Pub Date : 2025-01-01Epub Date: 2024-12-19DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2024.101855
Paul Amari , George Banks , Leah Bourque , Holly Holladay , Ernest O’Boyle
Effect size benchmarks guide theory, aid in interpreting practical significance, and help gauge scientific progress. However, effect size benchmarks derived from correlations typically violate the definition of an “effect” because they do not capture a singular causal relationship and instead represent an ambiguous amalgamation of additive, multiplicative, and interactive causes. Therefore, correlational benchmarks can be highly misleading to the point of threatening the very livelihood of society at large by misinforming policy and decision-making. To highlight these issues and demonstrate a more productive path forward, we begin by reviewing the four key challenges in creating effect size benchmarks and establishing evidence of causal inference strength. We then illustrate the limitations and opportunities in current practice through a systematic review of the leadership literature that highlights four themes related to causally identified effect sizes. We conclude this work with a blueprint that provides a meaningful redirection of the conversation so that future meta-analytic studies can provide accurate, specific, and unconfounded effect size benchmarks to achieve a more robust and cumulative science.
{"title":"Effect size benchmarks: Time for a causal renaissance","authors":"Paul Amari , George Banks , Leah Bourque , Holly Holladay , Ernest O’Boyle","doi":"10.1016/j.leaqua.2024.101855","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.leaqua.2024.101855","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Effect size benchmarks guide theory, aid in interpreting practical significance, and help gauge scientific progress. However, effect size benchmarks derived from correlations typically violate the definition of an “effect” because they do not capture a singular causal relationship and instead represent an ambiguous amalgamation of additive, multiplicative, and interactive causes. Therefore, correlational benchmarks can be highly misleading to the point of threatening the very livelihood of society at large by misinforming policy and decision-making. To highlight these issues and demonstrate a more productive path forward, we begin by reviewing the four key challenges in creating effect size benchmarks and establishing evidence of causal inference strength. We then illustrate the limitations and opportunities in current practice through a systematic review of the leadership literature that highlights four themes related to causally identified effect sizes. We conclude this work with a blueprint that provides a meaningful redirection of the conversation so that future meta-analytic studies can provide accurate, specific, and unconfounded effect size benchmarks to achieve a more robust and cumulative science.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48434,"journal":{"name":"Leadership Quarterly","volume":"36 1","pages":"Article 101855"},"PeriodicalIF":9.1,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142968128","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-01-01Epub Date: 2024-11-17DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2024.101840
Yangyang Zhang , Ann Mooney , Sibel Ozgen
Bolstered by their slow but increasing representation, racial minority strategic leaders have started to capture significant research attention across disciplines. We review this emergent literature, synthesizing and integrating the research progress to date across the 147 articles we identified. Our review highlights a range of factors that have been found to influence racial minority representation in strategic leadership positions, including factors at the firm, board, individual, and environmental levels. We also summarize how such representation has been found to affect firm outcomes (e.g., firm performance, innovation) as well as the careers of the racial minority leaders (e.g., compensation, promotion). Despite the many advances made in the literature, we assert that the research on racial minority strategic leadership is at a critical juncture. Specifically, we call attention to three major challenges that may threaten research contributions if not addressed: (1) strengthening methodology – constructs, measurement, and analyses, (2) fortifying theoretical underpinnings, and (3) strengthening generalizability of research findings with a deeper consideration of context. Finally, we offer a roadmap for future research, including insights for addressing the three challenges we identified and suggestions for new and broader research directions that we believe will meaningfully advance the field.
{"title":"Racial minorities in strategic leadership: An integrative literature review and future research roadmap","authors":"Yangyang Zhang , Ann Mooney , Sibel Ozgen","doi":"10.1016/j.leaqua.2024.101840","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.leaqua.2024.101840","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Bolstered by their slow but increasing representation, racial minority strategic leaders have started to capture significant research attention across disciplines. We review this emergent literature, synthesizing and integrating the research progress to date across the 147 articles we identified. Our review highlights a range of factors that have been found to influence racial minority representation in strategic leadership positions, including factors at the firm, board, individual, and environmental levels. We also summarize how such representation has been found to affect firm outcomes (e.g., firm performance, innovation) as well as the careers of the racial minority leaders (e.g., compensation, promotion). Despite the many advances made in the literature, we assert that the research on racial minority strategic leadership is at a critical juncture. Specifically, we call attention to three major challenges that may threaten research contributions if not addressed: (1) strengthening methodology – constructs, measurement, and analyses, (2) fortifying theoretical underpinnings, and (3) strengthening generalizability of research findings with a deeper consideration of context. Finally, we offer a roadmap for future research, including insights for addressing the three challenges we identified and suggestions for new and broader research directions that we believe will meaningfully advance the field.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48434,"journal":{"name":"Leadership Quarterly","volume":"36 1","pages":"Article 101840"},"PeriodicalIF":9.1,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143151254","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-12-01Epub Date: 2024-08-27DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2024.101810
Vita Akstinaite , Ulrich Thy Jensen , Michalis Vlachos , Alexis Erne , John Antonakis
A key assumption in modern conceptualizations of charisma is that it is a costly signal. It thus should be easier for intelligent individuals to produce this signal: it requires one to be creative, communicate in symbolic ways, have the needed expertise, and be consistent in one’s values and actions. At this time, it is unclear whether this assumption holds. Using data from an incentivized laboratory experiment (n = 1,998 general population) and two field settings (n = 134 public service leaders and n = 41 U.S. presidents), we show that individuals’s charisma signaling scores strongly correlate with their scores on intelligence. A change of a standard deviation in intelligence was associated with changes in charisma signaling of 7.89 % (Study 1), 11.01 % (Study 2), as well as 5.70 %, 6.80 %, and 12.23 % (Study 3), respectively. In addition, Studies 1 and 2 showed that scores on personality dimensions—whether the big five or the big six—do not correlate with charisma signaling. Our results lay the foundations for explaining a mechanism for why charisma signaling is a potent motivational tool and thus have important theoretical and policy implications.
{"title":"Charisma is a costly signal","authors":"Vita Akstinaite , Ulrich Thy Jensen , Michalis Vlachos , Alexis Erne , John Antonakis","doi":"10.1016/j.leaqua.2024.101810","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.leaqua.2024.101810","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>A key assumption in modern conceptualizations of charisma is that it is a costly signal. It thus should be easier for intelligent individuals to produce this signal: it requires one to be creative, communicate in symbolic ways, have the needed expertise, and be consistent in one’s values and actions. At this time, it is unclear whether this assumption holds. Using data from an incentivized laboratory experiment (<em>n</em> = 1,998 general population) and two field settings (<em>n</em> = 134 public service leaders and <em>n</em> = 41 U.S. presidents), we show that individuals’s charisma signaling scores strongly correlate with their scores on intelligence. A change of a standard deviation in intelligence was associated with changes in charisma signaling of 7.89 % (Study 1), 11.01 % (Study 2), as well as 5.70 %, 6.80 %, and 12.23 % (Study 3), respectively. In addition, Studies 1 and 2 showed that scores on personality dimensions—whether the big five or the big six—do not correlate with charisma signaling. Our results lay the foundations for explaining a mechanism for why charisma signaling is a potent motivational tool and thus have important theoretical and policy implications.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48434,"journal":{"name":"Leadership Quarterly","volume":"35 6","pages":"Article 101810"},"PeriodicalIF":9.1,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142756808","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-12-01Epub Date: 2024-07-22DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2024.101811
Kim Peters , Miguel A. Fonseca , Niklas K. Steffens , Oliver P. Hauser
The pay gap between those in leadership positions and other organisational members has risen markedly over the last five decades. There is evidence that this gap may undermine subordinate identification with and evaluation of the organisation and its leaders. To date, however, there is limited evidence that this gap affects related subordinate behaviour, including their willingness to follow their leader’s commands and work for the organisational public good. To address this, we ran two pre-registered experiments (Study 1: N = 318; Study 2: N = 327) that examined participants’ real effort behaviour in temporary ‘organisations’ with a small or large leader-worker pay gap. We varied whether this pay gap was exogenously determined (Study 1), or endogenously chosen by the leader (Study 2). In both studies, workers in large (versus small) pay gap organisations were less likely to identify with their leader and organisation and reported poorer affective well-being. They were also less willing, at least initially, to follow their leader’s commands. When the size of the pay gap was endogenously chosen by the leader, workers in large (versus small) gap organisations reduced their contributions to the public good. We discuss implications for organisational leadership and performance.
{"title":"Do followers mind the pay gap? An experimental test of the impact of the vertical pay gap on leader effectiveness","authors":"Kim Peters , Miguel A. Fonseca , Niklas K. Steffens , Oliver P. Hauser","doi":"10.1016/j.leaqua.2024.101811","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.leaqua.2024.101811","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The pay gap between those in leadership positions and other organisational members has risen markedly over the last five decades. There is evidence that this gap may undermine subordinate identification with and evaluation of the organisation and its leaders. To date, however, there is limited evidence that this gap affects related subordinate behaviour, including their willingness to follow their leader’s commands and work for the organisational public good. To address this, we ran two pre-registered experiments (Study 1: <em>N</em> = 318; Study 2: <em>N</em> = 327) that examined participants’ real effort behaviour in temporary ‘organisations’ with a small or large leader-worker pay gap. We varied whether this pay gap was exogenously determined (Study 1), or endogenously chosen by the leader (Study 2). In both studies, workers in large (versus small) pay gap organisations were less likely to identify with their leader and organisation and reported poorer affective well-being. They were also less willing, at least initially, to follow their leader’s commands. When the size of the pay gap was endogenously chosen by the leader, workers in large (versus small) gap organisations reduced their contributions to the public good. We discuss implications for organisational leadership and performance.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48434,"journal":{"name":"Leadership Quarterly","volume":"35 6","pages":"Article 101811"},"PeriodicalIF":9.1,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141768937","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-12-01Epub Date: 2024-08-22DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2024.101822
Samantha C. Paustian-Underdahl , Caitlin E. Smith Sockbeson , Alison V. Hall , Cynthia Saldanha Halliday
As more women have entered the managerial ranks, discussion about differences between men’s and women’s leadership behaviors have persisted. The current study reviews and analyzes 50 years of research to examine gender differences in evaluations of their leadership behaviors. Across 13 new meta-analyses using data from 1970 to 2020, we examine evaluations of leadership behaviors that vary across two dimensions: communal-agentic and effective-ineffective, including: democratic/participative, relationship-oriented/consideration, idealized influence, individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation, ethical/moral, autocratic/directive, task-oriented/initiating structure, contingent reward, MBE-active, inspirational motivation, MBE-passive, and laissez-faire. The meta-analytic results suggest that women are seen as engaging in more effective agentic and communal leadership behaviors, compared to men, while men are seen as engaging in less effective and more passive leadership behavior, compared to women. Relying on social role theory and arguments from the double standards of competence literature, we also examine whether the relationship between gender and evaluations of leadership behaviors differs across time and levels of leadership. Interestingly, only one primary study across all our analyses utilized an objective instead of a subjective measure of leader behavior, underscoring the imperative for more objective assessments in the future. Practical implications and future research directions are also discussed. All supplemental material can be found at: https://osf.io/enm3d/?view_only=ea99d34911284304a4b2bf61079d5ecd.
{"title":"Gender and evaluations of leadership behaviors: A meta-analytic review of 50 years of research","authors":"Samantha C. Paustian-Underdahl , Caitlin E. Smith Sockbeson , Alison V. Hall , Cynthia Saldanha Halliday","doi":"10.1016/j.leaqua.2024.101822","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.leaqua.2024.101822","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>As more women have entered the managerial ranks, discussion about differences between men’s and women’s leadership behaviors have persisted. The current study reviews and analyzes 50 years of research to examine gender differences in evaluations of their leadership behaviors. Across 13 new meta-analyses using data from 1970 to 2020, we examine evaluations of leadership behaviors that vary across two dimensions: communal-agentic and effective-ineffective, including: democratic/participative, relationship-oriented/consideration, idealized influence, individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation, ethical/moral, autocratic/directive, task-oriented/initiating structure, contingent reward, MBE-active, inspirational motivation, MBE-passive, and laissez-faire. The meta-analytic results suggest that women are seen as engaging in more effective agentic and communal leadership behaviors, compared to men, while men are seen as engaging in less effective and more passive leadership behavior, compared to women. Relying on social role theory and arguments from the double standards of competence literature, we also examine whether the relationship between gender and evaluations of leadership behaviors differs across time and levels of leadership. Interestingly, only one primary study across all our analyses utilized an objective instead of a subjective measure of leader behavior, underscoring the imperative for more objective assessments in the future. Practical implications and future research directions are also discussed. All supplemental material can be found at: <span><span>https://osf.io/enm3d/?view_only=ea99d34911284304a4b2bf61079d5ecd</span><svg><path></path></svg></span>.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48434,"journal":{"name":"Leadership Quarterly","volume":"35 6","pages":"Article 101822"},"PeriodicalIF":9.1,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142756811","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-12-01Epub Date: 2024-08-30DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2024.101814
Brooke A. Gazdag , Jamie L. Gloor , Cécile Emery , Sebastian A. Tideman-Frappart , Eugenia Bajet Mestre
Traditionally, leadership scholars often study snapshots of leaders in organizations. However, academic publishing offers a unique, more controlled context to study leadership with implications for leadership scholars and scholarship. Hence, we present a descriptive overview of women’s representation across 33 years in 11 top management journals across levels of leaders in academic publishing (i.e., editors, associate editors, and editorial board members) and authors. To do so, we curated an archival dataset tracking women’s representation over time and across these four levels (i.e., 21,510 authors and 4,173 leaders) with 51,360 data entries for the authors and 320,545 for the leaders. Overall, women’s representation increased over time, which was explained by simple time trend effects. Only 32 of 135 editors were women (i.e., 23.7 %), and the share of women associate editors showed particularly drastic fluctuations. We did not observe a “leaky pipeline” except from the associate editor to editor step, as well as notable fluctuations—particularly after new editor appointments—and between journals. We discuss the influential roles editors and publishers have on women’s representation in academic publishing and science more broadly as well as implications for future research and policy.
{"title":"Women in academic publishing: Descriptive trends from authors to editors across 33 years of management science","authors":"Brooke A. Gazdag , Jamie L. Gloor , Cécile Emery , Sebastian A. Tideman-Frappart , Eugenia Bajet Mestre","doi":"10.1016/j.leaqua.2024.101814","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.leaqua.2024.101814","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Traditionally, leadership scholars often study snapshots of leaders in organizations. However, academic publishing offers a unique, more controlled context to study leadership with implications for leadership scholars and scholarship. Hence, we present a descriptive overview of women’s representation across 33 years in 11 top management journals across levels of leaders in academic publishing (i.e., editors, associate editors, and editorial board members) and authors. To do so, we curated an archival dataset tracking women’s representation over time and across these four levels (i.e., 21,510 authors and 4,173 leaders) with 51,360 data entries for the authors and 320,545 for the leaders. Overall, women’s representation increased over time, which was explained by simple time trend effects. Only 32 of 135 editors were women (i.e., 23.7 %), and the share of women associate editors showed particularly drastic fluctuations. We did not observe a “leaky pipeline” except from the associate editor to editor step, as well as notable fluctuations—particularly after new editor appointments—and between journals. We discuss the influential roles editors and publishers have on women’s representation in academic publishing and science more broadly as well as implications for future research and policy.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48434,"journal":{"name":"Leadership Quarterly","volume":"35 6","pages":"Article 101814"},"PeriodicalIF":9.1,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142756906","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-12-01Epub Date: 2024-10-08DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2024.101812
William G. Obenauer , Jost Sieweke , Nicolas Bastardoz , Paulo R. Arvate , Brooke A. Gazdag , Tanja Hentschel
Extant research has used the COVID-19 pandemic as a context to test the “women leadership advantage during crisis” hypothesis. An influential paper reported that women U.S. governors were associated with fewer COVID-19 deaths. Building on this work, we demonstrate that methodological assumptions play a critical role in our interpretation of findings. First, we conduct a literal replication (Study 1) of the original study to validate our dataset. Second, a series of constructive replications (Studies 2A-D) shows the results rely on methodological assumptions that are not fully supported. Without these assumptions, we find no evidence for the “women leadership advantage during crisis” hypothesis. Third, in two constructive replications focusing on U.S. counties and Brazilian municipalities, we causally test the relationship between strategic leader gender and COVID-19 deaths using a geographic matching design (Study 3A) and a regression discontinuity design (Study 3B). Again, we find no evidence for the “women leadership advantage during crisis” hypothesis. Collectively, we demonstrate that when following the methodological precedent of extant research, we were able to replicate previously identified relationships between gender and leadership outcomes, but after accounting for endogeneity and basic assumptions of linear models, we were no longer able to replicate these effects. In all our constructive replications, we found no significant difference in the effectiveness of women and men strategic leaders in crises.
{"title":"Are women strategic leaders more effective during a crisis than men strategic leaders? A causal analysis of the relationship between strategic leader gender and outcomes during the COVID-19 crisis","authors":"William G. Obenauer , Jost Sieweke , Nicolas Bastardoz , Paulo R. Arvate , Brooke A. Gazdag , Tanja Hentschel","doi":"10.1016/j.leaqua.2024.101812","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.leaqua.2024.101812","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Extant research has used the COVID-19 pandemic as a context to test the “women leadership advantage during crisis” hypothesis. An influential paper reported that women U.S. governors were associated with fewer COVID-19 deaths. Building on this work, we demonstrate that methodological assumptions play a critical role in our interpretation of findings. First, we conduct a literal replication (Study 1) of the original study to validate our dataset. Second, a series of constructive replications (Studies 2A-D) shows the results rely on methodological assumptions that are not fully supported. Without these assumptions, we find no evidence for the “women leadership advantage during crisis” hypothesis. Third, in two constructive replications focusing on U.S. counties and Brazilian municipalities, we causally test the relationship between strategic leader gender and COVID-19 deaths using a geographic matching design (Study 3A) and a regression discontinuity design (Study 3B). Again, we find no evidence for the “women leadership advantage during crisis” hypothesis. Collectively, we demonstrate that when following the methodological precedent of extant research, we were able to replicate previously identified relationships between gender and leadership outcomes, but after accounting for endogeneity and basic assumptions of linear models, we were no longer able to replicate these effects. In all our constructive replications, we found no significant difference in the effectiveness of women and men strategic leaders in crises.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48434,"journal":{"name":"Leadership Quarterly","volume":"35 6","pages":"Article 101812"},"PeriodicalIF":9.1,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142756812","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-12-01Epub Date: 2024-10-15DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2024.101838
Christoffer Florczak , Stig Hebbelstrup Rye Rasmussen , Ulrich Thy Jensen , Justin M. Stritch , Robert Klemmensen
Studies show that genetics matter in who becomes a leader. However, we know little about the dynamic properties of the heritability of leadership emergence or how genetics might interact with environmental conditions to shape leadership emergence. We track leadership role occupancy at three time points among a cohort of 1,079 Danish twin pairs over ten years. Our results suggest that genetics matter less when the cohort is young and increase over time as the cohort grows older. We argue that labor market entry costs coupled with free access to education constrain the effect of genetics in the cohort during early adulthood, suggesting differing effects of the environment on genetic expression as the cohort ages. Sorting based on individual predisposition towards leadership likely strengthens as the cohort grows older and gains labor market experience. This result implies that we should not view the effect of genes on leadership role occupancy as static and that environmental experiences could disproportionately affect critical early leadership advancement. Our study reinforces calls to consider dynamic properties such as gene x environment interactions to advance our broader understanding of leadership’s biology.
{"title":"Dynamics in the heritability of leadership role occupancy: Evidence from a three-wave twin sample","authors":"Christoffer Florczak , Stig Hebbelstrup Rye Rasmussen , Ulrich Thy Jensen , Justin M. Stritch , Robert Klemmensen","doi":"10.1016/j.leaqua.2024.101838","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.leaqua.2024.101838","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Studies show that genetics matter in who becomes a leader. However, we know little about the dynamic properties of the heritability of leadership emergence or how genetics might interact with environmental conditions to shape leadership emergence. We track leadership role occupancy at three time points among a cohort of 1,079 Danish twin pairs over ten years. Our results suggest that genetics matter less when the cohort is young and increase over time as the cohort grows older. We argue that labor market entry costs coupled with free access to education constrain the effect of genetics in the cohort during early adulthood, suggesting differing effects of the environment on genetic expression as the cohort ages. Sorting based on individual predisposition towards leadership likely strengthens as the cohort grows older and gains labor market experience. This result implies that we should not view the effect of genes on leadership role occupancy as static and that environmental experiences could disproportionately affect critical early leadership advancement. Our study reinforces calls to consider dynamic properties such as gene x environment interactions to advance our broader understanding of leadership’s biology.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48434,"journal":{"name":"Leadership Quarterly","volume":"35 6","pages":"Article 101838"},"PeriodicalIF":9.1,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142756809","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-10-01Epub Date: 2023-07-25DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2023.101721
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.
{"title":"Regulation and the trickle-down effect of women in leadership roles","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.leaqua.2023.101721","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.leaqua.2023.101721","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>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.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48434,"journal":{"name":"Leadership Quarterly","volume":"35 5","pages":"Article 101721"},"PeriodicalIF":9.1,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1048984323000474/pdfft?md5=18e0a7450556df4716a10e42d7b749f5&pid=1-s2.0-S1048984323000474-main.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50165091","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-10-01Epub Date: 2021-10-11DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2021.101577
Research into leadership has consistently associated leaders with follower outcomes, such as motivation, satisfaction, and individual performance. However, only a few studies have looked at the impact of leadership on economic outcomes. In this study we test the effect of leaders’ political ideology (an identifiable leadership preference) on economic outcomes (private and public business creation). By using a combination of a quasi-electoral experiment (mixed-ideological election in which the margin of victory is close to zero) and a regression discontinuity methodology, we tested whether right-wing mayors would see more private business created (as aligned with party objectives) than left-wing mayors during their tenure. We also tested whether left-wing mayors would see more public organizations created (as being aligned with party objectives) than right-wing mayors during their tenure. Based on a sample of over 400,000 new firms in over 3,155 Brazilian municipalities, we confirmed our hypothesis for right-wing mayors only. Moreover, we found some evidence that the most likely mechanism used by right-wing leaders to produce this result is the development of actions related to business incubation (a place for the development of startups). The implications for future research and the study’s important theoretical and practical contributions are discussed.
{"title":"Leaders affect business creation: Evidence from mayoral elections","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.leaqua.2021.101577","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.leaqua.2021.101577","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Research into leadership has consistently associated leaders with follower outcomes, such as motivation, satisfaction, and individual performance. However, only a few studies have looked at the impact of leadership on economic outcomes. In this study we test the effect of leaders’ political ideology (an identifiable leadership preference) on economic outcomes (private and public business creation). By using a combination of a quasi-electoral experiment (mixed-ideological election in which the margin of victory is close to zero) and a regression discontinuity methodology, we tested whether right-wing mayors would see more private business created (as aligned with party objectives) than left-wing mayors during their tenure. We also tested whether left-wing mayors would see more public organizations created (as being aligned with party objectives) than right-wing mayors during their tenure. Based on a sample of over 400,000 new firms in over 3,155 Brazilian municipalities, we confirmed our hypothesis for right-wing mayors only. Moreover, we found some evidence that the most likely mechanism used by right-wing leaders to produce this result is the development of actions related to business incubation (a place for the development of startups). The implications for future research and the study’s important theoretical and practical contributions are discussed.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48434,"journal":{"name":"Leadership Quarterly","volume":"35 5","pages":"Article 101577"},"PeriodicalIF":9.1,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78458777","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号