Leadership Quarterly最新文献

Research exploring the powerful links between leadership and identity has burgeoned in recent years but cohered around two distinct approaches. Research on identity leadership, the main focus of this special issue, sees leadership as a group process that centers on leaders’ ability to represent, advance, create and embed a social identity that they share with the collectives they lead—a sense of “us as a group”. Research on leader identity sees leadership as a process that is advanced by individuals who have a well-developed personal understanding of themselves as leaders—a sense of “me as a leader”. This article explores the nature and implications of these divergent approaches, focusing on their specification of profiles, processes, pathways, products, and philosophies that have distinct implications for theory and practice. We formalize our observations in a series of propositions and also outline a dual-identity framework with the potential to integrate the two approaches.

In March 2020, the COVID-19 virus turned into a pandemic that hit organizations globally. This pandemic qualifies as an exogenous shock. Based on the threat-rigidity hypothesis, we hypothesize that this shock led to an increase in directive leadership behavior. We also argue that this relationship depends on the magnitude of the crisis and on well-learned responses of managers. In our empirical analysis we employ a differences-in-differences design with treatment intensity and focus on the period of the first lockdown, March until June 2020. Using a dataset covering monthly data for almost 27,000 managers across 48 countries and 32 sectors for January 2019 to December 2020, we find support for the threat-rigidity hypothesis. During the first lockdown, directive leadership increased significantly. We also find that this relationship is moderated by COVID-19 deaths per country, the sectoral working from home potential, and the organizational level of management. Our findings provide new evidence how large exogenous shocks like COVID-19 can impact leadership behavior.

Why and when do CEOs invest in corporate social responsibility (CSR)? We theorize how CEOs' intrinsic motivations – their social values – and the incentivizing context interact to determine the utility they attach to generating collectively beneficial outcomes in decision-making, subsequently manifested in organizations' CSR investments. Based on a review of neuroscience evidence, indicating that social values are associated with distinct patterns of neural activation, we propose that these values are the compass by which CEOs navigate in complex decision environments. For CEOs with other-regarding values, generating collectively beneficial outcomes is part and parcel of their utility function. They are intrinsically motivated to invest in CSR, regardless of context. In contrast, CEOs with self-regarding values derive utility from generating collective benefits only when it is monetarily or socially incentivized. They are extrinsically motivated to invest in CSR when they stand to gain from it personally.

The CEO-TMT interface, defined as the linkage and interaction between the CEO and other top managers, has received increasing attention from scholars in different disciplines. This stream of research aims to unveil how CEOs and other executives interact with one another, influence each other, and become involved in collective activities that shape the fate of organizations. Yet, despite the burgeoning interest in this area, extant CEO-TMT research is characterized by various and disconnected assumptions about the interfacing roles through which CEOs and TMTs exercise strategic leadership. Drawing on role theory, we review extant CEO-TMT interface research in different disciplines, and systematically organize the various CEO-TMT role assumptions into three role-theory specifications: functionalism, social-interactionism, and structuralism. In taking stock of the three role specifications, we provide a critique of the strengths and boundaries of each, and chart directions toward an integrated ‘multi-role’ understanding of the CEO-TMT interface in strategic leadership.

We attempt to bring clarity to the concept of strategic leadership and guide its development by reviewing and synthesizing the existing management literature on how top managers and board directors influence organizations. We propose a new definition of strategic leadership and offer a framework organized around the essential questions of what strategic leadership is, what strategic leaders do, why they do it, and how they do it. To answer these questions, we organize our review around the eight functions strategic leaders serve, the key attributes of strategic leaders, the theories scholars have used to relate these functions and attributes to outcomes, contextual factors, and the organizational outcomes that strategic leaders affect. We identify how strategic leadership research is concentrated in five streams that rarely interact with each other, and offer suggestions for connecting these streams. Our review provides a big picture of what is known about individuals at the top levels of organizations and highlights the key areas where future investigation is essential.

This study examines a unique CEO temporal characteristic—polychronicity (the extent to which CEOs prefer to engage in multiple projects simultaneously and believe that this is the best way of doing things). I propose that CEO polychronicity is a double-edged sword for firm innovation and that this relationship is contingent on the environmental and organizational contexts. Specifically, CEO polychronicity is positively related to firm innovation when firms operate in more dynamic environments, are relatively large and have poor past performance, but is negatively related to firm innovation when firms operate in less dynamic environments, are relatively small and have good past performance. Results based on survey data from 111 Chinese small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) largely support my hypotheses. This study makes contributions by being an initial attempt to examine CEO polychronicity and by identifying essential boundary conditions of the effect of CEO polychronicity on firm innovation.

This study investigates how the prestige distance between a new chief executive officer (CEO) and the chairperson of the board (COB) can influence changes in the firm’s level of diversification. We draw on social comparison theory and activity theory to argue that the prestige distance between a CEO and COB alters the interaction and communication between the two leaders, and accordingly influences the firm’s ability to change its diversification posture. We test our hypotheses on a dataset of 135 firms and find that the prestige distance in CEO-COB dyads has a U-shaped relationship with the change in the firm’s level of diversification. Our results reveal that low CEO-COB prestige distance, and to a lesser extent high CEO-COB prestige distance, creates conditions for greater changes in the firm’s level of diversification. Further, we find that this U-shaped relationship is more pronounced when the CEO-COB dyad has greater age differences and flattens when the dyad shares age similarity.

Two major themes in the upper echelon decision making literature are the efficacy of the CEO and the composition of the top management team (TMT). Little research has examined their intersection. This study addresses the call to reveal the social processes within TMTs, by focusing on CEO-TMT member interaction in decision making. Drawing on video ethnographic data of two TMTs, we explore the patterns of interactions between CEOs and TMT members in their strategic decision making meetings. Through an analysis of 20 issue discussions, we identify five “constellations”, a team level construct capturing the core relational dynamics that are created through mutual CEO-TMT member influence during a team's discussion of a strategic issue. We explain how these constellations unfold and their implications for the processes and outcomes of TMT strategic decision making. We then elaborate how our findings contribute to the TMT and upper echelon literatures, as well as our understanding of team politics.

This special issue was developed to extend the boundaries of strategic leadership research, to help bridge the micro-macro divide regarding theories of strategic leadership, and to bring together theories that have emerged independently. In this introductory editorial, we provide an overview of the research on strategic leadership and emphasize the need for further integration of research from the organizational behavior, industrial and organizational psychology, organizational economics, behavioral strategy, and strategic management fields. We then introduce and summarize the eleven articles we accepted for this special issue by classifying them into two broad themes: (a) Chief executive officer (CEO) characteristics and (b) the dynamics of interactions among the CEO, the top management team, and the board. Finally, we propose recent theoretical and empirical foci for advancing strategic leadership research and offer a research agenda for future research highlighting several important research questions related to extending the dialogue among scholars across the different leadership and strategy domains.

In this paper, we aim to bridge the micro-macro divide by addressing continued calls from strategic leadership and affect researchers to examine the black box to consider how CEO characteristics relate to top management team (TMT) affective experiences, and, in turn firm outcomes. We further consider the role of one key contextual factor in this relationship: TMT heterogeneity. We predict that CEO personality, specifically, emotional stability, is positively associated with TMT affective tone. Moreover, we posit that the relationship between TMT affective tone and firm performance depends on TMT task-related heterogeneity, such that positive affective tone benefits firm performance in heterogeneous TMTs, whereas negative affective tone benefits firm performance in homogeneous TMTs. Using a novel methodology that measures key psychological aspects of the CEO and TMT, we examined 50 TMTs from publicly-traded companies to test our predictions. Our findings offer theoretical contributions to the strategic leadership, affect and diversity literatures as well as managerial applications for CEO selection and management and managing diversity in upper echelons.