Leadership: Current Theories, Research, and Future Direction PDF

Leadership: Current Theories, Research, and Future Direction Bruce J. Avolio, Fred O. Walumbwa, and Todd J. Weber (current) theore@cal and empirical developments General leadership theories and styles Modern perspec@ves on leadership The paper shows the status quo of leadership research in the face...

Leadership: Current Theories, Research, and Future Direction Bruce J. Avolio, Fred O. Walumbwa, and Todd J. Weber (current) theore@cal and empirical developments General leadership theories and styles Modern perspec@ves on leadership The paper shows the status quo of leadership research in the face of different leadership styles tradi@onal as well as modern perspec@ves. The authors show shortcomings of research done so far and provide ideas for future inves@ga@ons. Examined ques@ons are about nature vs. nurture of leadership, influencing internal and external factors, effec@veness and mo@va@on of leaders as well as followers. Introduc*on • • Research on leadership includes more than just the leader itself but also on followers, peers, supervisors, work, se9ng/context and culture Leadership is seen as complex social dynamic Overview of authen*c leadership • Authen@c leadership development as a result of wri@ngs on transforma@onal leadership o Pseudo vs. authen@c transforma@onal leadership • Authen@c leadership has the foal to combine research on posi@ve organiza@onal behaviour with life- span leadership development o Combining posi@ve psychology and broaden-and-build theory fosters a more posi@ve perspec@ve on leadership development Authentic leadership = a paKern of transparent and ethical leader behaviour that encourages openness in sharing informa@on needed to make decisions while accep@ng follower’s inputs transformational leadership = leader behaviours that transform and inspire followers to perform beyond expecta@ons while transcending self-interest for the good of the organiza@on Positive organizational behaviour = literature that is focusing on posi@ve constructs such as hope, resiliency, efficacy, op@mism, happiness and well-being as they apply to organiza@ons Broaden-and-build-theory = suggests posi@ve emo@ons expand cogni@on and behavioural tendencies and encourage novel, varied, and exploratory thoughts and ac@ons Authen'c Leadership defined • Authen@c leadership aSer Luthans&Avolio, 2003: “a process that draws from both posi@ve psychological capaci@es and a highly developed organiza@onal context, which results in both greater self-awareness and self- regulated posi@ve behaviors on the part of leaders and associates, fostering posi@ve self- development” o Mul@level defini@on including leader, follower and context à not appropriately addressed in research • General agreement on four factors: 1. balanced processing: analysing data objec@vely to from a decision 2. internalized moral perspec2ve: regula@on of one’s behaviour by internal moral standards 3. rela2onal transparency: openly sharing informa@on for authen@c presenta@on 4. self-awareness: understanding of own strengths/weaknesses o the four constructs can be opera@onalized on unique, reliable scales o including a higher order factor discriminately valid from measures of other leadership styles (transforma@onal/ ethical) à predictor of organiza@onal ci@zenship behaviour, commitment and supervisor/ performance sa@sfac@on Ethical leadership = the demonstra@on of norma@vely appropriate conduct through personal ac@ons and interpersonal rela@onships, and the promo@on of such conduct to followers Future Focus Required • measurements are s@ll very liKle developed • future research required to analyse rela@ons to other constructs from the nomological network (e.g., moral perspec@ve, self-concept clarity, well-being, spirituality, judgement) • Examine authen@cal leadership across cultures and situa@ons à is it a universal construct? Nomological network = a representa@on of a construct, its observable manifesta@on, and the rela@onship between the two Authen*c Leadership development • Difficult to find evidence-based leadership models à leading to more thorough inves@ga@on of leadership and development of more specific theories Heritability and Leadership Are leaders born or made? • Twin studies suggest that 30% varia@on in leadership style was explained by heritability factors • 70 % therefore were explained by life context factors e.g., role models, opportuni@es à life context more important! • Similar results across gender and cultures Examining Evidence for Posi've Leadership Interven'ons • LiKle research uses controlled leadership interven@ons to inves@gate causal rela@ons • Meta-analy@c findings: leadership interven@on had posi@ve effect in work outcomes Future Focus Required • LiKle research on how leadership can be developed • Cogni@ve processes (e.g., leader’s self-concept or iden@ty) influences leadership behaviour How do working self-concepts differ between leadership styles? • Self-concept is based on rather stable constructs stored in long-term memory • Certain events may trigger it’s ac@va@on: self-focused aKen@on, self-assessment What are components of developmental readiness, mo>va>on or development of poten>al? • Developmental readiness is based on constructs such as goal orienta@on and mo@va@on • Mo@vated leaders are more likely to trigger events that foster thoughts about own development and improvement of leadership effec@veness ➪ more research is done to investigate impacts of genuine leadership on multiple levels Cogni*ve Psychology and leadership • • Focus on how leaders and followers think and process information (incl. selfconcept theory, meta-cognitions, implicit leadership theory) Different leadership models put the focus on different processes e.g., leaders cognitive attributes/abilities (Lord&Hall, 2005) or shared thinking in relation to leader creativity (Mumford et al., 2003) o But both include fundamental processes like interindividual interactions Emerging Cogni*ve Constructs • • Differen@a@on between self-concept 8e.g., structure, processing) and the content (evalua@ons and self-beliefs) Unity and pluralism of self-concept are not necessarily related to each other o Pluralism (measured with self-complexity and self-concept compartmentaliza@on) were not related o self-concept unity, such as self-concept differen@a@on, self-concept clarity, and self- discrepancies were related and imposed implica@ons for leader development • Lord&Brown, 2001: leaders can influence the way followers choose to behave in two ways 1. Emphasizing specific values 2. Ac@va@ng a certain iden@ty/ self-concept à both mediate the link between leader’s ac@on and follower behaviour • • Working self-concept includes three types of components: (1) self-views; (2) current goals; (3) possible selves o Allows insight into one’s own iden@ty and how it is related to leadership Schema: organising framework to understand a given context or experience o Leaders of different styles use different schema to interpret events à different subsequent ac@on o Support for transforma@onal but only mixed results for transac@onal leadership Cognitive leadership = a broad range of approaches to leadership emphasising how leaders and followers think and process informa@on Transactional leadership = leadership largely based on the exchange of rewards con@ngent on performance Prototypical Abstrac'ons of Leadership • prototypicality = Followers are more drawn to leaders that are exemplars to the group they belong to o research examines the ques@on whether prototypes are stable vs. sta@c and how generalizable the principle can eb applied Future Focus Required • cogni@ve approaches of leadership rely on general leadership research of e.g., decision making processes, self-concept or meta-cogni@ve theories New-Genre Leadership New-Genre Leadership = leadership emphasising charisma@c leader behaviour, visionary inspiring, ideological and moral values as well as transforma@onal leadership such as individualized aKen@on and intellectual s@mula@on • based on transforma@onal leadership New-Genre Versus Tradi'onal Leadership • new leadership approaches resulted from disappointment about tradi@onal leadership theories which only accounted for a small amount of variance in performance outcomes o new leadership theories included many fields in the face of economic costbenefit assump@on o also emphasising emo@onal and inspira@onal topics Charisma2c/ transforma2onal leadership • when followers iden@fy with the leader and his/her goals higher goal values and aspira@ons are ac@vated à beKer feelings and work performance • charisma@c/transforma@onal leadership was posi@vely associated with leadership effec@veness and several organiza@onal outcomes • followers’ forma@on of commitment; sa@sfac@on; iden@fica@on; perceived fairness, job characteris@cs, trust, feelings about oneself or the group are analyzed whether they influence performance outcomes Boundary Condi'ons for New-Genre Leadership Under which boundary condi>ons is transforma>onal leadership more or less effec>ve? • Measured with predic@ve quality for followers a9tude and behaviour • Contextual variables are inves@gated as moderators or mediators • Follower disposi@ons (efficacy, physical and structural distance, environmental uncertainty, social networks, technology support, cultural orienta@ons) may also work as a moderators Future Focus Required • Determinants of charisma@c or transforma@onal leadership s@ll remain unclear • Further research is required for boundary condi@ons of effec@veness • Underlying processes of mo@va@on should be further inves@gated • More work on modera@ng and media@ng mechanisms between charisma@c/ transforma@onal leadership and follower outcomes à mediated modera@on, moderated media@on Mediated moderation = a modera@ng rela@onship that is mediated by another variable Moderated mediation = a media@ng rela@onship that is moderated by another variable • • • Further research on rela@on of emo@ons and leadership, emo@onal aKachment of followers and their affec@ve states Organiza@onal and strategic levels of leadership are not analysed enough o Charisma was associated with subsequent but underlying mediators/ moderators need more explora@on Mostly survey-based designs à more differen@ated research designs needed for valid findings Complexity leadership • • • Most theories work with tradi@onal hierarchical structures of organiza@ons à may not fully cover leadership dynamics which arise in modern economy complexity leadership: interac@ve system of dynamic, unpredictable agents that interact with each other in complex feedback networks, promo@ng adap@ve outcomes o “leadership can be enacted through any interac>on in an organiza@on . . . leadership is an emergent phenomenon within complex systems” (Hazy et al., 2007) Simply viewing leader and follower in simple exchange is not enough to explain the full dynamics Complexity and Tradi'onal Leadership theory • There are more agents involved in leadership dynamics (e.g., leader, follower, leader and group…) à complex adap2ve system (CAS) o Based on physical sciences composed of interdependent agents o Feedback plays also plays a role • Complexity leadership theory (CLT): overarching explana@on of how CAS operates within a bureaucra@c organiza@on with the focus on 3 leadership role 1. Adap@ve: engaging others in brainstorming 2. Administra@ve: formal planning 3. Enabling: minimizing constraints of an organiza@onal bureaucracy, enhancing follower poten@al Future Focus Required • The leader is embedded in the complex interplay between individuals • More focus should be on (1) micro daily interac@ons; (2) meso interac@ons (days and weeks); (3) macro interac@ons (Weeks, months and longer) • CAS are based on explicit assump@ons how a leader should act Shared, collec*ve or distribu*ve leadership Shared leadership = an emergent state where team members collec@vely lead each other • • • hierarchical labels are deleted and team-based structures are inserted Shared leadership is examined differently compared to tradi@onal leadership styles with more focus on processes across mul@ple members of a team Synonyms: distributed leadership, collec@ve leadership Shared leadership defined • Dynamic development throughout a team’s lifespan • Varies based on the inputs and outcomes of the team • Reciprocal influence • “a dynamic, interac@ve influence pro- cess among individuals in groups for which the objec@ve is to lead one another to the achieve- ment of group or organiza@onal goals or both. This influence process oSen involves peer, or lateral, influence and at other @mes involves upward or downward hierarchical influence „ (Pearce&Conger, 2003) • There are overlaps of shared and rela@onal and complex leadership • Shared leadership is broadly distributed within a group à defined as team level outcome • Serial emergence of official and unofficial leaders • Shared leadership is a property of the whole system Research evidence • Recent focus of leadership literature • Team-level measures of transforma@onal and transac@onal leadership posi@vely predicted performance, similar to individual-level measures Future focus • More uniform and widely agreed defini@on needed • Boundary condi@ons, mediators and moderators of shared leadership should be explored • Future focus on team’s life cycle • Environmental factors • Interrelated dimensions of shared leadership: (1) shared purpose; (2) social support; (3) voice • Organiza@onal climate factors crea@ng an environment that values member’s input o shared purpose = similar understandings of team’s objec@ves and goals o social support = provide reciprocal emo@onal and psychological strength • external team leaders’ influence on team’s ability and mo@va@on • shared leadership fosters change in the face of knowledge-driven era à more sustainable model of leadership Leader-member exchange (LMX) • • • • focus on the leadership between leader and follower assump@on of LMX theory: leaders develop different exchange rela@ons with their followers which affect outcomes à leadership occurs when leaders and followers develop effec@ve rela@onships higher-quality LMX à higher levels of performance and organiza@onal ci@zenship behaviour using integra@on tac@cs people with disabili@es increase the quality of the rela@onship between the leader and follower Extensions to LMX How does individual interest change in rela>on to trust, respect and obliga>ons in a dyad? • Similar goals lead to higher-quality LMX rela@onship • Compared with same-sex dyads, mixed dyads perceived a beKer LMX quality • quality of the rela@onship moderated the rela@onship between downward-influence tac@cs and helping behaviours • LMX worked as a mediator between locus of control and work-related outcomes • Pu9ng together social network theory and LMX à LMX-MMX theory of sharing network leadership • Interdependent dyadic rela@onships as well as formal and informal influences affect individual, team and network flow behaviours Future Focus required • Measurements of LMX shave no theore@cal base and seem to lack clear logic o Failing to conceptualize social context o Lack of analysis on group level à missing dyadic rela@onships within • Mainly self-report measures à oversimplifica@on of rela@onships, subjec@ve • Correla@ve data à lack of causality • No objec@ve measures for performance à independent measures are needed • Further research should examine cross—cultural effects on LMX development o Implica@ons of na@onal culture o Across cultures LMX related to coopera@ve goal se9ng and interdependence Followership and Leadership What role do followers play in leadership? Romance of Leadership • based on social construc2onist theory: beKer leadership if followers construct their own interpreta@ons of behaviours, personality and effec@veness of the leader • modest rela@onship between the romance of leadership and percep@ons of transforma@onal/charisma@c leadership à explaining 5% of variance in leadership • company’s performance only affected male’s leadership decisions significantly • nega@ve work views are more likely aKributed to leaders, more than jus@fied o success and failure are overly aKributed to leaders à may lead to nega@ve repercussions (for failure) Updates on Follower-Centric Views How do traits and characteris>cs influence leader-follower rela>onships? • Self-concept clarity and collec@ve iden@ty as important factors of forming charisma@c rela@onships o Personalized rela@onship with leader à more likely to show blind loyalty, obedience and deference • Kelly, 1992: differen@ated followers into quadrants based on characteris@cs ac@ve vs. passive and cri@cal vs. noncri@cal thinkers Future Focus Required • Leadership effec@veness depends on the leader as well as followers • How do needs, iden@@es and implicit theories affect leader selec@on? • How do expecta@ons, values, a9tudes determine leader behaviour? • Inves@gate different variables influencing leader’s self-confidence, efficacy and behaviour • How do follower characteris@cs determine leadership style? • follower-cantered, cross-cultural research à differences in treatment and development of followership Subs*tutes for Leadership • • subs2tute-for-leadership theory: how situa@onal factors enhance, neutralise and/ or totally subs@tute for leadership o e.g., digital support system “replacing” the leader’s role o building on situa@onal/ organiza@onal and follower characteris@cs o addressing romance effects evidence is not sufficient to accurately evaluate the assump@ons o liKle support was found for modera@ng effects proposed by the theory o may be due to measurement problems Future Focus Required • consider mul@ple moderators and their interac@on • five possible condi@ons in the rela@on of leader behaviour and leadership effec@veness: (1) main effects model; (2) subs@tutes of main effects; (3) interac@ve model; (4) media@on model; (5) (original) moderated model • future research should focus on the nature of samples à cross-cultural research o examine boundary condi@ons • more longitudinal research Servant leadership ten characteris2cs of a servant leader 1. listening 2. empathy 3. healing 4. awareness 5. persuasion 6. conceptualiza@on 7. foresight 8. stewardship 9. commitment 10. building community • • • • • servant leadership can be differen@ate into two categories: (1) func@onal aKributes: vision, honesty, trustworthiness, service orienta@on, role model quali@es; (2) accompany aKributes: communica@on skills, credibility, competence, encouragement limited research on servant leadership posi@ve rela@on to job sa@sfac@on, intrinsic work sa@sfac@on, caring for others, organiza@onal commitment servant leadership is posi@vely related to trust in leader and organiza@on followers’ ra@ngs of leaders’ servant leadership were posi@vely related to followers’ ra@ngs of leaders’ values of empathy, integrity, and competence Future Focus required • servant leadership is believed to have posi@ve effects on health and autonomy of followers o follower-centric approaches to inves@gate this assump@on • measurement of servant leadership is problema@c: lack of uniform defini@ons • How do personal values differ compared to other leadership styles? Spirituality and leadership Spiritual leadership = comprising the values, a9tudes, and behaviours that are necessary to intrinsically mo@vate one’s self and others so that they have a sense of spiritual survival through calling and membership ~Fry, 2005 • • lack of consensus about a defini@on of workplace spirituality effect of spiritual leadership: crea@ng a sense of fusion in the 4 fundamental forces human existence (body, mind, heart, spirit) à increase mo@va@on Future Focus Required • find appropriate defini@ons for spirituality in a work context o search for meaning, reflec@on, an inner connec@on, crea@vity, transforma@on, sacredness, and energy • no clear link to leadership in Frey’s defini@on and respec@ve model • only scratching the surface of research and respec@ve theories • two lines of thought related to spirituality: theological and inner mo@va@on/ drive • difficult to conceptualize measures without an agreed defini@on Cross-cultural leadership Cross-cultural leadership = the examina@on of leadership in mul@cultural contexts • fostered by globaliza@on of organiza@ons Project GLOBE GLOBE = global leadership and organiza@onal behavioural effec@veness • • influen@al cross-cultural leadership studies (160 researcher, 62 socie@es) quan@ta@ve + qualita@ve research Goals 1. develop cultural dimensions on organiza@onal and societal level 2. examine beliefs about effec@ve leaders 3. gather ethnographies of individuals Global Leadership • leaders who effec@vely lead across cultures • conceptualiza@on and defini@on differs a lot compared to other styles o focus on interna@onal experience o focus on competencies needed for successful leadership • broad set of experience rather than deep knowledge about a few cultures à global mindset, cultural intelligence Compara've Leadership • compares leadership in two or more culture • examining direct and indirect (modera@on) effect of cultural dimensions on leadership • allocentric people more posi@ve towards transforma@onal leaders, idiocen@rc were more posi@ve towards transac@onal leaders Future Focus Required • culture is a broad term and s@ll object of discussion • conceptual and methodological challenges à focus on levels of analysis: use appropriate theore@cal models and sta@s@cal methods • larger projects may provide appropriate samples E-Leadership E-leadership = leadership where individuals or groups are geographically dispensed, and interac@ons are mediated by technology • • • • leading virtually problem of priori@zing local problems over distant models based on facte-to-face leadership are not sufficient to explain dynamics of eleadership most research is focused on virtual teams or group decision support systems Common Ques'ons with E-Leadership • effects of nature and structure of technology on followers mo@va@on • trust informa@on and trust building • quality and quan@ty of communica@on • influence of task complexity on virtual team performance Group and Virtual Teams research • greater par@cipa@on in discussion for transac@onal leadership style • spa@ally separated leaders influenced communica@on to a greater extent o communica@on between leader and senior and junior members was balanced • task urgency increased involvement with senior members, and decreased communica@on with junior members and the team leader • face-to-face groups are more cohesive, accep@ng of decisions, construc@ve o virtual teams are higher in defensive interac@on styles Leadership abili2es in virtual teams 1. establish and maintain trust using technology communica@on 2. create understanding of distributed diversity 3. manage virual work-life cycles 4. monitor team progress using technology 5. enhance visibility of virtual members 6. create benefits for individual team members Future Focus Required • more mo@va@on in virtual teams when working on actual problem-solving tasks • inves@gate leadership in environments that lack central coordina@on or involve mul@ple leaders • task ownership, cohesion, media richness, communica@on quality and style, task complexity, simultaneous work • culturally diverse groups can only fulfil their poten@al aSer some @me • rela@on to other leadership styles Closing comments and integra*on Trends of leadership research: • • • • • • more holis@c view of leadership examining the process of leadership o greater interest in informa@on processing o examine mediators and moderators alterna@ve ways to examine leadership o using mixes-methods designs clarify defini@ons of leadership more aKen@on to strategic leadership which factors contribute to genuine leadership