Search results

The purpose of this paper is to highlight the practices that high-performance leaders believed were influential for accelerating their development as leaders.

The sample consisted of US based, mid-level leaders at Fortune 1000 companies who were identified by their organizations as being “high performers possessing the strong ability to deliver desired results for their enterprises.” The authors recently conducted focus groups with a subset of over 200 of these high-performing leaders and asked them to answer the following question: “Please identify what you would consider to be the five (5) most influential factors that accelerated your development as a leader.” Leaders were then randomly assigned to five-person focus groups to discuss their individual responses and come to consensus on what they considered to be the top leadership development “accelerators.” A content analysis of over 20 focus groups’ response sets allowed us to identify a list of top leadership development “accelerators”.

Seven leadership accelerators were identified: working for a great leader; experiencing an extremely challenging assignment or major organizational change; working in an organization that requires and supports skill development; possessing a strong mentor/accountability partner; ongoing personal reflection and self-assessment; experiencing a significant failure or career setback; and formal leadership development training/continuing education.

It is important that leaders, HR professionals, and talent managers know and understand these factors and to make it an ongoing priority to systematically address the key questions that emerged from these findings.

Leaders should thoughtfully answer the questions presented for themselves and encourage leaders in their organization to do the same.

This paper, using primary data from “high-performance” leaders, identifies and explains seven important leadership development accelerators.

The current paper is part of a larger scoping review project investigating the intersection of leader(ship) identity development and meaning-making. In this review, we analyzed 100 articles to determine the current extent of literature that covers the intersection of leader(ship) identity development, meaning-making and marginalized social identities.

A review of the extant literature is included, and a conceptual model is suggested for further exploration into this critical and under-researched domain.

More research is needed at the intersection of leadership identity development, meaning-making and marginalized social identities.

As this area of study has expanded, scholars have noted an absence of research on the effect of multiple social identities, especially marginalized identities, on meaning-making and leadership identity construction.

Globalization introduces new challenges related to increased levels of diversity and complexity that organizations cannot meet without capable global leaders. Such leaders are currently lacking, so a theory-based approach to global leader development is needed. A critical intermediary outcome that enables competent global leadership performance is global leader self-complexity, defined by the number of unique leader identities contained within a leader's self-concept (self-differentiation) and the extent to which the identities are integrated with the leader's sense of self (self-integration). This research aims to generate and test a theory of the development of global leader self-complexity through identity construction during international experiences. In Study 1, I gathered qualitative data through retrospectively interviewing 27 global leaders about identity-related changes following their international experiences. Using a grounded theory approach, I developed a theoretical model of global leader identity construction during international experiences, which I empirically tested using quantitative data in Study 2. Specifically, I tested the hypothesized relationships through structural equation modeling with cross-sectional survey data from a sample of 610 global leaders. Findings from both studies indicate global leader identity construction during international experiences primarily occurs through interacting with locals and local culture over a sustained period, motivated by appreciation of cultural differences and resulting in increased global leader self-complexity. These results advance understanding of the global leader self-complexity construct (i.e., what develops) and global leader development processes (i.e., how it develops). Additionally, the findings have practical implications for global leader development initiatives.

Today’s work environment requires a new type of leader development. It is no longer enough for leaders to be qualified and knowledgeable. Leaders must be focused, adaptable, and resilient in order to be effective amid the increasingly distracting and chaotic organizational world. We argue that current methods of leader development need to evolve to encompass leader well-being and focus on intrapersonal competencies in order to adequately prepare leaders for today’s stressful work world. We provide a holistic development framework for leaders which we believe is a better match for the intrapersonal capabilities required by leadership roles. Our approach is two-fold. First, we believe it is important to educate leaders on the potential interaction between the external sources of stress and leaders’ neurophysiological and subjective well-being. Second, we believe leaders need different development experiences, ones that can help renew psychological resources. We review four categories of holistic leadership practices – mindfulness, social connections, positive emotion inductions, and body-based practices – which can help to counter the effects of overload and exhaustion. We also discuss the future of holistic leader development and suggest directions for future research.

International experience (IE) has been acknowledged to be the most useful method for developing global leaders. However, not everyone benefits equally from IE. During the last two decades, our understanding of why this is the case and how global leaders learn from IE has rapidly increased. Several individual and organizational enablers facilitating global leader learning from IE have been identified in the literature, as have learning mechanisms that make such learning possible. However, the literature remains fragmented, and there is a great need to integrate the findings in the field. Therefore, the present paper systematically examines peer-reviewed studies on global leaders' learning from IE published between 1998 and 2019. The study contributes to the extant literature by identifying and integrating individual enablers, organizational enablers, and key learning mechanisms from global leaders' IE and by suggesting topics for future research.

Little research directly examines leader self-development among marginalized workers. The authors offer a framework to explain the role of internalized prejudice in limiting leader self-development, and the authors use that framework to suggest organizational interventions aimed at enhancing leader self-development among marginalized workers.

The framework is grounded in the incompleteness thesis with its attention to the mutual shaping of culture and mind, and the interventions are drawn from principles of social movements with their focus on changing culture and the minds of individuals. The framework and interventions address the role of status in internalized prejudice.

Status-related experiences in culture shape status-related thoughts in the mind, resulting in internalized prejudice. Internalized prejudice reduces the status-related behavior of leader self-development, which serves to shape status in the culture. This repeats in an ongoing, recursive process that can be disrupted through organizational interventions. The social movement principles of common purpose and networking can provide new status-related experiences to reduce internalized prejudice, and habit-breaking can stop automatic self-limiting behaviors that can arise from internalized prejudice.

By focusing on status, the authors provide a framework that allows integration of literature across marginalized groups, providing a guide for understanding both commonality and uniqueness of experience. The authors bring principles of social movement to the discussion of leader self-development among marginalized workers as a guide for developing organizational interventions.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between intelligence and behavior during leader development.

As part of a leader development program, a variety of measures are collected, including measures of intelligence and measures of performance (e.g. assessment center performance, a 360-degree appraisal). The participants are given performance feedback from a variety of sources then asked to form developmental goals. The goals are examined for goal quality and goal-feedback correspondence, and examined in relation to intelligence.

Intelligence was positively related to goal-feedback correspondence. Intelligence was also related to goal quality after controlling for variance attributed to professional discipline.

Personality, gender, age, and other variables were not included in this study. Other factors, such as the cultures of the organizations from which the individuals hailed, were also not included. Moreover, the conclusions were based on the behaviors exhibited in one leader development program. Future research should address these limitations.

Leader development is expensive and is becoming more popular. The results of this research could help organizations better determine who is likely to benefit from the investment in leader development.

In addition, a unique method is presented in the study for measuring leader development behavior based on goal quality and goal-feedback correspondence. Generalizability theory is applied in order to determine the reliability of the measures.

The purpose of our research was to use Day, Harrison, and Halpin’s, (2009) theory of leadership development as a premise to investigate how students’ constructive development is related to their leader identity development and understanding of leadership. Baxter Magolda’s Model of Epistemological Reflection (MER, 1988, 2001) was used to understand constructive development, Komives, Owen, Longerbeam, Mainella, & Osteen’s Leadership Identity Development (2005) to determine leader identity, and Drath’s principles of leadership (2001) to determine understanding of leadership. Fifty junior and senior college student leaders filled out the MER and participated in an interview about their leadership experiences. Interviews were coded according to the above constructs of leader identity development and leadership understanding. Although there was a relationship between leader identity development and understanding of leadership, no relationship was found between these two constructs and constructive development. Findings suggest that most of the student leaders still depend on others to help them construct reality. Furthermore, many believe that because they are in a leadership role, they are leaders while others are not.

The purpose of this paper is to integrate senior managers' personal experiences of leadership development with theory to provide insights into leadership development for aspiring and developing leaders.

A qualitative research design was adopted. Empirical data were gathered from 11 semi‐structured interviews with senior leaders in the Irish public, voluntary (non‐profit) and private sectors.

The analysis led to the identification of development‐oriented themes in the leadership literature, and the provision of insights regarding the developmental influences, core activities (vision and mobilisation) and the contextual influences (sectoral and societal) which affect appropriate leadership behaviour.

Although the study is limited by its small sample it provides a basis for further research and draws attention to personal leader development processes. In particular the importance of formative experiences on leaders' development, their struggle to attain balance, the need for advanced emotional management skills, the capacity to work with collectives of people and to adapt to contextual demands are emphasised. The study suggests that future research investigate how contextual factors influence the adoption of certain leadership styles.

The study explores personal perspectives on fundamental leadership development themes, of pragmatic value to established and aspiring leaders interested in enhancing their capacity to lead.

This paper considers leader development from the viewpoint of front‐line actors. As such it adopts an intrapersonal focus, considering the development journeys of individual leaders. The paper extends the traditional focus on the transactional and relational dimensions of leadership behaviours to incorporate the formative experiences and contextual factors that influence leadership.

This issue is a selected bibliography covering the subject of leadership.