Drawing upon contemporary social hierarchy research, the purpose of this study is to integrate a novel theoretical perspective to examine the taken-for-granted conclusions of the relationship between leader-member exchange (LMX) and interpersonal citizenship. We develop theoretically driven arguments and provide evidence of how LMX relates to power and status, the two prominent bases of social hierarchy. The results from our study support our assertion that the quality of LMX relationships provides social information about one's relative standing within a group's informal hierarchy. Specifically, LMX is positively associated with higher levels of perceived power and perceived status. Both power and status serve as important mediators that explain the relationship between LMX and interpersonal citizenship. We also identify the importance of citizenship pressure as a boundary condition for these relationships, finding that citizenship pressure interacts with power and status differently to influence the extent that employees engage in citizenship behaviors.

We extend charismatic leadership research by identifying conditions under which charismatic leadership reduces individual performance. Previous research found a positive impact of charismatic leadership, especially in crisis situations. However, we expect that followers with high self-determination reject charismatic leadership so that performance is reduced. In a laboratory experiment built as a brainstorming competition, 88 participants were randomly assigned to a condition with a team crisis or a control condition. Half of the participants received a charismatic leadership intervention after the crisis, which led to the ostentatious departure of a group member, while the other half was led laissez-faire. The results support our hypotheses. Although charismatic leadership was overall beneficial in a team crisis, our study provides experimental evidence of how charismatic leadership reduces the performance of certain team members in crises. Future research should investigate how leadership can best meet the specific needs of followers in different types of critical team situations.

After two decades of expanding leadership scholarship and mounting critique regarding dominant leadership theory, there is a need for a radical revitalisation of leadership thinking. A dialogic, humanist and contextualised orientation to leadership, long progressed by Ken Parry charts a direction for this work. But a truly revitalised leadership field must also involve a multi-dimensional and explicitly values-driven approach that places the roles, rights and responsibilities of leaders and followers – and the relationships between them – at its heart.

Mutiny is often regarded as a consequence of dire conditions and failed leadership. This reflection on Ken Parry's work suggests it is neither and much more the consequences of a socially constructed world.

Leader development has traditionally focused on adults. However, evidence suggests that these efforts are limited to developing and refining skills, encouraging some reflection, and helping the learners plan for the future. The underlying problem is that these are people whose brains are fully developed and relatively set. Hence, adult leader development works with what is already there. In this controversial essay, we argue that leader development activities should instead be directed towards children. Their brains are forming and leader development work will create and shape the leaders of tomorrow. We draw the important caveat that relatively little is known about influencing leadership in young brains making this a fertile and exciting, if challenging, area for leader development research.