LEADERSHIP THEORIES: THE EVOLUTION OF CONTEXT

Leadership Theories: The Evolution of Context

Leadership Theories: The Evolution of Context

Q: What is meant by context and how has context been treated in formal leadership research? What new factors may have led to the inclusion of context in leadership theories?

It has been observed that it is impossible to understand behavior in organizations without an explicit consideration of the organizational context and this has been largely overlooked in organizational behavior research (Porter & McLaughlin, 2006). Indeed, three major models of leadership—path-goal theory, contingency theory of leadership, and the leadership substitutes model—give consideration to context, either as a moderating influence as in path goal or as a pivotal factor as in contingency theory. However, the effect of contextual factors specifically on the leadermember relationship has gone relatively unexplored in both the proximal and remote settings.

There are any number of practices that can be used to promote leader and leadership development. Although the most common approach is still the formal classroom program, there is a trend to embed development in the context of ongoing work. This trend can be traced back to interview research with managers in the 1980s regarding their most potent developmental experiences. Those interviews strongly indicated that managers believed experiences gained while on the job—and not classroom programs—most helped them develop leadership ability. The specific experiences were not always the same—they could be hardships or even failures, international assignments, mentoring, or receiving peer feedback (among others)—but it was the fact that the development occurred in a work-related context that made it so effective. Although people may learn worthwhile things from a classroom program, it is difficult to transfer the results back to the job and the organization. The difficulties in transferring classroom training further underscore the fact that developing individuals while ignoring the context in which they work is likely to have only limited impact.

Organizations make use of various development practices; several are briefly reviewed below. The practices are arranged below from least embedded to most embedded in the context of ongoing work.

On the assumption that the phenomenon in focus is, indeed, an instance of leadership, rather than of influence, power or something else, the next methodological issue concerns the explication of the concept and the identification of those parties engaged in leadership. The principal generic candidates here are “agents” and “actors.” There are two main reasons for preferring the former term ahead of the latter. First, there is a logical ground. “Actor” refers specifically to occupancy of a role, whereas “agent” designates social membership. From the perspective of human socialization and development, for example, it is clear that we all “become Agents before we become Actors” (Archer 1995, 277, original emphasis). Second, there is also a more practical consideration. Agency status is more advantageous because it widens the universe of potential leaders and/or leadership in particular contexts, whereas the designation “actors” increases the likelihood of their restriction to formal organizational role incumbents.

Previous generations of experience in proximal settings contribute to the perception of this ...