Unt applied technology and performance improvement

PEDAGOGY, LEADERSHIP, AND LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

John R. Turner, PhD Rose Baker, PhD

Leadership and leadership development have negotiated identities with individuals, dyads, collectives,

and even complex adaptive systems. Leadership development needs to extend from traditional

competency development to a broader, multilevel spectrum of leading complex interactions with people,

social entities, and organizational elements. Turner’s Leadership Development Spectrum provides the

groundwork for the examination of leadership capacities and developmental theories, laying the

foundation for the investigation of capacity and theory investments in leadership development

applications.

LEADERSHIP HAS BEEN identified as being individ- ualistic (trait-based, Xu et al., 2014; competency-based, Hollenbeck, McCall, & Silzer, 2006), a dyadic relation- ship (Epitropaki, Kark, Mainemelis, & Lord, 2017) be- tween the leader and follower, and as a multilevel phe- nomenon (Gooty, Serban, Thomas, Gavin, & Yammarino, 2012) while taking place “in and of complex (CAS) dy- namics” (Uhl-Bien & Marion, 2009, p. 632). Leadership research has spanned from the individual to the collective and to organizations (Bliese, Halverson, & Schriesheim, 2002), and even to the environment. Some leadership re- search has had a crippling effect by identifying only a few capacities belonging to an idealized leader. Instead, a leader should be capable of being adaptive by utilizing multiple leadership styles given the situation and environ- ment (the landscape).

Although situational leadership (Blanchard, 2010) views leadership operating at differing levels of direc- tive and supportive, based on the situation and based on the follower’s level of experience, situational leader- ship theory primarily focuses on the leader–follower dyad. Other leadership theories follow the leader–follower dyad such as House’s path-goal theory (House, 1971; House & Mitchell, 1975; House, 1996) and leader-member ex- change (LMX) theory (Hooper & Martin, 2008). These theories have been criticized, thereby indicating that leader–follower dyads are not necessarily “representative

of the nature of leadership situations, which are character- ized most often by a leader and multiple members working together in some type of interacting collectivity” (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995, p. 233). This has forced leadership theory to expand further into the realms of systems, network as- semblies (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995), and complex adaptive systems (Uhl-Bien & Marion, 2009).

These trends in leadership theory, the trends ranging from individual leader traits to collective views to net- works, are representative of the progress that the discipline of leadership has made over the years. Unfortunately, this same progress has not necessarily been found on the lead- ership development front. The following section touches more on leadership development.

LEADER AND LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT A distinction needs to be made between leader develop- ment and leadership development. Leader development is often associated with leader education (Callahan & Rosser, 2007), which focuses more on the content being delivered. Leader-development efforts typically teach leadership the- ory to individuals, often to introduce them to a “narrow or homogeneous model of the ideal leader” (Gagnon, Vough, & Nickerson, 2012, p. 304). This can become problematic when these individuals are expected to change their be- haviors from an ideal leadership type if they believe that

Performance Improvement, vol. 56, no. 9, October 2017 © 2017 International Society for Performance Improvement

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) • DOI: 10.1002/pfi.21734 5

http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0252-1531
Some leadership research has had a crippling effect by identifying only a few capacities belonging to an idealized leader.

one style can work in all situations. New leaders are re- peatedly being challenged to develop their individual skill sets (i.e., critical reflection, self-development, time man- agement) as an effort to aid them in leading others in the workplace. Leadership development, on the other hand, focuses more on “a process of development that inherently involves multiple individuals (e.g., leaders and followers or among peers in a self-managed work team)” (Day, Fleenor, Atwater, Sturm, & McKee, 2014, p. 64). Leadership devel- opment needs to be adaptive so that leaders are better able to reflect how leadership occurs in the real world (Uhl- Bien & Marion, 2009) given today’s complex landscape. Leadership development views leadership as a collec- tive construct rather than being an individual construct (Gagnon et al., 2012), as being non-linear rather than linear, and involving complex interactions that involve people, social entities, and organizational environments (Day et al., 2014).

Multilevel Leadership development programs also need to address the multilevel nature of leadership rather than concen- trating only on the individual level. Leadership has been identified as being a multilevel construct (Day et al., 2014) and a multilevel phenomenon (Gooty et al., 2012) that involves more than just the individual leader. Lead- ership also involves the leader’s followers, with some consideration that the leader is being influenced by someone higher up in the hierarchical level within the organization. In addition, leadership affects the larger organization, the industry that the organization oper- ates in, its community, and the environment. Day et al. (2014) maintained that leadership development should take a broader multilevel perspective while address- ing both intrapersonal and interpersonal processes. This multilevel perspective of leadership presents a type of paradigm shift in the leadership phenomenon (Gooty et al., 2012), indicating that leadership development efforts also need to view leadership as a multilevel phenomenon.

Leadership development should take a broader multilevel perspective.

Pedagogy Leadership development is positioned in the context of adult development (Day et al., 2014) and, in most cases, for adult learners. Today, traditional leadership devel- opment efforts are being challenged with some claims asserting that these programs are not preparing lead- ers to address their broader societal responsibilities (An- dreadis, 2002). Andreadis (2002) highlighted this prob- lem and recommended that “new strategies are needed to ensure that the curriculum and pedagogy for leadership development are aligned with this expectation” (p. 144), referring to the expectation of being more societally re- sponsible. While pedagogy studies adult learning, critical pedagogy believes that adult learning is more than indi- vidual learning; it also involves “social and even political process[es]” (Yang, 2004, p. 255, emphasis added). Peda- gogical efforts toward leadership development should be more societally responsible as well as focusing as much at- tention on social interactions and processes as on individ- ual processes.

Leadership Development Defined Day et al. (2014) defined leadership development as “a dynamic process involving multiple interactions that persist over time” (p. 78). Knowing that leaders need to be able to adapt to today’s complexity, leadership devel- opment efforts also need to be able to adapt to the various scenarios that leaders will face in tomorrow’s geopolitical environment. Here, and for the current article, leadership development is defined as a dynamic process involving multiple interactions over time (Day et al., 2014) that pro- vides leaders and their organizations with the tools and information required to adapt to changing environments and landscapes.

The following section presents a development typology followed by an expanded version of this typology that was designed specifically for leadership development efforts. This development typology identifies both leadership ca- pacities and development techniques. This typology is beneficial to organizations in that it is flexible and could

6 www.ispi.org • DOI: 10.1002/pfi • OCTOBER 2017

FIGURE 1. GARAVAN ET AL.’S (2016) DEVELOPMENT TYPOLOGY. (FROM “RECLAIMING THE ‘D’ IN HRD: A

TYPOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTUALIZATIONS, ANTECEDENTS, AND OUTCOMES,” BY T. N. GARAVAN, D. MCGUIRE, AND M. LEE, 2016, HUMAN RESOURCE

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, 14, P. 365. COPYRIGHT 2017 BY SAGE PUBLICATIONS AND COPYRIGHT CLEARANCE

CENTER. REPRINTED WITH PERMISSION.)

be implemented in most organizational development efforts.

GARAVAN’S TYPOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT Garavan, McGuire, and Lee (2015) introduced a devel- opment typology based on their definition of develop- ment: “an unfolding process of growth that occurs in various ways along multiple trajectories at different lev- els of analysis, influenced by context and leading to a range of positive outcomes” (p. 364). Their typology iden- tified two separate dimensions: independent and interde- pendent, planned and emergent. These dimensions were presented as a typology (see Figure 1) consisting of four development dimensions: acquisitive, autonomous, dia- logic, and networked (Garavan et al., 2015). There were two dimensions associated with the independent level of analysis: acquisitive and autonomous. Acquisitive rep- resents individual development geared toward develop- ing knowledge, skill, and behaviors, essentially related to professional advancement, whereas autonomous is best represented as being related to personal development (Garavan et al., 2015). Two dimensions were associated with the interdependent level of analysis: dialogic and networked. Dialogic development begins development through social interactions, while networked develop-

ment identifies the organizational level (Garavan et al., 2015) such as in organization learning (OL).

This typology is beneficial in that organizations can identify their development need first and then identify which development techniques best meet their needs. For individual leadership development, the acquisitive- development dimension would be relevant. In contrast, team or departmental leadership would fall under the dialogic-development dimension. This flexibility is ex- panded upon by Turner, Chih-Hung, Schroeder, and Johnson (2016) in the following section to better iden- tify leadership development techniques that cater to the desired leadership development capacities of an organization.

TURNER ET AL.’S (2016) EXPANDED TYPOLOGY OF LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

Garavan et al.’s (2015) typology of development was ex- panded upon to allow more flexibility for organizations to identify leadership development techniques specifically for the leadership capacities that needed to be developed. In Figure 2, Turner et al. (2016) categorized leadership capacities into 31 categories. Each of these 31 categories is presented with its associated typology. Most of the lead- ership capacities fell in the acquisitive-development di- mension, followed by the acquisitive-dialogic and dialogic

FIGURE 2. LEADERSHIP CAPACITIES

Performance Improvement • Volume 56 • Number 9 • DOI: 10.1002/pfi 7

dimensions. This pattern identified leadership develop- ment from the individual perspective (acquisitive) to the group perspective (dialogic) with the combined dimen- sion that requires social interactions at both an individual and a group level (acquisitive-dialogic).

For example, if an organization needs to develop new employees, it would first develop these employees at the acquisitive dimension. Here the organization could fo- cus on any of the identified leadership capacity categories found in the acquisitive dimension in Figure 2 (i.e., devel- opmental skills, moral/ethical skills, trustworthiness). As employees grow within the organization, they are required to expand their individual skills so that they can be useful in more social and interactive settings, identifying with the acquisitive-dialogic dimension (i.e., leadership competen- cies, motivational skills, problem-solving skills). Finally, as employees move into managerial and executive posi- tions, their focus becomes related to larger collectives such as groups, departments, and the organization. The leader- ship capacities for this dialogic dimension could involve the development of coaching and organizational learning skills.

These three dimensions, acquisitive to acquisitive- dialogic to dialogic, have been identified as the leadership development spectrum by Turner et al. (2016). This spec- trum acknowledges most leadership development capaci- ties from individual development through organizational- learning development. Most leadership capacities will fall within this spectrum. However, there are still some capac- ities in the other dimensions. These dimensions are geared more to specific needs that organizations may encounter beyond the normal. For example, as an organization be- comes more global it will require development in the areas of global orientation and networking, which are identified in the networked dimension.

LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT TECHNIQUES AND THE TYPOLOGY Moving beyond the leadership capacities, Turner et al. (2016) identified various leadership development tech- niques that could be utilized for each of the dimensions in their typology. Figure 3 presents the different development techniques associated with each development dimension. For example, if an organization has a need for leader- ship development at the individual level, it would con- centrate on the acquisitive dimension. Here the develop- ment techniques of peer-coaching, scenario planning, and instructor-as-coach could be used to help develop these leadership capacities. As an organization grows and as the needs of the organization change, the typology presented by Turner et al. (2016) could be utilized during this period

FIGURE 3. LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT TECHNIQUES

of growth. Identifying leadership development techniques based on an organization’s needs, for all levels within the organization, support organizations in being more adap- tive to their leadership development needs.

CONCLUSION Despite the significant amount of time and money that is being directed toward leadership development efforts in today’s organizations, some remain skeptical as to leader- ship development’s return on investment to the organiza- tion as well as to the communities in which these orga- nizations serve and operate. Cullen-Lester, Maupin, and Carter (2017) supported this view by stating: “There is growing concern that developmental efforts are not suffi- ciently building the leadership capacity required by today’s complex and interdependent organization” (p. 130). Oth- ers claim that leadership development programs should be able to show positive economic returns (Peters, Baum, & Stephens, 2011). Still, others have identified traditional leadership development efforts, mostly those that con- centrate on developing individual traits only, as being insufficient for understanding leadership as a dynamic, shared, distributed, emergent, and adaptive function (Uhl- Bien & Marion, 2009). Unfortunately, leadership has of- ten fallen short of expectations with somewhere near 78% of companies not even attempting to measure ROI of leadership development programs (Tourish, 2012). There are some calls to redefine or to broaden the matrices used to measure ROI when it comes to leadership development programs. Tourish (2012) reported that “measurable and

8 www.ispi.org • DOI: 10.1002/pfi • OCTOBER 2017

repeatable ROI for leadership development is the wave of the future” (p. 23). One such effort looks at changing the assumptions that surround leadership development ex- pectations that are grounded in reality (Peters et al., 2011) as compared with being based on idealized assumptions.

Leadership development needs should be designed to meet the needs of the organization. In doing so, Tourish (2012) presented the following five steps toward leader- ship development design:

1. Start with clarity on the organization’s vision and goals.

2. Identify those leadership behaviors that are needed to achieve these goals. Be specific.

3. Select leaders based on these leadership behaviors. 4. Identify problems that might obstruct organizations

from achieving their goals. Give people the job of solv- ing them.

5. Assess for behavior change and impact on business performance (pp. 25–29).

Most important, Tourish (2012) reported that leader- ship development programs should link the development efforts to people’s jobs for maximum return on investment. The leadership development presented in the current ar- ticle could be another tool to help support such ROI eval- uation efforts. The leadership capacities and development techniques presented in the current article highlight those desired leadership behaviors that are identified in steps 2 and 3. Also, if a company does not already have someone who exhibits the desired leadership behaviors, as indicated in step 3, specific development techniques could be identi- fied to develop new leaders within the organization rather than seeking leaders from outside the organization.

Applications of Leadership Development Each of the articles in this special issue were tasked with one objective: to identify required leadership capacities for a specific situation or context, to identify a leadership the- ory for that situation, and to identify methods to develop those leadership capacities within the boundaries of the stated situation. The authors of the articles in this special issue are all doctoral students from the Applied Technol- ogy and Performance Improvement (ATPI) program, now part of the Learning Technologies (LT) program, at the University of North Texas (UNT). This assignment was re- quired for a class in Leadership Development.

The first article by Jae Schroeder involved an applica- tion of Turner et al.’s (2016) typology as part of a new leadership development program that a NYSE financial- services firm in the Southwest region of the United States

has taken on as a test project. This financial firm has fo- cused its attention on developing adaptive leaders, and the typology was used as a tool (a) to make a distinc- tion between traditional leadership development efforts that had been taking place at the firm with non-traditional development efforts being proposed, and (b) to identify which leadership development techniques could be uti- lized to better develop the leadership capacities that were desired.

The second article utilized adaptive leadership for a separate financial services organization. Alaina Doyle fo- cused on leadership development from the context of organization learning (OL) using Andert’s (2011) train- ing matrix and identifying the leadership capacities from Turner et al.’s (2016) typology.

In the third article, Erik Wright utilized situational leadership theory and matched the development tech- niques from the dialogic dimension (Garavan et al., 2015; Turner et al., 2016). He also utilized social constructivism theory to support the dialogic dimension of leadership de- velopment.

The fourth article utilized the dialogic/network di- mension of development while focusing on path-goal leadership theory for software training consulting teams. Jason Bickle’s technique for development was innovative in that he utilized the dimensions of path-goal theory to develop the desired leadership capacities of customer service, creativity/innovation, listening/communication, coaching/mentoring, and conflict management (Turner et al., 2016). These leadership capacities were identified to support leadership development among software-training consulting team members.

Leadership is also critical when it comes to making so- cial policies that affect everyday people, from day-to-day politics to nation building. In our fifth article, Edward Secka utilized servant leadership to aid in the political pan- demonium that most developing nations have to deal with from time to time. Edward identified the leadership ca- pacities from Turner et al.’s (2016) acquisitive domain to best represent servant leadership traits and proposed the development techniques from the same domain to assist developing nations to foster future leaders.

Finally, Shanae Jefferies took a sociological perspec- tive on adaptive leadership from the lens of symbolic in- teractionism (SI). She connected adaptive leadership to SI through the social interactions required of leaders us- ing the dialogic typology for development. This viewpoint places the leader in the crowd as opposed to being in front of the crowd.

The examples provided in the articles of this special is- sue help to identify Turner et al.’s (2016) leadership de- velopment spectrum as a useful tool for identifying and

Performance Improvement • Volume 56 • Number 9 • DOI: 10.1002/pfi 9

matching leadership capacities with development tech- niques. The variety of leadership theories, situations, envi- ronments, and uses that are presented in this special issue acknowledges that the leadership development spectrum has utility but also needs to be tested and continuously updated.

References

Andert, D. (2011). Alternating leadership as a proactive organizational intervention: Addressing the needs of the baby boomers, generation Xers and millennials. Journal of Leadership Accountability and Ethics, 8(4), 67–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/15350770.2013.810494

Andreadis, N.A. (2002). Leadership for civil society: Implications for global corporate leadership development. Human Resource Development International, 5, 143–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678860110071443

Blanchard, K.H. (2010). Leading at a higher level. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Bliese, P.D., Halverson, R.R., & Schriesheim, C.A. (2002). Benchmarking multilevel methods in leadership: The articles, the model, and the data set. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(1), 3–14. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S1048984301001011

Callahan, J.L., & Rosser, M.H. (2007). Pop goes the program: Using popular culture artifacts to educate leaders. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 9, 269–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422306298902

Cullen-Lester, K.L., Maupin, C.K., & Carter, D.R. (2017). Incorporating social networks into leadership development: A conceptual model and evaluation of research and practice. The Leadership Quarterly, 28, 130–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.10.005

Day, D.V., Fleenor, J.W., Atwater, L.E., Sturm, R.E., & McKee, R.A. (2014). Advances in leader and leadership development: A review of 25 years of research and theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.004

Epitropaki, O., Kark, R., Mainemelis, C., & Lord, R.G. (2017). Leadership and followership identity processes: A multilevel review. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(1), 104–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.10.003

Gagnon, S., Vough, H.C., & Nickerson, R. (2012). Learning to lead, unscripted: Developing affiliative leadership through improvisational theatre. Human Resource Development Review 11, 299–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484312440566

Garavan, T.N., McGuire, D., & Lee, M. (2015). Reclaiming the “D” in HRD: Atypology of development conceptualizations, antecedents, and outcomes. Human Resource Development Review, 14, 359–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484315607053

Gooty, J., Serban, A., Thomas, J.S., Gavin, M.B., & Yammarino, F.J. (2012). Use and misuse of levels of analysis in leadership research: An illustrative review of leader–member exchange. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 1080–1103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.10.002

Graen, G.B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5

Hollenbeck, G.P., McCall, M.W., & Silzer, R.F. (2006). Leadership competency models. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(4), 398–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006. 04.003

Hooper, D.T., & Martin, R. (2008). Beyond personal leader-member exchange (LMX) quality: The effects of perceived LMX variability on employee reactions. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 20–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.12.002

House, R. J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 321–339. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391905

House, R.J. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy and a reformulated theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 7, 323–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(96)90024-7

House, R.J., & Mitchell, T.R. (1975). Path-goal theory of leadership (No. TR-75-67). Washington University Seattle Department of Psychology. Retrieved from http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA009513

Peters, L., Baum, J., & Stephens, G. (2011). Creating ROI in leadership development. Organizational Dynamics, 40, 104–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2011.01.004

Tourish, D. (2012). Developing leaders in turbulent times. Organizational Dynamics, 41, 23–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2011.12.004

Turner, J.R., Chih-Hung, C., Schroeder, J., & Johnson, K. (2016). Expanded typology of leadership development. Unpublished manuscript.

Uhl-Bien, M., & Marion, R. (2009). Complexity leadership in bureaucratic forms of organizing: A meso model. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 631–650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j/leaqua.2009.04.007

10 www.ispi.org • DOI: 10.1002/pfi • OCTOBER 2017

Xu, L., Fu, P., Xi, Y., Zhang, L., Zhao, X., Cao, C., & Ge, J. (2014). Adding dynamics to a static theory: How leader traits evolve and how they are expressed. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(6), 1095–1119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.10.002

Yang, B. (2004). Can adult learning theory provide a foundation for human resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 6, 129–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422304263325

JOHN R. TURNER, PhD, is an assistant professor at the University of North Texas for the Department of Learning Technologies in the College of Information. He began his career in engineering after receiving a bachelor’s degree from Maine Maritime Academy. His career in engineering spanned over 15 years including four years of international experience (China, South Korea, Argentina). After leaving engineer- ing he completed a second bachelor’s degree in psychology from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, followed by a master’s degree in human resource development from the University of Texas at Tyler. He com- pleted his doctorate from the University of North Texas in Applied Technology & Performance Improvement (ATPI). His research interests are in teams, team cognition, knowledge management, performance improve- ment, leadership, theory building, complexity theory, multilevel models, and meta-analysis techniques. He has published articles in Advances in Developing Human Resources; International Journal of Technology, Knowledge, & Society; Journal of Information and Knowledge Management; Journal of Knowledge Man- agement; Performance Improvement; and Performance Improvement Quarterly. He may be reached at john.turner@unt.edu

ROSE M. BAKER, PhD, is assistant professor in the Department of Learning Technologies, College of Infor- mation, University of North Texas. Dr. Baker holds a BA degree in mathematics and chemistry from Wash- ington and Jefferson College, a MeD degree in adult education theory and practice, and a PhD degree in instructional systems from Penn State. Her research interests include financial forecasting of workplace learning investments, impact of career and technology education, management techniques and statistical applications for operations and performance improvement, economic analysis, occupational forecasting, benchmarking, survey and evaluation design, evaluation of training outcomes, training needs assessment, and job task analysis. She may be reached at Rose.Baker@unt.edu

Performance Improvement • Volume 56 • Number 9 • DOI: 10.1002/pfi 11

Copyright of Performance Improvement is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.