Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies最新文献

{"title":"Leading and Working From Home in Times of COVID-19: On the Perceived Changes in Leadership Behaviors.","authors":"Janka I Stoker, Harry Garretsen, Joris Lammers","doi":"10.1177/15480518211007452","DOIUrl":"10.1177/15480518211007452","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Due to the COVID-19 crisis, managers and employees in many organizations suddenly are forced to work from home. Although working from home (WFH) is not a new phenomenon, it is new in its current scale and scope because of COVID-19. Against this background, we investigate the effect of WFH during the COVID-19 crisis on changes in leadership behaviors, and associated changes in perceived manager quality and productivity, at different hierarchical levels in organizations. Based on the literature, we develop two predictions in opposite directions. On the one hand, implementing WFH may force managers to show less direction and control and especially more delegation. On the other hand, research into the effects of exogenous shocks such as COVID-19, suggests that managers may become more controlling and delegate less. Consistent with the first prediction, we find that managers perceive they execute significantly less control and delegate more. Employees also perceive a significant decrease in control, however they perceive on average no change in delegation. Furthermore, and in line with the second prediction, employees of lower-level managers even report a significant decrease in delegation. Finally, our results show that increased delegation is associated with increased perceived productivity and higher manager quality. Together, these results suggest that in the context of the COVID-19 crisis, the effectiveness of WFH might be hampered by the fact that required changes in leadership behaviors, in particular in delegation, are difficult to realize in times of crisis.</p>","PeriodicalId":51455,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies","volume":"29 1","pages":"208-218"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8990570/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42107839","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Linking Supervisor Role Identity Saliences to Supervisor Work-Family Support","authors":"Peng Wang, Joseph Rode, Zhen Wang","doi":"10.1177/15480518221096551","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15480518221096551","url":null,"abstract":"Drawing upon role identity theory and the dual judgment model of perspective-taking, we investigated a model describing the relationship between supervisor family identity salience (SFIS) and supervisor work-family support, with supervisor work identity salience (SWIS) as a moderator and supervisor work-family perspective taking as a mediator. We tested the model using two data sets. Results from supervisor-reported data indicated that SFIS was related to supervisor work-family perspective-taking, which was, in turn, related to supervisor work-family support. Results from leader-follower dyadic data found that SFIS was related to work-family support. In both samples, the effects of SFIS were stronger when SWIS was high. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these findings.","PeriodicalId":51455,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies","volume":"29 1","pages":"372 - 384"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42812083","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Reconceptualizing Multilevel Leader-Follower Shared Outcomes","authors":"Gerard Beenen, G. Todorova, Shaun Pichler, R. Riggio","doi":"10.1177/15480518221094481","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15480518221094481","url":null,"abstract":"While research on leadership has acknowledged the joint efforts of leaders and followers, advancements in conceptualizing the outcomes of such joint efforts have stagnated. Integrating leadership theory and research with multilevel theories on emergent states, we develop and propose a new framework of shared leader-follower outcomes (SLFOs). We reconceptualize SLFOs as four emergent states (presence, synergy, professionalism and chemistry) that are proximal outcomes in teams. Each SLFO is an early indicator of corresponding key traditional outcomes (absenteeism, productivity, quality and satisfaction) that focus on the leader, followers, or the team as a whole. We also discuss the dynamics of emergence of SLFOs from the dyadic leader-follower level to the team level through composition (i.e. convergent) and compilation (i.e., divergent) processes. Our framework extends leadership theories by accounting for emergent states as shared leader-follower outcomes that temporally unfold over multiple levels of analysis. We develop propositions to guide future empirical research on leader-follower proximal outcomes of presence, synergy, professionalism, and chemistry.","PeriodicalId":51455,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies","volume":"29 1","pages":"289 - 305"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46986043","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Editorial, Special Issue","authors":"Stefanie K Johnson, Ronald F. Piccolo","doi":"10.1177/15480518221092186","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15480518221092186","url":null,"abstract":"The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the world in innumerable ways including the loss of human lives, damage to the global economy, doubt about the credibility of political and scientific institutions, and erosion of our basic way of life. From the lens of several leadership scholars, it is impossible to avoid seeing the leadership implications of an event like this. Could leaders have done more? What styles of leadership are most effective? How valid are our common understandings of the leadership process in such crises? Indeed, public protests signal a loss of faith in or disagreement with our political leaders and their policies and the Great Resignation suggests a lack of faith in business and public institutions, their leaders, and/or a major reframing of individuals’ aspirations concerning work and their relationships with employers","PeriodicalId":51455,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies","volume":"29 1","pages":"173 - 175"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47514561","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Unbalanced, Unfair, Unhappy, or Unable? Theoretical Integration of Multiple Processes Underlying the Leader Mistreatment-Employee CWB Relationship with Meta-Analytic Methods.","authors":"Lindie H Liang,&nbsp;Midori Nishioka,&nbsp;Rochelle Evans,&nbsp;Douglas J Brown,&nbsp;Winny Shen,&nbsp;Huiwen Lian","doi":"10.1177/15480518211066074","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15480518211066074","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Although a litany of theoretical accounts exists to explain why mistreated employees engage in counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs), little is known about whether these mechanisms are complementary or mutually exclusive, or the effect of context on their explanatory strength. To address these gaps, this meta-analytic investigation tests four theoretically-derived mechanisms simultaneously to explain the robust relationship between leader mistreatment and employee CWB: (1) a social exchange perspective, which argues that mistreated employees engage in negative reciprocal behaviors to counterbalance experienced mistreatment; (2) a justice perspective, whereby mistreated employees experience moral outrage and engage in retributive behaviors against the organization and its members; (3) a stressor-emotion perspective, which suggests that mistreated employees engage in CWBs to cope with their negative affect; and (4) a self-regulatory perspective, which proposes that mistreated employees are simply unable to inhibit undesirable behaviors. Moreover, we also examine whether the above model holds across cultures that vary on power distance. Our meta-analytic structural equation model demonstrated that all but the justice mechanism significantly mediated the relationship between leader mistreatment and employee CWBs, with negative affect emerging as the strongest explanatory mechanism in both high and low power distance cultures. Given these surprising results, as the stressor-emotion perspective is less frequently invoked in the literature, this paper highlights not only the importance of investigating multiple mechanisms together when examining the leader mistreatment-employee CWB relationship, but also the need to develop more nuanced theorizing about these mechanisms, particularly for negative affect.</p>","PeriodicalId":51455,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies","volume":"29 1","pages":"33-72"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9358611/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"40698395","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Effects of Leaders’ Power Construal on Leader-Member Exchange: The Moderating Role of Competitive Climate at Work","authors":"Kyriaki Fousiani, B. Wisse","doi":"10.1177/15480518221075229","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15480518221075229","url":null,"abstract":"How leaders construe their power may greatly affect the quality of relationships they have with their followers. Indeed, we propose that when leader power is (perceived to be) construed as responsibility, this will positively affect the extent to which followers perceive high quality leader-follower relationships (LMX), whereas the opposite will be true when leader power is (perceived to be) construed as opportunity. Moreover, we argue that these relationships are contingent on contextual influences, such that the effects will be particularly strong in environments characterized by competition, because such environments exacerbate the impact of leaders’ behavior. The results of a scenario experiment (Study 1), and a two-week time-lagged study among organizational employees (Study 2), showed that a manipulation of leaders’ tendency to view power as responsibility (Study 1), and followers’ perception of the extent to which their leader sees power as responsibility (Study 2) is positively related to follower LMX perceptions. Moreover, both Studies 1 and 2 and a dyadic field study in which we asked leaders to report on their tendency to view power as responsibility (Study 3) showed that this effect is stronger when the organizational climate is highly competitive. The results pertaining to power as opportunity were less consistent, but suggest a negative relationship with perceived LMX (Study 2), particularly when the organizational climate is highly competitive (Study 3). We conclude that the potential effects of leaders’ construal of power as responsibility or opportunity deserve more research attention than previously awarded and provide managerial ramifications of our findings.","PeriodicalId":51455,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies","volume":"29 1","pages":"306 - 324"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47017211","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Leading When the Boss is Present: How Leadership Structure Schemas Affect Leadership Behavior","authors":"Ned Wellman, S. Ashford, J. Sanchez-Burks, D. S. Derue","doi":"10.1177/15480518221076767","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15480518221076767","url":null,"abstract":"We examine how leadership structure schemas (LSS) – mental models of how leadership is most effectively structured in groups – interact with formal authority to influence individuals’ leadership behavior and perceptions of others who lead. Across two experiments and a field study, we find that for individuals without formal authority, holding a more shared LSS (relative to a more hierarchical LSS) is positively associated with leadership behavior. However, this effect reverses for individuals in authority positions. Additionally, individuals who engage in leadership behavior are seen as higher in interpersonal warmth by observers who hold a more shared rather than a more hierarchical LSS.","PeriodicalId":51455,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies","volume":"29 1","pages":"249 - 269"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41744923","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Walking Our Evidence-Based Talk: The Case of Leadership Development in Business Schools","authors":"Hannes Luc Leroy, Moran Anisman-Razin, B. Avolio, Henrik Bresman, J. Stuart Bunderson, Ethan R. Burris, Johannes Claeys, J. Detert, Lisa Dragoni, S. Giessner, K. Kniffin, Thomas A. Kolditz, Gianpiero Petriglieri, Nathan C. Pettit, S. Sitkin, Niels Van Quaquebeke, Pisitta Vongswasdi","doi":"10.1177/15480518211062563","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15480518211062563","url":null,"abstract":"Academics have lamented that practitioners do not always adopt scientific evidence in practice, yet while academics preach evidence-based management (EBM), they do not always practice it. This paper extends prior literature on difficulties to engage in EBM with insights from behavioral integrity (i.e., the study of what makes individuals and collectives walk their talk). We focus on leader development, widely used but often critiqued for lacking evidence. Analyzing 60 interviews with academic directors of leadership centers at top business schools, we find that the selection of programs does not always align with scientific recommendations nor do schools always engage in high-quality program evaluation. Respondents further indicated a wide variety of challenges that help explain the disconnect between business schools claiming A but practicing B. Behavioral Integrity theory would argue these difficulties are rooted in the lack of an individually owned and collectively endorsed identity, an identity of an evidence-based leader developer (EBLD). A closer inspection of our data confirmed that the lack of a clear and salient EBLD identity makes it difficult for academics to walk their evidence-based leader development talk. We discuss how these findings can help facilitate more evidence-based leader development in an academic context.","PeriodicalId":51455,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies","volume":"29 1","pages":"5 - 32"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46271988","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Unpacking Psychological Ownership: How Transactional and Transformational Leaders Motivate Ownership","authors":"Cristiano L. Guarana, B. Avolio","doi":"10.1177/15480518211066072","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15480518211066072","url":null,"abstract":"Psychological ownership represents feelings of responsibility for and possession over a target, which can be both tangible in terms of physical resources, or intangible regarding one's relationships. Here we examine how two well-established leadership styles can trigger six different facets of psychological ownership and their corresponding ownership behaviors, by using regulatory focus and identity theory to explain how psychological ownership emerges and influences an individual's work behavior. We provide specific propositions that link two leadership styles to an individual's activated regulatory focus and self-identity, which results in six different facets of ownership. We use these different facets of ownership to examine how each contributes to explaining how leaders motivate their followers to engage in and take on different work challenges and opportunities, thus advancing both the leadership and psychological ownership literatures. We combine leadership style and psychological ownership to determine the type of ownership behavior and work performance that results based on which ownership facets are triggered.","PeriodicalId":51455,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies","volume":"29 1","pages":"96 - 114"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48158160","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Leadership Styles and Psychological Empowerment: A Meta-Analysis","authors":"C. Schermuly, L. Creon, Philipp Gerlach, C. Graßmann, Jan Koch","doi":"10.1177/15480518211067751","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15480518211067751","url":null,"abstract":"Psychological empowerment has become a popular construct in organizational research and practice. Leadership ranks high among the best predictors of employees’ psychological empowerment, yet little is known about which leadership styles prove more effective than others. This meta-analysis investigates the effects of four leadership styles on psychological empowerment. More specifically, we test whether empowering leadership evokes more psychological empowerment than transformational leadership, servant leadership, or transactional leadership. We found that empowering, transformational and servant leadership contribute almost equally to psychological empowerment. No relationship was found with transactional leadership. In an explorative manner, we tested the effects on the different dimensions of psychological empowerment. We found that the leadership styles had a weaker influence on the competence dimension of psychological empowerment. We also investigated the effects of several moderators on the relationships with psychological empowerment: country culture (power balanced freedom (PBF)), study design (cross-sectional vs. multi-wave studies) and publication status (published vs. unpublished). We found no moderating effects of culture, which indicates the universally empowering effects of the leadership styles. The relationships between leadership and empowerment were somewhat weaker when data were collected at different measurement points, and publication bias does not seem to be an issue in this research field.","PeriodicalId":51455,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies","volume":"29 1","pages":"73 - 95"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44922739","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}