Implications of dispositional and process views of traits for individual difference research in leadership

By Jessica E. Dinh, R. Lord. 2012

128 citations recorded by the source corpus.

This article assesses the conceptual and methodological limitations associated with traditional dispositional approaches to personality and leadership, and it proposes that more process-oriented approaches will better enable leadership research to explore emergent leadership phenomena such as perception and effectiveness. By reconceptualizing the structure of the self as a dynamic, but stable entity, we maintain that an explicit focus on events as a fundamental level of analysis is needed, which will help reduce the inaccuracies of aggregate retrospective leadership measures that collapse across different situations and time. Event-level research methodologies can also help account for the effects that situational contingencies have on leader behavioral flexibility, the development of leadership skills, and leadership emergence within shared or distributive leadership structures.

Subfields: Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/46fe11b63cca11c005e37d00cc23593729f6c27c

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

In Social Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Leader individual differences, situational parameters, and leadership outcomes: A comprehensive review and integration (2017, background): “Others have described how followers develop schemas and cognitive networks of leader attributes used in making judgments about potential leaders (Dinh & Lord, 2012; Lord, 1985; Lord & Maher, 1993; Shondrick, Dinh, & Lord, 2010).”
Followership theory: A review and research agenda ☆ (2014, background): “…exclusively leader-centric, with a search for the traits necessary for leaders to attain leadership positions (i.e., leader emergence) and to effectively move followers toward the attainment of goals (i.e., leader effectiveness) (Dinh & Lord, 2012; Hogan, Curphy, & Hogan, 1994; Stogdill, 1948).”
A process model of self-regulation and leadership: How attentional resource capacity and negative emotions influence constructive and destructive leadership (2015, background): “While Krasikova et al. (2013) describe some of the factors associated with destructive leadership, they do not explain the process bywhich the depletion of psychological resources leads to destructive leadership (e.g., Dinh & Lord, 2012).”
Transformational and Transactional Leadership and Followers’ Achievement Goals (2013, result): “Thus, this research complements and supports recent models in the leadership literature (e.g., Dinh and Lord 2012) that have posited that leadership effectiveness may hinge on leaders’ ability to create emergent states such as followers’ goal orientation.”
What Have We Learned That Is Critical in Understanding Leadership Perceptions and Leader-Performance Relations? (2014, background): “In addition, the self-concept can be conceptualized as an interconnected structure comprised of nodes that represent knowledge, goals, values, and identities that influence behavior upon activation (Dinh & Lord, 2012).”