Leadership Quarterly最新文献

The article systematically explores exogenous shocks in leadership and management research. It introduces a special issue of The Leadership Quarterly emphasizing how naturally occurring events like financial crises, pandemics, and regulatory changes can be used for empirical research. Then, it reviews various conceptualizations and ways of integrating exogenous shocks into empirical strategies. Finally, it categorizes exogenous shocks based on their extent, timescale, and granularity of intervention, highlighting challenges in causal identification.

Whereas the scarring effects of unemployment on future income, health and well-being are well-documented, little is known about its potential role in future leadership emergence and development. Using data from two cohorts of the National Longitudinal Study of Youth (NLSY79 and NLSY97) and drawing from life course theory, we examine the role of employment gaps in emerging adulthood on leadership role occupancy in middle adulthood. Based on a combined sample of 9,915 respondents (NLSY79 N = 5,551; NLSY97 N = 4,567), we find strong and robust support for significant scarring effects of early-career unemployment on individuals’ future chances to occupy leadership positions in work settings. We further examine the moderating role of early life disadvantage (operationalized as family socio-economic status and childhood delinquency) and sex. Based on our main and supplementary analyses, we find some but weak support for these interaction effects. Our results based on complete case analyses support the role of early life disadvantage, showing that individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds experience stronger negative effects on leader role occupancy due to employment gaps in emerging adulthood. They further support the moderating role of sex, showing women to experience more adverse effects. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.

We use a laboratory experiment to study how leaders affect workers’ productivity across economic incentive contexts. In four-person groups, three group members work on a production task, with a fourth member potentially serving as a leader. We vary the economic context by changing how worker pay is determined as a function of worker outputs, comparing Revenue Sharing, Weak Link or Tournament incentives while holding constant the activity performed by workers and the incentives for leaders. A second treatment varies whether groups have Active Leaders who can exert influence through messages to workers or Passive Supervisors who exert no influence. The average effect of having an Active Leader on group output is large only under Weak Link incentives. Across all incentive contexts, we find a positive correlation between the productivity increase in output produced by an Active Leader and independent ratings of leader quality based on measures from leadership research. The nature of leaders’ communication varies across incentive contexts, with comparisons between workers most common under Tournament incentives and messages about group earnings, which speak to social considerations, most common with Weak Link incentives.

Organizational scholars commonly refer to organizations as complex systems unfolding as a function of work processes. Consequently, the direct study of work processes necessitates our attention. However, organizational scholars tend not to study work processes directly. Instead, organizational scholars commonly develop theories about relationships among psychological construct phenomena that indirectly reference people’s affective, behavioral, cognitive, and/or social processes as underlying explanations. Specifically, construct-oriented theories summarize processes in operation across actors, time, and contexts, and thus, provide limited insights into how focal phenomena manifest directly as a function of process operations. Construct theories remain one-step removed from articulating sequences of actions and two-steps removed from describing generative mechanisms responsible for observed actions. By “missing the action,” construct theories offer incomplete explanatory accounts and imprecise interventions. We assert that researchers in organizational science can make progress towards addressing these concerns by directing greater attention to developing computational process theories. We begin by presenting a framework for differentiating theories based on their focus (constructs versus processes) and modality (narrative versus computational). We use the framework to contrast narrative construct theories to computational process theories. We then describe key design principles for developing computational process theories and explain those principles using a leadership example. We use simulated data, from the computational process model we develop, to explicitly demonstrate the differences between construct and process thinking. We then discuss how computational process theories advance theory development. We conclude with a discussion of the long-term benefits of computational process theories for organizational science.