Leadership and individual differences: at the cusp of a renaissance

In this introductory editorial, we provide a brief overview of the history of individual difference research in leadership. We explain the major challenges that trait research faced, and why it was revived primarily because of methodological advancements. Next, we argue that leadership individual difference research is at a cusp of a renaissance. We explain why we are at this cusp and what researchers should do reify the renaissance in terms of theoretical extensions of trait models, the application of robust methodological advancements, and the development of process models linking distal (i.e., traits) predictors to proximal predictors (e.g., behaviors, skills, attitudes), and the latter to leader outcomes. We then summarize the papers we accepted for the special issue, and conclude with an optimistic note for leadership individual difference research.

Predictors of leadership: The usual suspects and the suspect traits

In this chapter, I review literature on traits (i.e., individual differences) and their links to leader outcomes. I present an integrated model, the ascription-actuality trait theory, to explain two routes to leader outcomes that stem from traits: the route that objectively matters and the route that appears to matter but objectively may not. I discuss the history of trait research and provide criteria by which we should judge the validity of trait models. Finally, I review trait models that are the most predictive of leadership outcomes and identify those that are non-starters.

Youth Leadership Forum for Students with Disabilities Responsibilities of Primary Staff Volunteers, July 2011

Adults who can facilitate small group sessions. As a team they will be assigned to one of three small groups to assist students with completion of leadership exercises, facilitate small group discussions and help students develop their personal leadership plan. Responsibilities also include providing supervision, support and guidance to student delegates.

Instrumental leadership: An extension of the Full-Range Leadership Theory

From a theoretical perspective, an extension to the Full Range leadership Theory (FRLT) seems needed. In this paper, we explain why instrumental leadership--a class of leadership includes leader behaviors focusing on task and strategic aspects that are neither values nor exchange oriented--can fulfill this extension. Instrument leadership is composed of four factors: environmental monitoring, strategy formulation and implementation, path-goal facilitation and outcome monitoring; these aspects of leadership are currently not included in any of the FRLT's nine leadership scales (as measured by the MLQ--Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire). We present results from two empirical studies using very large samples from a wide array of countries (N > 3,000) to examine the factorial, discriminant and criterion-related validity of the instrumental leadership scales. We find support for a four-factor instrumental leadership model, which explains incremental variance in leader outcomes in over and above transactional and transformational leadership.

Working in a digital world: new leadership practices for the development of a digital library workforce

Digital library developments are part of a global move in many sectors of society toward virtual work and electronic services made possible by the advances in information technology. This environment requires new attitudes and skills in the workforce and therefore leaders who understand the global changes underlying the new information economy and how to lead and develop such a workforce. This article explores ways to develop human resources and stimulate creativity to capitalize on the immense potential of digital libraries to educate and empower social change. There is a shortage of technically skilled workers and even more so of innovators. Retention and recruitment is one of the greatest obstacles to developing digital library services and information products.

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).

Psychometric Properties of the Spanish Human System Audit Short-Scale of Transformational Leadership

The aim of this research is to examine the psychometric properties of a Spanish version of the Human System Audit transformational leadership short-scale (HSA-TFL-ES). It is based on the concept of Bass developed in 1985. The HSA-TFL is a part of the wider Human System Audit frame. We analyzed the HSA-TFL-ES in five different samples with a total number of 1,718 workers at five sectors. Exploratory Factor Analysis corroborated a single factor in all samples that accounted for 66% to 73% of variance. The internal consistency in all samples was good (α = .92 - .95). Evidence was found for the convergent validity of the HSA-TFL-ES and the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. These results suggested that the HSA-TFL short-scale is a psychometrically sound measure of this construct and can be used for a combined and first overall measurement.

The relationships of organizational cultures, trust and innovativeness

Sekä organisaatiokulttuuria, luottamusta että innovatiivisuutta on tutkittu paljon, mutta toistaiseksi nämä käsitteet yhdistävää kokonaisvaltaista tutkimusta ei juuri ole tehty tai ainakaan raportoitu tieteellisissä julkaisuissa. Tätä tutkimus käsitteli organisaatiokulttuurin, luottamuksen ja innovatiivisuuden suhteita erilaisissa organisaatiokulttuureissa. Tutkimuksen tavoitteena oli tutkia organisaatiokulttuurin vaikutusta luottamukseen (sekä kompetenssiin, hyväntahtoisuuteen että rehellisyyteen perustuvaan lateraaliin, vertikaaliin ja institutionaaliseen luottamukseen), innovaatioilmastoon ja innovaatiotoiminnan tuloksellisuuteen. Organisaatiokulttuurin, luottamuksen ja innovatiivisuuden yhteyttä tarkasteltiin neljässä erityyppisessä organisaatiokulttuurissa (klaani-, adhokratia-, hierarkia- ja markkinakulttuurit), jotka pohjautuvat kilpailevien arvojen malliin. Tutkimuksen empiirinen osa toteutettiin posti ja Internet -pohjaisena kyselytutkimuksena 40 organisaatioyksikössä tilastollisen analyysin menetelmin. Yleisellä tasolla työssä saatiin selville, että luottamuksen ja innovatiivisuuden tasot vaihtelevat erityyppisissä organisaatio-kulttuureissa. Tarkemmin sanottuna klaani- ja adhokratiakulttuureissa luottamus ja innovatiivisuus olivat korkeita, ja näillä kulttuureilla oli myös positiivinen vaikutus innovaatiotoiminnan tuloksellisuuteen. Erityisesti institutionaalisen luottamuksen ja innovaatiotuen merkitykset olivat tärkeitä, sillä ne toimivat mediaattoreina organisaatiokulttuurin ja innovatiivisuuden välisessä suhteessa. Luottamuksella ja innovatiivisuudelle ei sitä vastoin ollut vaikutusta hierarkia- ja markkinakulttuureissa, tai vaikutus oli negatiivinen. Tässä työssä osoitettiin myös aiemmin hyvin vähän tutkitun institutionaalisen organisatorisen luottamuksen merkitys organisaatioiden innovatiivisuudessa.