Triggers to integration of work/non-work leader identities for enhanced work outcomes

Triggers to integration of work/non-work leader identities for enhanced work outcomes Leader identity has received growing attention in theory and empirical support as critical in understanding leadership effectiveness and... [ view full abstract ]

Triggers to integration of work/non-work leader identities for enhanced work outcomes

Leader identity has received growing attention in theory and empirical support as critical in understanding leadership effectiveness and development (Epitropaki et al., 2017). Day and Harrison (2007: 366) suggest “identity is important for leaders because it grounds them in understanding who they are, their major goals and objectives and their personal strengths and limitations.” Lord and Hall (2005) suggested that developing leadership skills are facilitated by viewing oneself as a leader. Over time and with experiences, development of leader identity occurs as a view of oneself as a leader solidifies and becomes more important.

Unlike most sub-identities (parent, employee, etc.), a leader identity is unique in that it is not inherently domain-specific. Leadership is not confined to formal positions in workplaces, as the role of leader is ambiguous and complex and may transcend domains and formal roles (DeRue, Ashford, & Cotton, 2009). Individuals may see themselves as leaders in various roles in work, communities, and in personal networks. Additionally, opportunities for claiming and granting can happen both inside and outside of the workplace (DeRue & Ashforth, 2010). We consider a leader identity as an identity that transcends domains.

Hammond et al. (2017) suggested that leader identity is comprised of four basic elements. Meaning refers to one's understanding of the nature of leadership. Strength is the extent to which an individual identifies as a leader. Integration is the extent to which a leader identity is integrated into a global self-concept. A person with a fully integrated leader identity would see himself or herself as a leader in all domains of life. Level of identity provides the basis for identity, either individual (based on individual characteristics), relational (based on dyadic relationships), or collective (based on group membership). 

Leader identity integration has seen the least empirical attention, but in many ways, is foundational to our understanding of how identity develops more generally. Adult development theorists such as Kegan (1982) discuss how differentiation typically precedes integration (Day & Lance, 2004), suggesting that leaders may develop domain specific identities prior to integrating into a holistic leader identity. To that end, a leader identity may develop within specific situations and contexts (such as only in the work domain), but may eventually become integrated and generalized across contexts (Sluss & Ashforth, 2007).

Leader identity integration is critical for the full realization of the benefits of a well-developed leader identity in work outcomes. For an individual with a segmented leader identity, leadership skills, motivations, networks, and resources developed in non-work domains will not be brought into the work domain. In the work-family literature, greater boundary integration allows for greater opportunities for enrichment, in which skills, motivations, and affect created in one domain can lead to positive outcomes in another domain (Leduc, Houfort, & Bourdeau, 2016). However, unlike this research on integrated boundaries, leader identity integration is not a management of a physical boundary, but rather a psychological or personal one. Maertz & Boyar (2011) highlight that an individual’s experience of work-family enrichment is often limited by that individual’s ability to recognize the potential for enrichment and areas in which positive spillover may occur. Greater integration of leader’s identity will foster their ability to see potential connections across domains fostering more positive spillover (Hammond et al., 2017).

            However, there are problems with simply asking people to make a general quantitative assessment of their own enrichment across domains as doing so does not capture a developmental perspective. Maertz and Boyar (2011: 71) highlight the benefits of viewing work-family enrichments from an episode perspective as it “provides a more accurate theoretical reflection and better empirical strategy for understanding how employees psychologically perceive and process WF[work/family] conflicts” and enrichments. Likewise, Greenhaus and Powell (2006) mention “enrichment episodes” as important in our understanding of this phenomena. Additionally, Hammond, Clapp-Smith, and Palanski’s (2017) model of cross-domain leader development highlights how certain triggers (usually events or episodes) foster greater identity and competence development through a sense-making process. To that end, we took an episode-based approach (critical incidents) to examine the triggers and processes of leader identity integration development and its associated enrichment. The purpose of the current study was to examine a) features of triggers of leader identity integration development, b) the sense-making processes in which leader identity integration developed and c) the types of enrichment that occurred through greater leader identity integration.

METHODS

Twenty-seven leaders working in a healthcare context took part in an action based research project designed to provide empirical evidence behind the process of leader identity development. During this project we asked the leaders to record critical incident (CI) moments that directly impacted their leader identity in either the work, family or community domains. Using an online survey platform, the leaders recorded each incident under key headings: domain, year, trigger, emotional response, spillover and sensemaking. Specifically, the leaders were asked to record the type of trigger, the intensity of the trigger, the emotional response to the trigger using the PANAS scale, the spill over into other domains with qualitative examples, and their sensemaking process. One hundred eighty-three CI’s were logged over a 12 month period.

RESULTS

Guided by an overall methodology of action research commonly used in research for learning and change, thematic analysis using qualitative research strategies (Wilig, 2012) were employed to understand the complex social process of leader identity development. Our thematic analysis focused on the three main research questions concerning the development of the integration dimension of leader identity: features of the triggers, the sensemaking stages, and characteristics of enrichment episodes.

Features of Triggers. From the analysis of our research we found that, for the CI’s where the leader documented spillover from one domain to other domains, the intensity of the trigger event for the critical incident was higher than the intensity of the trigger where spillover was not reported. The type of trigger reported most commonly with spillover CI’s addressed three themes1) difficult situation, 2) positive outcome event and 3) an incident that made them think differently. Additionally, these three characteristics were commonly listed together to describe one critical incident. Difficult situations, regardless of domain, required the leader to question their opinions, beliefs and ability as they were usually events that were unchartered for the leader and, thus, challenged their meaning of leadership. This is supported in the third trigger theme, “made you think differently,” where leaders, having had a difficult event used their growth in meaning to view leadership events in a different way than previously. Finally, triggers that also included a “positive outcome event” were more likely to facilitate an identification of the integration.

            Sensemaking. Throughout the CI’s we see clear evidence of the 4 stages of sensemaking as outlined in theory (Hammond et al., 2017). We will present specific examples of noticing through the recorded triggers, interpreting (automatic, dichotomous and dialectic), authoring (strength and meaning) and enacting (depth and breadth). In short, the process from critical incident as trigger moment to leader identity integration was documented in the qualitative data and confirm 4 elements of sensemaking as explanatory of this process.

            Enrichment. When analyzing the CI’s with spillover for “enrichment episodes” there were three key types of enrichment which stood out; psychological enrichment where the leader has increased self-efficacy and self-esteem as a result of the CI’s; personal enrichment in the form of increased skill, knowledge and social capital as a leader; perspective enrichment which is produced over time shown by the development of a holistic leader identity across domains.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

            Taking the perspective that leader identity becomes integrated by making sense of cross-domain triggers, or critical incidents, highlights the developmental benefits of cross-domain enrichment. Specifically, we found that when leaders reflect on critical incidents in their leadership development, there is evidence for the features of triggers that are particularly developmental. Namely, that spillover from one domain to another tends to involve more intense triggers that are difficult situation, have a positive outcome event, and forced the leader to think differently about leadership. Furthermore, we also found evidence that the types of enrichment that can occur across domains, provide greater insight into how leader identity integration emerges. And finally, the process by which these types of enrichment episodes and features of triggers play a role in eliciting change in leader identity is through a sensemaking process involving noticing the triggers, interpreting them, authoring a new leader narrative, often involving a more integrated identity across domains, and acting upon that re-authored identity.

            Are qualitative data indicate these processes, and while difficult to bring to life in this brief proposal, the presentation will build on and explicate in greater detail how these themes emerged from the data and how scholars, instructors, and practitioners might apply such insight to their own leader identity development and that of their constituents.