Dayna O. H. Walker, Eric D. Middleton, Rebecca J. Reichard, Ronald E. Riggio
{"title":"Leadership Role Occupancy and Leader Self-Views Across 20 Years: Implications for Leader Development","authors":"Dayna O. H. Walker, Eric D. Middleton, Rebecca J. Reichard, Ronald E. Riggio","doi":"10.1177/15480518241256542","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Despite the recognized importance of leader development as a lifelong process, it remains unclear whether adolescents who engage in leadership will continue to do so into adulthood. Moreover, to what extent does leadership role occupancy facilitate internalizing future leader self-views? Conversely, to what extent does internalizing leader self-views facilitate future leadership role occupancy? The current paper examines these questions across three epochs of the lifespan (i.e., adolescence, early adulthood, and mid-adulthood) with a quasilongitudinal design. Drawing from a prospective database of 107 participants spanning over 26 years, we test within and between system effects of the leader experience processing system (i.e., leadership roles at ages 17, 29, and 38) and the leader self-view system (i.e., general self-concept at age 12, leader self-efficacy at age 17, and leader identity at ages 29 and 38). Structural equation modeling results support consistency in both systems, with more support for consistency in the leader self-view system. In addition, both systems mediate the other over time, suggesting a dynamic interplay whereby leaders integrate and build on leadership experiences in a process we call spontaneous leader development. Contrary to theory, we only found evidence for bi-directional relationships between systems in adolescence and early adulthood; in mid-adulthood at age 38, leader identity informed leadership roles but not vice versa. Implications of these findings for leader development theory are discussed.","PeriodicalId":51455,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15480518241256542","RegionNum":3,"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
Despite the recognized importance of leader development as a lifelong process, it remains unclear whether adolescents who engage in leadership will continue to do so into adulthood. Moreover, to what extent does leadership role occupancy facilitate internalizing future leader self-views? Conversely, to what extent does internalizing leader self-views facilitate future leadership role occupancy? The current paper examines these questions across three epochs of the lifespan (i.e., adolescence, early adulthood, and mid-adulthood) with a quasilongitudinal design. Drawing from a prospective database of 107 participants spanning over 26 years, we test within and between system effects of the leader experience processing system (i.e., leadership roles at ages 17, 29, and 38) and the leader self-view system (i.e., general self-concept at age 12, leader self-efficacy at age 17, and leader identity at ages 29 and 38). Structural equation modeling results support consistency in both systems, with more support for consistency in the leader self-view system. In addition, both systems mediate the other over time, suggesting a dynamic interplay whereby leaders integrate and build on leadership experiences in a process we call spontaneous leader development. Contrary to theory, we only found evidence for bi-directional relationships between systems in adolescence and early adulthood; in mid-adulthood at age 38, leader identity informed leadership roles but not vice versa. Implications of these findings for leader development theory are discussed.