Six Ways of Understanding Leadership Development and Present Empirical Data and Theoretical Arguments for How They Are Arranged in Terms of Increasing Complexity
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Article Leadership 0(0) 1–27 Six ways of understanding ! The Author(s) 2020 leadership development: Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions An exploration of DOI: 10.1177/1742715020926731 increasing complexity journals.sagepub.com/home/lea Sofia Kjellstrom€ The Jonk€ oping€ Academy for Improvement of Health and Welfare, The School of Health and Welfare, Jonk€ oping€ University, Jonk€ oping,€ Sweden Kristian Sta˚lne Department of Materials Science and Applied Mathematics, Malmo€ University, Malmo,€ Sweden Oskar Tornblom€ The Jonk€ oping€ Academy for Improvement of Health and Welfare, The School of Health and Welfare, Jonk€ oping€ University, Jonk€ oping,€ Sweden; Department of Industrial Economics and Management, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden Abstract Leadership development is a multifaceted phenomenon with a multitude of definitions and meanings requiring closer exploration. The aim of this study was to identify and investigate qualitatively different ways of understanding leadership development and categorize them from a complexity perspective. We conducted 21 semi-structured interviews with professionals and managers. Analysis using a phenomenographic approach revealed six categories and different ways of understanding leadership development: (1) one’s own development, (2) fulfilling a leadership role, (3) personal development, (4) leader and organizational development, (5) collective leadership development, and (6) human development. The categories were arranged hierarchically according to increasing complexity. Our contribution recognizes more nuanced interpretations than previously identified and highlights underlying structures of complexity. The results help to empirically ground and elaborate current theories and distinctions within Corresponding author: Sofia Kjellstrom,€ The Jonk€ oping€ Academy for Improvement of Health and Welfare, The School of Health and Welfare, Jonk€ oping€ University, PO Box 1026, 55 111 Jonk€ oping,€ Sweden. Email: [email protected] 2 Leadership 0(0) the field of leadership development research where similar patterns can be observed. They may assist researchers in making both their own and other’s assumptions on leadership development explicit, as well as informing the practice of tailoring leadership development activities to better match individuals and organizational contexts. Keywords Leadership development, leader development, collective leadership, adult development Introduction The meaning of leadership is ambiguous and confusing; definitions abound. Leadership has become an all-encompassing good that is vaguely described. There is value in thinking more precisely about leadership activities (Alvesson and Spicer, 2012). The same is true for the meaning of leadership development given that any underlying assumptions and perspectives have consequences for the promotion of different approaches within organiza- tions (Mabey, 2013; Van Velsor et al., 2010). The way a person talks and writes about leadership development influences what they see, value and prioritize (Carroll, 2019; Mabey, 2013). Exploring the beliefs and implicit assumptions of central elements of lead- ership development processes among different stakeholders, framed as studying implicit leadership development theory, is a promising area for leadership development research (Vogel et al., 2020). It is often assumed that leadership development is positive and desirable for all employ- ees, contributing favourably to the progress of an organization. However, leadership development programmes poorly matched to participants’ expectations can be harmful and create negative experiences. Arnulf et al. (2016) showed that participants embraced developmental activities in general but were not unequivocally positive; they raised concerns when unsuitable activities were unadjusted for their organizational and personal contexts. Even in well-designed leadership development programmes, participants can distance themselves from their organization, even to the point of leaving, which can be the result of a simplified “one-fits-all solution” failing to take a complex context into account (Larson et al., 2020). Leadership development activities may also imply that employees are being treated as a means to a “greater good” of increased productivity; from a critical studies perspective, some types of leadership development can therefore be questioned. There is a considerable difference between signing up for self-improvement workshops in one’s spare time and being assigned to developmental programmes at work because an employer has decided that all workers need to improve their performance (Kjellstrom,€ 2009). Research shows that some- times participants do not gain the value of the frameworks, models or theories presented in a programme (Carroll and Nicholson, 2014; Gagnon and Collinson, 2014). This might be explained by the different ways people understand leadership development, or that the underlying assumptions in the programme design do not match the expectations of the participants. This article exposes these underlying and implicit assumptions and illustrates how they are enacted as different understandings of leadership development. We explore the Kjellstr€om et al. 3 multiple meanings of leadership development by asking managers and professionals how they view and make sense of this concept. We then organize the different ways people understand leadership development, ordering them according to certain patterns observed in our data. We outline six ways of understanding leadership development and present empirical data and theoretical arguments for how they are arranged in terms of increasing complexity. These understandings are not contradictory but rather sequential in that each one builds on the previous one, creating more complex ways of understanding the concept. The six different ways we identified make three main theoretical contributions. Firstly, we provide more nuanced distinctions and assumptions and provide a more multifaceted way of understanding leadership development. Secondly, we show how our findings are congruent with leadership identities moving from individual to relational to collective identities (Komives et al., 2006; Lord and Hall, 2005), as well as adult development theories in terms of increasing complexity in addressing leadership tasks (Kegan, 1994; Rooke and Torbert, 2005). Consequently, this research supports the proposition that there is an under- lying pattern of increasing complexity in the different ways of understanding leadership development. Finally, we contribute to critical management studies by exploring the under- lying and implicit assumptions of leadership development theory. From a practitioner perspective, the study provides a substantial contribution to those responsible for supporting improvement of leadership development. Given the multifaceted, sequential and increasing complexity of understandings of leadership devel- opment, strategies such as examining the underlying assumptions are necessary when designing ethical desirable programmes. The study not only has relevance for practi- tioners on how to design and implement specific leadership development interventions but also has the potential to contribute to making their underlying assumptions explicit with regard to developing long-term leadership development strategies suitable for their organizations. We outline three research fields that frame the study and provide the rationale for our objectives and choice of study design. In the Results section, six ways of understanding leadership development are portrayed; their increasing complexity is then explored. In the Discussion section, our theoretical contribution and details of important practical implica- tions arising from the study are presented. Background We begin by presenting some established definitions of leadership development based on a functionalistic perspective. The functionalist perspective has been criticized for providing too simplistic a foundation for leadership development (Larsson et al., 2020), but given its dominance in research and practice, it is necessary to briefly outline these definitions. We then introduce interpretative and critical perspectives, which include the importance of insights into people’s experiences and views, but critical perspectives also emphasize the importance of examining implicit assumptions. These two perspectives highlight the need to explore people’s understanding of leadership development and whether there may be more helpful ways of understanding the phenomena. For this purpose, we chose as a theoretical framework a phenomenographic approach in combination with adult development because they both focus on exploring and understanding complexity. 4 Leadership 0(0) Functionalistic effective leader and leadership development definitions In leadership research and practice, the dominant perspective is a functional one where leadership is seen as a rather stable object and the goal is to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of leadership (Alvesson and Spicer, 2012; Carroll, 2019; Mabey, 2013). Leadership development from this perspective is characterized by its focus on individual leaders and how they need to contribute and improve effective individual and organizational performance (Carroll, 2019; Mabey, 2013). Instead of relying on current fads and vendor hype when deciding on leadership development (Collins, 2013; Yukl, 2013), practices should be carefully tailored to present the developmental