Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, November 2013 3
LEADERSHIP RESEARCH: WHERE IRRELEVANCE PREVAILS
Jon Aarum Andersen
Linnaeus University, School of Business and Economics
S-351 95 Växjö, Sweden
jon.andersen@lnu.se
Abstract
Is contemporary managerial leadership research relevant and helpful to managers? Arguably, managers’ main task
and prime concern is to contribute to the attainment of organisational goals, i.e., to enhance organizational effec-
tiveness. On the basis of this premise of relevance, a survey of 105 research articles published in two international
journals year 2011 reveals that researchers did not address this question. In these articles the term ‘effectiveness’ oc-
curred about one time for every 1000 words. In the 105 articles effectiveness was seldom defined and never measured.
If managers‘ prime concern is to contribute to organizational effectiveness, then there is no surprise that several schol-
ars have found that managers regard leadership research irrelevant and useless.
Keywords: leadership research, effectiveness, publications, relevance
1. INTRODUCTION
In all formal organizations some individuals are
given the authority and responsibility for five basic
activities: planning, organizing, directing, co-ordina-
tion, and control (Fayol, 1949). These employees are
often referred to as managers, while the five activi-
ties are often described as management. The em-
ployees who do not have these responsibilities are
called subordinates. Management is the process un-
dertaken by one or more individuals to coordinate
the activities of others in order to achieve goals of
the organization. It is imperative to distinguish be-
tween the term leadership (managerial behaviour),
which is a function, and leader or manager, which
refers to a position in a group or organization. In for-
mal organizations the leaders are called managers
or executives. They execute the leadership function.
Leadership is part of the managerial process in
which the manager guides, supports, motivates the
subordinates so that they can fulfill their duties ac-
cording to the plan of the manager and goal of the
organisation. This article deals with managerial
leadership and leadership research.
Marturano, Wren, and Harvey (2013: 1) wrote:
‘We propose an understanding of leadership as an
asymmetrical (albeit interactive and mutual) influ-
ence process that serves to articulate, clarify, and
facilitate the accomplishment of a group's (organi-
zation's, community's, society's) objectives (includ-
ing, importantly, survival). Thought of in this way, it
becomes clear that leadership in some form or an-
other exists essentially any time humans come to-
gether to accomplish things. Such a definition
permits – indeed, invites – studies of the phenom-
ena of leadership that include not only a fixed focus
on ‘task accomplishment’ or ‘member satisfaction,’
but also the consideration of broader matters such
as the dynamics of context, the philosophical
‘meaning’ and moral implications of leadership and
its objectives, and the impact of leadership on peo-
ple, both in groups and considered as individuals.’
For theoretical development and empirical re-
search it is imperative to distinguish managerial
leadership from political leadership. Sayer (1992:
91) has written: ‘What does the existence of this ob-
ject (in its present form) presuppose? Can it exist on
its own as such? A key question could be: What can-
not be removed without making the object cease to
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, November 2013
Jon Aarum Andersen: Leadership Research: Where Irrelevance Prevails
4
exist in its present form?’ If the object is managerial
leadership, we may ask: What properties must exist
for leadership to exist and to be what it is? The ar-
gument here is that leader, subordinates, and tasks
are the properties that must exist for managerial
leadership to exist and to be what it is. A formal
leader (manager) is a person who is responsible
both for the subordinates and for the results.
Managers appear to find leadership research ir-
relevant (Astley & Zamuto, 1992; Brownlie et al.,
2008). Burack (1979) has noted that managers have
regarded leadership research as useless to anyone
in leadership positions and that much leadership re-
search is leaderless. Ghoshal (2005: 76) was even
more critical and argued that ‘academic research re-
lated to the conduct of business and management
has had some very significant and negative influ-
ences on the practice of management.’ Additionally,
House and Aditya (1997: 456) have concluded: ‘A
problem with the current study of leadership is that
it continues to focus excessively on superior-subor-
dinate relationships to the exclusion of several func-
tions that leaders perform and to the exclusion of
organisational and environmental variables that are
crucial to effective leadership performance.’
Alvesson and Sandberg (2013) challenge con-
temporary research as they find that most of it is not
influential or interesting. They further argue that
management researchers have lost sight of what is
the goal and ultimate purpose of management stud-
ies, namely to produce original knowledge that mat-
ters to organisations and society. What knowledge
matters to managers? What kind of scholarly work is
relevant and helpful to managers? Stewart (1989)
has noted that management studies have failed to
look specifically at the relationship between what
managers do and what they achieve.
In management and business administration
organisations are regarded as contrived entities es-
tablished as vehicles for the owners so that they can
achieve their goals. Goal attainment is therefore the
central issue and the basic definition of effective-
ness in management theory for private enterprises
as well as public agencies. Leadership effectiveness
and organisational effectiveness are therefore criti-
cal corollaries in management. The distinctions be-
tween effectiveness and what causes effectiveness
as well as the distinction between performance and
effectiveness are essential.
The firm – as one type of organisation – is per-
ceived clearly and undoubtedly as rationalistic in
business administration and management theory
(Douma & Schreuder, 2002). The firm is constituted
by one or more individuals who have the common
goal of generating dividends on the capital invested
in it. The very goal itself motivates its establishment.
Quite simply, the firm is an instrument, a means for
the owners. The goal is financial dividends. The major
difference between private companies and public
agencies is the motive behind the establishment of
these organisations. The private organisation is in op-
eration because some individuals (or other organisa-
tions) have decided to invest their funds into the
firm. The enterprise is in operation as long as the
owners wish it to continue and the market allows it.
In contrast, public organisations are in operation be-
cause political decisions have been made to establish
these agencies. They remain in operation until deci-
sions are made to cease their operations.
When organisations are established the owners
appoint some individuals to act on their behalf who
are charged with the sole task of attaining the goals
decided by the owners. For the manager the goal is
imperative, an order. Formal leaders (i.e., managers)
are hired to be executives. Their main task is to con-
tribute to the attainment of the goals. The goal of
the organisation is not an issue for the managers. It
is the reason why they hold executive positions.
Maghroori and Rolland (1997) wrote: ‘They [man-
agers] do not exist for their own sake. They are to
serve the organisation’s goal and mission and they
remain at all times subservient to it.’
It is crucial to stress that the determination of
purposes, goals, strategies and visions in formal or-
ganisations is the prerogative of the owners, who
decide these and direct their managers to achieve
and implement them. A managerial task is to make
the goals and strategies operational and known to
the subordinates.
The prime beneficiaries of the business enter-
prise are the owners (Blau & Scott, 1962). Only by
attaining their goals for the organisation can the
owners benefit. A central issue is if or to what de-
gree the organisation achieves its goal. Conse-
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, November 2013 5
quently, goal attainment becomes the core issue for
the owners, the managers and the other employ-
ees, as well as for researchers of organisations.
Based on this premise of relevance, the question ad-
dressed here is to what degree current leadership
researchers are engaged in solving problems related
to leadership and organisational effectiveness. Put
differently, in what ways do present-day leadership
researchers help business managers to enhance the
profitability of their companies?
2. LEADERSHIP
2.1 Definition of leadership
First of all, the phenomenon of leadership
needs to be defined. Here leadership is defined as
follows: ‘Processes of leadership are involved in
achieving results with and through others’ (Blake &
Mouton, 1985: 198). Tannenbaum et al. (1961: 24)
presented a quite similar definition: ‘interpersonal
influence, exercised in a situation, and directed,
through the communication process, toward the at-
tainment of a specified goal or goals.’ Their defini-
tion has been generally accepted and it embraces
the key concepts (Torrington & Chapman, 1983). Ad-
ditionally, Blake and Mouton (1985: 9) have stated
that ‘the process of achieving organisation purpose
through the efforts of people results in some people
attaining authority to set direction and coordinate
effort; that is, to exercise the responsibility for the
activities of others. The foundation for understand-
ing leadership is in recognizing that a boss’s actions
are dictated by assumptions regarding how to use
authority to achieve organisation purpose with and
through people.’
Leadership may be regarded as the set of be-
haviors that one or more individuals in a group or
organisation exhibit that involves systematic influ-
ences that seek to induce other people to perform
tasks or to solve problems in order to attain the
goals of the organisation.
2.2 What is relevant in leadership research?
Again, several researchers have argued that man-
agers appear to find leadership research irrelevant
and that managers regard leadership research as use-
less to managers. Additionally, research related to
business has had some very significant and negative
influences on the practice of management. Managers
perceived leadership research as useless and they ig-
nore it. What managers need to know is how to act
and behave in order to enhance organisational effec-
tiveness. Arguably, current leadership scholarship,
which does not deal with the question of organisa-
tional effectiveness, is irrelevant for those in mana-
gerial positions. As Jacques (1990: 5) has written: ‘The
managerial role has three critical features. First, and
most critical, every manager must be held account-
able not only for the work of the subordinates but
also for adding value to their work.’ The supreme task
of the formal leader (manager) is to contribute to or-
ganisational effectiveness. If leadership research nei-
ther directly nor indirectly addresses this issue, this
field of research will render itself irrelevant to man-
agers, the very group they are meant to assist.
The people, who constitute the majority of the
working population in the modern world, work in
order to achieve the goals of the shareholders or
owners of companies or the citizens of their society.
Those who are employed by business enterprises or
who work for public agencies do not necessarily share
the goals of their companies or agencies, though they
may support the goals of the group or organisation
more or less sincerely. In most cases the objects of
study are private enterprises and public agencies. The
key issue is leadership in organisations (Yukl, 2010),
and formal leadership is management. The formal
leader is the CEO, manager, chief officer, supervisor
or whatever other title used. When Blake and Mou-
ton (1985: 198) defined leadership they stressed the
following: ‘Whether it is called management, super-
vision, or administration, the underlying processes es-
tablish direction and permit coordination.’
There is a huge difference between the mean-
ing managers ascribe to leadership or construct
their leadership (Alvesson & Sveningsson, 2003) and
the way in which managers perceive and describe
the characteristics of their everyday leadership
(Holmberg & Tyrstrup, 2010) versus how they act
and behave in managerial positions. Managerial
leadership is not about whom you are, your ideas,
your sentiments, your perceptions or your assump-
tions. It is about acting and what you do and accom-
plish (Andersen, 2006).
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, November 2013
Jon Aarum Andersen: Leadership Research: Where Irrelevance Prevails
6
A large portion of leadership research ad-
dresses how leaders motivate, stimulate, encourage
and create enthusiasm, commitment and inspira-
tion amongst subordinates. However, these effects
on subordinates are irrelevant. What, on the other
hand, are relevant are the consequences of in-
spired, motivated and enthusiastic employees for
the way they perform the tasks necessary to achieve
organisational goals.
2.3 Defining and measuring effectiveness
Several literature reviews have concluded that
there is little consistency amongst researchers when
referring to the concept of organisational effective-
ness (Hoy et al., 1984). Their conclusion is that
achieving different goals would appear to be the
dominant aspects of organisational effectiveness
construct. The concept of effectiveness is a ratio
that implies two entities when defining and meas-
uring effectiveness (e.g., profitability).
It is imperative to distinguish between concepts
like effectiveness, efficiency and productivity which
are ratios (relation between two entities) on one
hand, and performance which is a one-entity con-
cept, on the other. Sales, profit, customer ratings,
stock prices are performance and one-unit vari-
ables. Organisational effectiveness, on the other
hand, is an end variable and a dependent variable.
Performance variables like profit, sales, customer
ratings, stock prices as well as efficiency and produc-
tivity are independent variables and thus factors
that may cause organisational effectiveness. In the
study of Richard et al. (2009) 49 per cent of the
studies, which they reviewed, measured organisa-
tional performance with a single indicator.
Strasser et al. (1981: 323) defined organisational
effectiveness as ‘the degree to which organisations
are attaining all the purposes they are supposed to.’
Both Richard et al. (2009) and Hamann et al. (2013)
have argued that organisational performance is a
fundamental construct in management. Previous re-
search suggested a framework for organisational per-
formance that included three dimensions of
accounting return, growth, and stock market per-
formance. Hamann et al. (ibid.) found, based on an
empirical study, the existence of four organisational
performance dimensions as the accounting return di-
mension became decomposed into profitability and
liquidity dimensions. Richard et al. (2009: 722) have
argued that organisational performance encom-
passes three specific areas: (a) financial performance
(profit, return of assets, return on investment, etc.);
(b) product market performance (sale, market share
etc.); and (c) shareholder return (total shareholder
return, economic value added, etc.). They further ar-
gued that organisational effectiveness is a broader
concept and captures organisational performance
plus the plethora of internal performance outcomes
like efficiency and external measures associated with
economic valuation.
Hamann et al. (2013), however, presented a
counter-argument as they stated that organisational
effectiveness encompasses organisational perform-
ance and other performance concepts. The argu-
ment advanced here is that it may be useful to
distinguish between concepts which are ratios and
those which are one-unit concepts. It is worthwhile
to note that Richard et al. (2009) put financial per-
formance measures like profit, which is a one-entity
concept, in the same category as return of assets,
return on investment, which are ratios. Additionally,
several of the concepts investigated by Hamann et
al. (2013) are in fact neither ratios nor dependent
variables, but rather variables which may enhance
organisational effectiveness.
The lack of comparative evaluation research on
organisational effectiveness models was addressed
by Strasser et al. (1981). They have focused on the
problems in conceptually and operationally defining
evaluation models in reference to the two schools
of thought on organisational effectiveness, being
the goal and system models. A theme common to
all goal models is the strong emphasis on the organ-
isation which attains some predetermined objec-
tive, purpose, mission or goal. This view implies that
organisations are goal-seeking entities which should
therefore be evaluated by measuring the degree of
goal attainment. The criteria underlying goal models
are always goals or objectives implying that when
goals are attained, the organisation is effective. The
goal model assumes that goal attainment is a func-
tion of a sequence of activities. Consequently, a goal
evaluation cannot be undertaken until organisa-
tional activities have had an opportunity to have
their effects (ibid.).
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, November 2013 7
The competing values framework developed by
Quinn (1988) integrates a variety of organisational
effectiveness criteria into four models. Only the ‘ra-
tional firm model’ is consistent with business ad-
ministration and management theory as the model
is characterized by direction, goal clarity, productiv-
ity, accomplishment, rational analysis and action
taking. In other words, effectiveness is defined as
goal attainment. Strasser et al. (1981) did ask:
‘Which model offers the evaluated organisation’
managers the most useful feedback?’ The argument
brought forward here is the goal model.
Arguably, the ultimate goal of a company is
profitability (i.e., return on assets) (Shetty, 1979;
Nash, 1983; Walton & Dawson, 2001). Profitability
can be seen as the major criterion of effectiveness
for private enterprises. Profitability, moreover, is the
most conventional measure of current business per-
formance (Hambrick, 1983). According to Hiller et
al. (2011) leadership is a driving force to accomplish
goals. Strasser et al. (1981) have argued that all
managers in one way or another either implicitly or
explicitly evaluate their organisation’s performance
periodically or even continuously.
In contemporary literature, organisational effec-
tiveness is measured in two different ways: the sub-
jective perception of others and objective measures.
Lowe et al. (1996) have asked what might serve as
valid and accurate measures of organisational effec-
tiveness. They have suggested a dichotomy, with one
group being studies that use the effectiveness crite-
rion labeled ‘subordinate perceptions of leader effec-
tiveness,’ and the other, objective measures (e.g.,
profitability or per cent of goals met), which they la-
beled ‘organisational measures of leader effective-
ness.’ A large number of studies on transformational
leadership and effectiveness is based on the subor-
dinates’ perception of the leaders’ effectiveness (e.g.,
Dalakoura, 2010; Harms et al., 2012). Cammock et al.
(1975) have acknowledged the errors such as halo,
leniency and bias of subjective measures. Conse-
quently, successive reviews have deplored the lack of
attention to effectiveness in the broader manage-
ment literature (ibid.).
In business administration profitability, which
is an objective measure, is the major criterion of ef-
fectiveness for private enterprises. There are, how-
ever, few studies of outcomes of leadership related
to objective measures of effectiveness. It is not sur-
prising, therefore, that there have been calls for
more objective measures of effectiveness (Cam-
mock et al., 1975). Andersen (1994) has related
leadership behavior and situational variables to the
degree of financial goal-attainment. In addition,
Henderson et al. (2006) have assessed firm perform-
ance as a ratio by three measures of profitability: (1)
return of sales, (2) return on assets and (3) return
on invested capital. Peterson et al. (2009) have also
measured firms’ effectiveness in terms of the per-
centage of net-income goals met per year.
Several studies have focused on the measure-
ment of leader effectiveness, which appear to be
defined and measured in many different ways.
Rosch et al. (2013) measured leadership effective-
ness by subjective ratings. Kulas (2013) also used
the term leadership effectiveness, which was also
measured subjectively. Dalakoura (2010) studied
the effects of leadership development on subjective
measurements of firm performance. Performance,
leadership effectiveness and organisational effec-
tiveness are, however, not the same constructs.
2.4 Leadership and organisational effectiveness
Leadership is seen as an essential element in
achieving organisational effectiveness. Collins
(2001: 44) wrote: ‘Most organisations recognize that
effective leadership is one of the most powerful
competitive advantages an organisation can pos-
sess.’ But, is this really the case? Three different ap-
proaches have been pursued for testing the
relationship between leadership and organisational
effectiveness (Andersen, 2000): (1) the leader-suc-
cession studies, (2) the leader-contribution studies
and (3) the instrumental theories.
The leader-succession approach
Leader-succession studies have shown that
managerial change has little impact on team per-
formance. In general, these studies support a skep-
tical view of the significance of organisational
leaders (Thomas, 1993). Hogan et al. (1994: 494)
claim that ‘some coaches can move from team to
team transforming losers into winners is, for most
people, evidence that leadership matters’. This
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, November 2013
Jon Aarum Andersen: Leadership Research: Where Irrelevance Prevails
8
statement is not concurrent with the scientific evi-
dence. A review article of the literature on the
 impact of managerial successions on team perform-
ance in professional sports assessed ten studies on
the effect of managerial succession (Andersen,
2011). They cover 80 years (1920-2000), with data
from four different sports and two countries. The
critical finding is that whichever manager is replaced
or for whatever reason, the performance of the
team will most likely not improve for that reason
alone. In short, a new manager does not make a
better team. There is very little evidence that
changes in top management in companies affect, in
important ways, the magnitude of such traditional
performance measures as sales, income and rates
of return (Samuelson et al., 1985).
The leader-contribution approach
Studies of how much of an impact leaders have
in comparison with other factors – leader contribu-
tion studies – can also throw light on this controversy.
Thomas (1993) has pointed out that such studies in-
dicate that each of the performance measures was
very heavily influenced by environmental conditions
and was very little influenced by leadership. Jaffee
(2001) has suggested that organisational effective-
ness is more likely to be influenced by organisational
structure and environmental characteristics.
The instrumental approach
It is first and foremost the instrumental theories
(i.e., theories on leadership behavior and its conse-
quences) that may give us answers to the question
of whether or not leadership causes organisational
effectiveness. One group of theories holds that cer-
tain forms of leadership are the direct cause of or-
ganisational effectiveness (i.e., universal theories).
The other group of theories includes an intermediate
variable between leadership and effectiveness (i.e.,
contingency theories). What insight do the instru-
mental theories give us?
From the perspective of universal theories,
Blake and Mouton (1964) claimed more than 40
years ago that there is one best leadership style (‘9,
9 team management’). Fiedler (1967) is the prime
advocate for the contingency theory, claiming that
leadership behavior must be adjusted to the situa-
tion in order to generate organisational effective-
ness. Decades of research based on this theory
shows its shortcomings. The contingency theories
have been unable to pinpoint the successful combi-
nations of leader behavior and leadership situation.
Jaffee (2001: 86) states that ‘a big question remains:
Is there any evidence for a systematic relationship
between leadership style and organisational per-
formance?’ The claim made by Hogan et al. (1994:
493) that ‘there is a causal and definitional link be-
tween leadership and team performance’ is contra-
dicted by Yukl (2010). He concludes that ‘several
thousand empirical studies have been conducted on
leadership effectiveness, but many of the results are
inconsistent and inconclusive’ (ibid.: 476).
Additionally, we may argue that the relation-
ship between leadership and effectiveness is not
empirically supported. As Thomas (1993: 133)
wrote: ‘For in the absence of compelling evidence
on the significance of leadership we are forced back
to a considerable degree on our convictions and be-
liefs, and a belief in the potency of leaders is per-
haps one of the most deeply rooted of human
assumptions.’ Khurana (2002) reminds us that we
lack any conclusive evidence that links leadership to
organisational performance. Studies have shown
that various internal and external constraints inhibit
an executive’s ability to affect a company’s perform-
ance. The best anyone can say about the effect of a
CEO on a company’s performance is that it depends
greatly on circumstances (ibid.).
3. PREVIOUS REVIEWS
Five previous studies form the basis for the
present one even though they have had somewhat
different objectives from the present study. The pre-
vious studies report on the occurrence of organisa-
tional performance in management research. Even
though organisational performance is a different
concept from organisational effectiveness, it is
worthwhile to note that performance occurred in
28 per cent of the abstracts of 439 empirical articles
in three journals (1993-1995) reviewed by March
and Sutton (1997). In 20 per cent of the articles per-
formances was regarded as a dependent variable.
Collins (2001) assessed 54 studies of leadership de-
velopment research (1984-2000) in order to deter-
mine the extent to which the intended outcomes
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, November 2013 9
focused on organisational performance. Outcomes
of leadership development programs were reviewed
in terms of organisational performance, which was
defined as ‘a measure of effectiveness or efficiency.’
Three studies (19 per cent) addressed financial-level
performance as the outcome variable (ibid.).
Richard et al. (2009) reviewed 722 articles in five
journals (2005-2007) and found that 23 per cent of
the articles included organisational performance as
a dependent variable. The variable ‘financial mar-
ket’ was dealt with in 17 per cent of the articles.
Carey et al. (2011) performed a literature review
(1996-2010) of 1,414 research titles on coaching
models and leadership development. Coaching and
leadership development are initiatives to enhance
organisational change and effectiveness (ibid.).
The 25-year review (1985-2009) of outcomes of
leadership by Hiller et al. (2011) contained a review
of 1,161 articles from 11 journals. The most com-
monly studied outcomes were attitudes, cognitive
perceptions and tangible outcomes, such as sales,
customer ratings, stock prices or productivity. In this
review profitability was categorized as tangible out-
comes. The tangible criterion category contains ‘re-
turn on sales, return on assets, and return on
invested capital.’ Leadership-effectiveness metrics
counted for seven per cent of the criterion domain
across the 25-year period (ibid). The review pre-
sented here is founded on these outcomes and in-
vestigates in detail to what extent contemporary
research addresses the relationship between lead-
ership and organisational effectiveness.
4. THE STUDY
What do we find when summing up previous re-
search? March and Sutton (1997) reported that 20
per cent of the 439 empirical articles dealt with per-
formance while Collins (2001) reported that organi-
sational performance appeared in 19 per cent in 54
studies. Additionally, Richard et al. (2009) found that
organisational performance appeared in 17 per cent
in 722 articles. Hiller et al. (2011) reported the occur-
rence of leadership effectiveness in 7 per cent of
1,161 articles. None of these studies have investi-
gated the occurrence of organisational effectiveness
in particular nor have they reported whether or not
the term has been defined or measured.
In the review study by Hiller et al. (2011) prof-
itability was categorized as tangible outcomes. Their
survey does not specify the number of studies
which have applied return on assets and return on
invested capital (profitability) as the criterion vari-
ables. As profitability is the major definition of or-
ganisational effectiveness for business enterprises,
the aim of this present study is to assess to what ex-
tent contemporary leadership studies have investi-
gated organisational effectiveness.
Consequently, in order to assess whether or not
leadership research is relevant and useful, organisa-
tional effectiveness defined as the degree of goal-
attainment is the sole criterion. So, leadership
research on organisational effectiveness may give
the answer to the question of whether or not lead-
ership researchers are failing managers.
The purpose of the present study is to narrow
down these studies, that is, from a search for broad
concepts, to the occurrence of the specific concept
of organisational effectiveness in leadership studies.
In the present study articles, which include the term
effectiveness in the abstract and or in the running
text, have been scrutinised in order to assess
whether the term has been defined and effective-
ness measured or not.
This survey of contemporary leadership re-
search contains all 105 research articles published
in two international peer-reviewed leadership jour-
nals (one US-based and the other UK-based) during
the year 2011. It is a relative small sample in regard
to the number of peer-review journals on leader-
ship, organisation and management. However, the
aim has been to perform a search for studies of
leadership related specifically to organisational ef-
fectiveness in order to determine the relevance of
contemporary scholarship.
The method applied is the same as used by
Collins (2001), Hiller et al. (2011) and Carey et al.
(2011). In the computer search, all 105 articles have
been scrutinized in order to find (1) the frequency of
the term ‘effectiveness’ amongst the key words, (1)
the frequency of the same term in the full article, (3)
whether the term ‘effectiveness’ is defined or not,
and finally (4) whether effectiveness has been de-
fined and measured likewise. The words ‘effective-
ness,’ ‘effective’ and ‘effectively’ have been searched
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, November 2013
Jon Aarum Andersen: Leadership Research: Where Irrelevance Prevails
10
for. Terms like ‘outcome’ and ‘performance’ are
found, but not recorded because they are one-entity
concepts while effectiveness is defined as a ratio. Ar-
ticles that contain the term ‘leadership effectiveness’
have also been recorded in the tables even if leader-
ship effectiveness and organisational effectiveness
are not necessarily the same. The term ‘effective-
ness’ found in the list of references is not counted.
Independently of each other, two persons did the fre-
quency scorings of the terms in the articles.
5. FINDINGS
Eighty-one articles were published in The Lead-
ership Quarterly (ISSN 1048-9843). The word ‘effec-
tiveness’ was found in the abstract of seven articles
(nine per cent) and mentioned 748 times in the arti-
cles’ running text. The average article contained
some 7000 words. The term ‘effectiveness’ counts for
about .001 per cent of the words in these articles. Ef-
fectiveness, however, was defined as leadership ef-
fectiveness, as perceived leadership effectiveness, as
team effectiveness or undefined. The term appeared
in 11 of the articles (14 per cent). No articles and
none of the 240 authors of 81 articles defined and
measured organisational effectiveness.
Of the 24 articles published in journal Leader-
ship (ISSN 1742-7150) year 2011, three articles had
the word effectiveness in the abstract (13 per cent)
while 17 articles were found with the term ‘effective-
ness’ either undefined or as ‘leadership effective-
ness’ or ‘team effectiveness’ in the text. One article
included the term ‘organisational effectiveness,’ but
the concept was not defined. None of articles de-
fined and measured the term. Additionally, none of
the 42 authors who wrote these 24 articles were con-
cerned with leadership related to organisational ef-
fectiveness. The results of the survey are shown in
tables 1 and 2, and appendices A-1, A-2 and A-3.
In
abstract
In text Defined
Mea -
sured
Articles 2011 – issue 1
Sharma & Grant 0 1 0 0
Acevedo 0 0 0 0
Koivunen & Wennes 0 0 0 0
Bryman 0 0 0 0
Grint & Holt 0 2 0 0
Articles 2011 – issue 2
Mabey & Morrell 0 2* 0 0
Iszatt-White 0 2 0 0
Probert & Turnbull James 0 1* 0 0
Kerr & Robinson 0 0 0 0
Brookes 0 2* 0 0
Raelin 0 2* 0 0
Articles 2011 – issue 3
Al-Ani, Horspool & Bligh 0 2** 0 0
Lian, Brown, Tanzer & Che 1 1 0 0
Brown & Fields 1 1* 0 0
Franke & Felfe 1 1 0 0
Kempster, Jackson & Conroy 0 0 0 0
Pinnington 0 5* 0 0
Tourish 0 0 0 0
Articles 2011 – issue 4
Sveiby 0 2** 0 0
Clarke 0 1 0 0
Smollan & Parry 0 10* 0 0
Ford & Harding 0 0 0 0
Crossman & Crossman 0 3*** 0 0
Winkler 0 1* 0 0
Total 3 17 0 0
Articles
year 2011
No. of
articles
No. of
authors
In
abstract
In text Defined
Mea -
sured
Issue 1 15 48 1 132 2 2
Issue 2 15 42 1 103 4 4
Issue 3 10 38 1 131 1 1
Issue 4 15 42 2 223 2 2
Issue 5 18 48 0 98 2 2
Issue 6 8 22 2 97 0 0
All articles 81 240 7 784 11 11
Table 1: Summary of articles in journal
‘The Leadership Quarterly’
Table 2: Journal ‘Leadership’. Frequency of the
term effectiveness: (1) in abstract, (2) in text,
(3) defined, (4) measured
Legend
**       team effectiveness
*         leadership effectiveness
***    organizational effectiveness
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, November 2013 11
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The reviews of outcomes studied (March & Sut-
ton, 1997; Collins, 2001; Richard et al., 2009; Hiller
et al., 2011) show that management and leadership
research only marginally address the question of
how leadership impacts organisational outcomes.
The present study on the specific relationship be-
tween leadership and effectiveness reveals that a
total of 282 researchers who published 105 articles
did not address the impact of leadership on organi-
zational effectiveness.
More than 45 years ago Fiedler (1967: 11) wrote
that a ‘major theoretical question in the field con-
cerns the prediction of leadership effectiveness.’ Ev-
idently, contemporary researchers do not agree and
have renounced the central goal of this field. Hiller
et al. (2011: 1171) have recently stated that future
research would improve ‘if leadership was related to
more “ultimate” tangible outcomes of performance
and effectiveness.’ Additionally, they noted that ulti-
mately, the effects of leaders and leadership are pre-
sumed to result in effectiveness and performance
outcomes (ibid.). More than ten years ago, Collins
(2001) noted that performance improvement at the
organisational level is typically inferred, implied and
assumed as an outcome of leadership. May be the
time has come to leave inferences, implications and
assumptions behind, and focus on the relationship
between leadership behaviour and organisational ef-
fectiveness where effectiveness is defined as (1) the
degree of goal attainment and (2) the goal is prof-
itability and (3) the measurement of profitability is
an objective one.
Managerial leadership research would be rele-
vant if researchers were more explicit on which
problem they address and who has the problem. In
other words, the relevance for managers must be
made explicit. What managers need to know is how
to act and behave in order to enhance organisa-
tional effectiveness. In order to achieve this, the re-
lationship between leadership behaviour and
organizational effectiveness must be focused. Con-
sequently, it is imperative that more research based
on objective measurements of organisational effec-
tiveness is produced. In that way and maybe only in
that way, can managerial leadership research once
again become relevant and useful to managers.
REFERENCES
Alvesson, M., & Sveningsson, S. (2003). The great disap-
pearing act: difficulties in doing ‘leadership.’ The
Leadership Quarterly, 14, 359-381.
Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2013). Has management
studies lost its way? Ideas for more imaginative and
innovative research. Journal of Management Studies,
50, 128-152.
Andersen, J. A. (1994). Ledelse og effektivitet. Teori og
prøving [Leadership and effectiveness: Theory and
testing]. Lund Studies in Economics and Management
23. The Institute of Economic Research. (Summary in
English). Dissertation. Lund: Lund University Press.
Andersen, J. A. (2000). Leadership and Leadership Re-
search. In D. F. Dahiya (Ed.), Current Issues in Business
Disciplines. Vol. (pp. 2267-2287). New Delhi: Spell-
bound Publications.
Andersen, J. A. (2006). Leadership, personality and effec-
tiveness. The Journal of Socio- Economics, 35, 1078-
1091.
Andersen, J. A. (2011). A new sports manager does not
make a better team. International Journal of Sports
Science & Coaching, 6, 167-178.
Astley, W. G., & Zamuto, R. F. (1992). Organization sci-
ence, managers, and language games. Organization
Science, 3, 443-460.
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid.
Houston: Gulf Publishing.
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1985). The managerial grid
III. Houston: Gulf Publishing.
Blau, P. M., & Scott, W. R. (1962). Formal organizations.
San Francisco, CA: Chandler.
Brownlie, D., Hewer, P., Wagner, B., & Svensson, G.
(2008). Management theory and practice: Bridging
the gap through multidisciplinary lenses. European
Business Review, 20, 461-470.
Burack, E. (1979). Leadership findings and applications:
the viewpoints of four from the real world - David
Campbell, Joseph L. Moses, Paul J. Patinka & Blan-
chard B. Smith. In J. Hunt, & L. Larsson (Eds.), Cross-
currents in leadership (pp. 25-46). Carbondale, IL:
Southern Illinois University Press.
Cammock, P., Nilakant, V., & Dakin, S. (1995). Developing
a lay model of managerial effectiveness: A social con-
structionist perspective. Journal of Management
Studies, 32, 443-474.
Carey, W., Philippon, D. J., & Cummings, G. G. (2011).
Coaching models for leadership development: An in-
tegrative review. Journal of Leadership Studies, 5, 51-
69. 
Collins, D. B. (2001). Organizational performance: The fu-
ture focus of leadership development programs. The
Journal of Leadership Studies, 7, 43-54.
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, November 2013
Jon Aarum Andersen: Leadership Research: Where Irrelevance Prevails
12
Dalakoura, A. (2010). Examining the effects of leadership
development on firm performance. Journal of Lead-
ership Studies, 4, 59-70.
Douma, S., & Schreuder, H. (2002). Economic approaches
to organizations. Harrow: Prentice Hall.
Fayol, H. (1949). General and industrial management.
London: Pitman Publishing.
Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are de-
stroying good management practices. Academy of
Management Learning & Education, 4, 75-91.
Hamann, P. M., Schiemann, F., Bellora, L., & Guenther, T.
W. (2013). Exploring the dimensions of organizational
performance: A construct validity study. Organiza-
tional Research Methods, 16, 67-87.
Hambrick, D. C. (1983). Some tests of the effectiveness
and functional attributes of Miles and Snow’s strate-
gic types. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 5-26.
Harms, P. D., Han, G., & Chen, H. (2012). Recognizing
leadership at a distance: A study of leader effective-
ness across cultures. Journal of Leadership & Organi-
zational Studies, 19, 164-172.
Henderson, A. D., Miller, D., & Hambrick, D. C. (2006).
How quick do CEOs become obsolete? Industry dy-
namism, CEO tenure, and company performance.
Strategic Management Journal, 27, 447-460.
Hiller, N. J., DeChurch, L. A., Murase, T., & Doty, D. (2011).
Searching for outcomes of leadership: A 25-year re-
view. Journal of Management, 37, 1137-1177.
Hogan, R., Curphy G. J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we
know about leadership. Effectiveness and personality.
American Psychologist, 49, 439-504.
Holmberg, I., &Tyrstrup, M. (2010). Well then – What
now? An everyday approach to managerial leader-
ship. Leadership, 6, 353-372.
House, R. J., & Aditya, R. M. (1997). The social scientific
study of leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of Manage-
ment, 23, 409-473.
Hoy, F., Van Fleet, D. D., & Yetley, M. J. (1984). Compara-
tive organizational effectiveness research leading to
an intervention strategy. Journal of Management
Studies, 21, 443- 462.
Jaffee, D. (2001). Organization Theory. Tension and
Change. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Jaques, E. (1990). In Praise of Hierarchy. Harvard Business
Review, 68, 127-133.
Khurana, R. (2002). The curse of the superstar CEO. Har-
vard Business Review, 80, 60-67.
Kulas, J. T. (2013). Constructive leader behaviours, likeli-
hood of derailment, and the cuboid personality
framework: A replication and extension of Gough
(1990). Journal of Leadership Studies, 6, 6-24.
Lowe, K. B., Kroek, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996).
Effectiveness correlates of transformational and trans-
actional leadership: a meta-analytic review of the MLQ
literature. The Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385-425.
Maghroori, R., & Rolland, E. (1997). Strategic leadership:
The art of balancing organizational mission with pol-
icy, procedures, and external environment. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 4, 62-81.
March, J. G., & Sutton, R. I. (1997). Organizational per-
formance as a dependent variable. Organization Sci-
ence, 8, 698-706.
Marturano, A., Wren, T., & Harvey, M. (2013). Editorial.
The making of Leadership and the Humanities. Lead-
ership and the Humanities, 1, 1-5.
Nash, M. (1983). Managing Organizational Performance.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Peterson, S. J., Walumbwa, F. O., Byron, K., & Myrowitz,
J. (2009). CEO positive psychological traits, transfor-
mational leadership, and firm performance in high-
technology start-up and established firms. Journal of
Management, 35, 348-368.
Quinn, R. E. (1988). Beyond rational management: Mas-
tering the paradoxes and competing demands of high
performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Richard, P. J., Devinney, T. M., Yip, G. S., & Johnson, G.
(2009). Measuring organizational performance: To-
wards methodological best practice. Journal of Man-
agement, 35, 718- 804.
Rosch, D. M., Anderson, J. C., & Jordan, S. N. (2013). An-
alyzing the effectiveness of multisource feedback as
a leadership development tool for college students.
Journal of Leadership Studies, 6, 33-46.
Samuelson, B. A., Galbraith, C. S., & McGuire, J. W. (1985).
Organizational performance and top-manager
turnover.’ Organizational Studies, 6, 275-291.
Sayer, A. (1992). Method in social science: A realist ap-
proach. London: Routledge.
Shetty, Y. K. (1979). New look at corporate goals. Califor-
nia Management Review, 16, 71-79.
Stewart, R. (1989). Studies of managerial jobs and behav-
iour: the ways forward. Journal of Management Stud-
ies, 26, 1-10.
Strasser, S., Eveland, J. D., Cummins, G., Deniston, O. L.,
& Romani, J. H. (1981). Conceptualizing the goal and
system models of organizational effectiveness – Im-
plications for comparative evaluation research. Jour-
nal of Management Studies, 18, 321-340.
Tannenbaum, R., Weschler, I. R., & Massarik, F. (1961).
Leadership and organization. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Thomas, A. B. (1993). Controversies in management. Lon-
don: Routledge.
Torrington, D., & Chapman, J. (1983). Personnel Manage-
ment. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, November 2013 13
Walton, E. J., & Dawson, S. (2001). Managers’ perception
of criteria of organizational effectiveness. Journal of
Management Studies, 38, 173–199.
Yukl, G. A. (2010). Leadership in organizations. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
In
abstract
In text Defined
Mea -
sured
Articles 2011– Issue 1
Vinkenburg, van Engen,
Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt
0 7 0 0
Clark & Greatbatch 0 7 0 9
Reichard & Johnson 0 3 0 0
Zacher, Rosing & Frese 0 0 0 0
Kalshoven,
Den Hartog & De Hoogh
1 71 1 1*
Hunter, Cushenbery,
Thoroughgood,
Johnson & Scott Ligon
0 0 0 0
Wang, Tsui & Xin 0 8 1 1**
Kempster & Parry 0 9 0 0
Tims, Bakker & Xanthopoulou 0 0 0 0
Faris & Parry 0 0 0 0
DeChurch, Shawn Burke,
Shuffler, Lyons, Doty & Salas
0 13 0 0
Subašić, Reynolds, Turner,
Veenstra & Haslam
0 3* 0 0
Wallis, Yammarino & Feyerherm 0 6* 0 0
Lord & Shondrick 0 0 0 0
Park, Arvey &Tong 0 4* 0 0
Articles year 2011 - Issue 2
Hunter, Tate,
Dzieweczynski & Bedell-Avers
0 0 0 0
Fry, Hannah, Noel & Walumbwa 0 5 1* 1
Harris, Wheeler & Kacmar 0 0 0 0
Avey, Avolio & Luthans 0 1** 0 0
Zúquete 0 1 0 0
Shamir 0 2 0 0
Clarke 0 5** 0 0
Sydow, Lerch,
Huxham & Hibbert
0 0 0 0
Nielsen & Cleal 0 0 0 0
Nahum-Shani & Somech 0 6 0 0
van Quaquebeke,
van Knippenberg & Brodbeck
1 44* 0 1
Cole, Bedeian & Bruch 0 10 0 0
Carmeli, Schaubroeck & Tishler 0 9 1* 1
Taylor, Cocklin,
Brown & Wilson-Evered
0 15 0 0
Sosik, Juzbasich & Uk Chun 0 5 5** 1
Total
APPENDIX
Appendix A-1: Journal ‘The Leadership Quarterly’.
Frequency of the term effectiveness: (1) in
abstract, (2) in text, (3) defined, (4) measured.
In
abstract
In text Defined
Mea -
sured
Articles year - Issue 3
Riggio & Mumford 0 2* 0 0
Murphy & Johnson 0 14* 0 0
Reichard, Riggio,
Wright Guerin, Oliver,
Gottfried & Eskeles Gottfried
0 9* 0 0
Wright Guerin, Oliver,
Gottfried, Eskeles Gottfried,
Reichard & Riggio
0 4 0 0
Harms, Spain & Hannah 0 15* 0 0
Eskeles Gottfried, Gottfried,
Reichard, Wright Guerin,
Oliver & Riggio
0 0 0 0
Li, Arvey & Song 0 10* 0 0
Oliver, Gottfried, Guerin, Eskeles
Gottfried, Reichard & Riggio
0 0 0 0
Day & Sin 1 63* 1* 1*
Day 0 14* 0 0
Articles year -Issue 4
Shaw, Erickson & Harvey 0 1 0 0
Hur, van den Berg & Wilderom 0 77* 1 1
Valcea, Hamdani,
Buckley & Novicevic
0 8 0 0
Yang 1 2 0 0
Hadley Pittinsky, Sommer & Zhu 0 3** 0 0
Shipman & Mumford 0 15** 0 0
Kotlyar, Karakowsky & Ng 0 2 0 0
DeGroot, Aime,
Johnson & Kluemper 
0 95** 0 0
Rule & Ambady 0 1 0 0
Garzia 0 1 0 0
Vessey, Barrett & Mumford 0 12*** 1 1
Barrett, Vessey, & Mumford 0 4 0 0
Martinko, Harvey,
Sikora & Douglas
0 1*** 00
Palanski & Yammarino 1 2** 0 0
Gao, Janssen & Shi 0 0 0 0
Total
Appendix A-2: Journal ‘The Leadership Quarterly’.
Frequency of the term effectiveness: (1) in
abstract, (2) in text, (3) defined, (4) measured.
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, November 2013
Jon Aarum Andersen: Leadership Research: Where Irrelevance Prevails
14
In
abstract
In text Defined
Mea -
sured
Articles year - Issue 5
Zhu, Avolio, Riggio & Sosik 0 0 0 0
Sadri, Weber & Gentry 0 10* 1 1
Riad 0 0 0 0
Zhang, Tsui & Wang 0 3 0 0
Chua & Iyengar 1 66** 1 1
Schriesheim, Wu & Cooper 0 0 0 0
Menges, Walter, Vogel & Bruch 0 4 0 0
Nevicka, De Hoogh, Van Vianen,
Beersma & McIlwain 
0 1 0 0
Musteen, Liang & Barker III 0 1 0 0
Stenmark & Mumford 0 1 0 0
Rosing, Frese & Bausch 0 10* 0 0
Wright & Quick 0 0 0 0
Hannah & Avolio 0 0 0 0 
Quick & Wright 0 0 0 0
Hannah & Avolio 0 0 0 0
Akrivou & Bradbury-Huang 0 1* 0 0
Harris, Harvey & Kacmar 0 1 0 0
Kramer & Crespy 0 0 0 0
Articles 2011 - Issue 6
Yammarino & Dansereau 0 0 0 0
Bligh, Kohles, & Pillai 0 6 0 0
van Knippenberg 2 50 0 0
Waldman,
Balthazard & Peterson
0 5 0 0
Rajah, Song, & Arvey 2 16 0 0
Gardner, Cogliser,
Davis & Dickens
0 3 0 0
Neider & Schriesheim, 0 0 0 0
Hernandez, Eberly,
Avolio & Johnson
0 23 0 0
Total
Appendix A-3: Journal ‘The Leadership Quarterly’.
Frequency of the term effectiveness: (1) in
abstract, (2) in text, (3) defined, (4) measured.
Legend
**       team effectiveness
*         leadership effectiveness
***    organizational effectiveness