Pervasive myths in leadership development: Unpacking constraints on leadership learning

Forty years ago, the questions most discussed among those who cared about leadership were “is leadership possible among those who don't have titles and positions?”; “what are the characteristics possessed by effective leaders?”; and “how do we find the people who are the best leaders and help them prepare for positions that will allow them to have an impact?” After many conversations, conferences, research studies, and books, the terrain has shifted among scholars. Now the conversations focus on questions such as “If leadership is a shared responsibility among members of groups, how can the full leadership potential of all be cultivated?”; “What role do collaborators play in empowering positive leadership and defending against those who misuse it?”; and “How can organizations cultivate cultures that support and encourage visionary leadership dedicated to benefitting all?” The shift in the questions that leadership educators now explore, coupled with the breadth and variety of the initiatives dedicated to nurturing it, demonstrate that leadership can be taught. More importantly, the practice of leadership demonstrates that many can pursue leadership and that they must if the opportunities of the 21st century are to be fulfilled. The conversations and the needs for leadership have both shifted and it is now incumbent on those who value leadership most to agree to unifying perspectives that can draw us together in common purpose. From your vantage point, what are the crucial conversations, next steps, and/or thoughts for consideration as we enter the second decade of the 21st century?     

Leadership learning: Crucial conversations,next steps,and thoughts for consideration

Forty years ago, the questions most discussed among those who cared about leadership were “is leadership possible among those who don't have titles and positions?”; “what are the characteristics possessed by effective leaders?”; and “how do we find the people who are the best leaders and help them prepare for positions that will allow them to have an impact?” After many conversations, conferences, research studies, and books, the terrain has shifted among scholars. Now the conversations focus on questions such as “If leadership is a shared responsibility among members of groups, how can the full leadership potential of all be cultivated?”; “What role do collaborators play in empowering positive leadership and defending against those who misuse it?”; and “How can organizations cultivate cultures that support and encourage visionary leadership dedicated to benefitting all?” The shift in the questions that leadership educators now explore, coupled with the breadth and variety of the initiatives dedicated to nurturing it, demonstrate that leadership can be taught. More importantly, the practice of leadership demonstrates that many can pursue leadership and that they must if the opportunities of the 21st century are to be fulfilled. The conversations and the needs for leadership have both shifted and it is now incumbent on those who value leadership most to agree to unifying perspectives that can draw us together in common purpose. From your vantage point, what are the crucial conversations, next steps, and/or thoughts for consideration as we enter the second decade of the 21st century?     

Leadership: A journey of sustained performance

Forty years ago, the questions most discussed among those who cared about leadership were “is leadership possible among those who don't have titles and positions?”; “what are the characteristics possessed by effective leaders?”; and “how do we find the people who are the best leaders and help them prepare for positions that will allow them to have an impact?” After many conversations, conferences, research studies, and books, the terrain has shifted among scholars. Now the conversations focus on questions such as “If leadership is a shared responsibility among members of groups, how can the full leadership potential of all be cultivated?”; “What role do collaborators play in empowering positive leadership and defending against those who misuse it?”; and “How can organizations cultivate cultures that support and encourage visionary leadership dedicated to benefitting all?” The shift in the questions that leadership educators now explore, coupled with the breadth and variety of the initiatives dedicated to nurturing it, demonstrate that leadership can be taught. More importantly, the practice of leadership demonstrates that many can pursue leadership and that they must if the opportunities of the 21st century are to be fulfilled. The conversations and the needs for leadership have both shifted and it is now incumbent on those who value leadership most to agree to unifying perspectives that can draw us together in common purpose. From your vantage point, what are the crucial conversations, next steps, and/or thoughts for consideration as we enter the second decade of the 21st century?     

The leadership labyrinth

Forty years ago, the questions most discussed among those who cared about leadership were “is leadership possible among those who don't have titles and positions?”; “what are the characteristics possessed by effective leaders?”; and “how do we find the people who are the best leaders and help them prepare for positions that will allow them to have an impact?” After many conversations, conferences, research studies, and books, the terrain has shifted among scholars. Now the conversations focus on questions such as “If leadership is a shared responsibility among members of groups, how can the full leadership potential of all be cultivated?”; “What role do collaborators play in empowering positive leadership and defending against those who misuse it?”; and “How can organizations cultivate cultures that support and encourage visionary leadership dedicated to benefitting all?” The shift in the questions that leadership educators now explore, coupled with the breadth and variety of the initiatives dedicated to nurturing it, demonstrate that leadership can be taught. More importantly, the practice of leadership demonstrates that many can pursue leadership and that they must if the opportunities of the 21st century are to be fulfilled. The conversations and the needs for leadership have both shifted and it is now incumbent on those who value leadership most to agree to unifying perspectives that can draw us together in common purpose. From your vantage point, what are the crucial conversations, next steps, and/or thoughts for consideration as we enter the second decade of the 21st century?     

Introduction

Leadership is under review and open for criticism in ways not seen for some time. Where is leadership when we need it, we ask? Where are the leaders who can solve our problems? Moreover, change is the new constant, and we need leaders who are prepared to embrace change and ambiguity and help followers deal with change. Sometimes it feels like we are in permanent whitewater. Where are the leaders who can deal with the ever‐changing landscape and help us move to a positive future? Many of them are among us. They are the up‐and‐coming emerging leaders of Generations X and Y. This symposium focuses on these leaders of the future—the emerging leaders among us. What challenges do they face? What kind of leaders do they want to be? How do we best prepare them? The five articles that follow present a variety of views for our consideration, and the authors hope to start a boarder conversation about the next generation of leaders and their leadership challenges. Mhatre and Conger stress that authentic leadership principles are needed in workplaces now and in the future. They remind us that organizations are often composed of individuals born during different times, circumstances,and situations, thereby creating challenges for leaders in those organizations. Current research related to Gens X and Y, cited by the authors, highlights some of the generational differences and preferences. The authors see that the differences could create a “fertile ground for intraorganizational conflict, especially differences in how to manage and work within changing organizational climates.” One potential solution, according to Mhatre and Conger, can be found in the four components of authentic leadership principles: self‐awareness, internalized moral perspective, balanced processing, and relational transparency. If authentic leadership is in place, Gens X and Y can lead authentically, thereby facilitating sustainable and positive work environments. The authors predict positive results for organizations when authentic leadership is in place. Carucci and Epperson also focus on cross‐generational relationships and voice their concern with the negative consequences of labeling various age groups as Millennials, Boomers, Xers, Yers—labels that emphasize the divide. What we need, they argue, is less polarization and more connections. The article explores what it means for leaders of multigenerations to thrive together in partnership. They discuss the “elusive contest between the legacy of incumbent leaders and the potential of emerging leaders and ask us to consider mutual vulnerability as common ground.” They also summarize research on mentoring that looks at the gap between the numbers of emerging leaders who are mentored compared with the large numbers who desire mentors and ongoing relationships. The research follows up on earlier work on this topic explored in their books Leadership Divided and Bridging the Leadership Divide. Their article provides a personal case study demonstrating how generations can come together in partnership, thereby strengthening their organizations as well as the individuals involved. Perucci follows up on some of the themes highlighted by Carucci and Epperson as well as Mhatre and Conger and focuses on the way Millennials (Gen Y) are shaping organizations in the 21st century. Perucci reminds us that as we consider the implications of multiple generations working within the same organization, we must emphasize the crosscultural dimensions of intragenerational leadership. Globalization is reshaping leadership not only at the vertical level (multiple generations working side by side), but also horizontally (communication and technology reshaping the way Millennials interact across national boundaries). He suggests that just as leadership involves leaders, followers, and shared goals, successful leadership also requires an awareness of leading across cultures. He argues that effective leaders will be those who learn to work together “across boundaries in order to solve complex global problems.” Penney's article, “Voices of the Future: Leadership for the 21st Century,” focuses on both Generations X and Y (primarily X) and explores how those emerging leaders see leadership in the future and what kind of leaders they want to be. What leadership qualities/behaviors do they see as important? Themes of collaboration and inclusiveness are important to these emerging leaders, and they place high values on trust and integrity. Because they value inclusiveness, they work more easily across racial, ethnic, and gender differences and lines than did previous generations. The article also discusses what organizations need to do to attract and retain Generations X and Y. More flexible work arrangements are important as is having business organizations committed to corporate social responsibility and green initiatives. The findings come from the recent book Next Generation Leadership: Insights from Emerging Leaders (Penney & Neilson 2010). Tulgan and his colleagues at RainmakerThinking, Inc., have been conducting interviews with young people in the workplace for two decades. His article has a theme similar to Penney's in that he discusses ways to develop new leaders, primarily Generation Y. He addresses issues such as, how do we help them step into leadership roles successfully? He also addresses the question of why some of them are reluctant to take on supervisory roles. The article offers specific suggestions about ways to guide young professionals to prepare them for assuming leadership roles. He suggests that senior leaders should give frequent feedback to the top performers in Gen Y rather than leaving them on their own. He argues that too often we ignore high performers as we focus time and effort on the not‐so‐successful ones. According to Tulgan, more generous reward systems and hospitable work conditions are needed to retain high performers. In addition, he wants senior leaders to do more to help Gen Yers establish their credibility when they are given roles of increased responsibility. Conclusions There is a sense of optimism in play as you read these articles. Although there are differences found between Generations X and Y, overall the next generation of leaders also share some commonalities. They are more collaborative and inclusive than previous generations. And these emerging leaders are bringing a fresh approach to leadership and moving us away from the leader as “hero” or all‐knowing source of power and influence. Their desire for collaboration can help bridge the generation gap between Boomers and young professionals. Each brings particular strengths to their organizations, so as they work together, stronger institutions can be the result. Integrity is also important to emerging leaders, and authentic leadership behaviors hold much promise for strengthening our organizations. These emerging leaders can work well across cultures and are more comfortable with inclusion and diversity than those of previous generations. The authors provide several suggestions for working with and retaining young professionals so that their leadership skills are strengthened. Emerging leaders need support and honest feedback; they want reward systems that differentiate; they request flexible work arrangements. They also want to see corporate social responsibility in place in the business world. Emerging leaders of Generations X and Y are ready to assume leadership roles, but many do not want to lead as they have been led. We must do all we can as senior leaders, as academics, and as colleagues to prepare them for these responsibilities. As we pass the torch to a new generation of leaders, let's be certain they are well equipped for the task and ready to lead.     

Asking the right questions,involving the right people

Understanding to what or whom corporate communications leaders feel responsible is important in this age of rapid technological and economic change. A fast‐changing world demands self‐awareness among its leaders, particularly those who manage communications in an increasingly transparent environment. This study takes an in‐depth look at how senior practitioners in one of the most traditional leadership roles in public relations—the corporate communications leader—define responsibility and do work that is excellent in quality, socially responsible, and personally meaningful. This study is modeled after the GoodWork® protocol, initiated in 1996 by psychologist Howard Gardner and colleagues, employing Q‐sorts, personal diaries, and semistructured interviews with a purposive sample. “Asking the right questions and involving the right people” emerged as a working definition of personal responsibility, and themes of honesty/integrity, life balance, and relationships also surfaced as influential in defining what personal responsibility means in communications leadership.     

An empirical study of other‐oriented and rational self‐interest leadership approaches

Other orientation is defined as “the extent to which individuals are concerned with the welfare of others” (Meglino & Korsgaard, 2007, p. 59). Other‐oriented leaders focus their attention on organizational objectives coupled with a human resource emphasis, whereas rational self‐interested leaders concern themselves with organizational objectives coupled with self‐emphasis. This quantitative study examines philanthropian and servant leadership, which are other‐oriented leadership approaches, and transactional leadership, which is a rational self‐interested leadership approach, to determine the effectiveness of the approaches in the 21st century. This study further examines the results of a hermeneutic phenomenological study of philanthropian leadership that introduced a new other‐oriented leadership model. This study focuses on leadership preferences of leaders, employees, and third‐year undergraduate business students to determine if there is a significant difference between preferences among groups for other‐oriented and rational self‐interest‐oriented leadership approaches.     

Recruiting leaders: an analysis of leadership advertisements

Recruiting the right leaders is an important challenge for organisations. How do organisations find these leaders? This article looks at the recruitment of leaders through advertisements. We address to what extent the ‘vocabulary of leadership’ originating in influential leadership theories is actively used in communication about leadership positions. All job advertisements (4,217) that appeared in a consistent source in the public domain in the UK (Times newspaper) were collected for a period of 15 months. Out of the total number of advertisements, 1,390 were advertisements for leadership positions (chairman, CEO or director). The information in these advertisements was recorded and content analysed. The analyses highlight what terminology organisations use in attracting the desired leaders. In general, ‘people oriented’ and ‘transformational’ terms are used far more than terms describing ‘task oriented’ or ‘transactional’ qualities. Differences were found between advertisements for CEO and lower level leader (director) positions that seem to reflect the difference in hierarchical level and magnitude of the leadership responsibility of these roles.     

Innovative Leadership as Enabling Function Within Organizations: A Complex Adaptive System Approach

Innovation is vital for organizational thriving in the complex reality of the 21st century. Leadership that flourished in stable environments may need to adapt to support thriving in a new globalized era. What does this type of leadership look like, and how does it function? The current article suggests that such an adaptation may be best expressed through leadership “as enabling function” within the organization as a complex adaptive system.     

Introduction

This symposium addresses the challenge of educating global leaders through a collection of scholarly perspectives and practices that focus the development of global leadership and intercultural competency, specifically through immersive international contexts. Through this symposium, we addressed the cognitive, behavioral, and affective competencies that aspiring leaders need to be successful in global contexts. It focuses on the importance, issues, and methods of developing global competence as part of leadership education. Although this symposium is timely, global and intercultural competence is not new. Scholars of 19th‐century Europe shaped the original thoughts of global competence. Their focus was internationalization through colonial conquering, and the ultimate goal was to “learn from the West” (Baumgratz, 1995). This globalization piece did not gain much attention on an international scale. In fact, many managers in the 1960s and 1970s did not consider the international piece of business to be of much importance, often with very small specialized operational departments as the sole contributor to globalization within organizations (Morrison, 2000). However, a rapid shift of perspective occurred in the 1980s when the rise of Japanese businesses began to bring to focus the importance of global leadership. The climate of this theoretical foundation has shifted again recently as leadership educators are faced with preparing students to meet the needs of a dynamic and complicated organizational landscape. Expanding these challenges globally comprises a new level of preparedness for aspiring leaders. Globalization, and the technology that increasingly bridges countries and cultures, requires fresh paradigms and new leadership competencies (Bueno & Tubbs, 2004). Global managers will be expected to master an ever‐expanding range of knowledge and skills that will allow them to be successful in international contexts (DiStefano & Maznevski, 2003). Cultural competency development and a globalized curriculum are perhaps paramount to this charge as educators embark upon the challenging journey of providing the next generation of global leaders. The following questions provide educators with opportunities for reflection and discussion as we attempt to develop global competencies in the students we serve.     

The Challenge of Human Capital Leadership

Those who seek to develop other leaders encounter leadership challenges themselves. The current paper is an interview with an expert who has guided hundreds of leaders in their effort to develop measurable leadership development and human capital interventions. Dr. David Vance has been working with human capital leaders for over 15 years and has become increasingly frustrated with the lack of movement in the field. Through this interview, we begin to feel his frustration but can also gain insight from his recommendations. Although the field has moved very slowly in “thinking like a business,” Vance remains hopeful.     

Millennials and globalization

There is much discussion about the way Millennials are shaping organizations in the 21st century. We are cautioned to consider the implications of multiple generations working within the same organization. These discussions, however, tend to leave out the cross‐cultural dimensions of intragenerational leadership. Globalization is reshaping leadership not only at the vertical level (multiple generations working in the same organization) but also horizontally (communication and technology reshaping the way Millennials interact with other Millennials across national boundaries). This article offers a framework through which we can develop key questions for curricular development and scholarly research related to intragenerational leadership. This article presents a general definition of leadership, using five components (leaders, followers, goals, context, and cultural norms). This definition is then applied to the concept of globalization as the new context that the Millennials face. The article suggests possible curricular and research questions that may help us gain a deeper understanding of intragenerational leadership.     

Symposium Introduction

This symposium's focus is on connections that might be forged between leadership theory and practice, leadership development, and the theory and practice of design. Our intent in exploring the narratives of and literature about designers is to understand and appreciate how the design leadership crucible might forge more effective research approaches, generative pedagogical experience, and produce more effective leaders who can address adaptive problems. The guest editors and authors for the symposium are Elizabeth Johnston and Anthony Kortens. The symposium includes an introduction to the topic of design using current literature, incorporating a report on a series of conversations with two individuals who have enjoyed long and successful careers in design and leadership. These individuals, Michael Schonhofen and Ben Shaw, were contributing partners who shared their experiences as designers and leaders, as well as tirelessly reviewed the symposium documents and offered insights, interpretations, and suggestions.     

Picking the Measuring Stick: The Role of Leaders in Social Comparisons

Organizational members frequently evaluate how their abilities and standing compare with those of their colleagues. Although these comparisons can have a negative impact on organizations, little attention has been paid to the role of leaders in these processes. Drawing on interviews with individuals in leadership positions in business schools, we develop a framework to explain what triggers leaders’ attention to social comparisons among faculty and how they become involved in them. Central to this framework are leaders’ self‐schemas, which encompass their preferences about the criteria members should use in making comparisons. Leaders’ self‐schemas are activated by discrepancies between their own comparative judgements and those they perceive members to be making and impel them to act in ways consistent with their preferred bases of comparison. Our framework repositions social comparisons as a multi‐perspectival, political phenomenon in which leaders see themselves as playing a role in shaping members’ evaluations and workplace interactions.     

Studying organizations as temporary

This article reflects upon the methodological pessimism that sometimes plagues students of organizations. In particular pessimism seems to strike us when we try to get to grips with the incessant transformations of organizations—transformations that seem to occur at such great speed. Our immediate reaction to Heraclitus’ statement that: “You cannot step twice into the same river” is that it has considerable methodological relevance. However, we contend that his metaphor in its orthodox version leads to too narrow a view. An elaboration of the metaphor could perhaps reduce the pessimism regarding organizational studies by promoting a focus on contextual aspects. Moreover, changes and transformations in themselves do not necessarily represent a stumbling block for the researcher. Rather studying crucial projects provides a means for studying the mechanisms at work in the host organization. The resulting approach—contextualization in a broad sense—relieves researchers of some of their pessimism, maybe even inspires optimism, by raising new questions: not only “what can be said?” (about the organization), but also “in what contexts?” and “about what manifestations in those contexts?” The article concludes with some remarks on the scarcity of the contextualization approach for studying organizations as temporary phenomena.     

Leadership styles and gender: An extension

Leadership remains an elusive concept despite decades of research. In this paper, we attempt to deconstruct the concept by exploring the possibility of developing new measures of leadership, focusing on the attributes of “good” and “bad” leaders. Using a sample of 312 managers, we conducted factor analyses to reduce 13 “good” leadership attributes to two factors, the “visionary” and the “good,” and 13 “bad” attributes to two factors, the “inept” and the “evil.” Second, we assessed how male and female followers perceive the leadership styles of their best and worst bosses. We found that women viewed their best bosses differently from their male counterparts on several dimensions; however, there is little contrast in how bad bosses are perceived by men and women.     

Constructive Leader Behaviors,Likelihood of Derailment,and the Cuboid Personality Framework: A Replication and Extension of Gough (1990)

Gough (1990b) applied the California Psychological Inventory's (CPI) “cuboid” framework to various leadership contexts, noting the potential for continued, future application of this model within the leadership domain. However, subsequent to this initial investigation (and one similarly oriented but differently executed project), no cuboid follow‐up has taken place. Applying the framework to a large sample of international managers, cuboid classifications were recorded across cultural regions, gender, race, age, organizational level, and industry. Associations with indices of leadership effectiveness and derailment were documented via averaged 360° ratings. Results generally support norm‐favoring individuals as exhibiting leadership advantage, although this effect differed slightly across the leadership dimension being assessed (although remaining relatively stable across hierarchical leadership position). Potential future applications of the cuboid model to the management and leadership domains are suggested primarily in the topical areas of cross‐cultural leadership (different occupancy rates were documented across regions of origin), leadership emergence (interpersonally oriented, norm‐favoring individuals predominantly occupied leadership positions), and leader development (low “satisfaction” and rule‐questioning leaders were generally rated as having lower effectiveness ratings and an increased likelihood of derailment).     

An empirical investigation of the antecedents,behaviors, and outcomes of bad leadership

This exploratory study identifies actions and behaviors that subordinates attribute to bad leadership and explores the implications these factors have for organizations. Data were obtained through a Web‐based survey that generated 335 respondents who completed at least some of the questions. Results identified the prevalence of bad leaders, behaviors causing a leader to be perceived as bad, the impact of bad leaders on the employee and organization, whether these bad leaders had always been bad, and what happened to the bad leader. An interesting discovery was that the majority of bad leaders were either promoted or rewarded by the organization.     

The Effect of Follow-up Mailings on The Response Rate and Response Quality in Mail Surveys

Numerous experts have demonstrated that the increase in the number of contacts produces a “lengthening” of the field work, although this lag in the analysis of the data is “compensated” by the increase in the response rate that is achieved through this second, third, and successive “contacts”. However, can it be said that these interviewees respond with the same dedication as those who responded from the initial contact? Or could it be that they will try to respond “hastily” so as not to be “harassed” further? The aim of this study is to try to find some answers to these questions by giving the results of the first ever research carried out in Spain using the TDM of Dillman in mail surveys.     

Inclusive leadership via empathic communication

In today’s rapidly changing society, leaders have to constantly deal with multiple urgent demands interacting with others through various communication modalities - that can happen face to face, via video conferencing, phone calls, etc. - and guide diverse groups of individuals. Having empathic conversations is key for inclusive leadership. Leaders need to understand their emotions and others’ emotional state to build bonds for effective collaboration at work. Yet the reality is that it is challenging for leaders to be aware of their own empathic or non-empathic approach, especially given that hybrid communication is required in their daily lives. This paper introduces communication approaches for empathic conversations considering various modalities including face-to-face, video, or voice-only communication. We provide step-by-step instructions and guided questions to showcase how to develop empathic communication skills. With these strategies, leaders can practice their empathy ‘muscle’ considering various communication modalities with a focus on non-verbal and verbal cues.