Distinct cultural, social and historical factors shape African leadership. African leaders often emphasise communal values, spirituality, legacy and Ubuntu, which is a philosophy based on humanism, respect and community (Galperin et al., 2024; Grobler & Grobler, 2024; Michaud et al., 2020). While certain leadership ideas coincide with Western ones, African settings provide unique components including community-centredness, tradition and spirituality (Galperin et al., 2024).

Recent attempts have concentrated on creating leadership criteria based on African cultural realities. Only a limited number of indigenous leadership measures have been identified in the literature, highlighting the need for further development in this area. This approach is best illustrated by the Leadership Effectiveness in Africa and the Diaspora (LEAD) Scale, which combines qualitative and quantitative methodologies to encompass both common and distinct African leadership characteristics (Michaud et al., 2020). The LEAD Scale captures ideas such as spirituality, tradition and community-centredness often missing in Western measurements. When appropriate, item development included both novel, culturally sensitive items and modified ones from well-known Western scales (Michaud et al., 2020).

Indigenous models based on Afro-communitarianism highlight virtues like truthfulness, humanity, humility and courage (Grobler & Grobler, 2023). Ubuntu, a fundamental African value, is connected with genuine and participatory leadership emphasising respect, dignity and community well-being (Grobler & Grobler, 2024).

Widely used in African studies are Western-developed leadership scales, including the ALI, MLQ and TLQ (Mahembe et al., 2013, 2017). Often administered in English, these measures are evaluated for psychometric features in African populations. Validity studies normally find acceptable dependability and validity, although factor structures can vary and some subscales might underperform in African contexts (Allen-Ile et al., 2020; Mahembe et al., 2017). The Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) measures, for instance, were created in the United States and exhibited varied factor structures in South Africa, therefore challenging their straightforward transferability (Grobler & Boitumelo, 2021).

Many studies in Africa modify Western-developed leadership measures for African settings. The TLQ and the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ), for instance, have been adjusted and validated in South Africa, Kenya and Nigeria (Allen-Ile et al., 2020; Crawford & Kelder, 2019). Psychometric testing, including exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, is usually used in these adjustments to guarantee validity and reliability in varied African populations.

Adapted instruments occasionally show distinct factor structures from their original forms. For example, the ALQ, originally a four-factor model, yielded a unidimensional structure in South African studies, reflecting the influence of local cultural values (Michaud et al., 2020). Likewise, the TLQ showed a two-factor model in South Africa, emphasising innovation and transformation (Michaud et al., 2020).

Instruments that are adapted might not fully reflect context-specific leadership qualities, especially when linguistic and cultural subtleties are disregarded (Grobler, 2025; Grobler & Enslin, 2026; Grobler & Flotman, 2020; Grobler & Mathafena, 2021). Researchers advise against believing Western instruments have global relevance without thorough local validation.

Systematic reviews stress the need for thorough scale development and validation, underlining theory creation, item development, content validity and empirical evaluation (Crawford & Kelder, 2019). Many existing scales lack enough rigour; best practice advice calls for context-sensitive adaptation and validation.

The study at present implements an emic-etic framework in investigating African organisational leadership research and the cultural origins of the leadership measures. Amidst the current framework, etic measures pertain to leadership measures that are developed in the West and, without contextual adaptation, are applied in African studies. Adapted etic then pertains to leadership measures that are developed in the West and are adapted culturally or validated for utilisation in African contexts (Grobler, 2025). Emic measures are the leadership measures that are developed in Africa and rooted in locally or indigenous leadership conceptualisations. As leadership has a culturally embedded nature, the adaptation and origin of leadership measures significantly affect the accurate representation, contextual relevance and construct validity of leadership constructs in the African context, which is diverse (Grobler, 2025; Van der Walt & De Klerk, 2014).

In African research, leadership measurement is changing along with a growing awareness of the need for measures that are culturally sensitive. Although Western instruments continue to be significant, there is a slowly rising trend towards creating and confirming indigenous and modified measures reflecting the varied cultural scene of Africa. To guarantee that leadership instruments are both relevant and legitimate across the continent, future study should give inclusion, linguistic variety and methodological rigour top priority.

Notwithstanding the rising appeal for research that is contextually grounded, the prevalence of leadership measures that are Western is evident not only in African scholarship but throughout various regions of the world (Boer et al., 2018; Gutterman, 2019). Historically, organisational practices and organisational research have been influenced by instruments and theories which are established in the Western world, and such tools have been widely implemented in other regions which are non-Western (Tolstikov-Mast et al., 2021).

Reviews by the early cross-cultural leadership indicate that the Western paradigms are where leadership literature originated from, and subsequently endeavoured to incorporate cultural consideration with the increased globalisation, drawing attention to the numerous leadership measurements that are Western-centric (Hofstede, 1980, as discussed in Gutterman, 2019). Such a trend has implementation considerations on the manner in which leadership is measured and contextualised in contexts outside of the West. Researchers examining literature relating to cross-cultural leadership have frequently highlighted obstacles concerning the assumption, cultural bias and measurement equivalence that Western perspectives of leadership can be applied universally, which underscores the necessity of more culturally nuanced and indigenous conceptual development measures in research pertaining to global leadership (Boer et al., 2018; Wildman et al., 2022).

The studies that are utilised in the study include those published in a 15-year period between 2010 and 2025 (July), which focus on leadership research in an organisational context in Africa. The timeframe of 15 years was chosen to offer an adequate timeframe to identify potential changes in the measurement approaches, encompassing potential growth in the utilisation of instruments which are African-developed, Western-developed or more refined modifications of Western measures that are already established. The timeframe was also to correspond to an increasing body of literature which challenges the predominance of Western theoretical frameworks in African studies.

The search terms which were utilised included leadership-related keywords combined with African context terms using Boolean operators such as AND and OR. For example, searches included combinations such as “leadership AND Africa”, “leadership measurement AND Africa”, “transformational leadership AND Africa”, and “leadership scale OR leadership instrument AND Africa AND organisation”. Snowball sampling was utilised to scan reference lists of the studies that were incorporated in order to pinpoint further pertinent publications. There were multiple stages that were involved in the search strategy. The database searches involved the use of systems including Scopus, Web of Science, EBSCOhost, Sabinet, African Journals Online (AJOL), Open Access Scholarly Search Engines, Google Scholar, Semantic Scholar, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses and University Repositories.

There was no selection of a specific sector or discipline, and studies throughout non-profit, educational, governmental, and corporate organisations were taken into consideration to achieve a wide-ranging perspective on measures of leadership within organisational contexts.

The review of the study includes a total of 117 empirical studies. Sources underwent manual screening, where studies that were considered were studies in English and undertaken within the countries in Africa. The total number of screened records is 165 after 209 duplicates were found and removed. A total of 81 records were excluded because of issues of relevance, quality, accessibility, study design or scope. An additional 15 full-text articles were excluded to ensure the studies included met the review’s specific criteria. A total of 117 studies were included in the qualitative review. The Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram indicates this article’s preparation process and subsequent appraisal and synthesis (see Figure 1).

Each study was classified according to the origin and adaptation status of the leadership measure. Classification was based on instrument origin and level of adaptation, distinguishing between Western-developed (not adapted), Western-developed (adapted), and African-developed leadership measures. Summaries of the publication trends were also provided. The quality of the methodology of each study was evaluated through an adapted checklist for research that is survey-based. There were two reviewers who separately assessed each study. There were no automation tools that were utilised in the approach. To reduce the probability of reporting bias, the studies that were utilised were those that are publicly available, where additional relevant studies were screened in the reference list. The certainty of evidence was assessed through an examination of the manner in which studies were done, the degree of clarity in their leadership measures utilised, if the study was on organisational leadership in Africa. Those studies that complied were regarded as largely reliable.

Descriptive content analysis was utilised in the data analysis. Frequencies were calculated for each of the three categories of instrument origin. Patterns were further recognised according to the type of source, prevalence of adaptation practices and instruments that are frequently employed. Publicly available and published documents were utilised in the review; as a result, there was no need for ethical clearance. Nevertheless, academic integrity was maintained in reporting.

The inclusion criteria were:

The exclusion criteria employed included:

The PRISMA flow diagram was revised in 2020 to include the five phases to adopt when conducting a systematic literature review. A total of 374 records were identified. These records were subsequently screened in multiple stages. In the first stage, titles were screened for relevance to leadership measurement in African organisational contexts. In the second stage, abstracts were reviewed to assess alignment with the inclusion criteria. In the final stage, full-text articles were assessed for eligibility based on the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria.

The study aimed at identifying the origin and types of leadership measures that are utilised in organisational leadership studies in Africa. The category that was utilised in the study was measures that are African-developed, Western-developed with no adaptation and Western-developed with adaptation. Studies were performed across several countries in Africa, including South Africa, Nigeria, Ghana, Gambia and other African countries.

The sample population of the study encompasses a diverse range of occupational groups across multiple countries, including mining employees, public health staff, educational institutions and construction teams in South Africa. It also included customer service staff in Tanzania, academic staff in Nigeria, public service personnel in Nigeria, financial organisations in Nigeria, and various organisational employees in Pakistan and Kenya. While these groups provide a broad representation of sectors and contexts, the sample is not limited to these populations, allowing for the inclusion of additional occupational groups in future research.

This diversity facilitates a comparative understanding of workplace behaviours, organisational dynamics, and sector-specific challenges across different cultural and professional settings. By including both public and private sector employees from education, healthcare, mining, construction and finance, the study gains a comprehensive perspective on factors influencing employee experiences and organisational outcomes, enhancing the generalisability of the findings while acknowledging potential contextual variations.

More than 90% of the measures utilised were developed in the West. The measures which are Western-developed measures with no adaptation account for 69% (n = 81) of the studies, while Western-developed measures that are adapted account for 21% (n = 25) of the studies. African-developed measures studies account for only 9% (n = 11). The Authentic Leadership Questionnaire is the measure that was mostly utilised in the studies. More than 60% of the measures adopted from the West were not adapted to the African context. This means that the measures were originally designed, validated and standardised in Western countries and are being applied directly in African populations without modification for cultural, social or contextual differences.

This section shows the temporal trends seen in the reviewed studies, therefore highlighting how research activity has changed with time. It gives a clear overview of periods with lower or higher academic productivity and assists in understanding how interest in leadership assessment and adaptation has grown throughout time.

Table 1 indicates the temporal trends in publishing between 2010 and 2025 reveal a fluctuating pattern across several types of research. With 81 of the 117 total publications, Western (not adapted) publications dominated overall. The greatest output was observed in 2015–2019 (42 publications), and this decreased to 22 in 2020–2025. Western (adapted) publications demonstrated a minor drop across the same years, from 17 in 2010–2014 to 10 in 2020–2025. With just 11 publications over the 15-year period, African-developed studies remained the least represented.

In the studies reviewed, only 11 of the studies utilised measures that were developed in Africa. The measures were generally founded upon contextual leadership scales, qualitative findings and indigenous leadership concepts. Such studies regularly exhibited a decolonial approach to research. A subset of such measures incorporated the Ubuntu Leadership Scale and the Afrocentric Leadership Assessment.

This section presents how Western-developed leadership approaches were used in the studies under review. It draws attention to the frequency with which these tools were used and whether they were adapted for the local context. The observed patterns reveal the frequency of Western practices and their application across different research contexts.

Between 2010 and 2025, publications of Western origin demonstrated that non-adapted studies outnumbered adapted ones. Non-adapted publications peaked with 42 studies between 2015 and 2019 before falling to 22 between 2020 and 2025. Adapted Western-developed studies followed a similar descending trend, from 17 studies in 2010–2014 to 10 in 2020–2025. Non-adapted Western-developed studies totalled 81 publications overall, while adapted ones accounted for 25, which pointed toward a definite preference for non-adapted approaches over the 15-year period.

Western-origin studies appear to dominate the academic publishing landscape, particularly non-adapted studies, which made up most of the publications over the 15-year span. The highest in total publications between 2015 and 2019 implies a time of more research activity. But the eventual drop in Western-developed (not adapted) papers from 2020 to 2025 shows slight changes in research priorities, saturation of specific study areas, or a growing appreciation of the necessity of fitting results to regional contexts. Although fewer Western-developed and adapted publications show a minor declining trend, therefore indicating that efforts at adaptation have not considerably grown over time.

Though always the least represented, African-developed studies show a progressive contribution to the whole body of knowledge, peaking in 2015–2019 before fading gently in 2020–2025. This pattern emphasises persistent issues in regional research capability, namely inadequate funding, infrastructure limitations and hurdles to publishing in high-impact settings. Still, the existence of studies from Africa highlights the increasing yet still limited part that local knowledge plays in knowledge creation. These developments highlight the need for focused support to improve local research ecosystems, inspire context-specific adaptations of Western results, and advance more equal representation of many points of view in world research.

The total number of studies which were reviewed is 117; 11 of the studies (9%) utilised measures that were developed in Africa. Though there was a modest increase from 3 in 2010–2014 to 6 in 2015–2019, followed by a decrease to 4 in 2020–2025. Overall, total publications peaked in 2015–2019 at 60, decreased to 36 in 2020–2025, while 2010–2014 had 21.

The studies that were reviewed included journal articles and academic theses. In the total number of studies that utilised African measures, the majority of them consisted of academic theses. This could be seen as evidence of openness and flexibility to methodologies that are locally grounded in advanced academic research as compared to the standards of international journals, which may be more stringent. There are fewer journal articles that utilise instruments that are developed in the West. The field continues to heavily rely on Western-developed leadership measures when conducting studies on African leadership, most significantly in journal articles. Indigenous leadership perspectives continue to lack sufficient representation. This gap underscores the need for further research to validate and promote leadership measures that are developed in Africa, and to embed them within teaching and research. This approach can be beneficial in challenging colonial frameworks in the field of leadership and further contribute to scholarship which reflects the realities of Africa.

The predominance of Western studies points to the fact that researchers have mostly depended on standardised methods and frameworks created outside the local environment. Established Western models, supposed dependability, broader recognition and simplicity of application could explain this preference. Still, the fall in adapted publications following 2019 might represent a rising recognition of the necessity to adapt research instruments to match particular situations or populations.

Though fewer in total, Western-developed (adapted) studies show attempts to put Western-developed models in a local or regional context. The rather small number of adopted studies draws attention to a possible gap in culturally sensitive research. Only 25 (21%) of the studies reviewed utilised Western measures adapted for the African context. The studies that utilised adoption, the methods they utilised comprised pilot testing and rewording of terms which are culturally specific for contextual validation. The findings had a moderate overall confidence, with greater confidence in studies that had adequate samples, used clearly defined measures, were rigorous, and explicitly considered African organisational contexts. Regardless, rigour and depth varied when it came to adaptation. In certain situations, adaptation was comprehensively detailed; in other instances, superficial references to localisation or modification were offered. Such a discrepancy indicates a wider problem, which is the absence of frameworks or standard guidelines to enable modification in the African context of leadership measures. A critical requirement exists for researchers to document and justify the process of adopting the measures. This approach improves the study’s reliability and further facilitates the development of a more resilient foundation for more effective integration of cultural contexts.

The Western-developed leadership measures presently continue to dominate across the continent in leadership studies. This result aligns with criticisms from academics such as Fourie et al. (2017), Johnson et al. (2021), Michaud et al. (2020), who have contended that research on leadership in Africa normally utilises external methodological and theoretical frameworks from the West. The sustained predilection for instruments from Western countries may be a result of multiple variables. This includes an absence of knowledge or availability of alternatives that are developed in Africa, the imperative to international journals that put significance on measures that are standardised, and their assumed approval in global research.

The results indicate a clear dominance of Western-developed leadership measures (81 non-adapted and 25 adapted studies), with only a small proportion of African-developed instruments (n = 11). These patterns highlight a strong reliance on imported measurement frameworks in African leadership research and form the basis for the implications discussed below. The prevalence of Western-developed measures in organisational leadership research conducted in Africa, along with the restricted adaptation of these measures, as well as the little usage of African-developed instrumentation, has major consequences for theory as well as practice. Cultural settings have deeply incorporated leadership ideas like decision-making, influence and motivation; hence, their manifestation might differ considerably from one area to the next. There is a chance that measures based on measures developed in Western countries may miss the subtle ways leadership is exercised inside African companies. As a result, results from such measures might not accurately capture the lived experiences of leaders and employees, therefore compromising the validity and practical value of the research.

This dependence on Western-developed measures also carries the risk of ignoring local leadership styles, morals and corporate dynamics. African leaders sometimes highlight context-specific problem-solving, collaborative decision-making and relational authority; therefore, these might not be adequately mirrored in Western systems. Ignoring these culturally ingrained traditions could cause research to generate insights that are inaccurate or even misleading, therefore restricting our knowledge of how leadership operates in African contexts. The study eliminated studies which are non-English, which constrained the inclusion of Lusophone and Francophone African countries. The exclusion of non-English studies presented a potential reporting bias that could have overlooked research which is applicable from the Francophone and Lusophone African countries. Furthermore, the dearth of locally validated measures draws attention to a major gap in methodological creativity, therefore pointing to insufficient capture of the continent’s distinct organisational reality in mainstream academic writing.

The results for organisations throughout Africa go beyond theoretical debate. Less successful, in conflict with local customs, and leadership techniques informed by instruments lacking cultural resonance may be less effective. This mismatch can ultimately impair organisational performance and sustainability by stalling talent development, lowering employee involvement and limiting innovation. Dealing with this discrepancy calls for a coordinated effort to create and use local measures that reflect African experiences, beliefs and organisational systems. Scholars and practitioners can generate leadership insights that are both more accurate and highly pertinent by giving first priority to culturally sensitive study design and methodological adaptation, therefore fostering organisational development and expansion across Africa.