Leader and leadership loneliness: A review-based critique and path to future research

IF 9.1 1区 管理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT Leadership Quarterly Pub Date : 2024-06-01 DOI:10.1016/j.leaqua.2024.101780
Hodar Lam , Steffen R. Giessner , Meir Shemla , Mirjam D. Werner
{"title":"Leader and leadership loneliness: A review-based critique and path to future research","authors":"Hodar Lam ,&nbsp;Steffen R. Giessner ,&nbsp;Meir Shemla ,&nbsp;Mirjam D. Werner","doi":"10.1016/j.leaqua.2024.101780","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Does loneliness matter for leadership? Recent years saw an increase in academic literature trying to answer this question. To evaluate if existing research could support theory and practice of the leader loneliness phenomenon, we reviewed the literature across levels of analysis and research paradigms, including 71 empirical articles. We identified four major conceptual and methodological limitations. First, the conceptual representation of leader loneliness is unclear and often conflates with general loneliness. Therefore, leadership-specific nomological networks are missing in theoretical conceptualizations. Second, the quality of some empirical findings is insufficient to support policy implications based on different research paradigms and levels of analysis have led to some inconsistent and unreconciled conclusions. Specifically, we could identify only two quantitative and three qualitative articles with policy implications. Third, the measurement of leader loneliness is often imprecise: some items are confounded with extroversion-introversion; some others measure the antecedents of loneliness. Fourth, the methodological concerns in prior work hinder the interpretation of many available findings. Specifically, some quantitative studies incur endogeneity issues, lack realism or costly outcomes in laboratory studies, whereas a number of qualitative studies involve research design issues and lack counterfactuals in theorizing. To contribute to better research practices on this timely topic, we offer suggestions for a better definition, improvement areas in measurement, statistical analysis to avoid endogeneity issues, and trustworthy qualitative research.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48434,"journal":{"name":"Leadership Quarterly","volume":"35 3","pages":"Article 101780"},"PeriodicalIF":9.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Leadership Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1048984324000092","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Does loneliness matter for leadership? Recent years saw an increase in academic literature trying to answer this question. To evaluate if existing research could support theory and practice of the leader loneliness phenomenon, we reviewed the literature across levels of analysis and research paradigms, including 71 empirical articles. We identified four major conceptual and methodological limitations. First, the conceptual representation of leader loneliness is unclear and often conflates with general loneliness. Therefore, leadership-specific nomological networks are missing in theoretical conceptualizations. Second, the quality of some empirical findings is insufficient to support policy implications based on different research paradigms and levels of analysis have led to some inconsistent and unreconciled conclusions. Specifically, we could identify only two quantitative and three qualitative articles with policy implications. Third, the measurement of leader loneliness is often imprecise: some items are confounded with extroversion-introversion; some others measure the antecedents of loneliness. Fourth, the methodological concerns in prior work hinder the interpretation of many available findings. Specifically, some quantitative studies incur endogeneity issues, lack realism or costly outcomes in laboratory studies, whereas a number of qualitative studies involve research design issues and lack counterfactuals in theorizing. To contribute to better research practices on this timely topic, we offer suggestions for a better definition, improvement areas in measurement, statistical analysis to avoid endogeneity issues, and trustworthy qualitative research.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
领导者与领导孤独感:基于评论的批判和未来研究之路
孤独对领导力有影响吗?近年来,试图回答这一问题的学术文献越来越多。为了评估现有研究能否为领导者孤独现象的理论和实践提供支持,我们回顾了不同分析水平和研究范式的文献,其中包括 71 篇经验性文章。我们发现在概念和方法上存在四大局限。首先,领导者孤独感的概念表述不清晰,经常与一般孤独感混为一谈。因此,在理论概念中缺少领导者特有的名义网络。其次,一些实证研究结果的质量不足以支持基于不同研究范式和分析水平的政策含义,这导致了一些不一致和不协调的结论。具体而言,我们仅发现两篇定量文章和三篇定性文章具有政策含义。第三,对领导者孤独感的测量往往不精确:一些项目与外向-内向混淆;另一些项目测量孤独感的前因。第四,以往研究中存在的方法问题阻碍了对许多现有研究结果的解释。具体而言,一些定量研究存在内生性问题、缺乏现实性或实验室研究结果代价高昂,而一些定性研究则涉及研究设计问题,在理论研究中缺乏反事实。为了在这一适时的课题上促进更好的研究实践,我们提出了更好的定义、改进测量领域、避免内生性问题的统计分析以及值得信赖的定性研究等建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
15.20
自引率
9.30%
发文量
58
期刊介绍: The Leadership Quarterly is a social-science journal dedicated to advancing our understanding of leadership as a phenomenon, how to study it, as well as its practical implications. Leadership Quarterly seeks contributions from various disciplinary perspectives, including psychology broadly defined (i.e., industrial-organizational, social, evolutionary, biological, differential), management (i.e., organizational behavior, strategy, organizational theory), political science, sociology, economics (i.e., personnel, behavioral, labor), anthropology, history, and methodology.Equally desirable are contributions from multidisciplinary perspectives.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Exogenous shocks: Definitions, types, and causal identification issues Editorial Board Advancing Organizational Science With Computational Process Theories The research transparency index
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1