Just what do we think we are doing? Learning outcomes of leader and leadership development

The scientific advancement of leader and leadership development has offered various conceptualizations and operationalizations of evaluation criteria. However, because the complex learning that occurs during leader and leadership development is typically ignored, current leader and leadership development evaluation criteria do not fully capture the multidimensional and temporal nature of learning which serves as a critical mediating mechanism between training and more distal outcomes. Further, evaluations of leadership programs tend to focus on individual (i.e., leader development) outcomes without consideration of collective (i.e., leadership development) outcomes. Thus, we present a comprehensive typology of leader and leadership development learning outcomes that elucidates the multidimensional and multilevel nature of such outcomes and provides greater construct definition and precision. Our purpose is to integrate multiple theoretical perspectives, generating a more precise classification to provide researchers and practitioners assistance in 1) designing and evaluating the effectiveness of leader and leadership development, and 2) clarifying the limits of generalizability of both conceptualizations and empirical research across learning outcomes.     

Capturing hearts and minds: The influence of relational identification with the leader on followers' mobilization and cardiovascular reactivity

The influence of relational identification (RI) on leadership processes and the effects of social identity leadership on followers' responses to stress have received scant theoretical and research attention. The present research advances theoretical understanding by testing the assertion that high RI with the leader drives follower mobilization of effort and psychophysiological responses to stress. Two experimental scenario studies (Study 1 and Study 2) support the hypothesis that being led by an individual with whom followers perceive high RI increases follower intentional mobilization. Study 2 additionally showed that high (vs. low) RI increases follower resource appraisals and cognitive task performance. A laboratory experiment (Study 3) assessing cardiovascular (CV) reactivity showed that, compared to neutral (i.e., non-affiliated) leadership, being led by an individual with whom participants felt low RI elicited a maladaptive (i.e., threat) response to a pressurized task. In addition, relative to the low RI and neutral conditions, high RI with the leader did not engender greater challenge or threat reactivity. In conclusion, advancing social identity leadership and challenge and threat theory, findings suggest that leaders should be mindful of the deleterious effects (i.e., reduced mobilization and greater threat state) of low RI to optimize follower mobilization of effort and psychophysiological responses to stress.     

A SOCIAL IDENTITY MODEL OF LEADERSHIP EFFECTIVENESS IN ORGANIZATIONS

Research into leadership effectiveness has largely overlooked the implications of the fact that leadership processes are enacted in the context of a shared group membership, where leaders, as group members, ask followers, as group members, to exert themselves on behalf of the collective. In contrast, the social identity model of organizational leadership, proposed here, emphasizes the characteristics of the leader as a group member, and the leader’s ability to speak to followers as group members. In salient groups with which group members identify, leadership effectiveness rests on the extent to which the leader is prototypical of the group (i.e. representative of the group’s identity) and engages in group-oriented behavior (i.e. behavior perceived to benefit the group). Explicating the added value of our model and going beyond contemporary approaches to leadership effectiveness, we discuss how our model extends, and may be integrated with, three major contemporary approaches to leadership effectiveness (charismatic leadership theories, Leader-Member Exchange theory, and leadership categorization theories). In addition, we outline how our model provides a viable framework to integrate future developments in research on leadership such as a growing attention to leader fairness and the role of emotions in leadership effectiveness.     

Leadership and individual differences: At the cusp of a renaissance

In this introductory editorial, we provide a brief overview of the history of individual difference research in leadership. We explain the major challenges that trait research faced, and why it was revived primarily because of methodological advancements. Next, we argue that leadership individual difference research is at a cusp of a renaissance. We explain why we are at this cusp and what researchers should do reify the renaissance in terms of theoretical extensions of trait models, the application of robust methodological advancements, and the development of process models linking distal (i.e., traits) predictors to proximal predictors (e.g., behaviors, skills, attitudes), and the latter to leader outcomes. We then summarize the papers we accepted for the special issue, and conclude with an optimistic note for leadership individual difference research.     

How bad are the effects of bad leaders? A meta-analysis of destructive leadership and its outcomes

While the focus on constructive leadership still dominates leadership research, an increasing number of studies investigate different forms of destructive leadership. This meta-analysis integrates different conceptualizations of destructive leadership and analyzes the relationship between destructive leadership and outcome variables. The search for articles yielded more than 200 studies of which 57 could be included in the meta-analysis. Results indicate the expected negative correlations with positive followers' outcomes and behaviors (e.g., attitudes towards the leader, well-being, and individual performance) and positive correlations with negative outcomes (e.g., turnover intention, resistance towards the leader, counterproductive work behavior). As expected, the highest correlation arises between destructive leadership and attitudes towards the leader. Surprisingly, the next highest correlation was found between destructive leadership and counterproductive work behavior. After discussing the results, an agenda for future research is proposed. Given the negative impact of destructive leadership, more knowledge is especially necessary regarding what triggers destructive leadership.     

Followership,leadership and social influence

Traditional research in leadership has largely relegated followers to the role of passive recipients or, at best, moderators of leader influence and behaviors. However, recent work in the area of followership has begun shifting this focus and emphasizing the possibility that followers actively have an influence over leaders, in particular leader behavior. This paper revisits traditional areas of the leadership literature and builds on the emerging followership literature to reintroduce followers as part of the social context of leaders. In an attempt to build theoretical rationales for how followers influence leader behavior we draw on the social influence (e.g., Social Impact Theory, Latane, 1981) and the power literature to suggest individual (e.g., strength and immediacy of followers) and group level (e.g., number of followers and unity of the group) characteristics that influence leader behaviors as a function of a leader's informational and effect dependence on followers.     

The nature of followership: Evolutionary analysis and review

From an evolutionary perspective, followership is puzzling because it is not clear why individuals would relinquish their autonomy and set aside their personal goals to follow those of another individual, the leader. This paper analyzes followership from an evolutionary perspective and advances three main conclusions that are not yet part of the leadership literature. First, followership evolved as a strategy to solve a range of cooperation and coordination problems in groups (e.g., collective movement, peacekeeping). Second, individuals who lack the physical, psychological, or social capital to be leaders themselves are more likely to emerge as followers. Third, followership styles, behaviors, and engagement result from (a) variations in the relative pay-offs that accrue to followers vis-à-vis their leader, (b) the adaptive goals pursued by followers, (c) the adaptive challenges that select for different followership styles, and (d) the prevailing leadership style. Together, these conclusions have several implications for followership theory, research, and practice.     

Instrumental leadership: Measurement and extension of transformational–transactional leadership theory

Leaders must scan the internal and external environment, chart strategic and task objectives, and provide performance feedback. These instrumental leadership (IL) functions go beyond the motivational and quid-pro quo leader behaviors that comprise the full-range—transformational, transactional, and laissez faire—leadership model. In four studies we examined the construct validity of IL. We found evidence for a four-factor IL model that was highly prototypical of good leadership. IL predicted top-level leader emergence controlling for the full-range factors, initiating structure, and consideration. It also explained a unique variance in outcomes beyond the full-range factors; the effects of transformational leadership were vastly overstated when IL was omitted from the model. We discuss the importance of a “fuller full-range” leadership theory for theory and practice. We also showcase our methodological contributions regarding corrections for common method variance (i.e., endogeneity) bias using two-stage least squares (2SLS) regression and Monte Carlo split-sample designs.     

Human-robot collaboration: A multilevel and integrated leadership framework

In an era of rapid advances in artificial intelligence, the deployment of robots in organizations is accelerating. Further, robotic capabilities are expanding to serve a broader range of leadership behaviors related to task accomplishment and relationship support. Despite the increasing use of robots in various roles across different industries, research on human-robot collaboration in the workplace is lagging behind. As such, the current research aims to provide a state-of-the-science review and directions for future work in this underdeveloped area. Drawing on current leadership paradigms, we review human-robot collaboration studies from four academic disciplines with a history of publishing such work (i.e., management, economics, psychology, engineering) and propose that the research trajectory of human-robot collaboration parallels the evolution of leadership research paradigms (i.e., leader centric, relational view, and follower centric). Given that leadership is an inherently multilevel phenomenon, we apply a levels-of-analysis framework to integrate and synthesize human-robot collaboration studies from cross-disciplinary research areas. Based on our findings, we offer suggestions for future research in terms of conceptualization, theory building and testing, practical implications, and ethical considerations.     

How leader role identity influences the process of leader emergence: A social network analysis

Contemporary theories on leadership development emphasize the importance of having a leader identity in building leadership skills and functioning effectively as leaders. We build on this approach by unpacking the role leader identity plays in the leader emergence process. Taking the perspective that leadership is a dynamic social process between group members, we propose a social network-based process model whereby leader role identity predicts network centrality (i.e., betweenness and indegree), which then contributes to leader emergence. We test our model using a sample of 88 cadets participating in a leadership development training course. In support of our model, cadets who possess a stronger leader role identity at the beginning of the course were more likely to emerge as leaders. However this relationship was only mediated by one form of network centrality, indegree centrality, reflecting one's ability to build relationships within one's group. Implications for research and practice are discussed.     

Individual differences and leadership: Contributions to a third tipping point

This commentary describes two tipping points in the history of research on leader individual differences, and suggests the approach of a third. This third tipping point reflects the use of more multivariate (e.g., multiple leader attributes; multistage models; pattern and profile approaches) perspectives to individual differences and leadership. The four papers in the special issue are described as examples of these perspectives.     

Bringing the cognitive revolution forward: What can team cognition contribute to our understanding of leadership?

Cognition is a central element of organizational behavior and leaders are seen as key shapers of organizational cognition. Leaders’ influence over organizations often occurs through their influence on the collectives or teams they are leading. Hence, leaders influence organizational outcomes by modeling team cognition. Despite the importance of this relationship for organizational outcomes, there is little integration currently between the leadership and team cognition literatures. To address this gap, we conduct an integrative review. First, we develop a model for leader and team influence based on organizational emergence and leadership complexity theories. Our model makes a distinction between the source of influence over cognition (leader → team, team → leader, reciprocal) and form of cognition emergence (variance reduction, variance enhancement); constraints that shape cognitions that vary in levels (within and between-level, contextual) and focus (individual, interindividual, collective); and leader behaviors (administrative, adaptive, enabling). We apply this model to review and analyze ninety-nine studies in the current literature and then discuss the limitations and future directions drawing on our findings and theoretical model. We contribute a unifying framework of leadership and team emergence that can be expanded and applied to other settings.     

Not all leader–member exchanges are created equal: Importance of leader relational identity

Recent research by leadership scholars has emphasized the important role of follower self-identity. For example, leaders influence subordinate attitudes and behaviors by activating a collective identity level among their subordinates. We extend existing identity-based approaches by examining the relational identity level of leaders. Previous work has focused predominantly on followers (vs. leaders) and on collective (vs. relational) identity. Using data from two samples, we supported our hypothesis that leader relational identity moderates relationships of leader–member exchange (LMX) with subordinate task performance and citizenship behaviors. The nature of the interaction was such that the negative relationships of low-quality LMX with performance are mitigated when subordinates had supervisors with strong relational identities. These findings highlight the need to consider not only the identities of followers but those of leaders as well.     

Ethical leadership: Mapping the terrain for concept cleanup and a future research agenda

Ethical leadership has attracted massive attention in the twenty-first century. Yet despite this vast literature, knowledge of ethical leadership suffers from two critical limitations: First, existing conceptualizations conflate ethical leader behaviors with followers' evaluations of leaders' characteristics, values, traits, and followers' cognitions. Second, we know little to nothing regarding the causes and consequences of ethical leadership behaviors as most of the evidence not only confounds concepts, but also precludes causal inferences due to design problems. Thus, we first present a review of the definitions of ethical leadership that alarmingly reveals a hodgepodge of follower evaluations of leader behaviors, traits, and values. We then address this concept confusion by drawing upon signaling theory in presenting a new conceptualization of ethical leadership behavior (ELB) defined as signaling behavior by the leader (individual) targeted at stakeholders (e.g., an individual follower, group of followers, or clients) comprising the enactment of prosocial values combined with expressions of moral emotions. As such, enacting prosocial values and expressing moral emotions are each necessary for ethical leadership. Next, we review the nomological network of ELB at the individual, dyad, and group levels. We conclude with a discussion of future research directions in testing new theoretical models, including a set of theoretical and methodological recommendations.     

Leader distance: a review and a proposed theory

The concept of leader distance has been subsumed in a number of leadership theories; however, with few exceptions, leadership scholars have not expressly defined nor discussed leader distance, how distance is implicated in the legitimization of a leader, and how distance affects leader outcomes. We review available literature and demonstrate that integral to untangling the dynamics of the leadership influencing process is an understanding of leader–follower distance. We present distance in terms of three independent dimensions: leader–follower physical distance, perceived social distance, and perceived task interaction frequency. We discuss possible antecedents of leader–follower distance, including organizational and task characteristics, national culture, and leader/follower implicit motives. Finally, we use configural theory to present eight typologies (i.e., coexistence of a cluster or constellation of independent factors serving as a unit of analysis) of leader distance and propose an integrated cross-level model of leader distance, linking the distance typologies to leader outcomes at the individual and group levels of analysis.     

Exemplifying “Us”: Integrating social identity theory of leadership with cognitive models of categorization

Identity leadership theorizing suggests that leadership effectiveness derives from a potential leader’s perceived ability to create, embody, promote, and embed a shared group identity. However, little is known about how people integrate this information to form a judgment of a leader. We use cognitive modeling to operationalize leadership judgments as exemplar-and prototype-based categorization processes. Analysis of attribute rating data for 80 highly recognizable Americans revealed that leadership judgments were well-characterized by an exemplar-based model. Judgments were based overwhelmingly on promoting shared collective interests and embedding group identity. The pattern of attribute weightings was consistent for judgments of a general leadership role (i.e., as a competent leader) as well as judgments for a specific leadership role (i.e., as an effective US president). We discuss the implications of these findings for our understanding of identity leadership as well as for integrated social-cognitive models of individuals’ judgements of and responses to leaders.     

The role of leadership self-efficacy and stereotype activation on cardiovascular,behavioral and self-report responses in the leadership domain

This research examines female leaders' responses to the gender–leader stereotype and the role of leadership self-efficacy in these responses. Using the biopsychosocial model of threat and challenge, this laboratory experiment examined women's cardiovascular, behavioral (i.e., performance), and self-report responses to the negative female leader stereotype as a function of leadership efficacy. Female participants, selected on leadership efficacy scores, served as leaders of ostensible three-person groups within an immersive virtual environment. Half were explicitly primed with the negative stereotype. As predicted, women with high, as opposed to low, percepts of leadership self-efficacy exhibited cardiovascular patterns of threat when performing the leadership task, and they performed better in the explicit stereotype activation condition compared to those not explicitly primed. Additionally, this threat was consistent with positive reactance responses on behavioral and self-report measures. Low efficacy leaders were not threatened, but they did show stereotype priming effects by assimilating to the negative stereotype on the self-report and behavioral measures. This research provides greater insight into stereotype reactance effects and highlights the role of self-efficacy in moderating stereotype threat and stereotype priming effects.     

Labels and leaders: The influence of framing on leadership emergence

In two studies, this paper examines the influence of task framing on leadership emergence in mixed-gender dyads. In Study 1, we found that males are more likely to emerge as leaders when a paper-folding task is framed as masculine (i.e., Building Project) relative to feminine (i.e., Art Project). Furthermore, females are more likely to emerge as leaders when a paper-folding task is framed as feminine relative to masculine. In Study 2, we conceptually replicate these results using a weaving task (framed as Knot-Tying Task vs. Hair-Braiding Task) and find that perceived competence is the mechanism through which task framing affects leadership emergence. Taken together, these results suggest that task framing can influence the emergence of leaders because of changes in perceptions of competence. These findings are discussed in the context of related theoretical findings and managerial implications are elaborated on.