De nieuwe leider in het hemd gezet? Een kritische reflectie op concept, causaliteit en context van leiderschap | Amsterdam University Press Journals Online
2004
Volume 37, Issue 2
  • ISSN: 0921-5077
  • E-ISSN: 1875-7235

Abstract

Samenvatting

In tijden van toenemende onzekerheid en maatschappelijke ontwikkelingen zoals globalisering, digitalisering en flexibilisering is gedegen onderzoek naar leiderschap misschien wel belangrijker dan ooit. Om daarin te slagen is het leiderschapsonderzoek volgens verschillende auteurs echter dringend aan verbetering toe. In deze kritische reflectie wordt aan de hand van de drie centrale begrippen beschreven waar de problemen liggen: concept, causaliteit en context. Tevens laten voorbeelden van recente studies zien hoe onderzoekers met deze uitdagingen om kunnen gaan. De kansen om de nieuwe leider van echte kleren te voorzien liggen voor het oprapen.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/GO2024.2.005.STOK
2024-06-01
2024-06-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Andersen, H. C. (1837). De nieuwe kleren van de keizer. https://www.andersenstories.com/nl/andersen_sprookjes/de_nieuwe_kleren_van_de_keizer
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Antonakis, J. (2017). On doing better science: From thrill of discovery to policy implications. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(1), 5-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.01.006
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Antonakis, J., Bastardoz, N., Jacquart, P., & Shamir, B. (2016). Charisma: An ill-defined and ill-measured gift. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 3, 293-319. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062305
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P., & Lalive, R. (2010). On making causal claims: A review and recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(6), 1086-1120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.010
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Antonakis, J., d’Adda, G., Weber, R. A., & Zehnder, C. (2022). “Just words? Just speeches?” On the economic value of charismatic leadership. Management Science, 68(9), 6355-6381. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2021.4219
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 315-338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.001
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Banks, G. C. (2023). Eight puzzles of leadership science. The Leadership Quarterly, 34(4), 101710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2023.101710
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Banks, G. C., Dionne, S. D., Mast, M. S., & Sayama, H. (2022). Leadership in the digital era: A review of who, what, when, where, and why. The Leadership Quarterly, 33(5), 101634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2022.101634
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Banks, G.C., McCauley, K.D., Gardner, W.L., & Guler, C.E. (2016). A meta-analytic review of authentic and transformational leadership: A test for redundancy. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(4), 634-652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.02.006
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Banks, G. C., Woznyj, H. M., & Mansfield, C. A. (2023). Where is “behavior” in organizational behavior? A call for a revolution in leadership research and beyond. The Leadership Quarterly, 34(6), 101581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2021.101581
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bastardoz, N., Jacquart, P., & Antonakis, J. (2022). Effect of crises on charisma signaling: A regression discontinuity design. The Leadership Quarterly, 101590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2021.101590
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Batistič, S., Černe, M., & Vogel, B. (2017). Just how multi-level is leadership research? A document co-citation analysis 1980-2013 on leadership constructs and outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(1), 86-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.10.007
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Bauwens, R., Batistič, S., Kilroy, S., & Nijs, S. (2022). New kids on the block? A bibliometric analysis of emerging COVID-19-trends in leadership research. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 29(2), 224-232. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051821997406
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Bauwens, R., Decuypere, A., & Van Engen, M. (2023). Wat heeft de medewerker nodig? Themanummer ‘De nieuwe kleren van de leider (m/v/x): Leiderschap in tijden van digitalisering, globalisering en flexibilisering’ (deel 1). Gedrag & Organisatie, 36(4), 301-307. https://doi.org/10.5117/GO2022.4.007.ENGE
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Bernile, G., Bhagwat, V., & Rau, P. R. (2017). What doesn’t kill you will only make you more risk-loving: Early-life disasters and CEO behavior. The Journal of Finance, 72(1), 167-206. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2423044
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Bloom, N., Eifert, B., Mahajan, A., McKenzie, D., & Roberts, J. (2013). Does management matter? Evidence from India. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 128(1), 1-51. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjs044
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Bloom, N., Mahajan, A., McKenzie, D., & Roberts, J. (2020). Do management interventions last? Evidence from India. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 12(2), 198-219. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20180369
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Bruhn, M., Karlan, D., & Schoar, A. (2018). The impact of consulting services on small and medium enterprises: Evidence from a randomized trial in Mexico. Journal of Political Economy, 126(2), 635-687. https://doi.org/10.1086/696154
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Collins, M. D., Dasborough, M. T., Gregg, H. R., Xu, C., Deen, C. M., He, Y., & Restubog, S. L. D. (2023). Traversing the storm: An interdisciplinary review of crisis leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 34(1), 101661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2022.101661
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Decuypere, A. (2023). Aandachtige leidercommunicatie in hybride tijden: Pilottest van een nieuwe training. Gedrag & Organisatie, 36(4), 335-380. https://doi.org/10.5117/GO2023.4.003.DECU
    [Google Scholar]
  21. DeRue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Wellman, E., & Humphrey, S. E. (2011). Trait and behavioral theories of leadership: An integration and meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 7-52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01201.x
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Fiedler, F. E. (1978). The contingency model and the dynamics of the leadership process. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 59-112). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60005-2
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Fischer, T., Dietz, J., & Antonakis, J. (2017). Leadership process models: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1726-1753. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316682830
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Fischer, T., Dietz, J., & Antonakis, J. (2024). A fatal flaw: Positive leadership style research creates causal illusions. The Leadership Quarterly, 101771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2023.101771
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Fischer, T., Hambrick, D. C., Sajons, G. B., & Van Quaquebeke, N. (2023). Leadership science beyond questionnaires. The Leadership Quarterly, 34(6), 101752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2023.101752
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Fischer, T., & Sitkin, S. B. (2023). Leadership styles: A comprehensive assessment and way forward. Academy of Management Annals, 17(1), 331-372. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2020.0340
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Fowles, J. (1974). On chronocentrism. Futures, 6(1), 65-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287(74)90008-1
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Garretsen, H., Stoker, J. I., Soudis, D., & Wendt, H. (2022). The pandemic that shocked managers across the world: The impact of the COVID-19 crisis on leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 101630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2022.101630
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Garretsen, H., Stoker, J. I., & Weber, R. A. (2020). Economic perspectives on leadership: Concepts, causality, and context in leadership research. The Leadership Quarterly, 31(3), 101410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2020.101410
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Grutterink, H., & Vroemen, M. V. (2023). “Wat als mijn baas denkt dat ik het niet kan?!” Metaperceptie als katalysator voor de relatie tussen transformationeel leiderschap, psychologische empowerment en werktevredenheid. Gedrag & Organisatie, 36(4), 381-408. https://doi.org/10.5117/GO2023.4.004.GRUT
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Gümüsay, A. A., & Reinecke, J. (2022). Researching for desirable futures: From real utopias to imagining alternatives. Journal of Management Studies, 59(1), 236-242. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12709
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Haslam, S. A., Alvesson, M., & Reicher, S. D. (2024). Zombie leadership: Dead ideas that still walk among us. The Leadership Quarterly, 101770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2023.101770
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Hill, A. D., Johnson, S. G., Greco, L. M., O’Boyle, E. H., & Walter, S. L. (2021). Endogeneity: A review and agenda for the methodology-practice divide affecting micro and macro research. Journal of Management, 47(1), 105-143. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320960533
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Hiller, N. J., DeChurch, L. A., Murase, T., & Doty, D. (2011). Searching for outcomes of leadership: A 25-year review. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1137-1177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310393520
    [Google Scholar]
  35. House, R. J. (1971). A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16(3), 321-339. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391905
    [Google Scholar]
  36. House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis?Journal of Management, 23(3), 409-473. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063970230030
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 386-408. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159208
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Johns, G. (2018). Advances in the treatment of context in organizational research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5, 21-46. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104406
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Johns, G. (2024). The context deficit in leadership research. The Leadership Quarterly, 35(1), 101755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2023.101755
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Judge, T. A. & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755-768. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Kelemen, T. K., Matthews, S. H., & Breevaart, K. (2020). Leading day-to-day: A review of the daily causes and consequences of leadership behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 31(1), 101344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.101344
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Kenny, D. A. (1979). Correlation and causality. Wiley.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22(3), 375-403. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(78)90023-5
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Liden, R. C., & Antonakis, J. (2009). Considering context in psychological leadership research. Human Relations, 62(11), 1587-1605. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726709346374
    [Google Scholar]
  45. MacKenzie, S. B. (2003). The dangers of poor construct conceptualization. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(3), 323-326. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070303031003011
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Marichal, K. & Segers, J. (2017). De kleren van de leider – 19 inzichten in leiderschap. Pelckmans.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Martin, R., Hughes, D. J., Epitropaki, O., & Thomas, G. (2021). In pursuit of causality in leadership training research: A review and pragmatic recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 32(5), 101375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.101375
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Nielsen, K., & Cleal, B. (2011). Under which conditions do middle managers exhibit transformational leadership behaviors? – An experience sampling method study on the predictors of transformational leadership behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(2), 344-352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.02.009
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Nijs, S., Van Engen, M., Van der Meer, S., Van Gestel, S., & Odstrčilíková, K. (2024). Wanneer inclusieve leiders het verschil (kunnen) maken: Het belang van supplementaire en complementaire team-fit voor ervaren autonomie, verbondenheid en competentie van werknemers. Gedrag & Organisatie, 37(1), 135-163. https://doi.org/10.5117/GO2024.2.002.NIJS
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Peters, P., Blomme, R., Coun, M., Abbing-Fokkert, Y., & Nijmeijer, M. (2023). De kracht van empowerend leiderschap voor proactiviteit bij thuiswerken: De rol van zelf-effectiviteit, rolambiguïteit en professionele isolatie. Gedrag & Organisatie, 36(4), 308-334. https://doi.org/10.5117/GO2023.4.002.PETE
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Porter, L. W., & McLaughlin, G. B. (2006). Leadership and the organizational context: like the weather?The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 559-576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.002
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Retkowsky, J., Akkermans, J., Nijs, S., Jansen, P. & Khapova, S. (2024). Stimuleren van duurzame loopbanen voor flexwerkers: Paradoxen en routes naar een wenselijke toekomst vanuit het perspectief van belanghebbenden. Gedrag & Organisatie, 37(1), 191-221. https://doi.org/10.5117/GO2024.2.004.RETK
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Samimi, M., Cortes, A. F., Anderson, M. H., & Herrmann, P. (2022). What is strategic leadership? Developing a framework for future research. The Leadership Quarterly, 33(3), 101353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.101353
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Schmidt, F. (2010). Detecting and correcting the lies that data tell. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(3), 233-242. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610369339
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Sieweke, J., & Santoni, S. (2020). Natural experiments in leadership research: An introduction, review, and guidelines. The Leadership Quarterly, 31(1), 101338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.101338
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Spector, P. E. (2019). Do not cross me: Optimizing the use of cross-sectional designs. Journal of Business and Psychology, 34(2), 125-137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-09613-8
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Spijker, K. M. I. (2024). Leiderschap en techniek: Een techniekfilosofische benadering over besluitvorming in de toekomst. Gedrag & Organisatie, 37(1), 164-190. https://doi.org/10.5117/GO2024.2.003.SPIJ
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Stahl, G. K., Filatotchev, I., Ireland, R. D., & Miska, C. (2023). Five decades of research on the role of context in management: From universalism toward contingent, multilevel and polycontextual perspectives. Academy of Management Collections, 2(1), 1-18.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Stogdill, R. M., & Shartle, C. L. (1948). Methods for determining patterns of leadership behavior in relation to organization structure and objectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32(3), 286-291. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0057264
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Stoker, J. (2005). Leiderschap in verandering. Gedrag & Organisatie, 18(5), 276-295. https://doi.org/10.5117/2005.018.005.003
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Stoker, J., & Garretsen, H. (2022). Goede leiders in onzekere tijden: Lessen voor organisaties en de politiek. Business Contact.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Stoker, J. I., Garretsen, H., & Soudis, D. (2019). Tightening the leash after a threat: A multi-level event study on leadership behavior following the financial crisis. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(2), 199-214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.08.004
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Stoker, J. I., Garretsen, H., Soudis, D., & Vriend, T. (2023). A configurational approach to leadership behavior through archetypal analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1022299. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1022299
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Tur, B., Harstad, J., & Antonakis, J. (2022). Effect of charismatic signaling in social media settings: Evidence from TED and Twitter. The Leadership Quarterly, 33(5), 101476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2020.101476
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Van Dierendonck, D., Stam, D., Boersma, P., De Windt, N., & Alkema, J. (2014). Same difference? Exploring the differential mechanisms linking servant leadership and transformational leadership to follower outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(3), 544-562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.014
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Van Engen, M., Decuypere, A., & Bauwens, R. (2022). Call for papers voor G&O- themanummer 2023: De nieuwe kleren van de leider (m/v/n-b): Leiderschap in tijden van digitalisering, globalisering en flexibilisering. Gedrag & Organisatie, 35(4), 537-546. https://doi.org/10.5117/GO2022.4.007.ENGE
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Van Knippenberg, D., & Sitkin, S. B. (2013). A critical assessment of charismatic-transformational leadership research: Back to the drawing board?Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 1-60. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2013.759433
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Wulff, J. N., Sajons, G. B., Pogrebna, G., Lonati, S., Bastardoz, N., Banks, G. C., & Antonakis, J. (2023). Common methodological mistakes. The Leadership Quarterly, 34(1), 101677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2023.101677
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/GO2024.2.005.STOK
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error