Becoming a Leader: Emergence of Leadership Style and Identity

Abstract

This conceptual paper presents a model for understanding how new leaders’ styles of leadership emerge and self-identity changes. New leaders’ interpersonal orientation, power motivation, and regulatory focus along with organizational expectations are predicted to influence their beliefs about how to exert power and their motivation to lead (MTL). New leaders’ power beliefs, MTL, and perceptions of situational needs affect their engaging in transactional and transformational behaviors. This is the emergence of leadership style and the development of identity as a leader. Over time, new leaders’ behaviors, outcomes, and identity formation alter their power beliefs and MTL. This model suggests directions for human resource development research and practice supporting new leader development and building a culture of leadership consistent with the organization’s expectations.

Keywords

transition to leadership identity shift leadership style power beliefs motivation to lead

Human resource development (HRD) practitioners are often called on to develop programs to evaluate and shape leadership development in line with the organization’s expectations. HRD practice also focuses on leaders’ transformative learning and identity (Shuck & Herd, 2012). Becoming a leader is a formative experience for individuals and an opportunity for HRD professionals to understand how new leaders’ first experiences in the role shape their development. HRD supports investment in new leaders to develop skills that give the organization competitive advantage (Espedal, 2005). This paper focuses on the role transition from team member or subject matter expert to leader of a unit.

The history of leadership research and practice considers styles of leadership (behavioral patterns) that are most effective under different conditions, how they are related to leaders’ personality, and training and performance programs to develop and reinforce leadership styles to match organizational expectations and culture (Hunt & Fedynich, 2018; Yukl & Gardner, 2020). There is less attention to how individual leaders, especially new leaders, acquire a style of leadership as they perform their new role and incorporate this style in their identity as a leader (Kragt & Day, 2020; London & Sherman, 2021; Maurer & London, 2018; Middleton et al., 2019). Becoming a leader is shaped by new leaders’ early challenges and the support they receive from their supervisors and others. HRD practice can benefit from understanding the role of early leadership experiences that shape new leaders’ transition from individual contributor and team member to the role of leader. This conceptual paper addresses the question: how do new leaders develop a style of behavior that they integrate into their self-identity as a leader? As such, the paper contributes to theory and guides research to support HRD practice in designing interventions to facilitate new leaders’ transition to leadership.

Individuals transitioning to the role of leader face multiple challenges as well as opportunities for learning (Ashforth, 2001). This transition is likely to include training and mentoring along with a chance to try leadership behaviors. One’s characteristics (abilities, personality, and prior experiences), perceptions of organizational expectations, and situational demands are likely to affect how well new leaders (a) learn cognitive, interpersonal, and strategic skills to meet these challenges (Mumford et al., 2007), and (b) identify with the new role (Ibarra et al., 2014; Maurer & London, 2018). Training and coaching can facilitate learning and help emerging leaders adjust and succeed. The extent to which new leaders are reinforced for consistent patterns of behavior begins to establish their styles of leadership (possibly different styles for different situations) and shape their identity as a leader. A leadership style is how individuals behave when leading a team (Bass, 1998; Yukl & Gardner, 2020). The concept of a style indicates patterns of behavior that reflect the ways they manage tasks and people. Leaders may vary their behavior depending on the situation or may have certain tendencies to repeat patterns of behavior regardless of the situation (Avolio, 2011; Blanchard et al., 2013). How new leaders develop styles of leadership and how this affects new leaders’ identity as leaders has implications for how training and management practices influence the development of new leaders and ultimately the emergence of a leadership culture in the organization.

Individual characteristics and organizational conditions contribute to early signs of leadership style (Bandura, 1989, 1997, 2001; McClelland, 1965; Day & Dragoni, 2015; Day & Sin, 2011; Kragt & Day, 2020). Drawing on theories of identity development (Ibarra et al., 2014), leader categorization (Lord & Maher, 1993), work adjustment (Dawis & Lofquist, 1984), and role transition (Ashforth, 2001), and the concepts of power beliefs (Maner, 2017; Maner & Case, 2016; Maner & Mead, 2010) and motivation to lead (Chan & Drasgow, 2001), this paper considers how early behaviors that are indicative of a leadership style shape new leaders’ self-awareness as a leader and the type of leader they become. As such, this paper contributes to the theory and practice of leader development by shaping our understanding of leadership style emergence and how new leaders’ behavioral styles can be influenced over time.

The paper proposes a theoretical model, Figure 1, to explain the emergence of an individual’s style of leadership. This is a dynamic approach that integrates organizational expectations and new leaders’ initial power beliefs (their beliefs about how to influence subordinates to accomplish goals) as they experience the effects of their early leadership behaviors, begin to establish a style of leadership, and see themselves as a leader. This is consistent with calls for leadership development theories that are dynamic (longitudinal, changing, and growth-oriented), recognize intrapersonal and interpersonal processes, and reflect how organizational strategic goals form directions for leader development (cf. Day et al., 2014; DeRue & Myers, 2015).

Figure 1.

New leader development and emerging identity.

The model purports that leadership style is derived from new leaders’ beliefs about power as they become leaders. Situational support for leadership development, including encouragement, role models, and culture of empowerment and control, influence new leaders’ early leadership behaviors. New leaders’ initial willingness to step into a leadership role (i.e., MTL) strengthens the relationship between power beliefs and the way new leaders behave, influenced by new leaders’ perceptions of the type of leadership supported and needed by the organization. This is consistent with work adjustment theory (Dawis & Lofquist, 1984), which predicts that the congruence between individual characteristics and contextual factors (in this case, power beliefs and situational conditions) shape new leaders’ behaviors, especially for those who are motivated to lead (Chan & Drasgow, 2001; Jones-Carmack, 2019).

The paper begins with a review of the literature on becoming a leader, new leader identity, and early signs of leadership style. Next the paper considers how power beliefs and the new leader’s MTL are influenced by organizational expectations and leader characteristics and experiences. This is followed by how power beliefs influence new leader’s perceptions of situational needs and support, which in turn influence their leadership behaviors. MTL is examined as a potential moderator of the relationship between power beliefs and leader behaviors. Leadership styles and leader identity emerge from these early leader behaviors, which in turn, affect leaders’ subsequent power beliefs and MTL.

Background: The Transition Experience

As a first-time leader in an organization, first efforts to influence subordinates may be challenging especially for individuals who have little or no prior leadership experience (Lingo & McGinn, 2020). New leaders have observed and followed leaders but may not have been accountable to any great extent for managing teams and accomplishing team-level goals in a work setting. They may have had some experience as a leader, likely in a school or club setting or as a team member when their expertise was needed to direct the team. Some new leaders may have aspired to be leaders before being appointed to a leadership role, others not as much or not at all. Yet they were deemed to have leadership talent by their managers and ready for promotion or leadership training. A key component of their development is their transition in self-image from subject matter expert and team member to leader (Maurer & London, 2018).

Generally, personality dimensions, beliefs, and desires can change as a result of transitions, demands, events, and associated feelings (see Wagner et al., 2020, for a summary of research on personality changeability as a result of contextual experiences). For new leaders, personality and situational conditions are likely to influence their early attempts at leadership, which in turn can strengthen or change their beliefs, personality, and desires. The transition to leadership likely entails a new assignment (sometimes in a new location) and new coworkers. The new leader may be expected to take on leadership responsibilities that are both transactional (e.g., assigning and directing tasks to subordinates) and transformational (e.g., understanding and meeting subordinates needs, and reinforcing their commitment and engagement) (Bass, 1998; Henderson, 2002; Kim & Kim, 2017). Over time, leadership behaviors contribute to an emerging leadership style. This is a dynamic process. With experience, leaders recognize the value of different leader behavior to match the situation, for instance, the value of person-focused leadership in small teams and task focused-leadership in large teams (Pratoom, 2018). New leaders’ behaviors are likely to evolve, possibly with the development of one type of behavior emblematic of a distinguishable style, a range of leadership styles (Avolio, 2011; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Yukl et al., 2002), or paradoxical leadership (seemingly contradictory behaviors) (Pearce et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2015).

Seeing oneself as a leader evolves over time as a result of experiences that allow people to gain insight about their abilities and their beliefs about how to be an effective leader (Lord & Hall, 2005). Ibarra et al. (2014) reviewed three theories that drive self-identity development. Identity theory holds that individuals’ self-identity increases as they take a role or have it ascribed to them (Gecas, 1982). Social identity theory holds that group members gain influence by adapting their behavior to their perceptions of group expectations (Hogg, 2001; Van Knippenberg et al., 2004; Walumbwa et al., 2020 ). Social construction theory holds that being granted this role over time increases identity and motivation (Ashforth, 2001; Chan & Drasgow, 2001; DeRue & Ashford, 2010; DeRue, et al., 2009; Kark & Van Dijk, 2007).

Leadership development is an identity formation process (Warhurst, 2012; Yeager & Callahan, 2016). This can be a tension producing process as the new leader balances or relinquishes the roles of individual contributor and team member with the new role of leader (Maurer & London, 2018; Nyberg & Sveningsson, 2014). “Leadership identity is constructed in organizations when individuals claim and grant leader and follower identities in their social interactions. Through this claiming-granting process, individuals internalize an identity as leader or follower, and those identities become relationally recognized through reciprocal role adoption and collectively endorsed within the organizational context” (DeRue & Ashford, 2010, p. 627). New leaders who develop a strong self-identity as a leader see themselves as having higher self-efficacy to grow and develop their leadership ability than those have a weak identity as a leader (Day & Dragoni, 2015; Day et al., 2009; Lord & Hall, 2005; Van Knippenberg et al., 2004).

Becoming a leader is a role making process (Ashforth, 2001; Dansereau et al., 1975). The organization has standards and expectations for the leadership role that are inculcated during training. Even before training, the employee, not yet promoted to leader, observes and possibly acts like certain leaders (the process of anticipatory socialization; Merton, 1957). During training, managers and trainers describe and demonstrate expected behaviors, and new leaders have a chance to practice these behaviors. The transition to leadership may be a make-it-or-break-it role acquisition/role adoption process characterized by the organization’s expectation that the leader will transition rapidly from follower to leader (e.g., sudden immersion, relinquishing old roles and behaviors, and applying new ones). The organization specifies expected leader behaviors, and tracks performance and development using evaluation methods, feedback, and rewards for positive outcomes (Dowell, 2010). Alternatively, the transition to leadership may be an ongoing, gradual, self-developmental (self-regulated) process of role creation (Bolander et al., 2017). These scenarios are not an either-or. New leaders may develop combinations of both transactional and transformational leadership (Avolio, 2011; Bass & Avolio, 1994). Coming into the assignment, new leaders vary in their motivation to lead and conception of what leaders are supposed to do with team members to accomplish team goals (London & Sherman, 2021). They learn social dynamics, drawing on their beliefs about power and experimenting with exchange relationships, exerting dominance, teambuilding, and gaining respect in relation to their perception of situational needs.

This paper extends this literature to consider how new leaders incorporate a leadership style into their self-identity, and how this process emerges from new leaders’ perceptions of organizational expectations, their beliefs about power, and their MTL. Identity shift to leader focuses not just on one’s identity as a leader but also on one’s identity as the kind of leader one wants to be or perceives oneself to be. The model in Figure 1 of new leader development and emergence of leadership style and self-identity integrates power beliefs and MTL, and their antecedents, to suggest effects on, and changes in, leadership behavior, style emergence, leader self-identity over time. Two characteristics are likely to affect power beliefs: new leaders’ interpersonal orientation that reflects goals for building relationships (communal and/or exchange) and how leaders navigate social hierarchies (through prestige and/or dominance). The model also proposes that MTL is a function of how a new leader’s promotion regulatory focus (i.e., desire for achievement) influences MTL. Power beliefs and MTL, together with perceptions of situational needs, are likely to affect the degree to which a new leader adopts transactional and transformational behaviors that, over time, form the new leader’s style (i.e., the leader’s most likely leadership behaviors) and self-image as a leader. Outcomes of leadership style will likely change or reinforce the leader’s power beliefs. Increasing self-identity as a leader will likely reinforce the leader’s MTL. This model can help explain leader development generally, but also how some leaders are self-centered and control-oriented whereas others are other-centered and empowering. Moreover, it can explain how new leaders have supportive experiences that increase their MTL whereas others are hampered by lack of support and prefer the role of individual contributor or team member to leader.

Power Beliefs

Leader categorization theory holds that leaders have beliefs, essentially their own implicit leadership theory, about the power they hold and the behaviors that are appropriate for the leader (Gioia & Sims, 1983; Lord & Maher, 1993; Rus et al., 2010; Van Gils et al., 2010). New leaders are likely to start their first leadership assignment with a view about how to manage subordinates to accomplish goals (Chen et al., 2001; Tost, 2015). How individuals view power is a function of their sense of agency, background, and organizational knowledge (Kezar, 2011; Pfeffer, 1992; Tew, 2002). New leaders’ beliefs about power are likely shaped by their earlier leadership experiences, in activities in school and/or the community and as temporary leaders of teams at work. Also, the organization is likely to influence their beliefs about power based on the behavior of leaders throughout the organization who are role models and mentors. As a result, the new leader may believe that power should be exerted in particular ways or through multiple routes.

Influence of Individual Characteristics Affecting Power Beliefs

Power over others stimulates actions consistent with one’s goals (Keltner et al., 2003; Lingo & McGinn, 2020; Overbeck & Park, 2006). Interpersonal goal orientation can be a foundation for leaders’ conceptualization of power (London et al., 2019). Two dimensions of interpersonal goal orientation are communal orientation (a predisposition to lead in a manner that is collectively oriented and empowering) and exchange orientation (a predisposition to be self-centered and controlling with rewards and punishments) (Buunk et al., 1993; Fast et al., 2012). Communal leaders view power as a social responsibility (Galinsky et al., 2003). They are inclined to empower team members to use their abilities and involve them when making decisions. Exchange-oriented leaders view power in terms of their own and team members’ self-interest, using rewards and punishments to ensure team members meet expectations (Clark & Mills, 2012). They are motivated to lead by transactions (Bragger et al., 2021).

Another characteristic that may influence new leaders’ power beliefs, likely to be consistent with interpersonal orientation, is how they navigate social hierarchies. Some individuals are motivated to be controlling, believing that power stems from dominance (position power) (Maner 2017; Maner & Case, 2016; Maner & Mead, 2010). Others are motivated to gain prestige and respect, believing that power stems from demonstrating their competence. Prestige may also come from teambuilding and empowering subordinates to use their expertise to make decisions or take actions to help the team accomplish goals. A new leader may try different combinations of these approaches or have a tendency toward one type, power through teambuilding and earning respect or power through exchange relationships and dominance.

Proposition 1: New leaders’ beliefs about power will be influenced by their interpersonal orientation and navigation of social hierarchies. Specifically, new leaders’ communal orientation and motivation for prestige will be positively related to their belief that power stems from teambuilding, empowerment, and demonstrating expertise to team members. New leaders’ exchange orientation and motivation for dominance will be positively related to their belief that power stems from dominant behavior and use of rewards and punishments.

Influence of Organizational Expectations on New Leaders’ Power Beliefs

Power beliefs will be influenced by contextual factors, such as organizational expectations and cues for behaviors (Hogg, 2001; Lingo & McGinn, 2020). Organizational expectations are likely to affect how new leaders’ individual characteristics influence the style(s) of leadership they enact and their self-image as a leader (Morgan, 2014). Organizations that have a culture of controlling supervision supported by rules and regulations are likely to promulgate leaders who believe that power stems from exchange relationships and strong control (i.e., dominance) by setting goals and work methods and establishing rewards and punishments for meeting expectations. Organizations that strive to empower new leaders are likely to promulgate leaders who believe that power stems from their expertise, empowerment of subordinates, and teambuilding (Ke & Wei, 2008; Schein, 2017). To the extent that the organization, through the actions of higher-level managers and executives, expects leaders and their teams to follow rules and standard procedures and be rewarded for meeting expectations, new leaders are likely to control team members’ behaviors and establish rewards and punishments. To the extent that the organization empowers leaders and their teams to establish goals and work methods and provides feedback and mentoring to leaders, and expects leaders to do the same, new leaders are likely to empower their team members, build cohesive work relationships among team members, and gain their respect.

Proposition 2: New leaders’ beliefs about power will be influenced by their perception of organizational expectations for their performance and development. New leaders’ perceptions that the organization empowers new leaders will be positively related to their belief that power stems from expertise, empowerment of team members, and teambuilding. New leaders’ perceptions that the organization expects them to exert strong control and adherence to rules and regulations will be positively related to their belief that power stems from asserting dominance by setting goals and work processes and using rewards and punishment to ensure team members’ compliance.

Power Beliefs and Leadership Behaviors

Transactional and transformational leadership are classic leadership styles (e.g., Bass, 1998; Vera & Crossan, 2004). Transactional leader behaviors focus on structuring work methods, giving directives, assigning tasks, and maintaining control. Transformational behaviors focus on engaging team members to create a common vision and strategies to accomplish the vision, communicating the vision to others, gaining commitment, and empowering team members to implement the strategies and accomplish goals. Communally-oriented leaders use transformational behaviors to gain the commitment of their team members, empower and learn from their team, and earn their respect, and the respect of higher-level managers (Bear et al., 2017; Fast et al., 2012). Communally-oriented new leaders who want to be respected for their expertise are sensitive to others’ needs. They are responsive to how others react to them and are open to learning ways to enhance their success and earn respect from others. They are effective at two-way communications, which contributes to team members’ success, mental capacity, commitment, and satisfaction (Crane & Hartwell, 2018; Mikkelson et al., 2015; Nesbit, 2012; Weihrich & Koontz, 1993; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). That is, they are likely to adopt transformational leader behaviors.

Exchange-oriented individuals demand actions from others. They enact a transactional style of leadership that rests on their position in the organization and the force they command. Communication is one-way, from them to their teams. They focus on making unilateral decisions and giving orders. Whereas communally-oriented, prestige-motivated individuals are likely to empower others through transformational behaviors, exchange-oriented, dominance-motivated individuals retain power through transactional behaviors (Bear et al., 2017).

In summary, new leaders’ power beliefs, influenced by their interpersonal orientation and strategies for navigating social hierarchies and their perceptions of the organization’s expectations of them, will affect their early leadership behaviors. New leaders’ transformational leadership is likely to be strengthened by their communal interpersonal orientation and reliance on their expertise and experience as a source of power. New leaders’ transactional leadership is likely to be strengthened by their exchange interpersonal orientation and reliance on their position as a source of power.

Proposition 3: New leaders’ beliefs about sources of power will be related to their leadership behaviors. Their belief that power stems from exchange relationships and dominance will be positively related to their use of transactive behaviors. Their belief that power stems from empowerment, teambuilding, and respect for competence will be positively related to their use of transformational behaviors.

New Leaders’ Perceptions of Situational Conditions

Situational conditions are likely to mediate the effects of power beliefs on leadership behaviors. New leaders diagnose a situation to determine the behaviors they feel are most appropriate (Thompson & Vecchio, 2009; Yukl, 2012). Their power beliefs, based on their own inclinations (resulting from experience and personality) and what they think the organization wants them to do may not fit what they perceive will work best in the situation. As such, their perceptions of the extent to which communal and exchange relationships are needed and prestige or dominance will be more effective depending on their interpretation of situational needs. This interpretation, colored by power beliefs, will influence new leaders’ behaviors. Over time, this may cause new leaders to change their power beliefs and their proclivity to use transformational and/or transactive behaviors. In other words, new leaders judge the demands of the situation, vary their behavior, likely after experimentation and trial and error, and learn different ways to lead. New leaders will repeat behaviors that are successful—that is, behaviors that achieve team goals and are rewarded by the new leader’s manager. If new leaders believe that the situation calls for behaviors in line with their power beliefs and organizational expectations, this will strengthen the relationship between their power beliefs and their behaviors (Fast et al., 2012). If new leaders believe that the situation calls for behaviors that are not in line with their power beliefs and organizational expectations, this will weaken the relationship between initial power beliefs and behaviors. The new leader will experiment with different combinations of leader behaviors and change their power beliefs. As such, the congruence between new leaders’ initial perception of situational conditions and power beliefs will influence their leadership behaviors. The stronger the congruence, the higher the likelihood of leader behaviors consistent with power beliefs.

Proposition 4: New leaders’ perceptions of situational conditions (i.e., need for dominant control and exchange relationships or control by earning respect and building community) will mediate the relationship between their power beliefs shortly after becoming a leader and their early leadership behaviors. Initial power beliefs will influence how the new leader interprets the appropriateness of communal and exchange relationships and control through prestige or dominance.

Proposition 4a: The congruence between new leaders’ initial perceptions of situational conditions and their power beliefs (i.e., what they believe is the way to lead and what the situation calls for) will increase to the relationship between their power beliefs and their leader behaviors. New leaders’ perceptions that situational conditions are not congruent with their power beliefs (they recognize that their power beliefs will not work well in a particular situation) will weaken the relationship between their power beliefs and leadership behaviors and stimulate a wider variety of leadership behaviors. Over time, new leaders will adjust their behaviors and change their power beliefs in relation to outcomes of their leadership, and the relation between their subsequent power beliefs and leader behaviors will increase.

Motivation to Lead

MTL is likely to moderate the relationship between power beliefs and leader behavior. Chan and Drasgow (2001) and Chan et al. (2000) distinguished between three sources of MTL: Affective MTL is the tendency to enjoy leading others and seeing oneself as a leader. Social normative MTL is the compulsion to lead out of a sense of duty or responsibility. Noncalculative MTL is accepting leadership roles without recognizing the personal costs of leadership. Individuals who are high in affective or social normative MTL are likely to be high in noncalculative MTL. Chan and Drasgow (2001) viewed MTL as changeable through development and experiences and likely affected by different individual characteristics. Consider how the desire to achieve may be a source of MTL. Performance prove goals focus on positive outcomes and self-confidence to achieve (Higgins, 1997, 1998). Kark and Van Dijk (2007) predicted that individuals with a stronger performance prove regulatory focus will be higher in MTL. They also posited that leaders with a failure avoid/prevention focus (i.e., a focus on avoiding negative outcomes that comes from low self-confidence) will be lower in MTL.

Perceived organizational support has been found to be positively related to MTL after controlling for personality characteristics (Porter et al., 2016). Kark and Van Dijk (2007) suggested that MTL is likely to be affected by organizational cultures that prompt promotion or prevention regulatory foci—cultures that focus on rewards and recognition compared to cultures that focus on punishing failure. Situational conditions such as pay, promotion opportunities, recognition, job design, quality of organizational communications, and workplace spirituality have been found to be related to MTL (Jones-Carmack, 2019). Perceiving support for leadership development may stimulate the new leader’s motivation to reciprocate by engaging in behaviors that the organization values and rewards (Gillet et al., 2013). There is also evidence to indicate that MTL increases when leaders develop strong leader self-efficacy beliefs and increase positive thoughts about their own leadership behaviors (Chan & Drasgow, 2001; Guillén et al., 2015; Kark & Van Dijk, 2007). This may stem from leader trainees’ role models and one or more mentors who prompt them to recognize their leadership skills and abilities, which in turn increases their MTL (Andersen & Chen, 2002; Andersen et al., 1995; Aron et al., 1991). However, other research found that self-efficacy was not a predictor of MTL (Jones-Carmack, 2019). This suggests that realizing one can perform well in a role does not necessarily lead to wanting to remain in the role, perhaps because situational conditions are not supportive (e.g., assignments were stressful) or outcomes have mixed results.

In summary, performance prove regulatory focus is likely to be derived from positive experiences that build self-confidence and the desire to achieve and organizational expectations stemming from encouragement, mentoring, and demonstration of positive outcomes from leadership. As such, organizational expectations and individual experiences that encourage goal achievement rather than avoiding failure will increase MTL.

Proposition 5: New leaders’ performance prove goals will be positively related to their MTL. New leaders’ failure avoid goals will be negatively related to their MTL.

Extending this line of reasoning, the current model suggests that MTL moderates the relationship between power beliefs and leader behaviors. The more motivated new leaders are to lead, the more their power beliefs will guide their actions to achieve their goals.

Proposition 6: The relationship between new leaders’ power beliefs and leadership behaviors will be higher for new leaders who are high in MTL.

Leadership Behaviors and Style Emergence

The model proposes a dynamic relationship between leader behaviors, style, and later power beliefs. Leadership behaviors influence emerging leadership styles—the propensity to repeat past leadership behaviors that have been successful.in relation to situational needs and reinforcement from the organization. Behaviors that are not reinforced, or that result in unfavorable feedback or negative outcomes for the leader and/or team, are not likely to be repeated. They learn through self-reflection and the management of feedback (Nesbit, 2012). Over time, the pattern of behaviors that are successful are the genesis of the new leader’s style of leadership. This evolves, and continues to do so throughout the leader’s career, but is likely to be stimulated during the first leadership position. New leaders who initially find that their attempts at leadership are not successful are likely to revise their power beliefs and change their behavior, taking more time for a style of leadership to be evident to themselves and to others who are observing and evaluating them.

Proposition 7: Leaders’ behaviors based on power beliefs that are consistent with organizational expectations and situational needs will increase their use of these behaviors and their initial self-perception that they have a leadership style (transformation, transactional, full-range, and various combinations thereof). Leaders’ behaviors based on power beliefs that are inconsistent with organizational expectations and/or situational needs will diminish their use of these behaviors. They will likely try other behaviors that meet organizational needs, and change their power beliefs to be consistent with organization expectations.

Proposition 8: Over time, leadership style will be positively related to later power beliefs.

Leader Self-Identity

The model shows the emergence of a new leader’s self-identity. New leaders who are successful are likely to acquire a self-image as a leader (Kark & Van Dijk, 2007; Ritter & Lord, 2007). Identity focuses the direction of ones behavior (London, 1983). Developing a self-image as a leader involves the processes of deepening self-awareness, building self-confidence, establishing interpersonal efficacy, applying new skills, and expanding motivations to be a leader (Komives et al., 2005). People internalize an identity as a leader, and this identity is recognized and supported within the organization (DeRue & Ashford, 2010). There is a positive relationship between psychosocial mentoring (friendship, emotional support, and role modeling) and establishment of professional identity (Greco & Kraimer, 2020). Psychosocial mentoring is especially valuable for early career professionals as they transition to a new role identity (Carden, 1990; Dominguez & Hager, 2013; Kram, 1983; Wanberg et al., 2003).

Leader identities are not one-directional and static. Interactions between leader characteristics and various contextual factors (e.g., demands for action) can cause self-identity to shift over time and across situations. Day et al. (2009) proposed a developmental view of leader identity they termed positive “spirals.” New leaders accentuate and internalize a leader identity that in turn motivates them to acquire further leadership skills. Negative spirals cause new leaders to be less willing to engage in leadership development and seek further leadership opportunities. Day and Sin (2011) found that emerging leaders’ stronger leader identity over time was positively related to others’ ratings of their leadership effectiveness. This spiraling effect may be incremental or more dramatic depending on whether the organization expects and rewards the leaders’ behaviors and results (Maurer & London, 2018). During this transition, new leaders internalize a leader identity as they compare themselves to other new leaders and organizational expectations (DeRue et al, 2009). They see themselves as leaders as they behave more like leaders and realize they are, or can become, competent leaders (Kragt & Day, 2020). In a positive spiral, they relinquish their old identity or add “leader” to it. Leader development occurs as new leaders are exposed to new ideas, knowledge, and perspectives. They stretch their capabilities as they test and gain insight into their potential. They learn from sharing stories and experiences, collaborating with others across functions, seeking challenges and taking risks. Learning occurs as they are exposed to challenging goals, developmental job assignments, risk tolerance, and failure-tolerant leaders (Day & Dragoni, 2015; Day & Sin, 2011). A strong leadership identity motivates leaders to act in more leader-like ways, which further entrenches a leader identity as part of one’s self-concept (Snook et al., 2010). As new leaders learn their new role, their new behavioral repertoires create a new professional identity and motivate their desire to be a leader in both their current position and likely for advancement to increasing levels of responsibility (Kragt & Day, 2020).

During the transition process, emerging leaders conceive of themselves in relation to their old and new roles through processes of separation, transition, and incorporation (Snook et al., 2010). Deeper change toward leader development is facilitated by factors including (a) developmental readiness, (b) transitional time and space (opportunities during training to explore, try new behaviors without consequence of making a mistake, and receiving feedback to better judge others’ reactions and the outcomes these behaviors produce), (c) guides and reference groups that provide points of reference and reflected appraisals, and (d) pre- and post-formal program experiences (recognizing that preparation and follow-up are necessary for transfer of training) (Snook et al., 2010). Generally, leaders are likely to be more successful when they see themselves as able to learn and capable of achieving positive outcomes (i.e., they set learning and performance prove goals) (DeShon & Gillespie, 2005; Han & Stieha, 2020; Savani & Zou, 2019).

In summary, identifying as a leader entails wanting to be a leader and enacting a leadership style that is consistent with one’s beliefs about how to exert power to accomplish goals and meet organizational expectations.

Proposition 9: Over time, there will be an increasing relationship between new leaders’ style of leadership and self-identity as a leader.

Proposition 10: Over time, self-identity as a leader will be positively related to subsequent MTL.

Discussion

The current model contributes to the literature on becoming a leader by focusing on individual differences, behaviors, and contextual conditions that shape the new leader’s leadership style and self-image as a leader. It fills a gap in the human resource development literature by focusing on learning processes as new leaders engage in their new role (Espedal, 2005; Gilley et al., 2011; Torraco & Lundgren, 2020). The model is dynamic, incorporates intrapersonal and interpersonal processes, and reflects organizational goals for leader development. Recognizing these processes has implications for HRD practitioners’ leadership training and performance programs. The model also fills a gap in the leadership literature generally by moving toward an understanding of the origins of leadership style and identity (Hunt & Fedynich, 2018; Yukl & Gardner, 2020). By seeing themselves as a leader, in addition to, or in place of, subject matter expert and team member, new leaders form a self-image of the type of leader they want to become. The model considered how interpersonal orientation, navigating social hierarchies, and promotion focus affect power beliefs and motivation to lead. Leader behaviors over time form an early style of leadership, which affects power beliefs. Developing an identity as a leader affects ongoing MTL. The model has implications for research and practice with the aim of creating early leadership experiences that generate strong leader self-identity, increased MTL, leader strategies that meet situational needs, and leaders that fit the organization’s culture.

Implications for Research

The transition to leadership model can be tested by measuring new leaders’ self-image and behaviors and determining if their leadership style and associated self-image strengthen over time. More specifically, research can explore how power beliefs emerge and determine leader behaviors influenced by MTL, shaping leadership style and identity. Longitudinal research can explore the congruence between new leader’s perceptions of organizational expectations and power beliefs and how this affects their leadership behaviors. The consistency of messages within the organization and between the organization’s expectations and new leaders’ power beliefs may determine whether new leaders learn that their power beliefs fit the situation and their resulting behaviors were reinforced or whether they learned to change their power beliefs. Some new leaders may also learn that leadership was not for them. They may learn that they could not actuate their power beliefs and that their desire to achieve through dominance or a communal orientation could not be achieved.

Extending literature on power beliefs (Keltner et al., 2003) and leader categorization theory (Lord & Maher, 1993; Rus et al., 2010), this paper suggests that an area for research is exploring the effects of the congruence between new leader’s beliefs about power, organizational expectations, and situational needs on leader behavior, leadership style development, and identity formation. Mixed messages about expectations may affect how leaders view themselves and the type of leaders they will become. Incongruent cues within the organization and between the organizational context and new leaders’ beliefs about power may pose challenges for new leaders. This may explain how some new leaders learn to behave badly and how others come to experience lack of support, career barriers, and harassment. Leaders perceiving incongruence are likely to be confused about their power beliefs or ignore organizational expectations and situational conditions and retain a dysfunctional leadership style. If an organization espouses empowerment but its top leaders are rule-bound and control-oriented, new leaders may show a weakened relationship between power beliefs and transformational leadership behaviors and come to believe that power through transactional behaviors is a more effective leadership strategy. If an organization formally adopts a rule- and control-focused approach but some top leaders encourage empowerment, new leaders may show a weakened relationship between control-dominated power beliefs and a transactional leadership style and develop a more transformational leadership style. Over time, the consistency between power beliefs and organizational expectations and situational conditions may increase the strength of the relationship between power beliefs and leader behavior and the likelihood that the new leader will develop a style of leadership quickly. Inconsistency between new leaders’ power beliefs, organizational expectations, and situational conditions could make the new leaders anxious and decrease the association between power beliefs and leader actions, or increase the likelihood that new leaders will take longer to adapt or will fail and seek a position as team member and individual contributor.

The propositions need to be viewed in a longer-term, broader context of actual experience. Research should examine how the factors that underlie new leaders’ power beliefs and motivation to lead, including their interpersonal orientation, power motivation, and regulatory focus, shape their behavior patterns and identity over time. New leaders will face a variety of challenges and continue to develop. They are likely to develop a differentiated leadership style influenced by a variety of individual and situational factors, with the foundation set during their first leadership experiences.

Implications for HRD Practice

The model has implications for motivating new leaders, recognizing their power beliefs and implications for behavioral patterns they adopt, and facilitating the emergence of leader self-identity. New leaders are selected for their capability and promise. However, they may come to leadership training or their first leadership assignment with a variety of power beliefs and motivations to lead. Leadership development programs might begin by assessing motivation to lead, regulatory focus, interpersonal orientation (communal and exchange), beliefs about navigating social hierarchies (through dominance and prestige), power beliefs, and MTL. Training programs and supervisors of new leaders can support the transition from subject matter expert and team member and reinforce a self-image as a leader by influencing the relation between power beliefs and behavior. MTL could be encouraged by showing the rewards of success that result from using power strategies that meet organizational expectations and situational needs. The new leader would then develop a range of leadership behaviors that are reflected in their power beliefs, self-image as a leader, and MTL.

The impact of top leaders on impressionable new leaders may have implications for the treatment of new leaders from disadvantaged groups, such as women and minorities. Women are just as likely to see themselves as leaders as men, but if others in power do not see them as leaders, gender bias may block their further development (DeRue & Ashford, 2010; Ely et al., 2011; Ridgeway, 2009). Experiencing a position of power may increase women’s as well as men’s MTL (Porter et al., 2016; Sherman et al., 2012, 2020). However, women may be susceptible to top managers who impose unrealistic expectations, withhold psychosocial and career mentoring, or treat them poorly in other ways. Gender bias remains a major impediment to women’s leadership opportunities (Bear et al., 2017; Eagly & Carli, 2007; Eagly & Karau, 1991; Hoyt, 2010; London et al., 2019). This deserves attention by human resource development professionals who provide training and influence performance evaluation policies. HRD programs can help women recognize their leadership potential, recognize factors that contribute to their MTL, and believe in their power to overcome biases and meet organizational goals. These programs also need to educate men about how they wittingly or unwittingly affect women leader’s power beliefs, leadership behaviors, and identity (Ibarra et al., 2013).

The model has implications for the culture of leadership in the organization. Leadership development programs socialize leaders in line with the type of leader that the organization values and rewards. Managers and human resource development professionals can influence leadership style in the organization by assessing new leaders’ power beliefs and motivation to lead, clarifying organizational expectations, and providing mentoring that shapes interpersonal orientations (communal and exchange) and methods of influence (dominant and through prestige) that fit the organization. These in turn are likely to shape power beliefs and MTL. Problem based and action learning training methods that reflect these dynamics can develop behavior patterns that new leaders incorporate into their self-image (Scott, 2017). Recognizing that transactional and transformational leadership behaviors are appropriate at different times, HRD programs can demonstrate and reinforce a mix of interpersonal orientation and influence methods that fit the organization’s culture or change the culture. New leaders’ emerging leadership styles are likely to reinforce their power beliefs, and their growing identity as leaders is likely to increase their MTL. The extent to which these processes are in alignment with organizational expectations will influence the value of the organization’s investment in leadership development in producing the type of leadership the organization wants for the future.

Conclusion

New leaders’ conception of how they should behave is likely to be affected by their prior experiences with leadership, their observations of organizational expectations, and their individual characteristics, including their interpersonal orientation about how they approach relationships and exert influence. Human resource development professionals assess and shape these characteristics to understand how new leaders’ power beliefs affect their early leadership behaviors and, over time, their style of leadership and strength of leader identity. This is a dynamic process that reinforces or changes power beliefs and motivation to lead influencing the type of leader the individual becomes and the type of leadership that emerges in the organization.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Manuel London

Author Biographies

Manuel London is Dean of the College of Business and distinguished professor of Management, College of Business, State University of New York at Stony Brook. He received his PhD in Industrial & Organizational Psychology from the Ohio State University. His research is in the areas of performance management, leader development, career motivation, and team learning.

Gary D. Sherman is an associate professor of Management, College of Business, State University of New York at Sony Brook. He received his PhD in Social Psychology from the University of Virginia. Before joining Stony Brook, he was a postdoctoral fellow at the Harvard Initiative for Learning and Teaching and at the Center for Public Leadership at Harvard Kennedy School. His research explores (1) social hierarchy, leadership, and power, and (2) behavioral ethics, including the organizational conditions that encourage ethical behavior.

References

Andersen

S. M.

Chen

(2002). The relational self: An interpersonal social-cognitive theory. Psychological Review, 109(4), 619–645. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.109.4.619

Andersen

S. M.

Glassman

N. S.

Chen

Cole

S. W.

(1995). Transference in social perception: The role of the chronic accessibility of significant-other representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(1), 41–57. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.69.1.41

Aron

E. N.

Tudor

Nelson

(1991). Close relationships and including the other in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(2), 241–253.

Ashforth

(2001). Role transitions in organizational life: An identity-based perspective. Routledge.

Avolio

B. J.

(2011). Full range leadership development (2nd ed.). Sage.

Bandura

(1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44(9), 1175–1184. http://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.9.1175

Bandura

(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman.

Bandura

(2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1

Bass

B. M.

(1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and educational impact. Erlbaum.

10.

Bass

B. M.

Avolio

B. J.

(1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Sage.

11.

Bear

J. B.

Cushenbery

London

Sherman

(2017). Performance feedback, power retention, and the gender gap in leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(6), 721–740. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.02.003

12.

Blanchard

Zigarmi

(2013). Leadership and the one minute manager: Increasing effectiveness through situational leadership II. William Morrow.

13.

Bolander

Werr

Asplund

(2017). The practice of talent management: A framework and typology. Personnel Review, 46(8), 1523–1551. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-02-2016-0037

14.

Bragger

J. D.

Alonso

N. A.

D’Ambrosio

Williams

(2021). Developing leaders to serve and servants to lead. Human Resource Development Review, 20(1), 9–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484320981198

15.

Buunk

B. P.

Doosje

B. J.

Jans

L. G.

Hopstaken

L. E.

(1993). Perceived reciprocity, social support, and stress at work: The role of exchange and communal orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 801–811. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.65.4.801

16.

Carden

A. D.

(1990). Mentoring and adult career development: The evolution of a theory. Counseling Psychology, 18(2), 275–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000090182011

17.

Chan

K. Y.

Drasgow

(2001). Toward a theory of individual differences and leadership: Understanding the MTL. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 481–498. http://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.481

18.

Chan

K. Y.

Rounds

Drasgow

(2000). The relation between vocational interests and the MTL. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57(2), 226–245. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1999.1728

19.

Chen

Lee-Chai

A. Y.

Bargh

J. A.

(2001). Relationship orientation as a moderator of the effects of social power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(2), 173–187. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.2.173

20.

Clark

M. S.

Mills

(2012). A theory of communal (and exchange) relationships. In van Lange

P. A. M.

Kruglanski

A. W.

Higgins

E. T.

(Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 232–250). Sage.

21.

Crane

Hartwell

C. J.

(2018). Developing employees’ mental complexity: Transformational leadership as a catalyst in employee development. Human Resource Development Review, 17(3), 234–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484318781439

22.

Dansereau

Jr. Graen

Haga

(1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13(1), 46–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(75)90005-7

23.

Dawis

R. V.

Lofquist

L. H.

(1984). A psychological theory of work adjustment. University of Minnesota Press.

24.

Day

D. V.

Dragoni

(2015). Leadership development: An outcome-oriented review based on time and levels of analyses. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 133–156. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurevorgpsych-032414-111328

25.

Day

D. V.

Fleenor

J. W.

Atwater

L. E.

Sturm

R. E.

McKee

R. A.

(2014). Advances in leader and leadership development: A review of 25 years of research and theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.004

26.

Day

D.V

Harrison

M. M.

Halpin

S. M.

(2009). An integrative approach to leader development: Connecting adult development, identity, and expertise. Routledge.

27.

Day

D. V.

Sin

H. P.

(2011). Longitudinal tests of an integrative model of leader development: Charting and understanding developmental trajectories. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(3), 545–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.04.011

28.

DeRue

D. S.

Ashford

S. J.

(2010). Who will lead and who will follow? A social process of leadership identity construction in organizations. The Academy of Management Review, 35(4), 627–647. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2010.53503267

29.

DeRue

D. S.

Ashford

S. J.

Cotton

N. C.

(2009). Assuming the mantle: Unpacking the process by which individuals internalize a leader identity. In Roberts

L. M.

Dutton

J. E.

(Eds.), Organization and management series. Exploring positive identities and organizations: Building a theoretical and research foundation (pp. 217–236). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

30.

DeRue

D. S.

Myers

C. G.

(2015). Leadership development: A review and agenda for future research. In Day

D.V.

(Ed.), Oxford handbook of leadership and organizations (pp. 832–855). Oxford University Press.

31.

DeShon

R. P.

Gillespie

J. Z.

(2005). A motivated action theory account of goal orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1096–1127. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1096

32.

Dominguez

Hager

(2013). Mentoring frameworks: synthesis and critique. International Journal of Mentoring Coaching Education, 2(3), 171–188. DOI: 10.1108/IJMCE-03-2013-0014

33.

Dowell

B. E.

(2010). Managing leadership talent pools. In Silzer

R. F.

Dowell

B. E.

(Eds.), Strategy-driven talent management: A leadership imperative (pp. 399–438). Jossey-Bass.

34.

Eagly

A. H.

Carli

L. C.

(2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Harvard Business School Press.

35.

Eagly

A. H.

Karau

S. J.

(1991). Gender and the emergence of leaders: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(5), 685–710. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.5.685

36.

Ely

R. J.

Ibarra

Kolb

D. M.

(2011). Taking gender into account: Theory and design for women’s leadership development programs. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(3), 474–493. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2010.0046

37.

Espedal

(2005). Management development: Using internal or external resources in developing core competence. Human Resource Development Review, 4(2), 136–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484305276217

38.

Fast

N. J.

Sivanathan

Mayer

N. D.

Galinsky

A. D.

(2012). Power and overconfident decision-making. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 117(2), 249–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.11.009

39.

Galinsky

A. D.

Gruenfeld

D. H.

Magee

J. C.

(2003). From power to action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 453–466. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.453

40.

Gecas

(1982). The self-concept. Annual Review of Sociology, 8, 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.08.080182.000245.

41.

Gillet

Huart

Colombat

Fouquereau

(2013). Perceived organizational support, motivation, and engagement among police officers. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 44(1), 46–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030066

42.

Gilley

J. W.

Shelton

P. M.

Gilley

(2011). Developmental leadership: A new perspective for human resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13(3), 386–405. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422311424264

43.

Gioia

D. A.

Sims

H. P.

(1983). Perceptions of managerial power as a consequence of managerial behavior and reputation. Journal of Management, 9(1), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638300900103

44.

Greco

L. M.

Kraimer

M. L.

(2020). Goal-setting in the career management process: An identity theory perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(1), 40–57. http://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000424

45.

Guillén

Mayo

Korotov

(2015). Is leadership a part of me? A leader identity approach to understanding the MTL. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(5), 802–820. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.05.001

46.

Han

S. J.

Stieha

(2020). Growth mindset for human resource development: A scoping review of the literature with recommended interventions. Human Resource Development Review, 19(3), 309–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484320939739

47.

Henderson

G. M.

(2002). Transformative learning as a condition for transformational change in organizations. Human Resource Development Review, 1(2),186–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/15384302001002004

48.

Higgins

E. T.

(1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280–1300. http://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280

49.

Higgins

E. T.

(1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 1–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60381-0

50.

Hogg

M. A.

(2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(3), 184–200. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0503_1

51.

Hoyt

C. L.

(2010). Women, men, and leadership: Exploring the gender gap at the top. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(7), 484–498. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00274.x

52.

Hunt

Fedynich

L. C.

(2018). Leadership: Past, present, and future: An evolution of an idea. Journal of Arts & Humanities, 8(2), 20–26. http://doi.org/10.18533/journal.v8i2.1582

53.

Ibarra

Ely

R. J.

Kolb

D. M.

(2013). Women rising: The unseen barriers. Harvard Business Review, 91(9), 60+.

54.

Ibarra

Wittman

Petriglieri

Day

D. V.

(2014). Leadership and identity: an examination of three theories and new research directions. In Day

D. V.

(Ed.). The oxford handbook of leadership and organizations (pp. 285–301). Oxford University Press.

55.

Jones-Carmack

(2019). MTL: Preparing leaders of the future through an understanding of role ambiguity and perceived organizational support. Journal of Leadership Studies, 13(2), 6–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/jls.21641

56.

Judge

T. A.

Piccolo

R. F.

(2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755–768. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755

57.

Kark

Van Dijk

(2007). MTL, motivation to follow: The role of the self-regulatory focus in leadership processes. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 500–528. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.24351846

58.

Wei

K. K.

(2008). Organizational culture and leadership in ERP implementation. Decision Support Systems, 45(2), 208–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2007.02.002

59.

Keltner

Gruenfeld

D. H.

Anderson

(2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110(2), 265–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.265

60.

Kezar

(2011). Grassroots leadership: Encounters with power dynamics and oppression. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 24(4), 471–500. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2010.529848

61.

Kim

(2017). Emotional intelligence and transformational leadership: A review of empirical studies. Human Resource Development Review, 16(4), 277–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484317729262

62.

Komives

S. R.

Owen

J. E.

Longerbeam

S. D.

Mainella

F. C.

Osteen

(2005). Developing a leadership identity: A grounded theory. Journal of College Student Development, 46(6), 593–611. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2005.0061

63.

Kragt

Day

D. V.

(2020). Predicting leadership competency development and promotion among high-potential executives: The role of leader identity. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 816. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01816

64.

Kram

(1983). Phases of the mentor relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 26(4), 608–625. https://doi.org/10.2307/255910

65.

Lingo

E. L.

McGinn

K. L.

(2020). A new prescription for power. Harvard Business Review, 98(4), 66–75.

66.

London

(1983). Toward a theory of career motivation. Academy of Management Review, 8(4), 620–630. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1983.4284664

67.

London

Bear

Cushenbery

Sherman

G. D.

(2019). Leaders’ support for subordinates’ gender equity: Power motivation and prosocial actions. Human Resource Management Review, 29(3), 418–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2018.08.002

68.

London

Sherman

G. D.

(2021). Transitions to leadership as foundation for continuous learning. In The Oxford handbook of lifelong learning (2nd Ed., pp. 611–631). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197506707.013.39

69.

Lord

R. G.

Hall

R. J.

(2005). Identity, deep structure and the development of leadership skill. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(4), 591–615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.06.003

70.

Lord

R. G.

Maher

K. J.

(1993). Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions and performance. Routledge.

71.

Maner

(2017). Dominance and prestige: A tale of two hierarchies. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(6), 526–531. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417714323

72.

Maner

J. K.

Case

C. R.

(2016). Dominance and prestige: Dual strategies for navigating social hierarchies. In Olson

J. M.

Zanna

M. P.

(Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 54, pp. 129–180). Elsevier Academic Press.

73.

Maner

J. K.

Mead

N. L.

(2010). The essential tension between leadership and power: When leaders sacrifice group goals for the sake of self-interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(3), 482–497. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0018559

74.

Maurer

T. J.

London

(2018). From individual contributor to leader: A role identity shift framework for leader development within innovative organizations. Journal of Management, 44(4), 1426–1452. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315614372

75.

McClelland

D. C.

(1965). Achievement motivation can be developed. Harvard Business Review, 43(6), 6–14, 178.

76.

Merton

R. K.

(1957). Social theory and social structure (Rev. Ed.). Free Press.

77.

Middleton

E. D.

Walker

D. O.

Reichard

R. J.

(2019). Developmental trajectories of leader identity: Role of learning goal orientation. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 26(4), 495–509. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051818781818

78.

Mikkelson

A. C.

York

J. A.

Arritola

(2015). Communication competence, leadership behaviors, and employee outcomes in supervisor-employee relationships. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 78(3), 336–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329490615588542

79.

Morgan

(2014). The future of work: Attract new talent, build better leaders, and create a competitive organization. Wiley.

80.

Mumford

T. V.

Campion

M. A.

Morgeson

F. P.

(2007). The leadership skills strateplex: Leadership skills requirements across organizational levels. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(2), 154–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.01.005

81.

Nesbit

P. L.

(2012). The role of self-reflection, emotional management of feedback, and self-regulation processes in self-directed leadership development. Human Resource Development Review, 11(2), 203–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484312439196

82.

Nyberg

Sveningsson

(2014). Paradoxes of authentic leadership: Leader identity struggles. Leadership, 10(4), 437–455. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715013504425

83.

Overbeck

J. R.

Park

(2006). Powerful perceivers, powerless objects: Flexibility of power holders’ social attention. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99(2), 227–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.10.003

84.

Pearce

Wassenaar

C. L.

Berson

Tuval-Mashiach

(2019). Toward a theory of meta-paradoxical leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 155(6), 31–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.03.003

85.

Pfeffer

(1992). Managing with power: Politics and influence in organizations. Harvard Business School Press.

86.

Porter

T.H.

Riesenmy

Fields

(2016). Work environment and employee MTL: Moderating effects of personal characteristics. American Journal of Business, 31(2), 66–84. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJB-05-2015-0017

87.

Pratoom

(2018). Differential relationship of person- and task-focused leadership to team effectiveness: A meta-analysis of moderators. Human Resource Development Review, 17(4), 393–439. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484318790167

88.

Ridgeway

C. L.

(2009). Framed before we know it: How gender shapes social relations. Gender & Society, 23(2), 145–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243208330313

89.

Ritter

B. A.

Lord

R. G.

(2007). The impact of previous leaders on the evaluations of new leaders: An alternative to prototype matching. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1683–1695. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1683

90.

Rus

van Knippenberg

Wisse

(2010). Leader power and leader self-serving behavior: The role of effective leadership beliefs and performance information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(6), 922–933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.06.007

91.

Savani

Zou

(2019). Making leader identity salient can be demotivating. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 25(2), 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000178

92.

Schein

(2017). Organization culture and leadership (5th ed.). Wiley.

93.

Scott

K. S.

(2017). An integrative framework for problem-based learning and action learning: Promoting evidence-based design and evaluation in leadership development. Human Resource Development Review, 16(1), 3–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484317693090

94.

Sherman

G. D.

Lee

J. J.

Cuddy

A. J. C.

Renshon

Oveis

Gross

J. J.

Lerner

J. S.

(2012). Leadership is associated with lower levels of stress. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(44), 17903–17907. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1207042109

95.

Sherman

G. D.

Turkay

Moulton

S. T.

Friedman

M. C.

Darani

Daly

Kayden

(2020). The generalized sense of power is a psychological resource: Evidence from a disaster response field training exercise. European Journal of Social Psychology, 59(4), 733–748. 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2644

96.

Shuck

Herd

A. M.

(2012). Employee engagement and leadership: Exploring the convergence of two frameworks and implications for leadership development in HRD. Human Resource Development Review, 11(2), 156–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484312438211

97.

Snook

Ibarra

Ramo

(2010). Identity-based leader development. In Nohria

Khurana

(Eds.), Handbook of leadership theory and practice (Ch. 22, pp. 657–678). Harvard Business Press.

98.

Tew

(2002). Social theory, power, and practice. Palgrave Macmillan.

99.

Thompson

Vecchio

R. P.

(2009). Situational leadership theory: A test of three versions. Leadership Quarterly, 20(5), 837–848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.06.014

100.

Torraco

R. J.

Lundgren

(2020). What HRD is doing—What HRD should be doing: The case for transforming HRD. Human Resource Development Review, 19(1), 39–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484319877058

101.

Tost

L. P.

(2015). When, why, and how do power holders “feel the power”? Examining the links between structural and psychological power and revising the connection between power and responsibility. Research in Organizational Behavior, 35, 29–36. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2015.10.004

102.

van Gils

van Quaquebeke

van Knippenberg

(2010). The X-factor: On the relevance of implicit leadership and followership theories for leader-member exchange agreement. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19(3), 333–363. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320902978458

103.

van Knippenberg

De Cremer

Hogg

M. A.

(2004). Leadership, self, and identity: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(6), 825–856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.09.002.

104.

Vera

Crossan

(2004). Strategic leadership and organizational learning. Academy of Management Review, 29(2), 222–240. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2004.12736080

105.

Wagner

Orth

Bleidorn

Hopwood

C. J.

Kandler

(2020). Toward an integrative model of sources of personality stability and change. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29(5), 438–444. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721420924751

106.

Walumbwa

F. O.

Christensen-Salem

Perrmann-Graham

Kasimu

(2020). An identification based framework examining how and when salient social exchange resources facilitate and shape thriving at work. Human Resource Development Review,19(4), 339–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484320946208

107.

Wanberg

C. R.

Welsh

E. T.

Hezlett

S. A.

(2003). Mentoring research: A review and dynamic process model. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 22(1), 39–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-7301(03)22002-8

108.

Warhurst

R. P.

(2012). Leadership development as identity formation: middle managers’ leadership learning from MBA study. Human Resource Development International, 15(4), 471–487. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2012.706428

109.

Weihrich

Koontz

(1993). Management: A global perspective. McGraw Hill.

110.

Weiss

H.M.

Cropanzano

(1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes, and consequences of affective experiences at work. In Staw

B. M.

Cummings

L. L.

(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (vol. 18, pp. 1–74). JAI Press.

111.

Yeager

K. L.

Callahan

J. L.

(2016). Learning to lead: Foundations of emerging leader identity development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 18(3), 286–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422316645510

112.

Yukl

(2012). Effective leadership behavior: What we know and what questions need more attention. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(4), 66–85. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2012.0088

113.

Yukl

Gardner

(2020). Leadership in organizations (9th ed.). Pearson Education, Inc.

114.

Yukl

Gordon

Taber

T. A.

(2002). Hierarchical taxonomy of leadership behavior: Integrating a half century of behavior research. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(1), 15–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/107179190200900102

115.

Zhang

Waldman

D. A.

Han

Y. L.

X. B.

(2015). Paradoxical leader behaviors in people management: Antecedents and consequences. Academy of Management Journal, 58(2), 538–566. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0995.