High Performers = Better Leaders? Evidence From 55 Years of Professional Soccer on the Validity of Performance-based Promotion to Leader Positions

Promoting high-performing employees to leadership positions is a pervasive practice and has high face validity. However, little is known about the actual link between employee and subsequent leader performance as prior results are inconsistent. Given the prevalence of this performance-based promotion strategy, we conducted a study to address this inconsistency. To account for prior diverging results, we (a) competitively tested predictions from different theoretical perspectives (i.e., the performance requirements perspective, the follower-centric perspective, and the Theory of Expert Leadership), (b) considered possible changes in the predictive validity of this strategy over time, and (c) included job complexity as potential moderator of the link between employee and subsequent leader performance. In a high stakes context (i.e., the first German soccer league), we tested the predictive validity of employee performance for leader performance. Our results suggest a low validity of performance-based promotion, as we could not find evidence for a link between employee performance and leader performance—neither initially following the promotion nor over time, which is most in line with the performance requirements perspective. We, thus, caution against the (sole) application of performance-based promotion principles

Creative destruction in science

Drawing on the concept of a gale of creative destruction in a capitalistic economy, we argue that initiatives to assess the robustness of findings in the organizational literature should aim to simultaneously test competing ideas operating in the same theoretical space. In other words, replication efforts should seek not just to support or question the original findings, but also to replace them with revised, stronger theories with greater explanatory power. Achieving this will typically require adding new measures, conditions, and subject populations to research designs, in order to carry out conceptual tests of multiple theories in addition to directly replicating the original findings. To illustrate the value of the creative destruction approach for theory pruning in organizational scholarship, we describe recent replication initiatives re-examining culture and work morality, working parents\u2019 reasoning about day care options, and gender discrimination in hiring decisions. Significance statement It is becoming increasingly clear that many, if not most, published research findings across scientific fields are not readily replicable when the same method is repeated. Although extremely valuable, failed replications risk leaving a theoretical void\u2014 reducing confidence the original theoretical prediction is true, but not replacing it with positive evidence in favor of an alternative theory. We introduce the creative destruction approach to replication, which combines theory pruning methods from the field of management with emerging best practices from the open science movement, with the aim of making replications as generative as possible. In effect, we advocate for a Replication 2.0 movement in which the goal shifts from checking on the reliability of past findings to actively engaging in competitive theory testing and theory building. Scientific transparency statement The materials, code, and data for this article are posted publicly on the Open Science Framework, with links provided in the article

Examining the generalizability of research findings from archival data

This initiative examined systematically the extent to which a large set of archival research findings generalizes across contexts. We repeated the key analyses for 29 original strategic management effects in the same context (direct reproduction) as well as in 52 novel time periods and geographies; 45% of the reproductions returned results matching the original reports together with 55% of tests in different spans of years and 40% of tests in novel geographies. Some original findings were associated with multiple new tests. Reproducibility was the best predictor of generalizability—for the findings that proved directly reproducible, 84% emerged in other available time periods and 57% emerged in other geographies. Overall, only limited empirical evidence emerged for context sensitivity. In a forecasting survey, independent scientists were able to anticipate which effects would find support in tests in new samples

High Performers = Better Leaders? Evidence From 55 Years of Professional Soccer on the Validity of Performance-based Promotion to Leader Positions

Supplemental materials for Dr. Joyce Elena Schleu's "High Performers = Better Leaders? Evidence From 55 Years of Professional Soccer on the Validity of Performance-based Promotion to Leader Positions

Leadership and Employee Inclusion

The relationship between leadership and inclusion is an interesting and timely avenue for research and could have important implications for practice. In this chapter we discuss the central constructs of inclusion and leadership and examine how leaders can positively affect inclusion. We discuss not only inclusive leadership but also other aspects of leadership in relation to inclusion. By discussing how to push the field forward, this chapter navigates the interplay between leadership and inclusion while offering suggestions for the continued evolution of both domains

High Performers = Better Leaders? Probing the Validity of Performance-based Promotion to Fill Leader Positions

Promoting high-performing employees to leadership positions is a pervasive practice and has high face validity. However, little is known about the actual link between employee and subsequent leader performance, as prior results are inconclusive. Given the prevalence of this performance-based promotion strategy, we conducted a study to address this inconsistency. To account for prior diverging results, we (a) competitively tested predictions from different theoretical perspectives (i.e., the performance requirements perspective, the follower-centric perspective, and the Theory of Expert Leadership), (b) considered possible changes in the predictive validity of this strategy over time, and (c) included job complexity as potential moderator of the link between employee and subsequent leader performance. In a high stakes context (i.e., the first German soccer division), we tested the predictive validity of employee performance for leader performance. Our results suggest a low validity of performance-based promotion, as we could not find evidence for a link between employee performance and later leader performance—neither initially following the promotion nor over time, which is consistent with the performance requirements perspective. We, thus, caution against the (sole) application of performance-based promotion principles

The reciprocity of shared and empowering leadership

Leadership has mostly been considered as a unidirectional process centered on leaders influencing their followers. However, recent theoretical developments indicate that followers may also have an impact on their formal leader. In this pre-registered study, we investigate the interplay between shared leadership and formal team leadership (i.e., empowering leadership). We predict that leaders interpret their team’s shared leadership as an investment to reach for common goals. Accordingly, their team’s effort should improve leader trust in the team, which in turn should increase empowering leadership behavior of the leader. Further, we propose that this indirect relation is first-stage moderated by leader self-efficacy. We invited 721 team members and their leaders nested in 169 teams to join a three-wave longitudinal study. Results from Bayesian cross-lagged panel modeling support our predicted mediation effect while also pointing to a reverse effect of empowering leadership on shared leadership. The moderation effect was not supported. This study provides insights into the dynamic and reciprocal interplay between shared and formal leadership. Our findings underline that formal leaders do not perceive shared leadership as a threat but instead value the team effort reflected in higher trust and decision latitude

On the destructiveness of laissez-faire versus abusive supervision: a comparative, multilevel investigation of destructive forms of leadership

Klasmeier KN, Schleu JE, Millhoff C, Poethke U, Bormann K. On the destructiveness of laissez-faire versus abusive supervision: a comparative, multilevel investigation of destructive forms of leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology . 2021.Different forms of destructive leadership are prevalent in organizations, but rarely studied together. Additionally, most studies take an individual-level view on the consequences of destructive leadership. However, while most supervisors lead teams, it remains unclear how destructive leadership behaviours affect team processes and outcomes from a multilevel perspective. Building on this premise, we analysed the relationship of abusive supervision and laissez-faire leadership with OCB on the individual and team-level. As an important team process, we considered team trust as a mediating mechanism. Further, we investigated whether laissez-faire leadership is more harmful to OCB compared to abusive supervision. We tested our proposed model in a three-wave study with data from 658 team members out of 149 teams. Bayesian multilevel analysis generally supported our assumptions: Abusive supervision lowered team trust and subsequently OCB at the individual and team-level, whereas laissez-faire was not related to team trust on the team-level. Additionally, our results indicated that laissez-faire was more harmful to OCB than abusive supervision on both levels. Finally, implications for theory and practical use in organizations are discussed