The purpose of this inquiry is to inform the future framework of a comprehensive, universally accepted leadership theory in Human Resource Development.

Research Question 1: Which theories are being discussed in current publications?

Research Question 2: How are current publications defining leadership theory?

Research Question 3: What patterns or commonalities emerge from current publications’ definition of leadership theory?

There are several limitations and assumptions to this study. First, literature reviews and conceptual frameworks are used to determine the perception of leadership theory. Perceptions are not inherently equivalent to practice. This research does not assume to explain or measure the practice of leadership theory in industry or precisely define any specific existing leadership theory. Another limitation arises from the recency of the analyzed articles. Selecting articles posted after January 2020 ensures the results are current and relevant but creates other issues. Namely, the articles gleaned from the search provide a relatively small sample and results are vulnerable to history effects [6] .

This study assumes a comprehensive and universally accepted leadership theory in HRD is possible and beneficial to practice. Finally, this inquiry assumes that the perceptions collected in the study adequately represent the target population.

A descriptive, integrated literature review was conducted [9] [17] . ProQuest, Academic Search Complete, and The Professional Development Collection databases were searched. The search was limited to scholarly, peer-reviewed journals with full-text online access through the Indiana State University library. Articles published after January 1, 2020, were considered.

The selected ProQuest search required the exact term “leadership” in the title and the exact phrase “Human Resource Development” in the document. Sixteen results populated. After reviewing the abstracts, four articles not relating to leadership in industry (e.g. sport, marriage, education) were eliminated and five articles irrelevant to leadership theory and Human Resource Development were eliminated.

The Academic Search Complete Database search followed the same parameters and netted only three articles. Consequently, the search was expanded to include the exact phrase “human resource” rather than “Human Resource Development.” Fifteen articles populated. The abstracts of these 15 were reviewed for relevance. Five articles did not relate to work, one article did not relate to leadership theory and human development, and two articles were not translated into English and could not be analyzed by the researcher.

The same search process was used for the Professional Development Collection Database. The exact phrase “Human Resource Development” delivered no results, so the search was again expanded to “human resource.” Three additional journal articles populated.

Details from the literature reviews and theoretical frameworks of the remaining seventeen articles were classified into seven themes: leadership theories mentioned favorably, leadership theories mentioned unfavorably, effective components of leadership theory, ineffective or less effective components of leadership theory, desirable results that can be expected from successful execution of leadership, and possible mediating or moderating variables for leadership (see Table 1). Finally, points requiring further clarification were snowballed through backward citation searching and/or further database searches using specific keywords [9] .

Leadership is a complex concept with many constructs that are difficult to operationalize. Not only are researchers in discord regarding a universal leadership theory, but definitions of each existing theory show considerable variations. Specific leadership theories were named and described 38 times in the seventeen reviewed articles. A number of theories appeared more than once. However, these redundancies were in name alone. Transformational Leadership Theory, for example, was mentioned and described eight times. None of these eight descriptions precisely matched the other. The definitions were not erroneous and were well supported by cited sources, but each researcher chose considerably differing aspects and perceptions of the theory in their attempts to create mutual understanding.

Backward citation searching revealed foundational differences in definitions of Transformational Leadership Theory. Addo & Darety-Baah [2] and Qihua, Haihua, & Chengjun [16] directly cited two arguably seminal sources, Bass’s [18] [19] Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations book and Leadership: Good, better, best journal publication. However, Addo & Darety-Baah [2] use another source in the same article that traces not to Bass, but to a 1998 journal article by Feist [20] , A Meta-Analysis of Personality in Scientific and Artistic Creativity. Other article citation foundations came from a 1968 paper by Weber & Einsenstadt [21] , On Charisma and Institution Building, and a 2001 journal article [22] on people factors in Agile software development. These variations in theoretical foundations may account for some of the variations in literature review discussions.

Confounding the issue of a clear definition of Transformational Leadership Theory is the use of the term “transformational” by multiple theorists over the past four decades. Transformational Leadership Theory, Transformational Style, Transformational Leadership, and Transformational Leadership Style all share similarities but are independent concepts. James Burns [23] introduced transforming leadership in 1978. Bernard Bass [11] [18] [19] worked on his model for approximately two decades. The concept experienced a revival in the 90’s, leading to a wide variety of authors providing their own inputs on the transformational name. This breadth of authors using the same term to define their theories may cause definitional variations.

Some articles in this inquiry indicated their understanding of Transformational Leadership Theory as a type or collection of other theories while others treated Transformational Leadership Theory as a unique and separate theory. For example, Nientied & Toska [15] described Transformational Leaders as having influence but not giving influence to followers and preferred Empowering Leadership. He & Yu [14] , on the other hand, described Transformational Leaders and Empowering leaders as a type of strengths-based leader that empowers and supports their followers.

Future theorists will need to combat concept ambiguity, as evidenced here in the articles’ treatment of Transformational Leadership Theory. Mutual understanding of a comprehensive theory will predicate acceptance of the theory.

The articles analyzed in this inquiry explored HRD leadership around the globe. Only Itzkovich, Heilburnn, & Aleksic [5] focused on a universal leadership theory rather than theory creation or application in a specific nation. Countries and areas represented in the remaining articles included Ghana, Brazil, Pakistan, Germany, South Africa (x2), China (x4), Indonesia, India, Uganda, Albania, Portugal, and Taiwan area. These articles chose positive and negative components of leadership theory to best inform their respective countries. Several articles further described differences in theory application within the country based on criteria such as gender and socio-economic status. While each article chose and described leadership theories differently, each sought to gain representation for members in their populations. Some articles, Itzkovich, Heilburnn, & Aleksic [5] especially, also sought to model a ‘real’ person rather than an unrealistic ideal. They recognized that leaders cannot maintain theoretical perfection and will often display positive and negative behaviors simultaneously.

The words researchers used to define leadership theory components and outcomes support the perceived importance of representation. These include personal value systems, cultural differences, emotional awareness, self-realization, individualized attention/consideration, positive follower experience, authentic self, empowerment, autonomy, personal identification, dignity, respect, self-awareness, no discrimination, no disregard for the individual, and mutual influence (see Table 1). A common theme of individual importance and representation emerges from the literature; it stands to reason that a comprehensive, universally accepted theory should be comparably inclusive.

A desire for representation is a current issue throughout the HRD field at large. One common goal in the development of Human Resource Development theories such as Critical Human Resource Development (CHRD), National Human Resource Development (NHRD), Global Human Resource Development (GHRD), and Comparative Human Resource Development (CHRD) is to represent groups and individuals excluded from traditional and Strategic Human Resource Development models [24] [25] [26] [27] . A future comprehensive, universally accepted model for HRD leadership, and arguably HRD as a whole, must adequately represent not just the aggregate population, but individuals within the population as well.

While HRD leadership theory researchers in this study vary in defining the effective components of HRD leadership theory, they decisively agree on ineffective or less effective components. Descriptors such as reward for performance exchange, financial results as KPI, favoring/focus on financial obligations, focus on legal obligations, strict control mechanisms, surveillance, centralized processes, blame, autocratic style, and monitoring illuminate the perceptions of inferior leadership theory (see Table 1). Transactional-type leadership constructs do not appeal to these current researchers. The researchers acknowledge continued Transactional leadership practice in industry by profitable organizations, however, they believe organizational performance would improve through the implementation of a follower-driven model.

The vast majority of leadership theories selected and described in the journal articles fall under two categories. The first informs the necessary traits of the leader needed to ensure desired organizational and employee outcomes. The second category focuses on passing power to the employees. This transfer of power is achieved through multiple methods, including knowledge-sharing and decision-making authority. While these two categories are quite different in theoretical foundation, the journal article researchers in both categories focused their attention on the benefits to the follower.

A common criticism of a leader trait driven leadership theories such as Transformational, Authentic, Ethical, Charismatic, Benevolent, and Visionary Leadership is that the theories overlook the followers. These theories are believed to establish a powerful ruler, an exaggerated caricature of an organizational superman. The perceptions of the journal article authors in this inquiry, in contrast, place the followers as the most important benefactors to properly applied leadership theory. The articles measured the merit of leaders through their human skills, largely ignoring technical and conceptual skills. Leaders are charged with influencing follower’s sense of dignity, fairness, altruism, trust, support, and well-being (see Table 1) rather than simply leaving them in a state of awe.

The second category encourages the sharing of power and flattening of the hierarchy. While the outcomes of organizational performance are acknowledged, the authors focus on the benefits to the followers. Empowerment, job satisfaction, perceived support, psychological well-being, intrinsic motivation, and autonomy (see Table 1) hold importance over benefits to the leader or organization. This conceptual focus on followers indicates that a comprehensive, universally accepted HRD leadership theory would also be follower-driven.

Concepts relating to Hofstede’s cultural dimension of power distance [28] surfaced repeatedly in the reviewed articles, providing a compelling indication that power distance may serve as a framework variable for leadership theory acceptance.

Qihua, Haihua, & Chengjun [16] identified “cultural dimensions” as an important variable in leadership theory application in China. Other articles used power distance-related verbiage such as knowledge sharing, empowerment, flattened hierarchy, mutually agreed upon control, collaboration, participative style, participative decision making, autonomy, shared leadership responsibilities, and shared tasks to describe effective components of a leadership theory (see Table 1).

Nientied & Toska [15] and Ouyang, Zhu, & Guo [29] described cultural norms in Albania and China, respectively, that would affect the implementation of certain leadership theories. These cultural norms included the power dynamic between leaders and followers. Some articles described actions that would flatten the hierarchy as Western or European values. Begum & Khan [4] in their article sought to describe a leadership model conducive to Pakistani culture, choosing to maintain current power dynamics. The article most emphatically encouraging flattening of the hierarchy hailed from Germany [12] , the country scoring lowest in this study on Hofstede’s power distance scale and nearly two-thirds below the highest score [30] .

A subsequent search for relevant journal articles revealed four articles using power distance as a variable in leadership theory research. Luo, Li, Choi, & Du [31] and Yang, Liu, & Gu [32] studied power distance as a moderator for Visionary Leadership effectiveness and specific Servant Leadership outcomes, respectively. Pei-Li [33] selected power distance as a moderating variable and supportive leadership as a mediating variable in their study. Wang & Guan [34] studied the moderating role of power distance on Authoritarian Leadership and employee performance.

Based on extensive descriptions of power distance-related concepts and the inclusion of power distance in conceptual frameworks of several existing leadership theories, the research supports exploring the role of power distance in HRD leadership theory modeling. This cultural dimension appears to drive the definition and discussions of leadership theory to a greater extent than other possible confounding variables.