LEADERSHIP THROUGH AN ORGANIZATION BEHAVIOR LENS: A LOOK AT THE LAST HALF-CENTURY OF RESEARCH
MARY ANN GLYNN Phone # 617-552-0203, glynnmg@bc.edu and RICH DEJORDY Phone # 617-733-1991, dejordy@bc.edu Boston College, Winston Center for Leadership and Ethics Telephone # 617-552-0203
DRAFT CHAPTER, February 27, 2008 Prepared for the Harvard Business School Colloquim Leadership: Advancing an Intellectual Discipline, June 10-11, 2008
AUTHOR NOTE: We greatly appreciate the generous support of the Boston College Winston Center for Leadership and Ethics in enabling this research.
1
Leadership through an Organizational Behavior Lens: A Look at the last Half-Century of Research
Executive Summary
Leadership has long been a topic of intense interest in the field of organizational behavior, producing a rich tradition of theoretical and empirical research. Yet according to paper authors Mary Ann Glynn and Rich DeJordy of the Winston Center for Leadership and Ethics at Boston College, OB scholars have yet to forge a dominant theoretical perspective.
Glynn and DeJordy’s paper provides an assessment of leadership research in OB from the mid-twentieth century to the present, with an eye toward a productive agenda for the field’s future. The authors first trace the progression of leadership theories over the years and offer insights for ways of categorizing key concepts that have emerged. Next, they review half a century of commentary on leadership in three leading OB journals, finding some evidence of a prototype design in the research. Finally, they suggest areas where future inquiry by organizational behaviorists could have a significant impact on the understanding of leadership.
Historical Trajectory of OB Leadership Theories Glynn and DeJordy begin their review of leadership theories by citing the “definitional quagmire” that characterizes OB leadership research, referencing approaches that have focused variously on the personality of the leader, the process of leadership, the impact of leadership, and leadership performance. They quote a definition by researcher B.M. Bass that integrates a number of these concepts, which states, in part, that leadership is “an interaction
2
between two or more members of a group that often involves structuring or restructuring of the situation and the perceptions and expectations of the members.”
In their scrutiny of leadership theories over the last fifty years, the authors detect a pattern that coincides with the broader evolution of organizational behavior as a discipline, as well as societal needs and events. They found that OB research on leadership has progressed more or less chronologically through three theoretical models focused on: leadership traits, behavioral styles, and leadership contingencies.
As early as the 1940s, scholars searched for traits that distinguished leaders from others. They identified characteristics such as assertiveness, organizational abilities, and responsibility as especially critical to leadership. However, since this approach did little to explain why some who possessed these qualities were not successful leaders, researchers refocused their interest on behavioral manifestations of leadership. Like traits, behavioral modes — categorized according to a leader’s approach to task achievement and to interpersonal relationships — pertained to inherent qualities of an individual. The inability of scholars to identify behavioral traits that are effective across a variety of settings led to the pursuit of contingency theories, which focus on a leader’s ability to apply attributes and behaviors selectively in response to changing demands.
After noting insights from leading contingency theorists from the 1960s to the 1980s, Glynn and DeJordy turn to more recent scholarship, which extends earlier theories by treating leadership as a change process and leaders as catalysts for change. This work takes into account how leaders relate to different kinds of followers and adapt the tactics they use to
3
influence them. The authors also note a recent rise in interest in leadership theories that relate to network structure, emotional intelligence, and organizing structures, as well as renewed interest in charismatic aspects of leaders.
Survey of Empirical Research Glynn and DeJordy’s systematic analysis of empirical research focused on 151 studies published over the last fifty years in three leading OB journals: Administrative Science Quarterly, Academy of Management Journal, and Organizational Science. The authors considered abstracts of the studies with regard to factors such as research content, geographic location, micro or macro orientation, and type of data analysis.
Looking at the extent to which empirical studies have followed a conceptual progression similar to the trend they found in theoretical research, the authors determined that before 1980, there was a tendency toward behavioral and contingency models. They detected no dominant theories since that time, however, and suggest that the heterogeneity of empirical approaches and lack of a singular focus may make it more difficult to gather cumulative knowledge in this field.
In addition, the authors’ data substantiated an assertion by Podolny, Khurana, and PopperHill that OB leadership research is becoming more focused on the economic outcomes of leadership and less concerned with the ability of leaders to “infuse purpose and meaning into organizational experience.”
4
Glynn and DeJordy’s analysis of abstracts from the three journals suggests that a prototypical empirical study of leadership could best be described as “a quantitative design focusing on leadership behavior at the micro-level to predict performance.” The authors emphasize, however, that no article from the last twenty years contained all the features of the prototype, which they offer “as a template to identify the variations in leadership research.” The prototype is useful, as well, in exposing gaps in existing scholarship. In an era of heightened interest in globalization, for example, they found no evidence of crossculturally based leadership research.
Thoughts on Future Research In summarizing their findings and framing an OB leadership research agenda for the future, Glynn and DeJordy recommend that scholars should pursue both cumulative theory building within the domain of existing scholarship and integrative theory building across disciplines. By utilizing existing theoretical constructs, research that expands on the prototype of the classic empirical study — perhaps by pursuing qualitative aspects of leadership — might lead to valuable insights about leadership’s capacity to add meaning to organizations. In addition, the authors suggest that a shift in research focus from theorydriven inquiry to real world events (such as the rise or fall of prominent public leaders) could deepen understanding of leadership traits and behaviors. The authors also point to the potential for studies that examine leadership in multiple and complex contexts — including social, historical, and institutional settings — to broaden understanding of contingency theories.
5
Turning to possible synergies with fields such as sociology, political science, or anthropology, Glynn and DeJordy offer institutional theory as one example of an area where integrative inquiry could bear fruit. They mention several topics that arise at the crossroads of institutional and leadership theory, including processes that enable institutional change, the infusion of values into institutions, and sense making within organizations.
Going forward, the authors underscore the importance of both leveraging the heterogeneity of existing research perspectives to reinforce existing leadership knowledge and taking full advantage of opportunities to expand inquiry into new domains.
— 1039 words
6