-level
review and integration”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 606-32.
MRR Dansereau, F. Jr, Graen, G. and Haga, W.J. (1975), “A vertical linkage approach to leadership
within formal organizations: a longitudinal investigation of the role making process”,
35,3/4 Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 46-78.
Dirks, K.T. and Ferrin, D.L. (2002), “Trust in leadership: meta-analytic findings and implications
for research and practice”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 4, pp. 611-28.
Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B.J. and Shamir, B. (2002), “Impact of transformational leadership on
190 follower development and performance: a field experiment”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 735-44.
Einarsen, S., Schanke Aasland, M. and Skogstad, A. (2007), “Destructive leadership behaviour:
a definition and conceptual model”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 207-16.
Endler, N.S. and Magnusson, D. (1976), “Toward an interactional psychology of personality”,
Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 83 No. 5, pp. 956-79.
Folkman, S. (1985), “The relationship between coping and health: where should we look?”, paper
presented at American Psychological Association Meeting, August, Los Angeles, CA.
Gardner, W.L., Avolio, B.J., Luthans, F., May, D.R. and Walumbwa, F. (2005), “Can you see the
real me? A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development”, The
Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 16, pp. 343-72 (special issue).
Harter, S. (2005), “Authenticity”, in Snyder, C.R. and Lopez, S. (Eds), Handbook of Positive
Psychology, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 382-94.
Hersey, P., Blanchard, K.H. and Johnson, D.E. (1969/2001), Management of Organizational
Behavior: Leading Human Resources, 8th ed., Prentice-Hall International, London.
Jacobs, T.O. and Jaques, E. (1991), “Executive leadership”, in Gal, R. and Mangelsdorff, D. (Eds),
Handbook of Military Psychology, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 431-47.
Kramer, R.M. (1999), “Trust and distrust in organizations: emerging perspectives, enduring
questions”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 569-98.
Larsson, G. (2006), “The developmental leadership questionnaire (DLQ): some psychometric
properties”, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 253-62.
Larsson, G., Sjöberg, M., Vrbanjac, A. and Björkman, T. (2005), “Indirect leadership in a military
context: a qualitative study on how to do it”, Leadership & Organization Developmental
Journal, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 215-27.
Larsson, G., Sjöberg, M., Nilsson, S., Alvinius, A. and Bakken, B. (2007), “Indirect leadership:
a quantitative test of a qualitatively developed model”, Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, Vol. 28 No. 8, pp. 771-8.
Larsson, G., Carlstedt, L., Andersson, J., Andersson, L., Danielsson, E., Johansson, A., Johansson, E.,
Michel, P.-O. and Robertson, I. (2003), “A comprehensive system for leader evaluation and
development”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 16-25.
Lazarus, R.S. (1991), Emotion and Adaptation, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Lazarus, R.S. (1999), Stress and Emotion: A New Synthesis, Free Association Books, London.
Lewicki, R.J. and Bunker, B.B. (1996), “Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships”,
in Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and
Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 114-39.
Luthans, F., Youssef, C.M. and Avolio, B.J. (2007a), Psychological Capital: Developing the Human
Competitive Edge, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Luthans, F., Avey, J.B., Avolio, B.J. and Peterson, S.J. (2010), “The development and resulting
performance impact of positive psychological capital”, Human Resource Development
Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 41-67.
Luthans, F., Avolio, B.J., Avey, J.B. and Norman, S.M. (2007b), “Psychological capital: Leadership
measurement and relationship with performance and job satisfaction”, Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 541-72. theory
Meyrson, D., Weick, K.E. and Kramer, R.M. (1996), “Swift trust and temporary groups”, integration
in Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and
Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 165-95.
Peterson, C. and Seligman, M.E.P. (2004), Character Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook and 191
Classification, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Seligman, M.E.P., Steen, T.A., Park, N. and Peterson, C. (2005), “Positive psychology progress:
empirical validation of interventions”, American Psychologist, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 410-21.
Shamir, B. and Lapidot, Y. (2003), “Trust in organizational superiors: systematic and collective
considerations”, Organization Studies, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 463-91.
Shapiro, D., Sheppard, B.H. and Cheraskin, L. (1992), “Business on a handshake”, Negotiation
Journal, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 365-77.
Sjöberg, M., Wallenius, C. and Larsson, G. (2011), “Leadership in complex, stressful rescue
operations: a quantitative test of a qualitatively developed model”, Disaster Prevention and
Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 192-212.
Skogstad, A., Einarsen, S., Torsheim, T., Schanke Aasland, M. and Hetland, H. (2007),
“The destructiviness of laissez-faire leadership behaviour”, Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 80-92.
Walumbwa, F.O., Avolio, B.J., Gardner, W.L., Wernsing, T.S. and Peterson, S.J. (2008), “Authentic
leadership: development and validation of a theory-based measure”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 89-126.
Worchel, P. (1979), “Trust and distrust”, in Austin, W.G. and Worchel, S. (Eds), The Social
Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.
Yukl, G. (2002), Leadership in Organizations, 5th ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Further reading
Larsson, G., Johansson, A., Jansson, T. and Grönlund, G. (2001), “Leadership under severe stress:
a grounded theory study”, in Lester, R. and Morton, A.G. (Eds), Concepts for Air Force
Leadership, Air University, Maxwell, AL, pp. 441-7.
Silvia, P.J. and Durval, T.S. (2001), “Objective self-awareness theory: recent progress and
enduring problems”, Personality and Social Psychology Review, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 230-41.

About the authors

Dr Gerry Larsson is a Registered Psychologist and Professor of Psychology. He is a former vice
president and acting president of the Swedish National Defence College. He has published
extensively in the areas of stress, leadership and health. Dr Gerry Larsson is the corresponding
author and can be contacted at: Gerry.larsson@fhs.se
Dr Jarle Eid is a Registered Psychologist and Professor of Psychology. He is currently Dean of
the Faculty of Psychology, University of Bergen. He has published extensively in the areas of
stress, leadership and safety.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints