Center for Leadership and People Management




Beiträge des CLPM beim 5th Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Leadership Symposium

Eine Zusammenfassung der angenommenen Forschungsbeiträge


Vom 6. Mai bis 9. Mai 2020 findet das 5th Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Leadership Symposium (IPLS) auf Mykonos, Griechenland statt. Das IPLS ist bereits bei seiner fünften Auflage eine zentrale Plattform für den Austausch und Vernetzung von Führungsforscher*innen weltweit. Insgesamt vier Beiträge des Center for Leadership and People Management wurden zur Präsentation angenommen.

Mehr Informationen zum 5th Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Leadership Symposium und das ausführliche Programm finden Sie hier (externer Link).

Zusammenfassung der Forschungsbeiträge

Im Folgenden finden Sie Zusammenfassungen der Forschungspräsentationen.

Motivated by your future self? The role of mentoring for protégés’ motivation to lead
Sophie Drozdzewski, Karolina Nieberle & Dieter Frey

Building motivated future leaders is one of the major challenges organizations face in today’s society. In order to take on and be successful in a (future) leadership role, individuals need to translate their possible future selves as leaders into an intrinsic and genuine desire to lead others (affective motivation to lead; Chan & Drasgow, 2001) (Guillén, Mayo, & Korotov, 2015). One context that is discussed as promising to nurture individuals’ motivation to lead is mentoring (Joo, Yu, & Atwater, 2018). Although the relevance of mentoring for leader development has been acknowledged (Lester, Hannah, Harms, Vogelgesang, & Avolio, 2011), empirical evidence on the cognitive mechanisms underlying it is scarce. This study builds on theorizing about leadership and self-concept (Lord & Brown, 2004) as well as time-related identity dynamics (Braun & Lord, 2017) to fill this gap. We develop and test a theoretical model of why and under which conditions protégés within mentoring relationships are affectively motivated to lead others.

Transformational leadership in the context of digital mentoring relationships - Opportunity for introverts?
Mariella Stockkamp, Eva Lermer, & Dieter Frey

In the present study, we examined the interaction effect of mentor personality and degree of mediated communication (DMC, the share of communication that was conveyed digital) on Transformational Leadership. In order to measure the impact of Transformational Leadership in the Mentoring context, we also investigated the role of Transformational Leadership in predicting protégés’ satisfaction and increase in study self-efficacy. We collected data from 166 mentoring dyads of a student peer-mentoring program of a German university at three points of measurement. Results showed that mentor extraversion predicts intellectual stimulation and this relationship was moderated by DMC. For the relation between extraversion and satisfaction with mentor, analyses showed a full mediating effect of intellectual stimulation. Results showed a significant mediating effect of idealized influence received on increase in study self-efficacy.
By applying Transformational Leadership Theory to the context of digital mentoring, this research gives a first glance of how digitalization is affecting leadership and positive outcomes for protégés. For intellectual stimulation, DMC is bridging the gap between extraverts and introverts in providing Transformational Leadership.

When orientating towards ‘the ought self’ is not enough: The interplay of prevention focus and prototypicality on prohibitive voice in teams
Martin Fladerer, Karolina Nieberle, & Bernadette Simon

In the light of the fast-changing environmental demands, teams are challenged to be innovative and creative while ensuring highest quality and attention to detail. Therefore, it is crucial that team members voluntarily voice out where they see threats for quality and performance (Li, Liao, Tangirala, & Firth, 2017). In contrast to promotive forms of voice (i.e., making innovative and creative suggestions), demonstrating prohibitive forms of voice (i.e., pinpointing problems) is associated with higher individual costs, which renders individuals less likely to voice concerns and corrections (Liang, Farh, & Farh, 2012). Despite its important role for team functioning, insights into when and why team members voice out their concerns towards their peers largely missing from the literature. By building on self-regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997) as conception of individuals’ future oriented selves and team prototypicality (Hogg, 2016) as conception of how individuals place themselves in their social context, we develop a moderated mediation model to explain prohibitive voice in teams. We test our proposed model in a cross-sectional field survey and a scenario-based experiment.

A Theory on Power Concentration in 21st Century Organizations: How and Why Organizational Control Configurations Affect Identification and Self-Interested Leader Behavior
Ulf Steinberg, Martin Fladerer, Claudia Peus, Sarah de Rijcke

The digital transformation entails a greater need for organizations and individuals to remain flexible and to adapt to changes in their environment at a greater pace (Cardinal, Kreutzer, & Miller, 2017). Leaders can respond to these pressures by adapting configurations of organizational control—the ensemble of structures, activities, and processes directed at making sure that members of organizations support collective organizational goals (cf. Cardinal et al., 2017). Indeed, recent developments in performance management (Pulakos, Mueller-Hanson, & Arad, 2019) indicate that leaders of organizations see a greater reliance on algorithmic and informal means of organizational control as a way to ensure that 21st century organizations progress towards flexible, boundaryless entities with adaptive goals (Cardinal et al., 2017; Pulakos et al., 2019; Shamir, 1999). However, because of current technological and societal context factors, namely the exaggerated societal focus on evaluation (Dahler-Larsen, 2012) and the digital transformation’s tendency to concentrate power (Curchod, Patriotta, Cohen, & Neysen, in press), this strategy is likely to backfire in ways that create more rigid organizations and foster self-serving uses of power by leaders and employees.