influence without authority was characterized by higher levels of mutual support, trust, loyalty, and
latitude given to their followers. Conversely, influence with authority was based primarily on more
formal supervisory roles and techniques. The development of such distinct relationships during the
initial role making processes was hypothesized to lead to the formation of in-groups and out-groups
(Graen & Cashman, 1975). Followers in in-groups enjoy higher job satisfaction and organizational
commitment, display higher levels of task and extra-role performance, and are less likely to turn over
compared to followers in out-groups (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Thus, being a member of the leader's
in-group has been shown to have a positive effect on many follower outcomes.
4.3 NEW LEADERSHIP THEORIES
Although the contingency theories, developed in the 1960s and '70s, contributed extensively to the
leadership literature, some researchers started to question the validity of the elusive and lofty
leadership construct, and provided some compelling arguments for looking at leadership through an
entirely different lens. Kerr and Jermier (1978) roiled the field by suggesting that certain variables can
act as substitutes or neutralizers, rendering leadership unnecessary or ineffective. Drawing from
House and Mitchell's path-goal theory, these authors identified a set of characteristics of the follower,
the task, and the organization that, if present, would simply make leadership behaviors (task- and
relationship-oriented) redundant. Kerr and Jermier's work moved away from focusing on the leader as
the locus of leadership, but emphasized instead the followers and the context. In other words, the
extent to which leadership is effective could be based simply on certain follower and contextual
attributes, almost independent of what the leader actually does. With regards to the mechanisms of
leadership, this theory appears to emphasize that certain follower personality characteristics (e.g. need
for independence and ability) act as substitutes and certain contextual variables (e.g. standardization
of task) lead to the emergence of leadership behaviors (e.g. setting goals).
At about the same time that Kerr and Jermier published their work, Lord et al. (1984) introduced the
implicit leadership theory. Implicit leadership theorists posited that followers have preconceived
notions (implicit theories) about what a prototypical leader looks like, and when placed within an
ambiguous situation, seek confirming evidence of those notions. If cues are found that support the
prototype, the person will be perceived as a leader. For example, leader prototypes often include the
display of power; if a person does in fact display power, others around them are more likely to
perceive him or her as a leader. Unless followers perceive someone as a leader (because he or she
provides prototype-confirming cues), leadership is not likely to occur.