Full length articleHow feedback about leadership potential impacts ambition, organizational commitment, and performance
Introduction
To survive and thrive in the long-term, organizations are faced with the key task of inspiring followers to become the next generation of leaders and to equip them to move into future leadership roles once incumbents move on or new opportunities arise. For this reason, organizations strongly focus on planning and investing into issues of leader successions and development. For example, in PwC's 20th Annual Global CEO Survey, 77% of CEOs identified developing human talent, including leadership, as a top key priority (PwC, 2012). Literature on strategic human resources management defines leadership succession as a set of HR activities that: (1) organizations use to identify talented employees who “show potential to become more than they currently are” (Silzer & Church, 2009, p.4), and (2) provide these potential leaders with guidance and training to become future organizational leaders (Heneman, Judge, & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2015). This literature highlights the positive outcomes of leadership succession planning, since it enables organizations to get “the right person in the right job at the right time” (Cappelli & Keller, 2014, p.306), and invest their scarce resources in those where chances on returns will be the highest (Collings & Mellahi, 2009; Felin & Hesterly, 2007).
Speaking to the above resource-based perspective, prior research has investigated various strategic aspects of leadership succession — primarily at the very top levels of organizations (Garman & Glawe, 2004). For example, research has examined succession as a function of whether the successor (a) originates from within or outside the company (Shen & Cannella, 2002), (b) is similar to, or different from, the previous leader (Ritter & Lord, 2007), (c) is a man or a woman (Ryan & Haslam, 2007), and (d) implements little or significant change (Zhang & Rajagopalan, 2010).
Yet scholars have argued that there is a need to better understand the motivational effects associated with evaluations about leadership potential, especially for individuals at lower organizational levels (Gelens, Dries, Hofmans, & Pepermans, 2013). After all, leadership succession demands the singling out of a chosen few at the expense of the many, since organizations consider only a small proportion (5–20%) of people in a cohort to be eligible for succession programs (Malik & Singh, 2014). Thus, the vast majority of individuals will be excluded from leadership successions, but are still expected to remain motivated followers. Accordingly, in this paper we address the question of how feedback about the lack of leadership potential may impact leadership ambition, organizational commitment, and performance. These three outcomes represent defining features of follower motivation (Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2012; Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002).
The present two studies contribute to the literatures on the importance of followership. Notably, followers are generally defined (a) with reference to hierarchical organizational structures, that is, followers as subordinates, and (b) as individuals who display behavior that is influenced by leadership (Uhl-Bien, Riggio, Lowe, & Carsten, 2014). This definition underscores the importance of understanding individuals' motivation to be, and act, as followers. In addition to being an important precursor of the success of followers (Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2012; Leroy, Palanski, & Simons, 2012), the motivation of followers also incorporates their willingness to make an effort for others within the organization including their leaders (Malik & Singh, 2014).
There are at least two sets of theories that may provide insight into the effects of feedback about leadership potential. Theorizing on the importance of follower- and group-centered perspectives argues that leadership and followership are both intertwined and reciprocally related (e.g., Day, Gronn, & Salas, 2006; Morgeson, DeRue, & Karam, 2010; Oc & Bashshur, 2013; Uhl-Bien et al., 2014; Yammarino, Salas, Serban, Shirreffs, & Shuffler, 2012; Zaccaro, Rittman, & Marks, 2002) and that there is no leadership without followership (e.g., Haslam, Reicher, & Platow, 2011; Steffens et al., 2014). Drawing from this perspective, we propose that just as being seen as a likely future leader may motivate individuals, individuals may also be discouraged when they are seen as an unlikely future leader, because such a process sets leaders and followers apart. We further use justice theory as an underlying framework to provide insight into why potential as a future leader may affect individuals. This theory suggests that people develop fairness sentiments based not only on the outcome of resource allocations (as predicted by equity theory; Adams, 1965) but also on basis of the procedure that lead to those outcomes (Cropanzano & Folger, 1989; Greenberg, 1987). Thus, being seen as having potential to be a future a leader is likely to be motivating because becoming a leader provides people with valuable resources, such as higher status and higher financial rewards. Just as importantly, not being seen as having leadership potential should be demotivating, because of the associated lack of such resources. Moreover, decisions about leadership potential are typically made behind closed doors by leaders in higher-level positions with little input from those who are to be led (followers), and so, other things being equal, followers who are not seen to have leadership potential are likely to regard the process as unfair.
It is noteworthy that, to date, few scholars have included follower responses in empirical work on leadership successions (for a review, see Hutzschenreuter, Kleindienst, & Greger, 2012). Two notable exceptions include a cross-sectional study by Björkman, Ehrnrooth, Mäkelä, Smale, and Sumelius (2013) showing that individuals who perceive themselves as being part of their organizational talent pool report greater determination to develop their competencies and lower turnover intentions. Furthermore, they include a cross-sectional study by Gelens, Hofmans, Dries, and Pepermans (2014) finding that individuals not identified as having high potential report lower organizational justice. These findings are insightful because they show that perceptions of being seen to have potential (or not) are associated with the motivational responses of individuals.
Yet the implications we can draw from the above two studies are somewhat limited, in that they do not inform us about at least two important issues that are key for understanding followers' motivational responses to feedback about leadership potential. First, it remains to be addressed whether the obtained responses relate uniquely to leadership potential. That is, we must distinguish effects of feedback about leadership potential from those of follower performance by examining whether being seen (or not being seen) as having leadership potential affects the motivation of followers whose baseline levels of motivation and performance are similar prior to receiving information about leadership potential (Balzer & Sulsky, 1992; Briscoe & Hall, 1999). Second, it is possible that followers with more motivation are perceived to have higher leadership potential (cf. Dries & Pepermans, 2012). To determine the consequential impact of leadership potential, we need to rule out endogeneity in relationships and establish causality of the effects (Antonakis et al., 2010, Antonakis et al., 2014) by examining the extent to which feedback about leadership potential impacts actual behavioral indicators of motivation. We address these issues in the present research. Before we turn to our studies, we will develop our hypotheses in more detail.
Even though there is little empirical research on how followers respond to leadership succession, there is abundant evidence demonstrating that formal performance appraisals have an impact on followers' willingness to work for their organization — both when these appraisals are favorable and when they are unfavorable (e.g., Fletcher, 2001; Pearce & Porter, 1986). In part, this impact may be attributable to the instrumental gains or losses directly attached to formal performance appraisals (e.g., salary increases or decreases and more or less task autonomy). However, studies have shown that performance appraisals also affect followers because they signal to followers how well they do relative to their peers, and hence, how central they are to their organization (Cleveland, Murphy, & Williams, 1989; Levy & Williams, 2004).
Moreover, research on performance appraisals tends to focus on follower responses to evaluations of their objective task outcomes in their current jobs or organizational ranks — not on their responses to estimations of their potential to be a future leader at higher levels of the organization. In this regard too, it is worth noting the conceptual similarities (and differences) between our hypothesized effects of perceived leadership potential on motivation and those described by research on performance expectations and the Pygmalion effect (e.g., Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968; see also, the self-fulfilling prophecy effect; Eden, 2014; Jussim, Eccles, & Madon, 1996). Both examine how the appraisals of others impact upon a person's subsequent attitudes and behaviors. At the same time, we identify two key different ways in which the current research goes beyond past research.
First, whereas the Pygmalion effect demonstrates that individual performance is impacted by others' performance expectations, we suggest that effects due to leadership potential need not be driven by performance expectations, but rather by the potential to be a leader, that is, to occupy a leadership position and be able to influence the people they work with so that they are motivated to contribute to collective goals. After all, followers may receive positive appraisals of their current task performance, but yet still not be seen as possessing leadership potential. Second, based on procedural justice theory (Cropanzano & Folger, 1989), we argue that followers' responses to feedback about their leadership potential will impact their general work motivation, which includes their primary task efforts, but also their ambition to become a leader and their organizational commitment. In this way, we suggest that individual responses will extend beyond direct task performance to willingness to contribute to shared goals. Accordingly, it needs to be investigated whether, and if so how, information about leadership potential impacts followers over and above effects of appraisals of current performance.
The limited existing literature on the responses of followers to prospective leadership successions remains inconclusive. Several scholars argue that followers who are seen as likely future leaders and are included in leadership programs should demonstrate increased levels of motivation because organizations explicitly value them (Becker, Huselid, Pickus, & Spratt, 1997; Björkman et al., 2013; Collings & Mellahi, 2009; Malik & Singh, 2014) and accommodate to their intellectual and psychological needs (McClean & Collins, 2011). But others have warned that when chosen leaders attribute their selection to their own capabilities, they may not necessarily become more motivated to work for the organization, but rather become more demanding instead (i.e., in terms of further assistance with career progression; Call, Nyberg, & Thatcher, 2015).
As for those followers who are not seen as future leaders, they might remain motivated to work for the organization because increased efforts and the setting of more challenging goals may improve their future prospects and their leadership potential (Malik & Singh, 2014). However, several scholars have argued that followers regarded to have little leadership potential are likely to demonstrate a drop in motivation because (a) they are rejected on the basis of an estimated skill that they cannot demonstrate in their current job (Björkman et al., 2013; Marescaux, De Winne, & Sels, 2013) which they may perceive as unfair, and (b) inclusion in future leadership programs becomes increasingly difficult for them because they are allocated fewer resources and opportunities than those who are chosen (Dries, Van Acker, & Verbruggen, 2012), leading to a greater divergence in possibilities and opportunities between the those who are chosen and those who are not. These arguments are in line with procedural justice theory (Cropanzano & Folger, 1989; Greenberg, 1987) and findings from group research, where differential leadership behavior towards followers (Tee, Paulsen, & Ashkanasy, 2013; Zhang, Li, Ullrich, & van Dick, 2013) and the use of selection procedures that create a competitive environment (Haslam et al., 1998), can undermine collaboration by emphasizing the distinction between those who are seen as worth attending to (i.e., potential leaders) and those who are not.
In sum, as argued above, perceptions of followers' reduced potential as future leaders may have the unintended negative effect of distancing followers from their organization. Specifically, being singled out for a future leadership position may motivate those who are chosen to some degree. However, to the extent that a given follower is regarded to have reduced leadership potential, that follower is far more likely to respond unfavorably to the collective enterprise to which they belong and to leadership in particular. As such, we predict that evaluations of followers' potential as a future leader will be related to followers' motivation in terms of both their leadership ambition and their commitment to the organization. More precisely, we predict:
Followers who receive feedback that they have low, rather than high, leadership potential will show lower leadership ambition (H1a) and lower organizational commitment (H1b).
The present research extends our understanding of the way in which feedback about followers' leadership potential are associated with differences in follower motivation. We test our hypotheses in two experimental studies. In Study 1 we present an experimental vignette study that enables us to establish the isolated effect of feedback about leadership potential (i.e., the degree to which an individual is regarded to have potential to be a future leader) on individuals' leadership ambition and organizational commitment in a diverse sample of people with work experience. In Study 2, to rule out endogeneity-related issues and to establish the causal effect of feedback about leadership potential on motivation, we present a behavioral economics experiment in a real effort task environment (Charness & Kuhn, 2011) in which members of a team are randomly assigned to a condition of likely or unlikely leaders. In Study 2, we extend findings from Study 1 by examining how leadership potential affects changes in participants' (objective) behavioral effect on a team-related performance task.
Section snippets
Participants
Two-hundred-and-fifty-six people with work experience participated in an online experiment for a small reimbursement after being recruited via MTurk (Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011; Goodman, Cryder, & Cheema, 2013). Six participants failed to complete an attention check as instructed (This is a control question—please select ‘2’) and one participant provided incomplete data for the dependent variable leadership ambition, which led to a final sample of 249 participants (132 female; 115 male;
Participants
Two-hundred-and-sixty-four participants (131 male, 133 female) from a volunteer undergraduate participant pool via ORSEE (Greiner, 2015) took part in a computerized experiment programmed in z-Tree (Fischbacher, 2007). Participants' self-reported age ranged from 17 to 40 (M = 19.68; SD = 1.72); the degree they studied included a broad range of disciplines including physical and natural sciences and humanities and social sciences.
Procedure
We received ethical approval for the study through the second
General discussion
In the present paper we examined the core proposition that feedback about potential as a leader impacts follower ambition in two experimental studies with different methodologies — an experimental vignette study and a behavioral experiment in a real-effort task setting. Study 1 provided experimental evidence using vignette methodology showing that even when individuals are asked to imagine that they perform well in their current job, evaluations of their potential to be a future leader affects
Conclusion
Prior research on leadership succession has advanced our understanding of the strategic consequences of successions (i.e., once new leaders, typically at the top of an organization such as CEOs, take office). However, we know little about the motivational effects of feedback about potential (or not) to be a future leader. Therefore, in the present set of studies we provide insight into the motivational consequences associated with feedback about individuals' leadership potential. One may be
References (80)
Inequity in social-exchange
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology
(1965)On doing better science: From thrill of discovery to policy implications
The Leadership Quarterly
(2017)- et al.
On making causal claims: A review and recommendations
The Leadership Quarterly
(2010) - et al.
An alternative approach and new guidelines for practice
Organizational Dynamics
(1999) - et al.
Lab labor: What can labor economists learn from the lab?
- et al.
Strategic talent management: A review and research agenda
Human Resource Management Review
(2009) Integrative perspectives on longitudinal investigations of leader development: From childhood through adulthood
The Leadership Quarterly
(2011)- et al.
Advances in leader and leadership development: A review of 25 years of research and theory
The Leadership Quarterly
(2014) - et al.
Leadership in team-based organizations: On the threshold of a new era
The Leadership Quarterly
(2006) - et al.
How ‘boundaryless’ are the careers of high potentials, key experts and average performers?
Journal of Vocational Behavior
(2012)
The role of perceived organizational justice in shaping the outcomes of talent management: A research agenda
Human Resource Management Review
How new leaders affect strategic change following a succession event: A critical review of the literature
The Leadership Quarterly
Outsider CEO succession and firm performance
Journal of Economics and Business
When organizational justice and the self-concept meet: Consequences for the organization and its members
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
Social perception, social stereotypes, and teacher expectations: Accuracy and the quest for the powerful self-fulfilling prophecy
The social context of performance appraisal: A review and framework for the future
Journal of Management
‘High potential’ programs: Let's hear it for ‘B’ players
Human Resource Management Review
Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences
Journal of Vocational Behavior
Followership, leadership and social influence
The Leadership Quarterly
Leadership as social identity management: Introducing the Identity Leadership Inventory (ILI) to assess and validate a four-dimensional model
The Leadership Quarterly
Revisiting followership through a social identity perspective: The role of collective follower emotion and action
The Leadership Quarterly
Followership theory: A review and research agenda
The Leadership Quarterly
Team leadership
The Leadership Quarterly
A productive clash of cultures: Injecting economics into leadership research
The Leadership Quarterly
Best-practice recommendations for designing and implementing experimental vignette methodology studies
Organizational Research Methods
Exposure to violent media: The effects of songs with violent lyrics on aggressive thoughts and feelings
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Causality and endogeneity: Problems and solutions
Halo and performance appraisal research: A critical examination
Journal of Applied Psychology
HR as a source of shareholder value: Research and recommendations
Human Resource Management
Talent or not? Employee reactions to talent identification
Human Resource Management
Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?
Perspectives on Psychological Science
Stargazing: An integrative conceptual review, theoretical reconciliation, and extension for star employee research
Journal of Applied Psychology
A practitioner's guide to cluster-robust inference
Journal of Human Resources
Talent management: Conceptual approaches and practical challenges
Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior
CEO replacement in turnaround situations: Executive (mis)fit and its performance implications
Organization Science
Multiple uses of performance appraisal: Prevalence and correlates
Journal of Applied Psychology
The construct of work commitment: Testing an integrative framework
Psychological Bulletin
Referent cognitions and task decision autonomy - Beyond equity theory
Journal of Applied Psychology
How do leaders promote cooperation? The effects of charisma and procedural fairness
Journal of Applied Psychology
Who will lead and who will follow? A social process of leadership identity construction in organizations
Academy of Management Review
Cited by (30)
Ambition and subjective career success: A nonlinear relationship
2024, Personality and Individual DifferencesThe delivery of bad news: An integrative review and path forward
2023, Human Resource Management ReviewFeedback quality and performance in organisations
2022, Leadership QuarterlyA meta-analytic review of the gender difference in leadership aspirations
2022, Journal of Vocational BehaviorPedagogical strategies for leadership development
2022, International Encyclopedia of Education: Fourth EditionAn examination of the progressive effects of hotel frontline employees’ brand perceptions on desirable service outcomes
2020, International Journal of Hospitality ManagementCitation Excerpt :As the outcomes of the study are organizationally desirable behaviors, we considered organizational commitment as a representative attitudinal construct desirable for a company influenced by an organization’s internal branding. In the management literature, organizational commitment often represents intermediate outcomes given its nature – employees’ perspective toward the entire organization (Hulin, 1991) – and organizational commitment, currently, has still been employed as a construct in a number of recent research papers, due to its value to an organization (e.g., Kim et al., 2018; Lapointe and Vandenberghe, 2018; Steffens et al., 2018). The concept of organizational commitment is defined by Steers (1977, p. 46) as “the relative strength of an individual’s identification with and involvement in a particular organization”.