Leadership Theories - this review seeks to determine which theoretical perspectives, theories and schools of thought have thus far underpin our understanding about leadership development. Recognizing the origins that form our current knowledge on leadersh

Authors Avatar

,

CONTENTS

Abstract        


TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1- Mapping the Field Diagram        

Figure 2 – Evolution of Leadership Theories        

Figure 3 – Levels of Analysis Used by Leadership Theories        

Figure 4 – Elements of the Tripod and DAC Ontologies        

Figure 5 – Classification Scheme of Three Typologies of Leadership        

Figure 6- Elements of Leadership Development        

Figure 7 – Classification Schemes for Leadership Development        

Figure 8 – Frequency Distribution of Perspectives        

Figure 9 – Frequency Distribution of Publications by Year        

Figure 10 – Number of Articles Per Ranking        

Figure 11  - Number of Articles on Different Perspectives per Ranking        

Figure 12 – Number of Articles on Perspectives per Type of Publication and Methodology        

Figure 13 – Distribution of Self Constructs        

Figure 14 – Frequency Distribution of Self & Identity Constructs per Perspectives        

Figure 15 – Percentage of Self & Identity Processes and Structures        

Figure 16 – Distribution of Process and Structure by Perspective        

Figure 17 – Classification Schemes of Leadership Development (including findings of this study)        

Figure 18 – Perspectives in Relation to Levels of Analysis and Ontological Stances        


TABLE OF TABLES

Table 1 – Leadership Theories        

Table 2 – Examples of Major Leadership Theories Proposed after 1980        

Table 3 – Ontological and Epistemological Stances in Leadership Knowledge        

Table 4 – Classification Schemes for Leadership Theories        

Table 5- Self and Identity Constructs Associated with Leadership        

Table 6 – Consultation Panel        

Table 7 – Databases Selected        

Table 8 – Additional Sources of Information        

Table 9 - Keywords        

Table 10 – Search Strings        

Table 11 – Review Questions with Corresponding Search String Strategy        

Table 12 – Results of the Comprehensive Search Strategy        

Table 13 – Selection Criteria for Titles and Abstracts        

Table 14 – Quality Appraisal Criteria        

Table 15 – Reason and Amount of Articles Eliminated in Full Text        

Table 16 – Extraction Form        

Table 17 – Number of Publications of Different Perspectives per Year        

Table 18 – Number and Percentage of Publications per Country        

Table 19 – Number and Percentage of Types of Sources        

Table 20 – Number of Articles per Publication Title        

Table 21- Number and Percentage of Articles per Type of Publication        

Table 22 – Self & Identity Structures        

Table 23 – Self & Identity Processes        


CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION


“Leadership without perspective and point of view isn’t’ leadership – and of course it must be your own perspective, your own point of view. You cannot borrow a point of view any more than you can borrow someone else’s eyes”. – Bennis, 1992:122

Leadership matters. Extensive empirical evidence indicate that the behavior of leaders have critical consequences for organizational effectiveness (e.g. DeGroot, Kiker & Cross, 2000; Yukl, 2010; Zacarro, Rittman & Marks, 2001). However, leaders today are facing unprecedented uncertainty and inconstancy. New challenges are complex and difficult to identify since they do not respond to previous sensemaking, tools, resources or solutions (Weick, 1993). These new circumstances not only defy leader’s capabilities, skills and knowledge, but also their confidence in their ability to lead (Hannah, Avolio, Luthans & Harms, 2008). A recent survey revealed that only 20 percent of the CEOs studied considered themselves and their teams apt to lead their organizations into the future (proprietary study; cited in Day & Halpin, 2004). In addition, another study indicated that developing leadership talent is also considered a significant problem for 75 percent of the organizations investigated (IBM Global Business Service, 2008; cited in Day, Harrison & Halpin, 2009).

Executive education and leadership development is often seen as the answer to this conundrum. Organizations are estimated to expend billions of dollars in executive education and leadership development (e.g. Czarnowisky, 2008; Fulmer, 1997). A recent study conducted by ASTD/Booz Allen Hamilton estimates that organizations in the United States alone expended 134.39 billion dollars in development and learning in 2007 (information retrieved on March 28th, 2009, at ). This approach to solve the leadership challenge is not, however, without its problems and limitations. Some authors suggest that the value of leadership development initiatives is a matter of faith from both participants and organizations (Collins & Denyer, 2008; Conger, 1992). Others indicate hindrances that can make reduce or null the value of leadership development initiatives (Ready & Conger, 2003; Roberts & McDonalds, 1995).

Even though organizations are estimated to expend billions of dollars in executive education and leadership development every year, there has been, surprisingly, very little empirical research about this topic (e.g. Klein & Ziegert, 2004). Leadership development has been hitherto more focused on the practical aspect of promoting developmental experiences than on the scientific investigation of the processes and the content of what is being developed (Day & O’Connor, 2003), and as a consequence our knowledge about how leaders are developed and what mechanisms trigger this development is very scarce. Moreover, until very recently theories of leadership development were lacking, and the very few theories that have been proposed are still untested (Avolio, 2007; Day, Harrison & Halpin, 2009).

AIM OF THE REVIEW

Since theories about leadership development per se are lacking in the literature (Avolio, 2007; Day, Harrison & Halpin, 2009; Klein & Ziegert, 2004), this review seeks to determine which theoretical perspectives, theories and schools of thought have thus far underpin our understanding about leadership development. Recognizing the origins that form our current knowledge on leadership development might provide us with a scaffold to develop theories and understand mechanisms about how leaders develop.

In addition, this review also considers the role of personal development within leadership development. Leadership development programs that focus on personal development aim on producing an emotional impact on participants in order to promote awareness of personal values, desires, opportunities, behaviors and attitudes (Conger, 1992, Kets de Vries & Korotov, 2007). Although this type of approach is very popular and research suggests that many participants choose to undergo leadership development programs for personal reasons (Long, 2004), some authors have criticized the effectiveness and usefulness of this approach to improving leadership in organizations (e.g. Conger, 1993). Since the validity of this approach to leadership development has yet to be proved, understanding the theoretical perspectives that underpin it might be invaluable to help us investigate its significance.

Finally, this review also explores the theoretical perspectives in leadership development that addresses changes in self and identity due both to its relation with personal development and to the parallels drawn among leadership development, leadership, and these constructs (e.g. Day & Harrison, 2007; Hall, 2004).

STRUCTURE OF THE PAPER

This review is structured as follows:

Chapter II introduces the topics of leadership development, leadership and self/identity. In this chapter, I will describe the key theories, concepts, and/or predicaments in these fields. As will become clear, the level of empirical and theoretical development of these literatures varies significantly. While there is an abundance of theory in the leadership literature and a strong empirical foundation in the self/identity literature, the leadership development literature is still in its infancy. This limitation forms the foundation for this study, as it seeks to establish the theoretical underpinnings that inform this young field.

Chapter III describes the methodology utilized in this study. The procedures of the systematic review are explained through the five phases that constitute this review technique. In particular, the search strategy and selection criteria that bounds the literature analyzed in this review and the rationale for this boundaries are positioned in term of the scope and focus of this review.

Chapter IV and Chapter V feature the results of this review. In Chapter IV, the thematic results describe a classification of theoretical perspectives that inform leadership development. The aim of this chapter is to synthesize and organize both empirical and conceptual literature in order to develop a framework that encompasses all theoretical perspectives that underpins leadership development. In Chapter V, the descriptive analysis of the literature utilized in this study is depicted. The descriptive results were presented after the thematic results, since the latter provides the definitions and rationale of the framework developed in this study.

Chapter VI contains the discussion of the findings and the relevance of these findings to the positioning and gaps of the literature. The categories of theoretical perspectives are compared with other classification schemes in the field and with levels of analysis and ontological and epistemological issues that have been addressed by the leadership literature. Limitations of this study, personal learning and future research are also included.

Chapter VII concludes this study by summarizing main findings and contributions.


CHAPTER II: POSITIONING THE FIELD OF INQUIRY


“…our understanding of leadership did not arrive fully complete and mature at our doorstep, nor should we reasonably expect this.” – Day & Harrison, 2007:361

This review considered three fields of research: leadership development, leadership and self/identity (Figure 1). Leadership development is the main phenomenon of interest, while the other two topics establish either a focus in which this phenomenon will be analyzed or the background necessary to elucidate it. It is important to consider the field of leadership since, in order to develop anything, the features, elements and predicaments of this entity one wants or needs to be developed – in our case, leadership – needs to be known. As this chapter will illustrate, leadership is a multifaceted and intricate phenomenon and part of the issues we face in understanding and researching leadership development stem from the complexity of leadership itself.

The literature on self and identity was also considered since there is evidence that not only these concepts might be fruitful to our understanding of leadership development, but also that they relate in several ways with the phenomenon of leadership. For instance, leadership development has been considered by some authors to be essentially personal development, which by definition entails processes and activities related to the self (e.g. Hall, 2004); and an individual’s perception of his or her identity as a leader has been considered important for developing leadership skills (Day & Harrison, 2007). In addition, one important self-construct – self-awareness – is deemed to be essential for effective leadership since it helps leaders “learn how to learn” (Briscoe & Hall, 1999). In this chapter, the relationship between the concepts of leadership and self/identity will also be established to endorse the worth of these constructs for the study of leadership development.

FIGURE 1- MAPPING THE FIELD DIAGRAM

 

LEADERSHIP

“Leadership is one of the most observed and least understood phenomena on Earth” – Burns, 1978, cited in Bass, 1990

Leadership can be considered as old as mankind. There are references about the topic in the history of the majority of the civilizations: from the ancient Egyptians and Chinese scriptures, to the writings of Plato, Caesar and Homer’s Iliad (Bass, 1990). The phenomenon is considered ubiquitous in every civilization, regardless of culture or era and, despite its antiquity and universality, our interest about the topic has only been growing, which is evident by the exponential number of publications about the topic.

Yet, we are still eluded by this intriguing concept. Defining leadership for research purposes is no easy task, since the term, so common in our vocabulary, imagination, and history, convey extraneous associations that relates to other also complex phenomena, such as power, influence, control and authority (Yukl, 2010). A classic quote, cited over and over in the leadership literature, states that “There are almost as many different definitions of leadership as there are persons who have attempted to define the concept” (originally in Stogdill, 1974: 259, Bass, 1990:7). This countless parade of definitions is caused by the cross-disciplinary nature of the field and the characteristics of the phenomenon, which leads different researchers to define the term according to their own interests and perspectives (Yukl, 2010). Hence, there is much fragmentation in leadership literature.  In this chapter, I will first expose the diversity of theories that have been proposed about leadership, and then I will analyze the characteristics and intricacies of this complex phenomenon that are responsible for the multitude of ways in which it has been conceptualized and researched.

THE HETEROGENEOUSNESS OF LEADERSHIP: MYRIAD OF THEORIES, DEFINTIONS AND CONCEPTS

“(…) theory is supposed to be a way of trying to understand fact. Sometimes, leadership theory becomes a way of obscuring fact.” – Bass, 1990:26

Nothing exemplifies the multiplicity and fragmentation of the leadership literature as an exhibition of its multitude of theories. Table 1 displays a non-exhaustive list of leadership theories. These theories span from thoughts of early theorists in the eighteenths and beginning of the nineteenth century (e.g. great man theories), when leadership was explained as an innate characteristic of great figures in History (Bass, 1990), to recent conceptualizations that view leadership as a collective endeavor (e.g., shared and distributed leadership).  Even though it is not shown in Table 1, there was a important transformation in the way leadership was conceptualized and theorized in the 1980s (Boal & Hooijberg, 2001; Hunt, 1999). While older theories of leadership (e.g. trait theory, path-goal theory, contingency theory) focused on the leader as an individual, succeeding theories – which became known as the “new” theories of leadership – regard leadership as a relationship between leaders and followers (House & Aditya, 1997).

TABLE 1 – LEADERSHIP THEORIES

Compiled by author. MAIN SOURCES: Yukl, 2010; Northouse, 2007; Chermes, 2000; House & Aditya, 1997.

This new focus on the 1980s, however, did not produce an integration of ideas and concepts into the field. On the contrary, as will be explained in more details below, this new focus on the leader-follower relationship brought more diversity, as different levels of analysis – besides the individual leader – started to be considered. As can be observed in Table 2, these “new” theories of leadership can be classified as concentrating on this relationship (interpersonal level).  Recent theories can also be classified as focusing on a even newer development of the field, which conceives of leadership as an activity that is collaboratively enact by all members of the organization (relational level; e.g. Fletcher, 2004).The evolution of the leadership field is portrayed in Figure 2, which illustrates the timeline in which the first theories concerning a particular aspect were proposed. Thus, the leadership literature progress by including more inclusive aspects in the concept of leadership, from considering only the individual leader to considering also the context, the dyadic relationship and the social and collective milieu. The inclusion of these new levels of analysis in the research and theory of leadership did not, however, eradicated the interest of some scholars in the individual leader as a unit the analysis. Recent advancements in the field might also consider leadership from an individual perspective. For instance, Mumford and colleagues conceptualize leadership as complex problem-solving skills (e.g. Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding et al, 2000), while Judge and colleagues support the historically controversial trait approach (e.g. Judge, Bono, Ilies & Gerhardt, 2000).

TABLE 2 – EXAMPLES OF MAJOR LEADERSHIP THEORIES PROPOSED AFTER 1980

Compiled by author. MAIN SOURCES: Yukl, 2010; Northouse, 2007; Chermes, 2000; House & Aditya, 1997

FIGURE 2 – EVOLUTION OF LEADERSHIP THEORIES

Compiled by author. MIAN SOURCES: Yukl, 2010; Northouse, 2007; Chermes, 2000; House & Aditya, 1997; Bass, 1990.

THE INTRICATENESS OF LEADERSHIP

“Always, it seems, the concept of leadership eludes us or turns up in another form to taunt us again with its slipperiness and complexity. So we have invented an endless proliferation of terms to deal with it… and still the concept is not sufficiently defined” – Bennis, 1959:259

The multi-dimensionality and intricacy of leadership can be partially understood as a result of the following distinctions: (1) level of analysis, (2) ontology and epistemology of the phenomenon, and (3) approaches and perspectives utilized by researchers.

LEVELS OF ANALYSIS

Different leadership theories conceptualize the phenomenon through different levels of analysis (Yulk, 2010). As illustrated in Figure 3, there are four hierarchically order levels that can be used to describe the leadership process: individual, dyadic, group and organization. These four levels can be organized in relation to the type of relationship it produces (individual, interpersonal and relational), which can be used to map these hierarchical levels into the classification utilized in Table 2.

The individual level considers intra-individual processes, such as traits, skills, motivation, and values to understand how the individual leader influences the leadership process (Yulk, 2010). The focus here is usually on the behavior, style or the role of the leader. Examples of leadership theories that utilize this level to explain leadership include very old approaches, such as great man theories and trait theories, as well as very recent developments in the field, such as ethical leadership and the skill-based model of leadership (Bass, 1990; Mumford et al, 2000; Northhouse, 2007).

The dyadic level explains leadership through the relationship between the leader and his or her follower (Yulk, 2010). Theories that conceptualize leadership as a dyadic process consider issues concerned with how the leader influences, interacts, motivates, inspires and develops the follower. The focus of these theories might be in the behavior of the leader as the source of motivation, inspiration, influence; or the focus might be in the changes that occur in the follower due to the interaction with the leader. A large proportion of leadership theories analyze leadership through this lens, including authentic leadership, full-range leadership (transformational and transactional leadership), leadership member-exchange theory and servant leadership (Yulk, 2010; Northhouse, 2007).

The group level focuses on the collective processes that are involved in leadership (Yulk, 2010). The theories that study leadership through this lens explore team performance through processes that involve all the subordinates of the leader. Thus, it considers not only the behaviors that the leader utilized to influence a single individual, as theories in the dyadic level, but also behaviors that promote the interaction, commitment and confidence among all members of the team. Theories that conceptualize leadership at this level of analysis include team leadership, social exchange theory and cross-cultural leadership, shared leadership and distributed leadership.

The organizational level of analysis considers the influence that leaders might have throughout the whole organization (Yukl, 2010). Theories that conceptualize through this lens take into account the survival, adaptation, culture and strategy of the organization as pertaining to the influence and direction set up by the leader (or leaders, in the case of the top team) of the organization. Examples of leadership theory that investigate leadership at this level include strategic leadership and flexible leadership theory.

FIGURE 3 – LEVELS OF ANALYSIS USED BY LEADERSHIP THEORIES

(Based on Yukl, 2010:33)

ONTOLOGY AND EPISTEMOLOGY

Ontology refers to our assumptions and beliefs about the nature of reality, while epistemology relates to how we gain, understand and communicate our knowledge about the ontological assumptions we have (Hatch & Cunliffe, 2006; Hunt, 1991). The ontological and epistemological stances that researchers, consciously or unconsciously, employ in their research influence the type of questions and hypothesis they will formulate about a phenomenon and the selection of methodology they will utilize to establish their answers. Hence, the perspective that different scholars have made about the ontology and epistemology of leadership might be an important factor to understand the assortment of leadership theories.

Hunt (1991) has organized the knowledge of leadership into six ontological/epistemological stances, in a continuum that range from more objective approaches to more subjectivist approaches (see Table 3 below). This continuum moves from a very static view of leadership, in which the relationship between the leader and follower is predetermined by particular patterns and principles that can be generalized and calculated, to more fluid understandings of the role of the leader, the follower and the environment in constructing and enacting this relationship.


TABLE 3 – ONTOLOGICAL AND EPISTEMOLOGICAL STANCES IN LEADERSHIP KNOWLEDGE

(SOURCE: Hunt, 1991:45-6)

Interestingly, there is not a fair distribution of leadership theories within this continuum. The majority of leadership theories could be classified as pertaining to the machine and/or organism categories. When Hunt (1991) published his book, all of the major leadership theories he analyzed fitted in these groups, and he stated that “the subjectivist leadership perspective largely have been neglected” (p. 51); this reality has not been drastically changed, although more subjective theoretical and empirical inquiries are becoming less uncommon (e.g. Barge, Fairhurst, 2008; Shamir, Dayan-Horesh & Adler, 2005).

More importantly, even Hunt’s (1991) ontological and epistemological portrayal of leadership knowledge contains an implicit ontology that he might not have realized at the time. Drath and colleagues (2008) have argued recently that there is an underlying ontological commitment beneath the majority of leadership theories and models that in fact brings together the seemingly vast and fragmented leadership literature. This essential assumption indicates that leadership is composed by a tripod between three entities: leader (or leaders), followers, and a common objective shared by them. This ontology, which was named the tripod ontology, constitutes the basis of the majority of leadership theories (see Figure 4A). Different theories and definitions, which seem to focus on distinctive aspects of leadership, in fact, “arrange and rearrange the entities of the tripod in various ways” (Drath et al, 2008: 637).

FIGURE 4 – ELEMENTS OF THE TRIPOD AND DAC ONTOLOGIES

 (Based on Drath et al, 2008)

This is not, however, the only way in which leadership can be conceptualized. Drath and colleagues (2008) suggest a new ontological assumption that they believe can assimilate recent theories of leadership (such as shared leadership, relational leadership and complexity leadership) that do not utilize the tripod ontology and can also promote novel insights about the phenomenon. This new ontology, which was named DAC ontology, is composed of three elements: direction, alignment and commitment (see Figure 4B). According to these authors, the DAC ontology has the capability of promoting more integration not only among leadership theories but also between theory and practice due to its focus on the long term outcomes produced by the collective attainment of direction, alignment and commitment, as outcomes are not restricted to a level of analysis and are more connected to the language and interests of practitioners.

APPROACHES AND PERSPECTIVES ON LEADERSHIP

An additional cause for the multiplicity of leadership theories is related to the approaches and perspectives that different authors used to theorize about the phenomenon. Three systems of classification about leadership research were reviewed for this study to illustrate the attempt of different scholars in synthesizing the leadership literature (Bolden & Kirk, 2009; Korac-Kakabadse & Korac-Kakabadse, 1997; Yulk, 2010). Even though their selection was opportunistic and one might argue that their lack of consensus might be due to an incomplete appraisal of the literature, their inconsistencies and contradictions reflect a cohesive opinion in the field about the fragmentation of this literature (e.g., Zaccaro & Horn, 2003).  

Two of the systems selected labeled their typology as perspectives on leadership theories and models (Bolden & Kirk, 2009; Korac-Kakabadse & Korac-Kakabadse, 1997), while the other considered its typology as consisting of approaches (Yulk, 2010). Even though a distinction could be made between the terms approach and perspective, the disparities among these classification systems do not seem to originate from it, and it appears that one of the perspectives have more in common with the approach than with the other perspective. Both the approach and this perspective seem to utilize the type of variables that is most likely emphasized by a particular theory or model (Korac-Kakabadse & Korac-Kakabadse, 1997; Yulk, 2010), while the other perspective seem to use ontological/epistemological frameworks to build its categories (e.g. Bolden & Kirk, 2009; see Table 4). Hence, at least among these three classification schemes, it does not seem to have a consensus as to what constitute the parameters of build an approach or to build a perspective about leadership theories and models.

In addition, as can be observed in Figure 5, there are some overlaps among the categories of the different classifications, but the overlaps are not consistent and there are categories that are exclusive to each author’s typology. With these discrepancies, it is no wonder that “attempts to organize the literature according to major approaches or perspectives show only partial success” (Yukl, 2010: 30). Figure 5 indicates that, utilizing these three classification schemes as basis, leadership theories could be classified either into six groups (see vertical lines separating the clusters of approaches/perspectives), or into eight groups (vertical lines separating cluster plus the three clusters – represented by squared titles – that compose the first cluster).

TABLE 4 – CLASSIFICATION SCHEMES FOR LEADERSHIP THEORIES

FIGURE 5 – CLASSIFICATION SCHEME OF THREE TYPOLOGIES OF LEADERSHIP

Compiled by author. SOURCES: Yukl, 2010; Bolden & Kirk, 2009; Korac-Kakabase & Korac-Kakabase, 1997

SUMMARY

Despite this promise, the field of leadership is littered with many examples of theories and models that have failed utterly when put to the test of solving leadership-related problems. – Zacarro & Horn, 2003, p. 770

When one considers issues such as level of analysis, ontological and epistemological frameworks and the range of variables scholars can select in their research to investigate the phenomenon, it becomes clearer why there are so many theories of leadership and contradictions in the field. With numerous dimensions to consider, it is no wonder that our understanding about leadership is still baffled and fragmented. Actually, one might argue that due to the complexity of the phenomenon itself, it is necessary for academics to embrace the intricacy of leadership, allowing for different interpretations.

Nevertheless, even though the freedom and acceptance of divergent perspectives can enrichment our scholarly understanding of leadership, this lack of synthesis hamper our use of academic knowledge to practice (Zacarro & Horn, 2003) and development of leadership (Schrisheim, 2003). In fact, it has been argued that the largest obstacle to the advancement of a more inclusive, multidimensional approach to leadership development is due to the different ways to conceptualize what is leadership (Day & O’Connor, 2003).

LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

“ …leadership development has not received much serious scientific attention. This is puzzling state of affairs when one considers the critical role that leadership plays in organizations and the broader society” – Day & O’Connor, 2003:11

In order to understand what leadership development is, it is important to first state what leadership development is not, since often the literature treat terms such as management education, leadership training, executive development, and leadership development interchangeably (e.g. Collins & Holton, 2004), which might hinder our understanding of these phenomena. Thus, it is necessary to distinguish between management and leadership and between training, education and development.

Management and leadership are interrelated concepts (Yukl, 1998), since leadership and management skills should coexist in the same individual for effective performance (McCartney & Campbell, 2006). Management skills involve activities such as planning, budgeting, organizing, staffing, controlling, and problem solving; while leadership skills are usually related with interpersonal relationships between leaders and followers, with the leaders setting a direction, aligning, motivating and inspiring his or her followers (Kotter, 1990). Management and leadership development, therefore, require different emphases (Day, 2000). Management development focus more on abilities, skills and knowledge that help individuals increase their task performance in the application of established solutions to common problems (Day, 2000). This attention towards skills and known problems relates more to training than development. Training has been defined as “a planned learning experience designed to bring about permanent change in individual’s knowledge, attitudes, or skills” (Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler & Weick, 1970; cited in Noe, 1986). Management development can also be associated with education, which “includes those learning activities and educational environments that are intended to enhance and foster (…) abilities” (Brungardt, 1996: 83). Thus, training and education, either of management or leadership skills, share several commonalities: they usually occur within a structured setting, they involve taught interactions, and they enhance skills or abilities to known situations. On the other hand, development requires maturity, personal growth, and life experiences and usually builds the capacity to unanticipated challenges (Day, 2000). Development can, therefore, be defined as “the process of becoming increasingly complex, more elaborated and differentiated, by virtue of learning and maturation (…) which opens up the potential for new ways of acting and responding to the environment” (Beardwell & Holden, 2001: 279-80).

This systematic review will focus specifically on leadership development. Yet, the terms that are used interchangeably with leadership development will become part of the systematic review, since some authors might use some of this terminology to investigate this phenomenon. Nonetheless, the definitions above will be utilized to discern studies that are specifically targeting leadership development, which can be defined as “the expansion of a person’s capacity to be effective in leadership roles and processes” (McCauley & Van Velsor, 2004: 2). Roles and processes are related with the leadership skills of aligning, setting direction and promoting commitment in followers.

THE SCIENCE AND PRACTICE OF LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

“There is much sound advice on various programs and practices to promote leadership development, but little of it is grounded in an empirically based, scientific foundation.” – Day & O’Connor, 2003:12.

Many initiatives and practices have been used as developmental experiences in order to improve leadership (e.g. McCauley & Van Velsor, 2004); however, very few of them have been investigated scientifically (Day & O’Connor, 2003). This lack of empirical support is representative of the dearth of research that exists in the field of leadership development currently: leadership development has been hitherto more focused on the practical aspect of promoting developmental experiences than on the scientific investigation of the processes and the content of what is being developed (Day & O’Connor, 2003; Day & Zacarro, 2003; Klein & Ziegert, 2003).

Day & Zacarro (2003) suggest that there are seven major challenges and obstacles that hampered the scientific study of leadership development. These include: measuring development through performance, even though those are different constructs; difficulty in implementing rigorous scientific methods, such as longitudinal and randomized control experiments; and presence of extraneous variables in either in the context in which leaders work or in the mode of development in which leaders participate (i.e., formal, structured instruction, developmental work experiences or self-initiated learning). All of these challenges are associated with difficulties in conducting and obtaining empirical evidence, which might partially explain why there is also a lack of theories about leadership development, as many academic follow an inductive research strategy (Blaikie, 2007). However, they do not fully elucidate why the almost absence of theory building, through a deductive research strategy, in the field. The absence of theory building might have other causes, such as the nature of the phenomenon of leadership itself, which, as exposed in the previous session, is complex, contextual, and multidimensional.

Thus, the leadership development literature is characterized by an imbalance between the lack of empirical or theoretical grounding for leadership development and the profusion of utilization of leadership development initiatives and programs by organizations, which creates an interesting riddle: if there is nearly no specific theory about leadership development, what theories, if any, have informed the literature of leadership development? In other words, what theoretical underpinnings have been employed in the literature so far? For instance, does the literature in leadership development utilize most, or any, of the plethora of leadership theories available? Does the multidimensionality of levels of analysis, ontological and epistemological frameworks and variables in the leadership literature influence the design and delivery of different leadership development programs? Answering these questions form the basis of this systematic review.

LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT = ADULT DEVELOPMENT?

“Effective leaders ...understand that there is no difference between becoming an effective leader and becoming a fully integrated human being” – Bennis, 1999:23

Recently several authors have suggested that leadership development should be understood within an adult development framework since leadership develops over time and possibly across an individual’s lifespan (Day et al, 2009; Day & O’Connor, 2003; Mumford & Manley, 2003). Adult development theories assume that development is a qualitative, transformative, progressive and internally directed change that transforms the functional or structural characteristics of an individual – such as frames of references, perceptions, thought structures – and his or her patterns of interaction with the external environment, producing a shift in the meaning the individual given to events (Bartunek, Gordon & Weatherby, 1983; Moshman, 2003; Stevens-Long & Michaud, 2003).

A developmental change can occur within several developmental systems, such as cognition, behavior, motivation and emotion (Stevens-Long, 1990), and several theories have been proposed to explain the transformations that occur within these systems. Following Baltes, Lindenberg and Staudinger (1998), I will describe the major theories of adult development that might be valuable to the study of leadership development according to two areas of psychological functioning: (1) cognition and intelligence; and (2) personality and self.

COGNITION AND INTELLIGENCE

Theories about development of cognitive function in adults originated from the theory of Piaget (Baltes et al, 1998). Different theorists proposed that adult thought processes develop beyond the formal operations described by Piaget, suggesting post-formal stages of cognitive development. The post-formal stages proposed by different theorists (e.g. systematic stage, dialectical thinking, autonomous thinking) usually indicate that adults progress towards more complex and integrated thought processes, that is, “from differentiation to integration, from embeddedness in context to awareness” (Stevens-Long, 1990: 154). Differentiation –the capacity to distinguish several perspectives or dimensions – and integration – the ability to perceive different relations, categories and theories for the perspectives and dimensions perceived – are the major components of cognitive complexity, which has been associated with managerial effectiveness, the capacity to assume leadership roles (Bartunek et al, 1983) and the development of leadership capabilities (Day & Lance, 2004).

SELF AND PERSONALITY

The self and personality system is composed by various components of self and personality (Baltes et al, 1998). This system can be defined as encompassing “the ways in which human beings behave, experience, believe, and feel with regard to themselves, others, and the material world” (Ibid: 1083). The broadness of this system produces an “orchestrating or executive function” that influences and regulates the development of other systems, such as cognition, motivation and emotion. Perhaps due to this executive function, theories of adult development involving the self and personality seems to suggest that higher levels of development are concerned with promoting a synthesis of thought, emotions, values and motivation (Stevens-Long & Michaud, 2003). In addition, they also propose that higher stages of development progress towards more consideration and attentiveness “for that which lies beyond the self” (Ibid: 14). For instance, constructivist theories such as Loevinger and Kegan suggest that individuals in higher stages of ego development take into account different sources of information that originate from the self and that originate from others.

Hence, similar to the theories that consider cognitive development, higher levels of development in the self and personality system might also promote more effective leadership capability in individuals and might have important consequences for leadership development. For example, it has been suggested that the level of development of an individual influences his or her reaction to the activities and design of training programs (Bartunek et al, 1983).  Moreover, one of the assumptions of several adult development theories is that individuals are capable of understanding concepts and thoughts that are at their own level of development or below, but cannot comprehend aspects that are considered at higher levels (Day & O’Connor, 2003). This assumption might have important consequences for the development of leadership capabilities since individuals at lower levels of development might only be able to recognize and conceptualize leadership at a simple, individual construct; while individuals at higher levels of development might be capable of considering leadership not only from this individual perspective but also from a collective, relational perspective (Day & O’Connor, 2003).

PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT

Personal development is a particular type of self development that can be defined as “a process which requires insight into one’s present level of effectiveness and an ability and desire to alter unhelpful behaviors and attitudes and develop more appropriate ways of interacting” (Lucas, 1992). The activities that encourage this process of personal development focus on improving the individual’s awareness about their values, behaviors, motivations and attitudes, on developing latent skills, on modifying limiting behaviors and on enhancing efficiency and efficacy (Ibid). Personal development is considered a type of self development because the activities that promote this process need to be self-directed, that is, they are initiated and sustained by the individual undergoing development (Ibid).

Personal development might be considered to involve any of the developmental systems mentioned above, since it is possible that the awareness and transformation promoted in personal development might be directly connected with advances in their cognitive, behavioral, motivational and emotional compositions. Actually, one might argue that achieving the higher levels of functioning found in particular stages of development (e.g. Kohlberg’s stage of individual principles of conscience in moral development, or Kegan’s interdependent order in his constructive-developmental theory) requires personal development, as individuals probably do not achieve these levels without conscious effort and consideration. The findings that only a diminutive portion of the population (5-8%) achieves these levels of functioning (e.g. Harris & Kuhnert, 2008) provide significant substantiation for this argument.

Join now!

It is possible that personal development has an important role in leadership development as motivation is an important factor for the development of leadership. Studies have shown that motivation to learn is an important factor in the success of training (e.g. Burke & Hutchins, 2007), and it has also be suggested that motivation to be a leader is important to engage in experiences that promote leadership development (Day & Harrison, 2007). For these reasons, a second aim of this systematic review is to establish the relationship between the theoretical underpinnings that inform leadership development and personal development: Is there any ...

This is a preview of the whole essay