Yuyan,
The following article refers to 35 separate meta-analyses involving 3,327 primary studies on leadership (some published and some original) and will be useful in terms of identifying sources (available at http://hermanaguinis.com/pubs.html):
· Gottfredson, R. K. & Aguinis, H. in press. Leadership behaviors and follower performance: Deductive and inductive examination of theoretical rationales and underlying mechanisms. Journal of Organizational Behavior. doi: 10.1002/job.2152
Abstract
There are competing theoretical rationales and mechanisms used to explain the relation between leadership behaviors (e.g., consideration, initiating structure, contingent rewards, and transformational leadership) and follower performance (e.g., task performance and organizational citizenship behaviors). We conducted two studies to critically examine and clarify the leadership behaviors-follower performance relation by pitting the various theoretical rationales and mechanisms against each other. We first engaged in deductive (Study 1) and then inductive (Study 2) theorizing and relied upon 35 meta-analyses involving 3,327 primary-level studies and 930,349 observations as input for meta-analytic structural equation modeling. Results of our dual deductive-inductive approach revealed an unexpected yet surprisingly consistent explanation for why leadership behaviors affect follower performance. Specifically, leader-member exchange is a mediating mechanism that was empirically determined to be involved in the largest indirect relations between the four major leadership behaviors and follower performance. This result represents a departure from current conceptualizations and points to a common underlying mechanism that parsimoniously explains how leadership behaviors relate to follower performance. Also, results lead to a shift in terms of recommendations for what leaders should focus on to bring about improved follower performance.
Also, regarding your comment about "publication bias," the following article offers evidence that the file drawer problem may not be such in the context of meta-analyses based on passive observation (aka "correlational") studies (also available at http://hermanaguinis.com/pubs.html):
· Dalton, D. R., Aguinis, H., Dalton, C. A., Bosco, F. A., & Pierce, C. A. 2012. Revisiting the file drawer problem in meta-analysis: An empirical assessment of published and non-published correlation matrices. Personnel Psychology, 65: 221-249.
Abstract
The file drawer problem rests on the assumption that statistically non-significant results are less likely to be published in primary-level studies and less likely to be included in meta-analytic reviews, thereby resulting in upwardly biased meta-analytically derived effect sizes. We conducted five studies to assess the extent of the file drawer problem in non-experimental research. In Study 1, we examined 37,970 correlations included in 403 matrices published in Academy of Management Journal (AMJ), Journal of Applied Psychology (JAP), and Personnel Psychology (PPsych) between 1985 and 2009 and found that 46.81% of those correlations are not statistically significant. In Study 2, we examined 6,935 correlations used as input in 51 meta-analyses published in AMJ, JAP, PPsych, and elsewhere between 1982 and 2009 and found that 44.31% of those correlations are not statistically significant. In Study 3, we examined 13,943 correlations reported in 167 matrices in non-published manuscripts and found that 45.45% of those correlations are not statistically significant. In Study 4, we examined 20,860 correlations reported in 217 matrices in doctoral dissertations and found that 50.78% of those correlations are not statistically significant. In Study 5, we compared the average magnitude of a sample of 1,002 correlations from Study 1 (published articles) versus 1,224 from Study 4 (dissertations) and found that they were virtually identical (i.e., .2270 and .2279, respectively). In sum, our five studies provide consistent empirical evidence that the file drawer problem does not produce an inflation bias and does not pose a serious threat to the validity of meta-analytically derived conclusions as is currently believed.
I hope this helps, and best of luck with your meta-analysis!
Regards,
--Herman.
Herman Aguinis, Ph.D.
Avram Tucker Distinguished Scholar and Professor of Management
George Washington University School of Business
2201 G Street, NW
Washington, DC 20052
http://hermanaguinis.com/
-----Original Message-----
From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv [mailto:OB@AOMLISTS.AOM.ORG] On Behalf Of ZHENG, YUYAN
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2016 11:10 AM
To: OB@AOMLISTS.AOM.ORG
Subject: [OB-LIST] Request Servant Leadership Meta Analysis
Dear all,
Hope this email finds you are well.
My name is Yuyan Zheng, and I am a Fellow in London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), UK.
Our research team is working on a project about meta-analytical review of servant Leadership. If anyone has any working paper or conference paper about this topic, could you kindly share the correlation table with my research team? By collecting the working paper, the meta-analysis can overcome the publication bias.
Many thanks,
Yuyan
发自我的 iPad