H0
3%
“MS

 

H7? ,5 FY
‘-..JI\.'"H\

fl? 2 P. L
f‘mch; "*1 SL219

 

l,.'r‘.fl:€r€"?.\!

 

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K1IProjIAcc8Pres/CIRC/DateDue Indd

/A MULTI-LEVEL THEORY OF LEADER DEVELOPMENT /

By

Daniel Scott DeRue
//

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
- Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Management

2007

 

pro:
indz‘.i
1986;
deielo
Capaci
lDtlh0{
Organ22
Past 12

SUPER:

 

[hdI [he
”Pacing
millltlnt

OUTCQmC

ABSTRACT
I A MULTI-LEVEL THEORY OF LEADER DEVELOPMENT
By
Daniel Scott DeRue

Despite the fact that organizations consistently cite leadership development as a top
priority (Colvin, 2006), the scientific community provides limited insight into how
individuals develop leadership capacities from their experiences at work (Burke & Day,
1986; Day, 2000). The present research develops a multi-level theory of leader
development that specifies how work experiences enhance individuals’ leadership
capacity. This theory is then empirically tested using both qualitative and quantitative
methods. In the qualitative phase of this study, leaders from a variety of different
organizations provided examples of discrete work experiences that had occurred over the
past 12 months. In the subsequent quantitative phases of this study, leaders and their
supervisors rated these experiences on a number of different measures. Results indicate
that the characteristics of these experiences shape the development of leadership
capacities. Moreover, individual differences and contextual factors moderate the
relationship between the characteristics of work experiences and leader development

outcomes.

Copyright by
DANIEL SCOTT DERUE
2007

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I expected graduate school to be a period of intense learning and scholarship directed
at understanding the management and leadership of organizations. In this sense, graduate
school was all that I expected. More importantly, though, I conclude my days as a
graduate student having learned more about myself than I could have ever imagined. For
this, I must thank a number of people. First, I thank my advisor, mentor and chair, John
Hollenbeck, for being a great teacher, motivator, colleague and friend. I thank Fred
Morgeson for the opportunity to learn from one of the best. I thank Dan 11 gen for his ever
impressive wisdom, guidance, and thought-provoking questions. I thank John Wagner for
his insights and guidance on this particular dissertation. I also thank my fellow doctoral
students for their camaraderie, support, patience, and ability to make each day at the
office something to look forward to. All are good colleagues and great friends. I thank
my family—without you all, this would have no meaning. Lastly, I thank Jackson, who

has been with me since the start of this journey and is truly man’s best friend.

 

LE

LB'

lNl

L.) C

C

r“) r3 5:! y:
'77 . .

idET
Rt

Kl:
Dd

RESL

 

INSCI
SUn
She

Sun
COn

APPE}

APPEj

APPEj

APPEj

APPE}

I‘PPE.‘

APPE)

REFER

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. vi
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... vii
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
Overview ......................................................................................................................... 3
Definitions and Distinctions in Leader Development ..................................................... 5
Outcomes of Leader Development ................................................................................. 7
A MULTI-LEVEL MODEL OF LEADER DEVELOPMENT ....................................... 16
Defining Leader Development ...................................................................................... 16
Challenge: An Essential Ingredient to Leader Development ........................................ 17
Conceptualizing Developmental Experiences .............................................................. 20
Cross-Level Moderation in Leader Development ......................................................... 39
METHOD ......................................................................................................................... 51
Research Setting and Sample ........................................................................................ 51
Procedure ...................................................................................................................... 51
Measures ....................................................................................................................... 54
Data Analysis ................................................................................................................ 75
RESULTS ......................................................................................................................... 77
DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................. 120
Summary of Findings .................................................................................................. 120
Strengths, Limitations, and Areas for Future Research .............................................. 125
Supplemental Analyses ............................................................................................... 131
Conclusion and Implications ....................................................................................... 135
APPENDIX A: Summary of Hypothesized Main Effects .............................................. 139
APPENDIX B: Letter to Participants ............................................................................. 141
APPENDIX C: Descriptions of Experiences .................................................................. 144
APPENDIX D: Survey Measures ................................................................................... 146
APPENDIX E: Interview Protocol ................................................................................. 159
APPENDIX F: HLM Formulas ...................................................................................... 162
APPENDIX G: Frequency Histograms .......................................................................... 164
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 167

LIST OF TABLES

Table l — Leadership Capacities .................................................................. 17
Table 2 — Qualitative Dimensions of Developmental Experiences .......................... 37
Table 3 - Data Collection Schedule ............................................................... 60
Table 4 — Scales, Items, and Descriptives ...................................................... 63
Table 5 —— Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations Among Level-l Variables. . . . .....86
Table 6 — Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations Among Level-2 Variables... ......87
Table 7 — Parameter Estimates and Variance Components for the Null Model ........... 89

Table 8 - Effects of Experience Characteristics on the Development of Cognitive,

Managerial and Interpersonal Capacity ............................................. 92
Table 9 - Effects of Leader Performance on the Development of Leadership Identity and

Leadership Self-Efficacy ............................................................. 96
Table 10 - Effects of Leader Performance and Significance on the Development of

Leadership Identity and Leadership Self-Efficacy ................................ 96
Table 11 — Effects of Achievement Motivation on Leader Skill Development ............ 98
Table 12 - Effects of Locus of Control on Leader Skill Development .................... 102
Table 13 — Effects of Work Constraints on Leader Skill Development ................... 111
Table 14 - Effects of Feedback on Leader Skill Development ............................. 116
Table 15 - Effects of Social Support on Leader Skill Development ....................... 124
Table 16 — Principal Components Analysis of Leader Development Outcomes ......... 142

Table 17 — Principal Components Analysis of Experience Characteristics (3-factor
solution) ................................................................................ 143

Table 18 — Principal Components Analysis of Experience Characteristics (4-factor
solution) ............................................................................... 143

Table 19 — Effects of Experience Characteristics on Leader Skill Development. . . . . 144

vi

 

 

fig-

 

Figu-
~

Flgu

Figu:

Figure

Figure

Figure

 

Figlre

F

ig'Jie l

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 — A Conceptual Model of Leader Development from Informal Work
Experiences ......................................................................... 13

Figure 2 - Effects of Duration and Achievement Motivation on the
Development of Cognitive Skills ............................................... 100

Figure 3 — Effects of Density and Locus of Control on the Development
of Managerial Skills .............................................................. 104

Figure 4 — Effects of Density and Locus of Control on the Development
of Interpersonal Skills ............................................................. 105

Figure 5 - Effects of New Directions and Locus of Control on the
Development of Managerial Skills ............................................... 106

Figure 6 —Effects of Dealing with Problem Employees and Locus of
Control on the Development of Interpersonal Skills ......................... 107

Figure 7 — Effects of Influencing without Authority and Locus of Control on the
Development of Interpersonal Skills ........................................... 108

Figure 8 - Effects of Scope and Scale and Locus of Control on the
Development of Interpersonal Skills ........................................... 109

Figure 9 — Effects of Duration and Work Constraints on the Development
of Managerial Skills .............................................................. 114

Figure 10 - Effects of Dealing with Diversity and Work Constraints
on the Development of Interpersonal Skills ................................... 115

Figure 11 — Effects of Duration and Feedback on the Development of
Managerial Skills .................................................................. 119

Figure 12 — Effects of Duration and Feedback on the Development of
Interpersonal Skills ............................................................... 120

Figure 13 — Effects of New Directions and Feedback on the Development
of Cognitive Skills ................................................................ 121

Figure 14 — Effects of Dealing with Problem Employees and Feedback
on the Development of Interpersonal Skills ................................... 122

Figure 15 — Effects of Scope and Scale and Feedback on the Development
of Cognitive Skills ................................................................ 123

vii

Figure 16 -— Effects of Duration and Social Support on the Development of
Managerial Skills .................................................................. 127

Figure 17 —- Effects of Duration and Social Support on the Development of
Interpersonal Skills ............................................................... 128

Figure 18 - Effects of Influencing without Authority and Social Support on the
Development of Interpersonal Skills ........................................... 129

viii

 

 

 

 

ilk“;
0m.
Vieu

dare

 

INTRODUCTION

George Houston (1961; vii) once stated that “...the education and continued
development of managers is still a relatively new and uncharted field.” In this same text,
he challenged all of those in business and education to recognize the vital importance of
preparing tomorrow’s workforce to accept and fulfill the responsibilities of leadership, to
meet and deal with change, and to command the respect and confidence of others.
Organizations have accepted this challenge with vigor. In fact, organizations increasingly
view leadership capacity as a source of competitive advantage and are investing in its
development accordingly (McCall, 1998; Vicere & Fulmer, 1998). One result of this is an
emerging interest in understanding how individuals develop leadership capacities from
their experiences at work (Dotlich & Noel, 1998; Ohlott, 2004).

Individuals have a variety of formal experiences at work that are designed to enhance
leadership capacity, including formal coursework, training, assessment activities, and
mentoring or coaching programs (London & Mone, 1999; McCall, Lombardo, &
Morrison, 1988; Noe, Wilk, Mullen, & Wanek, 1997). The value of these formal
leadership development experiences is estimated at over thirty-seven billion dollars
worldwide (Boyatzis, Leonard, Rhee, & Wheeler, 1996), and there is a considerable body
of literature focused on the effectiveness of these formal experiences (e. g., Ragins &
Cotton, 1999). However, individuals also encounter a variety of informal experiences at
work. These work experiences, for example taking on a challenging and unfamiliar
project, are often not designed purely for developmental purposes and occur within the

context of general work activities. Despite that over 70% of all developmental

experiences occur informally on-the-job (Wick, 1989), very little research has focused on
the developmental value and impact of these informal work experiences (Day, 2000; Day
& O’Connor, 2003). Thus, research that explains how informal work experiences
enhance individuals’ capacity for leadership is vital to our understanding of leadership
development in organizations.

The present work seeks to address this gap in the literature by developing and testing
a multi-level theory of leader development. This theory focuses specifically on how
informal work experiences promote the development of leadership capacity in
individuals. The formal developmental experiences that individuals have at work or any
experiences outside of work are beyond the scope of this dissertation. Informal work
experience is among the most effective facilitators of learning and development in the
workplace (Davies & Easterby-Smith, 1984; McCall et al., 1988; McCauley, Ruderman,
Ohlott, & Morrow, 1994; Rogers, 1969; Stewart, 1984). McCall (2004, p. 127) even
argues that “the primary source of learning to lead, to the extent that leadership can be
learned, is experience.” Furthermore, organizations are increasingly seeking ways to
develop and systematically implement leadership development activities that leverage
individuals’ informal experiences on the job (Conger, 1993; Day, 2000). However,
several fundamental questions remain about how individuals develop leadership
capacities via their informal work experiences.

First, how should work experience be conceptualized from a developmental
perspective? Specifically, what types of informal work experiences promote leader
development and what are the characteristics of these experiences? Second, what

leadership capacities are actually developed via these experiences? For instance, do

certain types of experiences promote different types of leadership knowledge or skills?
Furthermore, are there leadership capacities beyond just knowledge and skills that are
important to consider as outcomes? For example, beliefs such as self-efficacy and
identity have been noted as important‘leadership capacities (Hall, 2004; Paglis & Green,
2002). Third, how do individual differences and contextual factors influence the
development process? The present research attempts to address these general questions
by constructing a multi-level model of leader development and then empirically testing
some of the more basic questions this theory implies.
Overview

Construction of the present theory takes place in four distinct stages. First, I briefly
discuss the distinction between management and leadership as it pertains to development.
I also discuss the distinction between leader and leadership development. These
distinctions are noteworthy because they address common debates in the leadership
literature (e.g., Day, 2000; Day & Halpin, 2004; Kotter, 1990; Yukl, 2002) and define the
bounds of the present work. Second, I use existing literature to construct an integrative
classification of leader development outcomes. This classification system organizes
existing literature along four principal leadership capacities: cognitive skills, managerial
skills, interpersonal skills, and self-concept beliefs. These leadership capacities serve as
the dependent variables in the present study. Third, I develop a conceptual model of
developmental experiences by integrating literature on general work experience with
existing experience-based models of leader development. To date, these literatures have
evolved independently, but their integration is essential for understanding how

individuals develop via their experiences at work (Day, 2000). Fourth, I use this

 

COR

6mg.

v—T-1

 

 

lOBQr
€18de
model
”10118;

mare

conceptual model as the basis for developing a set of explicit hypotheses that are then
empirically tested.

Figure 1 depicts the conceptual model that serves as the backdrop for this dissertation.
This model spans across two levels of analysis. The lower unit of analysis is the work
experience. Work experiences are defined as “events that are experienced (and
perceived) by an individual that relate to the performance of some job” (Quinones, Ford,
& Teachout, 1995, p. 890). These experiences are nested within individuals such that
leaders encounter a number of different experiences in their careers, and these
experiences differ in terms of their developmental impact (McCall et al., 1988). At this
lower unit of analysis, the model identifies the type of experiences that promote the
development of leadership capacity in individuals. At the leader level of analysis, this
model specifies how individual differences among leaders and contextual factors
moderate the experience—development outcome relationship. In other words, leaders
may encounter similar experiences but develop in different ways from these experiences
because of select individual differences and contextual factors.

This research contributes to our understanding of leadership development in at least
four ways. First, it extends current literature on leader development by specifying at the
experience level of analysis how the characteristics of work experiences differentially
shape individual leader development. Second, this research places developmental
experiences in context by considering the role of individual differences and contextual
factors in the development process. Third, it empirically tests the proposed model in a
wide range of organizational settings. Fourth, implications for the development and

implementation of leadership development systems are reviewed and discussed.

Figur

 

EXper

 

Individual
Differences

Cognitive
Skills
Managerial
Skills
Informal Work

 

 

 

 

 

Experiences

 

Interpersonal
Skills

LLL

 

Self-Concept
Beliefs

 

 

Contextual
Factors

Figure 1 — A Conceptual Model of Leader Development from Informal Work

Experiences

Definitions and Distinctions in Leader Development

Several definitions and distinctions are worth noting at the outset of this dissertation.
First is the distinction between management and leadership. Second is the distinction
between leader development and leadership development. Each is discussed in detail
below.
Management and Leadership: The Same 0r Diflerent?

Yukl (2002) argued that management and leadership are different (yet related)
concepts. Management is concerned with the direction of a system of people and
technology such that the system runs smoothly. The most important behavioral aspects of

management include planning, budgeting, organizing, staffing, controlling, and problem

SO.

 

Elx‘

\.

 

solving. leadership, on the other hand, is defined as the roles, behaviors, and processes
that facilitate setting direction, creating alignment, and maintaining commitment in
groups of people who work together.

Much has been written about the distinctions between management and leadership,
and some even argue that an overemphasis on management has left today’s organizations
with a significant lack of leadership capacity (Kotter, 1990). From a developmental
perspective, the important deduction from this debate is that the individual capacities
required to perform these two functions may differ. This is consistent with existing skill
taxonomies that account for organizational hierarchy, where different sets of skills are
required depending on whether one is at higher or lower levels in the organizational
hierarchy (Mumford, Campion, & Morgeson, 2007).

However, just because the essential capacities of managers and leaders may differ,
models of leader development should not necessarily ignore the capacities associated
with management roles. Leadership roles are performed by people at all hierarchical
levels, not just those at the top levels (Bowers & Seashore, 1966). As organizations
increasingly adopt decentralized structures and encourage employee empowerment, the
importance of developing leadership capacities at all levels within an organization
becomes ever more important. The present theory is not focused solely on the top
executive levels within an organization, where the development of management
capacities may be less important. Rather, this theory is designed to be applicable across a
variety of hierarchical levels. As such, this theory considers the capacities required for
both management and leadership. Leadership is not reserved for those that advanced

because of good managerial skills. In modern organizational settings, models of leader

 

dek

 

sir

Lilli

‘ v
lEdu.

and

316C

dine

 

 

 

development must consider how to develop both management and leadership capacities
simultaneously.
Leader Development: Necessary, Not Sufficient for Leadership Development

Day (2000) argued there is a fundamental difference between leader development and
leadership development. Leadership is a complex interaction involving leaders, followers,
and situations (Hollander, 1978). Thus, leadership is a product of the relationships that
are created and maintained with others—the interpersonal or social context. Models of
development that focus on the individual, namely models of leader development,
generally ignore the social environment within which leadership occurs. In contrast,
models of leadership development attend to the social and interpersonal nature of
leadership by focusing on developing the social relations among individuals and the
leadership capacity of the group, not the individual.

Despite this distinction between leader development and leadership development, the
two concepts are closely related. Developing individual leaders is a critical component of
leadership development (Day & Halpin, 2004). If individual leaders are not prepared for
the demands and challenges of leadership, effectiveness at all levels (individual, team,
organization) will suffer. For the social structures and processes of leadership to be
effective, individuals must develop and maintain the knowledge, skills, and abilities that
are necessary for executing key leadership functions. In other words, the quality of
leadership as a social process is a function of the quality of the individuals participating
in the process. Therefore, the primary focus of the present work is on individual leader
development.

Outcomes of leader Development

In developing the present model of leader development, I first specify what leader
capacities can be developed as a result of informal experiences at work. Ohlott (2004, p.
162) suggests that informal work experiences “teach practical knowledge and skills that
enhance and expand the ability to be effective.” Others have suggested that an emphasis
on knowledge and skills without considering the impact on individuals’ beliefs offers an
incomplete report of the development process (Gagne, 1984; Kraiger, Ford, & Salas,
1993; Messick, 1984). Although classification systems exist for certain types of
development outcomes (e.g., leadership skills; Mumford, Campion, & Morgeson, 2007),
none of these classification systems integrate across different types of development
outcomes (i.e., skills and beliefs).

In this section, I draw from a variety of literatures (e.g., leader development, general
training and development) to construct an integrative classification of leader development
outcomes. In this classification, I identify four types of leader capacities: cognitive skills,
managerial skills, interpersonal skills, and self-concept beliefs. Table 1 provides a
description of each leader capacity and maps existing literature onto each dimension.
This classification serves two purposes in the present study. First, it specifies the types of
skills and beliefs that existing literature has identified as important from a leader
development perspective. Second, it organizes these leader capacities in such a way that
helps in understanding how different types of informal work experiences promote leader

development.

Table l — Leadership Capacities

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leadership Description Related
Capacity Literature
The skills one must possess in order 0 Cox & Cooper (1989)
, , to effectively gather, process, and o Gillen & Carroll (1985)
thlrfinrtrve use complex and ambiguous o Graham (1983)
S 8 information . Jacobs & Jaques (1987)
- Mumford et al. (2000)
The skills that leaders must have in 0 Costanza et al. (1999)
Managerial order to effectively manage a Katz (1974)
skills financial, material, and personnel 0 Luthans et al. (1988)
resources 0 Mahoney et al. (1965)
The skills that leaders need in order 0 Costanza et al. (1989)
to effectively interact with and 0 Graham (1983)
Irlgelrpersonal influence other people 0 Katz (1974)
S S o Mahoney et al. (1965)
0 Mintzberg (1973)
Ieaders’ self-belief about their own 0 Erikson (1968)
capacity to effectively set direction, a Hall (2004)
Self-concept gain commitment from others, and 0 Hill (1992)
beliefs overcome obstacles . Ibarra (2003)
Leaders’ self-identity as a leader . Kegan (1932)
0 Paglis & Green (2002)
Cognitive Skills

Leaders must be able to take in and process complex information, deal with

ambiguity, and understand complex systems of causes and effects. According to

Hooijberg, Hunt, and Dodge (1997, p. 379), it is essential that leaders are able “to take

information, pick it over, play with it, analyze it, put it together, reorganize it, judge and

reason with it, make conclusions, plans, and decisions, and take action.” In fact, the

collection, processing, and dissemination of complex information is one of the more

fundamental things leaders must do (Carroll & Gillen, 1987; Lau & Pavett, 1980;

 

Mintzberg, 1973). In Fleishman, Mumford, Zaccaro, Levin, Korotkin, and Hein’s (1991)
taxonomy of leader behaviors, two of the four superordinate dimensions of leader
behavior deal with the search for, structuring of, and use of information. Cognitive skills
refers to the skills one must possess in order to effectively gather, process, and use
complex and ambiguous information.

Looking across the literature on leadership skills, there are a variety of skill
dimensions that are particularly important for understanding and developing one’s
cognitive skills. Two skill sets that seem particularly important are the cognitive and
strategic skills identified in Mumford, Campion, and Morgeson’s (2007) leadership skills
strataplex. Basic cognitive skills include active listening and learning skills, which enable
leaders to gather, comprehend, and assess the implications of new information (Graham,
1983; Jacobs & Jaques, 1987). Similarly, critical thinking skills enable leaders to analyze
complex and ambiguous information (Gillen & Carroll, 1985). Evidence suggests these
basic cognitive skills enhance one’s ability to collect, process, and disseminate
information (Lau & Pavett, 1980; Mintzberg, 1973) as well as learn on the job (Mahoney,
Jerdee, & Carroll, 1965).

Also related to the processing of complex and ambiguous information is Mumford et
al.’s (2007) notion of strategic skills. These include systems perception skills, which refer
to leaders’ capacity for understanding complex information systems, identifying
downstream consequences and key causes, and recognizing relationships between
problems and opportunities (e. g., Gillen & Carroll, 1985; Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding,
Jacobs, & Fleishman, 2000). In addition, problem identification skills are important for

processing complex information so that leaders can accurately diagnose and address

10

or;

 

incli

that

 

l965

Olga

organizational problems (Cox & C00per, 1989). Although Mumford et al. (2007)
distinguish between cognitive and strategic leadership skills, from a developmental
perspective, informal work experiences that challenge one of these skill sets is assumed
to also challenge the other. This is because both skill sets reflect a leader’s capacity for
gathering information about complex information systems, thinking critically about this
information, identifying key causes and effects, and then using this information
effectively in his or her leadership role.

Managerial Skills

The management of organizational resources (financial, material, and personnel),
including the planning and coordination of these resources, is one of the key functions
that leaders fulfill in organizations (Fleishman et al., 1991; Katz, 1974; Mahoney et al.,
1965; Stogdill, 1959). Leaders must plan and coordinate work activities within
organizations, and then ensure that all of the resources needed to implement these plans
and activities are available within the organizational unit. Thus, managerial skills refer to
the skills that leaders must have in order to perform these functions effectively. In order
to identify specifically which types of skills are essential for performing these functions, I
draw from established taxonomies of leadership skills (Mumford, Peterson, & Childs,
1999; Mumford et al., 2007).

These existing taxonomies explicitly identify the business or managerial skills that
leaders must possess in order to perform management functions effectively. These
include skills involving the management of material and financial resources (Katz, 1974),
which are important as leaders make decisions about how best to acquire and use

organizational resources. Similarly, leadership skills associated with the management of

11

fl

personnel 1

 

attempt to
leadership
business sl.
personnel r
Interpemn:
Matti c}

“Olhlng l6»

 

Clear that le;
For etamph

scholars hut

lZaCCillo. 2
external gm.
emphaste .
lilifiruct “ii
in orde,

inlet-perm“

ab}e [0

ell)

personnel resources (Luthans et al., 1988; Mahoney et al., 1965) are important as leaders
attempt to direct and control employee behavior. Mumford et al. (2007) group these
leadership skills under a superordinate heading called business skills. Together, these
business skills determine individuals’ capacity for managing financial, material, and
personnel resources in organizations.
Interpersonal Skills

Maxwell (1998, p. 17) once stated that “leadership is influence—nothing more,
nothing less.” Although I present leadership as broader than just influencing others, it is
clear that leaders must interact with and influence other people in a variety of settings.
For example, leaders are responsible for facilitating change in organizations. Numerous
scholars have argued that one of the most important leadership responsibilities is
influencing and shaping the behavior of people within and outside the organization (e. g.,
House & Mitchell, 1974; Yukl, 2002). Moreover, leaders are increasingly responsible for
teams of people in organizations. These team-based work structures further emphasize
the need for leaders to be able to work with and influence the people around them
(Zaccaro, 2001). In addition, leaders often serve as liaisons between organizational units,
external groups, or both (e.g., Ancona, 1990). All of these leadership responsibilities
emphasize the importance of a leader’s interpersonal skills, namely his or her ability to
interact with and influence other people.

In order to effectively influence people in organizations, leaders must possess the
interpersonal and social skills necessary to effectively interact with and shape the beliefs
and behaviors of others. For instance, social perceptiveness skills are essential for being

able to recognize how individuals will react to various situations (Graham, 1983;

12

 

Mintzberg.

 

differences
(Copemun. _
persuasion
organizatit‘t
skills comp
Seth-Comer
Kraiger

skills and en

 

DeteIOpmc
Capacity to p
concept heln

:-

retets to ind;
“’thh are ill.
3003: Pdglik

Identity.
amalor com
OHCSt‘ll’; in 1‘“
"PIObublt [[7
Baumelsteh

\UnSlmcmm

pm“ cai-

msblem ‘\

Mintzberg, 1973; Yukl, 2002). Negotiation skills enable managers to reconcile
differences among employee perspectives and establish mutually satisfying relationships
(Copeman, 1971; Mahoney, Jerdee, & Carroll, 1963, 1965; Mintzberg, 1973). Finally,
persuasion skills enable managers to influence others to more effectively accomplish
organizational objectives (Katz, 1974; Mintzberg, 1973; Yukl, 2002). These different
skills comprise what Mumford et al. (2007) refer to as interpersonal skills.
SelfConcept Beliefs

Kraiger et al. (1993) emphasize the importance of moving beyond just knowledge and
skills and considering individuals’ reactions to and beliefs about their own development.
Developmental work experiences, formal or informal, not only impact individuals’ actual
capacity to perform (i.e., skills), but these experiences also influence individuals’ self-
concept beliefs (Sosik, 2000; Tesluk & Jacobs, 1998). In the present study, self-concept
refers to individuals’ leadership self-efficacy and their identity as a leader—both of
which are noted as important outcomes of leader development (Hall, 2004; London,
2002; Paglis & Green, 2002).

Identity as a Leader. With respect to one’s identity as a leader, Hall (2004) notes that
a major component of leader development is the process of becoming more aware of
oneself; in fact, Hall claims that the process of forming an identity as a leader is
“probably the most important aspect of leader and career development” (p. 154).
Baumeister (1986) defined a person’s identity as a way of seeing the self, a personal
construction or interpretation of the self. Hall (2004) argued that key experiences in a
person’s career are fundamental to developing this identity as a leader. This perspective is

consistent with existing theory that argues one’s identity evolves and develops as

13

individuals
Asa leader
her identit}
admg~
continues tr

The not:
identity, or 1
has been suy

is true Of her

 

leadership cl
setbacks hm

trig: '

individuals gain mastery of complex and challenging tasks (Erikson, 1968; Kegan, 1982).
As a leader develops his or her capacity to perform complex leadership functions, his or
her identity as a leader grows in its capacity to take in additional complexity and
challenge — thus creating a positive feedback loop where one’s identity as a leader
continues to mature as a result of positive and challenging developmental experiences.

The notion that developmental experiences have the ability to alter a person’s self-
identity, or at least initiate personal exploration that might later lead to identity change,
has been supported in several in-depth qualitative studies (Hill, 1992; Ibarra, 2003). This
is true of both positive and negative experiences. Whereas performing well at a particular
leadership challenge might enhance one’s identity as a leader, failures and other career
setbacks have a powerful ability to fracture one’s leadership identity. This is consistent
with other research that suggests challenging experiences are powerful stimuli for
triggering self-exploration and learning about the self (Karaevli & Hall, 2003). Thus, it
may not simply be the type of experience one encounters, but one’s performance in the
context of the experience is also important.

Leadership Self-Efficacy. Self-efficacy refers to a “belief in one’s capabilities to
organize and execute the course of action required to produce given attainments”
(Bandura, 1997, p. 3). Leadership self-efficacy is therefore a person’s judgment that he or
she can successfully lead by setting direction, building relationships with followers, and
working with followers to overcome obstacles to change (Paglis & Green, 2002). The
most influential source of efficacy information is personal experience (Bandura, 1986).
Whereas failures can undermine efficacy beliefs, successful leadership performances

should strengthen an individual’s belief in his or her leadership capabilities. This is

14

especially tr

 

experiences
Paglis 8; Gt

ln sum. '
function or"
that etpen‘e:~

deselopmerr

 

 

independent
can dttelop
This is eonsi
that bOlh SUC
dfilmcliye t
& Hedherg
bower-EL 11C
POSllil‘e dm
Regain-e ex]
eipand 0n 1

concept belt

especially true when success is associated with highly complex and significant
experiences for which the individual has high levels of responsibility (Bandura, 1997;
Paglis & Green, 2002; Wood & Bandura, 1989).

In sum, the development of one’s identity as a leader and leadership self-efficacy is a
function of (a) the type of experience one encounters and (b) his or her performance in
that experience. This is an especially important point in the present study. The
development of leaders’ cognitive, managerial, and interpersonal skills can be
independent of one’s performance in a given work experience. In other words, leaders
can develop leadership skills from work experiences where they perform well or poorly.
This is consistent with much of the organizational learning literature, which concludes
that both success and failure can promote learning but that too much of either is
destructive and impairs learning processes (Cyert & March, 1963; Sitkin, 1992; Starbuck
& Hedberg, 2001). With respect to leadership self-efficacy and identity as a leader,
however, actual performance in the experience has a direct effect on development.
Positive developmental experiences can foster leadership self-efficacy and identity, but
negative experience can damage these beliefs (Bandura, 1997; Erikson, 1968). I later
expand on this point when constructing hypotheses regarding the development of self-

concept beliefs.

15

A MULTI-LEVEL MODEL OF LEADER DEVELOPMENT

In this section, I develop a multi-level model of leader development where the
primary aim is to understand how the characteristics of informal work experiences
influence the leader development outcomes identified in the prior section. At the
experience level, this model explains how different experience characteristics promote
the development of four leadership capacities: cognitive skills, managerial skills,
interpersonal skills, and self-concept beliefs. I also integrate individual differences among
leaders and contextual factors into the model by explaining how these higher order
factors moderate the experience—development outcome relationship. To construct the
model, I first explicitly define leader development. Second, I use adult learning and
development theories to theoretically establish the importance of challenging work
experiences in the leader development process. Third, l integrate literature on general
work experience with literature on leader development to create a theory-based
conceptualization of developmental experiences. In doing so, I identify a set of
characteristics that describe developmental experiences at work, and then discuss these
characteristics in terms of their impact on specific development outcomes. Fourth, I
discuss how individual differences among leaders and contextual factors can enhance or
suppress the extent to which leaders develop from their work experiences.

Defining leader Development

The literature on individual learning defines development as an enduring change in

behavior, or in the capacity to behave in a given fashion, which results from practice or

some other form of experience (Shuell, 1986). The notion of a “changed capacity to

16

behave in L1
skills. knelt
occurs (Res
learning the
behai'ior. or?
research. I t.

leaders’ tag

 

 

This deli
example. Du
based ten-0M
b." discussin
gleaned li01‘
defined laid
aCliOn. “her

Learning
mOlll'auOn2i
action as the
perSpfiCmc:
Promote lea
Immune.

Whiler‘ 197‘

behave in a given fashion” is included in the definition because people often acquire
skills, knowledge, and beliefs without overtly demonstrating them at the time learning
occurs (Rosenthal & Zimmerman, 1978; Schunk, 1996). Thus, based on traditional
learning theory, leader development can be defined as an enduring change in leader
behavior, or in the capacity for a leader to behave in a given fashion. In the present
research, I focus on leader development in terms of capacity—the development of
leaders’ cognitive skills, managerial skills, interpersonal skills, and self—concept beliefs.

This definition is consistent with existing literature on leader development. For
example, Day (2000) framed leader development in terms of its emphasis on individual-
based knowledge and skills. Burgoyne and Hodgson (1983) provided a similar definition
by discussing leader development in terms of the practical skills and knowledge that are
gleaned from job experiences. Finally, McCall, McCauley, and colleagues (1988, 1994)
defined leader development as the expansion of one’s capacity for effective managerial
action, where capacity refers to the wide range of skills, abilities, and knowledge that
enable leaders to be effective.

Challenge: An Essential Ingredient to Leader Development

Learning theories from several different paradigms (cognitive, experiential,
motivational) emphasize the importance of challenging individuals’ current capacity for
action as the primary means to development. I briefly review these theoretical
perspectives here with the purpose of gaining insight into why some work experiences
promote leader development but other experiences do not. First, from a purely cognitive
perspective, the theory of meaningful reception learning (Ausubel, 1968, 1978; Faw &

Waller, 1976) suggests that learning occurs by relating new information to knowledge

17

that is sire.

 

relate the nt

comparison

l
|

is only meet"
elaborates .‘t
indiiiduul's
Study. \i'orlt
managerial. ;

Second. t

Rogers l 19o

 

 

that learning
TefifiCl on [he
i’erSPCClll'e. 1
Problem [0 l):
e’p'cllEnCc ill
tWeick. 197E
the thienr [0
COnsequenCe.

that is already stored in memory. In the process of encoding new information, individuals
relate the new information to relevant ideas in their existing cognitive structures. This
comparison process determines the extent to which learning occurs. The new information
is only meaningful and learning only occUrs when new knowledge expands, modifies, or
elaborates currently held knowledge. If this new knowledge does not challenge an
individual’s existing cognitive structure, no learning occurs. Extending this to the present
study, work experiences that challenge individuals’ current capacities (cognitive,
managerial, interpersonal, self-concept) should be particularly developmental.

Second, experiential learning theories such as those proposed by Dewey (1938),
Rogers (1969), Knowles (1975), Kolb (1984), and Marsick and Watkins (1990) suggest
that learning occurs as individuals engage first-hand in challenging experiences and then
reflect on the actions and outcomes of those experiences. According to this experiential
perspective, the development process begins with an experience that offers a challenge or
problem to be solved. Through reflection, individuals diagnose or frame the challenging
experience and compare it with their prior experiences. This form of sensemaking
(Weick, 1979) then leads to a set of choices around alternative actions. Individuals assess
the extent to which they can perform each action, as well as the intended and unintended
consequences of those actions. Upon choosing and implementing a particular action, the
individual assesses the outcomes of that action and the degree to which these outcomes
match his or her goals. This step of judging the consequences of any action is what
enables the individual to draw lessons from challenging experiences and to use these

lessons in planning future actions.

18

 

Third. l
motivation;
dei'elopmer‘
then intl uer.
at learning. .
acquiring a ~
determine ht

lndiiiduals c

 

 

CliV€lOping a
skill is also i
attention [0“
THUS. the tilt
Skill and the

These th
°0nclusionL

dfl'elomen

Rimming 0
d’n’mlc Set
conditions c
SOURCE 0f ll
based Persp

makes an ex

ex .
WUEHCES

Third, Kanfer and Ackerman (1989) use both cognitive information-processing and
motivational processes to explain why challenging experiences lead to individual
development. In this model, individuals make several distal (cognitive) judgments that
then influence more proximal choices regarding how much attention and effort is directed
at learning. Specifically, individuals determine how much utility is associated with
acquiring a specific knowledge or skill. In light of this utility judgment, individuals
determine how much effort and attention is needed to acquire the knowledge or skill.
Individuals expend maximum attention and effort when the challenge associated with
developing a particular knowledge or skill is high and the utility of that knowledge or
skill is also high. Learning and development occurs as a result of individuals allocating
attention toward the mastering of knowledge and skills that are particularly challenging.
Thus, the amount of effort directed at skill acquisition is a function of the utility of the
skill and the challenge associated with acquiring the skill.

These three theoretical perspectives offer different explanations for the same
conclusion—challenging work experiences promote individual learning and
development. Challenging experiences provide a platform for trying new behaviors or
reframing old ways of thinking and acting. Challenging experiences put individuals in
dynamic settings where they must solve complex problems and make choices under
conditions of risk and uncertainty. Finally, challenging experiences provide several
sources of motivation for learning and development. Thus, the key element in experience-
based perspectives of leader development is challenge (Ohlott, 2004). However, what
makes an experience at work challenging? What are the characteristics of work

experiences that make experiences more or less challenging from a developmental

l9

perspectist
work expez‘
address thi~

literature or

Current
1998) Ollt‘ls
conceptuali,

lmplicatiom

 

 

 

 

for assessin:
literatUre on
Walking 1}
Capacity ln
Contention
QUannc
etpen'enCe l
“Nile and l €
Rimmed. F
312131; Or in z
Skelllcailm
El Lil. (1995)

example‘ 50:

perspective? Current literature does not provide a comprehensive conceptualization of
work experience from a developmental perspective (Day, 2000). In the next section, I
address this gap in the literature by integrating theory on general work experience with
literature on leader development.

Conceptualizing Developmental Experiences

Current theory on general work experience (Quinones et al., 1995; Tesluk & Jacobs,
1998) offers an organizing framework for how general work experiences can be
conceptualized. Although this theory was originally discussed as having primarily
implications for work performance, the same framework provides a useful starting point
for assessing experience from a developmental perspective (Day, 2000). In fact, current
literature on leader development complements general theories of work experience by
specifying the particular types of experiences that facilitate the development of leadership
capacity. In this section, I integrate these two literatures to create a comprehensive
conceptualization of developmental experiences.

Quinones et al. (1995) offered the first theoretical conceptualization of work
experience by differentiating work experiences based on two dimensions: measurement
mode and level of specification. Measurement mode reflects how an experience is
measured. For example, most literature measures experience in terms of time working on
a task or in a job or organization (e.g., McDaniel, Schmidt, & Hunter, 1988). Level of
specification reflects the level of analysis reflected in the experience construct. Quinones
et al. (1995) identify three levels of specification: task, job, and organization. For

example, some researchers examine the number of times a person has performed a

20

Panic“lar ”
the number

Tesluk ‘
additional 1"
and JacobS ’
rimmi- and
qualitatiW- ’
grour- 013“”
meor)" 0f get

etl‘fille”CCS I

 

and qualll‘dll’
level of 51")"

The We“
[611113 of lllE l
on these task
inks that inC
and critical. '
these dir‘t‘erer

lehose tr
experience) l
locused on is
colleagues (1

robs. uhere s

particular task (e. g., Lance, Hedge, & Alley, 1989), whereas other researchers examine
the number of different jobs a person has held (e. g., Pinder & Schroder, 1987).

Tesluk and Jacobs (1998) extended the work by Quinones et al. (1995) by adding
additional facets to the measurement mode and level of specification. Specifically, Tesluk
and Jacobs (1998) discuss five different measurement modes (amount, time, density,
timing, and type) that are organized along three dimensions: quantitative, interactive, and
qualitative. They also distinguish between five levels of specification (task, job, work
group, organization, and occupation). In this dissertation, I use Tesluk and Jacobs’ (1998)
theory of general work experience as the basis for conceptualizing developmental
experiences along these same dimensions: level of specification, quantitative, interactive,
and qualitative.

Level of specification

The present research focuses on the task level of specification. Individuals differ in
terms of the number of times they have performed a particular task, the time they spend
on these tasks, and the types of tasks they have performed. For example, whereas some
tasks that individuals perform are simple and routine, other tasks are more challenging
and critical. The primary purpose of the present research is to examine how the nature of
these different task-level work experiences promotes leader development.

I chose to focus on the task level of specification (and not higher order levels of
experience) for two reasons. First, empirical research on development has traditionally
focused on job level experiences. For example, McCall, McCauley, Ohlott, and
colleagues (1988, 1994, 2004) examine developmental experiences as characteristics of

jobs, where some jobs are more developmental than other jobs because of the types of

21

 

experience
studl€5 5h”
acquisition
lackSOTl- 8‘
mar it does ‘
different 56:
derelopmcl‘l

limitation. 3

 

with host be
job level al‘f
titles of 10h."
the freedom
deielopmen
inlonn orga
within jobs.
Qttantituri‘.‘

Tesluk
measureme
conceptual
White. 191

~l>ecrfro

experiences inherent in the job. Similarly, Jackson and Wall have conducted several
studies showing that high levels of job autonomy enhance the amount of knowledge
acquisition that occurs in a job (Jackson & Wall, 1991; Wall & Jackson, 1995; Wall,
Jackson, & Davids, 1992). Although this job level perspective is valuable, it is limited in
that it does not address, for example, the fact that two people in the same job often have
different sets of developmental experiences and develop at different rates. Examining
developmental experiences at the task level offers one avenue for addressing this
limitation. Second, from a practical perspective, organizations are increasingly concerned
with how best to design and structure developmental experiences for their employees. A
job level approach to developmental experiences informs this process by identifying the
types of jobs that are most developmental. Organizations, however, do not always have
the freedom to implement job rotation programs or assign people to jobs purely for
developmental purposes (Ohlott, 2004). Research at the task level of specification will
inform organizations on how best to design and structure developmental experiences
within jobs.
Quantitative Dimensions

Tesluk and Jacobs’ (1998) quantitative component of work experience consists of two
measurement modes: time and amount. Most research on general work experience has
conceptualized experience in terms of time (e. g., Borman, Hanson, Oppler, Pulakos, &
White, 1993; McDaniel, Schmidt, & Hunter, 1988; McEnrue, 1988). At the task level of
specification, a time-based measure of experience reflects the length of time an individual
spends working on a particular task, or how long the task lasts. Similar time-based

distinctions have been made in other literatures as well. For example, in the conflict

22

managemer'
short-term t
I

Donosan. 1
that occur ll
longer time
In a lead
impact the Li

learning thet

 

 

 

e.llitetiences .
situations. \\
Wllh 111016 (3‘
and lllfill €in
“’0 Opllmlze
See llle mm
0m” O\‘er \
“Pittman!a
Occurs as a t

Pup-[hen

management literature, conflict episodes can be described in terms of whether they are
short-term or long-term (Olson-Buchanan, Drasgow, Moberg, Mead, Keenan, &
Donovan, 1998; Walton, 1969). Similarly, Morgeson and DeRue (2006) described events
that occur in team contexts based on their'duration and showed that events occurring over
longer time periods were more disruptive to team functioning.

In a leader development context, time-based measures of experience are likely to
impact the developmental punch of an experience for two reasons. First, experiential
learning theories (e. g., Kolb, 1984) suggest that individuals need time to reflect on their
experiences and then use what they learn via these reflections to experiment in similar
situations. Work experiences that occur for longer periods of time provide individuals
with more opportunity to reflect on their actions during the experience, develop insights,
and then experiment with what they have learned. Ohlott (2004, p. 180) even states that
“to optimize learning, people need to remain in an assignment long enough to be able to
see the consequences of their actions and decisions.” In contrast, work experiences that
occur over very short periods of time do not allow for as much reflection or
experimentation during the experience and thus should limit how much development
occurs as a result of that experience.

Furthermore, once a set of habits becomes routine in a social system, the behaviors
associated with these habits become self-reinforcing and often persist over time—for
better or worse (Ancona & Chong, 1996; Gersick & Hackman, 1990). Individuals
develop behavioral habits and routines that apply to normal working conditions. As long
as these habits and routines continue to be effective, individuals are less likely to

challenge existing assumptions and norms, or consider new ways of thinking and acting.

23

 

However. e'

routines. an

 

(Brett. 1984
occuning or.
it DeRue. 3'
flperiences

habits and re

 

managerial s
concept to bi
elllelicnce: l
Cll'itracteristi
Hl’Pllllle
dt’l‘elop,
11216er
The 86c

refelled to

However, experiences that force individuals to move away from current habits and
routines, and develop new ways of thinking and acting, are particularly developmental
(Brett, 1984; Louis, 1980). Although at the team level, research shows that experiences
occurring over longer time horizons are more disruptive to team functioning (Morgeson
& DeRue, 2006). Extending this research to the individual level, I expect work
experiences that occur over longer time horizons to be more disruptive to individuals’
habits and routines, and as a result, facilitate the development of leaders’ cognitive skills,
managerial skills, and interpersonal skills. Again, I expect the development of self—
concept to be a function of the type of experience and one’s performance in the
experience; thus, I do not expect duration (and other non-qualitative experience
characteristics) to enhance leaders’ self-concept.

Hypothesis 1: The duration of an experience will be positively related to the

development of leaders’ (a) cognitive skills, (b) managerial skills, and (c)

interpersonal skills.

The second quantitative dimension in Tesluk and Jacob’s (1998) framework is
referred to as amount. At the task level of specification, amount reflects the experience
one has accumulated over time with similar tasks. In other literatures, including research
on leader development (e.g., McCauley et al., 1994), this characteristic of work
experience is referred to as familiarity. The familiarity of any single work experience is
highest when individuals have encountered many similar experiences in the past, but
often times, individuals have experiences at work with which they are unfamiliar. That is,

the experience is relatively novel to the individual. Conceptualizing developmental

24

experiences

opportunity

 

The fair.
dewlopmerll
notes that as
reaction to it

individual it

lei-els of Con

 

 

 

133) emphas
COmpletion c
and knees it
(1994) filial}
unl'dmlligrr l‘t‘
inditiduals 5
they are Ulll
HFPUIlzC
la) (0%,”
[Ingram
that [lice ldl
Clpfl‘llenCe ‘
Char‘iCterist;
elpenmm

e. « .

experiences based on familiarity is important because it reflects differences in one’s
opportunity to perform, practice, or use certain leadership skills or knowledge.

The familiarity an individual has with a specific type of experience will influence the
developmental impact of that experience. Campbell’s (1988) theory of task complexity
notes that an individual’s familiarity with a particular type of task influences his or her
reaction to that task. Specifically, an experience may be objectively complex, but an
individual who is highly familiar with this type of task will experience relatively lower
levels of complexity and therefore develop less from their experience. Halpern (2004, p.
138) emphasizes this point as follows: “the best predictor of what is learned at the
completion of a lesson, course, or informal learning experience is what the learner thinks
and knows at the start of the learning experience.” At the job level, McCauley et al.’s
(1994) analysis of unfamiliar responsibilities showed that jobs which include many
unfamiliar responsibilities are particularly developmental. Based on this research,
individuals should develop relatively more leadership skills from experiences with which
they are unfamiliar.

Hypothesis 2: Unfamiliarity will be positively related to the development of leaders’

(a) cognitive skills, (b) managerial skills, and (c) interpersonal skills.

Interactive. Tesluk and Jacobs (1998) identify two dimensions of work experience
that they label as interactive. The first is the timing of experiences (e. g., when an
experience occurs in a person’s career). In this dissertation, I do not consider timing as a
characteristic of developmental experiences because all variance related to the timing of
experiences is at the individual level, not at the experience level of analysis (all

experiences examined in this study occurred in the last 12 months). The second

25

interactive L
the experier'
experience.
des'elopmen
the lollou'i 7‘

ll ar

cl'tal .

lllfi .\

Oreo
char.
secor

In the ca:

aSSlSttment).

 

clléttacten‘zeL
ltnouledge a
Expellfintial
OPPOTlUtttticg
one has {0 pr
M” del‘clOp
OPPOrIUnmCE
on their “PC
lEaUtEd. ACQ

i
memelSOndj

Hfipulllg-

(‘r . .
"g’llllta

9

ll". , .

interactive dimension of work experience is the density of developmental opportunities in
the experience. This characteristic of work experience captures the intensity of an
experience. For task-level work experiences, density refers to the number of
developmental elements inherent in the task. Tesluk and Jacobs (1998, p. 329) provide
the following example to illustrate the developmental impact of density:

If an individual in a 1-year assignment repeatedly faces a number of

challenging situations while another individual in a similar assignment for

the same duration is presented with relatively fewer challenging

opportunities, the experience described in the first scenario may be

characterized as displaying a greater density than the experience in the
second scenario.

In the case above, the two individuals have a similar task-level experience (the 1-year
assignment), but the density of their experiences differs. Experiences that are
characterized as high density will have a positive effect on the development of leadership
knowledge and skills because of the number of developmental cycles in the experience.
Experiential learning theories (e.g., Kolb, 1984) suggest that individuals need
opportunities to apply new knowledge and practice new skills. The more opportunities
one has to practice and apply emerging leadership capacities, the more those capacities
will develop over time. Work experiences that are highly dense with developmental
opportunities provide individuals with more opportunities to practice new skills, reflect
on their experiences, develop new knowledge, and then experiment with what they have
learned. Accordingly, density should enhance leaders’ cognitive, managerial, and
interpersonal skills.

Hypothesis 3: Density will be positively related to the development of leaders’

cognitive (a) skills, (b) managerial skills, and (c) interpersonal skills.

Qualitative Dimensions

26

 

The qUa

 

assessment .
insight into 2
address this
to be descri 1
dimensions t

“thh types

 

 

 

from researc,
provide an e:
hate on lllt‘;
mtt'llet'el iit‘
McCauley e
Table 3
liliOnOm-VI .
eml’loi‘ees.
llle “Ski t\

to E"Teller

The quantitative and interactive dimensions of experience provide only a partial
assessment of the experience construct. For example, time and amount do not provide
insight into the type of experience an individual encounters (Quinones et al., 1995). To
address this limitation, Tesluk and Jacobs (1998) suggest that work experiences also need
to be described along qualitative dimensions. However, they also note that the qualitative
dimensions of experience are largely domain and context specific. Therefore, to inform
which types of experience are important from a leader development perspective, I draw
from research by McCall, McCauley, Ohlott and colleagues (1988, 1994, 2004). They
provide an empirically validated taxonomy of developmental experiences that leaders
have on the job. This taxonomy was developed via interviews and surveys of over 900
mid-level and senior executives across a variety of organizations and industries.
McCauley et al. (1994) confirmed the test-retest reliability and validity of this taxonomy.

Table 2 summarizes the nine qualitative experience characteristics identified in this
taxonomy. The first three types of experiences (new directions, problems with
employees, and inherited problems) force leaders to create change in their organization.
The next two experience types (external pressure and influencing without authority) refer
to experiences where the leader is forced to manage complex boundaries inside and
outside of the organization. Work across cultures and work group diversity both reflect
experiences where leaders are forced to deal with diversity issues. The final two
experience characteristics (high stakes and scope and scale) indicate high levels of
responsibility. I discuss each of these qualitative experience characteristics by (a)

defining the characteristic, (b) building a rationale for why experiences of this nature are

27

derelopmen

impacted.

 

developmental, and (c) then identifying specifically which development outcomes are

impacted.

28

 

Table 2 - Q
{Qualitatist
Charat

 

l
Nee directo

lfl

j Problems it ;
employees

 

\r

inherited pic

-\
l

l Extemal prc

\
lntluencing
\

ll’o .
r r n
l 1‘ dk ['03

. Work glOUI

/

Table 2 — Qualitative Dimensions of Developmental Experiences

 

Qualitative Experience

Characteristics

Description & Examples

 

New directions

Leaders must create and facilitate change in the way
business is conducted

e.g., launching a new product or system, developing a
new vision for an owizational unit

 

Problems with
employees

Leaders must create and facilitate change in the behavior
of an employee

e. g., resolve employee performance problems, manage
conflict between direct reports

 

Inherited problems

Leaders are charged with fixing a problem that was
preexisting prior to his or her arrival
e. g., morale problems, poor unit performance

 

External pressure

leaders must manage the interface between important
constituencies outside the organization

e.g., managing labor unions, customers, vendors, or
government agencies

 

Influencing without
authority

leaders must influence people within the organization
over whom the leader has no direct authority

0 e.g., peers, persons of high authority

 

Work across cultures

Leaders must work with people from different cultures
or with organizations in other countries

e.g., geographically-dispersed teams, organizational
diversity based on national culture

 

Work group diversity

Leaders are responsible for working with people of both
genders and different racial or ethnic backgrounds
e. g., racially or ethnically diverse work groups

 

Scope and scale

Leaders must manage multiple functions, groups,
products, or services

e. g., promotion to a new functional area, taking on a
colleague’s responsibilities during his or her absence

 

 

High stakes

 

Leaders are responsible for specific projects or
initiatives that are highly significant either to the
individual leader or the organization

e.g., securing the financing for a key acquisition,
launching a new product, negotiating with a large
customer

 

Note: The original Job Challenge Profile (McCauley et al., 1994; McCauley, Ohlott, &
Ruderman, 1999) also included unfamiliar responsibilities as an explicit dimension; this
dimension is conceptually analogous to the familiarity (amount) concept and is thus not

included here.

29

 

 

Work e‘
and lacilitat
specific pro!
include laur'
facilitating 1
Etpenences

First. these e

 

 

 

ambiguity be
Empirical re
det‘elOpmen
Connelly, Z.
lltleldualg i.
expellenCeg
Ollllmal net.
System Of c;
Challenge le
llfillland lll‘tl
ll) ldemif}, \
lii'ltar mitten
”053 resou
be room“.
”Hint/if

Work experiences that are characterized as new directions require leaders to create
and facilitate change in the way business is conducted. This change could be related to a
specific project, a particular work group, or an entire business or organization. Examples
include launching a new product or system, serving on a reengineering team, or
facilitating the development of a new vision or mission statement (Ohlott, 2004).
Experiences that entail some form of new direction are challenging for several reasons.
First, these experiences are often accompanied by large amounts of uncertainty and
ambiguity because the optimal new direction is rarely obvious and often probabilistic.
Empirical research shows that problems which are probalistic in nature are often
developmental (Fleishman et al., 1991; Mumford & Connelly, 1991; Mumford, Marks,
Connelly, Zaccaro, & Reiter-Palmon, 2000). Because the uncertainty and ambiguity force
individuals to gather and process large amounts of information, I expect new direction
experiences to challenge individuals’ cognitive skills. Second, in order to determine the
optimal new direction, leaders must identify the underlying problem, interpret a complex
system of causes and effects, and develop a new vision. These demands should also
challenge leaders’ cognitive skills. Finally, experiences that present new directions
demand that leaders effectively manage their available resources. For example, in order
to identify what changes can be made in a work group or business, one must understand
what material, personnel, and financial resources are available and then effectively use
those resources to facilitate the change. This particular element of new directions should
be particular challenging of leaders’ managerial skills.

Hypothesis 4: New directions will be positively related to the development of leader’s

(a) cognitive skills and (b) managerial skills.

3O

The net

is required ."

ettrplotees.

l9SSl. For c
problems or
force leader»

best at laci l:

 

 

 

be attare of l
prioritizing i

n€g0ll£ll€ it i
reasons. exp
llllS‘lUmental

Hl’lllllllr‘

df’l'elttp;

The fina
and laciliim
mOSe “litre
allied] [Oh]
unit is Often
aldeslllead
louner re a d
“i

.' amcten‘ (I.

The next qualitative characteristic of work experience, dealing with problem
employees, also requires leaders to create or facilitate change. However, the change that
is required here is related to a person rather than a work unit or business (McCall et al.,
1988). For example, leaders are sometimes required to resolve subordinate performance
problems or manage conflict between direct reports. These types of work experiences
force leaders to understand what motivates human behavior and what approaches work
best at facilitating behavior change. These types of work experiences also force leaders to
be aware of how others are feeling, their thought processes, and their methods for
prioritizing their interests and concerns. Moreover, leaders must ultimately persuade or
negotiate with the problem employee(s) a viable solution to the problem. For these
reasons, experiences where leaders must deal with problem employees should be
instrumental in developing leaders’ interpersonal skills.

Hypothesis 5: Dealing with problem employees will be positively related to the

development of leaders’ interpersonal skills.

The final experience characteristic that challenges leaders by forcing them to create
and facilitate change is inherited problems. Experiences marked by this characteristic are
those where the leader has to fix problems that were preexisting prior to the leader’s
arrival (Ohlott, 2004). In these types of experiences, the former leader of the group or
unit is often seen as the source of the problem. Example experiences might include
widespread morale or unit performance problems that are attributed to actions of the
former leader and inherited by the new leader. The unique element of this experience
characteristic is that the problem facing the leader is inherited. Because the problem is

inherited, the true source of the problem is generally unknown at first (McCall et al.,

31

 

1988). This
variety of d'
his or her er
the problem
understandtr I
challenging

the greatest \

 

 

 

 

vaorhta
leaders
The next
William can i
tiller exten
liifltlers 10 n
that allecr t
l‘enture par
harid. one.
MmOtis. .
aUlhOm-V‘
they hike
These
transom}.
Tillinagmg

”H.151 USE

1988). This forces the leader to inquire, actively listen to others and learn, and process a
variety of different perspectives regarding the problem. Ultimately, the leader must use
his or her critical thinking skills and problem identification skills to identify the source of
the problem and develop a solution. It is essential that the leader develop an accurate
understanding of the true causes and effects in these experiences, but this is especially
challenging given that the problem was inherited. Thus, inherited problems should have
the greatest developmental impact on leaders’ cognitive skills.

Hypothesis 6: Inherited problems will be positively related to the development of

leaders' cognitive skills.

The next set of qualitative experience characteristics, external pressure and influence
without authority, involve situations where leaders must work across lateral boundaries,
either externally or within their own organization (Ohlott, 2004). External pressure forces
leaders to manage the interface between important constituencies outside the organization
that affect the business. Examples might include customers, unions, vendors, joint-
venture partners, or government agencies. Influencing without authority, on the other
hand, describes work experiences where leaders must influence peers, persons of higher
positions, or other people within the organization over whom the leader has no direct
authority. In both cases, leaders are forced to work with and influence people over whom
they have no authority.

These types of experiences, where leaders must influence others without using formal
authority, should be particularly developmental because most leaders are accustomed to
managing downward — not laterally or upward. In these types of experiences, leaders

must use their influence skills to get peers, supervisors and outsiders to response to

32

Y

requests (D
individuals I
straightlons
to learn nevx
Follovting ti
developmen

Hlplllllt'

l earlier '5

Hire/Illa

d€l'€l(l[i}t

The next
leaders are it
cultures. ll'm
Pillple from v
Charactengm
d’ler‘llll‘ Char
O’b‘lh scoot
lS dlllfirem {n
rah“ ‘11 lie rer

These 1110
are lnCleasing
lfddr‘rg [0 de

\t

W‘- l .
pemiccu

 

requests (Dechant, 1990; McCall et al., 1988). As noted by Ohlott (2004, p. 160-161),
individuals “learn a great deal about building relationships, handling conflict, and being
straightforward with others. To get all parties to work together effectively, leaders have
to learn new skills in effective negotiation, communication, and conflict management.”
Following this same logic, I expect these two experience characteristics to promote the
development of leaders’ interpersonal skills.

Hypothesis 7: External pressures will be positively related to the development of

leader’s interpersonal skills.

Hypothesis 8: Influencing without authority will be positively related to the

development of leader’s interpersonal skills.

The next set of qualitative experience characteristics depict work experiences where
leaders are forced to work with diverse groups of people from other backgrounds or
cultures. Work across cultures describes experiences where leaders must work with
people from different cultures or with organizations in other countries. This experience
characteristic is focused on differences in national culture. In contrast, work group
diversity characterizes experiences where leaders are responsible for the work of people
of both genders and different racial or ethnic backgrounds. This experience characteristic
is different from the former in that it is not focused on differences in national culture but
rather differences due to race, gender or ethnicity.

These two experience characteristics are particularly important because organizations
are increasingly expanding operations globally, and the forces of globalization require
leaders to develop the knowledge and skills necessary for managing diverse groups of

people (McCall & Hollenbeck, 2002). From these types of experiences, individuals

33

develop the
getting pee;
negotiation.
equipped to
and backgrt ..
experiences

understand p

 

greatly from
and thus ClC\
Hy‘prtllle
leader '5
Hyprirtlte
leader's
The ltna
lsigttilicant'
responsibili
complexity

ell‘OSe lndl‘

Scope a

develop their capacity for working with and influencing others for several reasons. First,
getting people from different backgrounds to work together challenges leaders’
negotiation, communication, and conflict management skills. Leaders must be well
equipped to manage differences among people, including different values, experiences
and backgrounds, and workplace needs and desires (Ohlott, 2004). Second, these types of
experiences force leaders to move beyond their own beliefs and perspectives to
understand personal, business, and workplace issues from perspectives that may differ
greatly from, and sometimes even conflict with, their own. These challenges will stretch
and thus develop leaders’ interpersonal skills.

Hypothesis 9: Work across cultures will be positively related to the development of

leader’s interpersonal skills.

Hypothesis 10: Work group diversity will be positively related to the development of

leader’s interpersonal skills.

The final set of qualitative experience characteristics, scope and scale and high stakes
(significance), depict work experiences where individuals have high levels of
responsibility. These work experiences tend to have greater breadth, visibility, and
complexity than experiences with low levels of responsibility. These experiences also
expose individuals to work-related pressure and hi gh-stakes decisions.

Scope and scale refers to work experiences where individuals’ responsibilities are
large and span across multiple functions, groups, products, or services. McCall et al.
(1988, p. 51) describe experiences that entail an increase in scope and scale as moving
“from a rowboat to the Queen Mary.” Examples include promotions to new functions or

areas of the business, managing a project across geographic locations, assuming

34

additional re
responsibili'.

Work ex
leaders in sel
functions. pt
leaders are t-
different sou
experiences
and effects. I-
tesponsible t
managing th
Cognitive sk ..
sotheirpeo;
Providing. in
resources, 1‘
sum, 1 “Dev

HlPOIhe'x

 

additional responsibilities following a downsizing, and taking on a colleague’s
responsibilities during his or her absence (McCall et al., 1988; Ohlott, 2004).

Work experiences characterized by large amounts of scope and scale challenge
leaders in several different ways. First, leaders must be able manage complex systems of
functions, products, and/or groups—often across geographic boundaries. As a result,
leaders are forced to gather and process large amounts of information from a variety of
different sources, thus challenging leaders’ cognitive skills. Moreover, these types of
experiences force leaders to think strategically and understand complex systems of causes
and effects. High amounts of scope and scale indicate that the leader is no longer
responsible for only one part of a complex puzzle, but rather the leader is responsible for
managing the entire puzzle. This aspect of scope and scale also challenges leaders’
cognitive skills. Lastly, much of the leader’s job in these experiences is “to clear the way
so their people (can) get their work done” (McCall et al., 1988, p. 54). This is done by
providing, managing, and coordinating the use of key material, financial, and personnel
resources. This aspect of scope and scale should challenge leader’s managerial skills. In
sum, I expect work experiences that entail large amounts of scope and scale to facilitate
the development of leaders’ cognitive and managerial skills.

Hypothesis 1 1: Scope and scale will be positively related to the development of

leader’s (a) cognitive skills and (b) managerial skills.

High stakes reflects the significance of the work experience to the individual leader,
his or her work group, or the organization. Work experiences such as specific projects or
initiatives vary in their impact on the long-term success of the individual, other people,

the unit or the organization. Features of high stake experiences include clear deadlines,

35

responsibili
or failure in

Existing
dei'elopmer
and effort If
However. e:
these expert
impact skill
do not CXpet
0i ll'llEt‘perg,
might be eh.
that the Si gr
leg” Bandt
fOl'miillon a:
0n indiridm.

EllkSOn'
Undersliindif‘.
tenet of this ‘
palilcular 50.

Klein“). {OPT

 

The “mt:

[hid expellEr I

 

responsibility for important decisions, and high visibility of results. Furthermore, success
or failure in these work experiences is clearly evident (McCall et al., 1988).

Existing research suggests that highly significant work experiences are particularly
developmental (McCauley et al., 1994). One reason for this is because of the attention
and effort that individuals put into work experiences that are of great significance.
However, existing literature does not specify what is actually developed as a result of
these experiences. I argue here that whether an experience is highly significant does not
impact skill acquisition but is very important for the development of one’s self-concept. I
do not expect the significance of an experience to impact leaders’ cognitive, managerial,
or interpersonal skills because significance is independent of what specific skill domain
might be challenged or stretched during the experience. In contrast, theory does suggest
that the significance of experiences at work has implications on individuals’ self-concept
(e. g., Bandura, 1997; Erikson, 1968). Herein, I leverage basic theory on identity
formation and self-efficacy to examine the implications of significant work experiences
on individuals’ self-concept.

Erikson’s (1968) theory of identity formation provides a theoretical framework for
understanding how work experiences might influence one’s identity as a leader. A key
tenet of this theory is that individuals are predisposed to attempt to gain mastery within a
particular social environment, and this drive for mastery provides the stimulus for
identity formation. Erikson argued that identity development is a function of two factors:
(a) the significance of the task and (b) individuals’ ability to master challenging tasks.

The “meaningfulness” or significance of a particular experience influences how much

that experience impacts one’s identity. Specifically, experiences that are highly

36

significant.
sense that tl
to impact tr.
emnns.For
|
broader soc:
other hand. i
meaningful
consequence

the indiiidu;

 

Other hand. i
interpreting l
rESUli (Core

Erikson
is able [0 ex
”lemming ‘

master lE-Ve

Q

llllSirmOn ‘
to deduce tl

pal-[Eula C

significant, either to the individual or in a broader social context, are meaningful in the
sense that the outcome of the event is of great consequence. Significant experiences tend
to impact the well being of the leader, other people, the organization, or other social
entities. For example, having to layoff an entire department is quite meaningful in a
broader social context and is therefore likely to be perceived as highly significant. On the
other hand, planning the office party for the same department is presumably less
meaningful than the layoff example because the outcome of this experience is of lesser
consequence. In general, the more significant an experience is to the individual, the more
the individual’s performance in that experience will impact his or her identity. On the
other hand, if the experience is not perceived as significant, the individual has difficulty
interpreting the experience and thus cannot develop a more elaborate identity schema as a
result (Cote & Levine, 2002).

Erikson also notes that one’s identity develops and becomes stronger as the individual
is able to exhibit increasing levels of mastery. If the individual is prevented from
attempting to actively master his or her environment, or if the individual attempts to
master levels of experience that are too advanced, the ensuing feelings of failure and
frustration can damage one’s identity. Because individuals use performance information
to deduce their own level of mastery (Bandura, 1997), a leader’s performance in a
particular experience should be positively related with the development of leadership
identity, and this relationship should be moderated by the significance of the experience.
Specifically, if a leader performs well in an experience, his or her identity as a leader will
be enhanced. Moreover, this positive relationship will be even stronger as the

significance of the experience is greater. On the contrary, if a leader performs poorly in

37

an expenen-
leadership it
|

Hrpnt/u
that exp
Ht‘potltt

leader p.

 

 

 

 

Pf’Cfonm

the exp“

in additi
3“ Panicul;
Scll-Cl‘l‘lCac:
Green. Zoo;
“Milena.-
peliOTmanc
is “‘lClel'V a!
leg“ Blind

[finders~ &

an experience, the feelings of frustration and failure should damage that individual’s
leadership identity. This is especially the case if the experience is highly significant.

Hypothesis 12a: Leader performance in an experience will be positively related to

that experience 's impact on leadership identity.

Hypothesis 12b: The significance (high stakes) of an experience will interact with

leader performance in the experience to impact leadership identity such that

performance will have a stronger, positive relationship with leadership identity when
the experience is highly significant.

In addition to one’s identity as a leader, work experiences that are highly significant
are particularly instrumental in shaping individuals’ leadership self-efficacy. Leadership
self-efficacy reflects one’s belief in his or her capacity to effectively lead (Paglis &
Green, 2002). These efficacy beliefs are developed primarily through one’s first-hand
experiences, and individual judgments of personal efficacy are a function of (a) one’s
performance and (b) the nature of his or her experience (Bandura, 1997). To be precise, it
is widely accepted that successful past performances generally enhance efficacy beliefs
(e.g., Bandura, 1986; Bandura, Adams, & Beyer, 1977; Biran & Wilson, 1981; Feltz,
Landers, & Raeder, 1979). Thus, there is a positive main effect of performance on
efficacy beliefs. However, the extent to which past performance shapes efficacy beliefs
depends on the nature of the experience. In terms of leadership self-efficacy, highly
significant experiences where the leader is clearly responsible, success or failure is
evident, and a great deal of pressure is put on the leader should have a particularly strong
developmental impact—for better or worse. These types of experiences emphasize the

importance of leadership, and successful performance in these experiences should

38

disproponit
in highly 31:.
selfefficact
perspective
etpect leude
efficacy. ant

relationship.

 

H}‘potlte.
that esp;
Hlpothe
leader p,
Pt’rfttnnt
ltheir the

A SUmm

Appendix A

To full y
Capacity. 0m.
indl‘ldual le
and leadEr d:
mOple and C
a‘Ol‘k “Deng

Shaping {he E

disproportionately enhance one’s leadership self—efficacy. In contrast, poor performance
in highly significant experiences should be particularly damaging to one’s leadership
self-efficacy. Success or failure in experiences that are less significant from a leadership
perspective should be generally less influential in shaping these efficacy beliefs. Thus, I
expect leader performance to exhibit a main effect on the development of leadership self—
efficacy, and the significance of the experience (high stakes) to moderate this
relationship.

Hypothesis 13a: Leader performance in an experience will be positively related to

that experience ’5 impact on leadership self-efiicacy.

Hypothesis 13b: The significance (high stakes) of an experience will interact with

leader performance in the experience to impact leadership self-efficacy such that

performance will have a stronger, positive relationship with leadership self-efficacy

when the experience is highly significant.

A summary of all main effect hypotheses (Hypotheses 1-13) can be found in
Appendix A of this document.

Cross-Level Moderation in Leader Development

To fully understand how work experiences promote the development of leadership
capacity, one must also consider the context in which experiences occur. The literature on
individual learning (Marsick & Watkins, 1990), training (Noe, 1986; Noe et al., 1997)
and leader development (Avolio, 2004) recognizes that individual differences among
people and contextual factors influence the development process. Similarly, literature on
work experience emphasizes the role of individual differences and contextual factors in

shaping the effects of experience (Tesluk & Jacobs, 1998). I use this same frame to

39

specify ses'e
of individua
control. I ch
analttic exit
in the (levels
tl986l dlSCL
following th
and social st
individual E

Most di s
and mOlquti
Atolio, 30a
leader det'e f.
delOPmcp
in [he dmelt
deltlopmen.

del‘velOPmen.

moth-awn t.
1997; €0qu

Achjmf:
Pita-eh Io Ste
1933 a. so».

i . l
illlllt-lduals 1‘

 

specify several moderators of the experience-development outcome relationship. In terms
of individual differences, I focus on individuals’ achievement motivation and locus of
control. I chose to focus on these two individual differences because of recent meta-
analytic evidence in the training literature that emphasizes the importance of these traits
in the development process (Colquitt, LePine, & Noe, 2000). Consistent with Noe’s
(1986) discussion of contextual factors that affect development processes, I focus on the
following three attributes of the work context: work constraints, availability of feedback,
and social support.
Individual Differences

Most discussions of leader development recognize that leaders differ in their ability
and motivation to learn from work experiences (e. g., McCauley & Van Velsor, 2004;
Avolio, 2004). However, empirical research on the role of individual differences in the
leader development process is largely nonexistent. Fortunately, the training and
development literature has a long history of considering the role of individual differences
in the development process (e. g., Noe, 1986) and can thus serve as a guide for leader
development research. Recent meta-analytic evidence and reviews on training and
development highlight two individual differences that influence individuals’ ability and
motivation to learn, namely achievement motivation and locus of control (Noe et al.,
1997; Colquitt et al., 2000).

Achievement motivation is defined as a desire . .to overcome obstacles, to exercise
power, to strive to do something difficult as well and as quickly as possible” (Murray,
1938, p. 80-81). This trait is a relatively stable individual attribute that predisposes

individuals to approach situations in an achievement-oriented manner. For example, high

40

achiet'emen
have a stron
individuals.
motitation
more. and a:
mechanism
knots ledge -.

Tannenhaun

 

 

det'elopmen
knowledge a
achiet'emem
Hll’flllle
develop;
H.lP”llz¢-
“pen“
r9101 ton
"tarp PL

achievement motivation individuals generally prefer more challenging experiences and
have a stronger need to succeed in these experiences than do low achievement motivation
individuals. In training contexts, research suggests that individuals high in achievement
motivation have stronger efficacy beliefs regarding their ability to learn, value learning
more, and are generally more motivated to learn. As a result of these motivational
mechanisms, high achievement motivation individuals tend to experience greater
knowledge and skill acquisition in learning contexts (Mathieu, Martineau, &
Tannenbaum, 1993; Colquitt et al., 2000). Extending these findings to leader
development, leaders who are high in achievement motivation should acquire more
knowledge and skills from developmental experiences than individuals with low
achievement motivation.

Hypothesis I4: Achievement motivation has a positive relationship with the

development of leaders’ (a) cognitive, (b) managerial, and (c) interpersonal skills.

Hypothesis I5: Achievement motivation moderates the relationship between

experience characteristics and development outcomes such that the hypothesized

relationships between experience characteristics and development outcomes will be

more positive for individuals who are high in achievement motivation than

individuals who are low in achievement motivation.

(a) Duration 9 Cognitive, managerial, and interpersonal skills (moderated by
achievement motivation)
(b) Unfamiliarity 9 Cognitive, managerial, and interpersonal skills (moderated

by achievement motivation)

41

 

fl)

(c) Density 9 Cognitive, managerial, and interpersonal skills (moderated by
achievement motivation)

(d) New directions 9 Cognitive and managerial skills (moderated by
achievement motivation)

(e) Dealing with problem employees 9 Interpersonal skills (moderated by
achievement motivation)

(f) Inherited problems 9 Cognitive skills (moderated by achievement
motivation)

(g) External pressures 9 Interpersonal skills (moderated by achievement
motivation)

(h) Influencing without authority 9 Interpersonal skills (moderated by
achievement motivation)

(i) Work across cultures 9 Interpersonal skills (moderated by achievement
motivation)

(j) Work group diversity 9 Interpersonal skills (moderated by achievement
motivation)

(k) Scope and scale 9 Cognitive and managerial skills (moderated by
achievement motivation)

Whereas achievement motivation influences leader development through the value
one places on achievement in challenging situations, locus of control refers to the extent
to which individuals believe they can control the experiences that affect them (Rotter,
1966). People attribute the cause or control of their experiences either to themselves or to

the external environment. Those who ascribe control of experiences to themselves are

42

‘H

said to has cf

 

said to ll'JVC
with an inte
complex. pt'
Wall 8; D..
control the t
inmmamn
challenge (P

tend to shou

 

funher enha:

llldll iduals i

llllOTmal \\(
”mutt.
[fathers
Hl-‘Ptttlt
C llara C
berm,
f0!" 1' It (i

la

said to have an internal locus of control. People who attribute control to outside forces are
said to have an external locus of control. A wide body of research suggests that people
with an internal locus of control tend to learn more on the job and perform better in
complex, problem solving situations (e. g., DuCette & Wolk, 1973; Ude & Vogler, 1969;
Wolk & DuCette, 1974). Because people with an internal locus of control believe they
control the outcome of challenging situations, they tend to exert more effort in collecting
information, processing that information, and learning what is needed to overcome the
challenge (Phares, 1976; Spector, 1982). People with an internal locus of control also
tend to show more initiative and independence in challenging situations, which should
further enhance the learning that occurs as a result of the experience. Accordingly,
individuals with an internal locus of control should develop leadership skills via their
informal work experiences more so than individuals with an external locus of control.

Hypothesis I6: Locus of control has a positive relationship with the development of

leaders’ (a) cognitive, (b) managerial, and (c) interpersonal skills.

Hypothesis 17: Locus of control moderates the relationship between experience

characteristics and development outcomes such that the hypothesized relationships

between experience characteristics and development outcomes will be more positive

for individuals with an internal locus of control than individuals with an external

locus of control.

((1) Duration 9 Cognitive, managerial, and interpersonal skills (moderated by
locus of control)
(b) Unfamiliarity 9 Cognitive, managerial, and interpersonal skills (moderated

by locus of control)

43

 

Contextual "

lllleldLl
ent'ironrner.‘
significant];
eil>€triences
that impact %
detelopmer:
lMl. inclue‘.

Support.

 

(c) Density 9 Cognitive, managerial, and interpersonal skills (moderated by
locus of control)

(d) New directions 9 Cognitive and managerial skills (moderated by locus of
control)

(e) Dealing with problem employees 9 Interpersonal skills (moderated by locus
of control)

0‘) Inherited problems 9 Cognitive skills (moderated by locus of control)

(g) External pressures 9 Interpersonal skills (moderated by locus of control)

(h) Influencing without authority 9 Interpersonal skills (moderated by locus of
control)

(i) Work across cultures 9 Interpersonal skills (moderated by locus of control)

(j) Work group diversity 9 Interpersonal skills (moderated by locus of control)

(k) Scope and scale 9 Cognitive and managerial skills (moderated by locus of

control)

Contextual factors

Individuals develop in a dynamic, continuous, and reciprocal interaction with their

environment (Bandura, 1997). Because of this interaction, the environment or context can

significantly impact how and to what extent individuals learn from their work

experiences (Morrison & Brantner, 1992). Noe (1986) identified three contextual factors

that impact how favorable an organizational environment is for learning and

development. These three factors, all of which are conceptualized at the individual leader

level, include (a) general work constraints, (b) the availability of feedback, and (c) social

support.

44

Work ct
materials. ft
ability to le.
Noe (1986i
insufficient _

SUppon. inst

 

Empirical e
10 learn on ll
Of these Con
these constr.
”“5 approac
fllpecl [lie g
h“ much 1.
Hilltlllle
leatlers'
Hlpt'ttlit.
charm.“
bt’llt‘epn
for llldit
”Or if in?

((1)1

Work constraints refer to characteristics of the general work environment (e. g.,
materials, financial resources) that can facilitate or constrain individuals’ motivation and
ability to learn. Based on Peters and O’Connor’s (1980) taxonomy of work constraints,
Noe (1986) identified several constraints that limit individual development, including
insufficient job-related information, improper tools and equipment, inadequate budgetary
support, insufficient time to meet deadlines, and poor physical working conditions.
Empirical evidence suggests these constraining factors decrease individuals’ motivation
to learn on the job (Facteau, Dobbins, Russell, Ladd, & Kudisch, 1995). Although some
of these constraints could be conceptualized at the specific task level, Noe (1986) frames
these constraints as general characteristics of one’s work environment. Consistent with
this approach, I conceptualize these constraints at the individual level of analysis and
expect the general work constraints one faces in his or her job or organization to limit
how much leader development occurs from task-level work experiences.

Hypothesis 18: Work constraints has a negative relationship with the development of

leaders’ (a) cognitive, (b) managerial, and (c) interpersonal skills.

Hypothesis 19: Work constraints moderate the relationship between experience

characteristics and development outcomes such that the hypothesized relationships

between experience characteristics and development outcomes will be more positive
for individuals who work in environments with low constraints relative to individuals
working in environments with high constraints.

(a) Duration 9 Cognitive, managerial, and interpersonal skills (moderated by

work constraints)

45

(C)

(et

SySlemd

V
~d

(b) Unfamiliarity 9 Cognitive, managerial, and interpersonal skills (moderated
by work constraints)

(c) Density 9 Cognitive, managerial, and interpersonal skills (moderated by
work constraints)

(d) New directions 9 Cognitive and managerial skills (moderated by work
constraints)

(e) Dealing with problem employees 9 Interpersonal skills (moderated by work
constraints)

(f) Inherited problems 9 Cognitive skills (moderated by work constraints)

(g) External pressures 9 Interpersonal skills (moderated by work constraints)

(h) Influencing without authority 9 Interpersonal skills (moderated by work
constraints)

(i) Work across cultures 9 Interpersonal skills (moderated by work constraints)

(j ) Work group diversity 9 Interpersonal skills (moderated by work constraints)

(k) Scope and scale 9 Cognitive and managerial skills ( moderated by work
constraints)

Systematic and evaluative feedback is essential in the leader development process
(Halpern, 2004). In the absence of evaluative feedback, individuals are often poor judges
of how well they learn and often make erroneous conclusions from experiences that were
meant to be developmental (Maki, 1998). Systematic and evaluative feedback helps
facilitate self awareness and increases the accuracy of individuals’ accounts of their own
competence and performance (e.g., Day, 2000; Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Halpern,

2004; Kluger & Denisi, 1996). This feedback can come from the task itself, supervisors,

46

or coworker
uith mixed
l:

1989; Roget
l'an \'elsor.
process. Th .
deielopmeri
llt'ptfitlti
Lle’l‘t’ltiji;

Hlptillle

 

 

 

 

etperiert
rf’lt'lllt UM

llltlll'ltlll

or coworkers. Although empirical research on the effectiveness of feedback is plagued
with mixed results (Kluger & Denisi, 1996), learning theories (Kanfer & Ackerman,
1989; Rogers, 1969) and models of leader development (e. g., Avolio, 2004; McCauley &
Van Velsor, 2004) stress that evaluative feedback is vital to the leader development
process. Thus, I expect the availability of feedback to enhance how much leader
development occurs from task-level work experiences.
Hypothesis 20: Availability of feedback has a positive relationship with the
development of leaders’ (a) cognitive, (b) managerial, and (c) interpersonal skills.
Hypothesis 21: Availability of feedback moderates the relationship between
experience characteristics and development outcomes such that the hypothesized
relationships between experience characteristics and development outcomes will be
more positive for individuals who receive high amounts of feedback relative to
individuals who receive low amounts of feedback.
(a) Duration 9 Cognitive, managerial, and interpersonal skills (moderated by
availability of feedback )
(b) Unfamiliarity 9 Cognitive, managerial, and interpersonal skills (moderated
by availability of feedback )
(c) Density 9 Cognitive, managerial, and interpersonal skills (moderated by
availability of feedback)
(d) New directions 9 Cognitive and managerial skills (moderated by availability
of feedback )
(e) Dealing with problem employees 9 Interpersonal skills (moderated by

availability of feedback)

47

 

Fefidbug
Organlldlioi
Hiailabilit}
lnflUenCeS i
Sacral fOrT
Enhi”lies in
MomSOn‘ l
md’lldUal-g‘
lBirdi ill a]
”gimmim

"’“leu of lt

Organizer;

(f) Inherited problems 9 Cognitive skills (moderated by availability of feedback)

(g) External pressures 9 Interpersonal skills (moderated by availability of
feedback)

(h) Influencing without authority 9 Interpersonal skills (moderated by
availability of feedback )

(i) Work across cultures 9 Interpersonal skills (moderated by availability of
feedback)

(j) Work group diversity 9 Interpersonal skills (moderated by availability of
feedback)

(k) Scope and scale 9 Cognitive and managerial skills (moderated by
availability of feedback )

Feedback from supervisors or coworkers is not the only form of support that makes
organizational environments conducive to individual learning and development. The
availability of peer and supervisor social support is another organizational factor that
influences the development process. Social support from supervisors or peers can take on
several forms (e. g., permission to fail, collegiality, endorsements from others) and often
enhances individual development (Birdi, Allan, & Warr, 1997; McCauley et al., 1994;
Morrison, 1992). For example, supervisor support has been shown to positively influence
individuals’ motivation to learn (Facteau et al.,1995) and on- and off-the-job learning
(Birdi et al., 1997). Noe (1986) even argues that the degree of social support in an
organization is one indicator of the organization’s climate for development. Within the
context of leader development, individuals who receive more social support in the

organizational environment should be more motivated to learn and willing to take on

48

challen
expene
supper

Hi

l't’l.

challenging assignments. Moreover, these individuals should develop more from their
experiences because their supervisors and peers are available to provide guidance and
support.
Hypothesis 22: Social support has a positive relationship with the development of
leaders’ (a) cognitive, (b) managerial, and (c) interpersonal skills.
Hypothesis 23: Social support moderates the relationship between experience
characteristics and development outcomes such that the hypothesized relationships
between experience characteristics and development outcomes will be more positive
for individuals who receive high amounts of social support relative to individuals who
receive low amounts of social support.
(a) Duration 9 Cognitive, managerial, and interpersonal skills (moderated by
social support)
(b) Unfamiliarity 9 Cognitive, managerial, and interpersonal skills (moderated
by social support) I
(c) Density 9 Cognitive, managerial, and interpersonal skills (moderated by
social support)
(d) New directions 9 Cognitive and managerial skills (moderated by social
support)
(e) Dealing with problem employees 9 Interpersonal skills (moderated by social
support)
(f) Inherited problems 9 Cognitive skills (moderated by social support)

(g) External pressures 9 Interpersonal skills (moderated by social support)

49

(h) Influencing without authority 9 Interpersonal skills (moderated by social
support)

(i) Work across cultures 9 Interpersonal skills (moderated by social support)

(j) Work group diversity 9 Interpersonal skills (moderated by social support)

(k) Scope and scale 9 Cognitive and managerial skills (moderated by social

support)

50

METHOD

Research Setting and Sample

This study was conducted in a field setting with 99 managers from over 80 different
organizations. Each participant (a) was employed full-time during the study, (b) had
reported to the same supervisor for an average of 1.9 years (SD = 1.7), and (c) had an
average of 2.8 direct reports (SD = 4.7). Participants had to be employed full-time so that
they had informal job experiences to draw from over the last 12 months. They must have
reported to the same supervisor over this time period so that independent ratings of
development could be obtained. Finally, to help ensure that all participants had some
form of leadership responsibility within their organization, each participant had to
actually supervise at least one person in their job. Participants had worked in their
respective organizations for an average of 5.4 years (SD = 3.4) and been in their current
position for 2.5 years (SD = 1.8). Average age was 33.4 years (SD = 5.5), and 73% were
male.

Procedure

This research was conducted in four distinct phases and utilized both survey and
interview methodologies. Table 3 summarizes the data collection schedule described
here. The first phase of this research used surveys to collect general ratings of individual
differences and contextual factors. These surveys were administered at least one month
prior to the next phase of data collection, and the entire initial sample returned their

surveys.

51

Table 3 - Data Collection Schedule

 

 

 

 

 

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4
Individual . . Development
. Descnptrons of .
differences and Experience outcomes for
Data Collected work . .
contextual . . characteristics each
experiences .
factors experience
Source Leader Leader Leader Leaderand
supervrsor
Methodology Survey Interview Survey Survey

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because this research was concerned with how individuals develop leadership
capacities via experiences at work, the second phase began with in-depth, semi-structured
interviews with each individual. The purpose of these interviews was to gather examples
of task-level work experiences. These interviews lasted for sixty to ninety minutes. The
interview form was modeled after the critical incident technique (Flanagan, 1954), which
has been used to study topics as diverse as team leadership (Morgeson, 2005), error
management (van Dyck, Frese, Baer, Sonnentag, 2005), and learning (Cope, 2003).
Specifically, information was gathered on each experience, the context of the experience,
the actions that preceded and followed the experience, and the ultimate outcome of the
experience.

Individuals were given an overview of the research (in writing; see Appendix B) one
week prior to the interview. In this overview, I asked each individual to reflect on his or
her work experiences over the past year. Example experiences from the leader
development literature (McCall et al., 1988; Ohlott, 2004) were provided in this overview
so that participants had a common frame when selecting from their past work

experiences. To capture the possible range of experiences from highly developmental to

52

not developmental at all, each participant was asked to think of two specific experiences
that occurred in the past 12 months and “were highly developmental in that they greatly
enhanced his/her leadership skills, knowledge, or confidence.” Each participant was also
asked to think of two experiences that “hurt his/her development as a leader in that they
really hurt one’s confidence as a leader, impaired his/her career trajectory, or weakened
his/her skills or knowledge.” Individuals were also asked to consider experiences where
they performed well and experiences where they did not perform well. Furthermore,
individuals were asked to only consider specific experiences that their supervisor had in-
depth knowledge about. Supervisor knowledge of the experience was essential so that the
supervisor could provide independent ratings of the amount and type of development
associated with each experience. In sum, each individual had a different set of task-level
work experiences that ranged from low to high in terms of perceived developmental
impact.

During the interview, individuals were asked about these specific work experiences.
Follow-up questions were asked to solicit additional details to put the experiences into
context. For example, each individual was asked to describe what led up to the actual
experience, what happened during the experience, what his or her reaction was to each
experience, and the ultimate outcome of the experience. After each interview, a summary
of the interview was vetted with the study participant to ensure accuracy. Interviews were
conducted with 82 individuals. This process resulted in a total of 320 specific task-level
work experiences (M = 3.9, SD = .58, per individual).

Phase three of the research used surveys to gather additional information on each

experience. Approximately three weeks after the interview, individuals rated each work

53

experience on the quantitative, interactive, and qualitative experience characteristics.
Ninety-one percent of the individuals returned their phase three surveys. Phase four of the
research, which occurred approximately three weeks after the phase three surveys were
returned, collected general ratings from individuals and their supervisors. Specifically,
participants completed surveys where they rated each work experience in terms of its
impact on their own identity as a leader and leadership self-efficacy. Their supervisors
rated each work experience in terms of its impact on the individual’s leadership
knowledge and skills. The final response rate for participants and their supervisors was
95% and 80% respectively. This resulted in a final sample of 60 leaders and 225 work
experiences with complete data. Assuming a moderate effect size (d = .50; Cohen, 1988)
based on data from McCauley et al. (1994), moderate effect size variability (Raudenbush
& Liu, 2000), coefficient alpha of .05, and four observations (experiences) per individual,
the statistical power for this study exceeded .80 (Liu, Spybrook, Congdon, &
Raudenbush, 2005). All subsequent analyses presented in this dissertation are based on
this final sample, and brief summaries of each work experience used in this study appear
in Appendix C.
Measures

There are four broad classes of measures investigated in this study: (a) individual
differences, (b) contextual factors, (c) experience characteristics, and ((1) development
outcomes. Common method variance was mitigated for all hypotheses by having
methodological separation in time, by source, or both. Scales, items, means, and
reliability estimates for these measures are provided in Table 4. I organize my discussion

of these measures by the phase of research in which they were collected.

54

Table 4 — Scales, Items, and Descriptives

 

 

 

 

Standard Internal
Measure Mean . . .
Devratron Consrstency
Achievement Motivation
1. I am hesitant about making important
decisions. ® -
2. I don’t work well under pressure. ®
3. I really enjoy an assignment that
involves overcoming obstacles. ®
4. I only work as hard as I have to. ®
5. I like situations which don’t require
me to make risky decisions. ®
6. I more often take on difficult
assignments that I am not sure that I
can handle, than easier ones that I 3.97 .51 .76
believe I can do well in easily.
7. I don’t like to have the responsibility
of handling a difficult situation. ®
8. I prefer my work to be filled with
challenging assignments.
9. I would rather do something at which
I feel confident and relaxed than
something which is challenging and
difficult. ®
10. The idea of climbing my way to the
top does not appeal to me. ®
Locus of Control
1. Whether or not I get to be a leader
depends mostly on my ability
2. When I make plans, I am almost
certain to make them work
3. When I get what I want, it’s usually
because I’m lucky ®
4. I have often found that what is going
to happen will happen ® 3.87 .38 .64
5. I can pretty much determine what will
happen in my life
6. I am usually able to protect my
personal interests
7. When I get what I want, it’s usually
because I worked hard for it
8. My life is determined by my own

actions

 

 

 

 

55

 

Table 4 (cont)

 

 

 

Standard Internal
Measure Mean . . .
Devratron Consrstency
Work Constraints
1. I often must depend on others who are
not well trained.
2. I have not been given enough training
to do my job properly.
3. I am often not provided with the right
materials and supplies to do my job.
4. The tools and equipment I need to do
my job are frequently not available.
5. Lack of time frequently keeps me
from getting my job done.
6. I am frequently given unscheduled
activities to work on which keep me
from getting my job done.
7. It is difficult to get others to provide
the help required to do my job.
8. Bad physical conditions (too cold, too 2.42 .51 .81

10.

11.

12.

13.

bright, etc.) often interfere with
getting my work done.

I frequently receive inconsistent
policies, procedures and instructions,
which makes it difficult to do my job.
Too much ‘red tape' frequently
interferes with getting my work done.
I often have to follow the instructions
of others even though I am in a better
position to know what should be
done.

I often do not have the information I
must have to do my job when it is
needed.

My department's budget does not
allow me to get my job done.

 

 

 

 

56

 

Table 4 (cont)

 

Measure

Mean

Standard
Deviation

Internal
Consistency

 

Feedback

I.

The work activities themselves
provide direct and clear information
about the effectiveness (e.g., quality
and quantity) of my job performance.
The job itself provides feedback on
my performance.

The job itself provides me with
information about my performance.

I receive a great deal of information
from my manager and co-workers
about my job performance.

Other people in the organization, such
as managers and co-workers, provide
information about the effectiveness
(e.g., quality and quantity) of my job
performance.

I receive feedback on my
performance from other people in my
organization (such as my manager or
co-workers).

3.55

.73

.84

 

 

Social Support

1.

2.

3.

I have the opportunity to develop
close friendships in my job.

I have the chance in my job to get to
know other people.

I have the opportunity to meet with
others in my work.

My supervisor is concerned about the
welfare of the people that work for
him / her.

People I work with take a personal
interest in me.

People I work with are friendly.

 

4.09

 

.47

 

.71

 

57

 

Table 4 (cont)

 

Measure

Standard
Deviation

Internal
Consistency

 

Unfamiliarity

1. Going into this experience, you
lacked the experience necessary for
carrying out some aspect of the work
(e. g., financial or market analysis,
negotiation, budgeting).

2. During this experience, you had to
manage something (e. g., a function,
product, technology, market) with
which you were unfamiliar.

3. Others questioned whether you were
“ready” for this experience.

4. Compared to others, you didn’t have
the credentials or background
expected for someone in this
experience.

5. This experience was no less than a
change in your career direction—you
were doing a type of work
dramatically different from what
you’ve done before.

2.69

.91

.82

 

 

Density

1. I experienced a high number of
challenging opportunities during this
experience.

2. There were a lot of unique
opportunities during this experience
that challenged my leadership
capacity.

3. This experience offered only a limited
number of opportunities for personal

growth and development. ®

 

3.49

 

.91

 

.83

 

58

 

Table 4 (cont.)

 

Measure

Standard
Deviation

Internal
Consistency

 

New Directions

1.

In this experience, you had to carry
out a major reorganization as a result
of a merger, acquisition, downsizing,
or rapid growth.

In this experience, you had to make
major strategic changes in the
business—its direction, structure,
technology systems, or operations.
In this experience, you were trying
something the organization had never
tried before; no one knew for sure
how to do it or how it will come out.
This experience included launching
new organizational ventures, such as
new product lines, acquisitions, new
functions or groups, new plans or
concepts, or new facilities.

In this experience, you had to create
or establish new policies or
procedures.

2.69

1.04

.83

 

 

Problems with Employees

1.

Your direct reports resisted your
initiatives at some point during this
experience.

During this experience, there was an
interpersonal conflict between you
and at least one of your key direct
reports.

In this experience, your employees
were used to doing things the way
they had always been done and were
reluctant to change.

In this experience, key members of
your staff were incompetent,
demotivated, technically obsolete, or
otherwise performed poorly.

In this experience, some of your key
direct reports lacked the experience to
do their jobs (without close
supervision from you.

 

2.55

 

.99

 

.83

 

59

 

Table 4 (cont.)

 

Measure

Mean

Standard
Deviation

Internal
Consistency

 

Inherited Problems

1.

As part of this experience, you
inherited widespread morale
problems.

In this experience, you needed to
restore the credibility of your unit
with the rest of the organization.

To succeed in this experience, you
had to dismantle the strategy your
predecessor had established.

Prior to this experience, your business
or unit had a record of poor
performance.

In this experience, you had to solve
major problems a redecessor created.

2.45

.97

.85

 

 

External Pressure

1.

In this experience, the customer base
you worked with was extremely
varied.

To achieve your most important goals
in this experience, you had to
influence people outside the
organizations (for example, clients,
suppliers, unions, government
agencies).

In this experience, you managed
relationships with government
officials or regulatory agencies.

In this experience, you had to deal
with diverse clients, customers, or
markets.

In this experience, you had to carry
out formal negotiations with an
outside body, such as unions or
clients or joint venture partners.

 

2.60

 

.82

 

.66

 

60

 

Table 4 (cont.)

 

Measure

Standard
Deviation

Internal
Consistency

 

Influencing without Authority

1. In this experience, you had to
coordinate action across dispersed
sites over which you have no direct
authority.

2. To achieve your most important goals
in this experience, you had to
influence peers at similar levels in
other units, functions, divisions, and
so forth.

3. Achieving your goals in this
experience depended on how well you
handled internal politics.

4. To accomplish a major portion of
your objectives in this experience,
you had to influence and work with
executives higher than your
immediate boss.

5. In this experience, a great deal of
coordination with other organizational
units for functions was rguired.

3.47

.95

.75

 

 

Work Across Cultures

1. In this experience, you conducted
business with people from different
countries.

2. This experience required working in a
foreign country where the culture is
different from your own.

3. This experience required dealing with
foreign companies, agencies, or
governments that had a substantial
impact on your business.

4. In this experience, you had to manage
parts of the business that were
scattered across the world.

5. This experience required
understanding the traditions and
values of people from different
cultures.

 

2.27

 

1.26

 

.91

 

61

 

Table 4 (cont.)

 

Measure

Standard
Deviation

Internal
Consistency

 

Work Group Diversity

1.

In this experience, you had a diverse
group of direct reports in terms of
demographic variables (e.g., age,
race).

In this experience, you were part of a
diverse work group.

In terms of demographic variables,
you were responsible for developing
managers from both genders and
different ethnic groups.

In this experience, you had to get
people from different racial, religious,
cultural, or ethnic backgrounds to
work together.

In terms of demographic variables,
you had to make personnel decisions
about employees who differ from you
in terms of race or gender.

2.83

1.00

.79

 

 

Scope and Scale

1.

For you, this experience was a
dramatic increase in scope (managing
significantly more people, dollars,
sites, functions, and so forth).

This experience was potentially more
than even a good delegator can
handle.

In this experience, you were
responsible for numerous different
products, technologies, or services.
In this experience, you were
responsible for multiple functions or
groups.

This experience put you under
constant pressure: there were seldom
any periods to “catch your breath.”

 

3.07

 

.86

 

.74

 

62

 

Table 4 (cont.)

 

 

 

 

 

Standard Internal
Measure Mean . . .
Devratron Consrstency
Significance (high stakes)
1. Your success or failure in this
experience was evident to hi gher
management.
2. In this experience, you were
responsible for decisive action in a
highly charged environment.
3. In this experience, you were being 3.75 .73 .67
tested by higher management.
4. In this experience, there were clear
deadlines by which your key
objectives had to be accomplished.
5. In this experience, there was pressure
to get a major piece of your job
completed fast.
Leader Performance
Please rate this person’s performance in this
experience along the following dimensions:
1. Quantity of performance (i.e., how
many things he/she got done)
2. Quality of performance (i.e., the 4'07 '73 '90
quality of what he/she accomplished)
3. Ability to get along with others
4. Dependability
5. Overall performance
Leadership Identity
1. To what extent did this experience
make you feel intelligent
2. To what extent did this experience
make you feel sensitive 3.16 1.02 .85
3. To what extent did this experience
make you feel dedicated
4. To what extent did this experience

make you feel dynamic

 

 

 

 

63

 

Table 4 (cont.)

 

 

 

Standard Internal
Measure Mean . . .
Devratron Consrstency
Leadership Self-Efficacy
To what extent did this experience increase
your confidence in your own ability to... ?
1. Identify critical areas for making
improvements in your unit's
effectiveness
2. Develop plans for change that take
your unit in important new directions
3. Develop trusting relationships with 2.97 1.04 .88

others such that they will embrace
change

Obtain the genuine support of others
for new initiatives

Figure out ways for overcoming
resistance to change

Obtain senior management's support
for change

 

 

 

 

64

 

Table 4 (cont.)

 

Measure

Standard
Deviation

Internal
Consistency

 

 

Cognitive Skills
To what extent did this experience enhance
the following competencies... ?

l.

2.

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

Comprehension of complex written
documents

Active listening and questioning (i.e.,
listening to others and asking
questions as appropriate)

Critical thinking (i.e., using logic and
analysis to identify the strengths and
weaknesses of different approaches)
Active learning (i.e., working with
new information to grasp its
implications)

Information gathering and
comprehension (i.e., acquiring and
comprehending new information)
Visioning (i.e., developing an image
of how things should work under
ideal conditions)

Judgment and decision making (i.e.,
evaluating costs and benefits of
potential actions)

Systems perception (i.e., determining
when important changes have
occurred in a system or are likely to
occur)

System evaluation (i.e., evaluating
indicators of system performance)
Identification of downstream
consequences (i.e., determining the
long-term outcomes of a change in
operations)

Identification of key causes (i.e.,
identifying the things that must be
changed to achieve a goal)

Problem identification / diagnosis
(i.e., identifying the nature of
problems)

Solution appraisal (i.e., evaluating the
outcomes of problem solutions and
identifying lessons learned)
Operations analysis

 

3.40

 

.78

 

.92

 

65

 

Table 4 (cont.)

 

 

 

 

Standard Internal
Measure Mean . . .
Devratron Consrstency
Managerial Skills
To what extent did this experience enhance
the followzng competencies... .7
1. Management of financial resources
2. Management of material resources
(e.g., equipment, facilities)
3. Management of personnel resources
(i.e., motivating, developing, directing
13601316)
4. Coordination (i.e., adjusting actions in 3.04 .86 .87
relation to others' actions)
5. Time management (i.e., managing
his/her time and the time of others)
6. Monitoring the performance of
him/herself and others to make
improvements
7. Instructing (i.e., teaching others how
to do something)
8. Complex problem solving skills
Interpersonal Skills
To what extent did this experience enhance
the following competencies... ?
l. Communicating information
effectively (i.e., speaking, writing)
2. Social perceptiveness (i.e., being
aware of others' reactions)
3. Persuasion (i.e., persuading others to 3'47 '85 '87
change their minds or behavior)
4. Negotiation (i.e., bringing others
together to reconcile differences)
5. Knowledge of human behavior (i.e.,

understanding people and the drivers
of human performance)

 

 

 

 

66

 

Phase One

In phase one of the data collection, I gathered data on individual differences
(achievement motivation, locus of control) and contextual factors (work constraints,
feedback, social support). For all measures collected in phase one, participants provided
self-ratings of their agreement with each item using a 5-point agreement scale (1 =
strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). See Appendix D for copies of all survey
instruments.

Achievement motivation was assessed using a 10-item scale adapted from Mehrabian
and Banks (1978). Six items on this scale are worded negatively, and were reverse-coded
prior to analyses. This scale has previously demonstrated acceptable reliability and
predictive validity in the training and development literature (Mathieu et al., 1993). The
scale measures the extent to which individuals (a) prefer challenging situations, (b) are
comfortable making decisions or being in hi gh-pressure situations, and (c) would prefer
to work hard rather than take it easy. Due to poor internal consistency reliability, one
item was dropped from the scale, leaving nine items with an internal consistency
reliability of .76.

Locus of control was measured using the intemality subscale of Levenson’s (1981)
Internal, Powerful Others, and Chance (IPC) Scale. Levenson’s measure had previously
exhibited moderate reliability and been used in a wide variety of organizational settings
(e.g., Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen, 2003; Levenson, 1981). Example items included
“My life is determined by my own actions” and “When I get what I want, it’s usually

because I worked hard for it.” All items were coded such that a high score indicated more

67

of an internal locus of control whereas a low score indicated more of an external locus of
control. Internal consistency reliability for this particular study was .64.

Work constraints was assessed with Fox and Spector’s (1999) 13-item scale. This
scale was developed specifically as a measure of Peters and O’Connor’s (1980)
taxonomy of work constraints. Example items included “I am not provided with the right
materials and supplies to do my job” and “Lack of time frequently keeps me from getting
my job done.” Internal consistency reliability was .81.

Feedback can come from multiple sources, including the actual job or task itself,
supervisors, peers, and subordinates. To capture the range of possible feedback sources, I
assessed participants’ perceptions of the availability of feedback in their organizations
using 6 items from Morgeson and Humphrey’s (2006) Work Design Questionnaire
(WDQ). These items capture feedback from one’s job or tasks as well as feedback from
other people (e. g., supervisor, peers). Example items included “The job itself provides me
with information about my performance” and “I receive feedback on my performance
from other people in my organization (such as my manager or co-worker).” Internal
consistency reliability was .84.

Social support was assessed using 6 items from Morgeson and Humphrey’s (2006)
WDQ. These items reflect the degree to which participants receive advice, assistance, and
support from others in their organization. This includes Karasek’s (Karasek, 1979;
Karasek, Brisson, Kawakami, Houtman, Bongers, & Amick, 1998) notion of supervisor
and coworker support, as well as Sims, Szilagyi, and Keller’s (1976) idea of friendship

opportunities at work. Example items included “My supervisor is concerned about the

68

welfare of the people that work for him / her” and “Pe0ple I work with take a personal
interest in me.” Internal consistency reliability was .71.
Phase Two

Phase two consisted of in-depth, one-on-one interviews. No quantitative measures
were collected during this phase of the study. The interview protocol used during this
phase of the research can be found in Appendix E.

Phase Three

In phase three, participants rated each task-level work experience on a total of nine
experience characteristics: duration (time), unfamiliarity (amount), density, new
directions, inherited problems, problems with employees, external pressure, influencing
without authority, work across cultures, work group diversity, scope and scale, and
significance (high stakes). Excluding the measure for duration (time) and density, all
measures of the experience characteristics were adapted from McCauley, Ohlott, and
Ruderman’s (1999) Job Challenge Profile. I adapted these items by changing the referent
from one’s job to the task—level experience. Unless otherwise noted, study participants
rated the extent to which they agreed with each item using a 1 to 5 agreement scale (1 =
strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree).

Duration was measured using one item that asked: “From start to finish, how long did
this particular experience last?” Study participants responded to this item by indicating
precisely how long the experience lasted (e. g., minutes, hours, days, weeks, months,
years). All responses were transformed into units reflecting the number of days an

experience lasted.

69

Unfamiliarity was measured using 5 items. Example items include “Going into this
experience, you lacked the experience necessary for carrying out some aspect of the
wor ” and “During this experience, you had to manage something (e. g., a function,
product, technology, market) with which you were unfamiliar.” Internal consistency
reliability was .82.

Density was measured using 3 items created for this study because no existing
measure of density exists in the literature. These items were created using Tesluk and
Jacobs’ (1998) description of the density concept. Items include “I experienced a high
number of challenging opportunities during this experience,” “There were a lot of unique
opportunities during this experience that challenged my leadership capacity,” and “This
experience offered only a limited number of opportunities for personal growth and
development (reverse coded)” Internal consistency reliability was .83.

New directions was measured using 5 items. Example items include “In this
experience, you were trying something the organization had never tried before; no one
knew for sure how to do it or how it would come out” and “As part of this experience,
you had to make a major strategic change in the business or your work group — its
direction, structure, technology system, or operations.” Internal consistency reliability
was .83.

Problems with employees was measured using 5 items. Example items include “Your
direct reports resisted your initiatives at some point during this experience” and “In this
experience, some of your direct reports lacked the experience necessary to do their jobs

without close supervision from you.” Internal consistency reliability was .83.

70

Inherited problems was measured using 5 items. Example items include “As part of
this experience, you inherited widespread morale problems” and “In this experience, you
had to solve a major problem that your predecessor created.” Internal consistency
reliability was .85.

External pressure was measured using 5 items. Example items include “To achieve
your most important goals in this experience, you had to influence people outside your
organization (e.g., clients, suppliers, unions, government agencies)” and “In this
experience, you had to deal with diverse clients, customers, or markets.” Internal
consistency reliability was .66.

Influencing without authority was measured using 5 items. Example items include
“Achieving your goals in this experience depended on how well you handled internal
politics” and ”To accomplish a major portion of your objectives in this experience, you
had to influence and work with people at higher levels in the organization than your
immediate boss.” Internal consistency reliability was .75.

Work across cultures was measured using 5 items. Example items include “In this
experience, you had to conduct business with people from different countries” and “This
experience required working in a foreign country where the culture is different from your
own.” Internal consistency reliability was .91.

Work group diversity was measured using 5 items. Example items include “In this
experience, you. were part of a diverse work group” and “In this experience, you had to
get people from different racial, religious, cultural, or ethnic backgrounds to 'work

together.” Internal consistency reliability was .79.

71

Significance of the experience was measured using the 5 “high stakes” items.
Example items include “Your success or failure in this experience was evident to higher
management” and “In this experience, you were responsible for decisive action in a
highly charged environment.” Internal consistency reliability was .67.

Scope and scale was measured using 5 items. Example items include “For you, this
experience was a dramatic increase in scope (i.e., managing significantly more people,
dollars, sites, functions)” and “In this experience, you were responsible for numerous
different products, technologies, or services.” Internal consistency reliability was .74.
Phase Four

In phase four of this study, participants provided self-ratings of how much each work
experience contributed to the development of self-concept beliefs, namely his or her own
(a) identity as a leader and (b) leadership self-efficacy. Specifically, individuals rated the
extent to which each discrete experience enhanced his or her leadership identity and self-
efficacy; these ratings were provided using a 1 to 5 extent scale (1 = not at all; 5 = to a
very large extent).

In the social psychological literature, role identities are measured by determining the
attributes people associate with a particular role (e.g., gender) and then asking individuals
to rate the degree to which they see themselves possessing these prototypical attributes
(e.g., Burke & Tully, 1977; Burke & Reitzes, 1981). For purposes of the present research,
I measured leadership identity using the same approach. Research on implicit leadership
theory (e. g., Lord, 1985; Epitropaki & Martin, 2004) has empirically identified four basic
attributes that people associate with protypical leaders (sensitive, intelligent, dedicated,

and dynamic). I combined ratings on these four attributes into a single scale that assesses

72

the impact of specific work experiences on individuals’ leadership identity. Specifically,
participants rated the extent to which each work experience made he or she perceive
oneself as exhibiting these attributes. Example items included “To what extent did this
experience make you feel intelligent?” Internal consistency reliability was .85.
Leadership self-efficacy was assessed using 6 items from Paglis and Green’s (2002)
original 12-item scale. The number of items in the original scale had to be reduced due to
survey length. To reduce the number of items, I selected 2 items from each of Paglis and
Green’s (2002) three dimensions of leadership self-efficacy (direction-setting, gaining
commitment, and overcoming obstacles). These items were selected based on how
closely they reflected the content of each dimension. Example items included “To what
extent did this experience increase your confidence in your own ability to develop plans
for change that take your unit in important new directions” and ”To what extent did this
experience increase your confidence in your own ability to develop trusting relationships
with others such that they will embrace change.” Internal consistency reliability was .88.
In addition, supervisors rated (a) the participant’s overall performance in each task-
level work experience and (b) the extent to which each work experience contributed to
the development of participants’ cognitive, managerial, and interpersonal skills. Leader
performance for each work experience was measured using 5 items adapted from
Wellboume, Johnson, and Erez’s (1998) measure of job performance. Example items
included “Please rate this person’s performance in this experience in terms of the quantity
of performance (i.e., how many things he or she got done).” Additional items examined
other dimensions of performance, including the quality of performance, the individual’s

ability to get along with others, and his or her dependability. Supervisors provided these

73

ratings using a l to 5 scale (1 = very low; 5 = very high). Internal consistency reliability
was .90.

Supervisors also rated the extent to which each work experience enhanced
participants’ cognitive, managerial, and interpersonal skills. Items for each skill
dimension are from Mumford et al.’s (2007) leadership skills strataplex; these skill
dimensions were originally adapted from the basic and cross-functional skills taxonomy
of the Occupational Information Network (0*NET; Mumford, Peterson, & Childs, 1999).
Supervisors provided these ratings using a 1 to 5 extent scale (1 = not at all; 5 = to a very
large extent). Each item was preceded by the following: “To what extent did this
experience enhance the following competencies...” In the event supervisors were not
comfortable rating the developmental impact of an experience, a “do not know” option
was included in the scale; these data were coded as missing data in the final sample.

Cognitive skills was measured using 14 items. Example items included “active
listening and questioning (i.e., listening to others and asking questions as appropriate),”
“critical thinking (i.e., using logic and analysis to identify the strengths and weaknesses
of different approaches),” and “systems perception (i.e., determining when important
changes have occurred in a system or are likely to occur).” Internal consistency reliability
was .92.

Managerial skills was measured using 8 items. Example items included “coordination

"J “

(i.e., adjusting actions in relation to others' actions), monitoring the performance of
him/herself and others to make improvements,” and “instructing (i.e., teaching others

how to do something)” Internal consistency reliability was .87.

74

Interpersonal skills was measured using 5 items. Example items included “social

,9 6‘

perceptiveness (i.e., being aware of others' reactions), persuasion (i.e., persuading
others to change their minds or behavior)” and “negotiation (i.e., bringing others together
to reconcile differences)” Internal consistency reliability was .87.

Control variables. Several demographic and work-related variables were measured
and then used as control variables in all analyses. These included general cognitive ability
as measured by individuals’ scores on the Graduate Management Admissions Test
(GMAT). Other control variables included gender, ethnicity, and organizational tenure.

Data Analysis

To test the hypotheses proposed in this study, I used hierarchical linear modeling
(HLM; Bryk & Raudenbush, 2001). IEM allows one to analyze variables at multiple
levels of analysis in a series of regression equations. In this dissertation, the first level of
analysis was the experience level and included all experience characteristics and
outcomes. The second level of analysis was the individual leader level and included the
measure of individual differences and contextual factors. Thus, the level-1 variables
(work experiences) were nested within the level-2 variables (individuals). The level-1
variables were at the within-individual level of analysis, whereas the level-2 variables
were at the between-individual level of analysis.

Before proceeding with the tests of the hypotheses, I first investigated whether
systematic within- and between—individual variance exists in the development outcomes.
To do so, I estimated a null model that calculated the within- and between-individual

variance across the leader development outcomes. The equations for the null model, as

well as for the models estimated to test hypotheses, are presented in Appendix F.

75

Provided that the test of the null model reveals that there is substantial within- and
between-individual variance in the criterion, tests of the other HLM models can be
conducted.

To interpret the estimates as representing strictly within-individual effects, I centered
all level-1 predictor variables to each individual's mean (Hofmann, Griffin, & Gavin,
2000). This form of centering removes any between-individual variance in estimates of
within-individual relations among the variables. This procedure ensures that any relations
among the level-1 variables are unconfounded by between-person differences. I used

HLM 6.0 to analyze all of the hierarchical models.

76

 

ltt‘t

cna

rel;

det

COT

RESULTS

Table 5 contains the means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among the
level-1 study variables. Among these level-1 variables, many of the experience
characteristics were modestly correlated; the bivariate correlations among experience
characteristics ranged from .02 to .59. The experience characteristics were generally not
related to leader performance but were in many cases positively related to the leader
development outcomes, with bivariate correlations ranging from .02 to .49. These
correlations provide initial evidence that at least some of the quantitative and qualitative
characteristics of work experiences are related to the development of leadership skills and
self-concept beliefs. Leader performance was found to be positively related to the
development of leaders’ identity and self-efficacy beliefs, thus offering initial evidence
that one’s performance on the job is also a meaningful predictor of leader development.
Finally, the leader development outcomes were correlated. In particular, the development
of leadership identity and self-efficacy were correlated at .77 (p < .01), and the three skill
dimensions were correlated between .66 and .73 (p < .01). I return to the implications of

these correlations among the outcomes in my discussion of the results.

77

.momoficefi— 05 E cog—0E 8m 29st? some 5.— 356508 cote—oboe man—08E— .mmmbom M Z ”802
.3555 .5. v a ...... Eggs .8. v a ...

 

 

Ath $.00. since. ”1.5—. *3. **om. *2. m—. be. co. *3. *2. mo. mo. no. *th. *3. *m—. mm. wvfi 25? 3:032:25 .m—
Crw.v ......mw. *on. ......NN. 1.5m. “INN. them. *3. 0—. ..zFN. ......NN. *2. **w—. “INN. **©N. **ON. *©—. cw. mod m:§m Biomass—>— N—
ANGQ **Om. “IAIN. ”.250. SEN. “IBN. NO. mo. *me. **ON. N—. mo. “wan—N. *me. **m—. “45—. mm. gen 25?. 03—1—on .0—
Awwg twin *v—. “15¢. *xmv. *th. 35—. *xov. “IN—u. ..szm. 1.on. *xmm. **mm. *x—uN. O—. 3.— woN m—ms— .m—
AmwQ **mN. saw—av. *xnv. ..cme. *2. 3.5m. **Nm. **©N. O—. saw—av. *th. *©—. NO. No.— 0—.m 56:02 .v—
8&— O—. N—. Nb. 8. ‘25—. **w—. 8. met 5O. 0—. NO.. ..c..—N. Mb. 00—» oocwEuoton— 5931— .m—
ABOQ 53V. germ—N. N—. xxNv. xiv—m. 35—. "35—. *xmm. two—V. .....nVN. No. m5. mum oucnoc—:w_m .N—
A2..— xvv. ......ON. *me. *smv. *xwm. *x—m. ..i—m. *xmo. **wm. QC. cw. ho.m 2QO can 300m .——
A3..— **mv. from. “IAN. **MN. **mm. **—m. *xmm. ..SMN. ‘35—. oo.— va macaw—”WWW .O—

. . . . . . . . . . . mobs—=0
:ov **nm *imm m— *v— *m— “IAN *v— “IRN ON— mm N wmo—oa “+53 d

. . . . . . . . . . £553
35— nan—m “..me **ON "In—m ...wa ...: **mN ma Cum 505—3 wEocozcc— .w
Gog *2. *2. *som. **Nm. **NN. “Item. Nw. CON 3530:— ?Eo—xm— N
Amwg 35m. ”1.9—q. "In—m. ......VN. ——. ha. SEN mace—no:— B—tozc— .0

. . . . . . . wage—9:9 80305
Amwv aim—V ".2.an ....wNm a: Go 0m N 515 wE—MOQ .m
Amw— **wm. "1.5m: *m—. VO— OWN mac—30:6 307— .v
5: am. new. a. com £88 .m
a3 8. a. med 355.5%: .N
I mow—(N ——.ow— con—95n— .—

mé RN ON WN VN M.— N— : A: o m m c m. V m. N N 9% S— Saw—aux—

 

moiatm> —-_o>o.— wcoE< macaw—8.888:— ccm moan—“Sm gun—nomen— I m 035,—.

78

8035:052— 2: E @820:— 08 moi—mtg woo—om .8 8:06508 5:20:00 8223:— .— 333 0—88 85
:28 coco“. m— 5950 .o .350 mos—2:50 650 :8 Use — £ng 568.50 35 :03 cocoa 2 bro—:5”!— do n Z ”207—
8.552 .8. v a ...... 3562 .8. v a ..

 

:2 8. R.- tem. 8.- 8.- 8. 3.- 2.- mo. 8. 8.4 583308 .2
2.3 X.- 8- o..- t. 2.. 1m.- 2- 2. 8. 88 8388 .8
:3 :.- 2.. 8.- e. 2. 2. 2.- E. 88 2522883 .8
$3 *8. 2.- 8. 8. E. 8.. 8. 88 628.883 .8
63 2.- 8. *8. 8.. 8.- E. 88 BMW-”HM” e
t t. 8.- 8. ...mm. 88 :.m 2552223530 .8
i 2. 8.- 8. 3.8 8.8m 8:533:88 .4
i 8.- 8. 3.. me. cause .m
i *8..- 3. 8. bees-m .N
i an 8.8 0? ...
E 8 m k e w a. A m N a. 2 eases»

 

mafia—b; N-_o>o.— wcoE< mac—E—otoobuc— 28 meta—“Sm gun—tomofl I o 033-

79

Table 6 contains the means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among the
level-2 study variables. Among these level-2 variables, several noteworthy relationships
emerged. For instance, achievement motivation and locus of control were found to be
positively related (r = .29, p < .05); locus of control was also positively related to the
level of social support one had in his or her workplace (r = .26; p < .05). The control
variables (cognitive ability, gender, ethnicity and organizational tenure) demonstrated
small to modest relationships to the study variables, with some achieving statistical
significance. Because the standard deviation is larger than the mean for both duration
(level—1) and the number of direct reports (level-2), a histogram of the frequency
distribution for these variables is provided in Appendix G. In both cases, the data is
positively skewed.

Table 7 presents parameter values and variance components for the null model. The
null model analyses indicated that there was significant between-individual variance in
both experience characteristics and leader development outcomes (with the exception of
the variables density and leader identity). These analyses also indicated that there was
substantial within—individual variance in both experience characteristics and leader
development outcomes. These data provide compelling evidence that individuals and
their supervisors discriminated among work experiences when rating those experiences in
terms of their characteristics and outcomes. These results suggest that hierarchical

modeling of the data was appropriate.

80

Table 7 - Parameter Estimates and Variance Components for the Null Model

 

Within—Individual Between-Individual

 

Variable Mean W00) Variance (p2) Variance (1100)
Duration 189.11 39175.89 l6340.29**
Unfamiliarity 2.68 .76 .07*
Density 3.50 .82 .01
New directions 2.70 .76 .35**
Dealing With 2.56 .60 .37,”
problem employees
Inherited problems 2.47 .62 .33**
External pressures 2.60 .49 .18**
Influencmg Without 3.47 .68 22*:-
authority
work across 2.33 .63 1.00**
cultures
Work .gmuP 2.84 .38 .64**
dwersrty
Scope and scale 3.07 .53 .21**
Significance 3.75 .43 .09**
Leader performance 4.09 .28 .24**
Identity 3. 16 .97 .07
LSE 2.98 .83 .25**
Cognitive capacity 3.41 .36 .26**
Manager‘al 3.05 .46 .27**
capacrty
Interpfirsonal 3.48 .52 .21**
capacrty

 

* p < .05, two-tailed. ** p < .01, two-tailed.
Note: N = 206-225 (level-1); 60 (level-2).

81

Interestingly, these results also reveal something about the nature of experiences and
leader development outcomes. For one, individuals are different in the degree to which
they encounter certain types of experiences at work. As an example, experiences that
require individuals to work across cultures or with work group diversity had more
between-individual variance than within-individual variance; this is an indication that
some people have more of these experiences than other people (at least based on the
experiences discussed in this study). These data also reveal that the development of
leader identity is more a function of the experience than the person (i.e., significantly
more within-individual variance than between-individual variance). This is in contrast to
other leader development outcomes that were a function of both the experience and the
person (i.e., across all experiences, some people developed more leadership self efficacy,
cognitive capacity, managerial capacity, and interpersonal capacity than other people).

Table 8 shows the results for all level-l main effect hypotheses associated with the
development of cognitive, managerial and interpersonal skills. Across all three skill
dimensions, organizational tenure was the only control variable that had a meaningful
impact on the outcome. Hypothesis I predicted that duration would be positively related
to the development of cognitive, managerial, and interpersonal skills. After accounting
for the control variables, results suggest that duration has a positive effect on the
development of leaders’ cognitive skills (ylo = .0006, p < .05, AR2 = .04) but not the
development of managerial or interpersonal skills. Variance explained (AR?) was
computed as follows: [(unrestricted within—person variance — restricted within-person

variance) / unrestricted within-person variance] (Kreft & de Leeuw, 1998; Singer, 1998).

82

Thus, Hypothesis 1a was supported but Hypotheses 1b and 1c were not supported with

the current data.

83

80805092 :0 89% 8:088:00 fl m0:_a> 05 00 5:305:85 “Em E053 _80:0w 05
:5 8805099. 5080 :8 .253: 0w§£0 38:58 380888: 0805. ._ $8050an :8 00830.00 0:03 0:0: 03:080.: 8080833 033:; 65:00 :5
600.85 0.2. .2 M 52.80288 .9255 .2 u 0—35 80:00 .AN-_0>0: cc A 7.05: SUN-com M Z H052 400—308 .5. v Q ...... 60:80.5 .8. v m ...

 

 

8. ...... _ v. 8. ...... 3.. A25 28.2 Ea 88m
. -030»- 35 230% .. ~ ~ flawfiomat -

0—. ......wm. A25 56:03: anew 0.53
58:03v 38g». «.83 SN flamfiomam

no. .13. 85 mobs—:0 880“ 0.5?
8:530 .8300 «.5: .d 3.38%:

we. ... *mm. 85 bro—3:0 50:23 w:_o:0=c:_
b.2336 3933 Mfiuzwxfis ..m. amamfiouat

wo- t. mm. 8.5 0580.5 .9:me
03.80am fixtmb-m .N “-80:88:

8. ...E. 25 8.288 82:25
E039Qfi810£5 .6 835088:

no. 3.0m. 8.5 8933.5 E0305 53» $5000
8.00.8350 ESQEQ 5.x: 85qu ..m- flamfiomam

8. :8. 8. ...-.8. 25 8.8826 82
”morgue: 302 ..V flamfiomat

8. ......8. 8. ...... _ m. 8. ...-.8. 25 888:
.3ng ..M- 8.805088:

8. ......a. 8. ...E. 8. :2. 25 58:88::
.OESBEQLED ..N 0805688:

8. 8. 8. 8. 8. .88. 25 885:
=83§Q .. N flagsqxt
8. ......8. 8. ...8. 8. ......8. 25 22.2 388885
8. 8. 8. 8. 8. 8. 35 8:8 22:80
8. 8. E. 8. 2. 8.- 35 82:50
m _. 8.- on. 8.- 2. 8.- E: .880
8. ...-88 8. :88 8. :38 Ass 888::

mm E06526 Mm 8065000 NM 5065000 58605

 
 
 

:08 «U 3.0 «:82 :00 «U 03:: OD

 

36380 8.5809085 98 3:08:32 .032:on .«o E0Em20>0Q 05 :o monmtflofiazo 00:0t0mxm no 808%— I w 053-

84

Similarly, I also predicted that unfamiliarity (Hypothesis 2) and density (Hypothesis
3) would be positively related to the development of (a) cognitive, (b) managerial, and (c)
interpersonal skills. After accounting for the control variables, results suggest that
unfamiliarity has a positive effect on the development of leaders’ cognitive (ylo = .16, p <
.01, AR2 = .09), managerial (ylo = .14, p < .05, AR2 = .06), and interpersonal skills (ylo =
.21, p < .01, AR2 = .09). Results also suggest that density has a positive effect on leaders’
cognitive (710 = .26, p < .01, AR2 = .16), managerial (ylo = .21, p < .01, AR2 = .08), and
interpersonal skills (Yro = .26, p < .01, AR2 = .14). Thus, Hypotheses 2a-2c and
Hypotheses 3a-3c were supported with the current data.

Hypothesis 4 predicted that experiences which require a leader to take his or her
group or organization in a new direction would be positively related to the development
of leaders’ cognitive and managerial skills. After accounting for the control variables,
results suggest that new directions has a positive effect on the development leaders’
cognitive (Yro = .36, p < .01, AR2 = .30) and managerial skills (ylo = .34, p < .01, AR2 =
.20). Thus, Hypothesis 4a and 4b were supported.

Hypothesis 5 suggested that dealing with problem employees would promote the
development of leaders’ interpersonal capacity. After accounting for the control
variables, results suggest that dealing with problem employees has a positive effect on
leaders’ interpersonal capacity (ylo = .20, p < .01, /_\.R2 = .06). Hypothesis 6 predicted
that experiences which require leaders to inherit problems would be positively related to
the development of leader’s cognitive skills. Results suggest that inherited problems has a
positive effect on leaders’ cognitive skills (ylo = .14, p < .05, AR2 = .06). Thus,

Hypotheses 5 and 6 were both supported with the current data.

85

Hypotheses 7, 8, 9, and 10 predicted, respectively, that external pressure, influencing
without authority, work across cultures, and work group diversity would be positively
related to the development of leaders’ interpersonal capacity. After accounting for the
control variables, results suggest that extemal pressure (le = .25, p < .01, AR2 = .08),
influencing without authority (ylo = .22, p < .01, AR2 = .15), work across cultures (v.0 =
.18, p < .01, AR2 = .03), and work group diversity (m = .38, p < .01, AR2 = .13) all have
a positive effect on the development of leaders’ interpersonal skills. Thus, Hypotheses 7-
10 were all supported.

Hypothesis 11 predicted that the scope and scale of an experience would be positively
related to the development of leaders’ (a) cognitive and (b) managerial skills. After
accounting for the control variables, results suggest that scope and scale has a positive
effect on leaders’ cognitive (Yro = .41, p < .01, AR2 = .28) and managerial skills (ylo =
.41, p < .01, AR2 = .22). Thus, Hypothesis 11a and 11b were supported with the current
data.

Hypotheses 12a and 13a predicted, respectively, that a leader’s performance in any
single experience would be positively related to the development of his or her leadership
identity and self—efficacy. As shown in Table 9, after accounting for the control variables,
results suggest that leader performance has a positive effect on individuals’ leadership
identity (ylo = .63, p < .01, AR2 = .15) and leadership self-efficacy (710 = .43, p < .01,
AR2 = .07). Thus, Hypotheses 12a and 13a were both supported with the current data.
Hypotheses 12b and 13b predicted, respectively, that the significance of individuals’
work experiences would moderate the relationship between leader performance in the

experience and the development of leadership identity and self-efficacy. However, in

86

both cases, the significance of the experience did not moderate the relationship between
leader performance and leadership identity (see Table 10). Thus, Hypotheses 12b and 13b

were not supported.

87

Table 9 — Effects of Leader Performance on the Development of Leadership Identity and
Leadership Self-Efficacy

 

Leadership Identity Leadership Self-Efficacy

 

Predictor Coefficient SE Coefficient SE

Intercept (You) 317” .07 3.00** .08
Gender (Yor) .03 .13 -.03 .17
Ethnicity (Yoz) -.02 .14 -.29 .19
Cognitive ability (703) .00 .00 .00 .00
Organizational tenure (704) -.06* .02 -.06* .03

‘ Hypotheses 12a and 13a

Leader performance (ym) .63** .12 .43** .l 1

 

* p < .05, one-tailed. ** p < .01, one-tailed.
Note: N = 225 (level-1); 60 (level-2). Gender (Male 2 1). Ethnicity (Caucasian = 1).

Table 10 — Effects of Leader Performance and Significance on the Development of
Leadership Identity and Leadership Self-Efficacy

 

 

 

 

Leadership Identity Leadership Self-
+ Efficacy

Predictor Coefficient SE Coefficient SE

Intercept (Yoo) 3.18** .08 3.00** .08
Gender (Yor) .06 .13 -.01 .17
Ethnicity (Yoz) -.03 .14 -.27 .19
Cognitive ability (703) .00 .00 .00 .00

. Organizational tenure W04) -.06* .02 -.06* .03

, Hypotheses 12b and 13!)

Leader performance (via) .48 .61 .27 .43
Significance (Yzo) .67 .57 .72 .41
Performance X Si gnificance (y30) -.02 .15 -.01 .11

 

* p < .05, one-tailed. ** p < .01, one-tailed.
Note: N = 225 (level-1); 60 (level-2). Gender (Male = 1). Ethnicity (Caucasian = 1).

88

The cross-level hypotheses in this study predicted that individual differences and
contextual factors would (a) have a main effect on leader skill development and (b)
moderate the relationship between experience characteristics and leader development
outcomes. Specifically, two individual differences (achievement motivation and locus of
control) and two contextual factors (social support and feedback) were expected to
enhance how much learning occurred as a result of informal experiences at work. A third
contextual factor, work constraints, was expected to limit how much leaders developed
from their informal experiences at work. Tables 11-15 provide the results associated with
these cross-level hypotheses.

Contrary to Hypothesis l4, achievement motivation did not have a main effect on the
development of leaders’ cognitive, managerial or interpersonal skills (see Table 11). As
predicted, however, achievement motivation (Y 11 = .001, p < .01) did moderate the
relationship between the duration of an experience and the development of leaders’
cognitive skills. This relationship is illustrated in Figure 2. All other cross-level
moderation hypotheses associated with achievement motivation did not reach statistical
significance with the current data and thus were not supported. In sum, Hypothesis 15a

was partially supported, but Hypotheses 14 and 15b-15k were not supported.

89

.3358? :0 30.8 2.0.2300 m. 32? 05 .8 3:30.92... new 5028 3.0:0w
05 :5 .mmmofiom»: £000 .8 323? 0320 335:3 3.0823 03:... .03 £35o§E .8 3.23.3 0.03 0.0: 08:03.; £20838 033.? .0950
can 38.0.5 0:... .2 n 5.1.32.9 gecfim .2 u 03.6 .0200 .AN-_0>0: so 2203: mumbom N 2 H052 60:30.8 .5. v m ...... 60:33.5 .3. v m ...

 

90

3. mo. 15 5.33.9: EoEo>0Eu<
co. *3. 25 8.28... 82.0%.
”5039:. V0303: $2 ......Etomat
_ _. 2. Q. m _. 15 5:03.06 E0E0>0Eo<
co. *2. .oo. *2. A25 303380 E0305 5.3 w==3Q
398350 2.039% .33 35qu .02. flamfiomat
_ _. E. 8. E. e 5 8.338.: 2059022
8. ......mm. 8. ......mm. 25 22.8.6 52
39:00....» 202 “No.2 ......gsmbc
2. oo. _ _. 0o. no. no. 1.3 3:038... E060>0EQ<
mo. from. mo. ** _ N. VG. icm. A25 Aims—0Q
b.30Q .62. 33309.5
3. 8.- N. . 5. o_ . 0c. 1 .3 c2338... E050>0Eo<
8. ....L... 8. *2. 8. ......2. 25 b_a___§.=:
€53.03. s2 £333.
8. 8. 8. 8. 8. ...... .8. Es 8:285 20503.6...
8. 8. 8. 8. 8. .388. .2: 8:25
20.3245 .62 ......EBQAE
2. E .- Z. 9 .- Q. o. .- fies c2335... 2.0503206~
No. .18. mo. *5. No. 3.5. 35 0.2.0. 3533.330
8. 8. 8. 8. 8. 8. 35 5:5“ 02::on
m _. S. E. S. 2. 8.- As: bpifim
2. 8.- on. mm. 2. 8.- E: 52.00
8. £2 8. ......8.m 8. is... .85 38.25
mm E06580 mm EofiEooU mm E06580 .90.—35

 

:3 «U 3.0 «:32

 

 

Engage—Eon =Em .0304 no c2338: E080>0Eo< .0 300.5 I Z 030,—.

.3358»: .... $0.5 50.0.0000 m. 30.5 05 .0 00.50.98... ..5 0.05.. ....000w
0:. .0: $3509.: :50 .0. ......w... 0520 3.00.53 3.055.. 03: ... ...... 0.3509... .0. 00.25.00 0.03 0.0: 00.003... A20.0.5.5. 030...; .0008
.05 0.00.0.0. 0....- .A. n 5.5050. 3.0.05... .A. u 0.02. .0050 .AN-_0>0.. A... ”2.03.. mmN-com M Z H0.02 5023-000 ..o. v Q ...... 50.....-000 .8. v & ...

 

 

.... oo. 8. mo. A:3 00.5> ..00. .0080>0.:0<
8. ...... .... 8. to... .20 28. ...:W 2.80
0.00.. .05 050m. 0.: $000.05..
mm. 0m. A. .3 0053.0... .00...0>0.:0<
. .. Io... A23 3.0.03.0 anew .....03
3.50;...» 50.0. .20.: ...-m. 0.350%...
m . . .o. A. .3 00.53.00. .00E0>0.:0<
no. 3%.. A23 3.3.00 50.5 503
3.53.0 ...-0.00 «.0... .....2 53505...
v .. mo. A. .3 00.53.00. .00E0>0.:0<
.5. ......mm. A23 3:055 0.05.3 w0.000:...0.
3.0.3.3.. 300...: M05555. ...-2 0.350%...
m.. co. A. .3 0053.0... .00E0>0.:0<
mo. 1mm. A23 0.0.3... 5.0.0.5.
0.3.3... .00-.050 um: 0.00:.0QA:
.... b. .- . .. o. .- .0... o. .- A83 00.53.00. .00E0>0.:0<
NO. ......wo. mo. “...-0. NO. HERO. A35 0.2.0. Ecosaficawho
8. 8. o... 8. 8. 8. .20 0...... 2:050
m .. .o. .... .o. m .. 8.- .3... 0.0.5....
2. 0... ON. 5. 0.. on.- ..5 52.00
B. ...-.2 8. ...-8... S. is; .80 2.8.2...
mm 50.05000 mm 50.0.3000 mm 50.05000 .0850...

 

 
 

...-.0550 05.0000

A..0003 .. 0.5..-

91

3.8

 

+One SD Above Mean
3.6 4 _ _ ___ u Achievemnt Motivation

3.5- ,7 7 i 7 - O -OneSDBelowMean

Achievement Motivation
3.4 a -- -- - *n
3.3 4

3.2 * -

 

Development of Cognitive Skills

 

 

 

Low Duration High Duration

Figure 2 - Effects of Duration and Achievement Motivation on the Development of

Cognitive Skills

Hypothesis 16 predicted that locus of control would have a positive main effect on
leader skill development. Contrary to this prediction, locus of control actually had a
negative main effect on the development of leaders’ interpersonal skills (705 = -.36, p <
.05, AR2 = .12). This same pattern was observed for cognitive and managerial skills, but
these results did not reach statistical significance (see Table 12). The observed negative
relationship between locus of control and skill development is contrary to existing theory,
which suggests that an internal locus of control should facilitate rather than hinder
development (DuCette & Wolk, 1973; Phares, 1976; Spector, 1982). In terms of cross-
level moderation effects, Hypotheses 17a-17k predicted that locus of control would
moderate the relationship between experience characteristics and leader development

outcomes. Results suggest this is the case at least for some experience characteristics, but

92

the pattern of results for these experience characteristics was unexpected. As illustrated in
Figures 3 through 8, an internal locus of control did not enhance leader skill development
from experiences. Rather, an internal locus of control reduced the developmental value of
experiences that were low on the following dimensions: density, new directions, dealing
with problem employees, influencing without authority, and scope and scale. In other
words, an internal locus of control amplified the lack of developmental value in these less
challenging experiences. These cross-level moderation effects explained between 28%
and 92% of the level-2 variance in the slope coefficients for the experience
characteristic—outcome relationships. In sum, despite the fact that moderation was found
in support of Hypotheses 17c, 17d, 17e, 17h, and 17k, the form of these interactions was

not exactly as predicted.

93

.3858»: =a $98 E8228 E 823 05 mo 8582985 as: 58ng .nhocow
05 :5 £358? :23 :8 32%.: owcaco 33:58 53588 82E- .mm. mfiofioaxm :8 33:28 803 20: 32.0qu 382523 03:55 65:8

:5 2.8.25 :5 .2 u 528.28 22:3 .2 n 2.2% 2228 .525: o: 5:25: :38: u 2 2:2 3:22: .5. v a ...... 8:22: .8. v a ..

 

2. S .- A. 5 65:8 mo £83
8. *2. A25 2532: 225:5
QSEEQ Von-SS: KN ~ fl-ESQQAI

 

m _. *2. E: .383: 253
mo. .53. A23 awoke—9:0 80308 55, wEEoQ
89315» 5.233% :33 MSBwQ ..mm N amumiomam
2. ...wm. 2. 8. a 5 6:88: 263
8. ...-NM. 8. tom. 25 22:82: 3:2
3&8th 222 ”V: flamfiofimt
2. ...-mm. 2. ...wm. 2. S. A. E 32:83 253
8. tom. 8. tom. 3. tom. 25 52:3
:03.qu ...-K ~ flnwfiomat.
3. mo. 2. E. .2. mo- Ec .0283: 253
8. :5. mo. *2. mo. ......2. 35 22:22::
2.2.3.2522: 2:: 233%:
8. 8. 8. 8. 8. 8. :5 .828 co 253
8. oo. 8. 8. 8. ...-.88. e5 8:25
afizsaQ “an ~ flaucuomam
:. ...:m- 3. mm- 3. 8.- A2: 62:8 a: 253
S. ...-.8. 8. *8. 8. ...B. 35 02:2 2:222:35
8. 8. 8. 8. 8. 8. A25 2:5: 2,235
2. 2. E. B. m _. 8.- 35 22:3
2 «- 8. 2:..- 2. 8.- 25 5:50
B. 1%.:- 8. team 8. ...-.32: :8: .3225
mm E20508 mm 223:8“: mm E20580 56622

 

 

 

 

“cacao—gen Exm 8934 :0 35:00 no 303 no flue-cm— I N~ 05.3-

94

$085093 =a 80:8 E06508 m: 820.» 05 :0 00:50:98.: 0:: E080 _0:0=0w
05 :5 6.605092 £000 :0: 32%.: 08:8 83:58 8.08:8 085. .52 fl850§m :0: 00:28.8 0:03 0:0: 02:08:: 20:08:00 032:? 3008
0:: 8080:: of. .A: H cam-8:00: 5:02:51": .A: u 0E): 80:00 .AN-_0>0_V o0 ”A208: mam-com M Z H0:07: .00—5-000 .5. v 0 .1. 0028-000 .3. v 0 ...

 

 

_ _. ...-.3. :. 8. e 5 8:8 :o :83
8. 5.8 8. ......ov. :20 2:8 ::: 0:8:
0:8:- 000 008% UK N n:8:::0§N:
Om. E. A_ 5 .0080 :0 803
0:. iwm. A23 36:03:: 0:0:w 0:03
©8830 030:”. «:03 ...:N N 38:20am:
2. mm. A _ 5 .0008 :0 803
0o. .12. A25 85:8 :88: 0:03
8:530 80:00 «:03 ...R N £850an
2. ......mm. A_ 5 30:8 :0 800-:
no. 1mm. ABC bro—:00 50223 $80032:
3.20530 305.2: $00003:sz ..:R N a:8:::0§.::
0:. . mm. A. 5 .0008 :0 803
:5. 1mm. ABC 0:885 =3:me
3380:: 32.803 ”an N 883002.}:
E. :00- 3. 8- E. :0- 0:: 6::8 :o :83
5. .35. mo. *5. No. *8. A35 0:000: _0:0_:0~_8w:0
8. 8. 8. 8. 8. 8. :2: 0:5: 22:8
2. 2. z. B. m :. 8.- :3: 06:50
2. :0- 8. :0- 2. :0- :st 5:50
no. **Nm.m no. EEO-M ho. 3.35 A83 Eco-:25
mm ::0_0_.::00U mm 2:085:00“: mm EBB-C000 58:00::

 

58:80 30020905:

 
 

A008: N: 030,—-

95

Development of Managerial Skills

3.4

 

 

 

 

 

Low Density

High Density

—O—One SD Above Mean
Locus of Control

- 0 - One SD Below Mean
Locus of Control

Figure 3 — Effects of Density and Locus of Control on the Development of Managerial

Skills

Development of Interpersonal Skilk

 

3.8 « ,
3.6 .3 ~
3.4

3.2 4

2.8

2.6 ~

2.4 4%
2.2 ~' *

 

 

 

Low Demity

High Density

 

—O--One SD Above Mean
Locus of Control

- O - One SD Below Mean
Locus of Control

Figure 4 - Effects of Density and Locus of Control on the Development of Interpersonal

Skills

96

3.6

 

Development of Managerial Skills

 

 

 

Low New Directions High New Directions

 

-0—One SD Above Mean
Loom of Control

- 0 - One SD Below Mean
Locus of Control

Figure 5 - Effects of New Directions and Locus of Control on the Development of

Managerial Skills

97

 

3.8
3.7 1*

3.51

3.3 1
3.2 *

Development of Interpersonal Skills

2.94--

3.6 E *

34 ~~ --

3.14 ,

 

 

 

2.8

Low Dealing with Problem High Dealing with Problem
anloyees Enployees

 

+One SD Above Mean
Locus of Control

- 0 - One SD Below Mean
Locus of Control

Figure 6 —Effects of Dealing with Problem Employees and Locus of Control on the

Development of Interpersonal Skills

98

 

Development of Interpersonal Skills

 

 

 

 

Low Influencing without High Influencing without
Authority Authority

—O—One SD Above Mean
Locus of Control

- 0 - One SD Below Mean
Locus of Control

Figure 7 — Effects of Influencing without Authority and Locus of Control on the

Development of Interpersonal Skills

99

 

3.6

3.4« —— ~

3.2 d

2.8‘ -

2.63 -

2.4 a w

Development of Interpersonal Skills

2.2+ ~eie

 

 

 

 

Low Scope and Scale High Scope an! Scale

—O—One SD Above Mean
Locus of Control

- 0 - One SD Below Mean
Locus of Control

Figure 8 — Effects of Scope and Scale and Locus of Control on the Development of

Interpersonal Skills

100

Hypothesis 18 predicted that work constraints would have a negative main effect on
leader skill development, and Hypotheses 19a-19k predicted that work constraints would
restrict the positive relationship between experience characteristics and leader skill
development. Contrary to Hypothesis 18, work constraints did not have a main effect on
the development of leaders’ cognitive, managerial or interpersonal skills (see Table 13).
As predicted, work constraints moderated the relationship between the duration of an
experience and the development of leaders’ managerial skills, thus providing support for
Hypothesis 1%. Contrary to Hypothesis l9j, work constraints moderated the relationship
between work group diversity and leaders’ interpersonal skills but in an unintended
direction. Specifically, experiences that required individuals to deal with diversity were
most developmental when work constraints were high. See Figures 9 and 10 for
illustrations of both cross-level interactions. In sum, these results offer partial support for
Hypotheses 193 and suggest that future research should seek to understand why work
constraints might enhance the skill development value of experiences that require
individuals to deal with diversity. All other cross-level moderation hypotheses associated
with work constraints did not reach statistical significance with the current data, and thus

those hypotheses were not supported.

101

88052;: =a 89% 8:88:00 we 33? 05 no 5.58885 28 F688 Eozow
05 :5 £35093 some .8 .2537. owcmso 885580 880883 82E. 82 maofiogm .8 6233.3 203 20: 82:88; 880888 BAH—88> 75:8

8. 885.... 28 A. n 8.2588 555.5 .A. u 286 .880 .AN-_o>o: 8 MA225: 88-8N u z 552 8.5-25 .8. v a .. 8.8-25 .8. v a .

 

 

 

E. 8.- A. 5 .55588 v.58
8. .2. A2: 8.2.55 8:55..
ESEEQ nfitfifi Kw ~ flamfiomat
2. 8.- A. 5 9:58.55 .53
co. ......mm. 85 83295 80305 55 9:85
86.83:.» EmBoaQ S.§.w=.~.~3Q ..oa ~ 3.3398:
:. :.- S. 8.- A.5 .55528 .53
8. ..8. 8. ....8. A25 888.... ...-.2
388th :82 .82 883885
8. 8. 8. 8.- 8. 8. A. 5 355.88 .53
0O. ......ON. 00. TLN. 3. "from. A25 56:8
8:3 52 8.3.58...
2. 8.- _ _. 8. S. 2. A. E 955.88 3.53
8. .. . N. 8. .3. 8. ..2. Ass 85:55::
88885 52 ...-3.88
8. 8. 8. :88.- 8. 8. A. 5 958.88 5.53
8. .88. 8. .88. 8. .88. A25 .5855
aomBaaQ ..uo N £88982
2. 8.- ..- .. 8.- 2. 2.. Asc 25.588 .53
8. ..8. 8. .8. 8. .8. A25 2.52 5.5.5.585
8. 8. 8. 8. 8. 8. Ass 8:5. 53.5on
NA. 8. 3. 8. E. 8.- A33 8555”,.
E. a.- 8. 8.- 5.. 2.- Ass .880
8. :88 8. ..8.m 8. 1.38 A88 585::
8 858.50 mm 555880 mm 555880 55.8...
39.0 3.520905% 39.0 032580

 

Sesame—059 :56 533 cc 3:888:00 x53 mo 88th I 2 033-

102

88059:; :8 888 2.08.88 m. 82.; 2: b6 5.58885 98 E033 8.2%
05 :5 8.85an cone .8 32.3? owcago 88:58 8.0883 82:. .3. mfiofiomxm .8 35:28 0.53 22. @2585 880883 035:? 68:8
98 33.25 2:- .2 H 8.82.80. 86.53. .2 n 23.6 .0250 .3496: oo ”2.96: mam-com n 2 H302 .3=S-oco .5. v a ...... 62.3-2.0 .8. v Q ...

 

 

E. B.- wo. No.- A. .3 8588.50 :53
no. ..chv. mo. ..c.. —v. A25 2.3m was 300m
38.8. 38 Nisan. 83 ~ 88.33%:
m _. 1%. A25 wHEQbV-coo x53
:- 1.0m. A55 .9836 9.0% x83
.3238 89% «8.3 ...Aw N finmfiemam
3. oo. 1.5 855850 x53
no. ... 1:. 85 35:3 8058 3.03
83:39 89.3 513: ..8 N 88~to§-
2. mo. A. .5 858838 x53
8. ...mm. 3.5 8.55:.“ 8053, 8.853%:
b.2325 3833 855:8: ...RN fianfiomat
3. 5.- A. .3 8:888:00 x53
mo. ......mm. A25 8:805 :88me
Ear-Em ~328Rm ..MQ ~ “......wiemat
N .. 8.- 2. 8.- S. . ..- A25 25.588 .53
8. ......8. 8. ...8. 8. ...8. A15 225. 85.82880
8. 8. 8. 8. 8. 8. A25 8...... 2......on
N .. 8. .... 8. .... 8.- As: 855.3.
3. .m- 8. 8.- 5.. ....- Aéc .880
8. 1&2 8. ......8.m 8. :38 A88 885....
Mm E29580 mm 2865000 mm 8065000 58:55

 

56380 8808098:—

 

 

xzumamu 32580

3:03 2 033.

103

 

 

 

 

 

O
O

3'2 l _ ’ ’ 7 ' ' o o _ __ _ 7 _ W +One SD Above Mean
é ' ’ Work Comtraints
m 31‘ r r”*’**’* fi**"'*’* . .
a o 0 One SD Below Mean
30 o ' ‘ . Work Comtraints

31s ”-mwmjfi,‘ ,'f_ _i_i

E X
*5 . '
g 2.9 ‘ " . ’fi
a.
g 2.8 a - ‘ ' W * * ' * , , a
>
0
G

2.7 + ~ 7 re * *— _ *

2.6 w

LowDuration HighDuration

Figure 9 — Effects of Duration and Work Constraints on the Development of Managerial

Skills

104

Development of Interpersonal Skilk

 

3.8 ~
3.6 ll
3.4 -
3.2 r

2.8 r

2.6 *e

2.4 4

2.2 *

 

 

 

 

Low Dealing with Diversity

7

High Dealing with Diversity

+One SD Above Mean
Work Comtraints

- 0 - One SD Below Mean
Work Comtraints

Figure 10 — Effects of Dealing with Diversity and Work Constraints on the Development

of Interpersonal Skills

105

Hypothesis 20 predicted that the availability of feedback would be positively related
to leader skill development, and Hypotheses 21a-21k expected feedback availability to
enhance the relationship between experience characteristics and leader skill development.
As indicated in Table 14, feedback did have a positive main effect on the development of
leaders’ managerial skills. The main effect of feedback on cognitive and interpersonal
skills was positive but did not reach statistical significance. These data provide at least
partial support for Hypothesis 20. Regarding Hypothesis 21, feedback did enhance the
relationship between leader skill development and the following experience
characteristics: duration, new directions, dealing with problem employees, and scope and
scale. These data explain between 7% and 40% of the level-2 variance in the slope
coefficients for the experience characteristic—outcome relationships, thus providing
partial or full support for Hypotheses 21a, 21d, 21c, and 21k. Illustrations of these cross-
level interactions are presented in Figures 11-15. All other cross—level moderation
hypotheses associated with feedback did not reach statistical significance with the current

data and thus were not supported.

106

8805093 :8 888 .53-3:8 3 829 05 no 8282825 can E033 Ransom
05 :5 £85093 some .8 DEE—m owcano 38:53 Buofiuaq 82:. d: maofionxm .59. 8823—3 295 one: @8585 820883 0389; 38:8

as 88.25 2: .2 n 5:838 £255 .2 u 236 .850 .528 8 5.56: 8N8~ u 2 H82 8:388 .8. v a .. .38-08 .8. v a ..

 

 

wo- S. A. 5 x0338
8. .3. 25 8288 3:85
2.383 REES KG 888%:
_ _. *mm. A. 5 xoaptoom
co. ......mm. A23 332qu 80305 5.3 $533
8325:» .5393 $2: $5qu .62.. flamfiomat
2. 8. 8. ...: .- c 8 8288
8. ...-.2. 8. ...-.8. A2: 888.6 52
388th :62 ..VNN «wagons-m
2. 8. 8. 8. 8. 8.- c 8 8388
8. ......8. 8. ...... _ N. 8. ...-.8. 25 88.5
@3ch ...-tn flamiouah
_ _. 8. 8. 8. 8. 8.- 18 8388
8. ...-.8. 8. ...m _. 8. ...-.2. 25 85:58::
. 828.885 ”EN 383%:
8. ...... .8. 8. .88. 8. 8. c E c.0288
oo. oo- oo. oo. oo. oo. 25 cows-SQ
28355 .62.. “Ha-33%.:
_ _. 8. 8. ..w _. 8. m _. E: c.8888
8. ...-B. 8. ..8. 8. ...8. 8.8 22.2 38:38.85
8. 8. 8. 8. 8. 8. E: 8:3“ 2:880
E. 2. 2. 2. 3. S.- qec £2.25
2. 2.- 8. R; 2. 3.- E: 588
8. ......Sa 8. ....8.m S. :88 A88 88.35
mm 2.2880 mm 822.88 mm 52888 .9288

 

 

 

“mum NU O>€E 0U

8088—059 =2m Bum-«J so xoanvoom no 3085 I E 033.

107

80805092. :8 80.00 8:088:00 m. 82? 05 00 2058009025 98 E023 8.0:0m
05 :5 8805093 5080 5.. .2338 088:0 388.80 00.02.83 080.; .82 880509Am .8 6083080 0803 0.0: 380805 880883 0388., .8800

.2... 58.2... 2:. .2 n 58829 8.0.580 .2 u 236 ...-.88 ..N-.o>o.v 8 ”2.058 8N8N u z ”32,. 8.5-25 .8. v a ...... 3.9-08 .8. v ... ..

 

 

8. m. .- 8. ......m..- A8 .0380".
8. .....N... 8. ...-...... A28 0.8. as. 2.on
03-8.. 83 MEG-um BEN 8.8030982
m .. No: A. 5 0.03800”.
CA. ......wm. A85 b.8038 9.8m. x53
.08-.098 $33 «.83 ...QN finmfiombw
3. 00.- A. .5 0.03.000”.
5. ......9. A85 80:53 8808 0.53
802530 8308 «.293 ...QN 8.838%:
. 2. .o. A. 5 0.03000".
mo. ... *Nm. A85 b.2058 305.3 wag—03c:—
btofiza 383.: M28832: ..im huh-05885
2. no. A. 5 8.0.330"—
5. ... *vm. A85 0580:. .mEoim
0883A 35.08% ..M~N flawfiomafi
... 8. 8. ...... 8. 2. A28 .888”.
8. ...-.8. 8. ...8. 8. ...8. 38 2:5. .288...an
8. 8. 8. 8. 8. 8. .28 8.8.... 2......on
3. 8.. 2. 8.. 3. 8.- A88 8.0.58.
2. M: .- om. 2....- 2. 3.- A85 209.00
8. :88 8. ...-.88 8. 3.8.... .88 88.3...
mm 80.05000 mm 8205000 mm 80.0580 58605

 

 

 

3.53 ... 28.8

108

 

 

—0-One SD Above Mean

g Feedback
m
g - 0 - One SD Below Mean
0 Feedback
3:“
5
2
h-
o
i?
0
G

2.7 ~ - - - - — — ——

2.6 r

 

 

 

Low Duration High Duration

Figure 11 — Effects of Duration and Feedback on the Development of Managerial Skills

109

Development of Interpersonal Skills

Figure 12 — Effects of Duration and Feedback on the Development of Interpersonal Skills

 

3.9

3.8

3.7 e

3.6 3* '

3.54 --

3.4 -_ --

3.3“

3.2 3'

3'll -

 

 

 

 

Low Dilation

High Duration

110

+One SD Above Mean
Feedback

- 0 - One SD Below Mean
Feedback

 

c" — —O—One SD Above Mean

Feedback
3.4 1 —- # A

- 0 - One SD Below Mean
’ ‘ Feedback

 

Development of Cognitive Skills

2.4+, , 7* ~ * ~ ,,,

 

 

 

Low New Dlnectiom High New Directiom

Figure 13 — Effects of New Directions and Feedback on the Development of Cognitive

Skills

111

 

3.9
3.7 + -—~
3.6 ~ a

3.5 1 -

33+ A

 

3.2 _ A-

Development of Interpersonal Skills
Di
.8
i

3.1 ~- . i - _

 

 

2.9 r
Low Dealing with Problem High Dealing with Problem
Enqioyees Enployees

 

—O-One SD Above Mean
Feedback

- O - One SD Below Mean
Feedback

Figure 14 — Effects of Dealing with Problem Employees and Feedback on the

Development of Interpersonal Skills

112

Development of Cognitive Skills

Figure 15 — Effects of Scope and Scale and Feedback on the Development of Cognitive

Skills

 

3.8“ *

3.6 ‘

3.4~-
3.2~--

3‘

2.83 -
2.6‘-

2.4 ~

2.2 ~

 

 

 

Low Scope arli Scale

High Scope and Scale

113

 

+One SD Above Mean
Feedback

- O - One SD Below Mean
Feedback

Finally, Hypothesis 22 predicted that social support would enhance leader skill
development from informal work experiences. Hypotheses 23a—23k predicted that social
support would moderate the relationship between experience characteristics and leader
skill development such that the relationship between experience characteristics and skill
development would be stronger when people had high levels of social support. As
indicated in Table 15, social support did not have a main effect on the development of
leaders’ cognitive, managerial or interpersonal skills. Thus, Hypothesis 22 was not
supported with the current data. As predicted, social support moderated the relationship
between the duration of an experience and the development of leaders’ managerial and
interpersonal skills, thus offering partial support for Hypothesis 23a. Social support also
moderated the relationship between influencing without authority and the development of
leaders’ interpersonal skills, thus offering support for Hypothesis 23h. This cross-level
moderation effect explained 35% of the level-2 variance in the slope coefficient for the
relationship between influencing without authority and the development of interpersonal
capacity. These cross-level interactions are illustrated in Figures 16-18. All other cross-
level moderation hypotheses associated with social support did not reach statistical

significance with the current data and thus were not supported.

114

.3358? =a £28 206.28 mm mos—E, 05 mo 5338925 was 58.3 Begum
05 :5 55058»: noun do» .2235 owcaso 838:3 hone—Stan owes-H. .wE 3352:: 5% 33:28 225 one: concomoa 222533 032:; 35:8
can 30885 2:- .2 u 5.63sz $255 .2 H 33): 6950 .AN-_o>o: cc 2:96: mambom M Z ”334 60:56.5 .5. v Q ...... fine—5-25 .3. v Q ...

 

:. 8. e 5 5&3 38m
8. ...E. Es 2:285 8:5?
Eases ESE an esteem»:
3. ON. A. 5 comma zoom
8. ...:m. 25 $83.an £285 5.3 3:3
833326 EmEEQ .33 mzaaoQ ..mMN awe-Szoqat
E. 2. E. 8. 3: e253 58m
8. ......3: mo. :2. 25 888% >62
QSBEQ 3.32 ”hm-N fiuguonam
_ _. a. _ _. B. 8. 8.- c 5 5&3 Exam
mo. **ON. mo. “from. vo- **ON. A25 bin—0Q
Asa-5Q ..omm “Ha-33%:
2. 3.- 2. 8.- :. 2.- e5 8&3 atom ‘
8. ...... a N. 8. ...E. 8. ......2. 25 33:53::
.otamsebs 5mm aaNsRS
8. .18. 8. .. _ 8. 8. 8. A. 5 saga .208 -
8. 8. 8. 8. 8. .88. A25 8:25
26.535 ..umm awe-33%.:
m _. S. E. :. E. 2. Es 5&3 zoom
8. ...-.8. 8. ...8. 8. ...8. 35 2:5. 3833235
8. 8. 8. 8. 8. 8. 35 3:5“ 2:230
2. S. 2. 8. E. 3.- 35 22:3
2. 8.- e. 2.- 2. 2.- 25 5290
S. in? 8. tam 8. team As: £8.35
mm Ease-.38 mm 220580 mm 320580 BEBE

 
 
 

:8 no 03:: OD

€088.35 :65 533 :o teamsm Eoom he mnootm I 2 033.

115

30352;: :3 $033 32338 mm 32§ 05 mo 3:889:35 tam 583m 333w
05 :5 £35092 :03 .8 busy—m owcmso 338:3 33823 03A; .32 $350922 5» 33323 333 22.. 3303:. 83323.3 0335., 35:8
93 383:: 2:- .2 n 3.3238 bBEEm .2 n 0.3.6 33:30 .3203: oo ”2.63: mmmbcm M Z 332 .B=S-oco .3. v Q ...... .3:S-o=o .3. v Q ...

 

 

2. 2. :. 3. A. 5 :89; 38m
B. ...-9.. 3. ....Lv. A23 28. 2; 38m
29-3 .33 ngm. ..«M-N ”Nu-SQBQAQQ
mm. mo; A. 5 toga—3 300m
2 _. ......wm. ABC b63323 953w x53
.02-33m» Qacxm «.33 ...QWN flamfioQAE
:- 8. e5 toga Eoom
co. ......w 2. 35 33:3 .8033 x53
333:.» 3.2.3 «33 mum-N amamfioQat
m2. *3“. A. 5 toaazm 38m
5. ... *8. A25 .3553 3053, was—33¢:—
btefizu 323.: Mfiuawams ”am-N flmmficQAmQ
ON. C. Azt raga 300m
wo- ... ...mm. 35 2:35 .5:me
m-SamgQ Nan-$3M ..MMN £33ngng
m _. 8. E. :. E. 2. Ag: 3&3 Ecom
NO. ......wO. Mo. *Qlo. mo. *Qlo. A35 05:3 _m:OUQN_:uw._O
8. 8. 8. 8. 8. 8. As: 35% 2238
m. . S. m. . 3. 3 . 3.- As: base-m
2. ON: 02. mm: 2. a. .- 1353630
B. 1&2 B. 133 B. is...” As: 38.2.:
mm 236580 mm EBB-:80 mm 3365000 .58.qu

 
 
 

A383 2 2.5

116

3.4

 

Development of Managerial Skills

2.8 a # ~77 ~ 7 7, r of, ,, ti 7,

 

2.7 T

 

 

 

Low Duation High Duration

-0—One SD Above Mean
Social Support

' ' ' One SD Below Mean
Social Support

Figure 16 —- Effects of Duration and Social Support on the Development of Managerial

Skills

117

 

+One SD Above Mean

 

é SocialSuppon
a:
E - 0 -One SD Below Mean
é Social Support
8
.5
'8
E
3'
2
5
3.2~~7v* , 7, i 7‘ ,
3.1

 

 

 

Low Dilation High Duration

Figure 17 - Effects of Duration and Social Support on the Development of Interpersonal

Skills

118

 

 

3.1~—-————--——— ———————~

Development of Interpersonal Skills

 

 

 

2.9 r

Low Influencing without High Influencing without
Atlhorlty Authority

—0—-One SD Above Mean
Sochl Support

- O " One SD Bebw Mean
Soc'al Support

Figure 18 — Effects of Influencing without Authority and Social Support on the

Development of Interpersonal Skills

119

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this research was to develop and test a multi-level theory of leader
development. At the experience level of analysis, this theory explains how informal work
experiences, which are nested within individuals, promote the development of leadership
capacity. In this theory, leadership capacity comprises three specific leadership skills
(cognitive, managerial, strategic) and two self-concept beliefs (leadership identity,
leadership self-efficacy). At the individual level of analysis, this theory also explains how
two individual differences (achievement motivation, locus of control) and three
contextual factors (work constraints, feedback, social support) impact the developmental
value of informal work experiences. To empirically test this theory, I conducted a study
using both qualitative and quantitative methods with managers from a wide variety of
organizations. In this discussion of the study, I first provide a brief overview of the study
findings. I then discuss the strengths and limitations of the study, followed by a series of
supplemental analyses that address select limitations. I conclude this dissertation with a
discussion of the implications for leadership development research and practice.

Summary of Findings

One of the primary questions this research sought to address is which characteristics
of informal work experiences are related to the development of leadership skills, namely
cognitive, managerial, and interpersonal skills. Results from this study suggest that each
of the quantitative, interactive, and qualitative experience characteristics possesses
explanatory value in this respect. Among the quantitative and interactive dimensions,

€Xperiences that were particularly unfamiliar to the individual and dense with challenging

120

opportunities proved to be highly developmental in terms of cognitive, managerial, and
interpersonal skills. The duration of an experience showed a modest positive relationship
with the development of cognitive skills but had little to no effect on the development of
managerial or interpersonal skills. In terms of the qualitative dimensions, experiences that
required leaders to take their organization or work group in new directions and
experiences of relatively large scope and scale were particularly developmental of
cognitive and managerial skills. Experiences that forced leaders to overcome inherited
problems also promoted the development of cognitive skills. Five qualitative experience
characteristics were found to be particularly developmental of interpersonal skills. These
included experiences that required leaders to deal with problem employees, handle
significant external pressure, influence people whom they had no authority over, work in
cross-culture environments, and lead highly diverse work groups. Overall, these results
provide compelling evidence that informal work experiences have significant
developmental value for leaders and that the characteristics of these experiences shape
how and to what extent any single experience is developmental.

Beyond leadership skills, this research also examined how the characteristics of
informal work experiences and individuals’ performance in those experiences impact
one’s leadership identity and leadership self-efficacy. Findings from this study suggest
that one’s performance is a meaningful predictor for how any single experience affects
self-concept beliefs. In particular, individuals’ leadership identity and leadership self-
efficacy are enhanced as a result of experiences in which the individual performs well.
Contrary to expectations and existing theory (Bandura, 1997, Erikson, 1968), the

significance of an experience did not influence the relationship between performance and

121

self-concept beliefs. Thus, these findings confirm parts of existing theory on self-concept
beliefs but also raise some questions about why the significance of an experience might
not influence self-concept beliefs as some have suggested.

The findings discussed thus far have all been at the experience level of analysis.
Another important question this research sought to address is how and to what extent
individual-level factors, namely individual differences and contextual factors, influence
the developmental value of informal work experiences. In terms of individual differences,
I examined the impact of achievement motivation and locus of control on the
development of leadership skills—both of which were expected to enhance the
development of leadership skills. In the case of achievement motivation, findings from
this study suggest that achievement motivation does not enhance the developmental value
of informal work experiences. First, achievement motivation did not have a main effect
on leader skill development, meaning that individuals who were higher on achievement
motivation did not develop more than those who were low on this factor. Furthermore,
only one out of 19 cross-level moderation hypotheses associated with achievement
motivation was found to be significant. One possible explanation for these
underwhelming results is that the sample used in this study produced a restricted range of
achievement motivation data (M = 3.97; SD = .51). With a sample that included more
variation in achievement motivation, the results may have been more in line with a priori
predictions. Nonetheless, these findings draw into question the impact of achievement
motivation on leader skill development and thus provide an impetus for future research

on the role of motivation in leader development.

122

For locus of control, existing theory and research suggests that an internal locus of
control enhances learning and development (DuCette & Wolk, 1973; Ude & Vogler,
1969; Wolk & DuCette, 1974). In light of this literature, results from the present study
were mixed. Contrary to expectations, locus of control exhibited a negative main effect
on leader skill development. However, consistent with expectations, locus of control did
have a positive cross-level moderating effect on leader skill development for select
experience characteristics. Specifically, for experiences that were dense with challenging
opportunities, an internal locus of control proved to be particularly valuable for the
development of managerial and interpersonal skills. Similar findings emerged for
experiences that required leaders to deal with problem employees, influence without
authority, and deal with relatively large amounts of scope and scale. Thus, on one hand,
these results confirm that locus of control can have a positive impact on leader skill
development. On the other hand, these results draw into question the generic prediction
made by existing literature and suggest that locus of control may only have a positive
impact for select types of informal work experiences. Future research should examine
this issue further and attempt to understand why Iocus of control would have a positive
impact for certain types of informal work experiences but not others.

In terms of contextual factors, results from the current study suggest that work
constraints do not negatively impact leader skill development as expected, and
availability of feedback and social support can enhance leader skill development but only
for certain types of informal work experiences. Of the three contextual factors, only
availability of feedback exhibited a main effect on leader skill development—

specifically, feedback enhanced the development of managerial skills across all

123

experiences. In terms of cross-level moderation, only one of 19 cross-level moderation
hypotheses associated with work constraints was found to be significant and it was in the
opposite direction as expected—specifically, work constraints enhanced the
developmental value of experiences that required leaders to manage diverse work groups.
In terms of feedback, cross-level effects were inconsistent. For longer duration
experiences and experiences that required leaders to deal with problem employees,
feedback enhanced the development of managerial and interpersonal skills. On the other
hand, feedback decreased the developmental value of experiences where leaders had to
take their organization or work group in new directions and experiences of relatively
large scope and scale. These findings are consistent with past research that questions the
efficacy of feedback interventions (e. g., Klueger & Denisi, 1996) and suggest that
feedback availability is generally not sufficient for leadership development—even when
coupled with challenging informal work experiences. One possible explanation for this
that future research might explore is that the type of feedback received (positive versus
negative; diagnostic versus non-diagnostic) determines the ultimate impact on leader
development outcomes. It could be the case that the type of feedback received explains
how individuals interpret, react to, and learn from their experiences. Moreover, the type
of feedback received may interact with the type of experience such that different
experience types require different types of feedback. These are questions the present
study cannot address but would be interesting areas for future research. Finally, social
support exhibited a positive effect on leader skill development for certain types of

experiences. Specifically, social support enhanced the developmental value of

124

 

experiences that were long in duration and experiences that required individuals to
influence people for whom they had no authority.

Looking across these results, the cross-level findings complement and refine existing
literature in several ways. First, existing literature assumes that work constraints
negatively impact learning and development, yet results from this study suggest that may
not be the case. This could be because overcoming certain work constraints is
developmental in its own right; an example from the present study is the positive
relationship between work constraints and development when experiences require
managing work group diversity. That said, the general pattern of results for work
constraints is negative, so it seems reasonable that in most cases work constraints do not
enhance leader skill development. Second, Klueger and Denisi (1996) showed that
feedback does not necessarily result in higher levels of performance. The present study
confirms their findings at the experience level of analysis. In doing so, this research also
draws into question existing literature that suggests feedback coupled with challenging
informal work experiences leads to positive developmental benefits (Van Velsor &
McCauley, 2004). The present research suggests this is true for certain types of informal
work experiences but not all. Third, social support does not seem to promote leader skill
development as existing literature would suggest (Birdi et al., 1997; Noe, 1986).

Strengths, Limitations, and Areas for Future Research

This research had several strengths and limitations that should be noted. First, the
multi-level nature of this theory and research addresses a limitation of existing literature.
As stated previously, most research on informal work experiences as a mechanism for

development has focused on job-level experiences (e.g., Jackson & Wall, 1991; McCall

125

et al., 1988; McCauley et al., 1994; Wall, Jackson, & Davids, 1992). However, a job-
level perspective does not address the fact that two people in the same job often have
different sets of developmental experiences and, as a result of these experiences, develop
in different ways and at different rates. By conceptualizing and examining discrete, task-
level experiences, the current research explicitly models within—job and within-person
variance in developmental experiences that would not be considered at the job level.

The second strength of this study is the consideration of both skill and belief-based
outcomes. Existing leadership development research has focused purely on skill-based
outcomes. However, an emphasis on skills without considering the impact on individuals’
beliefs offers an incomplete report of the development process (Gagne, 1984; Kraiger,
Ford, & Salas, 1993; Messick, 1984). To address this limitation, the current research
examined the impact of informal work experiences on the development of leadership
skills and self-concept beliefs, namely leadership identity and leadership self-efficacy. In
turn, the current research offers a more robust framework for conceptualizing leader
development outcomes.

Another important strength of this research was the study design. Specifically, this
research employed multiple methods, using qualitative interview techniques to capture
rich data on each discrete experiences and quantitative survey measures to collect data on
individual differences, contextual factors, experience characteristics, and development
outcomes. Moreover, the quantitative survey data was collected from multiple sources
and at different times. The individual difference and contextual factors were collected
first from the focal participants. After the qualitative interviews, the focal participants

completed surveys on the experience characteristics. In a subsequent survey, the focal

126

participant provided data on how each experience impacted his or her leadership identity
and leadership self-efficacy. At this same time but on a different survey, individuals’
supervisors provided data on the relevant skill-based outcomes. By using multiple
sources and multiple methods, I minimized common method variance as a potential
explanation for the results and provided a more robust test of the study hypotheses.

Notwithstanding the strengths of this research, this study also had several limitations.
The first three points discussed here present methodological and research design
limitations of the study. Although every attempt was made to minimize these limitations
in the design of this study, the limitations are still noteworthy. Then, the remaining three
limitations discussed here are more conceptual in nature and highlight interesting avenues
for future theory building and research.

First, the present study relied on retrospective accounts of informal work experiences,
both from the focal participant and his or her supervisor. Retrospective accounts are
subject to errors of recall and memory biases. These retrospective biases occur because
people have limited, imperfect recall (Ericsson & Simon, 1980), are influenced by their
implicit or espoused theories of the past (Duncan, 1979), and are subject to cognitive
processes such as rationalization, self-presentation, simplification, attribution, or simple
lapses of memory (Wolfe & Jackson, 1987). Although issues related to memory and
recall bias are important limitations, there are four reasons why these biases are not a
significant concern in the present research. First, research on experience-sampling
methodologies has shown that retrospective reports converge with real-time reports of
life events (Ptacek, Smith, Espe, & Raffety, 1994). Second, as a check for recall bias, I

collected self-reports of the skill-based development outcomes in addition to the

127

 

supervisor ratings. In this particular study, the self ratings converged with the supervisor
ratings of cognitive, managerial, and interpersonal skill development (bivariate
correlations ranged from .28 to .44, p < .05). Third, one might expect retrospective biases
to attenuate the within-person variance among the experiences. However, data from this
study suggests that both focal participants and their supervisors sufficiently discriminated
among experiences. Specifically, the ratings of experience characteristics and
development outcomes showed considerable within-person variance (see Table 7). This
suggests that any retrospective bias present in the study did not result in a lack of
discrimination between experiences. Finally, this research was designed according to the
guidelines offered by Huber and colleagues (Huber, 1985; Huber & Power, 1985) for
minimizing memory and recall bias. Specifically, all of the experiences examined in this
study occurred within the last 12 months and were meaningful enough to be identified by
the participant. Furthermore, all participants were directly involved in their respective
experiences. As such, memory and recall bias was minimized in this research. That said,
future research should examine leader development from informal work experiences over
time—thus allowing researchers the opportunity to assess in real time the pre-post
changes in leadership capacity that result from informal work experiences.

A second limitation of this study involves the manner in which the information was
gathered. In the interview phase, leaders were interviewed by the author. It is possible
that the focal participants biased their responses in such a way that made them appear
more favorable. It is also possible that the underlying perspective or biases of the
interviewer somehow influenced the individuals’ responses. Some of these threats were

minimized by the methods used to elicit information on the experiences (e.g., asking for

128

both developmental and not deveIOpmental experiences) and the methods used to
summarize the experiences (e.g., written by the author and then edited/corrected by the
focal participants directly).

Another limitation of this study has to do with how the sample characteristics may
have influenced the results. Participation in this study was voluntary, and some
individuals who participated initially decided to drop out of the study. Thus, it is possible
that respondents and non-respondents varied along important (and unmeasured) variables.
For example, it might be the case that those who chose to complete the research had a
strong orientation toward learning and development, which might influence the degree to
which they develop from their experiences at work. In addition, it is possible that
participants did not feel their responses were anonymous. This could have influenced
response rates, but it also may have influenced the honesty of individuals’ responses. Any
such bias may have distorted the results in ways that are undetectable.

In addition to the above methodological concerns, there are also several conceptual
limitations in this research. First, only a limited range of experience characteristics were
assessed. The experience characteristics examined in this research were identified from
existing theory and research on general work experience and leadership development
(e.g., McCauley et al., 1994; Tesluk & Jacobs, 1998). However, relative to other
leadership domains, there has been very little research on how informal work experiences
facilitate leader development. Thus, there may be experience characteristics other than
those studied here that are noteworthy. Future research should look to identify these other
experience characteristics using the theoretical framework presented here as a guideline.

Further analysis of the current research could also be insightful in this respect. The

129

 

qualitative descriptions of the experiences collected in this study are extremely rich and
could be content analyzed for meaningful characteristics other than those identified a
pnofi.

Another conceptual limitation in this research is that the theory articulated here does
not identify the underlying psychological and behavioral mechanisms that explain how
certain informal experiences promote leader development. Future research should build
on the present theory to further articulate the leader development process and explanatory
mechanisms for how individuals develop leadership capacity from their experiences at
work. This research might choose to focus on how individuals psychologically or
behaviorally react to different types of informal work experiences, and then seek to
understand how these psychological or behavioral responses facilitate or hinder leader
development.

Finally, this research predicted a series of differential relationships between
experience characteristics and leader development outcomes. However, the experience
characteristics were generally correlated with all three leader skill dimensions —
cognitive, managerial, and interpersonal. This is not surprising given that the correlations
among cognitive, managerial, and interpersonal skill development ranged from .66 to .73
(p < .01). Moreover, the experience characteristics were modestly correlated with each
other. These data suggest there may be superordinate factors that better explain and
provide a more parsimonious view of both the experience characteristics and leader
development outcomes. In terms of the experience characteristics, with the exception of
duration, Ohlott (2004) suggested that experience characteristics could be organized

along five superordinate factors: unfamiliarity, creating change (new directions, inherited

130

 

problems, problems with employees), high levels of responsibility (high stakes, scope and
scale), managing boundaries (external pressure, influence without authority), and dealing
with diversity (work across cultures, work group diversity). Regarding leader
development outcomes, it seems reasonable based on the theory and research presented
here to expect the three skill-based outcomes to represent a general factor of leader skill
development; leadership identity and leadership self-efficacy, however, likely represent a
general factor of self-concept beliefs. In the next section, I present a series of
supplemental analyses that examine the superordinate factor structure of the experience
characteristics and leader development outcomes, thus addressing this limitation and
pursuing a more parsimonious model. Although the primary purpose of this research was
to examine the developmental value of each experience characteristic independently, I
also use these supplemental analyses to examine the relative importance of specific
experience characteristics in explaining leader skill development.
Supplemental Analyses

I first conducted a principal components analysis of the five leader development
outcomes—leadership identity, leadership self-efficacy, and cognitive, managerial, and
interpersonal skills. As illustrated in Table 16, the three skill-based outcomes loaded onto
to a single factor (leadership skills), and leadership identity and leadership self-efficacy
loaded onto a separate factor (self-concept beliefs). Thus, the leader development
outcomes examined in this study can be explained using a 2-factor solution. I then
conducted a principal components analysis of the qualitative experience characteristics,
excluding the quantitative (unfamiliarity, duration) and interactive (density)

characteristics because they are conceptually distinct based on the present theory and

131

prior research (e. g., Tesluk & Jacobs, 1998). Initial results indicated a 3-factor solution
best fit the data (Table 17). This 3-factor solution identified dealing with diversity and
creating change as separate factors, which was consistent with existing literature (Ohlott,
2004). However, the current data resulted in a single factor explaining high levels of
responsibility and managing boundaries, despite existing literature treating these as
conceptually distinct factors. Based on existing literature, I conducted a follow—up
principal components analysis where I forced a 4-factor solution. This solution, as
presented in Table 18, resulted in the 4-factor solution that was consistent with existing
literature: creating change, managing boundaries, high levels of responsibility, and
dealing with diversity. Given these results and the support for this 4-factor solution in
prior research, future research might choose to conceptualize the qualitative experience

characteristics around these four factors.

Table 16 - Principal Components Analysis of Leader Development Outcomes

 

 

 

Components
Leadership Self-concept
skills beliefs
Interpersonal skills .882
Managerial skills .878
Cognitive skills .875
Leadership identity .932
Leadership self-efficacy .925

 

Note. Varimax rotation with kaiser normalization.

132

Table 17 — Principal Components Analysis of Experience Characteristics (3-factor

 

 

 

solution)
Components
Res onsibilit . Dealin
& 113/Imagingy (813135 with g
Boundaries diversity
High stakes .779
Influence without authority .704
Scope and scale .699
External pressure .683
New directions .557
Dealing with problem employees .857
Inherited problems .848
Working across cultures .890
Work group diversity .708

 

Note. Varimax rotation with kaiser normalization. All coefficients below .50 are not

shown.

Table 18 — Principal Components Analysis of Experience Characteristics (4-factor

 

 

 

solution)
Components
Creating Managing ngh levels Dealing
chan e boundaries Of wrth
g responsibility diversity
Inherited problems .857
Dealing with problem employees .851
New directions .580

External pressure
Influence without authority
High stakes

Scope and scale

Working across cultures
Work group diversity

.858
.665
.886
.626
.833
.779

 

Note. Varimax rotation with kaiser normalization. All coefficients below .50 are not

shown.

133

 

Using this more parsimonious view of the qualitative experience characteristics, I
then used multi-level modeling to examine the relative importance of the quantitative,
interactive, and qualitative experience characteristics on the development of leadership
skills. In this analysis, all predictors were entered simultaneously. As presented in Table
19, creating change and high levels of responsibility emerged as key predictors of leader
skill development when controlling for the other experience characteristics. Dealing with
diversity was found to be a marginally significant predictor of leader skill development.
Together, these variables explained 32% of the within-person variance for leader skill
development. Based on these findings, future research on leader skill development may

want to focus primarily on these particular characteristics of informal work experiences.

Table 19 — Effects of Experience Characteristics on Leader Skill Development

 

 

 

Leader Skill Development
Predictor Coefficient SE
Intercept (mm) 3.34** .06
Gender (Yor) -.21 .14
Ethnicity (Yoz) .07 .12
Cognitive ability W03) .00 .00
Organizational tenure (Y04) .07** .02
Supplemental Analysis
Duration (Yro) .00 .00
Density (Y30) —.03 .05
Creating change (y40) .19** .07
High levels of responsibility (y50) .41** .13
Managing boundaries (Yso) .00 .11
Dealing with diversity (y7o) .13’ .07

 

* p < .10. * p < .05, one-tailed. ** p < .01, one-tailed.
Note: N = 225 (level-1); 60 (level-2). Gender (Male = 1). Ethnicity (Caucasian = 1).

134

Conclusion and Implications

With a strong theoretical foundation, a number of methodological strengths, and
many supportive findings, this dissertation makes a noteworthy contribution toward a
multi-level theory of leader development. This theory and the accompanying empirical
evidence illustrate the value of examining a variety of experience characteristics and
leader development outcomes at multiple levels of analysis. Notwithstanding the
limitations noted earlier, the results of this study have important implications for
leadership development research and practice. In this section, I highlight several of these
implications.

Organizations interested in designing leadership development programs that leverage
individuals’ informal work experiences will benefit from this research in several ways.
First, this research identifies the important characteristics of informal work experiences
and links those characteristics to meaningful development outcomes. To the extent
possible, organizations should match individuals’ developmental needs with the
characteristics of the experiences they are assigned within the normal course of work.
Second, this research identifies individual differences and contextual factors that are
important considerations in understanding the extent to which people develop from
informal work experiences. This allows organizations to predict a priori which types of
people and work environments will maximize the developmental value of certain types of
informal work experiences. Moreover, this research provides a foundation on which
organizations can explore interventions that might help overcome any developmental
limitations people have due to their individual predispositions or work context. In this

light, future research should examine ways in which organizations can implement

135

interventions that actually enhance the development that occurs as a result of informal
work experiences. Based on adult learning theories, interventions that facilitate self-
reflection and awareness processes should be particularly fruitful. Existing research on
reflective learning (Boyd & Fales, 1983; Marsick, 1988) and learning journals (Morrison,
1996; Riley-Doucet & Wilson, 1997) should provide valuable insights to this research.

Not only can organizations use this research to design leadership development
programs, but this research could also inform selection and succession planning in
organizations. The findings presented here provide insight into the types of experiences
that promote development of leadership skills and self-concept beliefs—both of which
are important for leader effectiveness. In turn, organizations could use the experience
typology developed here as a selection tool for leadership positions. In other words,
people with more experiences of a certain type in their career are likely to be more
prepared for leadership positions than people who have had fewer of these types of
informal work experiences. Future research that studies how individuals’ experience
profile, both in terms of the quantity of experience as well as the quality of experience,
predicts leadership effectiveness would be particularly insightful in this respect.

This dissertation only considered a limited set of experience characteristics,
individual differences, and contextual factors. Moreover, this dissertation did not
explicitly model the underlying psychological and behavioral mechanisms that explain
how individuals develop leadership skills and self—concept beliefs from their informal
experiences at work. As mentioned previously, these limitations of the present research
present opportunities for future research. Specifically, future research should seek to

identify meaningful experience characteristics other than those studied here. Similarly,

136

future research should examine other individual differences and contextual factors within
the context of the theoretical framework presented here. Potential factors include learning
orientation (Colquitt & Simmering, 1998; Pintrich, 2000), openness to experience (Costa
& McCrae, 1992), and organizational culture and climate for development (Noe, 1986;
Schein, 1992). Lastly, future research should also attempt to explicitly model the leader
development process. Existing literature on developmental and experiential learning
processes (e.g., Kolb, 1984; Van Velsor, Moxley, Bunker, 2004) offer a useful
framework for this line of research. In conclusion, this dissertation provides the
foundation for a multi-level theory of leader development and offers an agenda for

researchers interested in leader development from informal work experiences.

137

 

APPENDIX A

138

 

APPENDIX A: Summary of Hypothesized Main Effects

 

 

 

Outcome
. Cognitive Managerial Interpersonal Leadership Leadership
Hy pothesrs Antecedent skills skills skills identity self-efficacy
1 Duration X 1 X X
2 Unfamiliarity X X X
3 Density X X X
4 . Ne?” x x
directions
Dealing with
5 problem X
employees
6 Inherited X
problems
7 External X
pressures
Influencing
8 without X
authority
9 Work across X
cultures
10 W0.“ 90“" x
drversrty
ll Scope and X X
scale
1213 Leader x x
performance

 

139

APPENDIX B

140

APPENDIX B: Letter to Participants

Dear XXX:

On [date and time], we are scheduled to talk [in person or phone] as part of the MSU
Leadership Development Initiative. Prior to this interview, I would like for you to prepare
some thoughts about experiences you have had at work over the last 12 months. Below is
a framework for how to structure yoUr reflection and thinking. Your goal is to think of 4

specific on-the-iob experiences.

IMPORTANT: So that your supervisor can help assess these experiences on a variety of
dimensions, please only consider experiences or events for which your supervisor will be
familiar with.

Some experiences or events at work are highly developmental. Some experiences actually
hurt or impair our development as leaders. Furthermore, we learn and develop from our
successes as well as our failures. Thus, the 4 work experiences that we discuss should fall
into the following four categories (one experience from each category):

Hurt Your Development Very Developmental

 

Performed
Really Well

 

Performed
Poorly

 

 

 

 

Category #1: Not Developmental / High Performance

An experience or event in which you performed well but felt your development as a
leader was impaired or at least not enhanced in any way. An example might be a project
or specific assignment with which you already possessed the leadership knowledge and
skills to perform well. Thus, your capacity for leadership was not challenged per se, but
you were able to perform really well.

Category #2: Very Developmental / High Performance

An experience or event in which you performed well fl really developed your capacity
for leadership. This experience or event was highly developmental because it greatly
enhanced your leadership skills, knowledge, or confidence.

141

Category #3: Not Developmental / Poor Performance

An experience or event in which you performed poorly an_d_ felt your development as a
leader was impaired or at least not enhanced in any way. These experiences likely hurt
your confidence as a leader, impaired your career trajectory, and/or weakened your skills
or knowledge. These might include projects or assignments where you learned something
that you eventually discovered was incorrect, or an experience that made you really doubt
your own ability to effectively lead others.

Category #4: Very Developmental / Poor Performance

An experience or event in which you performed poorly but really developed your
capacity for leadership as a result of this experience. Despite your performance in the
experience or event, the experience itself was highly developmental because it greatly
enhanced your leadership skills, knowledge, or confidence. This experience is
characterized as “learning from our failures.”

I expect some experiences will be easier to think about than others. Please try to come to
the interview with 4 experiences already in mind — one from each of these categories. We
will discuss these experiences for approximately 1 hour. The types of questions I will ask
include:

1. What happened before this work experience / event — what led up to this
event?

2. Had you experienced similar events in the past?

3. To what extent did this experience challenge your leadership capacity? Why
and how? What was it about this experience that made it challenging (or not
challenging)?

4. What did you do before, during and after this experience / event occurred?

If you have any questions, feel free to email or call me. I look forward to meeting with
you.

142

 

APPENDIX C

143

APPENDIX C: Descriptions of Experiences

To protect participant anonymity, the descriptions of each experience were not included
in the published version of this dissertation. For more information on these descriptions,
please contact the author.

144

APPENDIX D

145

APPENDIX D: Survey Measures

Survey of Individuals Differences and Contextual Factors (Phase 1)

Welcome to the MSU Leadership Development Initiative! As discussed, you will receive
a variety of personalized feedback from this program — all directed at supporting your
own leadership development. In order for this feedback to be accurate and useful, please
answer all items candidly and honestly. There are no right or wrong answers. All data
will be kept confidential. Other than Scott DeRue (the program coordinator), no one will
have access to your individual data. You can be assured that your individual responses
will not be shared with anyone. In total, this first survey should take approximately 20
minutes to complete. Please note that the survey does not allow you to skip questions, so
please complete all of the items. After you complete this survey, Scott will contact you to
schedule an interview.

In accordance with University regulations, you must formally agree to participate in this
program. Please read the section below and then indicate your willingness to participate
by clicking the box at the bottom of the page.

This research study is designed to investigate leadership development. If you choose to
participate in this study, you will be asked to complete several short questionnaires and
participate in a one-on-one interview. In addition, if you choose to participate in this
study, you will be asked to get your direct supervisor to complete a brief questionnaire. In
this questionnaire, your supervisor will rate your learning and development over the past
12 months.

Your participation in this project is completely voluntary and will require a maximum of
3 hours over the next 4 months. You are free to terminate your participation at any time
without penalty. Your participation in this study will be kept confidential to the
maximum extent allowable by law.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding this study, you may contact D. Scott
DeRue (432-7725; derue@msu.edu) or John R. Hollenbeck (355-2413; jrh@msu.edu) in
the Management Department. Data from this study will be used for D. Scott DeRue's
dissertation, and John R. Hollenbeck is his dissertation advisor. If you have questions or
concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisfied at any time with
any aspect of this study, you may contact - anonymously, if you wish - the Social,
Behavioral, Educational Institutional Review Board (SIRB) by phone: (517) 355-2180,
fax: (517) 432-4503, e-mail: irb@msu.edu, or regular mail: 205B Olds Hall, East
Lansing, MI 48824.

Please click here:
I voluntarily agree to participate in this study.

 

 

I46

Background Information

First name
Last name

 

 

In which year were you born?

 

Gender
Male
Female

How many years have you worked at your current employer (round to the nearest year)?

 

How many years have you worked in your current position (round to the nearest year)?

 

How many years have you reported to your current supervisor (round to the nearest
year)?

 

How many direct reports are you responsible for in your organization?

 

 

 

Personal Characteristics

This first section gathers information on your personal characteristics. As feedback, you
will receive customized personality profiles based on this data. Read each statement
carefully. For each statement, please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree
with the statement. There are no right or wrong answers.

Work Orientation
[Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, Strongly Agree]
I am hesitant about making important decisions.
I do not work well under pressure.
I really enjoy an assignment that involves overcoming obstacles.
I only work as hard as I have to.
I like situations which do not require me to make risky decisions.
I more often take on difficult assignments that I am not sure that I can handle, than
easier ones that I believe I can do well in easily.
I do not like to have the responsibility of handling a difficult situation.
I prefer my work to be filled with challenging assignments.
I would rather do something at which I feel confident and relaxed than something
which is challenging and difficult.

147

The idea of climbing my way to the top does not appeal to me.

I am willing to select a challenging work assignment that I can learn a lot from.
I often look for opportunities to develop new skills and knowledge.

I enjoy challenging and difficult tasks at work where I'll learn new skills.

For me, development of my work ability is important enough to take risks.

I prefer to work in situations that require a high level of ability and talent.

Life Orientation
[Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, Strongly Agree]
Whether or not I get to be a leader depends mostly on my own ability.
When I make plans, I am almost certain to make them work.
When I get what I want, it's usually because I'm lucky.
I have often found that what is going to happen will happen.
I can pretty much determine what will happen in my life.
I am usually able to protect my personal interests.
When I get what I want, it's usually because I worked hard for it.
My life is determined by my own actions.

 

Job & Organizational Characteristics

This next section gathers information on the characteristics of your job and organization.
This is the final set of questions in this survey. Based on this information, you will
receive feedback on how the nature of your job and organization impact your own
development as a leader. Read each statement carefully. For each statement, please
indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the statement. If a statement is
highly reflective of your job, you will strongly agree with the statement. If a statement is
not at all reflective of your job, you will strongly disagree. There are no right or wrong
answers.

Feedback on the Job
[Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, Strongly Agree]
My actual work activities provide direct and clear information about the effectiveness
(e. g., quality and quantity) of my job performance.
My job itself provides feedback on my performance.
My job itself provides me with information about my performance.
I receive a great deal of information from my manager and co-workers about my job
performance.
Other people in the organization, such as managers and co-workers, provide
information about the effectiveness (e.g., quality and quantity) of my job performance.
I receive feedback on my performance from other people in my organization (such as
my manager or co-workers).

Support on the Job

148

[Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, Strongly Agree]
I have the opportunity to develop close friendships in my job.
I have the chance in my job to get to know other people.
I have the opportunity to meet with others in my work.
My supervisor is concerned about the welfare of the people that work for him / her.
PeOple I work with take a personal interest in me.
People I work with are friendly. .

Constraints on the Job
[Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, Strongly Agree]
I often must depend on others who are not well trained.
I have not been given enough training to do my job properly.
I am often not provided with the right materials and supplies to do my job.
The tools and equipment I need to do my job are frequently not available.
Lack of time frequently keeps me from getting my job done.
I am frequently given unscheduled activities to work on which keep me from getting
my job done.
It is difficult to get others to provide the help required to do my job.
Bad physical conditions (too cold, too bright, etc.) often interfere with getting my work
done.
I frequently receive inconsistent policies, procedures and instructions, which makes it
difficult to do my job.
Too much ‘red tape' frequently interferes with getting my work done.
I often have to follow the instructions of others even though I am in a better position to
know what should be done.
I often do not have the information I must have to do my job when it is needed.
My department's budget does not allow me to get my job done.

Survey of Experience Characteristics (Phase 3)

As part of the MSU Leadership Development Initiative, you recently talked with Scott
DeRue about several experiences you had at work. This survey gathers additional
information on the specific experiences that you and Scott discussed. The information
gathered in this survey will be a critical component in the feedback you receive from the
program. In order for this feedback to be accurate and useful, please answer all items
candidly and honestly. There are no right or wrong answers. All data will be kept
confidential.

In total, this survey should take approximately 20-25 minutes to complete. Please note
that the survey requires you to answer all of the questions.

First name
Last name

 

 

 

149

Your Specific Work Experiences

Below are summaries of the experiences you discussed with Scott. These are the same
summaries you reviewed shortly after your interview. Please read through these
summaries again to refresh your memory.

[Summary of experience(s) goes here]

For the remainder of this survey, you will be asked to rate each of the above experiences
on a variety of important dimensions. All of the following items ask to what extent you
agree or disagree with specific statements. For each of the experiences, you will indicate
your level of agreement for each item. Please answer all items the best you can. If you
need to refer back to the summaries at any point during the survey, simply scroll back to
the top of this screen.

Taking on Unfamiliar Responsibilities
[Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, Strongly Agree]
For each experience...
Going into this experience, you lacked the experience necessary for carrying out some
aspect of the work (e.g., financial or market analysis, negotiation, budgeting).
During this experience, you had to manage something (e.g., a function, product,
technology, market) with which you were unfamiliar.
Others questioned whether you were “ready” for this experience.
Compared to others, you didn’t have the credentials or background expected for
someone in this experience.
This experience was no less than a change in your career direction—you were doing a
type of work dramatically different from what you’ve done before.

Taking Your Group or Organization in New Directions
[Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, Strongly Agree]
For each experience...
In this experience, you had to carry out a major reorganization as a result of a merger,
acquisition, downsizing, or rapid growth.
In this experience, you had to make major strategic changes in the business—its
direction, structure, technology systems, or operations.
In this experience, you were trying something the organization had never tried before;
no one knew for sure how to do it or how it will come out.
This experience included launching new organizational ventures, such as new product
lines, acquisitions, new functions or groups, new plans or concepts, or new facilities.
In this experience, you had to create or establish new policies or procedures.

Inheriting Problems That You Did Not Create
[Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, Strongly Agree]
For each experience...
As part of this experience, you inherited widespread morale problems.

150

In this experience, you needed to restore the credibility of your unit with the rest of the
organization.

To succeed in this experience, you had to dismantle the strategy your predecessor had
established.

Prior to this experience, your business or unit had a record of poor performance.

In this experience, you had to solve major problems a redecessor created.

Managing Problems with Employees

[Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, Strongly Agree]

For each experience...
Your direct reports resisted your initiatives at some point during this experience.
During this experience, there was an interpersonal conflict between you and at least
one of your key direct reports.
In this experience, your employees were used to doing things the way they had always
been done and were reluctant to change.
In this experience, key members of your staff were incompetent, demotivated,
technically obsolete, or otherwise perfonrred poorly.
In this experience, some of your key direct reports lacked the experience to do their
jobs without close supervision from you.

Taking on "High Stakes" Roles and Responsibilities
[Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, Strongly Agree]
For each experience...
Your success or failure in this experience was evident to higher management.
In this experience, you were responsible for decisive action in a highly charged
environment.
In this experience, you were being tested by higher management.
In this experience, there were clear deadlines by which your key objectives had to be
accomplished.
In this experience, there was pressure to get a major piece of your job completed fast.

Dealing with Large Scope and Scale
[Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, Strongly Agree]
For each experience...
For you, this experience was a dramatic increase in scope (managing significantly more
people, dollars, sites, functions, and so forth).
This experience was potentially more than even a good delegator can handle.
In this experience, you were responsible for numerous different products, technologies,
or servrces.
In this experience, you were responsible for multiple functions or groups.
This experience put you under constant pressure: there were seldom any periods to
“catch your breath.”

Dealing with External Pressure
[Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, Strongly Agree]

151

 

For each experience...

In this experience, the customer base you worked with was extremely varied.

To achieve your most important goals in this experience, you had to influence people
outside the organizations (for example, clients, suppliers, unions, government
agencies).

In this experience, you managed relationships with government officials or regulatory
agencies. '

In this experience, you had to deal with diverse clients, customers, or markets.

In this experience, you had to carry out formal negotiations with an outside body, such
as unions or clients or joint venture partners.

Influencing People and Processes Without Direct Authority
[Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, Strongly Agree]
For each experience...
In this experience, you had to coordinate action across dispersed sites over which you
have no direct authority.
To achieve your most important goals in this experience, you had to influence peers at
similar levels in other units, functions, divisions, and so forth.
Achieving your goals in this experience depended on how well you handled internal
politics.
To accomplish a major portion of your objectives in this experience, you had to
influence and work with executives higher than your immediate boss.
In this experience, a great deal of coordination with other organizational units for
functions was required.

Working Across Cultures
[Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, Strongly Agree]
For each experience...
In this experience, you conducted business with people from different countries.
This experience required working in a foreign country where the culture is different
from your own.
This experience required dealing with foreign companies, agencies, or governments
that had a substantial impact on your business.
In this experience, you had to manage parts of the business that were scattered across
the world.
This experience required understanding the traditions and values of people from
different cultures.

Working with a Diverse Work Group

[Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, Strongly Agree]

For each experience...
In this experience, you had a diverse group of direct reports in terms of demographic
variables (e.g., age, race).
In this experience, you were part of a diverse work group.

152

In terms of demographic variables, you were responsible for developing managers from
both genders and different ethnic groups.

In this experience, you had to get people from different racial, religious, cultural, or
ethnic backgrounds to work together.

In terms of demographic variables, you had to make personnel decisions about
employees who differ from you in terms of race or gender.

Intensity of the Experience
[Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, Strongly Agree]
For each experience...
I experienced a high number of challenging opportunities during this experience.
There were a lot of unique opportunities during this experience that challenged my
leadership capacity.
This experience offered only a limited number of opportunities for personal growth and
development.

Survey of Leader Development Outcomes — Self Ratings (Phase 4)

This survey is the final and most important phase of the MSU Leadership Development
Initiative. This survey gathers information on how you developed as a result of the work
experiences we discussed. The information gathered in this survey is an essential
component of the feedback you will receive. In order for this feedback to be accurate and
useful, please answer all items candidly and honestly. There are no right or wrong
answers. All data will be kept confidential.

In total, this survey should take approximately 20-30 minutes to complete. Please note
that the survey requires you to answer all of the questions.

First name
Last name

 

 

 

 

Your Specific Work Experiences

Below are summaries of the experiences you discussed with Scott. These are the same
summaries you reviewed shortly after your interview. Please read through these
summaries again to refresh your memory.

[Summary of experience(s) goes here]

In this section of the survey, you will be asked to rate the extent to which you developed

specific leadership competencies as a result of the above experiences. Remember, some
experiences are highly developmental -- whereas other experiences are less

153

developmental. Moreover, experiences can be developmental in different ways. You will
also be asked to rate how each of these experiences made you feel at the time the
experience was happening - please try to recall your feelings during the experience as
best you can. If you need to refer back to the summaries at any point during the survey,
simply scroll back to the t0p of this screen.

To what extent did each experience make you feel...
[Not at all, To a limited extent, To a moderate extent, To a large extent, To a very large
extent]
For each experience...
Intelligent
Sensitive
Dedicated
Dynamic

To what extent did each experience increase your confidence in your own ability to...
[Not at all, To a lirrrited extent, To a moderate extent, To a large extent, To a very large
extent]
For each experience...

Identify critical areas for making improvements in your unit's effectiveness

Develop plans for change that take your unit in important new directions

Develop trusting relationships with others such that they will embrace change

Obtain the genuine support of others for new initiatives

Figure out ways for overcoming resistance to change

Obtain senior management's support for change

To what extent did each experience enhance the following competencies...
[Not at all, To a limited extent, To a moderate extent, To a large extent, To a very large
extent]
For each experience...
Comprehension of complex written documents
Active listening and questioning (i.e., listening to others and asking questions as
appropriate)
Critical thinking (i.e., using logic and analysis to identify the strengths and weaknesses
of different approaches)
Active learning (i.e., working with new information to grasp its implications)
Information gathering and comprehension (i.e., acquiring and comprehending new
information)
Visioning (i.e., developing an image of how things should work under ideal conditions)
Judgment and decision making (i.e., evaluating costs and benefits of potential actions)
Systems perception (i.e., determining when important changes have occurred in a
system or are likely to occur)
System evaluation (i.e., evaluating indicators of system performance)
Identification of downstream consequences (i.e., determining the long-term outcomes
of a change in Operations)

154

 

Identification of key causes (i.e., identifying the things that must be changed to achieve
a goal)

Problem identification / diagnosis (i.e., identifying the nature of problems)

Solution appraisal (i.e., evaluating the outcomes of problem solutions and identifying
lessons learned)

Operations analysis (i.e., analyzing system needs and requirements)

To what extent did each experience enhance the following competencies...
[Not at all, To a limited extent, To a moderate extent, To a large extent, To a very large
extent]
For each experience...
Management of financial resources
Management of material resources (e.g., equipment, facilities)
Management of personnel resources (i.e., motivating, developing, directing people)
Coordination (i.e., adjusting actions in relation to others' actions)
Time management (i.e., managing his/her time and the time of others)
Monitoring the performance of him/herself and others to make improvements
Instructing (i.e., teaching others how to do something)
Complex problem solving skills

To what extent did each experience enhance the following competencies...
[Not at all, To a limited extent, To a moderate extent, To a large extent, To a very large
extent]
For each experience...
Communicating information effectively (i.e., speaking, writing)
Social perceptiveness (i.e., being aware of others' reactions)
Persuasion (i.e., persuading others to change their minds or behavior)
Negotiation (i.e., bringing others together to reconcile differences)
Knowledge of human behavior (i.e., understanding people and the drivers of human
performance)

Survey of Leader Development Outcomes — Supervisor Ratings (Phase 4)

The person who asked you to complete this survey is participating in a leadership
development initiative that is part of the MBA program at Michigan State University.
Your input is extremely important to the success of this initiative, so thank you for
agreeing to participate.

As part of this initiative, the person who asked you to complete this survey identified
several experiences that occurred as part of his/her job. This survey asks you to rate this
person's development as a leader from each of these independent experiences. Your input
will be a critical component in the feedback that he or she receives from the program. In
order for this feedback to be accurate and useful, please answer all items candidly and
honestly. There are no right or wrong answers.

155

 

In total, this survey should take approximately 20 minutes to complete. Please note that
the survey requires you to answer all of the questions. After you have completed the
survey, I will email you to confirm that you were the person actually completing the
survey.

Your first name
Your last name

 

 

First name of program participant
Last name of program participant

 

 

 

 

Below are summaries of the experiences that the program participant identified. Please
read through these summaries and familiarize yourself with each experience. You will be
asked to rate the developmental impact of each experience.

Some experiences may be very developmental, while other experiences may not be
developmental at all. In some experiences, the person may have performed well. In other
experiences, the person may have performed poorly. Please evaluate each experience
with this in mind and be as honest and candid as possible. We requested that the program
participant only identify experiences that you would be familiar with. If you are not
familiar with a particular experience, you will have an opportunity to indicate this in the
survey. If you need to refer back to these summaries at any point during the survey,
simply scroll back to the top of this screen.

[Summary of experience(s) goes here]

To what extent did each experience enhance the following competencies...
[Not at all, To a limited extent, To a moderate extent, To a large extent, To a very large
extent]
For each experience...
Comprehension of complex written documents
Active listening and questioning (i.e., listening to others and asking questions as
appropriate)
Critical thinking (i.e., using logic and analysis to identify the strengths and weaknesses
of different approaches)
Active learning (i.e., working with new information to grasp its implications)
Information gathering and comprehension (i.e., acquiring and comprehending new
information)
Visioning (i.e., developing an image of how things should work under ideal conditions)
Judgment and decision making (i.e., evaluating costs and benefits of potential actions)
Systems perception (i.e., determining when important changes have occurred in a
system or are likely to occur)
System evaluation (i.e., evaluating indicators of system performance)

156

Identification of downstream consequences (i.e., determining the long—term outcomes
of a change in operations)

Identification of key causes (i.e., identifying the things that must be changed to achieve
a goal)

Problem identification / diagnosis (i.e., identifying the nature of problems)

Solution appraisal (i.e., evaluating the outcomes of problem solutions and identifying
lessons learned) '

Operations analysis (i.e., analyzing system needs and requirements)

To what extent did each experience enhance the following competencies...
[Not at all, To a limited extent, To a moderate extent, To a large extent, To a very large
extent]
For each experience...
Management of financial resources
Management of material resources (e. g., equipment, facilities)
Management of personnel resources (i.e., motivating, developing, directing people)
Coordination (i.e., adjusting actions in relation to others' actions)
Time management (i.e., managing his/her time and the time of others)
Monitoring the performance of him/herself and others to make improvements
Instructing (i.e., teaching others how to do something)
Complex problem solving skills

To what extent did each experience enhance the following competencies...
[Not at all, To a limited extent, To a moderate extent, To a large extent, To a very large
extent]
For each experience...
Communicating information effectively (i.e., speaking, writing)
Social perceptiveness (i.e., being aware of others' reactions)
Persuasion (i.e., persuading others to change their minds or behavior)
Negotiation (i.e., bringing others together to reconcile differences)
Knowledge of human behavior (i.e., understanding people and the drivers of human
performance)

For each experience, please rate this person's performance along the following
dimensions:
Quantity of performance (i.e., how many things he/she got done)
Quality of performance (i.e., the quality of what he/she accomplished)
Ability to get along with others
Dependability
Overall performance

157

 

APPENDIX E

158

APPENDIX E: Interview Protocol

Name:
Phone:

 

 

Email:

 

Organization:

 

Job Title:

 

Years in job:

 

General Questions

[After giving a brief overview of leadership development program and the purpose of this
interview]

I’d like to start by learning a little about you and your company...

0 Describe the unit that you work in — e. g., role in the organization, type of work,
etc.
o How many people work for you? What type of work do they do?
0 What are your primary roles and responsibilities as a manager/ leader within this
unit?
0 Describe how you see your role as manager or leader.
0 What do you do in a normal day?

Developmental Experiences

Per the email I sent you, you were to think of several work experiences — some of which
were developmental, some not so developmental, some where you performed really well,
and others where you didn’t perform do well. What I am really interested in
understanding is the nature of these experiences and how they were (or were not)
developmental for you. Let’s start with an experience that was especially
developmental. . .

o What was the experience / event that occurred - describe it to me.
Context Around the Experience (what happened before the experience, why did it occur)
0 What led up to the experience / event? What happened before the experience

occurred?
0 What was the cause of the experience? Why did the experience occur?

159

 

0 Had you experienced sirrrilar experiences in the past, or was this a completely new
experience for you?
0 Had you seen other people go through similar experiences in the past?
Did this help you in going through the experience yourself? Why or
why not?

Content of the Experience (how challenging was the event and why)

0 How challenging was this experience / event? What made it challenging or not
challenging?
0 Look for the experience characteristics (don’t ask about each on in
particular):
0 Unfamiliarity
Duration
Density
New directions
Inherited problem
Problems with employees
Scope and scale (task variety, skill variety)
External pressure
Influencing without authority
Work across cultures
0 Work group diversity
0 Who all was involved in this experience / event? How many people and who?
0 Did you have to coordinate all of these people? Did they depend on
each other (interdependence)?
0 To what extent did you have authority over all of the people involved?
How much autonomy did you have in this experience — were you
given the freedom to make all of your decisions, etc.?
o What did you do prior to this prior to, during, and after this experience / event?
0 H_ow did you decide what to do?
0 When did you decide to do what you did?
0 My did you do what you did?

OOOOOOOOO

Outcomes

0 What happened after the experience / event was over — e.g., did you reflect,
receive feedback, move on to the next “fire”, etc.?

0 How did you react to the experience / event? Did it make you feel more like an
effective leader? Did the experience improve or hurt your confidence in your
leadership capabilities? Why or why not?

0 Did you feel like you gained any new knowledge or skills from this experience?
Knowledge about what? What types of skills? Why or why not?

160

 

APPENDIX F

161

 

APPENDIX F: HLM Formulas

Level-1:
Yij '—' Boj + B1j*Xij + rij

Level-2 (intercept):
BOj = Yoo + 00]

Level-2 (slope):
Bu=7m+uu

Mixed model:
yr] = (Yoo + nor) + (Y10*Xij + ulj*xij) + Tn

162

APPENDIX G

163

 

APPENDIX G: Frequency Histograms

Frequency Histogram for the Number of Direct Reports

 

50—

40-

8
1

Frequency

A:
o
l

 

 

 

 

 

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
Number of Dlrect Reports

164

Frequency Histogram for the Duration of Experiences

Frequency

 

100-

8
I

g
0
J

20-

 

 

 

 

 

 

Duration - Number of Days

165

REFERENCES

166

'-".!- '4'!— ' —.r-r

 

REFERENCES

Ancona, D. G. (1990). Outward Bound - Strategies for Team Survival in an Organization.
Academy of Management Journal, 33, 334-365.

Ancona, D., & Chong, C. L. (1996). Entrainment: Pace, cycle, and rhythm in
organizational behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18, 251-284.

Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt,
Rinehart, & Winston.

Ausubel, D. P. (1978). Defense of Advance Organizers - Reply. Review of Educational
Research, 48, 251-257.

Avolio, B. J. (2004). Examining the full range model of leadership: Looking back to
transform forward. In D. A. Day, S. J. Zaccaro & S. M. Halpin (Eds), Leader
development for transforming organizations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Bandura, A. (1986). The Explanatory and Predictive Scope of Self-Efficacy Theory.
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4, 359-373.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-eflicacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.

Bandura, A., Adams, N. E., & Beyer, J. (1977). Cognitive-Processes Mediating
Behavioral Change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 125-139.

Baumeister, R. F. (1986). Identity: Cultural change and the struggle for the self. New
York: Oxford University Press.

Biran, M., & Wilson, G. T. (1981). Treatment of Phobic Disorders Using Cognitive and
Exposure Methods - a Self-Efficacy Analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 49, 886-899.

Birdi, K., Allan, G, & Warr, P. (1997). Correlates and perceived outcomes of four types
of employee development activity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 845-857.

Borman, W. C., Hanson, M. A., Oppler, S. H., Pulakos, E. D., & White, L. A. (1993).
Role of Early Supervisory Experience in Supervisor Performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 78, 443-449.

Bowers, D. G., & Seashore, S. E. (1966). Predicting Organizational Effectiveness With a
Four-Factor Theory of Leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1 I , 238-263.

Boyatzis, R. E., Leonard, D., Rhee, K., & Wheeler, J. V. (1996). Competencies can be
developed, but not the way we thought. Capability, 2, 25-41.

167

 

 

Brett, J. M. (1984). Job transitions and personal role development. In K. M. Rowland & i
G. R. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resource management.
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2001). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and
data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Burgoyne, J. G., & Hodgson, V. E. ( 1983). Natural Learning and Managerial Action - a
Phenomenological Study in the Field Setting. Journal of Management Studies, 20,
387-399.

Burke, M. J ., & Day, R. R. (1986). A Cumulative Study of the Effectiveness of
Managerial Training. Joumal of Applied Psychology, 71, 232-245.

Burke, P. J ., & Reitzes, D. C. (1981). The Link between Identity and Role Performance.
Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 83-92.

Burke, P. J., & Tully, J. C. (1977). Measurement of Role-Identity. Social Forces, 55,
881-897.

Campbell, D. J. (1988). Task Complexity - a Review and Analysis. Academy of
Management Review, 13, 40-52.

Carroll, S. J ., & Gillen, D. J. (1987). Are the Classical Management Functions Useful in
Describing Managerial Work. Academy of Management Review, 12, 38-51.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2 ed.). Hillsdale:
Erlbaum.

Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (2000). Toward an integrative theory of
training motivation: A meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 85, 678-707.

Colvin, G. (1998, March 2). Revenge of the nerds. Fortune, 13 7, 223-224.

Conger, J. A. (1993). The Brave-New-World of Leadership Training. Organizational
Dynamics, 21, 46-58.

Cope, J. (2003). Entrepreneurial learning and critical reflection - Discontinuous events as
triggers for 'higher-level' learning. Management Learning, 34, 429-450.

Copeman, G. (1971.). The chief executive and business growth. London: Leviathan
House.

Costanza, D. P., Fleishman, E. A., & Marshall-Mies, J. C. (1999). Knowledges. In N. G.
Peterson, M. D. Mumford, W. C. Borman, P. R. Jeanneret & E. A. Fleishman (Eds),
An occupational information system for the 21st century: The development of O*NET
(pp. 71-90). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

168

Cote, J. E., & Levine, C. G. (2002). Identity formation, agency, and culture: A social
psychological synthesis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cox, C. J ., & Cooper, C. L. (1988). High flyers: An anatomy of managerial success. New
York: Blackwell.

Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Upper Saddle
River, NJ, US: Prentice Hall.

Davies, J ., & Easterby-Smith, M. (1984). Learning and developing from managerial work
experience. Journal of Management Studies, 21, 169-183.

Day, D. V. (2000). Leadership development: A review in context. Leadership Quarterly,
1 1 , 58 1-613.

Day, D. V., & Halpin, S. M. (2004). Growing leaders for tomorrow: An introduction. In
D. V. Day, S. J. Zaccaro & S. M. Halpin (Eds), Leader development for transforming
organizations (pp. 3-22). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Day, D. V., & O'Connor, P. M. G. (2003). Leadership development: Understanding the
process. In S. E. Murphy & R. E. Riggio (Eds), The fixture of leadership
development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dechant, K. (1990). Knowing how to learn: The "neglected" management ability. Journal
of Management Development, 9, 4049.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.

Dotlich, D. L., & Noel, J. L. (1998). Action leaming: How the world 's top companies are
re-creating their leaders and themselves. San Francisco: J ossey-Bass.

Duncan, R. (1979). Qualitative research methods in strategic management. In D. E.
Schendel & C. Hofer (Eds), Strategic management: A new view of business
policy and planning. Boston, MA: Little, Brown, & Co.

Ducette, J ., & Wolk, S. (1973). Cognitive and Motivational Correlates of Generalized
Expectancies for Control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 420-426.

Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2004). Implicit leadership theories in applied settings:
Factor structure, generalizability, and stability over time. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89, 293-310.

Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal Reports as Data. Psychological Review,
87(3), 215-251.

Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: WW Norton.

169

 

 

Facteau, J. D., Dobbins, G. H., Russell, J. E. A., Ladd, R. T., & Kudisch, J. D. (1995).
Influence of General Perceptions of the Training Environment on Pretraining
Motivation and Perceived Training Transfer. Journal of Management, 21 , 1-25.

Faw, H. W., & Waller, T. G. (1976). Mathemagenic Behaviors and Efficiency in
Learning from Prose Materials - Review, Critique and Recommendations. Review of
Educational Research, 46, 691-720.

Feltz, D. L., Landers, D. M., & Raeder, U. (1979). Enhancing self—efficacy in high
avoidance motor tasks: A comparison of modeling techniques. Journal of Sport
Psychology, 1, 112-122.

Fiedler, F. E. (1996). Research on leadership selection and training: One view of the
future. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 241-250.

Flanagan, J. C. ( 1954). The Critical Incident Technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51, 327-
358.

Fleishman, E. A., Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J ., Levin, K. Y., Korotkin, A. L., & Hein,
M. B. (1991). Taxonomic efforts in the description of leader behavior: A synthesis
and functional interpretation. Leadership Quarterly, 2, 245-287.

Fox, 8., & Spector, P. E. (1999). A model of work frustration-aggression. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 20, 915-931.

Gagne, R. M. (1984). Learning Outcomes and Their Effects - Useful Categories of
Human-Performance. American Psychologist, 39, 377-385.

Gersick, C. J. G., & Hackman, J. R. (1990). Habitual Routines in Task-Perforrrring
Groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 47, 65-97.

Graham, J. L. (1983). Brazilian, Japanese, and American-Business Negotiations. Journal
of International Business Studies, 14, 47-61.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign: Addison-Wesley.

Hall, D. T. (2004). Self-awareness, identity, and leader development. In D. V. Day, S. J.
Zaccaro & S. M. Halpin (Eds), Leader development for transforming organizations
(pp. 153-176). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Halpern, D. F. (2004). The development of adult cognition: Understanding constancy and
change in adult learning. In D. A. Day, S. J. Zaccaro & S. M. Halpin (Eds), Leader
development for transforming organizations. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Hill, L. A. (1992). Becoming a manager: Mastery of a new identity. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.

170

Hofmann, D. A., Griffin, M. A., & Gavin, M. B. (2000). The application of hierarchical
linear modeling to organizational research. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski
(Eds), Multi-level theory, research, and methods in organizations. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hofmann, D. A., Morgeson, F. P., & Gerras, S. J. (2003). Climate as a moderator of the
relationship between leader-member exchange and content specific citizenship:
Safety climate as an exemplar. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 170-178.

Hollander, E. P. (1978). Leadership dynamics: A practical guide to effective relations.
New York: Free Press.

Hooijberg, R., Hunt, J. G., & Dodge, G. E. (1997). Leadership complexity and
development of the Leaderplex model. Journal of Management, 23, 375-408.

Home, S. E. (1983). Learning hierarchies: A critique. Educational Psychology, 3, 63-77.

House, R. J ., & Mitchell, T. R. (1974). Path-Goal Theory of Leadership. Journal of
Contemporary Business, 3, 81-97.

Houston, G. C. (1961). Manager development: Principles and perspectives. Homewood,
IL: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.

Huber, G. P. (1985). Temporal Stability and Response-Order Biases in Participant

Descriptions of Organizational Decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 28,
943-950.

Huber, G. P., & Power, D. J. (1985). Retrospective Reports of Strategic-Level Managers

- Guidelines for Increasing Their Accuracy. Strategic Management Journal, 6,
l7 1- 180.

Ibarra, H. (2003). Working identity: Unconventional strategies for reinventing your
career. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Jackson, P. R., & Wall, T. D. (1991). How Does Operator Control Enhance Performance
of Advanced Manufacturing Technology. Ergonomics, 34, 1301-1311.

Jacobs, T. O., & Jaques, E. (1987). Leadership in complex systems. In J. Zeidner (Ed.),
Human productivity enhancement (pp. 7-65). New York: Praeger.

Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2003). The core self-evaluations
scale: Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology, 56, 303-331.

Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (1989). Motivation and Cognitive-Abilities - an
Integrative Aptitude Treatment Interaction Approach to Skill Acquisition. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 74, 657-690.

171

Karaevli, A., & Hall, D. T. (2003). Growing leaders for turbulent times: Is succession
planning up to the challenge? Organizational Dynamics, 32, 62-79.

Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain:
Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285-308.

Karasek, R., Brisson, C., Kawakami, N., Houtman, 1., Bongers, P., & Arrrick, B. (1998).
The job content questionnaire (JCQ): An instrument for internationally comparative
assessment of psychosocial job characteristics. Journal of Occupational Health

Psychology, 3, 322-355.

Katz, R. (1980). Time and work: Toward an integrative perspective. In B. M. Staw & L.
L. Cummings (Eds), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 81-128).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Katz, R. L. (1974). Skills of an Effective Administrator. Harvard Business Review, 52,
90-102.

Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self: Problem and process in human development.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on
performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback
intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254-284.

Knowles, M. (1975). Self-directed learning. Chicago: Follet.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and
development. NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kotter, J. (1990). A force for change: How leadership differs from management. New
York: Free Press.

Kraiger, K., Ford, J. K., & Salas, E. (1993). Application of Cognitive, Skill-Based, and
Affective Theories of Learning Outcomes to New Methods of Training Evaluation.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 311-328.

Kreft, I., & De Leeuw, J. (1998). Introducing Multilevel Modeling. London: Sage
Publications.

Lance, C. E., Hedge, J. W., & Alley, W. E. (1989). Joint relationships of task proficiency
with aptitude, experience and task difficulty: A cross-level, interactional study.
Human Performance, 2, 249-272.

Lau, A. W., & Pavett, C. M. (1980). The nature of managerial work: A comparison of
public- and private-sector managers. Group & Organization Studies, 5, 453-466.

172

 

Levenson, H. M. (1981). Differentiating among intemality, powerful others, and chance.
In H. M. Lefcourt (Ed.), Research with the locus of control construct (pp. 15-63).
New York: Academic Press.

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J ., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A Longitudinal-Study on the Early
Development of Leader Member Exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 662-
674. »

Liu, Spybrook, Congdon, & Raudenbush (2005). Optimal Design for Longitudinal and
Multilevel Research (Version 1.56) [Computer Software] William T. Grant
Foundation.

London, M. (2002). Leadership development: Paths to self-insight and professional
growth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

London, M., & Mone, E. M. (1999). Continuous Learning. In D. R. Ilgen & E. D.
Pulakos (Eds), The changing nature of performance: Implications for staffing,
motivation, and development (pp. 119-153). San Francisco: J ossey-Bass Publishers.

Lord, R. G. (1985). An information processing approach to social perceptions, leadership
perceptions, and behavioral measurement in organizational settings. In B. M. Staw &
L. L. Cummings (Eds), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 7, pp. 87-128).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and Sense Making - What Newcomers Experience in
Entering Unfamiliar Organizational Settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25,
226-25 1.

Luthans, F., Welsh, D. H. B., & Taylor, L. A. (1988). A Descriptive Model of Managerial
Effectiveness. Group & Organization Studies, 13, 148-162.

Mahoney, T. A., Jerdee, T. H., & Carroll, S. J. (1965). The Job(s) of Management.
Industrial Relations, 4, 97-110.

Mahoney, T. A., Jerdee, T., & Carroll, G. R. (1963). Development of managerial
performance: A research approach. Cincinnati: South-Westem.

Maki, R. H. (1998). Testing predictions over text material. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky

& H. C. Graesser (Eds), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 117-
144). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Marsick, V. J ., & Watkins, K. (1990). Informal and incidental learning in the workplace.
New York: Routledge.

Mathieu, J. E., Martineau, J. W., & Tannenbaum, S. I. (1993). Individual and Situational
Influences on the Development of Self-Efficacy - Implications for Training
Effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 46, 125-147.

173

 

Maxwell, J. C. (1998). The 21 irrefutable laws of leadership. Nashville, TN: Thomas
Nelson.

McCall, M. W. (1998). High flyers: Developing the next generation of leaders. Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.

McCall, M. W. (2004). Leadership development through experience. Academy of
Management Executive, 18, 127-130.

McCall, M. W., & Hollenbeck, G. P. (2002). Developing global executives: The lessons
of international experience. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

McCall, M. W., Lombardo, M. M., & Morrison, A. M. (1988). The lessons of experience:
How successful executives develop on the job. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

McCauley, C. D., Ruderman, M. N., Ohlott, P. J ., & Morrow, J. E. (1994). Assessing the
Developmental Components of Managerial J obs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79,
544-560.

McCauley, C., & Van Velsor, E. (2004). The Center for Creative Leadership Handbook
of Leadership Development (2 ed.). San Francisco, CA: J ossey-Bass.

McCauley, C., Ohlott, P. J ., & Ruderman, M. N. (1999). Job challenge profile:
Facilitator’s Guide. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

McDaniel, M. A., Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1988). Job Experience Correlates of
J ob-Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 327-330.

McEnrue, M. P. (1988). Length of Experience and the Performance of Managers in the
Establishment Phase of Their Careers. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 175-
185.

Mehrabian, A., & Banks, 1... (1978). A questionnaire measure of individual differences in
achieving tendency. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 38, 475-478.

Messick, S. (1984). Abilities and knowledge in educational achievement testing: The
assessment of dynamic cognitive structures. In B. S. Blake (Ed.), Social and technical

issues in testing: Implications for test construction and usage (pp. 156-172).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York: Harper Row.

Morgeson, F. P. (2005). The external leadership of self-managing teams: Intervening in
the context of novel and disruptive events. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 497-
508.

174

 

Morgeson, F. P., & DeRue, D. S. (2006). Event criticality, urgency, and duration:
Understanding how events disrupt teams and influence team leader intervention.
Leadership Quarterly, 1 7, 271-287.

Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ):
Developing and Validating a Comprehensive Measure for Assessing Job Design and
the Nature of Work. Journal of Applied Psychology.

Morrison, A. M. (1992). The new leaders: Guidelines on leadership diversity in America.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Morrison, R. F., & Brantner, T. M. (1992). What Enhances or Inhibits learning a New
Job - a Basic Career Issue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 926-940.

Mumford, M. D., & Connelly, M. S. (1991). Leaders as creators: Leader performance and
problem solving in ill-defined domains. Leadership Quarterly, 2, 289-315.

Mumford, M. D., Marks, M. A., Connelly, M. S., Zaccaro, S. J ., & Reiter-Palmon, R.
(2000). Development of leadership skills: Experience and tinting. Leadership
Quarterly, 11, 87-114.

Mumford, M. D., Peterson, N. G., & Childs, R. A. (1999). Basic and cross-functional
skills. In N. G. Peterson, M. D. Mumford, W. C. Borman, P. R. Jeanneret & E. A.
Fleishman (Eds), An occupational information system for the 21 st century: The
development of O*NET (pp. 49-70). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.

Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J ., Harding, F. D., Jacobs, T. O., & Fleishman, E. A.
(2000). Leadership skills for a changing world: Solving complex social problems.
Leadership Quarterly, 11.

Mumford, T. V., Campion, M. A., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). The leadership skills
strataplex: Leadership skill requirements across organizational levels. Leadership
Quarterly.

Murray, H. J. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press.

Noe, R. A. (1986). Trainees Attributes and Attitudes - Neglected Influences on Training
Effectiveness. Academy of Management Review, 11 , 736-749.

Noe, R. A., Wilk, S. L., Mullen, E. J ., & Wanek, J. E. (1997). Employee Development:
Construct Validation Issues. In J. K. Ford (Ed), Improving Training Effectiveness in
Work Organizations (pp. 153-189). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Noe, R. A., Wilk, S. L., Mullen, E. J ., & Wanek, J. E. (1997). Employee Development:
ConstruCt Validation Issues. In J. K. Ford (Ed.), Improving Training Effectiveness in
Work Organizations (pp. 153-189). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

175

Ohlott, P. J. (2004). Job assignments. In C. McCauley & E. V. Velsor (Eds), The Center
for Creative Leadership: Handbook of leadership development. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Olson-Buchanan, J. B., Drasgow, F., Moberg, P. J ., Mead, A. D., Keenan, P. A., &
Donovan, M. A. (1998). Interactive video assessment of conflict resolution skills.
Personnel Psychology, 51, 1-24.

Paglis, L. L., & Green, S. G. (2002). Leadership self-efficacy and managers' motivation
for leading change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 215-235.

Peters, L. H., & Oconnor, E. J. (1980). Situational constraints and work outcomes: The
influence of a frequently overlooked construct. Academy of Management Review, 5,

391-395.

Phares, E. J. (1976). Locus of control in personality. Morristown, NJ: General Learning
Press.

Pinder, C. C., & Schroeder, K. G. (1987). Time to Proficiency Following Job Transfers.
Academy of Management Journal, 30, 336-353.

Ptacek, J. T., Smith, K. E., & Raffety, B. (1994). Limited correspondence between daily
coping reports and retrospective coping recall. Psychological Assessment, 6, 41-
49.

Quinones, M. A., Ford, J. K, & Teachout, M. S. (1995). The relationship between work
experience and job performance: A conceptual and meta-analytic review. Personnel
Psychology, 48, 887-910.

Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. L. (1999). Mentor functions and outcomes: A comparison of
men and women in formal and informal mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 84, 529-550.

Raudenbush, S. W., & Liu, X. F. (2000). Statistical power and optimal design for
multisite randomized trials. Psychological Methods, 5, 199-213.

Rogers, C. R. (1969). Freedom to learn. Columbus: Merrill.

Rosenthal, T. L., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1978). Social learning and cognition. New York:
Harcourt.

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized Expectancies for Internal Versus External Control of
Reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80, 1-28.

Schunk, D. H. (1996). Learning theories: An educational perspective. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.

176

 

Shuell, T. J. (1986). Cognitive conceptions of learning. Review of Educational Research,
56, 411-436.

Sims, H. P., Szilagyi, A. D., & Keller, R. T. (1976). The measurement of job
characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 19, 195-212.

Singer, J. D. (1998). Using SAS PROC MIXED to fit multilevel models, hierarchical
models, and individual growth models. Journal of Educational and Behavioral
Statistics, 23, 323-355.

Sitkin, S. B. (1992). Learning through Failure - the Strategy of Small Losses. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 14, 231-266.

Snijders, T., & Bosker, R. (1999). Multilevel Analysis: an introduction to basic and
advanced multilevel modeling. London: Sage Publications.

Sosik, J. J. (2000). The role of personal meaning in charismatic leadership. Journal of
Leadership Studies, 7, 60-74.

Spector, P. E. (1982). Behavior in Organizations as a Function of Employees Locus of
Control. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 482-497.

Starbuck, W. H., & Hedberg, B. (2001). How organizations learn from success and
failure. In M. Dierkes, A. B. Antal, J. Child & I. Nonaka (Eds), Handbook of
Organizational Learning and Knowledge (pp. 327-350). New York: Oxford Press.

Stewart, R. (1984). Developing managers by radical job moves. Journal of Management
Development, 3, 48-55.

Stogdill, R. M. (1959). Individual behavior and group achievement. New York: Oxford
University Press.

Tesluk, P. E., & Jacobs, R. R. (1998). Toward an integrated model of work experience.
Personnel Psychology, 51 , 321-355.

Ude, L. K., & Vogler, R. E. (1969). Internal Versus External Control of Reinforcement
and Awareness in a Conditioning Task. Journal of Psychology, 73, 63-67.

van Dyck, C., Frese, M., Baer, M., & Sonnentag, S. (2005). Organizational error
management culture and its impact on performance: A two-study replication. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 90, 1228-1240.

Vicere, A. A., & Fulmer, R. M. (1998). Leadership by design. Boston: Harvard Business
School Press.

Wall, T. D., & Jackson, P. R. (1995). New manufacturing initiatives and shopfloor
design. In A. Howard (Ed.), The changing nature of work (pp. 139-174). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

177

 

Wall, T. D., Jackson, P. R., & Davids, K. (1992). Operator Work Design and Robotics
System Performance - a Serendipitous Field-Study. Journal of Applied Psychology,
77, 353-362.

Walton, R. E. (1969). Interpersonal peacemaking: Confrontations and third-party
consultation. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Weick, K. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. New York: McGraw-I-Iill.
Wick, C. W. (1989). How people develop: An in-depth look. HR Report, 6, 1-3.

Wolk, S., & Ducette, J. (1974). Intentional Performance and Incidental-Learning as a

Function of Personality and Task Dimensions. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 29, 90-101.

Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Impact of Conceptions of Ability on Self-Regulatory
Mechanisms and Complex Decision-Making. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 56, 407-415.

Wolfe, J ., & Jackson, C. (1987). Creating Models of the Strategic Decision-Making
Process Via Participant Recall - a Free Simulation Examination. Journal of
Management, 13, 123-134.

Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in Organizations (5 ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-
Hall, Inc.

Zaccaro, S. J ., Rittrnan, A. L., & Marks, M. A. (2001). Team leadership. Leadership
Quarterly, 12.

178

 

 

 

IIIII

ll!llllllllllMillilllllllllll