A multilevel, identity-based approach to leadership development

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2007.08.007Get rights and content

Abstract

A frontier of leadership development is examined involving the respective roles of levels-of-analysis and identity in constructing an integrated development system. An approach is described in which individual and relational leadership identities are the focus of developmental efforts at lower organizational levels (e.g., individual contributor and first-level supervisor) but collective identities become the focus at higher levels (e.g., general manager and above). The separate areas of levels-of-analysis and leader identities are first discussed in terms of their respective relevance to leadership development. These are then discussed jointly in elaborating on a proposed development approach that integrates across organizational levels as well as levels of development (i.e., leader development and leadership development). In developing collective leadership identities, processes that involve participants in engaging across boundaries (functional, hierarchical, geographical) are recommended.

Introduction

Our collective understanding of leadership and how it develops continues to evolve. To some commentators, this is evidence of everything that is purportedly wrong with the field of leadership. Specifically, the field is accused of being unscientific due to the lack of a single, concrete, and widely accepted view of the term leadership (Calder, 1977, Kerr and Jermier, 1978, Meindl et al., 1985, Pfeffer, 1977). There is even dismay over the apparent resistance on the part of some authors to attempt a straightforward operational definition (Locke, 2003). Without a set definitional foundation the commentators and critics question the possibility of a scientific basis to leadership. How can something that cannot be defined be studied scientifically? And more pertinent to the special issue topic of leadership development, how can something that is apparently indefinable be developed?

We adopt a different perspective and argue that such criticisms stem from an overly narrow – if not dogmatic – position on the nature of “leadership science.” We assert that the complexity and multidimensionality of the very nature of leadership mitigate the possibility of a simple or unitary definition. Leadership cannot mean only one thing because it can and does take on multiple meanings and appearances, which have evolved over time. A traditional appearance of leadership often takes the form of an individual in charge of a team providing direction, support to others in the team (i.e., “followers”), and aligning the team's goals within a broader purpose. But in addition to this traditional perspective, leadership can also take the form of team members working together collectively to set direction, build commitment, and create alignment (O'Connor and Quinn, 2004, Van Velsor and McCauley, 2004). This broader understanding of leadership includes, but goes beyond a traditional, single-leader perspective (Gronn, 2002). Much of the criticisms of leadership may stem from a misunderstanding of the ongoing evolution of leadership research and theory.

Similar to most other scientific constructs, our understanding of leadership did not arrive fully complete and mature at our doorstep, nor should we reasonably expect this. For example, the notion of job performance and how it is measured has changed substantially since the beginning of the 20th century (Austin & Villanova, 1992) moving beyond a solely technical, task-based performance to include aspects of contextual performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993). Similarly, there is ample evidence that the construct of leadership also continues to evolve. One example illustrating how the study of leadership has progressed beyond a traditional, individual leader perspective is the emergence of the concept of shared leadership. In a historical review of a shared conceptualization of leadership, Pearce and Conger (2003a) trace the evolution of the historical bases of shared leadership. One of the major points of their review was that this “new” conceptualization of shared leadership did not burst into the literature full-formed; rather, it went through a gradual evolution – and acceptance – that could be traced back to the early 20th century and continues to evolve today (Cox, Pearce, & Sims, 2003). This ongoing construct evolution is not a negative thing, nor is it unscientific; rather it is a necessary change to better reflect fundamental changes in how work is organized, the complexity of challenges faced across all domains in which leadership is relevant, as well as the growth and maturity of the social sciences on which most of the science of leadership rests.

Table 1 provides a summary of the development of our definitions and understanding of leadership. As highlighted in the first column, our understanding has increased in terms of complexity and sophistication, progressing from the most basic (least inclusive and complex) to the most advanced thinking around leadership to date (greatest sophistication, complexity, and inclusiveness). The second column provides the corresponding changes in definitions of leadership, progressing from exclusively role-based authority (most basic) to an influence process that may include roles (mid-level complexity) to a shared property of a social system that includes interdependencies of individuals, teams, and organizations (most advanced). Column three of the table provides an illustrative theory that reflects the changes in our understanding of what leadership can be.

Section snippets

Moving beyond leader-centric approaches

The complexity of challenges and the increasing frequency in which teams and organizations encounter these challenges call for moving beyond a traditional single-leader (i.e., leader-centric) framework (Drath, 2001, Heifetz, 1994, Kahane, 2004). Simply put, things are not getting any easier for leaders or for teams. Individuals and broader collectives face many unexpected and complex challenges that have the potential to threaten their very existence such as the rise of global terrorism that

Multilevel theory and concepts

Just as the concept of leadership continues to evolve, so do the social sciences as a whole. Researchers have more conceptual and statistical tools at their disposal, and core constructs have matured and improved as a result of decades of theoretical advances and empirical research. By virtue of this continuing evolution in the social sciences, the fields of leadership and leadership development have been enriched.

One such advancement pertains to multilevel and cross-level effects in the social

Multilevel issues in leadership and leadership development

Prominent leadership researchers have noted that levels-of-analysis issues and multiple-level approaches “are becoming increasingly important in many areas of organizational research and, in particular, in the literature of leadership” (Yammarino, Dionne, Chun, & Dansereau, 2005, p. 879). One driver behind this recognition is that leadership always requires some sort of interpersonal relationship. A leader without a social context simply cannot be a leader. Thus, the reason why

The role of the self in leader development

One way of thinking about leadership and leader development that is receiving increasing attention is through the lens of the self-concept or identity (we use the terms interchangeably). This perspective has great potential for informing our understanding of leadership because identity transcends one-dimensional approaches such as behavioral or trait theories. As defined by prominent researchers in the field, identity is the culmination of an individual's values, experiences, and

Exploring the frontier of leadership development

Returning to the special issue theme of frontiers in leadership development, our final section integrates the topics of levels-of-analysis and identity and describes how they can be useful in expanding the boundaries – or pushing the envelope – of leadership development. One of our guiding assumptions in doing so is that there are important differences between leader development and leadership development. As differentiated previously (Day, 2000), leader development pertains mainly to the

Conclusions

We have taken the perspective that the concept of leadership continues to evolve, which is one explanation for the difficulty in pinpointing it with a single definition. Leadership can mean different things and takes on different appearances, partly as a function of the developmental level of the perceiver. More highly developed leaders can see and enact more widely nuanced forms of leadership than less developed leaders. Although the perspective that development is equated with greater

References (79)

  • R. Ashkenas et al.

    The boundaryless organization: Breaking the chains of organizational structure

    (1995)
  • J.T. Austin et al.

    The criterion problem: 1917–1992

    Journal of Applied Psychology

    (1992)
  • B.J. Avolio

    Examining the full range model of leadership: Looking back to transform forward

  • P.B. Baltes et al.

    Psychological perspectives on successful aging: The model of selective optimization with compensation

  • M.M. Baltes et al.

    Commentary

    Human Development

    (1991)
  • P.B. Baltes et al.

    Lifespan psychology: Theory and applications to intellectual functioning

    Annual Review of Psychology

    (1999)
  • S.G. Barsade

    The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior

    Administrative Science Quarterly

    (2002)
  • R.F. Baumeister

    The self

  • R.F. Baumeister

    The nature and structure of the self: An overview

  • W.C. Borman et al.

    Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance

  • D.J. Brass

    Social capital and organizational leadership

  • M.B. Brewer et al.

    Who is this “we”? Levels of collective identity and self representation

    Journal of Applied Personality and Social Psychology

    (1996)
  • B.J. Calder

    An attribution theory of leadership

  • G. Chen et al.

    Toward a systems theory of motivated behavior in work teams

    Research in Organizational Behavior

    (2006)
  • J.F. Cox et al.

    Toward a broader leadership development agenda: Extending the traditional transactional–transformational duality by developing directive, empowered, and shared leadership skills

  • D.V. Day

    Structuring the organizational for leadership development

  • D.V. Day et al.

    Building an integrative, adult lifespan theory of Army leader development

  • D.V. Day et al.

    Understanding the development of leadership complexity through latent growth modeling

  • D.V. Day et al.

    Assessing the burdens of leadership: Effects of formal leadership roles on individual performance over time

    Personnel Psychology

    (2004)
  • D.L. Dotlich et al.

    Action learning: How the world's top companies are re-creating their leaders and themselves

    (1998)
  • W. Drath

    The deep blue sea: Rethinking the source of leadership

    (2001)
  • W.H. Drath et al.

    Making common sense: Leadership as meaning-making in a community of practice

    (1994)
  • A.C. Edmondson et al.

    Disrupted routines: Team learning and new technology implementation in hospitals

    Administrative Science Quarterly

    (2001)
  • E.H. Erickson

    Identity and the life cycle

    (1959)
  • A.M. Freedman

    Pathways and crossroads to institutional leadership

    Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research

    (1998)
  • A.M. Freedman

    Swimming upstream: The challenge of managerial promotions

  • P. Froiland

    Action learning: Taming real problems in real time

    Training

    (1994)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text