Leadership Quarterly最新文献

Leadership scholars increasingly acknowledge the shortcomings of using questionnaires. Consequently, there is a trend towards more behavior-based research, with interaction coding as one promising method. By precisely analyzing recordings of leader–follower interactions, interaction coding helps quantify verbal and non-verbal behavioral patterns that unfold between leaders and their followers, thereby providing access to the behavioral dynamics that are at the core of leadership. Yet, analyzing leader–follower interactions is much less straightforward than it might appear. Bold claims like “objective data” and “actual behavior” frequently used in such studies tend to paint a somewhat tainted picture of the opportunities and challenges associated with interaction coding. To synthesize the existing empirical knowledge concerning the use of interaction coding in leadership research, we present the findings from a critical review of the current research landscape. This review highlights that questions related to observer inference, standards for observer agreement, and the validity of interaction coding are often not sufficiently addressed in empirical work. Drawing on these findings, we identify questionable research practices and juxtapose these with best-practice recommendations. Finally, we provide a discussion and outlook on how behavior-based methods can move the leadership field forward by facilitating theoretical advancements and deriving actionable guidance for practitioners.

Despite a tremendous amount of research on the topic, we still have little evidence regarding the extent to which transformational leader behaviors (TLBs) cause a number of outcomes. The primary inhibitors include a lack of theoretical precision, the conflation of leader (follower) behaviors with evaluations, as well as measurement and design issues which prevent causal inferences. To address such concerns, we reframe the transformational leadership literature from a signaling theory perspective. Study 1 reviewed existing definitions of transformational leadership. Building on this, we introduce a new definition of TLB: Leader signaling through developmental and prosocial behaviors tailored for each unique stakeholder (e.g., person, dyad, group, organization). Leveraging topic modeling, Study 2 involved the analysis of open-ended survey responses. Using a constant comparative approach, six TLBs were identified: 1. teaching life lessons, 2. introduction to developmental opportunities, 3. providing different perspectives, 4. seeking different perspectives, 5. questioning critical assumptions, and 6. speaking words of affirmation. Studies 3 and 4 were preregistered experiments that showed TLBs cause variation in follower evaluations of the leader as transformational (n = 416; Cohen’s d = .50) and contributions to a public good (n = 320; Cohen’s d = .36), respectively. We conclude with recommendations for theory and practice.

One of the most important things leaders do is communicate. Though research on leaders’ communication has been active for half a century, to date there has been little effort to review it comprehensively and systematically. In this paper we review 260 articles that use leaders’ actual communication (textual, aural, and video) as data. We group these studies into four broad categories as a function of whether they focus on the (1) content and style, (2) antecedents, or (3) outcomes of leader communication, or (4) use leaders’ communication data to infer leader attributes that are unrelated to communication. We document how empirical methodologies to analyze verbal and nonverbal communication have advanced over time, with early labor-intensive coding methods joined by more automatic and computer-based approaches, including Machine Learning. We conclude by discussing how this research has extended and enriched dominant leadership theories and suggest future opportunities for studies that use leader communication as a focal construct or input.

Illuminating the nature of leadership and followership requires insights into not only how leaders and followers behave, but also the different cognitions that underpin these social relationships. We argue that the roots of leader and follower roles and status asymmetries often lie in basic mental processes such as attention and visual perception. To understand not only how but also why leaders’ and followers’ behavioral patterns vary, we focus here on underpinning attentional processes that often drive rank-based behaviors. Methodologically, this focus on basic attentional and perceptual processes lessens the reliance on self-report and questionnaire-based data, and expands our scientific understanding to actual, real-world leadership dynamics. Here, we review the available evidence indicating that leaders and followers differ in whether and how they receive, direct, and pay visual attention. Our review brings together diverse empirical evidence from organization science, primatology, and social, developmental, and cognitive psychology on eye gaze, attention, and status in adults, children, and non-human primates. Based on this review of the cross-disciplinary literature, we propose future directions and research questions that this attention-based approach can generate for illuminating the puzzle of leadership and followership.

Behaviors can be characterized as “the internally coordinated responses (actions or inactions) of whole living organisms (individuals or groups) to internal and/or external stimuli.” (Levitis et al., 2009). The study of behavior is a critical component of theory advancement in the area of leadership. Yet, a large number of leadership studies conflate behavioral and nonbehavioral concepts. First, our manuscript offers a theoretical discussion of why the absence of research on behavior is a growing concern for the advancement of theory in leadership. Evidence from a systematic review (k = 214) indicates that of 2338 variables only 3% are behavioral in nature (19% of studies include at least one behavioral measure). Second, we present a framework of behavior to better distinguish leader (follower) behaviors from other concepts. Finally, we provide a set of methodological recommendations to ensure alignment between theoretical conceptualizations and methodological choices.

Remote and gig work is prevalent in today’s labor market and calls for skilled digital leaders. Signaling charisma using charismatic-leadership-tactics (CLTs) to increase follower performance works in face-to-face communication. However, technology-mediated communication reduces the signaling opportunities, thereby calling the effectiveness of charismatic signaling into question. In Study 1, I conducted a large field experiment investigating the impact of charismatic signaling (neutral or charisma) and the chosen communication channel (text, audio, video), on follower performance in the gig economy. Video messages led to lower output than text or audio communication in the neutral set-up. In contrast, the output was not significantly different between the communication channels in the charisma set-ups. The data revealed a positive interaction between video communication and CLT presence. The charismatic video led to higher output than the neutral video indicating that leaders need to deliver a coherent picture, especially when using the video channel. In Study 2, I investigated if traditional questionnaires (MLQ) measuring perceived charisma and unrelated participants’ forecasts predict Study 1′s outcomes. Although CLT presence led to higher scores in perceived charisma, follower performance was not predicted by the scores. Thus, the MLQ is not an appropriate instrument for predicting follower behavior.

Our field has lost its way. Leadership is what people do in order to influence others so that the others can and will contribute to the objectives of the collective. And yet, when looking at recent leadership research, the “what people do” – the behavioral elements as shown in true actions and choices – are almost completely absent. They have been replaced by evaluative surveys that tend to have tenuous links to reality and correspondingly limited policy implications. If our discipline is to advance as a science and achieve impact, we need to move beyond the ritualized use of questionnaires and become true behavioral scientists, with behaviors as the fundamental units of our understanding. Against this background, in this editorial we discuss the theoretical, operational, and empirical limitations of questionnaires for studying leadership. We then highlight examples of how researchers can better measure leadership as behaviors, as well as antecedents and consequences of those behaviors. We synthesize the discussion and offer concrete recommendations to help our discipline become what it is supposed to be: A science that people look to in order to find actionable guidance for improving their leadership.

More and more scholars are expressing doubt about whether questionnaire-based and other human-rater-based forms of behavior measurement are trustworthy, even though many of these measures meet psychometric best practice standards. I identify a lack of behavioral counterfactuals as common yet avoidable underlying problem and the existence of behavioral counterfactuals as an overlooked validity criterion. When behavioral counterfactuals exist, variation in item responses indicates variation in the presence, magnitude, or temporal unfolding of behaviors. By contrast, responses to non-counterfactual items and measures represent an indefinite mix of behavioral variation and variation in raters’ evaluation of the social significance of behaviors. I offer a typology of behaviorally non-counterfactual item formulations and conduct a large-scale review that identifies non-counterfactual item formulations as a severe and widespread problem that has intensified in recent decades. Such non-counterfactual measurement undermines the correctness of research findings and the clarity of action recommendations for managers. Using the stylized example of helpful and harmful leadership, I illustrate how non-counterfactual measures can gain erroneous empirical support and provide flawed as well as opaque “information” about effective leadership behavior. To reinvigorate research, I provide recommendations for ensuring behavioral counterfactuals, for example, through better questionnaires and coding schemes, experimentation, and technology-based measurement.

We use an event study design to provide evidence demonstrating how the trickle-down effect is influenced by the introduction of regulation on board gender diversity. In 2011, a new regulation was suddenly introduced for firms listed on the United Kingdom’s FTSE 350 index, the regulatory intervention put forward recommendations to increase the representation of women on the boards of FTSE 350 listed firms – the most critical recommendation was a voluntary target of having twenty-five percent of board positions held by women. We argue this change in regulation represents an exogenous shock, we utilize this shock to investigate how regulation influences the trickle-down of women’s representation from board level to senior management. We find evidence of a positive relationship between women on boards and women’s representation in senior management during the pre-regulation era – otherwise referred to as the trickle-down effect. However, the introduction of regulation had the unintended consequence of weakening the relationship between women on boards and women in senior management. Our results suggest that the trickle-down effect varies between different contexts and settings. We discuss the implications for research and practice.

Adaptive leadership theory suggests that shared leadership networks grow in a complex manner. We propose that leadership decentralization (the dispersion of leadership), leadership density (the total amount of leadership), and situationally-aligned leadership (SAL: leadership transitions to those who fit situation requirements) are distinct aspects of a shared leadership network and should be examined together to capture the development of shared leadership process. Through a study of 450 participants in 90 teams, we find that each of these three aspects of shared leadership plays a different role during shared leadership network emergence. Specifically, transactive memory systems (TMS) contribute to decentralized leadership structures, which in turn precipitate more dense leadership networks. We also find that TMS contributes to the most situationally aligned team member engaging in leadership. Both leadership density and SAL predict team performance. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these results.