领导力研究中的互动编码:衡量行为的重要评论和最佳实践建议

IF 9.1 1区 管理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT Leadership Quarterly Pub Date : 2023-12-01 DOI:10.1016/j.leaqua.2023.101751
Amelie V. Güntner , Annika L. Meinecke , Zuva E.K. Lüders
{"title":"领导力研究中的互动编码:衡量行为的重要评论和最佳实践建议","authors":"Amelie V. Güntner ,&nbsp;Annika L. Meinecke ,&nbsp;Zuva E.K. Lüders","doi":"10.1016/j.leaqua.2023.101751","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>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.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48434,"journal":{"name":"Leadership Quarterly","volume":"34 6","pages":"Article 101751"},"PeriodicalIF":9.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1048984323000772/pdfft?md5=1a3f6b64e43b9e11829f2856eb8a1bb0&pid=1-s2.0-S1048984323000772-main.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Interaction coding in leadership research: A critical review and best-practice recommendations to measure behavior\",\"authors\":\"Amelie V. Güntner ,&nbsp;Annika L. Meinecke ,&nbsp;Zuva E.K. Lüders\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.leaqua.2023.101751\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>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.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48434,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Leadership Quarterly\",\"volume\":\"34 6\",\"pages\":\"Article 101751\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1048984323000772/pdfft?md5=1a3f6b64e43b9e11829f2856eb8a1bb0&pid=1-s2.0-S1048984323000772-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Leadership Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1048984323000772\",\"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/S1048984323000772","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: 1

摘要

领导力学者越来越多地认识到使用问卷调查的缺点。因此,有一种趋势是更多的基于行为的研究,交互编码是一种有前途的方法。通过精确分析领导者与追随者互动的记录,互动编码有助于量化领导者与追随者之间展开的语言和非语言行为模式,从而提供了通往领导力核心行为动力学的途径。然而,分析领导者与追随者之间的互动远没有看上去那么简单。在这类研究中经常使用的“客观数据”和“实际行为”等大胆的说法,往往会给与交互编码相关的机遇和挑战描绘出一幅不太真实的图景。为了综合现有的关于在领导力研究中使用交互编码的经验知识,我们提出了对当前研究前景的批判性回顾的结果。这篇综述强调了与观察者推断、观察者协议标准和交互编码的有效性相关的问题在实证工作中往往没有得到充分的解决。根据这些发现,我们确定有问题的研究实践,并将其与最佳实践建议并列。最后,我们对基于行为的方法如何通过促进理论进步和为实践者提供可操作的指导来推动领导领域向前发展进行了讨论和展望。
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
Interaction coding in leadership research: A critical review and best-practice recommendations to measure behavior

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.

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