For Wizard Kim - W1DP

Hogg, M. A., & Martin, R. (2003). Social identity analysis of leader-member relations: Reconciling self-categorization and leader-member exchange theories of leadership. In S. A. Haslam, D. van Knippenberg, M. J. Platow, & N. Ellemers (Eds.), Social identity at work: Developing theory for organi- zational practice (pp. 139–154). New York: Psychology Press.

Hogg, M. A., Martin, R., & Weeden, K. (in press). Leader-member relations and social identity. In D. van Knippenberg & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Leadership and power: Identity processes in groups and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hogg, M. A., & van Knippenberg, D. (in press). Social identity and leadership processes in groups. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, 35, 1–52. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Hollander, E. P. (1958). Conformity, status, and idiosyncracy credit. Psychological Review, 65, 117–127.

Liden, R. C., & Graen, G. B. (1980). Generalizability of the Ver- tical Dyad Linkage model of leadership. Academy of Man- agement Journal, 23, 451–465.

Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader- Member Exchange theory: The past and potential for the future. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Man- agement, 15, 47–119.

Scandura, T. A. (1999). Rethinking leader-member exchange: An organizational justice perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 25–40.

Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., & Cogliser, C. C. (1999). Leader-member exchange (LMX) research: A comprehen- sive review of theory, measurement, and data-analytic prac- tices. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 63–113.

Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Process and structure in leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Review, 22, 522–552.

Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of author- ity in groups. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, 25, 115–191. New York: Academic Press.

! LEADERSHIP, SITUATIONAL AND CONTINGENCY APPROACHES

See Leadership Development; Situational and Contingency Approaches to Leadership

! LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

The concept of leadership development can be unclear or even confusing because it is made up of two terms—leadership and development—that are each ambiguous and multifaceted. There is no single,

universally accepted definition of leadership. Some researchers have gone so far as to say that it is impos- sible to define leadership in words, but people know it when they see it. Leadership can mean different things to different people depending on their experi- ence, background, and developmental level. The best we can apparently do is to describe leadership as a process (not a position) that involves leaders, follow- ers, and situations. The social-influence aspect of the proposed definition is limiting. There are potentially other forms of leadership such as relational dialogue that transcend influence processes. Also, research has shown that people hold implicit leadership theories that vary based on their experience and background. The distinction between leaders and followers is a somewhat arbitrary one. Everyone is a leader at some time or another, and everyone is also a follower at times. The roles change in a dynamic, fluid, and ongoing fashion. In a given situation, an individual may adopt both a leader and a follower role depend- ing on whether he or she is influencing others or being influenced, setting direction or following direc- tion, or providing support or receiving support at a particular moment.

Another aspect of leadership worth noting is that it is inherently a multilevel phenomenon. Leader- ship involves individuals, groups, and organizations. On an individual level, people adopt leader and fol- lower roles. In groups and organizations, leadership emerges in the context of social structures and processes. Without a context in which to interact, there can be no leadership. Therefore, leadership is not something that is added to individuals, groups, or organizations; rather, it is drawn from those vari- ous entities.

Development, for its part, implies a change in state. It is growth from a less complex to a more complex way of thinking or acting. By this defini- tion, aging is not necessarily development, because getting older without a corresponding change in cog- nitive or behavioral complexity does not constitute development. In most people, however, aging and development tend to go hand in hand. Research on adult development and in gerontology suggests that development often occurs throughout the lifespan, even into old age.

840———Leadership Development

Human development has been discussed as an ongoing cycle of differentiation (acquiring new knowledge, skills, and abilities) and integration (organizing knowledge, skills, and abilities into more complex forms), moving toward increasing levels of complexity. But the change from a relatively simple state to a complex one is not always straightforward, and development is not perfectly predictable. Two individuals participating in an identical development program are likely to change in very different ways. What and how someone learns is of critical impor- tance to development. Enhancing the ability to learn from experience is a key concern in development in general and in leadership development in particular.

DEFINING LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

Leadership development is the act of expanding the capacities of individuals, groups, and organizations to participate effectively in leadership roles and processes. In a comprehensive approach to leadership development, it is assumed that everyone (and not just top-level leaders) can learn and grow in ways that will make them more effective in the various leader- ship roles they take on and in the leadership processes that they contribute to. Therefore, development is appropriate at all levels—individual, group, and organization. Organizations are increasingly faced with what can be termed adaptive challenges, rather than technical problems. Adaptive challenges are sit- uations that the organization has not experienced before and therefore is initially unprepared to handle. There are no known solutions to such problems, and it may not even be obvious how to identify or con- struct the problem. No single leader, no matter how talented or charismatic, can single-handedly solve these kinds of novel, hard-to-frame, and open prob- lems. For this reason (and others), organizations need people at all levels who are prepared to share in more complex forms of leadership.

As mentioned, leadership is a dynamic process that involves leaders, followers, and situations. The first step in developing leadership is to develop indi- viduals at all organizational levels so that they can participate effectively in this dynamic process. Sometimes the most effective way to participate is by

taking charge and setting direction or initiating struc- ture. Other times participation may mean being con- siderate or supportive. Effective participation some- times involves active listening or demonstrating commitment to the ideas or suggestions of another. Leadership is not a single role that is enacted by a single individual. Instead, it is a process that emerges as various roles are enacted, and those roles—and the people filling them—can change as the challenges change. Although leadership development begins with developing individuals, that is not where it should end. To help clarify this proposition, a dis- tinction is needed between leadership development and leader development.

LEADER DEVELOPMENT

There is a longstanding confusion in the academic literature as well as in organizational practice between leader development and leadership devel- opment. What most researchers, theorists, and prac- titioners call leadership development focuses on developing individual leaders, and therefore might more accurately be called leader development. Most development programs and practices ignore the social context (including the roles that others play in the leadership process) in which leadership occurs. Instead, the focus of most programs is typically on helping individual leaders acquire or enhance knowl- edge, skills, and abilities in ways that are expected to improve their overall ability to lead. The focus is on developing human capital in organizations. The development of human capital is a necessary task, but alone it does not ensure more effective leader- ship. Leadership emerges through social interaction, and therefore it depends on the pattern and quality of networked relationships in an organization—what has been termed the social capital of an organization.

Effective leadership requires attention to both types of capital. Developing human capital without attention to social capital ignores the fact that leadership is based on interactions among leaders, followers, and the social environment. By the same token, attempting to develop the social capital aspects of leadership without preparing individuals with the necessary skills to communicate, influence, inspire, and otherwise

Leadership Development ———841

effectively participate in leadership is also ill advised. The key to developing effective leadership is to devote attention to both human and social capital—to link leader development with leadership development.

DEVELOPMENT PRACTICES

There are any number of practices that can be used to promote leader and leadership development. Although the most common approach is still the for- mal classroom program, there is a trend to embed development in the context of ongoing work. This trend can be traced back to interview research with managers in the 1980s regarding their most potent developmental experiences. Those interviews strongly indicated that managers believed experi- ences gained while on the job—and not classroom programs—most helped them develop leadership ability. The specific experiences were not always the same—they could be hardships or even failures, international assignments, mentoring, or receiving peer feedback (among others)—but it was the fact that the development occurred in a work-related con- text that made it so effective. Although people may learn worthwhile things from a classroom program, it is difficult to transfer the results back to the job and the organization. The difficulties in transferring class- room training further underscore the fact that devel- oping individuals while ignoring the context in which they work is likely to have only limited impact.

Organizations make use of various development practices; several are briefly reviewed below. The practices are arranged below from least embedded to most embedded in the context of ongoing work.

Formal Classroom Programs

Most leadership development approaches still rely primarily on the formal classroom program. It is esti- mated that at least 85 percent of companies that engage in leadership development efforts use formal programs. Such programs usually offer a classroom seminar covering basic theories and principles of leadership in addition to activities designed to enhance self-awareness and self-understanding. These programs typically last several days to per-

haps a week or more and usually are held in an off- site location. Because of the considerable expense associated with program development customized for the organization, many organizations choose to send their managers to open-enrollment programs offered by private organizations or to university- based executive education programs.

Outdoor Challenges

Also known as wilderness training, this is becoming a popular method for developing teamwork and team- based leadership skills. Outdoor challenges also encourage participants to overcome risk-taking fears. Activities can include rope climbing, whitewater raft- ing, rappelling, and even mock boot camps followed with paintball games. Although such adventures are interesting and exciting for participants, there is no conclusive evidence that they lead to enhanced leader- ship or development back on the job. Obvious differ- ences between wilderness and organizational contexts likely contribute to transfer-of-training difficulties.

360-Degree Feedback

This practice is also called multi-rater or multi- source feedback. It is a method of systematically col- lecting perceptions of an individual’s performance and the effect he or she has on others from various perspectives (for example, peers, subordinates, supervisors). A basic assumption with 360-degree feedback is that others’ perceptions of an individual vary depending on the nature of their relationship to that person. The practice can therefore help build a more complete and accurate picture of an individ- ual’s leadership ability. It is also useful for develop- ing human capital in the form of enhanced under- standing of one’s impact on others. The method is especially useful if used in conjunction with other efforts that are directed at helping someone change in ways suggested by the feedback.

Executive Coaching

Coaching is a form of goal-focused, personal, one- on-one learning. It can be used to improve individual

842——— Leadership Development

performance, enhance a career, or work through organizational issues such as change initiatives. Coaching tends to be a relatively short-term inter- vention aimed at improving specific leadership com- petencies or addressing specific challenges. Many executive coaching assignments are linked to 360- degree feedback efforts, with the goal of helping the recipient make sense of the feedback and creating a plan for change.

Mentoring

Developmental relationships in organizations can be of a formal or informal nature. Formal mentoring pro- grams are run by the organization, whereas informal mentoring, while typically encouraged by the organ- ization, is not initiated or administered through for- mal channels. One strength of mentoring as a devel- opmental tool is that it provides opportunities to observe and interact with people who have greater experience, such as members of senior management. These opportunities give the recipient a more sophis- ticated and nuanced understanding of the organiza- tion and the challenges it faces. Research indicates that both formal and informal mentoring can be effec- tive for development, but that informal mentoring tends to have more benefits than formal mentoring.

Job Assignments

Development through job assignments provides man- agers with diverse experiences that help them master team building, strategic thinking, and to develop per- suasion and influence skills. In order for a job assign- ment to be developmental, it must challenge an indi- vidual to use leadership approaches that he or she has not used before. The assignment must be made with development in mind and attention paid to its devel- opment aspect, otherwise the focus tends to be merely on how well the assignee performs, with little regard for his or her learning or development.

Action Learning

Action learning assumes that people learn most effectively when dealing with work-related issues in

real time. It is best described as a structured, contin- uous process of learning and reflection with a corre- sponding emphasis on addressing a problem of strategic importance to an organization. The idea behind action learning is relatively straightforward, but effective implementation is difficult. Similar to job assignments, the emphasis tends to be on per- forming well, with little attention devoted to learn- ing. Without the learning component, development will be limited. One well-known action learning ini- tiative was General Electric’s “Work Out” program initiated in the 1980s by CEO Jack Welch. The action-learning process in this case involved working out problems in ways that enhanced General Elec- tric’s core values of empowerment and “boundary- less” behavior. It is notable for its efforts at making everyone responsible for leadership. Although action learning could be done using simulations, that is not typical. Also, leadership simulations are not very common. The most difficult issue with action learn- ing is not transfer of training; rather, it is keeping the importance of learning on par with the emphasis on performance.

EVALUATING LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

Relatively few evaluative studies have empirically estimated a link between a particular leadership development program and actual leader develop- ment. Instead, evaluation efforts tend to focus on leader or group performance—that is, on how well a particular task was performed or problem solved. An implicit assumption is that if task performance was good, then development must have occurred and the initiative must have been successful. Although these are interesting and testable hypotheses, the approach does little to advance a better understanding of development. Performance could be improved with

Leadership Development ———843

Look at a man the way that he is, he only becomes worse. But look at him as if he were what he could be, and then he becomes what he should be.

—Goethe

little or no individual or group development having occurred. It is also possible that development occurs with no subsequent improvement in task perform- ance (at least immediately). To appropriately test these hypotheses, a much better understanding of the criteria for leadership development is needed. Issues to be addressed in developing appropriate cri- teria include a comprehensive approach to concep- tualizing and operationalizing the construct of development.

It is important to recognize that development is a relatively long-term investment in the human and social capital of an organization. There are few shortcuts to leadership development, but the poten- tial payoffs can be instrumental in bringing about better overall organizational adaptation and effec- tiveness.

—David V. Day

See also Leadership Succession; Learning Organization; Mentoring

Further Reading Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the

vital forces in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Conger, J. A., & Benjamin, B. (1999). Building leaders: How

successful companies develop the next generation. San Fran- cisco: Jossey-Bass.

Day, D. V. (2000). Leadership development: A review in con- text. Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), 581–613.

Day, D. V., Zaccaro, S. J., & Halpin, S. M. (Eds.). (in press). Leader development for transforming organizations. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hollenbeck, G. P., & McCall, M. W., Jr. (1999). Leadership development: Contemporary practices. In A. I. Kraut & A. K. Korman (Eds.), Evolving practices in human resource management (pp. 172–200). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

London, M. (2002). Leadership development: Paths to self- insight and professional growth. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

McCall, M. W. (1998). High flyers: Developing the next gener- ation of leaders. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

McCall, M. W., Lombardo, M. M., & Morrison, A. M. (1988). The lessons of experience: How successful executives develop on the job. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

McCauley, C. D., & Van Velsor, E. (Eds.). (2003). The Center for Creative Leadership handbook of leadership develop- ment (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ulrich, D., Kerr, S., & Ashkenus, R. (2002). The GE work-out. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Vicere, A. A., & Fulmer, R. M. (1998). Leadership by design. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

! LEADERSHIP EFFECTIVENESS Adelphia Communications, John Rigas, CEO; AOL Time Warner, Robert Pittman, CEO; Arthur Ander- sen, Joseph Berardino, CEO; Bristol Myers, Fred Schiff, CEO; Citigroup, Sanford Weill, CEO; Enron, Ken Lay, CEO; Merrill Lynch & Co., David Koman- sky, CEO; Qwest Communications, Joseph Nacchio, CEO; Sunbeam, Al Dunlap, CEO; Tyco Interna- tional, Dennis Kozlowski, CEO, and the list goes on—companies that were icons of success have now become icons of dramatic failure, unethical practice, or simply bad judgment. One day these companies and their leaders were lauded as the embodiments of leadership effectiveness and the next day as embodi- ments of what is wrong with the system.

The concept of leadership effectiveness is diffi- cult to define because it is a complex concept that attempts to capture myriad components: multiple organizational contingencies and various personal and interpersonal behaviors. Here we shall attempt a normative definition and explain how its many com- ponents help us grasp a complex subject.

DEFINITION

People define the concept of leadership effectiveness in many ways. Indeed, Stogdill (1974), Bass (1981), and Bass and Stogdill (1990) catalogued and inter- preted almost five thousand studies of the concept and found great variance in its definition. Burns (1978) captured the problem most vividly in a state- ment still widely quoted today: “Leadership,” he said “is one of the most observed and least understood phenomena on earth” (Burns 1978, 2). People seem to accept a default position that leadership is simply what leaders do and that leaders are simply people in positions of power over others. An alternative to this position will be offered later. Still, we must have a starting point for our understanding of leadership effectiveness—even if it means that almost immedi- ately we will create controversy.

One inclusive definition of leadership effective- ness is “the successful exercise of personal influence by one or more people that results in accomplishing shared objectives in a way that is personally satisfy-

844———Leadership Effectiveness