Leadership Complexity and Development of the leaderplex Model

Abstract

Researchers have considered cognitive, social, and behavioral aspects of leadership, but except for Zaccaro (1996a, 1996b), not all three simultaneously. A comprehensive treatment of all three aspects in one model enhances the understanding of leadership. We review research in the areas of cognitive, social, and behavioral complexity and propose an integrative framework—the Leaderplex Model. We set forth propositions to stimulate integrative, empirical leadership research in such areas as diversity, global organizations, team-based organizations, charisma, and hierarchy.

Leader Experience and the Identification of Challenges in a Stability and Support Operation

“…Consistent with previous research on expertise (Glaser &Chi, 1988;Shanteau, 1992) and leadership (Day & Lance, 2004;Hooijberg et al, 1997;Lord & Hall, 2006;, experienced leaders identified significantly more elements or dimensions of the scenario than did novice-level cadets. With respect to specific categories of dimensions, experienced leaders identified a greater number of tactical concerns than cadets, as well as a greater number of concerns about managing relationships and managing the self.…”

“…Effective leadership can be viewed, therefore, as a form of expertise that includes both a broad response repertoire and the ability to apply this knowledge to the resolution of everyday problems (Day & Lance, 2004). Such findings are consistent with the assumptions of the Leaderplex model of leadership growth and effectiveness (Hooijberg, Hunt, & Dodge, 1997), which views social and cognitive complexity as major determinants of behavioral complexity and leadership effectiveness (Denison, Hooijberg, & Quinnl, 1995). Increased cognitive complexity is defined in terms of the two complementary processes of differentiation, referring to the number of dimensions or concepts used in the perception of the social or physical environment, and integration, which represents the degree to which individual dimensions can be combined to meet the demands of specific situations (Day & Lance, 2004;Hooijberg et al, 1997).…”

“…Given that experts have highly differentiated knowledge structures compared to novices (Day & Lance, 2004;Hooijberg et al, 1997) and cognitive complexity plays an important role in behavioral adaptability (Zaccaro, 1999), experienced leaders are expected to perceive and recognize a broader range of elements (e.g. tactical, interpersonal, and cultural variables) inherent in a situation than are less experienced leaders.…”

“…tactical, interpersonal, and cultural variables) inherent in a situation than are less experienced leaders. Moreover, due to their greater capacity for integrating knowledge principles (Hooijberg et al, 1997), experienced leaders may be more likely to make decisions that take into account the multiple facets of a situation, and this effect may be more pronounced as the complexity and ambiguity in the situation increases. For example, in an exploratory study that investigated differences between experts and novices on a complex command and control task, experts simultaneously considered nine different command considerations (i.e., mission, terrain, situational awareness, enemy, assets, planning, informing, visualizing the battlefield, and the coordination of assets and personnel), while novices considered only six (Carnahan et al, 2004).…”

Hard, soft or ambidextrous? Which influence style promotes managers’ task performance and the role of political skill

“…Management of tension and complexity, which are endemic in organizational settings, and crucial in building ambidextrous organizations, requires that managers respond to various roles (Hooijberg, Hunt, & Dodge, 1997;Lawrence, Lenk, & Quinn, 2009), equilibrate opposing forces (Lewis, 2000) and tackle conflicting demands (Chang, 2015) by displaying appropriate and diverse modes of influence. Specifically, managers must be capable of promoting both creativity and discipline (Wang & Rafiq, 2014), by allowing experimentation, while at the same time enforcing tight control (Turner & Lee-Kelley, 2012), contradictions that have been found to be synergistic in achieving organizational ambidexterity (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009).…”