Dynamics of leadership

A key challenge of applying the new sciences to leadership is that the relationships, forces, and waves that influence behavior patterns are invisible; researchers can neither directly observe nor measure the dynamic and intangible phenomena. Lack of measurement means that the assumptions of the new sciences are not only tricky for typical researchers to understand but also challenging to validate. This does not mean those insights offered by the new science are without merit; it likely means that contemporary science simply lacks the means to measure dynamic phenomena.

The history of leadership research provides an example of how trait theory was universally dismissed until researchers developed new techniques to test its assumptions. New research techniques and statistical models allowed researchers to validate elements of trait theory and expand it (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991; Goleman, 1998; Yukl, 2010). Lex Donaldson (1996) provided evidence to support this point when he suggested that the lack of empirical support for dynamic processes may be due to simplistic analytical models, not the processes that the models attempt to measure. In addressing critics who argued that contingency theories could not be validated with research, Donaldson integrated divergent contingency theories to develop a model for analyzing dynamic processes in organizational environments.

Using his model, Donaldson validated key elements of contingency theory that appeared universal among 87 organizations in five countries. This is not to say that Donaldson's model can be used to verify applications of quantum physics and complexity theory to leadership. Still, it suggests that the lack of empirical support may say more about the measurement method than it does about the process being measured.

###

(C) 2021 by Brent Duncan, Ph.D. All rights reserved. For usage, please use the Contact form.