The future of leadership

The good news with regard to this (or any) chapter on the future of leadership is that there is one. There was a time when researchers called for a moratorium on new leadership theory and research (e.g., Miner, 1975) citing the uncertain future of the field. Then for a time there was a popular academic perspective that leadership did not really matter when it came to shaping organizational outcomes (Meindl & Ehrlich, 1987; Meindl, Ehrlich, & Dukerich, 1985; Pfeffer, 1977). That perspective was laid to rest by "realists" in the field (Day & Antonakis, 2012a) by means of empirical re-interpretation of the results used to support the position that leadership does not matter (Lieberson & O'Connor, 1972; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1977). Specifically, Day and Lord (1988) showed that when proper methodological concerns were addressed (e.g., controlling for industry and company size effects; incorporating appropriate time lags) that the impact of top-level leadership was considerable - explaining as much as 45% of the variance in measures of organizational performance. Despite some recent pessimistic sentiments about the "curiously unformed" state of leadership research and theory (Hackman & Wageman, 2007), others have argued that the field has continued to evolve and is potentially on the threshold of some significant breakthroughs (Day & Antonakis, 2012a). Leadership scholars have been re-energized by new directions in the field and research efforts have revitalized areas previously abandoned for apparent lack of consistency in findings (e.g., leadership trait theory). Our accumulated knowledge now allows us to explain the nature of leadership including its biological bases and other antecedents, and consequences with some degree of confidence. There are other comprehensive sources that review the extensive theoretical and empirical foundation of leadership (Bass, 2008; Day & Antonakis, 2012b) so that will not be the focus of the present chapter. Instead, we will take a future-oriented perspective in identifying particular areas within the leadership field that we believe offer promising perspectives on the future of leadership. Nonetheless, it is worthwhile as background to first provide an overview of how we see the leadership field changing over the past decade or so. This short chronicle will set the stage for a keener understanding of where the future contributions are likely to emerge. Overall, across nine major schools of leadership - trait, behavioural, contingency, contextual, relational, sceptics, information processing, New Leadership, biological and evolutionary - researchers have seen a resurgence in interest in one area, a high level of activity in at least four other areas, inactivity in three areas, and one that was modestly active in the previous decade but we think holds strong promise for the future (Gardner, Lowe, Moss, Mahoney, & Cogliser, 2010). We will next provide brief overviews of these nine schools and their respective levels of research activity (see Figure 1).

Institutional change and the evolution of the regulatory state: evidence from the Swiss case

This article examines institutional change in a case that was expected to be particularly resilient but showed considerable structural transformation: the institutionalization of the regulatory state in Switzerland. This process is illustrated through the establishment of independent regulatory agencies (IRAs) in four areas: banking and finance; telecommunications; electricity; and competition. The theoretical framework developed by Streeck, Thelen and Mahoney is used to explore hypotheses about the modes of institutional change, with the methodology of diachronic within-case study. Results confirm only partially the expectations, pointing to layering and displacement as the prevalent modes of change. The concluding part discusses the type and the direction of change as additional explanatory factors.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressant use in first trimester pregnancy and risk of specific congenital anomalies: a European register-based study.

Evidence of an association between early pregnancy exposure to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) and congenital heart defects (CHD) has contributed to recommendations to weigh benefits and risks carefully. The objective of this study was to determine the specificity of association between first trimester exposure to SSRIs and specific CHD and other congenital anomalies (CA) associated with SSRI exposure in the literature (signals). A population-based case-malformed control study was conducted in 12 EUROCAT CA registries covering 2.1 million births 1995-2009 including livebirths, fetal deaths from 20 weeks gestation and terminations of pregnancy for fetal anomaly. Babies/fetuses with specific CHD (n = 12,876) and non-CHD signal CA (n = 13,024), were compared with malformed controls whose diagnosed CA have not been associated with SSRI in the literature (n = 17,083). SSRI exposure in first trimester pregnancy was associated with CHD overall (OR adjusted for registry 1.41, 95 % CI 1.07-1.86, fluoxetine adjOR 1.43 95 % CI 0.85-2.40, paroxetine adjOR 1.53, 95 % CI 0.91-2.58) and with severe CHD (adjOR 1.56, 95 % CI 1.02-2.39), particularly Tetralogy of Fallot (adjOR 3.16, 95 % CI 1.52-6.58) and Ebstein's anomaly (adjOR 8.23, 95 % CI 2.92-23.16). Significant associations with SSRI exposure were also found for ano-rectal atresia/stenosis (adjOR 2.46, 95 % CI 1.06-5.68), gastroschisis (adjOR 2.42, 95 % CI 1.10-5.29), renal dysplasia (adjOR 3.01, 95 % CI 1.61-5.61), and clubfoot (adjOR 2.41, 95 % CI 1.59-3.65). These data support a teratogenic effect of SSRIs specific to certain anomalies, but cannot exclude confounding by indication or associated factors.