Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Human Resource Management Review 17 (2007) 360 – 373

www.elsevier.com/locate/humres

A multilevel, identity-based approach to leadership development

David V. Day a,⁎, Michelle M. Harrison b
a
Singapore Management University, Lee Kong Chian School of Business, 50 Stamford Road, 178899, Singapore
b
Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania, PA, USA

Abstract

A frontier of leadership development is examined involving the respective roles of levels-of-analysis and identity in
constructing an integrated development system. An approach is described in which individual and relational leadership identities
are the focus of developmental efforts at lower organizational levels (e.g., individual contributor and first-level supervisor) but
collective identities become the focus at higher levels (e.g., general manager and above). The separate areas of levels-of-analysis
and leader identities are first discussed in terms of their respective relevance to leadership development. These are then discussed
jointly in elaborating on a proposed development approach that integrates across organizational levels as well as levels of
development (i.e., leader development and leadership development). In developing collective leadership identities, processes that
involve participants in engaging across boundaries (functional, hierarchical, geographical) are recommended.
© 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Leadership development; Leader development; Self; Identity; Managerial transitions; Multilevel models

1. Introduction

Our collective understanding of leadership and how it develops continues to evolve. To some commentators, this is
evidence of everything that is purportedly wrong with the field of leadership. Specifically, the field is accused of being
unscientific due to the lack of a single, concrete, and widely accepted view of the term leadership (Calder, 1977; Kerr
& Jermier, 1978; Meindl, Ehrlich, & Dukerich, 1985; Pfeffer, 1977). There is even dismay over the apparent
resistance on the part of some authors to attempt a straightforward operational definition (Locke, 2003). Without a set
definitional foundation the commentators and critics question the possibility of a scientific basis to leadership. How can
something that cannot be defined be studied scientifically? And more pertinent to the special issue topic of leadership
development, how can something that is apparently indefinable be developed?
We adopt a different perspective and argue that such criticisms stem from an overly narrow – if not dogmatic –
position on the nature of “leadership science.” We assert that the complexity and multidimensionality of the very nature
of leadership mitigate the possibility of a simple or unitary definition. Leadership cannot mean only one thing because it
can and does take on multiple meanings and appearances, which have evolved over time. A traditional appearance of
leadership often takes the form of an individual in charge of a team providing direction, support to others in the team (i.e.,
“followers”), and aligning the team's goals within a broader purpose. But in addition to this traditional perspective,

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +65 6828 0798.

E-mail address: davidday@smu.edu.sg (D.V. Day).

1053-4822/$ - see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2007.08.007
 D.V. Day, M.M. Harrison / Human Resource Management Review 17 (2007) 360–373 361

leadership can also take the form of team members working together collectively to set direction, build commitment, and
create alignment (O'Connor & Quinn, 2004; Van Velsor & McCauley, 2004). This broader understanding of leadership
includes, but goes beyond a traditional, single-leader perspective (Gronn, 2002). Much of the criticisms of leadership
may stem from a misunderstanding of the ongoing evolution of leadership research and theory.
Similar to most other scientific constructs, our understanding of leadership did not arrive fully complete and mature
at our doorstep, nor should we reasonably expect this. For example, the notion of job performance and how it is
measured has changed substantially since the beginning of the 20th century (Austin & Villanova, 1992) moving
beyond a solely technical, task-based performance to include aspects of contextual performance (Borman &
Motowidlo, 1993). Similarly, there is ample evidence that the construct of leadership also continues to evolve. One
example illustrating how the study of leadership has progressed beyond a traditional, individual leader perspective is
the emergence of the concept of shared leadership. In a historical review of a shared conceptualization of leadership,
Pearce and Conger (2003a) trace the evolution of the historical bases of shared leadership. One of the major points of
their review was that this “new” conceptualization of shared leadership did not burst into the literature full-formed;
rather, it went through a gradual evolution – and acceptance – that could be traced back to the early 20th century and
continues to evolve today (Cox, Pearce, & Sims, 2003). This ongoing construct evolution is not a negative thing, nor is
it unscientific; rather it is a necessary change to better reflect fundamental changes in how work is organized, the
complexity of challenges faced across all domains in which leadership is relevant, as well as the growth and maturity of
the social sciences on which most of the science of leadership rests.
Table 1 provides a summary of the development of our definitions and understanding of leadership. As highlighted
in the first column, our understanding has increased in terms of complexity and sophistication, progressing from the
most basic (least inclusive and complex) to the most advanced thinking around leadership to date (greatest
sophistication, complexity, and inclusiveness). The second column provides the corresponding changes in definitions
of leadership, progressing from exclusively role-based authority (most basic) to an influence process that may include
roles (mid-level complexity) to a shared property of a social system that includes interdependencies of individuals,

Table 1
Summary of evolvement of thinking around leadership
Level of complexity and Definition of leadership Illustrative Levels-of-analysis Leadership Parallel level of self-
inclusiveness theories of addressed development focus concept and identity
leadership knowledge principle
Most basic, • Leadership is • Trait theory • Individual level • Individual skills • Individual self-concept
least complex role-based authority • Leader • Top-down influence development • Personal dominance
and inclusive behaviors of leader on followers
conceptualization
of leadership

Mid-level • Leadership is an • Leader– • Reciprocal Includes both: Acknowledges both:

conceptualization influence process member dyadic influence • Individual • Individual self-concept
of leadership between individuals exchange • Top-down influence skill development • Relational self-concept
• Roles are also (LMX) of leader on follower as • Relationship Able to draw from:
important in shaping well as bottom-up effect building • Personal dominance
influence processes of follower on leader • Interpersonal influence

Most advanced, complex, • Leadership is a shared • Shared Multi-level approach Includes all: Acknowledges all:
and inclusive property of a social leadership (includes individual, • Individual • Individual self-concept
conceptualization system including • Collective team, and skill development • Relational self-concept
of leadership interdependencies leadership organizational level). • Relationship • Collective self-concept
among individuals, • Connective • Includes both building Able to draw from:
teams, and organizations. leadership contextual influences • Empowerment • Personal dominance
• Can also involve roles of organizational • Collaboration • Interpersonal Influence
and influence processes influences on team and • Working • Relational Dialogue
depending upon situation leadership emergence across boundaries
within a team
• Also acknowledges
dyadic and
individual levels
362 D.V. Day, M.M. Harrison / Human Resource Management Review 17 (2007) 360–373

teams, and organizations (most advanced). Column three of the table provides an illustrative theory that reflects the
changes in our understanding of what leadership can be.

2. Moving beyond leader-centric approaches

The complexity of challenges and the increasing frequency in which teams and organizations encounter these
challenges call for moving beyond a traditional single-leader (i.e., leader-centric) framework (Drath, 2001; Heifetz,
1994; Kahane, 2004). Simply put, things are not getting any easier for leaders or for teams. Individuals and broader
collectives face many unexpected and complex challenges that have the potential to threaten their very existence such
as the rise of global terrorism that potentially undermines national and international security and increasingly
sophisticated Internet hacking that can damage the integrity of critical information databases. These kinds of serious
threats elicit feelings of vu jàdé (the opposite of déjà vu) in those who experience them: “I've never been here before, I
have no idea where I am, and I have no idea who can help me” (Weick, 1993, pp. 633–634).
Successfully meeting such challenges will require more than having a cadre of highly developed individual leaders.
It will also require understanding and implementing ways of developing connections between individual leaders to
bring about shared, distributed, collective, or connected leadership capacity in organizations (Brown & Gioia, 2002;
Cox et al., 2003; Day, Gronn, & Salas, 2004; Lipman-Blumen, 2000). In short, leaders need to learn how to more
collectively participate in leadership processes to better make sense of and solve complex challenges (Drath & Palus,
1994). What this collective interaction means in terms of leadership, its theoretical underpinnings, and how it can be
developed in practice are the foci of the proposed approach to leadership development.
Consistent with the objectives of the special issue, our overarching purpose is to explore new frontiers in our
understanding of leadership development, and in particular by embracing a multilevel perspective. In elaborating
on this position we will first provide a brief overview of current issues pertaining to levels-of-analysis and review
how our understanding of leadership and developmental efforts have been enhanced through explicit multilevel
theorizing. One particular lens through which we believe a multilevel perspective on leadership development can
be built is that of the self or identity. Developing more inclusive conceptualizations of self might also be an
important pathway to developing broader leadership and leadership capacity in teams and organizations. We will
review the essentials of these two important domains (i.e., levels and self) before turning attention to a final
section that illustrates how these domains inform the emerging frontiers of leadership development when
considered together.

3. Multilevel theory and concepts

Just as the concept of leadership continues to evolve, so do the social sciences as a whole. Researchers have more
conceptual and statistical tools at their disposal, and core constructs have matured and improved as a result of decades
of theoretical advances and empirical research. By virtue of this continuing evolution in the social sciences, the fields of
leadership and leadership development have been enriched.
One such advancement pertains to multilevel and cross-level effects in the social sciences. Researches have
acknowledged the multilevel nature of organizations for quite some time. Nonetheless, only recently have efforts been
undertaken to consistently and explicitly incorporate multilevel issues as a result of advances in multilevel theory and
modeling capabilities. Multilevel issues are inherent to the study of organizational behavior: Individuals often are
nested within work teams that are in turn nested within organizations that are nested within industries (Kozlowski &
Klein, 2000). Attempting to understand individuals devoid of the broader contexts in which they interrelate is to a large
degree missing the point, and more important, can lead to incomplete models and biased estimates of relationships
(House, Rousseau, & Thomas-Hunt, 1995).
In a similar manner, attempting to understand leadership in a way that is focused solely on individual leaders
overlooks important contextual influences that shape the focal construct of leadership at different levels-of-analysis,
and most certainly shape its development. Also, having a broader view helps further our understanding of leadership by
enabling us to discover inconsistencies and gaps in our knowledge (House et al., 1995). To this end, adopting a
multilevel perspective helps to identify principles that foster a more integrated understanding of phenomena unfolding
across organizational levels (Klein & Kozlowski, 2000), which includes enhancing our understanding of leadership in
organizations.
 D.V. Day, M.M. Harrison / Human Resource Management Review 17 (2007) 360–373 363

At the most basic level of understanding, multilevel processes can be described as top-down (contextual influences)
or bottom-up (emergence). Top-down processes describe the direct or moderating effect of higher-order factors on
lower-level units. For example, the influence that organizational membership has on an individual would be described
as top-down. Conversely, bottom-up or emergent processes describe the influence of lower-level effects on higher
levels such as the influence of a team-member's positive or negative affect on the emotional tone of the team as a whole
(e.g., Barsade, 2002). Another important multilevel principle concerns the nature of constructs at different levels-of-
analysis. Constructs that are manifested similarly across levels are said to be isomorphic whereas those that operate
differently are said to be discontinuous. From the theoretical perspective on construct discontinuity it is therefore
possible, for example, for collective leadership to be manifested in very different ways than individual leadership.

4. Multilevel issues in leadership and leadership development

Prominent leadership researchers have noted that levels-of-analysis issues and multiple-level approaches “are
becoming increasingly important in many areas of organizational research and, in particular, in the literature of
leadership” (Yammarino, Dionne, Chun, & Dansereau, 2005, p. 879). One driver behind this recognition is that
leadership always requires some sort of interpersonal relationship. A leader without a social context simply cannot be a
leader. Thus, the reason why levels-of-analysis issues are so important in leadership is that leaders inherently are part of
leader–follower dyads, which are nested in higher-level contexts such as teams, which are nested in business units and
broader organizations (Schriesheim, Castro, Zhou, & Yammarino, 2001). As our understanding of leadership becomes
more inclusive, we must simultaneously address more levels-of-analysis in our theory and measurement. The fourth
column of Table 1 illustrates the corresponding levels-of-analysis addressed with increasingly complex notions of
leadership.
The leadership field is commendable for its explicit attempts at integrating multilevel perspectives into empirical
research and theory. Research has examined the extent to which leadership constructs vary across levels and the
stability of their meaning across levels (i.e., isomorphism and discontinuity). Additionally, researchers have used
multilevel frameworks to examine the cross-level effects of leadership. The use of multilevel approaches to understand
leadership has increased dramatically, at least partly as a function of advanced methods and statistical modeling
approaches that can simultaneously examine multiple levels-of-analysis (e.g., Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002).
Although there is a relatively rich history of multilevel perspectives in our understanding of leadership theory (e.g.,
Dansereau & Yammarino, 1998a,b), the same is not necessarily true in terms of leadership development. As we gain
more complex and systems-level perspectives on leadership, and incorporate collective and collaborative approaches
that transcend (but do not completely replace) the individual leader, our understanding of how leadership develops has
also changed. As the nature of work in many organizational contexts moves toward teams and away from a sole
emphasis on individual contributors (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003) there is an increasing need to understand how
leadership might be constructed more collectively. Instead of relying on a single (usually formally appointed) leader to
provide the leadership of a team, effective teams might develop more collective, collaborative, and shared processes
that compose its leadership (Day, Gronn, & Salas, 2004; Day, Sin, & Chen, 2004; Pearce & Conger, 2003b).
For these reasons, levels issues are critically important when the focus is on leadership development in that it is
naturally a multilevel process. The first level is the leader; the second takes in account the relationships with followers,
peers, and superiors; and the third constitutes the organizational climate and culture. Taking into account the second
and third levels becomes critical to sustaining leadership development over time. As noted by Avolio (2004):

Failing to take the next two levels up into consideration [beyond the individual leader] when designing a
leadership development intervention sets up a weak force (our new learner) against a strong force (the
organizational context), and the results are… likely to hit up against the 30% success ceiling (p. 94).

In other words, considering and including the team and organizational contexts may greatly enhance the likelihood of a
successful developmental intervention. This point nicely captures the distinction that has been drawn between leader
development and leadership development. It has been argued that what passes most often as leadership development in
research and practice can be more accurately labeled as individual leader development (Day, 2000). What is missing in
most development initiatives is the focus on the interpersonal context. True leadership development transcends the focus
on the individual leader to also consider the relationships between individuals that can enhance the capacity for shared
364 D.V. Day, M.M. Harrison / Human Resource Management Review 17 (2007) 360–373

sensemaking, learning from shared experiences, and collectively enacting the fundamental tasks of leadership such as
setting direction, building commitment, and creating alignment (Drath, 2001; Van Velsor & McCauley, 2004). The fifth
column of Table 1 illustrates the progress of our understanding of effective leadership development.
It is important to note that effective leadership development rests on a foundation of sound leader development and,
as mentioned previously, transcends but does not replace the goal of having well-developed individual leaders.
Completely ignoring leader development in the rush for leadership development will likely result in placing individuals
into challenging developmental contexts that they are not prepared to handle let alone ready to learn and grow.
Conversely, others have observed through their client work that having well-developed leaders is insufficient for
organizational success and that distinct limits are reached when a strict leader development agenda is followed
(McCauley & Van Velsor, 2004). For organizations to experience sustained leadership over time “individuals and
groups need to carry out the leadership tasks together in a way that integrates differing perspectives and recognizes
areas of interdependence and shared work” (Van Velsor & McCauley, 2004, p. 21). And as will be discussed, taking on
shared work in a collective manner can serve as the platform for effective leadership development.
Another important component to the developmental process is that of time. Unfortunately, very little attention has been
given to explicitly incorporating time as a construct in modeling the leadership growth process (Day & Lance, 2004). One
implication of addressing time is that researchers are able to examine within-entity (individual, team, organization) change
as well as between-entity differences in developmental trajectories (e.g., Day, Sin, & Chen, 2004). In other words, time
adds yet another levels-of-analysis facet to conceptualizing and examining the leadership development process.
An important aspect of thinking about developmental issues longitudinally involves how to effectively link leader
development with collectively based leadership development. This involves more than just a timing issue in terms of
determining when a leader is sufficiently developed for the next level of a broader developmental initiative. It also
involves cross-level effects in that individuals affect group and organizational processes and outcomes, and groups and
organizations can influence individual-level development. The next section elaborates more on cross-level effects in
general and with regard to leadership development more specifically.

4.1. Understanding cross-level influences

In a recent treatise on work motivation in teams, Chen and Kanfer (2006) note that research and theories have tended to
focus almost entirely on individual motivation and ignore the contextual influences of higher-level processes on
individuals, or consider only team motivation and overlook potentially important individual differences within the team.
Despite this historical tendency, individual and team motivational processes cannot be presumed to occur independently. In
attempting to remedy this oversight, Chen and Kanfer outlined a general model that incorporates the often ignored cross-
level influences between individual and team motivation. They also make an important observation that there is an
asymmetrical pattern of cross-level motivational effects in that the top-down effects of team-level variables on individual-
level variables are more “pervasive, powerful, and immediate” (p. 30) than the bottom-up effects. This is likely due to the
relative ease of individual change as compared with broader systems' change. Bottom-up effects can occur, but probably
not as frequently and may take longer to have an effect (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). But as will be addressed next, this
asymmetry may not hold true in the same way when the focus is on leadership development.
What differentiates the domain of leadership development from individual and team motivation is that in leadership
not all of the individuals are of the same status and influence in shaping team-level processes. Although a formal or
informal leader is an individual just like others in the team, the leader carries more influence than other team members.
Indeed, many have proposed that influence is at the core of leadership (Katz & Kahn, 1978; Yukl, 2002). Because
leaders have more influence than ordinary team members, they can have inordinate impact on shaping the climate for
leadership development. Day (2007) notes that strategic leaders can help to set the proper climate and culture for
widespread, ongoing, and sustainable leadership development in a top-down fashion by helping to infuse certain norms
that are facilitative for learning and development (i.e., low power distance, psychological safety, and a learning goal
orientation). But informal leaders who emerge in a bottom-up sort of manner may also play an important role in
developing collective leadership capacity in groups that are operating in complex or ambiguous situations. In other
words the leader need not be external to the team or in a formally more superior role in order to influence the
development of leadership capacity. These types of emergent leadership situations may be becoming more of the norm
in organizations; thus, leader-generated processes (whether bottom-up or top-down) may be especially important in the
development of team leadership capacity.
 D.V. Day, M.M. Harrison / Human Resource Management Review 17 (2007) 360–373 365

Leaders also bring special skills and other resources to a team. Day, Gronn, and Salas (2004), proposed that a leader's
resources in the form of leadership knowledge, skills, and ability moderate the relationship between team-member
resources (i.e., input to the team) and the teamwork that develops. Developing effective teamwork is integral to leadership
development because it leads to enhanced team learning, which shapes the level of team leadership capacity that develops
in the form of the connections forged among the team members. Of relevance is that in considering cross-level effects on
leadership development processes perhaps the most important force is that of a recognized leader on the team. What a
leader brings to a team in terms of individual resources as well as the willingness to encourage and facilitate ongoing
leadership development may be what matters the most in building team leadership capacity.
One body of literature that may prove to be helpful in enhancing our understanding of leadership development through a
multilevel perspective is that of the self or identity. The role of “self” has followed a similar conceptual evolution to that of
leadership. Scientific interest in the construct extends back to the writings of William James in the late 19th century and yet
remains “one of the most actively researched topics in all of psychology” (Baumeister, 1999, p. 1). Indeed, Baumeister cites
evidence that there have been over 31,000 publications on the topic of self over two recent decades. A relevant aspect of this
extensive examination of the concept of self has been the move away from self as a singular “me” to consider more inclusive
conceptualizations such as the relational self and collective self (Sedikides & Brewer, 2001). Thus, there is an emerging
levels perspective on the construct of self, and as will be argued, coming to appreciate that one's self concept is at least partly
the self-as-leader is critically important to the development of individual leaders. Developing more inclusive
conceptualizations of self might also be an important pathway to developing broader leadership and leadership capacity
in teams and organizations. We will next review the essentials of the domain of self and its relationship to levels-of-analysis
before turning attention to a final section that illustrates how self and levels together inform an emerging frontier of leadership
development.

5. The role of the self in leader development

One way of thinking about leadership and leader development that is receiving increasing attention is through the
lens of the self-concept or identity (we use the terms interchangeably). This perspective has great potential for
informing our understanding of leadership because identity transcends one-dimensional approaches such as behavioral
or trait theories. As defined by prominent researchers in the field, identity is the culmination of an individual's values,
experiences, and self-perceptions (Baltes & Carstensen, 1991). Identity also is a multidimensional construct. We are a
composite of multiple sub-identities rather than a univocal self. Some people may hold more sub-identities than others
or have them more highly integrated than others, both of which constitute evidence of high self-complexity (Linville,
1987). The relevance is that there are individual differences in the structure of personal identities.
There is a rich and well-established body of literature regarding identity development founded on the early work of
Erickson (1959), including that of Loevinger (1976), Kegan (1982, 1994), and Torbert and Associates (2004).
Although the particulars of each theory vary, in general these developmental perspectives suggest that an individual's
identity develops as a function of challenging environments and the integration of experiences with the self, resulting in
a self-conceptualization that can range from relatively simple and unsophisticated to complex and integrated. A more
highly developed identity may have rich and differentiated sub-identities through a lifetime of varied experience, but
are highly integrated with one's self-schema.
Despite the multifaceted nature of identity, only one sub-identity or identity type is activated at any given time and
is usually tied to the presses in a given social context (Markus & Wurf, 1987). For example, the sub-identity of
parent is activated when attending a child's school play but can become de-activated and replaced by a leader sub-
identity if the person receives an urgent page from work during the play. People can switch back and forth between sub-
identities with relative ease; however, it is impossible to have more than one identity active at any given point in time (i.e.,
accessibility–inhibition effect; Lord & Brown, 2004). The working self-concept is the activated and contextually-
sensitive portion of the general self-concept and is thought to guide action and information processing on a moment-to-
moment basis.
In this vein, a leader identity refers the sub-component of one's identity that relates to being a leader or how one
thinks of oneself as a leader. Identity is important for leaders because it grounds them in understanding whom they are,
their major goals and objectives, and their personal strengths and limitations. Recent work has suggested that the
development of a leader identity is critically important in the ongoing and continuous development of a leader. The
more salient and crystallized a leader identity, the more likely that individual is to seek out experiences to enact and
366 D.V. Day, M.M. Harrison / Human Resource Management Review 17 (2007) 360–373

develop that aspect of the self. In short, thinking of oneself as a leader is an important motivator for acting as a leader
and further developing leadership skills (Day, Harrison, & Halpin, 2005).
Drawing from developmental identity perspectives, several leadership researchers have addressed the role of
identity development in leader development. For example, Day and Lance (2004) noted the importance of integrating
leader identity into one's self-schema. They suggest that leader development occurs as a leader sub-identity becomes
differentiated, more complex, and ultimately integrated within a global identity. In essence, effective leader
development is the differentiation and integration of leadership and personal experiences, values, and sense of self.
Furthermore, leader development has been described as enhancing the fit between the requirements of the leader role
and the personal identity of the leader (Hall, 2004). A more developed leader is able to integrate aspects of the self with
requirements of a leadership role. In sum, this line of work highlights the criticality of leader identity development
within our broader understanding of leader development.

5.1. Levels of identity

In addition to identity types (e.g., parent, leader), self-concepts can also be described with regard to level. Brewer
and Gardner (1996) distinguished between an individual and collective identity. More recently a middle-range
relational level has been added to the taxonomy (Lord, Brown, & Frieberg, 1999; Sedikides & Brewer, 2001). An
individual self-concept might focus on traits that distinguish someone from others in the social environment. For
example, a leader's self-concept might be built around particular experiences or personality traits that a leader
possesses (e.g., “I am a leader because I persevere in reaching my goals”). Relational or interpersonal self-identities are
based on relationships between the individual and important others. Therefore, a leader with an active relational
identity thinks of the self relative to relationships with followers, or significant leader–member exchanges (e.g.,
“Leadership occurs through the positive relationships forged with others in this organization”). Finally, collective self-
concepts are those in which an individual defines the self in terms of membership to important groups or organizations.
For example, a leader with a collective self-concept defines the self in terms of organizational membership or
leadership within a particular group or team (e.g., “We are a leadership force in this industry”).
Lord and Hall (2005) have proposed that as leaders develop their identities expand in focus from individual to
include relational and then collective levels. Thus, leader identity is thought to change in terms of its underlying
level of inclusiveness, ranging from least inclusive (individual) to most inclusive (collective) as a function of the
developmental process. They suggest that shifts in level of identities occur in parallel with the development of
leadership knowledge structures and social processes. For example, a novice leader just beginning to take on
leadership experiences strives to differentiate himself or herself as a leader. This leader seeks to gain recognition
and acceptance by others as a leader, which serves to reinforce the self-perception as a leader. Additionally, a
novice leader likely has a generic way of approaching leadership and encounters most situations in the same way.
As the leader develops, responses move from being general to being more context-dependent. For example, a
leader might gain a better understanding of the connections between his or her behavior and other's responses in
certain circumstances. As such, this shift also includes a focus from the self to include followers' perspectives. The
leader's cognitive representation of leadership grows to include other individuals (relational identity) and groups
(collective identity) as they are able to integrate the characteristics, needs, and abilities of the followers and the
group at large. Leaders with activated relational identities have been understood through leader–member
exchanges, whereas leaders with collective identities support a shared identity. It has also been proposed that
taking on relational and collective identities shift the development focus from self-development to other
development (Lord & Hall, 2005), which could initiate a shift from a leader development focus to leadership
development, which will be discussed later.
A collective definition of self or understanding of leadership may enhance development initiatives for several
reasons. First, a leader with a collective leadership identity is more likely to put the group's welfare ahead of personal
concern. Because a leader with a collective self-concept defines his sense of self according to group membership, the
success of the group determines a positive sense of self. As such, the leader's very sense of self is directly tied to the
group's success and is likely invested and concerned for the group or organizational welfare. Similarly, building the
social identity of a group may lead to more beneficial outcomes suggesting that an important component of leadership
is to promote collective interests associated with a shared in-group identity. Lord et al. (1999) suggest that leaders can
impact sub-ordinate motivation and emotional affect by proposing possible collective selves. Instilling high
 D.V. Day, M.M. Harrison / Human Resource Management Review 17 (2007) 360–373 367

expectations and confidence in a desired collective identity can aid in the development of the collective and striving for
a higher standards. Finally, a more collective identity is related to moral development, perspective-taking, and
advanced levels of moral reasoning. Moral reasoning develops with an enhanced capacity to take broader and different
perspectives into account. Leaders with advanced perspective-taking abilities envision more possibilities, create
innovative solutions, and quickly make sense of complex situations (Dixon, 1993). Researchers have also noted a
connection between enhanced moral reasoning and more sophisticated moral behavior (Rest, 1986) thus potentially
shaping the values and integrity of others around the leader through modeling processes.
Our understanding of identity processes in leader development can be enhanced by integrating a developmental
approach (e.g., Erikson, 1959; Kegan, 1982; Loevinger, 1976) with the parallel line of work focusing on the levels of
self-concept (e.g., Lord and associates). The former focuses on the complexity and sophistication of identity, whereas
the latter focuses on levels of identity. Although each perspective seems distinct, there actually may be substantial
overlap. For example, Lord and Hall (2005) suggest that a leader's collective orientation is built upon the individual
identity. Increasing levels beyond the self to include the interaction of the self with followers (relational identity) or a
group (collective identity) suggests an increase in complexity. Similarly, from a developmental perspective, the most
complex or sophisticated identity might include aspects of all three levels. A leader who has an integrated individual,
relational, and collective set of identities within a overall leader identity may be able to draw from any of these
identities depending on the given leadership challenge.
An illustration of this can be seen by elaborating on how changes in the understanding of leadership occur through
an identity lens. With experience and practice, a leader develops more complex and inclusive understandings and
thinking around leadership. A leader with an individual identity may think of leadership primarily in terms of a trait or
other individual attributes, or as Drath (2001) describes, as a personal dominance knowledge principle. This
perspective is the least complex and most limited perspective, but also one that is widely held across cultures (House,
Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004). According to this principle, leadership is something a person possesses
and the leader is the source of leadership and the followers are the receivers. Leadership is therefore seen by others as an
expression of these personally possessed qualities or characteristics. At the relational level, an individual may think of
leadership in terms of influencing a follower, or within an interpersonal influence knowledge principle. This manner of
thinking about leadership suggests that a leader engages followers in negotiating influence, of a process of agreeing or
disagreeing, and planning and negotiating. Finally, at the most complex or collective level, leadership can be
understood as happening when people participate in collaborative forms of thought and action. From this perspective,
leadership mainly is a property of the social system and all entities within the given system (e.g., organization) have a
responsibility to participate in the leadership process (Drath & Palus, 1994). A leader using a collective knowledge
principle would likely define leader identity from this systems-level perspective (i.e., acting with others to create
leadership) rather than from the perspective of an individual acting on followers.
Drath's (2001) framework suggests that each higher-level principle transcends rather than replaces the lower-
level principles. Drawing on this framework, the final column of Table 1 summarizes levels of self-concept and
knowledge within the context of this developmental perspective. A leader with a complex understanding of
leadership may still be able to draw upon lower levels when appropriate situations arise. And it is also important to
highlight that each principle may be more or less effective in a given situation. For example, in a time of emergency
or crisis a leader may need to take a personal dominance perspective to ensure the safety of others (i.e., act
decisively in setting the direction for others to follow). But in a situation where a variety of perspectives make for a
more creative solution to a problem, where the leader does not have a ready solution, or where a leader is trying to
enhance the team's learning, a more collective or inclusive perspective might be best (Edmondson, Bohmer, &
Pisano, 2001; Yun, Faraj, & Sims, 2005).
Given the asymmetrical nature of these different levels of leader identity development, an individual leader who
defines the self with regard to a collective identity may be able to think and act within a lower-level perspective
whenever the situation calls for that perspective. But one who can only define leadership at an individual level is
likely to be unable to conceptualize more collective approaches despite how much they are needed. Thus, there is
an asymmetry in terms of being able to activate different identity principles. The more highly developed the leader,
the greater the number of leadership levels that are available from which that leader can construct possible
responses. A leader with a sophisticated and complex identity that is able to draw from individual, relational, and
collective levels of self-concept therefore may have a strong advantage given the complexity of situations leaders
face.
368 D.V. Day, M.M. Harrison / Human Resource Management Review 17 (2007) 360–373

6. Exploring the frontier of leadership development

Returning to the special issue theme of frontiers in leadership development, our final section integrates the topics of
levels-of-analysis and identity and describes how they can be useful in expanding the boundaries – or pushing the
envelope – of leadership development. One of our guiding assumptions in doing so is that there are important
differences between leader development and leadership development. As differentiated previously (Day, 2000), leader
development pertains mainly to the fostering of individual-based human capital (i.e., leadership-related knowledge,
skills, and abilities). Leadership development operates at a more collective level in terms of addressing the social
capital of teams and organizations (i.e., the resources embedded in the connections or relationships between
individuals; Brass, 2001).
It is important to keep sight of the significance of both leader and leadership development. One without the other is
incomplete and runs the risk of leaving teams and organizations vulnerable to threats posed by complex, adaptive
leadership challenges (Heifetz, 1994). Unfortunately, the two are rarely integrated. Results from a recent survey of
senior line and human resources executives indicated that the most commonly endorsed skill that companies look for in
future leaders (endorsed by 86% of survey respondents) is the ability to build strong relationships internally and
externally (Weik, 2005). This finding appears to support the contention that building and maintaining interpersonal
relationships is considered to be vital for effective organizational leadership. Yet in practice the primary focus is on the
skills and abilities (i.e., human capital) possessed by individual leaders without much corresponding attention to the
actual relationships or connections (i.e., social capital) that develop. What is needed most are efforts to better link
leader development and leadership development initiatives. Another way of stating this is that attention must be paid
for how to effectively link the individual, relational, and collective levels-of-analyses, while also taking into account
differences in the human capital needs of leaders across organizational levels. As noted by others who have attempted
to address such issues in practice, failure to integrate efforts across levels (lower to higher, leader to leadership)
undermines the effectiveness of development efforts (Martineau, Laskow, Moye, & Phillips, 2005).
One particular lever that we believe can be used to better bridge development levels is that of identity. Incorporating
an identity lens in development efforts can serve to go beyond the necessary (but insufficient) emphasis on individual
leader development to also include the kinds of relational and collective identities that can facilitate the development of
social capital in organizations. It has been proposed that emphasizing an individual leader identity can be pivotal to
accelerating the leader development process (Day et al., 2005). In essence, coming to think of oneself as a leader helps
to build leadership self-efficacy and also motivates a leader to seek out additional developmental opportunities. In a
spiral-like fashion, taking on a leader identity becomes a motivational force for seeking out opportunities to practice
leadership skills as well as taking on new leadership challenges, which further develops individual leader capabilities
around leadership. What has not been given much attention is how to build on these leader identity and leader
development spirals in enhancing more collective leadership capacity.
A multilevel, identity-based approach to leadership development takes into account differences across
organizational levels in leadership skills and also integrates leader development with leadership development.
Freedman (1998) discusses a general series of career transitions or crossroads that managers experience in progressing
from the lowest to the highest organizational levels. At the lowest level is the individual contributor who is primarily
responsible for managing or leading self. The first career transition involves taking the position of supervising manager,
responsible for managing and leading others. The next transition is to general manager, responsible for leading a single
business, followed by an executive manager responsible for leading several businesses. At the apex of career
progression is the institutional manager responsible for leading an entire enterprise.
Consistent with the recommendation of other researchers (Kates & Downey, 2005), we see the transition into
general manager positions as being most pivotal in bridging the chasm between leader and leadership development. As
described by Kates and Downey:

General managers are the lifeblood of any business. Up to this point in their careers, managers are often
“manager-producers.” They are promoted because of their technical knowledge and because they can coach and
guide subordinates in the execution of their work…. The general manager role is decidedly different. When
placed in this role for the first time, managers are responsible for work they may have no expertise in, or even
little appreciation for…. It is precisely this ability to manage the unknown that distinguished the general
manager role and makes it so valuable to an organization. When you no longer can fall back on your functional
 D.V. Day, M.M. Harrison / Human Resource Management Review 17 (2007) 360–373 369

expertise, you must rely on the true management and influence skills of working through people and processes
to make good decisions, implement change, and get results (p. 46).

Making the jump from a supervisor or functional manager to a general manager involves a significant increase in
accountability and leadership responsibilities. It also involves a very different set of psychological challenges. The
need for developing collective leadership capacity becomes most apparent at this level: A single leader cannot solve all
of the problems experienced by a general manager. Thus, beginning with the general manager level the development
investments should change from primarily leader-based to more collective leadership-based to help develop a broader
capacity for leadership.
We propose that one frontier of leadership development is in using identity as a developmental lever to help promote
and accelerate both leader and leadership development. Rather than focusing solely on the acquisition of particular
leadership-related knowledge, skills, and abilities, developmental efforts should focus on building individual-,
relational-, and collective-level identities. The pathways of career transitions described by Freedman (1998) can be
seen as requiring shifts in leader identity. For example, at the lowest levels of an organization a focus on an individual
self is feasible as the responsibility of an individual contributor is primarily on managing oneself. Development
activities at this level should focus on building self-awareness as a leader. Progressing into a supervisory role requires
more attention to others in terms of reporting relationships and therefore requires more of a relational identity (forging
positive working relationships with sub-ordinates). As such, the focus of development at this level should be on
building healthy working relationships with subordinates, peers, and bosses. However, the added importance of a
relational identity does not negate the importance of an individual leader identity. Rather, a relational leader identity
transcends but does not replace an individual leader identity. At the general manager level and above, the focus shifts to
a broader, systems-level perspective across one business (general manager), several businesses (executive manager) or
an entire enterprise (institutional manager). Thus, leadership development activities at this level should focus on
engaging and challenging participants in terms of working across organizational boundaries.
Our goal in exploring this multilevel, identity-based leadership development frontier is to outline a general process
and to recommend possible methods for facilitating this process. There are a number of available developmental tools
including individual-based assessment (e.g., personality inventories), 360-degree feedback, coaching, job assignments,
and action learning (see Day, 2000, for a more inclusive discussion of widely used development tools). Regardless of
the particular tool, we believe one design parameter is necessary for developing a collective leadership identity as a
foundation for leadership development: Organization members must be engaged in some type of shared work, defined
by the number and degree of interdependencies among members of the team or organization.
A method that is predisposed to meeting this criterion of engaging in shared work as part of the development process
is action learning, in which teams of leaders work on problems of strategic importance to the organization (Dotlich &
Noel, 1998; Froiland, 1994; Marquardt, 2004; Pedler, 1997). As the name suggests, it involves getting something
accomplished (action) as well as developing a deeper understanding of leadership (learning). A critical component for
successful learning is to have participants reflect on ways that their respective action learning teams are engaged in
constructing leadership that differs from a personal, individualized approach. As such, action learning facilitates
gaining a better understanding of “who we are” as a collective unit rather than “who I am” as an individual leader
(O'Connor & Day, 2007). Ultimately, the goal of the developmental initiative is to build explicit links between
individual self-concepts and organizational identity and image — who we are and who we want to be. In short, action
learning addresses collective identity development as a mediator in the leadership development process.
As a leader progresses from middle-management into upper-level positions (general manager and above), there is a
greater need to adopt a systems perspective of the organization (Jacobs & Jaques, 1987; Katz & Kahn, 1978; Zaccaro,
2001). Understanding, developing, and practicing greater “system-ness” requires both a clearer sense of the individual
identities within organizational units and a well-developed collective identity. The ways in which the organizational
mission is interpreted and applied in daily decisions is shaped by the relative integration of individual identities (e.g.,
based on function or specialization) with the broader, collective identity. In this manner, the various levels of identity
become linked and more fully integrated, allowing individuals to consider and enact leadership in different ways.
Instead of being limited to leading in ways that act on followers, leadership can also be constructed such that leaders
act with others in collective ways (Drath, 2001).
It seems that a commonly shared leadership challenge is how to help organizations overcome their own bureaucracy,
break down functional silos, and increase their speed and flexibility. In many ways this translates into working more
370 D.V. Day, M.M. Harrison / Human Resource Management Review 17 (2007) 360–373

effectively across organizational boundaries (Ashkenas, Ulrich, Jick, & Kerr, 1995), regardless of whether they are
functional, hierarchical, or geographical boundaries. The goal of working across boundaries involves a set of multilevel
challenges that can serve as the developmental targets of a leadership development initiative. As part of the
developmental initiative, individuals develop awareness and knowledge of the organizational boundaries most relevant
to their challenges; teams develop collective efficacy with various tools (e.g., large group dialogue) that support more
inclusive ways for groups that are separated by extant boundaries to engage with one another; and organizations
develop strategies, structures, and processes that support, encourage, and reward the practice of engaging across
boundaries (O'Connor & Day, 2007).
From the preceding description it is clear that a comprehensive leadership development effort encompasses
individual leader development targeted mainly at lower-level positions to set a foundation, team-level development that
builds on individual development efforts in challenging participants to better engage across organizational boundaries,
as well as organization development that seeks to develop and embed structures and processes that support individuals
and teams in being able to more interdependently craft joint strategic goals and actions. In this form it is clear how
leadership development is a multilevel process (Avolio, 2004). It is unfortunate that too often leadership development
never goes beyond efforts directed at individual development. Thus, it is not surprising that organizations are
experiencing significant limits in their perceived ability to meet future business challenges. Most still consider
leadership development to be a bounded program and not an ongoing way of doing business (Weik, 2005).
Perhaps the biggest obstacle to putting in place integrated, multilevel leader and leadership development processes
is the question asked by many executives (HR and otherwise): What is the return on investment (ROI) of such
integrative leadership development efforts? Unfortunately, this may be exactly the wrong question. A more appropriate
concern might be the consequences of not having an integrated process in place for developing leadership (Leonard,
2005). Ironically, CEOs apparently understand this better than many other executives. Of those endorsing the position
in a recent executive survey that ROI is unnecessary “because the value of talent development is self-evident” the
majority were CEOs (Weik, 2005, p. 21).
Given the difficulty of demonstrating concrete returns from leadership development investments, the real frontier
may be in securing widespread support for long-term developmental initiatives in bottom-line driven organizations.
Also, the notorious emphasis on the short-term results may also hold back integrated and systemic leadership
development efforts. Although the research evidence supports the position that adults can change even into late
adulthood and old age (Baltes & Baltes, 1990; Baltes, Staudinger, & Lindenberger, 1999), such change is typically
not easily accomplished. This is why the investments made in leader and leadership development need to be
strategically made over time and with an integrative purpose. Adopting a multilevel framework that incorporates the
role of identity in development can help to accomplish the goal of taming this frontier of leadership development.

7. Conclusions

We have taken the perspective that the concept of leadership continues to evolve, which is one explanation for the
difficulty in pinpointing it with a single definition. Leadership can mean different things and takes on different
appearances, partly as a function of the developmental level of the perceiver. More highly developed leaders can see
and enact more widely nuanced forms of leadership than less developed leaders. Although the perspective that
development is equated with greater complexity of thought and behavior is a common theme in developmental
psychology as well as in the specialized field of leader development (Day & Lance, 2004), there has been much less
attention on the related levels-of-analysis issues. Organizational level is an important consideration in that leaders need
more highly developed leadership skills the higher their position in an organization, but also important is the level of
thought and action at which a leader operates (i.e., individual, relational, or collective level).
As noted several times previously, leadership development is inherently a multilevel phenomenon. Individual leader
development is the foundation, but there is also the need to develop leadership in collectives such as teams as well as
the broader organization. Leadership development involves designing and implementing the social structures and
processes that sustain ongoing and continuous development efforts. If organizations are going to have their leadership
pipelines prepared with the social capital to successfully adapt when faced with vu jàdé experiences (Weick, 1993) then
leadership development will indeed need to be a way of doing business rather than a series (at best) of ad hoc programs.
There is a risk of asking leaders to do too much too soon in their careers. Leonard (2005) notes that leaders need to
learn how to “crawl” before they are ready to “run.” In other words, certain basic leadership and business skills need to
 D.V. Day, M.M. Harrison / Human Resource Management Review 17 (2007) 360–373 371

be mastered before more sophisticated and complex skills can be learned. From this perspective, it can be seen that a
“one best way” approach to leadership development is unlikely to be effective. We have attempted to elaborate on these
elementary ideas in proposing a multilevel, identity-based approach to leadership development. Leadership skills are
important at every organizational level; however, those skills that will enhance success at lower levels are not
necessarily those that will help someone be a successful leader at higher levels (Freedman, 1998, 2005).
We believe that an exciting frontier in leadership development is an integrated one linking leader development (at
the individual and relational levels) with leadership development at more collective and inclusive levels using identity
construction. Research has demonstrated that the self is a key organizing principle in human sensemaking (Baumeister,
1998, 1999). Given that the exercise of leadership is a complex human endeavor, incorporating an identity lens into
leader and leadership development efforts is probably long overdue.

References

Ashkenas, R., Ulrich, D., Jick, T., & Kerr, S. (1995). The boundaryless organization: Breaking the chains of organizational structure. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Austin, J. T., & Villanova, P. (1992). The criterion problem: 1917–1992. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 836−874.
Avolio, B. J. (2004). Examining the full range model of leadership: Looking back to transform forward. In D. V. Day, S. J. Zaccaro, & S. M. Halpin
(Eds.), Leader development for transforming organizations: Growing leaders for tomorrow (pp. 71−98). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Baltes, P. B., & Baltes, M. M. (1990). Psychological perspectives on successful aging: The model of selective optimization with compensation.
In P. B. Baltes & M. M. Baltes (Eds.), Successful aging: Perspectives from the behavioral sciences (pp. 1−34). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Baltes, M. M., & Carstensen, L. L. (1991). Commentary. Human Development, 34, 256−260.
Baltes, P. B., Staudinger, U. M., & Lindenberger, U. (1999). Lifespan psychology: Theory and applications to intellectual functioning. Annual Review
of Psychology, 50, 471−507.
Barsade, S. G. (2002). The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 644−675.
Baumeister, R. F. (1998). The self. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), 4th ed. The handbook of social psychology, Vol. 1 (pp. 680−740).
Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Baumeister, R. F. (1999). The nature and structure of the self: An overview. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), The self in social psychology (pp. 1−24).
Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W.C.
Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 71−98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brass, D. J. (2001). Social capital and organizational leadership. In S. J. Zaccaro & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), The nature of organizational leadership
(pp. 132−152). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this “we”? Levels of collective identity and self representation. Journal of Applied Personality and
Social Psychology, 74, 478−494.
Brown, M. E., & Gioia, D. A. (2002). Making things click: Distributive leadership in an online division of on offline organization. Leadership
Quarterly, 13, 397−419.
Calder, B. J. (1977). An attribution theory of leadership. In B. M. Staw & G. R. Salancik (Eds.), New directions in organizational behavior (pp. 179−204).
Chicago: St. Clair Press.
Chen, G., & Kanfer, R. (2006). Toward a systems theory of motivated behavior in work teams. Research in Organizational Behavior.
Cox, J. F., Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (2003). Toward a broader leadership development agenda: Extending the traditional transactional–
transformational duality by developing directive, empowered, and shared leadership skills. In S. E. Murphy & R. E. Riggio (Eds.), The future of
leadership development (pp. 161−179). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dansereau, F. & Yammarino, F. J. (Eds.). (1998a). Leadership: The multiple-level approaches (classical and new wave). Stamford, CT: JAI.
Dansereau, F. & Yammarino, F. J. (Eds.). (1998b). Leadership: The multiple-level approaches (contemporary and alternative). Stamford, CT: JAI.
Day, D. V. (2000). Leadership development: A review in context. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 581−613.
Day, D. V. (2007). Structuring the organizational for leadership development. In R. Hooiberg et-al. (Eds.), Being there even when you are not:
Leading through strategy, structures, and systems (pp. 13−30). New York: Elsevier.
Day, D. V., Gronn, P., & Salas, E. (2004). Leadership capacity in teams. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 857−880.
Day, D. V., Harrison, M. M., & Halpin, S. M. (2005, April). Building an integrative, adult lifespan theory of Army leader development. Paper
presented at the 20th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Inc., Los Angeles, CA.
Day, D. V., & Lance, C. E. (2004). Understanding the development of leadership complexity through latent growth modeling. In D. V. Day, S. J. Zaccaro, &
S. M. Halpin (Eds.), Leader development for transforming organizations: Growing leaders for tomorrow (pp. 41−69). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Day, D. V., Sin, H. -P., & Chen, T. T. (2004). Assessing the burdens of leadership: Effects of formal leadership roles on individual performance over
time. Personnel Psychology, 57, 573−605.
Dixon, N. M. (1993). Developing managers for the learning organization. Human Resource Management Review, 3, 243−254.
Dotlich, D. L., & Noel, J. L. (1998). Action learning: How the world's top companies are re-creating their leaders and themselves. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Drath, W. (2001). The deep blue sea: Rethinking the source of leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
372 D.V. Day, M.M. Harrison / Human Resource Management Review 17 (2007) 360–373

Drath, W. H., & Palus, C. J. (1994). Making common sense: Leadership as meaning-making in a community of practice. Greensboro, NC: Center for
Creative Leadership.
Edmondson, A. C., Bohmer, R. M., & Pisano, G. P. (2001). Disrupted routines: Team learning and new technology implementation in hospitals.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 685−716.
Erickson, E. H. (1959). Identity and the life cycle. New York: International Universities.
Freedman, A. M. (1998). Pathways and crossroads to institutional leadership. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 50(3),
131−151.
Freedman, A. M. (2005). Swimming upstream: The challenge of managerial promotions. In R. B. Kaiser (Ed.), Filling the leadership pipeline (pp. 25−43).
Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
Froiland, P. (1994). Action learning: Taming real problems in real time. Training, 31(1), 27−34.
Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 423−451.
Hall, D. T. (2004). Self-awareness, identity, and leader development. In D. V. Day, S. J. Zaccaro, & S. M. Halpin (Eds.), Leader development for
transforming organizations: Growing leaders for tomorrow (pp. 153−176). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Heifetz, R. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of
62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
House, R., Rousseau, D. M., & Thomas-Hunt, M. (1995). The meso paradigm: A framework for integration of micro and macro organizational. In L. L.
Cummings & B. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 17 (pp. 71−114). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Jacobs, T. O., & Jaques, E. (1987). Leadership in complex systems. In J. Zeidner (Ed.), Human productivity enhancement, Vol. 2. (pp. 7−65). New
York: Praeger.
Kahane, A. (2004). Solving tough problems: An open way of talking, listening, and creating new realities. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Kates, A., & Downey, D. (2005). The challenges of general manager transitions. In R. B. Kaiser (Ed.), Filling the leadership pipeline (pp. 45−67).
Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self: Problem and process in human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22,
375−403.
Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (Eds.). (2000). Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new
directions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of
psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 12 (pp. 333−375). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent
processes. In K. J. Klein & S.W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and
new directions (pp. 467−511). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Leonard, H. S. (2005). When leadership development fails managers: Addressing the right gaps when developing leadership. In R. B. Kaiser (Ed.),
Filling the leadership pipeline (pp. 69−84). Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
Linville, P. W. (1987). Self-complexity as a cognitive buffer against stress-related illness and depression. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 52, 663−676.
Lipman-Blumen, J. (2000). Connective leadership: Managing in a changing world. New York: Oxford University.
Locke, E. A. (2003). Foundations for a theory of leadership. In S. E. Murphy & R. E. Riggio (Eds.), The future of leadership development (pp. 29−46).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lord, R. G., & Brown, D. J. (2004). Leadership processes and follower self-identity. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lord, R. G., Brown, D. J., & Freiberg, S. J. (1999). Understanding the dynamics of leadership: The role of follower self-concepts in the leader/
follower relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 78, 167−203.
Lord, R. G., & Hall, R. J (2005). Identity, deep structure, and the development of leadership skill. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 591−615.
Loevinger, J. (1976). Ego development: Conceptions and theories. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Markus, H., & Wurf, E. (1987). The dynamic self-concept: A social psychological perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 299−337.
Marquardt, M. J. (2004). Action learning: Solving problems and building leaders in real time. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.
Martineau, J., Laskow, G., Moye, L., & Phillips, D. (2005). Creating synergy and difference in development: One organization's competencies for
three organizational levels. In R. B. Kaiser (Ed.), Filling the leadership pipeline (pp. 85−110). Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
McCauley, C. D., & Van Velsor, E. (Eds.). (2004). The Center for Creative Leadership handbook of leadership development 2nd ed. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. (1985). The romance of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 78−102.
O'Connor, P. G. M., & Day, D. V. (2007). Shifting the emphasis of leadership development: From “me" to “all of us." In J. A. Conger & R. E. Riggio
(Eds.), The practice of leadership: Developing the next generation of leaders (pp. 64−86). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
O'Connor, P. M. G., & Quinn, L. (2004). Organizational capacity for leadership. In C. D. McCauley & E. Van Velsor (Eds.), The Center for Creative
Leadership handbook of leadership development (pp. 417−437). 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). All those years ago: The historical underpinnings of shared leadership. In C. L. Pearce & J. A. Conger (Eds.),
Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership (pp. 1−18). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (Eds.). (2003). Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pedler, M. (1997). Action learning in practice 3rd ed. Brookfield, VT: Gower.
 D.V. Day, M.M. Harrison / Human Resource Management Review 17 (2007) 360–373 373

Pfeffer, J. (1977). The ambiguity of leadership. Academy of Management Review, 2, 104−112.

Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New York: Praeger.
Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., Zhou, X. T., & Yammarino, F. J. (2001). The folly of theorizing “A” but testing “B”: A selective level-of-analysis
review of the field and detailed Leader–Member Exchange illustration. Leadership Quarterly, 12, 515−551.
Sedikides, C., & Brewer, M. B. (Eds.). (2001). Individual self, relational self, collective self. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Torbert, B., & Associates. (2004). Action inquiry: The secret of timely and transforming leadership. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Van Velsor, E., & McCauley, C. D. (2004). Our view of leadership development. In C. D. McCauley, & E. Van Velsor (Eds.), The Center for Creative
Leadership handbook of leadership development (pp. 1−22). 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Weick, K. E. (1993). The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 628−652.
Weik, P. M. (2005). Building the executive ranks: Current practices in developing future business leaders. In R. B. Kaiser (Ed.), Filling the leadership
pipeline (pp. 7−23). Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
Yammarino, F. J., Dionne, S. D., Chun, J. U., & Dansereau, F. (2005). Leadership and levels of analysis: A state-of-the-science review. Leadership
Quarterly, 16, 879−919.
Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Yun, S., Faraj, S., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (2005). Contingent leadership and effectiveness of trauma resuscitation teams. Journal of Applied Psychology,
90, 1288−1296.
Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). The nature of executive leadership: A conceptual and empirical analysis of success. Washington, D.C.: American
Psychological Association.