Reconsidering the accuracy of follower leadership ratings

Abstract

(2015) 'Reconsidering the accuracy of follower leadership ratings.', Leadership quarterly., 26 (2). pp. 220-237. Further information on publisher's website:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua. 2014.11.006 Publisher's copyright statement: NOTICE: this is the author's version of a work that was accepted for publication in The Leadership Quarterly. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A denitive version was subsequently published in The Leadership Quarterly, 26, 2, April 2015, 10.1016/j.leaqua.2014 Additional information: Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. AbstractAccurate behavioral measurement is essential to developing a science of leadership, yet accurate measurement has remained elusive. The use of follower reports of leader behavior creates challenges given that a large body of basic and applied research suggests that behavioral ratings reflect not only recall of actual behaviors, but also inferences based on semantic memory, which may vary among individuals. In this paper, we examine several explanations for rater effects that are associated with follower individual differences, contextual factors, and even research methods, such as the type of measure used, that may bias ratings of leader behavior. We also develop a conceptual model to illustrate these processes. Finally, we offer potential solutions to increase accuracy in follower reports of leader behavior. ACCURACY OF FOLLOWER LEADERSHIP RATINGS 3The leadership field relies heavily on follower ratings of leader behavior both in research settings to test leadership theories and in applied settings for leadership development purposes (e.g., 360-degree feedback). Given that leadership reflects a dynamic interaction between leaders and followers (Riggio, Chaleff, & Lipman-Blumen, 2008;Shamir, Pillai, Bligh, & Uhl-Bien, 2006), follower ratings provide an important source of data. Indeed, Shamir (2007) describes followers as "co-producers of leadership." However, reliance on follower ratings of leader behavior as a key measure of leadership processes, or even as the sole measure, creates significant challenges. In particular, followers become important contributors to the processes they are used to measure, raising both the issue of accuracy of leader ratings and the potential for biases in ratings processes that are associ...

The Two-Faced Leader: Effects of Leader Emotional Inconsistency on Follower Creative Performance

“…This is because weekly measurements (compared to generalised trait assessments) more readily capture leader reactions to work events as well as subsequently displayed verbal and nonverbal behaviour (Hoffman & Lord, 2013;Ohly et al, 2010). Furthermore, weekly measurements reduce concerns regarding recall bias, which can negatively influence the accuracy of leadership ratings (Hansbrough et al, 2015). Concerns regarding recall bias may be particularly heightened for leader behaviour involving complex emotions such as emotional ambivalence or inconsistency as those behaviours are more difficult to recall (Fong, 2006).…”

“…A common criticism of experimental studies is their lack of external validity due to an artificial laboratory environment as well as a potentially unrepresentative sample (e.g., in case of student respondents; Saunders et al, 2009 Hansbrough, Lord, & Schyns, 2015), which would not be possible to achieve with a cross-sectional design (Bolger & Laurenceau, 2013). Practically, I sent out online surveys to both leaders and followers of UK-based organisations.…”

“…Thus, the subsequent questionnaire, in turn, will be able to assess the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable relatively close to the conclusion of the manipulation-inducing event (Saunders et al, 2009 Field, 2009) are prone to be affected by recall bias and measurement inaccuracy of study constructs (Hansbrough et al, 2015;Ohly, Sonnentag, Niessen, & Zapf, 2010).…”

“…Second and specifically related to the current investigation, within-person research reduces recall bias as diary studies assess study variables closer to the conclusion of the events under investigation (e.g., the display of certain leader behaviours shortly after the event; Ohly, Sonnentag, Niessen, & Zapf, 2010). This is particularly important if the object of research is complex emotional leader behaviour as recall bias tends to be inflated for these constructs thus reducing the accuracy of ratings obtained and the validity of measurement scales used (Fong, 2006;Hansbrough et al, 2015).…”

Conceptualizing leadership perceptions as attitudes: Using attitude theory to further understand the leadership process

“…Leniency refers to the tendency that persons describing someone they know and like are much more likely to attribute positive traits to them than negative traits. Recently, scholars have suggested that followers perceptions of leader behavior are also influenced by inferences based on semantic memory, which may vary between individuals (Hansbrough, Lord, & Schyns, 2014). Similarly by considering leader perceptions as attitudes, this review has shown that such perception can be influenced by a host of attitudinal processes that may not accurately reflect leader behavior.…”