致命缺陷:积极领导风格研究造成因果错觉

IF 9.1 1区 管理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT Leadership Quarterly Pub Date : 2024-06-01 DOI:10.1016/j.leaqua.2023.101771
Thomas Fischer , Joerg Dietz , John Antonakis
{"title":"致命缺陷:积极领导风格研究造成因果错觉","authors":"Thomas Fischer ,&nbsp;Joerg Dietz ,&nbsp;John Antonakis","doi":"10.1016/j.leaqua.2023.101771","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>We argue and show empirically that constructs and measures of positive leadership styles, such as authentic, ethical, and servant leadership, are not veridical representations of leadership behaviors. Instead, these styles conflate behaviors with subjective evaluations of leaders. Labelling behaviors as, for example, “ethical” means evaluating leadership behaviors on positively valenced terms rather than describing these behaviors. Across four experiments, we show that positive leadership styles are outcomes that depend on non-behavioral, evaluative factors, such as information about a leader’s previous success or value alignment between leaders and followers. More importantly, the measures of these leadership styles create causal illusions by spuriously predicting objective outcomes, even when leader behaviors and other leader-specific factors are kept constant. Furthermore, these measures have predictive properties similar to those of a purely evaluative measure of leadership. In conclusion, our studies cast serious doubts on previous research claiming that positive leadership styles cause positive outcomes. Moreover, positive leadership style research is not only wrong but also practically futile because its constructs and measures are amalgams that do not isolate concrete and learnable behaviors. We call for a radical reorientation of leadership style research and sketch out options for more solid future research.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48434,"journal":{"name":"Leadership Quarterly","volume":"35 3","pages":"Article 101771"},"PeriodicalIF":9.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1048984323000978/pdfft?md5=b9f2641cbc412e5b2e68c5d52dd4da0c&pid=1-s2.0-S1048984323000978-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A fatal flaw: Positive leadership style research creates causal illusions\",\"authors\":\"Thomas Fischer ,&nbsp;Joerg Dietz ,&nbsp;John Antonakis\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.leaqua.2023.101771\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>We argue and show empirically that constructs and measures of positive leadership styles, such as authentic, ethical, and servant leadership, are not veridical representations of leadership behaviors. Instead, these styles conflate behaviors with subjective evaluations of leaders. Labelling behaviors as, for example, “ethical” means evaluating leadership behaviors on positively valenced terms rather than describing these behaviors. Across four experiments, we show that positive leadership styles are outcomes that depend on non-behavioral, evaluative factors, such as information about a leader’s previous success or value alignment between leaders and followers. More importantly, the measures of these leadership styles create causal illusions by spuriously predicting objective outcomes, even when leader behaviors and other leader-specific factors are kept constant. Furthermore, these measures have predictive properties similar to those of a purely evaluative measure of leadership. In conclusion, our studies cast serious doubts on previous research claiming that positive leadership styles cause positive outcomes. Moreover, positive leadership style research is not only wrong but also practically futile because its constructs and measures are amalgams that do not isolate concrete and learnable behaviors. We call for a radical reorientation of leadership style research and sketch out options for more solid future research.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48434,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Leadership Quarterly\",\"volume\":\"35 3\",\"pages\":\"Article 101771\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1048984323000978/pdfft?md5=b9f2641cbc412e5b2e68c5d52dd4da0c&pid=1-s2.0-S1048984323000978-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Leadership Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1048984323000978\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Leadership Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1048984323000978","RegionNum":1,"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

摘要

我们论证并通过实证证明,积极领导风格的构建和衡量标准,如真实、道德和仆人式领导,并非领导行为的真实代表。相反,这些风格将领导行为与对领导者的主观评价混为一谈。例如,将行为标记为 "道德的 "意味着以积极的价值标准来评价领导行为,而不是描述这些行为。通过四项实验,我们发现积极领导风格的结果取决于非行为评价因素,如领导者以往的成功信息或领导者与追随者之间的价值一致性。更重要的是,即使在领导者行为和其他领导者特定因素保持不变的情况下,这些领导风格的测量方法也能虚假地预测客观结果,从而造成因果错觉。此外,这些测量方法的预测特性与纯粹评价性的领导力测量方法类似。总之,我们的研究对以往声称积极领导风格会带来积极结果的研究提出了严重质疑。此外,积极领导风格的研究不仅是错误的,而且实际上也是徒劳的,因为其构建和测量方法都是混合物,没有分离出具体的、可学习的行为。我们呼吁对领导风格研究进行彻底的重新定位,并为未来更扎实的研究勾勒出备选方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A fatal flaw: Positive leadership style research creates causal illusions

We argue and show empirically that constructs and measures of positive leadership styles, such as authentic, ethical, and servant leadership, are not veridical representations of leadership behaviors. Instead, these styles conflate behaviors with subjective evaluations of leaders. Labelling behaviors as, for example, “ethical” means evaluating leadership behaviors on positively valenced terms rather than describing these behaviors. Across four experiments, we show that positive leadership styles are outcomes that depend on non-behavioral, evaluative factors, such as information about a leader’s previous success or value alignment between leaders and followers. More importantly, the measures of these leadership styles create causal illusions by spuriously predicting objective outcomes, even when leader behaviors and other leader-specific factors are kept constant. Furthermore, these measures have predictive properties similar to those of a purely evaluative measure of leadership. In conclusion, our studies cast serious doubts on previous research claiming that positive leadership styles cause positive outcomes. Moreover, positive leadership style research is not only wrong but also practically futile because its constructs and measures are amalgams that do not isolate concrete and learnable behaviors. We call for a radical reorientation of leadership style research and sketch out options for more solid future research.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
15.20
自引率
9.30%
发文量
58
期刊介绍: The Leadership Quarterly is a social-science journal dedicated to advancing our understanding of leadership as a phenomenon, how to study it, as well as its practical implications. Leadership Quarterly seeks contributions from various disciplinary perspectives, including psychology broadly defined (i.e., industrial-organizational, social, evolutionary, biological, differential), management (i.e., organizational behavior, strategy, organizational theory), political science, sociology, economics (i.e., personnel, behavioral, labor), anthropology, history, and methodology.Equally desirable are contributions from multidisciplinary perspectives.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Exogenous shocks: Definitions, types, and causal identification issues Editorial Board Advancing Organizational Science With Computational Process Theories The research transparency index
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1