ESTABLECIMIENTO: CS-II COLONIA ABORIGEN

The research herein and much of the discussion focused on developing leadership self- efficacy. Self-efficacy was absolutely necessary to successful leadership and formed part of every major leadership theory (McCormick, 2001). Self-efficacy judgements are important as they not only influence what skills one perceives oneself to have but they can affect thinking processes eliciting either confidence or self-doubt (Bandura, 1997). It is important for leaders to have elevated levels of leadership self-efficacy but it is unlikely a person with low confidence would aspire to a leadership role (Benson & Campbell, 2007; Kouzes & Posner, 2007). However, it was also important to have reviewed the research that demonstrated the importance of self-efficacy to leadership effectiveness and emergence. There would be little point in developing leadership self-efficacy if LSE had no connection to the development of leaders and leadership. The research demonstrated the relationship between LSE and leadership effectiveness both in single dimensions, such as change management, and across a broad range of leadership activities and behaviours.

It was not surprising that a significant body of research had been undertaken to determine the relationship between LSE and leadership effectiveness. The qualitative research of Bennis and Nanus (1985) linked self-confidence to outstanding leadership. Subsequent research indicated that LSE was a predictor of leadership effectiveness (Anderson et al., 2008; Chemers, Watson, & May, 2000; Foti & Hauenstein, 2007; Paglis & Green, 2002; Tubbs & Schulz, 2006). Conversely, Shipman and Mumford (2011) found that

overconfidence could be detrimental to some dimensions of leadership effectiveness. However, while acknowledging that overconfidence or gross misjudgement of self-efficacy existed, Bandura (1997) cautioned that any assessment of overconfidence based on a failed

or less than desirable performance had to be examined carefully. External factors affect performance such that performance failure occurs for reasons other than lack of ability or skill. Furthermore, Bandura warned that under estimates of efficacy were just as detrimental as over estimates because under confidence led to missed opportunity and actions foregone.

The most recent and comprehensive research was conducted by Anderson et al. (2008) who developed an 88-item measurement scale for leadership self-efficacy and leadership effectiveness using 251 managers of a financial services company and multi-source ratings from 2,070 raters. The results not only yielded taxonomic structures for LSE and

effectiveness but highlighted the potential to use LSE as a predictor of leadership

effectiveness based on the relationships established in the study. The findings also suggested that there were 18 dimensions or factors comprising LSE but only 9 for leadership

effectiveness which attested to the complexity of leadership. Anderson et al. suggested that the difference in the numbers of factors for LSE and leadership effectiveness confirmed that LSE self-assessments were more defined than those of leadership effectiveness and thus the study of LSE was distinct from leadership effectiveness even though LSE predicted

effectiveness.

Much of the work on leadership self-efficacy, such as that undertaken by Paglis and Green (2002), examined a single or a small number of potential dimensions of leadership. Based on the ratings of subordinates, LSE related to direction setting and gaining the commitment of followers was positively linked to effectiveness in the same domains of leading change (Paglis & Green, 2002). Anderson et al. (2008) adopted a broader definition of leadership, one that incorporated aspects of management based on extensive literature reviews and interviews with 44 senior executives. Paglis (2010) contrasted this broader view

of leadership to that which was adopted in Paglis and Green where a more restrictive definition of leadership was used. Paglis and Green incorporated only those elements that were unique to leadership: setting a direction for the work unit, overcoming obstacles to change, and gaining commitment for change and continuous improvement. However, Paglis concurred that the context for the research or application should dictate the leadership construct measured. Furthermore, Bandura (1997) indicated that a multitude of domain related measures were better predictors of self-efficacy than a single item or a general measure. Thus the measurement scale developed by Anderson et al. was appropriate as it was relevant to the situation and offered optimum predictability and explanation. The study by Anderson et al. provided support for the importance of leadership self-efficacy as a predictor of leadership effectiveness and hence the importance of enhancing LSE through leadership development programs. The differences between the leadership self-efficacy measure adopted by Paglis and Greene and that by Anderson et al. exposed not only the range of behaviours that have been attributable to leadership (Paglis, 2010) but the difficulty in creating programs and measuring outcomes related to leadership self-efficacy and

leadership development and thus, the importance of this research.

Leaders who had high leadership self-efficacy were rated more highly in peer and

supervisor performance ratings and had higher ratings by independent trained observers than did counterparts with lower LSE (Chemers et al., 2000). LSE was highly correlated with both leadership potential and leadership performance as evidenced in peer, supervisor and independent ratings of leadership. The findings were based on the results from an experiment involving 96 military cadets. Gender was not a factor in the results. The LSE scale measured 16 specific dimensions of LSE based on relevant leadership skills for military officers and

assessed general leadership self-efficacy using the eight item scale developed by Murphy (1992). The results were particularly interesting as leadership self-efficacy as it related to the more general concept of leadership, and task specific leadership self-efficacy as it related to specific leadership elements such as communication and giving direction, were both related to the ratings by instructors, peers and observers indicating that those with higher self- efficacy also had higher ratings across both the general and specific domain (Chemers et al., 2000). Thus a leadership development intervention has the potential to affect both general leadership self-efficacy as well as task specific elements of leadership self-efficacy, both of which are positively related to effectiveness.

In a similar study of 81 military cadets, Foti and Hauenstein (2007) used both the typical variable approach and a pattern approach that considered the multiplicity of individual differences, including general self-efficacy, albeit not general leadership self-efficacy, dominance, intelligence and self-image on leadership emergence and effectiveness. Based on self-ratings, peer ratings and observer data, Foti and Hauenstein found that the same

individual qualities of high intelligence, high dominance, high general self-efficacy, and high self-monitoring were associated with both the promotion to leadership positions (emergence) and the demonstration of effectiveness as a leader. Furthermore, cognitive ability best

predicted emergence while personality best predicted promotion (Foti & Hauenstein, 2007). The variable approach yielded results that suggested only intelligence predicted emergence and only dominance significantly predicted promotion. However, the pattern approach, whereby characteristics were considered in concert, was indicative that cadets who exhibited high scores on all four areas emerged as leaders, were promoted and rated as effective. Thus,

the varied approaches explained dimensions of leadership somewhat differently and highlighted the complexity of the domain.

While Foti and Hauenstein (2007) conducted a rigorous study, the research considered only general self-efficacy and used the general self-efficacy scale developed by Sherer et al. (1982) instead of domain specific, leadership self-efficacy. The Sherer et al. scale was used with 17 items related to GSE and measured the construct with a rating from strongly

disagree to strongly agree. Since self-efficacy is a domain specific construct the general self- efficacy scale was an inappropriate instrument for the construct with questionable predictive ability (Bandura, 1997). However, Foti and Hauenstein defended the decision to use the measurement of general self-efficacy by suggesting that self-efficacy could also be a global construct. In spite of the compelling findings, the research relating to self-efficacy must be considered in light of the scale deficiencies and the potential weaknesses in construct applicability.

The advantage of the Foti and Hauenstein (2007) study was not the findings related to efficacy and the predictive value of various traits, but rather the recognition of the

complexity of leadership and leadership self-efficacy. While general self-efficacy may have had weak predictive value, Zaccaro (2012) acknowledged the vacillating importance of trait- based constructs in the history of leadership research that has included the examination of individual differences as predictors of leadership emergence and effectiveness. Variable approaches have predominated but the more robust analysis fostered by the pattern approach adopted by Foti and Hauenstein better addressed the complexity of leadership, personality traits and self-efficacy (Zaccaro, 2012). Thus, the apparent complexity of the domain and the

research problems necessitated a more robust analysis and supported the mixed methods research design.

Another relevant dimension of emergence focused on the leadership in the context of leaderless group discussions and the relationship of gender, self-efficacy and extroversion. Based on a meta-analysis of 45 studies, Ensari, Riggio, Christian, and Carslaw (2011) found that self-efficacy and self-esteem were stronger predictors of leadership emergence for males than for females. Furthermore, extroversion, particularly in males, was also a predictor of leadership emergence. Overall high initial levels of LSE influenced selection as a leader and ultimately performance as a leader in leaderless groups (Ensari et al., 2011). This study was particularly relevant as it explored the effects of both gender and extroversion on the

emergence of leadership. Given the female domination and preference for introversion which have characterized the library profession, and given the team based and discussion

orientation of research context, the Northern Exposure to Leadership Development Institute, the findings that extroverted males were most likely to emerge as leaders influenced the mixed methods analysis that was undertaken.

In a study of university students, Day and Sin (2011) confirmed the hypothesis that those individuals who identified themselves as a leader were most likely to demonstrate leadership effectiveness over time but that individuals not only start with different degrees of leadership acumen, but develop at different rates, and respond differentially to a development

intervention. While the findings did not specifically mention self-efficacy, the concept of self-identification as a leader inherently implies an efficacy judgment. The findings were particularly relevant to this research because they were derived from emerging, not

NELI, the intervention used in this research. Most significantly, the finding that even new or emerging leaders cannot be considered a homogenous group suggested that the methodology had to contemplate these differences. The findings also highlighted the difficulty in

specifying a universal program that would respond equally to all participants. LSE was also linked to both the development of leadership competencies and the execution of leadership behaviours. Leadership self-efficacy is critical to individual leader competency development (Tubbs & Schulz, 2006; Wallis & McLoughlin, 2007) and to the ability of the individual to translate the development to organizational effectiveness and success (Tubbs & Schulz, 2006). While LSE was identified as the most predictive of 17 leadership competencies on leadership behaviour, Wallis and McLoughlin (2007)

acknowledged that they had not linked the behaviours to the attainment of results in their study of leadership in the Irish public sector. Tubbs and Schulz (2006) have linked LSE through the stages of individual leader development to organizational effectiveness,

suggesting that LSE in leaders is an important pre-cursor to organizational effectiveness but the results of the research undertaken by Collins and Holton (2004) clarified that the

demonstration of leadership behaviours, knowledge and skills alone did not imply organizational effectiveness. Thus, the results of the research undertaken by Wallis and McLoughlin were limited, but highlighted the importance of LSE to leadership behaviour.

Task specific elements of LSE were linked to not only behavioural outcomes but to organizational outcomes. Most notably, in leading change, those leaders with high leadership self-efficacy particularly in direction setting and gaining commitment components were seen by direct reports as having engaged in more behaviours and attempts to have led change compared to those with low leadership self-efficacy (Paglis & Green, 2002). Furthermore,

Paglis and Green (2002) found that the managers’ motivation for leading change, a

component of leadership, was linked to leadership self-efficacy as defined by three variables: direction setting, gaining commitment, and overcoming obstacles. Moreover, leadership self- efficacy was integral to worker motivation (Webb, 2007). Thus, a leader with high LSE was not only likely to be motivated to lead change but would motivate followers.

Stajkovic and Luthans (1998) undertook a ground-breaking meta-analysis of 114 studies that examined the relationship between self-efficacy and work performance and found that there was a significant correlation between work performance and self-efficacy. The study continues to have relevance. The study clearly demonstrated the importance of self-efficacy development to task performance as Stajkovic and Luthans concluded that knowledge and skills development alone were not sufficient to improve employee effectiveness in

performing complex tasks but rather employees needed programs that enhanced their beliefs in what they could do, self-efficacy. While not dealing specifically with leadership or leadership self-efficacy, the research singularly provided evidence of the importance of self- efficacy to task performance and thus it underpinned the research herein.

Finally, the complex concept of leadership and the differentiation between developing leader self-efficacy and leadership self-efficacy were highlighted in the experiment undertaken by Hoyt, Murphy, Halverson, and Watson (2003). Leaders showing high leadership self-efficacy experienced higher levels of task self-efficacy, such as leading a group, higher collective efficacy for the task, and lower anxiety (Hoyt et al., 2003;

Villanueva & Sanchez, 2007). Lower levels of anxiety were related to higher levels of the task self-efficacy. Leadership self-efficacy for the task was associated with the collective efficacy for the task which predicted follower’s collective efficacy and which in turn

predicted group performance (Hoyt et al., 2003). The finding showed why it has been so difficult to understand the dimensions of leadership. The interactions between leaders and followers and the related efficacy development have had a significant effect on the

performance outcome. Thus, while the leader self-efficacy has been linked to group performance or has predicted group performance, the role of followers and the collective efficacy also has played a role in the determination of group performance.

Leadership self-efficacy has been a predictor of knowledge, behavioural and group performance both when it has been assessed as a full array of leadership attributes and behaviours and when it has been restricted to a specific leadership task. This has validated the importance of the intended research as the ultimate goal of leadership development programs is to effect organizational and community outcomes. Leadership self-efficacy is an important vehicle to achieve these outcomes.