Articles

A Multilevel Systems Model of Leadership

Angelo J. Kinicki1, Kathryn J. L. Jacobson2, Benjamin M. Galvin3, and Gregory E. Prussia4

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 18(2) 133149 Baker College 2011 Reprints and permission: http://www. sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1548051811399445 http://jlos.sagepub.com

Abstract This study uses a control theory to develop a multilevel systems model of leadership. The model outlines the processes that senior leaders can use to influence others across hierarchical levels of management and clarifies the mechanisms that link leadership across levels of managementgoal cascading, alignment, and the bypass channel of communication. The authors discuss leadership behaviors needed to effectively influence others across a cybernetic process of leadership. Embedded within the multilevel systems model of leadership is a micro-level cybernetic model that focuses on the temporal process that leaders use to influence individuals in the pursuit of goal achievement. Keywords control theory, leadership, leadership behavior The leadership literature is immense and has chronicled the study of classical approaches (e.g., the Ohio State model, the contingency model), contemporary approaches (e.g., transformational leadership and leadermember exchange), alternative approaches (e.g., implicit theories and substitutes for leadership), and new wave approaches (e.g., selfleadership and complexity leadership theory). This research is summarized in Bass and Bass (2008) and helps provide important insights into effective leadership behavior. Despite the vast leadership literature, however, Yammarino, Dionne, Chun, and Dansereau (2005) concluded that relatively few studies in any of the areas of leadership research have addressed levels-of-analysis issues appropriately in theory, measurement, data analysis, and inference drawing (p. 879). This is an important omission because todays organizations are experiencing increased complexity and volatility, which requires the development of multilevel models of leadership (Yammarino & Dansereau, 2008; Yammarino et al., 2005) that capture the influence of leadership over time and across organizational levels (Bluedorn & Jaussi, 2008; Gibson, Cooper, & Conger, 2009). If one conceptualizes multilevel theory as a theory that explicates how phenomena interconnect across organizational levels (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000), then there is no fully developed multilevel theory describing how strategic leadership within a top management team (TMT) affects performance across organizational levels. This article addresses this theoretical void and proposes a multilevel systems model of leadership (MSMOL). Our work is based on the proposition that a paradigm shift toward systems thinking and dynamics, with their ability to clarify processes and structures across levels of management (LOM) and levels of analysis (LOA; Senge, 1990), enables us to provide a new and relevant lens for studying leadership that will assist in achieving a higher level of theoretical and practical understanding about leadership in organizations. This framework is similar to others that rely on system thinking to model leadership in complex adaptive systems (Lichtenstein & Plowman, 2009; Uhl-Bien, Marion, & McKelvey, 2007) and dynamic relational contexts (Barge & Fairhurst, 2008; Uhl-Bien, 2006). However, our model is distinct from these approaches in several ways. First, in addition to addressing leadership within a broader system framework, we also include a micro-level perspective in the overall system model. This emphasis is akin to the operational thinking that is a critical characteristic within system dynamics (Richmond, 1994). Second, our model of leadership also contains a more fine-grained character to facilitate construct specification and subsequent measurement. Unlike other theorists, we do not promote complexity to defeat complexity, yet we still embrace the
1 2

Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA 3 University of Washington Bothell, Bothell, WA, USA 4 Seattle University, Seattle, WA, USA Corresponding Author: Angelo J. Kinicki, W.P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA Email: angelo.kinicki@asu.edu

134 complicated character of a systems approach. Finally, we developed our model following a grounded theory approach (Rudolph & Repenning, 2002; Strauss & Corbin, 1994) such that our model is grounded in a previously generated, substantive theory. Specifically, we use control theory and its cybernetic framework as a theoretical foundation to propose a systems model of leadership that explicates leadership as a bidirectional process of top-down and bottom-up, cross-level influence. Cybernetics/systems thinking explicates leadership processes both for LOM and LOA, a distinction that is often ignored in organizational behavior (OB) research (Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber, 2009; Yammarino & Dansereau, 2009). Our multilevel systems model attempts to answer three research questions. First, what are the processes that allow senior leaders to influence others across hierarchical LOM, ultimately resulting in alignment, adaptation, and superior performance at multiple LOA? Second, what types of leadership behavior and styles are needed to effectively influence others across a cybernetic process of leadership? Exploration of this research question necessitates that we draw from past theory and research to articulate how commonly accepted leadership behaviors and styles fit into the stages or subprocesses contained in our multilevel model of leadership. The final research question is focused at the individual level. What is the temporal process that allows leaders to influence others in the pursuit of goal achievement? Here the focus is on the cybernetic process or sequence by which leaders establish goals and then exert influence in aiding employees toward goal accomplishment. The multilevel systems model has several implications that both challenge and extend current thinking about leadership. Our model addresses limitations of past research noted by Yammarino and Dansereau (2008) by proposing a multilevel process by which strategic leadership among a TMT cascades down and back up an organization and explaining the linking mechanisms that integrate leadership behaviors across organizational layers. Because we explain how organizational performance is a bottom-up emergent process in which lower-level properties form higher-level phenomena (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000), we broaden the understanding of how leadership at one organizational layer influences performance at another layer. Finally, by articulating how a micro-level systems model of leadership (i.e., an individual-level model) is embedded within a macro systems model of leadership, we shed insight into the reciprocal influence process between leaders and followers that is used to influence the execution of corporate level visions, strategies, and goals. Thus, our overall contribution is a MSMOL that integrates a macro and micro perspective to produce a more detailed view of how leadership affects organizational performance over time, but also challenges trends of examining linear relationships or interactions

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 18(2) between leadership behaviors/styles and various contingency variables while ignoring how these relationships dynamically change over time.

Foundation of Control Theory

Cybernetics or control theory is based on systems dynamics and has been used to explain occurrences in a variety of fields, including engineering (e.g., Dransfield, 1968), economics (e.g., Pindyck, 1973), medicine (e.g., Guyton, 1976), psychology (e.g., Carver & Scheier, 1982), and OB (e.g., Vancouver & Day, 2005). Based on cybernetics, control theory was originally conceived as a self-regulatory model concerned with the manner in which individuals process and act on environmental cues in order to maintain or achieve some desired goal (Carver & Scheier, 1981, 1982). In the social sciences, control theory has been used by organizational researchers to examine phenomena such as goal setting (Hollenbeck & Klein, 1987), motivation (Klein, 1989), individual reactions to work (Hollenbeck, 1989), and coping with job loss (Latack, Kinicki, & Prussia, 1995).

The Role of Goals in Control Theory

The existence of goals and standards are generally viewed as the starting point because all self-regulation systems are goal driven (Lord & Hanges, 1987; Vancouver & Day, 2005) and goals represent the referent value or standard against which sensed feedback or environmental information is compared (Scheier & Carver, 1988). Although Powers (1973) proposed nine different stages (or levels) of goals within a cybernetic process, other researchers have concluded that there are three fundamental levels of goals (i.e., systems stage, principle stage, and program stage) that guide the self-regulation process underlying control theory (see Carver & Scheier, 1982; Scheier & Carver, 1988). We thus focus our macro-level systems model of leadership around these three stages of goals.

Hierarchy of Control Stages or Goals

The highest level of self-regulated control revolves around an individuals idealized self-image (Powers, 1973). That is, people desire to avoid cognitive dissonance (i.e., psychological discomfort associated with a discrepancy between attitudes/cognition and behavior [Festinger, 1957] by behaving in ways that are consistent with their idealized self-image). Consider the example of a manager who desires to be recognized as a transformational leader. This individual would feel psychological discomfort if he or she acted in an autocratic and/or capricious manner. Powers (1973) labeled this as the systems stage because all subsequent stages of control and associated goals serve to provide the

Kinicki et al. roadmap for achieving ones idealized self-concept. The next level in Powers hierarchy is the principle stage. In this stage, individuals focus on identifying the behaviors or activities that help them reach their idealized self-concept. Returning to our example, a leader who desired to be transformational would attempt to learn what it takes to be transformational. This may lead the leader to attend a training session or read a book regarding the behavioral components of transformational leadership. The third stage of control is labeled the program stage. This stage entails putting the goals or activities identified in the principle stage into action and resemble what Shank and Abelson (1977) call script processing. A script specifies a course of action or series of steps to follow in order to accomplish a superordinate goal from the principle stage. As such, the program stage specifies the more tactical or detailed things that must be done in order for someone to achieve his or her systems stage idealized self-concept. For the example of our manager who desires to be transformational, he or she would now begin to exhibit leader behaviors associated with the four behavioral categories comprising transformational leadership (i.e., inspirational motivation, idealized influence, individualized consideration, and intellectual stimulation).

135 all LOM must adapt to external and internal environmental disturbances when trying to achieve goals. Let us now consider how the MSMOL uses control theory to help answer our first two research questions: Research Question 1: What are the processes that allow senior leaders to influence others across hierarchical LOM, ultimately resulting in superior performance at multiple LOA? Research Question 2: What types of leadership behaviors and styles are needed to effectively influence others across a cybernetic process of leadership?

A Multivel Systems Model of Leadership (MSMOL)

The MSMOL is a dynamic, multilevel perspective of leadership primarily using the literatures on control theory and leadership to explain organizational performance. Organizational performance is the endogenous phenomena of interest in the MSMOL, uses distinctions in LOA, and is represented by the aggregation of performance across all organizational LOM. As such, organizational performance is conceptualized as a bottom-up emergent process. The MSMOL represents a system within a system and is presented in Figure 1. Specifically, a system of micro-level leadership (i.e., leadership used to influence individuals) is embedded within a system of macro-level leadership (i.e., leadership used to influence groups of organizational members). Our conceptualization thus produces two models, one at a macro level and a second at a micro level. Both the macro and micro systems models occur simultaneously and interdependently. In addition to discussing these models, we follow Yammarino et al.s (2005) recommendation to clarify the mechanisms that link leadership across organizational LOMgoal cascading, alignment, and the bypass channel of communication. According to the MSMOL, organizational performance is the key indicator of leadership effectiveness and is viewed as being dependent on the combined execution and implementation of both systems of leadership at the macro and micro levels. Let us consider each of these models separately.

Applicability of Control Theory as a Theoretical Foundation

Linking the above discussion to existing theory on leadership uncovers multiple reasons to support control theory as the theoretical underpinnings of our multilevel systems model. First, if we accept the premise that leadership is a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal (Northouse, 2007, p. 3), then leadership by definition is a goal-driven process. This is a conceptual match for the goal-driven process underlying control theory. It is important to note that our definition of leadership as a social influence process is a boundary condition of our model because there are other definitions or perspectives from which to study leadership (e.g., social identity theory, Hogg, 2001; and self-complexity theory, Hannah, Woolfolk, & Lord, 2009). Second, control theory is based on an individuals pursuit of hierarchically linked goals, and research demonstrates that managers similarly use hierarchically linked goals in pursuit of organizational effectiveness (see Bateman, ONeill, & Kenworthy-URen, 2002). Bateman et al.s (2002) findings revealed that top managers created and used a hierarchy of goals (i.e., ultimate goals, enterprise goals, strategic goals, project goals, and process goals) to manage their span of control. Third, control theory models the impact of disturbances external to the system on the pursuit of systems-level goals. This is relevant in the context of organizational leadership because

Macro Multilevel Systems Model of Leadership

The system of macro-level leadership is based on the proposition that leadership moves temporally across hierarchical organizational levels (i.e., LOM) in a self-regulated subsystem of stages derived from Powers (1973) hierarchical control system (i.e., systems, principle, and program). It also proposes that leadership is both a top-down and bottom-up

136

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 18(2)

Level 1: Organizational Level System Stage: Create Organizational Vision and Values

Level 2: Divisional Level

Level 3: Department Level

Level 4: Individual Level

Bypass Channel Cascading Goals

Principle Stage: Create Organizational Strategies, Goals/Action Plans and Communicate System Vision and Values

Cascading Goals Alignment Principle: Create/Communicate Divisionail Strategies, Goals/Action Plans Alignment Principle: Create/Communicate Team/Individual Goals/Action Plans

Cascading Goals

Program Stage: Implement Organization Action Plans Program: Implement Divisional/Functional Goals/Action Plans

Alignment

Program: Implement Department/Unit Goals/Action Plans

Principle: Create/Communicate Unit Strategies, Goals/Action Plans

Analysis of Results/Performance

Sensory Inpu t

Effect on Environment

Program: Implement Team/Individual Goals/ Action Plans

Disturbance

= Activation of Micro - level Leadership

Figure 1. Macro-level systems model of leadership

process. Kozlowski and Klein (2000) note that top-down processes pertain to describing how higher level units (e.g., the chief executive officer [CEO]) influence lower level units (e.g., divisional managers), and bottom-up processes pertain to explaining how lower-level unit performance emerges to form a collective phenomena (i.e., organizational performance). Each of these distinct levels processes (i.e., LOA and LOM) will be explained as we elucidate the details of our MSMOL. For the purpose of illustration, Figure 1 models a system of leadership across four organization levels: The actual number of levels would depend on an organizations design. Level 1 in Figure 1 represents the strategic leadership enacted by an organizations CEO. Strategic leadership is generally enacted by the CEO and the upper echelon of the TMT (Bass & Bass, 2008). Figure 1 further shows that leaders at all levels are expected to engage the micro-level systems model of leadership at both the principle and program stages to enhance their ability to facilitate goal achievement from direct reports. Finally, the process depicted in Figure 1 underscores the idea that a vision and organizational goals at the system stage become more specific and tactical as they cascade down an organization.

Control Stages Applied to a Leadership Context

The MSMOL integrates Powerss (1973) control stages to explain how leadership unfolds across organizational LOM over time to influence organizational performance. These control stages are proposed to represent compositional emergence because they are essentially the same across levels (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). The following descriptions are based on the highest organizational level of analysis. The systems stage of leadership. The system stage encompasses the process of creating an organizational vision and associated values, a process that is generally completed by the TMT with input from various constituents. The systems stage thus is restricted to the TMT or upper echelon of executives that develops an overall vision for the organization. As is true for an individuals idealized self-image, an organizations vision represents an idealized future state or goal that an organization wants to achieve (Conger & Kanungo, 1998; Kantabutra, 2009). Vision creation is an important component of strategic leadership (Boal & Hooijberg, 2001), charismatic leadership (House, 1977), and the inspirational motivation dimension of transformational leadership (Bass, 1985). Creating and communicating an organizational vision

Kinicki et al. is an important leadership task because visionary leadership was found to be positively associated with employees extra work effort (de Luque, Washburn, Waldman, & House, 2008), employee engagement (Moss, 2009), and firm performance (de Luque et al., 2008). The positive effects of visionary leadership also were found in a virtual context (Whitford & Moss, 2009). Because the systems stage provides the highest level of self-regulated control, a systems view of leadership suggests that formal organizational leaders would generally ensure that goals, projects, and activities within their purview are consistent with the organizational vision established by senior leaders. Failure to create this consistency across LOM is expected to reduce organizational performance. The systems stage requires strategic leadership because this type of leadership is focused on creating meaning and a sense of purpose for the greater organization (Bass & Bass, 2008). In support of this conclusion, Boal and Hooijberg (2001) concluded that strategic leadership focuses on the people who have overall responsibility for the organization and includes not only the titular head of the organization but also members of what is referred to as the top management team [TMT] or dominant coalition (p. 516). This stage also necessitates the vision creation component of the transformational leadership dimension of inspirational motivation. Empowering leadership, which represents leadership that provides employees with autonomy and the capability to perform meaningful work that affects organizational performance (Chen, Kirkman, Kanfer, Allen, & Rosen, 2007), is relevant during this stage because the vision creation process has been conceptualized to be more effective when senior leaders involve others in the process (Kantabutra, 2009). The principle stage of leadership. The principle stage begins to establish the detail needed to understand how the organization plans to achieve its vision. This requires that the upper echelon of management create a set of organizational strategies, goals, and action plans that support a path to achieving the vision, and then communicate this information to the employee population. This communication represents the first incidence of top-down leadership. Leader behaviors needed in this stage are reflective of strategic leadership, two components of transformational leadership (i.e., inspirational motivation and intellectual stimulation, which involves behaviors that encourage employees to challenge the status quo and seek creative solutions to organizational problems), managerial leadership (e.g., planning, problem solving, environmental scanning, encouraging collective agreement, making changes consistent with the vision, and influencing others to support the vision and goals [Yukl, 1989]), and empowering leadership. Based on Chun, Yammarino, Dionne, Sosik, and Moons (2009) results, we expect that the modeling of these leadership styles by senior leaders will cascade down across LOM. Their findings showed that leadership at higher LOM were positively associated with the same style of leadership at the next lower level of management.

137 The program stage of leadership. The program stage represents what Dean and Sharfman (1996) call quality of decision implementation, defined as the competence with which the steps are taken to execute the strategic decision (p. 378). This definition stresses execution as the heart of what occurs at the program stage. Senge (1990) proposed that strategic vision and goal alignment were useless to an organization that cannot successfully implement (i.e., execute) a strategy. In a rare empirical test of these beliefs and conclusions, Dean and Sharfmans study of strategic decision making revealed that the quality of implementation/execution positively predicted strategic decision effectiveness. Leaders are expected to engage in managerial leadership and empowering leadership when trying to execute strategic plans because execution is more operational and tactical in focus (Bass & Bass, 2008; Dean & Sharfman, 1996). Figure 1 further indicates that effective execution requires the CEO to successfully engage the micro-level systems model of leadership, which is discussed in the next section. The micro-level model embeds Yukl, Gordon, and Tabers (2002) hierarchical taxonomy of leadership within a cybernetic process; thereby proposing that effective execution entails the use of task-oriented leadership, relationshiporiented leadership, and change-oriented leadership. The choice of this taxonomy is consistent with research on CEO failures. Charan and Colvins (1999) qualitative study of several dozen CEO failures, for example, revealed that CEOs were fired because they were not getting things done, being indecisive, not delivering on commitments, which are all representative behaviors associated with task, relationship, and change-oriented leadership. Furthermore, these results are consistent with Finkelsteins (2003) study of spectacularly failing CEOs. Failing CEOs ignored task leadership, for example, when they used financial statements as public relations tools, not as monitoring and controlling devices. Task leadership was also ignored when failing CEOs did not monitor and control operations. Finkelsteins study also showed that failing CEOs ignored relationship leadership in that they treated their staff merely as instruments to be used or audiences to appreciate their performances. These CEOs often used intimidation and elimination as tactics to get subordinates on board with their initiatives. Finally, Finkelstein notes that failing CEOs also tended to repeat strategies and behaviors that led to past success rather than changing to new strategic and managerial styles. Environmental impact and the analysis of results/ performance. Figure 1 reveals that the effect on the environment (i.e., organizational performance) represents an emergent process described as compilation. A compilation process describes phenomena that comprise a common domain but are distinctively different as they emerge across levels. . . . Compilation processes describe the combination of related but different lower-level propertiesthat

138 is, the configuration of different lower-level characteristics to yield a higher-level property that is functionally equivalent to its constituent elements. (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000, p. 16) Stated differently, performance does not entail or mean the same thing at the individual, departmental, divisional, or organizational levels. Yet individual, departmental, and divisional performance intertwine and combine to produce organizational-level performance. Figure 1 shows that this compilation process is determined by the manner in which individuals, departments, divisions, and the CEO execute action plans, which is expected to vary across LOM. Control theory reinforces the conclusion that effective execution does not guarantee success across LOM, however, because the environment also is influenced by external disturbances. Consider what happened in 2008 to the airline industry because of the disturbance of increased fuel costs. American Airlines, for example, not only decreased the number of flights and laid off employees (i.e., internal impact) but also tried to increase revenue by charging for checked baggage (i.e., external impact). The fundamental feedback loop inherent to control theory is represented by the analysis of results/performance. Figure 1 shows that all three control stages at the organizational level are directly influenced by this analysis. For example, analysis of results may lead the CEO/TMT to adjust the organizational strategic vision at the systems stage, revamp strategy at the principle stage, and redesign implementation tactics at the program stage.

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 18(2) channeled to the desired end results. Goal cascading thus creates a line of site from individual-level goals all the way up to corporate goals, thereby allowing employees to understand how they contribute to organizational success. This understanding is expected to produce greater levels of goal commitment and employee engagement, which in turn are expected to foster individual performance (Donovan & Radosevich, 1998; Rich, Lepine, & Crawford, 2010). It is important to note that our use of the term cascading is not meant to evoke visions of Niagara-like flows of cascading goals that overwhelm and subdue subordinates and lower organizational levels into submission. Rather, research on participative management (e.g., Cawley, Keeping, & Levy, 1998), empowering leadership (e.g., Chen et al., 2007), and goal commitment (e.g., Locke & Latham, 1990) indicates that goal cascading is effective when it is an interactive process in which leaders and followers mutually and collaboratively establish personalized goals. For example, although leaders might use multiple styles to accomplish this task, transformational and empowering leadership are predicted to enhance employees goal commitment (Berson & Avolio, 2004) than more directive approaches. A transformational approach, for instance, would rely on explaining the importance of the organizations vision and strategic goals and seek to tie the organizational goals to shared values and mutually beneficial outcomes, whereas a more empowering style is essential to maintain a two-way goal setting process in which employees feel free to determine goals and the best action plans for accomplishing them. Transactional leadership might also be used to induce commitment to goals through the use of promised rewards (Bass, 1990). Additionally, the individualized consideration component of transformational leadership, which entails behaviors related to providing support, encouragement, and coaching to employees, may help ensure that goals are congruent with the needs, capabilities, and self-efficacy of direct reports to foster increased persistence toward goal accomplishment (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). Both Chun et al.s (2009) and Yang, Zhang, and Tsuis (2010) results suggest that the style of leadership that managers use across various LOM during goal cascading is partly a function of the styles used by the CEO and upper echelon management during the principle stage of leadership at the organizational level (see Figure 1). Future research is needed to determine the types of leadership that are most effective for successful goal cascading. Goal alignment. The role and importance of goal alignment across LOM has been recognized for quite some time (for a review, see Crotts, 2005). The general idea is that organizational performance is enhanced when goals are aligned across LOM. Figure 1 shows that organizational strategies, goals, and action plans are aligned between each organizational level during the principle stage of the MSMOL.

The Principle Stage: Linking Leadership Across Levels of Management

Like previous leadership scholars, we attempt to model the boundaries of an organizations leadership system, allowing for the LOM to exist via a cascading effect (e.g., Chun et al., 2009; Waldman & Yammarino, 1999). Figure 1 shows that leadership is linked across LOM via the activities that occur during the principle stage. We propose that goal cascading, goal alignment, and the bypass channel of communication are three subprocesses that constitute key linking mechanisms. All three processes entail components of top-down and bottom-up emergence. Goal cascading. Goal cascading is a systematic process of creating vertically linked goals throughout an organization. It starts with the CEO and TMT establishing organizationallevel goals and action plans. These goals and action plans are then sequentially cascaded downward across hierarchical LOM (see Figure 1). The purpose of goal cascading is to ensure that all LOM have a set of goals that support corporate goals. This constancy of focus creates a synergy in which organizational resources and activities are being

Kinicki et al. Research on participative management (e.g., Cawley et al., 1998), employee empowerment (e.g., Workman & Bommer, 2004), and leadership (Avolio et al., 2009; Colbert, KristofBrown, Bradley, & Barrick, 2008) suggests that alignment is more likely to create agreement and commitment to a set of strategies, goals, and action plans when LOM use transformational, managerial, and empowering leadership. The alignment process is compositional. That is, the process is the same across organizational LOA (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). Figure 1 illustrates that the first phase of alignment occurs between the CEO (Level 1) and division managers (Level 2). It is important to note that there are two types of alignment that take place during this process horizontal and verticaland neither can begin until all division managers have met with their direct reports to collaboratively establish divisional goals and action plans. Horizontal alignment occurs when all Level 2 managers meet to align among themselves. This reduces the problem of silo-based goals that can cause conflict across divisions and detract from overall corporate performance, and it identifies interdependencies that exist across the organization. Following horizontal alignment, vertical alignment occurs between hierarchical LOM, in this case the CEO and each divisional manager. Vertical alignment entails the agreement about goals and action plans between an employee and his or her manager. Labovitz and Rosansky (1997) wrote that if the steps of communication and personalization assist in creating a shared vision within the overarching system, then alignment creates a shared reality within the organization. Alignment does this by strengthening the resources available at every LOM to successfully and realistically achieve each of the cascaded goals of the principle stage, ultimately, tying the organization closely to the vision of the system concept stage. An aligned organization is fluid and aware of the impact that changes at one level have on the entire system, enabling various LOM to respond accordingly (Semler, 1997). Aligned organizations also were found to have higher organizational performance than nonaligned ones (Yearout & Miles, 2001) and lower levels of organizational politics (Witt, 1998). Leaders act as linchpins during alignment and goal cascading, linking levels of employees to ensure agreement across the organization (Bass, 1990). Feedback and realignment take place throughout the alignment process, resulting in an organic process that allows response to changes and variation. From this perspective, it is evident that macrolevel leadership success is contingent on the entire leadership system. This is why organizational performance is proposed to represent a bottom-up compilation emergent process. In other words, organizational performance is not determined by heroic leadership, but rather by an integrated system of leadership that spans the entire organization.

139 Bypass channel. Although communication in organizations may at times take place in a linear manner and cascade through formal hierarchies and the channels they provide, leadership cannot fully be understood by simply looking at simple flows of information and goals that follow welldefined routes (Burns, 1978). Todays organizations are fluid and complex and rarely does leadership strictly follow the unity of command where subordinates receive communications from one and only one leader in the manner that Fayol (1949) described as being so necessary to avoid the undermining of authority and the loss of discipline, stability, and order. Leaders maintain relationships and communication with individuals at many levels of their organizations, and it is not uncommon for them to circumvent the chain of command and interact directly with employees (Bass, 1985). Therefore, a necessary final addition to the MSMOL is the bypass channel of leader communication. It is important to allow for complexity in the MSMOL because of the fluid bidirectional nature of organizational communication. This can be achieved with the inclusion of bypass channels, which represent formal and informal organizational communication that override the scalar chain of command (Mintzberg, 1979). Bypass channels allow for unfiltered communication that is both top-down and bottom-up to continuously traverse through the various stages of leadership control depicted in Figure 1, thereby linking employees across LOM. This type of communication has been associated with increased leader control and influence, as well as specific leadership styles such as transformational leadership (Bass, 1990). At times this type of communication may indicate a breakdown in the system; however, it may also be associated with specific needs of the leader such as feedback from an unbiased view, unfiltered information, or attempts to unify the organization under a single vision. Generally, situations in which the formal chain of communication is circumvented are part of the bypass channel. Examples of this type of communication are prevalent in organizations. CEOs, for example, frequently communicate directly with subordinates (Bass, 1985). Direct communication with subordinates takes place through formal organization addresses and interactions as well as in more informal circumstances such as a CEO engaging someone in an elevator or on the shop floor during an informal visit. Leaders tend to be seeking information as much as giving information (Yukl, 2006) in these types of situations, and proximal relationship building is a major principle of strategic leadership (Conger & Riggio, 2007). Correspondingly, frontline employees have the potential to provide valuable information by giving direct unfiltered feedback on newly implemented changes and strategies directly to a manager. Other situations can be less benign such as when leaders or subordinates see the need to circumvent the hierarchy due to a lack of

140
Table 1. Applying Elements of Control Theory Across Levels of Leadership Control Theory Element 1. Goal or reference value 2. Sensor 3. Comparator Standard Definition Standard that the system strives to maintain Measuring or gathering information about stimulus Mechanism that compares sensed information with the standard Action to maintain equilibrium between sensed information and the standard Final result produced by system Events outside the system that influence results produced by the system Organizational-Level Leadership Application Establishing company vision and strategic/operational goals Ongoing measurement of corporate performance; environmental scanning Conducting quarterly reviews of corporate performance Revise corporate strategies and goals; revise implementation plan; commit more resources to achieving a goal Corporate performance Subprime crisis negatively affects ability to finance growth

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 18(2)

Unit-Level Leadership Application Establishing unit-level vision and goals Ongoing measurement of unit performance Conducting monthly reviews of unit performance Revise unit-level goals and action plan; realign resources to priorities; reassign project activities Unit performance Key manager quits midyear

Individual-Level Leadership Application Establishing goals for individuals Ongoing measurement of individual performance Monitoring employee behavior and performance against norms and goals Change employees goal; coach and support; provide recognition; send employee to training Individual performance Employee takes leave of absence for personal reasons

4. Effector

5. Outcome 6. Disturbance

responsiveness, to report or challenge unethical or questionable behaviors, or even to promote self-interest (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999; Elangovan & Shapiro, 1998).

Micro Systems Model of Leadership

Our third research question focuses on the temporal process that allows leaders to influence individuals in the pursuit of goal achievement. We rely on control theory to model this temporal process at the micro level because it allows us to simultaneously capture the complexity of the environment that dyadic leaderfollower interactions occur in, while diverging from the simple linear relationships that are traditionally depicted in leadership models (Mackenzie, 2006). Six components generally comprise the control theory model: (a) a goal or reference value, (b) a sensor or input function, (c) a comparator, (d) an effector or decision mechanism, (e) an outcome or environmental impact, and (f) a disturbance. Table 1 provides a definition for each component and illustrates how they translate into leadership actions or behaviors across the three organizational levels. We acknowledge at the outset that leadership at the micro level is affected by situational variables and contingencies that inevitably arise. Our approach addresses concerns that have been raised regarding the absence of context when capturing the dyadic relationship between a leader and his or her subordinate using control theory (e.g., Sandelands, Glynn, & Larson, 1991) and avoids taking a heroic approach to leadership by acknowledging that leadership is a two-way influence process between leaders and followers.

Organizations consist of a network of local cybernetic systems . . . which are linked together by meta-control systems (Green & Welsh, 1988, p. 297). Figure 2 represents the local control systems that are embedded within the macro-level leadership model presented in Figure 1. The local control systems in the macro-level leadership model indicate points in the leadership process that involve dyadic interactions between leaders and subordinates, such as between high-level leaders and divisional managers, divisional managers and department managers, and department managers and team leaders and/or frontline employees. The micro-level leadership model shown in Figure 2 illustrates the ongoing process of aligning individual performance with the cascaded goals of the organization. This process is similar in nature to the practice that has been referred to by Aguinis and Pierce (2008) as performance management. Specifically, Figure 2 outlines a behavioral sequence in which leaders consider subordinate performance information against cascaded goals to determine future leadership action. It then depicts the resulting leadership action as a reciprocal process between the leader and the subordinate. Subsequent subordinate behaviors, attitudes, and performance then are monitored to provide the leader with information with which to compare against the predetermined goals to determine future leadership action, continuing the ongoing cycle. It is also important to note that situational variables affecting the aspects of the leadership process are also addressed since they affect multiple components of the micro model.

Kinicki et al.

141

Leadership Action Goals and Expectations Analysis and interpretation of Results/ Performance Task-Oriented Behaviors

Subordinates Performance Monitoring Relations-Oriented Behaviors Change-Oriented Behaviors

Situational Variables Environmental Factors Organizational Factors Group Factors Individual Factors Subordinate Behaviors, Attitudes and Performance

Core control theory paths Supplemental paths

Figure 2. Micro-level systems model of leadership: The activation of performance management leadership

In the following sections, we discuss the six core aspects of a cybernetic-based model of leadership (i.e., standards, input sensor, comparator, effector, environmental impact, and disturbances). The micro-level model of leadership has no definitive beginning or end, as it is cyclical in nature. Therefore, we begin our description of the model components with a discussion of goals since they are the core driver of every cybernetic process. Goals and expectations (standards). Goals provide the standard to which subordinate behavior can be compared and reflect optimum or minimum performance expectations (Vancouver & Day, 2005). Subordinate goals flow from and contribute to upper-level (i.e., principle-level) goals. Goals can be long term (e.g., increase profit margins during the next year) or short term in nature (e.g., finish marketing proposal by Monday), and developmental (e.g., increase knowledge of human resource policies) or performance oriented (e.g., increase profit margin by 2%). Goals may relate to the subordinates individual performance (e.g., arrive on time to work) or if the subordinate has subordinates themselves, to the collective performance of their subordinates (e.g., improve units overall on-time ship rate). Regardless of the character or nature of the goals, or the process by which they are set, they provide the standard against which monitored performance information is compared and determine future leadership action and employee behavior. It is

important to note that the organization as a whole has difficulty reaching macro-level goals if either the program level goals arent aligned with the principle goals or the goals are unclear and vague. Performance monitoring (input sensor). Performance monitoring is the process of collecting information, directly or indirectly, about the work effectiveness of an individual or group (Komaki & Citera, 1990; Larson & Callahan, 1990). Performance monitoring is core to performance management (Aguinis & Pierce, 2008) and provides information with which a leader can compare performance with goals or expectations. It has been found to positively affect not only the performance (Komaki, Desselles, & Bowman, 1989) but also the perceived importance that subordinates place on a task (Larson & Callahan, 1990). Amsler, Findley, and Ingram (2009) further propose that performance monitoring is a critical antecedent of employee motivation, performance, and organizational citizenship behavior. Performance monitoring is an integral aspect of the micro-level leadership process that allows leaders to understand the outcomes of the behaviors they have instigated and provides information on which to base future goals, behaviors, and corrective leadership actions (Bass, 1990). Performance monitoring allows leaders to keep track of performance information such as levels of quality, accuracy, timeliness, schedule adherence, customer satisfaction,

142 productivity, task/goal accomplishment, and project success (Yukl, 2006). Methods of monitoring may include direct observation, document review, receiving information from other supervisors, input from staff members, and assessment of self-reports (Yukl, 2006). Leaders also tend to monitor the collective performance of their subordinates subordinates as an indicator of performance. For instance, a divisional manager may monitor a unit managers units performance to provide information regarding the performance of the unit manager. Analysis and interpretation of results/performance (comparator). The comparator is the process of identifying discrepancies (Lord & Hanges, 1987) between subordinate performance and previously specified goals. Leaders analyze and interpret information about subordinate performance against the established performance goals in an evaluative phase, which we label the analysis and interpretation of results/ performance. This comparative process allows leaders to understand performance outcomes in the context of established goals and then ascertain levels of deviations from goals and performance standards (Bass, 1990). This process of analyzing and interpreting performance in comparison to goals and expectations will be affected by leader biases and attributions (Sanchez & De La Torre, 1996). The interpretation of subjective performance data is particularly open to error and leader bias; this problem may be attenuated when the performance data are based on memories of performance rather than recorded information (Bommer, Johnson, Rich, Podsakoff, & Mackenzie, 1995; Sanchez & De La Torre, 1996). Identified discrepancies between perceived performance and established goals can take one of three forms: negative discrepancyperformance below target; positive discrepancyperformance above target; or no discrepancyperformance equals target. Traditional cybernetic models focus solely on negative discrepancy reduction; however, control models applied to human systems suggest that all outcomes are relevant (Bozeman & Kacmar, 1997; Klein, 1989; Tsui & Ashford, 1994) because these outcomes determine future leadership action. Leadership action (effector). The effector is the mechanism that acts on the environment to bring performance back in line with goals (Lord & Hanges, 1987; Vancouver & Day, 2005). Leadership action is the effector in our model. Leadership action takes place in response to the discrepancy between the real or perceived outcomes and the goals and expectations. In addition, as diagramed in Figure 2, our model takes a contingency perspective in which leader action is also determined by relevant situational variables at multiple LOA (Ayman, Chemers, & Fiedler, 1995). Leaders engage in a diverse range and mix of behaviors according to the specific contingency they face to direct and facilitate subordinates performance. We explore the reciprocal nature

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 18(2) of the leader and subordinate relationship depicted in Figure 2 following our discussion of the three categorizations of leadership behaviors. Although there are many leadership behaviors and styles that represent leadership action, we used Yukl et al.s (2002) parsimonious taxonomy of meta-categories of leadership behavior, which includes the task-, relationship-, and change-oriented categories of leadership behavior. Behaviors are categorized based on the primary objective of the behavior and the contingencies that the behavior best addresses. Yukl et al.s taxonomy was created to provide a parsimonious and meaningful conceptual framework (p. 15) to the numerous leadership behaviors that have been presented in the past five decades of leadership research. We feel that their taxonomy effectively achieves this goal and encompasses the majority of leadership behaviors in a comprehensive and concise manner and is consistent with recent research (see Burke et al., 2006; DeRue et al., in press). Task-oriented behaviors are generally conceptualized as focused on improving performance, efficiency, operations, and the use of resources (Yukl, 2008; Yukl et al., 2002). They include behaviors such as clarifying expectations, monitoring, explaining the purpose of a particular policy, or reassignment of the workload (Yukl, 2006). Leaders likely engage in these types of behaviors when performance is not at the level necessary to achieve goals and standards. Among other situations that may induce task behaviors, a leader may be task focused when operations are depleting budgets or resources disproportionate to their production or profits, or when employees seem to be struggling with workloads. The dashed line in Figure 2 shows that it sometimes is necessary for the leader to reduce or increase an employees goals or standards depending on the situation at hand. Relations-oriented behaviors involve the creation of employee commitment, trust, and cooperation (Yukl et al., 2002) and are most useful for improving humancapital relations (Yukl, 2008). They tend to include behaviors such as coaching, mentoring, resolving conflict, and building relationships (Yukl, 2006). Leader communications focused on building the relationship may provide inspiration to the employee, show concern, acknowledge needs and contributions, or provide empowerment (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999). Rewards may also be used to build the relationship, to recognize performance that exceeded standards, or as an enticement for future performance (Jones, 1983). Contingencies that may prompt relations-oriented behaviors may include situations in which leaders feel that goals are not being met because of conflict among coworkers, a lack of trust in the leadership, a loss of employee motivation or commitment, or various other situations that involve the human element of performance. Finally, change-oriented behaviors are focused on helping subordinates adapt to a changing environment and

Kinicki et al. pursue innovation (Yukl, 2008). They tend to involve the explanation of specific needs for new approaches, changes to standards to meet evolved environmental demands, the facilitation of learning, and/or the sharing of visions of future opportunities that inspire a change in behavior on the part of the employees (Yukl, 2006). Leader vision has the ability to engender subordinate confidence, motivation, and trust, and is likely to be part of the behaviors leaders engage in to inspire the subordinate confidence needed to engage in and accept change (Conger & Kanungo, 1998; Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993). Transformational leadership behaviors will build commitment to the change the leader seeks to implement (Herold, Fedor, Caldwell, & Liu, 2008). Change-oriented behaviors may also include explaining new strategies, providing support for risk taking, and helping subordinates experiment with new ways of doing things. They are likely to be induced because of a changing competitive environment that is hurting performance, the entrance of new competition, foreseen changes in technology or ways of doing business, or an organizational need for a paradigm change. We include subordinates within the center of the leadership action box shown in Figure 2 to model the interactive relationship between the leader and subordinates that is core to the leadership process (Avolio et al., 2009). The two headed arrows represent a shared leadership approach in which both leaders and subordinates engage in actions that are deemed as leadership behaviors (Offerman & Scuderi, 2007). This is consistent with feedback research that shows employees are more likely to accept feedback when performance discrepancies are discussed with a two-way problem-solving approach that focuses on identifying root causes of discrepancies (see Kinicki, Prussia, Wu, & McKeeRyan, 2004). The two headed arrows also suggest contingency considerations as different behaviors and styles are contingent on the employee and environmental characteristics. They also imply that leaders need employee feedback so that the leader can determine what type of leadership is needed and whether or not past leadership is working. Finally, the process intimates that leadership is a two-way street in which the follower will likely take initiative/action to reduce the discrepancy between their performance and the aforementioned goals. Subordinate behavior, attitudes and performance (environmental impact). Every change in the effector results in an impact on the environment. Leadership action in the output function has a subsequent impact on subordinate behaviors, attitudes, and performance. These include diverse behaviors (both positive and negative), work attitudes (e.g., job satisfaction, organizational commitment), and levels of performance that employees exhibit at work. Ideally, the leadership action results in subordinate behaviors that bring performance back in line with goals and expectations (Lord &

143 Hanges, 1987). Any changes in employee behavior, attitude, and performance are then observed or perceived by the leader through performance monitoring. The control cycle is completed, and then begins again, when monitored performance information is compared with goals to determine whether future leadership actions are needed to execute the goals. This cycle can be short term (i.e., a few hours) or more long term in nature (i.e., several months). Because the leadership process at the micro level is complex and interactive and influenced by numerous factors, it is likely that this process simultaneously occurs in long and short time frames. This process also occurs simultaneously for different goals because most employees do not work solely on a single project and are concurrently working to achieve multiple goals. However, these processes are likely to affect each other and have a cumulative effect that could be mapped onto a single process. Situational variables (disturbances). The five components above make up the integrated control system loop, but factors independent of the system can also affect aspects of the model and disturb the system. Previous research has found that disturbances outside the system affect outcomes (Vancouver & Day, 2005). For instance, changes in performance and/or current performance relative to past performance may influence the expectations placed on the subordinate (Sandelands et al., 1991). A subordinates recent divorce or sickness will likely influence the type of leadership action that would be appropriate in helping to motivate this individual to realign their performance with the goals and may result in the need to temporarily lower goals and expectations. Similarly, a massive organization-wide layoff might disrupt work and create a need for more relations-oriented actions from the leader than usual. The inclusion of situational variables allows us to account for contingencies and complex contextual and individual factors that affect the leadership process and acknowledges that leaders and subordinates are susceptible to being influenced by situational influences (Bass & Bass, 2008; Yukl, 2008). Although these disturbances affect subordinate behavior, attitudes, and performance, they also affect goals and expectations as well as the leaders action (see Figure 2). Figure 2 depicts external disturbances as situational variables, which we separate into environmental, organizational, group, and individual factors. Although researchers such as Yukl (1989) have laid out specific lists of situational variables that affect the leadership process, we have purposefully created broad categories of situational variables to allow for the inclusion of the wide variety of variables that influence the leadership process. This categorization allows us to capture the factors that affect the system and delineates them by the level at which they exist. It also facilitates thinking beyond a specific level of analysis and encourages a comprehensive approach. It would be

144 impossible to delineate all the specific factors that may influence the leadership process in a general model; however, when using the model to understand specific theories or situations, specific factors that fall within these categories can be delineated to understand the impact of situational variables on the system. Environmental factors include economic conditions and legislative changes. Environmental factors may also include trends in the market, new technology, or outside pressures for performance. Organizational factors encompass organizational level goals, resources, demands, and climate. In some scenarios, it would be important to consider factors such as the quantity and quality of both physical and informational resources that exist, and the quantity and the quality of training opportunities. It is also important to consider changes in organizational policy or direction. Group factors that are relevant consist of group psychological climate, group dynamics, and conflict. Work processes of the group also affect the manner in which work is organized and structured as well as the efficiency and effectiveness of work processes and have a large impact on subordinate behavior. Finally, individual factors contain variables such as past performance, difficulty of the individuals task being performed, and the extent to which a person performs a variety of tasks. They also take into account individual difference variables such as motivation, ability, values, needs, emotions, job knowledge, cultural differences, education, and personality. These situational variables might influence the system separately or together. They are likely to affect leadership action, goals, and expectations. They are also likely to influence subordinate performance, attitudes, and performance, independent of impacts derived from the leadership behavior.

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 18(2) processes at only one level of analysis because it can be incredibly difficult to develop multilevel theory (Avolio & Yammarino, 2002). Most often, leadership literature has been affected by the dominance of dyadic theories that emphasize the influence processes between a leader and a single follower, despite the acknowledgment that leadership occurs at all LOA (Schriesheim, Castro, & Yammarino, 2000; Waldman & Yammarino, 1999). However, current theorists support the notion of leadership as a complicated system that has a certain degree of coherence (see Avolio et al., 2009; Yukl, 2008). We move significantly beyond dyadic leadership in that we depict how the leadership process unfolds in a specific sequence. Our leadership sequencing was designed to compensate for the overt narrowing of leadership theory that has been the predominant paradigm within the past two decades of leadership research. For example, in recent years there have been more studies on transformational leadership than any other type of leadership (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Integration is one of our models main features, whereby we attempt to reconcile the realistic nature of organizational context with current research involving a number of input variables (both internal and external to the organization), cascading goals, alignment, and control stage components across every organizational level of management. Focusing on these components provides a significant first step because it incorporates previous leadership styles and behavioral research with current research on systems thinking. Leadership scholarship is a multidisciplinary enterprise. Once serving small niches in academia, leadership is now a ubiquitous component of organizational studies. However, as the 20th century progressed, leadership literature focusing on supervisors and middle managers in organizations was relegated to the OB literature as attention shifted to executive and TMT leadership within the realm of strategic leadership research. Our aim in this article is to reintroduce these streams of research, moving from leadership niches to a leadership network. Our emphasis on cybernetics represents a significant departure from current leadership thinking, yet this effort resulted in a broader framework that accommodates the components of many different discipline perspectives of leadership (e.g., strategic leadership, goal-directed leadership, human resources leadership). In other words, both systems models are designed to be exceptionally broad in nature and the types of leadership required to enhance and sustain a cybernetic process of leadership are drawn from various dimensions of current leadership theories. Put simply, our cybernetic model of leadership provides a gestalt perspective of past and present leadership theory and practice, an approach suggested by other leadership scholars (e.g., Antonakis & House, 2002; Yukl, 1999). Unlike other models, our framework fills another important research gap by proposing that leadership throughout

Discussion
The MSMOL provides a new paradigm for investigating the dynamic complexity inherent in leadership. This approach clarifies how strategic leadership influences performance across organizational levels. It provides a lens for studying leadership that facilitates achieving a higher level of theoretical and practical understanding about leadership in organizations. It also elucidates the processes that allow senior leaders to influence others across hierarchical LOM. Finally, it creates insight into what types of leadership behavior and styles are requisite for leaders at the macro and micro levels to effectively influence others.

Theoretical Implications
Although Avolio et al. (2009) note that leadership is a complex social process, most leadership theories focus on

Kinicki et al. organizations fosters both models since fundamental to the levels perspective is the recognition that micro phenomena are embedded in macro contexts (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000, p. 5). We begin with the notion that there is a direct link between CEO leadership and organizational performance. Additionally, we propose that there are only modest relationships in current empirical literature (e.g., Dumdum, Lowe, & Avolio, 2002; Judge et al., 2004; Lowe et al., 1996) because many current measurements do not take into account the subprocesses within a dynamic system of leadership. Debates surrounding the correlations between CEO leadership and outcomes have yet to be reconciled. Some argue that 14% of the variance in organization performance can be accounted for by CEOs (Hogan & Kaiser, 2005), whereas others contend that leaders have little influence on performance (e.g., Meindl, Ehrlich, & Dukerich, 1985; Pfeffer, 1977). All told, the SMOL proposes that leadership effectiveness may be viewed as dependent on the combined execution of both systems of leadership at the macro and micro levels across LOM. Without activation and ongoing operation of micro-level leadership, the system of leadership cannot be fulfilled. Hence, leadership effectiveness is thought to be partially a function of the effectiveness by which leaders (and followers) implement their action plans in the micro model and the effectiveness by which leaders enact the core leader behaviors that are outlined in our cybernetic macro model. We suggest that leadership is not linear. Therefore, if one believes in a systems model of leadership, wherein leadership effectiveness depends on the execution and implementation of an integrated system of both macro and micro processes, then a proper evaluation of leadership effectiveness is based on leader actions within a broader system that incorporates complexity and the implementation of vision across organizational levels. Finally, our model embraces organizational complexity by examining the reciprocal paths inherent in a feedback system that describe bottom-up alignment that occurs (a) via followers at all organizational levels and (b) in addition to typical top-down leadership processes. In truth, our macro-level systems model proposes a duality of leadership and followership. We avoid a leader-centered model and embrace a more holistic one by acknowledging the complex roles of individuals within organizations and viewing leadership in tandem with followers. Importantly, these theoretical additions have been mostly absent in leadership theory and practice, which brings us to the practical implications of our model.

145 more multilevel systems approach to leadership. Many leaders likely struggle with a myopia associated with being at the upper echelons of an organization. They may lose sight of the important role of followers and individuals at lower levels in achieving organizational outcomes and overlook the bypassing effects of their leader behavior (Yang et al., 2010). The macro model also can be used by leaders to structure the strategic planning process, underscoring the need to effectively execute goal cascading and goal alignment throughout an organization. This in turn is expected to assist leaders in mapping the cohesive processes necessary to implement their visions and strategies for their organizations. Finally, the micro level model offers managers a structured process for implementing the process of performance management. Performance management is defined as a continuous process of identifying, measuring, and developing the performance of individuals and teams and aligning performance with the strategic goals of the organization (Aguinis, 2009, p. 2). The goal of the performance management process is to improve employee performance (DeNisi & Pritchard, 2006) and ultimately contribute to organizational performance (Cascio, 2006). The micro model outlines a sequence that managers can use to help individuals and groups maximize their performance. This model might serve as the foundation for training managers to improve their leadership effectiveness. There are some limitations of our leadership framework as it relates to generalizability, both within and outside of the United States. First, our models are most directly applicable to hierarchical organizations. In a world of high environmental complexity, flattening hierarchies are more relevant in todays work environment than ever. Therefore, it stands to reason that some components of our models (e.g., bypass channels) would be less necessary in flatter organizations. Additionally, leadership styles and research are not consistent across the globe. Our bias within the current examination lay within the context of the U.S. research paradigm. Although this may decrease the ability to generalize conceptualizations of leadership between countries, we feel that our initial framework provides a necessary starting point for multilevel leadership research. The systems model of leadership provides fodder for future research by highlighting the sequential nature of a leadership system based on cybernetics and integrating leadership effectiveness across LOA and LOM. Our model supports the testing of relationships that incorporate systems thinking into the leadership process. As a start, future research may question whether specific processes produce higher or lower performance within LOM and across LOA. It may explore if leadership across levels has additive or multiplicative effects on organizational effectiveness. In addition, it may determine if there is a significant relationship between organizational performance and effective

Practical Implications, Limitations, and Directions for Future Research

There are several practical implications related to our research. The first is that leaders may benefit from taking a

146 control stages. Finally, it may determine whether the absence/ presence/effectiveness of a certain control stage (e.g., the systems stage) is more important to the overall system than other control stages. Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 18(2)

Bluedorn, A. C., & Jaussi, K. S. (2008). Leaders, followers, and time. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 654-668. Boal, K. B., & Hooijberg, R. (2001). Strategic leadership research: Moving on. The Leadership Quarterly, 11, 515-549. Bommer, W. H., Johnson, J. L., Rich, G. A., Podsakoff, P. M., & Mackenzie, S. B. (1995). On the interchangeability of objective and subjective measures of employee performance: A metaanalysis. Personnel Psychology, 48, 587-606. Bozeman, D. P., & Kacmar, K. M. (1997). A cybernetic model of impression management processes in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69, 9-30. Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Halpin, S. M. (2006). What type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 288-307. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and self-regulation: A control theory approach to human behavior. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1982). Control theory: A useful conceptual framework for personality-social, clinical, and health psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 111-135. Cascio, W. F. (2006). Global performance management systems. In I. Bjorkman & G. Stahl (Eds.), Handbook of research in international human resources management (pp. 176-196). London, England: Edward Elgar. Cawley, B. D., Keeping, L. M., & Levy, P. E. (1998). Participation in the performance appraisal process and employee reactions: A meta-analytic review of field investigations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 615-633. Charan, R., & Colvin, G. (1999). Why CEOs fail. Fortune, 39, 69-78. Chen, G., Kirkman, B. L., Kanfer, R., Allen, D., & Rosen, B. (2007). A multilevel study of leadership, empowerment, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 331-346. Chun, J. U., Yammarino, F. J., Dionne, S. D., Sosik, J. J., & Moon, H. K. (2009). Leadership across hierarchical levels: Multiple levels of management and multiple levels of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 689-707. Colbert, A. E., Kristof-Brown, A. L., Bradley, B. H., & Barrick, M. R. (2008). CEO transformational leadership: The role of goal importance congruence in top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 81-96. Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Conger, J. A., & Riggio, R. (2007). The practice of leadership: Developing the next generation of leaders. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Crotts, J. C. (2005). Aligning organizational processes with mission: The case of service excellence. Academy of Management Executive, 19, 54-68. Dean, J. W., Jr., & Sharfman, M. P. (1996). Does decision process matter? A study of strategic decision-making effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 368-396.

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

References
Aguinis, H. (2009). Performance management (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Aguinis, H., & Pierce, C. A. (2008). Enhancing the relevance of organizational behavior by embracing performance management research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 139-145. Amsler, G. M., Findley, H. M., & Ingram, E. (2009). Performance monitoring: Guidance for the modern workplace. Supervision, 70, 12-18. Antonakis, J., & House, R. (2002). The full-range leadership theory: The way forward. In B. Avolio & F. Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead (pp. 3-34). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier/JAI Press. Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421-449. Avolio, B. J., & Yammarino, F. (Eds.). (2002). Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier/JAI Press. Ayman, R., Chemers, M. M., & Fiedler, F. (1995). The contingency model of leadership effectiveness: Its levels of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 147-167. Barge, J. K., & Fairhurst, G. T. (2008). Living leadership: A systemic constructionist approach. Leadership, 4, 227-251. Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free Press. Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdills handbook of leadership. New York, NY: Free Press. Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2008). Bass & Stogdills handbook of leadership (4th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press. Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 181-217. Bateman, T. S., ONeill, H., & Kenworthy-URen, A. (2002). A hierarchical taxonomy of top managers goals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 6, 1134-1148. Berson, Y., & Avolio, B. J. (2004). Transformational leadership and the dissemination of organizational goals: A case study of a telecommunication firm. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 625-646.

Kinicki et al.
de Luque, M. S., Washburn, N. T., Waldman, D. A., & House, R. J. (2008). Unrequited profit: How stakeholder and economic values relate to subordinates perceptions of leadership and firm performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53, 626-654. DeNisi, A. D., & Pritchard, R. D. (2006). Performance appraisal, performance management and improving individual performance: A motivational framework. Management and Organization Review, 2, 253-277. DeRue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Wellman, N., & Humphrey, S. E. (in press). Trait and behavioral theories of leadership: A metaanalytic test of their relative validity. Personnel Psychology. Donovan, J. J., & Radosevich, D. J. (1998). The moderating role of goal commitment on the goal difficultyperformance relationship: A meta-analytic review and critical reanalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 308-315. Dransfield, P. (1968). Engineering systems and automatic control. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Dumdum, U. K., Lowe, K. B., & Avolio, B. J. (2002). A meta-analysis of transformational and transactional leadership correlates of effectiveness and satisfaction: An update and extension. In B. J. Avolio & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead (pp. 35-66). Oxford, England: Elsevier Science. Elangovan, A. R., & Shapiro, D. L. (1998). Betrayal of trust in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 23, 547-566. Fayol, H. (1949). General and industrial management. London: Sir Isaac Pitman. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. Finkelstein, S. (2003). Why smart executives fail: And what you can learn from their mistakes. New York, NY: Penguin Books. Gibson, C. B., Cooper, C. D., & Conger, J. A. (2009). Do you see what we see? The complex effects of perceptual distance between leaders and teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 62-76. Green, S. G., & Welsh, M. A. (1988). Cybernetics and dependence: Reframing the control concept. Academy of Management Review, 13, 287-301. Guyton, A. C. (1976). Textbook of medical physiology. Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders. Hannah, S. T., Woolfolk, R. L., & Lord, R. G. (2009). Leader self-structure: A framework for positive leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 269-290. Herold, D. M., Fedor, D. B., Caldwell, S., & Liu, Y. (2008). The effects of transformational and change leadership on employees commitment to change: A multilevel study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 346-357. Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. (2005). What we know about leadership. Review of General Psychology, 9, 169-180. Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 184-200. Hollenbeck, J. (1989). Control theory and the perception of work environments: The effects of focus of attention on affective and behavioral reactions to work. Organizational Behavior Human Decision Processes, 43, 406-430.

147
Hollenbeck, J., & Klein, H. (1987). Goal commitment and the goal-setting processes: Problems, prospects, and proposals for future research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 212-220. House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Jones, G. R. (1983). Transaction costs, property rights, and organizational culture: An exchange perspective. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 454-467. Judge, T., & Piccolo, R. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755-768. Judge, T., Piccolo, R., & Ilies, R. (2004). The forgotten ones: The validity of consideration and initiating structure in leadership research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 36-51. Kantabutra, S. (2009). Toward a behavioral theory of vision in organizational settings. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 30, 319-337. Kinicki, A. J., Prussia, G., Wu, B., & McKee-Ryan, F. (2004). A covariance structure analysis of employees response to performance feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1057-1069. Klein, H. (1989). An integrated control theory model of work motivation. Academy of Management Review, 14, 150-172. Komaki, J. L., & Citera, M. (1990). Beyond effective supervision: Identifying key interactions between superior and subordinate. The Leadership Quarterly, 1, 91-105. Komaki, J. L., Desselles, M. L., & Bowman, E. D. (1989). Definitely not a breeze: Extending an operant model of effective supervision to teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 522-529. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. K. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 3-90). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Labovitz, G., & Rosansky V. (1997). The power of alignment: How great companies stay centered and accomplish extraordinary things. New York, NY: John Wiley. Larson, J. R., & Callahan, C. (1990). Performance monitoring: How it affects work productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 530-538. Latack, J., Kinicki, A., & Prussia, G. (1995). An integrative process model of coping with job loss. Academy of Management Review, 20, 311-342. Lichtenstein, B. B., & Plowman, D. A. (2009). The leadership of emergence: A complex systems leadership theory of emergence at successive organizational levels. The Leadership Quarterly, 4, 617-630. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Lord, R. G., & Hanges, P. J. (1987). A control system model of organizational motivation: Theoretical development and applied implications. Behavioral Science, 32, 161-178.

148
Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. The Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385-425. Mackenzie, K. D. (2006). The LAMPE theory of organizational leadership. In F. J. Yammarino & F. Dansereau (Eds.), Research in multi-level issues: Vol. 5. Multi-level issues in social systems (pp. 345-428). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier/JAI Press. Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. (1985). The romance of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 78-102. Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Moss, S. (2009). Cultivating the regulatory focus of followers to amplify their sensitivity to transformational leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15, 241-259. Northouse, P. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Offerman, L. R., & Scuderi, N. F. (2007). Sharing leadership: Who, what, when, and why. In B. Shamir, R. Pillai, M. C. Bligh, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), Follower-centered perspectives on leadership: A tribute to the memory of James R. Meindl (pp. 71-92). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Pfeffer, J. (1977). The ambiguity of leadership. Academy of Management Review, 2, 104-112. Pindyck, R. S. (1973). Optimal policies for economic stabilization, Econometrica, 41, 529-560. Powers, W. T. (1973). Behaviorism: Beyond feedback. Science, 179, 351-356. Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 617-635. Richmond, B. (1994). Systems thinking/system dynamics: Lets just get on with it. System Dynamics Review, 10, 135-157. Rudolph, J. W., & Repenning, N. P. (2002). Disaster dynamics: Understanding the role of quantity in organizational collapse. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 1-30. Sanchez, J. I., & De La Torre, P. (1996). A second look at the relationship between rating and behavioral accuracy in performance appraisal. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 3-10. Sandelands, L., Glynn, M. A., & Larson, J. R. (1991). Control theory and social behavior in the workplace. Human Relations, 44, 1107-1129. Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1988). A model of behavioral selfregulation: Translating intention into action. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 303-346). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Schriesheim, C., Castro, S., & Yammarino, F. (2000). Investigating contingencies: An examination of the impact of span of supervision and upward controllingness on leadermember exchange using traditional and multivariate within- and between-entities analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 659-677.

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 18(2)

Semler, S. W. (1997). Systemic agreement: A theory of organizational alignment. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 8, 23-40. Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday. Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4, 577-594. Shank, R., & Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and workrelated performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 240-261. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 273-285). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Tsui, A. S., & Ashford, S. J. (1994). Adaptive self-regulation: A process view of managerial effectiveness. Journal of Management, 20, 93-121. Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 654-676. Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theorey: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 298-318. Vancouver, J. B., & Day, D. V. (2005). Industrial and organizational research on self-regulation: From constructs to applications. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54, 155-185. Waldman, D., & Yammarino, F. (1999). CEO charismatic leadership: Levels-of-management and levels-of-analysis effects. Academy of Management Review, 24, 266-285. Whitford, T., & Moss, S. A. (2009). Transformational leadership in distributed work groups: The moderating role of follower regulatory focus and goal orientation. Communication Research, 36, 810-837. Witt, L. A. (1998). Enhancing organizational goal congruence: A solution to organizational politics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 666-674. Workman, M., & Bommer, W. (2004). Redisigning computer call center work: A longitudinal field experiment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 317-337. Yammarino, F. J., & Dansereau, F. (2008). Multi-level nature of and multi-level approaches to leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 135-141. Yammarino, F. J., & Dansereau, F. (2009). (Eds.). Multi-Level Issues in Organizational Behavior and Leadership (Vol. 8: Research in multi-level issues). Oxford, England: Emerald. 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, 879-919.

Kinicki et al.
Yang, J., Zhang, Z.-X., & Tsui, A. S. (2010). Middle managers leadership and frontline employee performance: Bypass, cascading and moderating effects. Journal of Management Studies, 47, 654-678. Yearout, S., & Miles, G. (2001). Growing leaders. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development. Yukl, G. (1989). Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. Journal of Management, 15, 251-289. Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 285-305. Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in organizations (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Yukl, G. (2008). How leaders influence organizational effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 708-722. Yukl, G., Gordon, A., & Taber, T. (2002). A hierarchical taxonomy of leadership behavior: Integrating a half century of behavior research. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9, 15-32.

149
from Kent State University. His research interests include leadership, organizational culture and climate, coping with job loss and organizational change, and generic multilevel issues. Kathryn J. L. Jacobson is an assistant professor of organizational behavior the Anderson School of Management at the University of New Mexico. She received her PhD from Arizona State University. Her research interests include leadership, diversity, organizational culture, counterproductive work behaviors and bullying. Benjamin M. Galvin is an assistant professor in the business program at the University of Washington Bothell. He received his PhD from the W. P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University. His research interests include leadership, identity, personality, and social networks. Gregory E. Prussia is Professor of Management at Seattle University where his research interests include leadership development, job loss phenomena, and teamwork. He teaches undergraduate and graduate Team building and Leadership classes, as well as Executive Leadership Development in the Center for Leadership Formation. His publications appear in a variety of journals and he serves on the Editorial Board for the Academy of Management Journal.

Bios
Angelo J. Kinicki is a professor of management and holds the Weatherup/Overby Chair in Leadership at the W.P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University. He received his DBA