719232

research-article2017
JLOXXX10.1177/1548051817719232Journal of Leadership & Organizational StudiesPitichat et al.

Article
Journal of Leadership &

Psychological Capital for Leader

Organizational Studies
2018, Vol. 25(1) 47­–62
© The Authors 2017
Development Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1548051817719232
https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051817719232
journals.sagepub.com/home/jlo

Thiraput Pitichat1,2, Rebecca J. Reichard1, Amber Kea-Edwards1,

Eric Middleton1, and Steven M. Norman3

Abstract
The continual development of leaders is one effective strategy for organizations to compete in today’s rapidly changing
society. Despite awareness of this need, human resource professionals and managers find it challenging to promote or
encourage ongoing development among leaders. Addressing the need for continuous learning, we extend the construct
of psychological capital to the context of leader development. Specifically, leader development psychological capital
(LD PsyCap) is defined as an individual’s motivational propensity to develop as a leader and consists of efficacy, hope,
optimism, and resilience toward leader development. Using an online survey of 120 leaders, we found that LD PsyCap
predicted leader development behaviors beyond other individual differences. We also found that LD PsyCap mediated
the relationship between learning climate, organizational support, social support, and workload on leader development
behaviors. Promoting LD PsyCap can help facilitate ongoing leader development in organizations.

Keywords
leader development, psychological capital, learning climate, social support

Organizations are becoming increasingly concerned with
continuous leader development. Deloitte University found
85% of 3,300 organizations from 106 different countries
view leader development as important (Haims, Stempel, &
van der Vyver, 2015). However, these organizations also
reported not feeling capable of supporting that endeavor.
Furthermore, in a study of over 1,500 practitioners and
researchers, Banks, Pollack, Kirkman, O’Boyle, and
Whelpley (2015) identified leader development as one of
24 grand challenges facing the field of management.
Organizations are experiencing a disconnect between a
desire to promote leader development and a sense of uncer-
tainty and ambiguity of how to effectively develop leaders.
To address this gap, organizations and their leaders need
adequate capital to help them actively and confidently
engage in continuous leader development.
Capital exists in many forms such as economic, social,
or human capital. Positive psychological capital, or
PsyCap, has been introduced as an additional intangible
form of capital that facilitates work outcomes (F. Luthans
& Youssef, 2004, 2007). PsyCap provides a competitive
advantage due to its long-term, unique, cumulative, inter-
connected, and renewable characteristics (F. Luthans &
Youssef, 2004). PsyCap refers to motivational propensity
and includes the positive psychological states of efficacy,
hope, optimism, and resilience of organizational members
(F. Luthans, Avolio, Avey, & Norman, 2007). PsyCap is
domain-specific (F. Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio, 2007)
and, in the current study, we bring the established and well-
researched construct of PsyCap from the domain of the
workplace (i.e., workplace PsyCap) into the domain of
leader development.
Leader development PsyCap (LD PsyCap) is an essential
form of capital for continuous leader development because
effective development requires a high level of motivation
(Seyler, Holton, Bates, Burnette, & Carvalho, 1998). Because
of its motivational propensity, we expect LD PsyCap to pre-
dict engagement in leader development behaviors. Thus, we
examine its predictive validity above and beyond the related
individual differences variables of core self-evaluations,
workplace PsyCap, proactive personality, and motivation to
lead. As shown in the theoretical model in Figure 1, we also
examine the organizational-level predictors of learning cli-
mate (i.e., the organization’s ability to facilitate learning
among its members), organizational support (i.e., employees’
perceptions regarding the degree of organizational resources
1
Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, CA, USA
2
Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand
3
Colorado Mesa University, Grand Junction, CO, USA
Corresponding Author:
Thiraput Pitichat, Division of Behavior & Organizational Sciences,
Claremont Graduate University, 160 E. 10th Street, Claremont, CA
91711, USA.
Email: thiraput.pitichat@cgu.edu
48
Figure 1. Theoretical model depicting the mediating role of LD
PsyCap.
Note. Org Support = organizational support; LD = leader development.
and guidance), and social support (i.e., support of supervi-
sors, peers, and coworkers) with expected positive relation-
ships with LD PsyCap and, ultimately, leader development
behaviors. Alternatively, a common obstacle for leaders’
development is their high amount of workload relative to
their limited amount of time (Noe & Wilk, 1993). Leaders
suffering from a high workload may have a lower motiva-
tional propensity to develop, or LD PsyCap. We examine
workload as a job-level characteristic and expect it to nega-
tively predict engagement in leader development behaviors,
as mediated through LD PsyCap.
We first discuss leader development, then define LD
PsyCap and its conceptualization as a core construct. More
specifically, we build the case for LD PsyCap as a predictor
of engagement in leader development behaviors. Next, we
discuss the organizational and job-level antecedents of LD
PsyCap.
Leader Development
Leader development refers to “the expansion of the capacity of
individuals to be effective in leadership roles and processes”
(Day & Dragoni, 2015, p. 134). Scholars distinguish leader
development from leadership development (Day, 2000).
Whereas leader development focuses on the individual’s
capacity, such as the development of intrapersonal skills and
abilities necessary for an individual to complete their leader-
ship roles; leadership development refers to the development
of the collective capacity for leadership among a group or orga-
nization. In the current article, we focus on leader development
because of its focus on individual-level skills.
Despite the positive effects of leader development (Day,
2000; Day, Harrison, & Halpin, 2009), it is often a challenge
to create a leader development program that can target the
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 25(1)
specific needs of all leaders and provide the necessary sup-
port for development. Formal training of leaders is effective,
yet tends to be short-term in nature (i.e., a few days; Avolio,
Reichard, Hannah, Walumbwa, & Chan, 2009) even though
leader development is a longitudinal process (Day, 2010).
Demonstrating the longitudinal nature of leader develop-
ment, Day and Sin (2011) found different growth trajectories
of leaders over the course of a 3-month action learning proj-
ect. Some argue that leaders learn best over time from expe-
rience (McCall, 2010), yet this requires deliberate practice
(Day, 2010). As Day, Fleenor, Atwater, Sturn, and McKee
(2014) point out, the “ongoing practice through day-to-day
leadership activities is where the crux of development really
resides” (p. 80). Thus, leader development scholars have
moved toward leader self-development, a more self-directed
and ongoing approach to leader development (Boyce,
Zaccaro, & Wisecarver, 2010). More specifically, Boyce
et al. (2010) defines leader self-development as “a process in
which leaders take personal responsibility for initiating, sus-
taining, and evaluating growth in their own leadership
capacities and in their conceptual frames about the conduct
of leadership” (p. 162).
Leader self-development involves the deliberate deci-
sion on how to learn and what to learn, where the individual
leader dictates the process of developing (Boyce et al.,
2010). Leaders have responsibility and control for learning
(Reichard & Johnson, 2011). Leader self-development
allows the leader to engage in development in one area or
several areas as needed. Self-development behaviors may
include seeking leadership opportunities such as webinars
or special projects, asking for feedback from a mentor, or
understanding one’s leadership strengths through reflection.
Because of its long-term and self-directed nature, engaging
in leader self-development behaviors benefits from having
psychological resources, or LD PsyCap.
Leader Development PsyCap
Researchers have defined PsyCap as domain-specific (F.
Luthans, Youssef, et al., 2007) and have empirically exam-
ined PsyCap in various contexts including work (Avey,
Reichard, Luthans, & Mhatre, 2011), academic (B. C.
Luthans, Luthans, & Jensen, 2012), and cross-cultural
domains (Dollwet & Reichard, 2014). PsyCap was initially
established and predominantly studied in the domain of the
workplace (F. Luthans & Youssef, 2004), and its consistent
positive relationship with desired workplace outcomes has
been well documented via meta-analysis (Avey et al., 2011).
By adapting the original workplace PsyCap definition (F.
Luthans et al., 2007), we define LD PsyCap as
(1) having confidence (efficacy) to take on and put in the
necessary effort to succeed at challenging leader development
tasks; (2) making a positive attribution (optimism) about
succeeding now and in the future in terms of developing as a
Pitichat et al.
leader; (3) persevering toward leader development goals and,
when necessary, redirecting paths to goals (hope) in order to
succeed; and (4) when beset by problems and adversity,
sustaining and bouncing back and even beyond (resilience) to
attain success at leader development. (Italics added, p. 3)
Thus, we define LD PsyCap as a higher order construct
composed of four primary constructs of leader development
efficacy (LD efficacy), leader development hope (LD hope),
leader development optimism (LD optimism), and leader
development resilience (LD resilience).
Although these four constructs are distinct; they also
contain a fundamental linkage tying them together into an
overarching, higher order construct of LD PsyCap. For
example, LD efficacy refers to a “leader’s judgment regard-
ing whether he or she can develop a specific ability or skill
to employ in a certain leadership context” (Avolio &
Hannah, 2009, p. 285). Similarly, LD optimism is the
expectation for positive outcomes (Scheier & Carver, 1992)
when it comes to leader development. However, LD opti-
mism also reflects the attributions made following positive
or negative events. Individuals high on LD optimism attri-
bute positive developmental events to stable and internal
causes while categorizing negative events as due to tempo-
rary causes and external factors (Seligman, 1991). Like the
expectations and drive for success characterized by LD effi-
cacy and optimism, leaders high in the willpower portion of
LD hope are characterized by the agency to achieve leader
development goals (Snyder et al., 1991). However, LD
hope goes beyond goal-directed energy to also include way-
power, which results in the identification of alternative
pathways to pursue leader development when the primary
strategy is blocked. Finally, LD resilience provides the
unique addition of how a leader reacts to rather than antici-
pating developmental events. A leader high on LD resil-
ience would respond favorably to both positive events (e.g.,
increased expectations and responsibility) and negative
events (e.g., conflict, setbacks, and failures). The underly-
ing, fundamental linkage that ties these four components
together into a core construct of LD PsyCap is referred to as
motivational propensity to develop as a leader (F. Luthans,
Avolio, et al., 2007).
In addition to being domain-specific, PsyCap is a state-
like construct (F. Luthans, Youssef, et al., 2007), which
means that it is malleable and open to change and develop-
ment. F. Luthans and Youssef (2007) describe a continuum
of individual differences ranging from traits and trait-like
characteristics to state-like characteristics and states. At one
end, traits and trait-like characteristics, such as core self-
evaluations or personality, are considered relatively stable
over time and across situations making them difficult to
change or influence through organizational interventions or
job design. At the opposite end of the continuum, states
(e.g., moods) fluctuate from moment-to-moment making
49
the effects of an organizational intervention short-lived.
State-like characteristics, on the other hand, do not fluctuate
as much as states remaining stable for months; yet are more
malleable than fixed traits making them an ideal target of
organizational interventions (Wright & Quick, 2009).
Research also supported the effectiveness of a micro-inter-
vention that showed that workplace PsyCap can be enhanced
through short-term bursts of training (F. Luthans, Avey,
Avolio, Norman, & Combs, 2006).
The state-like status is not exclusive only to PsyCap. For
example, the psychological construct of gratitude, “a feel-
ing that occurs in exchange-based relationship when one
person acknowledges receiving a valuable benefit from
another,” is similarly state-like in nature and can be devel-
oped through interventions (Lamas, Froh, Emmons, Mishra,
& Bono, 2014, p. 3). Gratitude interventions like counting
blessings, writing down three good things, grateful self-
reflection, and writing gratitude letters consistently produce
positive benefits, which endure over several months. Like
workplace PsyCap and gratitude, the state-like ontological
status of LD PsyCap suggests that it is possible that peo-
ple’s LD PsyCap can be increased. However, LD PsyCap is
useful to the extent that it predicts leader development.
LD PsyCap and Leader Development
By examining its components, we expect the higher order
construct of LD PsyCap to relate to leader self-development
for several reasons. First, generalized efficacy for develop-
ment has been found to be a positive predictor of attitudes
toward developmental opportunities, participation in devel-
opment (Maurer, Mitchell, & Barbeite, 2002; Maurer &
Tarulli, 1994; Maurer, Weiss, & Barbeite, 2003), and moti-
vation during training (Colquitt, LePine, & Noe, 2000). In
fact, Reichard Walker, Putter, Middleton, and Johnson
(2016) found that LD efficacy predicted intentions to
engage in leader development, which in turn predicted
implementation of leader development behaviors 1 month
later. Individuals with high efficacy are motivated to pursue
challenging goals, persist in the face of feedback, and effec-
tively regulate goal-directed behaviors (Murphy, Reichard,
& Johnson, 2008). Second, because leader development
requires goal-directed energy and planning, the LD hope
component of LD PsyCap will facilitate leader develop-
ment. In fact, hope in the related domain of work has dem-
onstrated a significant, positive relationship with employee
performance (Reichard, Avey, Lopez, & Dollwet, 2013) and
has been related to success and personal growth (Meyers,
Woerkom, Reuver, Bakk, & Oberski, 2015). Third, LD opti-
mism aids leaders through the longitudinal process of leader
development through maintenance of the belief that leader
development success is likely. Finally, development is not
always a linear process; leaders are likely to have some set-
backs like less than favorable reviews or failed attempts at
50
incorporating new strategies. Individuals high in LD resil-
ience will bounce back from those setbacks and attain
higher levels of success in their future leader development
activities.
Taken together, if people are high in LD PsyCap, they
will be more engaged in developing their leadership capa-
bilities than those with lower LD PsyCap. We expect that
people who are high in LD PsyCap would assess the situa-
tion related to their leader development activities and acti-
vate the necessary courses of action (Bandura, 1977, 1986)
that will increase their chances of engagement in those
activities (Avolio & Hannah, 2009; Hannah, Avolio,
Luthans, & Harms, 2008; Reichard et al., 2016). Those
higher in LD PsyCap would be expected to find the
resources, paths, and methods to support their leader devel-
opment, thus resulting in enhanced chances of success. By
being confident, hopeful, optimistic, and resilient toward
one’s leader development, leaders would be more likely to
practice and improve their LD capabilities. Therefore, we
expect that the core construct of LD PsyCap will be posi-
tively related to engagement in leader development
behaviors.
Hypothesis 1: LD PsyCap will be positively related to
engagement in leader development behaviors.
Incremental Predictive Validity
The value of LD PsyCap as a meaningful predictor of leader
development behaviors is limited if it does not provide
added predictive power beyond already established indi-
vidual differences constructs. As a core construct, we expect
LD PsyCap to positively predict engagement in leader
development behaviors above and beyond the other related
individual differences variables of workplace PsyCap, core
self-evaluations, proactive personality, and motivation to
lead.
Workplace PsyCap. F. Luthans, Youssef, et al. (2007) origi-
nally conceptualized PsyCap in the domain of the work-
place and defined PsyCap as composed of the four positive
psychological states of efficacy, hope, optimism, and resil-
ience toward workplace success. Meta-analysts aggregated
the extensive research on workplace PsyCap and found that
it was significantly and positively related to desirable work
outcomes including job satisfaction, organizational com-
mitment, psychological well-being, organizational citizen-
ship behaviors, and employee performance (Avey et al.,
2011).
Although no prior research has examined the relation-
ship between workplace PsyCap and leader development,
we expect a positive relationship between these variables
because a leader high in self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and
resilience toward work is likely to have the resources
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 25(1)
available to both succeed in the leadership role and develop
as a leader. Second, we expect workplace PsyCap to posi-
tively relate to leader development because leadership and
leader development behaviors are important components of
work performance for leaders. Finally, because we expect
an overlap between workplace PsyCap and LD PsyCap, it is
plausible that a leader who has high workplace PsyCap will
engage in more leader development behaviors.
Despite the expected positive relationship between
workplace PsyCap and leader development behaviors, LD
PsyCap will predict this outcome beyond workplace
PsyCap. Workplace PsyCap is anchored in the broader work
context such as administrative duties of budgeting, selec-
tion, and individual responsibilities. Because LD PsyCap
aligns more closely with leader development behaviors than
workplace PsyCap, we expect it to be a better predictor.
Hypothesis 1a: LD PsyCap will positively predict
engagement in leader development behaviors above and
beyond workplace PsyCap.
Core Self-Evaluations. Although core self-evaluations are
also likely to be positively related to engagement in leader
development behaviors, we expect LD PsyCap to add incre-
mental validity beyond core self-evaluations, like that found
in prior workplace PsyCap research (F. Luthans, Avolio
et al., 2007). Judge, Locke, and Durham (1997) first pro-
posed the trait of core self-evaluations, which refers to the
way in which individuals internally evaluate themselves
(Judge, 2009). It consists of four personality traits: self-
esteem, generalized self-efficacy, emotional stability (i.e.,
the opposite of neuroticism), and internal locus of control.
All four traits in core self-evaluations encompass three
main components: evaluation, basic (rather than broader)
traits, and global or large scope (Judge et al., 1997).
We were unable to identify any prior research that
focuses directly on the relationships between core self-eval-
uations and leader development or leader effectiveness. The
studies on core self-evaluations focus mainly on job satis-
faction and performance (Bono & Judge, 2003; Judge &
Bono, 2001); however, some research considers perceived
leader effectiveness as a contextual factor that moderates
the relationships between individual core self-evaluation
and performance (e.g., Kacmar, Collins, Harris, & Judge,
2009). Despite this, there is reason to expect that core self-
evaluations will positively relate to leader development
behaviors.
Leaders high in core self-evaluations may be more opti-
mistic about their leader development processes. Leaders
who have high core self-evaluations evaluate themselves
positively. These leaders feel that they are the ones who
control situations and create outcomes (internal locus of
control). On the other hand, leaders who have low core self-
evaluations tend to evaluate themselves negatively, as they
Pitichat et al.
tend to feel that they are incompetent in completing tasks
(i.e., low generalized self-efficacy, low self-esteem). Thus,
leaders low in core self-evaluations may feel hopeless about
their leadership development activities.
Although leaders high in core self-evaluations engage in
more leader development behaviors, it is rather a broad con-
struct that is not anchored specifically to leader develop-
ment. In other words, having more optimistic self-evaluations
in general may not suggest a strong link with leader devel-
opment behaviors compared with LD PsyCap. Thus, we
expect LD PsyCap to predict above and beyond core self-
evaluations. Because core self-evaluations and LD PsyCap
are distinct constructs (trait-like vs. state-like; F. Luthans,
Youssef, et al., 2007), it is valuable to examine the additive
value of LD PsyCap in uniquely explaining leader develop-
ment behaviors.
Hypothesis 1b: LD PsyCap will positively predict
engagement in leader development behaviors above and
beyond core self-evaluations.
Proactive Personality. Next, we expect LD PsyCap to predict
engagement in leader development behaviors beyond the
relevant trait of proactive personality. Proactive personality
refers to an individual’s ability to make a change in their
immediate environment (Bateman & Crant, 1993). An indi-
vidual with a proactive personality is someone not restrained
by their environment and sees possibilities regardless of the
barriers in the environment. Prior research has found that
proactive personality predicts objective and subjective
career success, entrepreneurial intentions, and employee
creativity (Crant, 1996; Major, Turner, & Fletcher, 2006;
Seibert, Crant, & Kraimer, 1999; Seibert, Kraimer, & Crant,
2001).
Proactive personality is likely to be associated with
leader development behaviors. For example, a leader high
in proactive personality would not likely be affected by
obstacles such as tight deadlines or lack of developmental
opportunities. A leader high in proactive personality would
actively seek opportunities to develop as a leader as opposed
to passively waiting for developmental experiences or
opportunities. However, LD PsyCap should lead to leader
development intentions in a unique way.
LD PsyCap and proactive personality have a small over-
lap, in that they both address the ability to create multiple
pathways to reach goals, but LD PsyCap should explain
more of the variance in leader development behavior. LD
PsyCap is more encompassing of an individual’s motivation
propensity to develop as a leader than proactive personality.
LD PsyCap is a form of capital, which includes more
resources than one singular personality trait. LD PsyCap is
a domain-specific, proximal predictor of leader develop-
ment, allowing for a more direct impact on motivation. On
the other hand, proactive personality is a distal predictor of
51
motivation, meaning its impact on motivation is indirect
and must go through a more proximal predictor. Finally, it is
possible for a leader could have a high proactive personality
but a low level of LD PsyCap. Overall, LD PsyCap should
be more predictive of leader development behaviors than
proactive personality.
Hypothesis 1c: LD PsyCap will positively predict
engagement in leader development behaviors above and
beyond proactive personality.
Motivation to Lead. Finally, we expect LD PsyCap to predict
leader development behaviors beyond the individual differ-
ence of motivation to lead. Per Chan and Drasgow (2001),
motivation to lead affects an individual’s “intensity of effort
at leading and persistence as a leader” (p. 482). They define
three dimensions of motivation to lead including social nor-
mative, noncalculative, and affective-identity. Of the three
dimensions of motivation to lead, we focus on the affective-
identity dimension because it has the strongest relationship
with leadership experience, leadership self-efficacy, and
leadership potential (Chan & Drasgow, 2001). Leaders high
in affective-identity motivation to lead simply enjoy leading
others and are theorized to demonstrate higher levels of par-
ticipation in leadership training. Leaders who have high
motivation to lead tend to have a strong drive toward enhanc-
ing their capacities and seeking more effective ways lead. In
doing so, they engage in leader development behaviors.
Because of their common roots in motivation and leader-
ship, motivation to lead and LD PsyCap are likely to over-
lap significantly. However, it may be the case that a leader
high in motivation to lead does not see any need to develop
his or her leadership per se. Such leaders may view them-
selves as already effective at leadership and, thus, are moti-
vated to step into a leadership role. Whereas the motivational
propensity in LD PsyCap is specifically directed at leader
development, the motivation underlying motivation to lead
focuses on taking on leadership, not developing it.
Therefore, we expect LD PsyCap to be a stronger predictor
of leader development behaviors because it is specifically
anchored to leader development rather than to leadership,
more broadly.
Hypothesis 1d: LD PsyCap will positively predict
engagement in leader development behaviors above and
beyond motivation to lead.
Antecedents of LD PsyCap
In addition to individual differences, theory and research
assert the effects of the environment on leader develop-
ment. When considering leader development in the context
of adult development, the environment is one of the most
significant factors in adult development (Day et al., 2009).
52
Past literature has examined the impact of components of
the organization, such as organizational support and time
constraints, on leader self-development (Boyce et al., 2010).
It is likely that the organizational context can affect leader
development behaviors through LD PsyCap. An investiga-
tion into the antecedents of LD PsyCap can guide organiza-
tions to effectively promote LD PsyCap in their leaders and
ultimately facilitate continuous leader development.
The current investigation will consist of both organiza-
tional and job-level antecedents of LD PsyCap. We first dis-
cuss three organizational-level constructs (i.e., learning
climate, organizational support, and social support) fol-
lowed by a discussion of a job-level predictor (i.e., work-
load). Theory and prior research aided in the selection of the
specific antecedents examined in this study.
Learning Climate
Organizations that foster a learning climate provide a trial-
and-error-based learning environment, which may posi-
tively influence LD PsyCap. Learning organizations help
facilitate members’ learning and developmental processes,
which expands organizational capacity (Egan, Yang, &
Bartlett, 2004; Popper & Lipshitz, 2000; Senge, 1990).
Learning organizations encourage individuals to take risks
in their learning and development without having to worry
about negative consequences such as making mistakes
(Marsick, Watkins, Callahan, & Volpe, 2009). The influ-
ence of learning climate on leader development is positive
because leaders can try out different leader development
approaches and focus on learning, rather than only perform-
ing as a leader. Leaders in learning organizations are not
expected to know the answers for everything and perform
perfectly. In fact, with a positive learning climate, organiza-
tional members understand that mistakes are part of the
development of their leaders and they are willing to support
their leaders’ development.
Learning climate influences leader development behav-
iors through its relationship with LD PsyCap. For example,
a positive learning climate provides a safe space for leaders
to explore different ways to develop. Having multiple path-
ways toward leader development goals is related to LD
hope. Leaders may also be more resilient in their develop-
ment as they know that even if they fail, they can try again.
For this reason, they can increase their coping skills, which
will increase their LD resilience. Furthermore, learning cli-
mate may encourage leaders to learn continuously, which
could strengthen their LD efficacy. On the other hand, an
organization with a weak learning climate or with a climate
focused on performance would prevent its leaders from
engaging in leader development behaviors because such
behaviors are not rewarded. Leaders would doubt their abil-
ity to develop as a leader in a “sink or swim” performance-
oriented climate. In summary, learning climate can play an
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 25(1)
important role in supporting leader development through its
relationship with LD PsyCap.
Hypothesis 2: Learning climate will positively relate to
LD PsyCap. LD PsyCap will partially mediate the rela-
tionship between learning climate and leader develop-
ment behaviors.
Organizational Support
Organizational support reflects employees’ perceptions that
the organization cares about their input and well-being
(Eisenberger, Cummings, Armeli, & Lynch, 1997).
Employees make a judgment about the organization by
judging its parts, such as the top leaders or key members of
the organization. When employees view top leaders or key
members as supportive and caring, then the organization is
perceived to be supportive. This macro level of support can
promote leader development behaviors through LD PsyCap.
Organizational support is a resource that likely aids lead-
ers in their motivation to develop (Maurer et al., 2003).
When leaders perceive that the organization cares about
their well-being, they are more likely to overcome setbacks
toward their development (i.e., LD resilience) and establish
multiple pathways to develop (i.e., LD hope). When an
organization is perceived to care about a leader’s input, it
can make a leader feel valuable and make them believe that
they can improve as a leader (i.e., LD efficacy). With access
to organizational resources, organizational support pro-
motes a leader’s positive expectancy toward future leader
development efforts (i.e., LD optimism).
Prior research has examined the relationship between orga-
nizational support and leader self-development behavior with
mixed findings. For example, Boyce et al. (2010) conceptual-
ized organizational support as an organization-sponsored
website consisting of developmental resources; yet found it
not to moderate the relationship between leader individual dif-
ferences (e.g., core self-evaluations) and leader self-develop-
ment behavior. However, prior studies did not consider
PsyCap as a mediator between organizational support and
development. In the body of research on workplace PsyCap,
F. Luthans, Norman, Avolio, and Avey (2008) found a full
mediation of workplace PsyCap on the relationship between
supportive organizational climate and employee performance.
They proposed that supportive organizations could create the
necessary environment for establishing and growing work-
place PsyCap. Similarly, having supportive environment,
leaders are encouraged to engage in leader development
behaviors through the increase in their LD PsyCap. Thus, we
expect that organizational support will relate to leader devel-
opment through its effects on LD PsyCap.
Hypothesis 3: Perceived organizational support will
positively relate to LD PsyCap. LD PsyCap will partially
Pitichat et al.
mediate the relationship between perceived organiza-
tional support and leader development behaviors.
Social Support
Social support differs slightly from organizational support.
Whereas organizational support refers to broad perceptions
of the whole organization, social support is the aid provided
by the leader’s coworkers and managers, specifically (Noe
& Wilk, 1993). Social support is proposed to promote LD
PsyCap, and ultimately leader development, for several
reasons.
First, F. Luthans et al. (2008) have argued that high lev-
els of social support will enable individuals to better iden-
tify strategies toward goals and have greater hope to
complete new tasks. Under high levels of social support,
managers provide coaching or guidance to the leader and
coworkers provide help complete a job assignment. Verbal
persuasion and instruction can facilitate the development of
LD efficacy. In fact, Liu (2013) found that employees who
reported high supervisor support had higher levels of work-
place PsyCap.
Second, leaders who have social support will be more
likely to bounce back from adversity (i.e., LD resilience)
and be more hopeful about their leader development.
Guidance, time, and attention given by managers and
coworkers can effectively help leaders plan new courses of
action after a setback providing alternate pathways toward
future goals (i.e., LD hope). Consider a leader who has just
failed to achieve his first developmental stretch goal, and
consequently, may be experiencing feelings of inferiority.
Social support from his manager can help mitigate these
feelings, allowing him to effectively cope and go on to
achieve other leader development goals.
Supportive peers, supervisors, and subordinates are
expected to play a central role in fostering LD PsyCap and,
thus, leader development behaviors. Leaders who are devel-
oping are likely to experience failure or setbacks in trying
new techniques. The unsteady nature of development could
cause leaders to fear to make mistakes or to take risks.
Leaders who have supportive peers and supervisors experi-
ence less fear and truly engage in development due to
heightened levels of LD PsyCap.
Hypothesis 4: Social support will positively relate to LD
PsyCap. LD PsyCap will partially mediate the relation-
ship between social support and leader development
behaviors.
Workload
Workload is expected to be a job-level antecedent of LD
PsyCap. Workload refers to the volume and pace of work
required of a leader (Spector & Jex, 1998). Workload can
53
include requiring leaders to work at fast speeds or requiring
multiple tasks to be completed in little time. A high-volume
and fast-paced workload could cause strains such as frustra-
tion and anxiety. When leaders face 12 hours of work in a
scheduled 8-hour workday, leaders may feel uncertain about
their ability to complete leader development behaviors, cre-
ating negative emotions (Beehr & Bhagat, 1985) and lower-
ing their overall LD PsyCap. Furthermore, a high volume of
work could cause leaders to give less attention to accom-
plishing long-term goals including leader development, as
they focus attention on merely staying “above water”
(Spector & Jex, 1998).
A leader’s workload can create barriers to LD PsyCap.
Imagine a leader bombarded with multiple tasks from dif-
ferent parties, several missed calls and e-mails, and an over-
whelming amount of urgent issues within the first 10
minutes of the workday. As the leader attempts to maintain
a continuous high volume of work, limited time is available
for leader development behaviors such as after action
reviews, reflections, and experimentation. After weeks and
months of high workload, the leader could lose the feelings
of leader development success in the future (LD optimism)
and the perceived ability to develop successfully (LD effi-
cacy). This lack of time will dilute the leader’s ability to
create pathways to reach leader development goals and
ways to overcome obstacles (LD hope) as most time is
spent being reactive instead of proactive. Last, with the
frustration and anxiety from the workload the leader has
less emotional energy to bounce back from a negative leader
development event (LD resilience).
Overall, high-volume and fast-paced workloads distract
leaders from their ability to think long-term and build valu-
able psychological resources. As leaders focus on keeping
up with the high demands, their frustration and anxiety
increase. Thus, high workload creates a foundation that is
not conducive to the attainment of LD PsyCap and, as a
result, leader development behaviors.
Hypothesis 5: Workload will negatively relate to LD
PsyCap. LD PsyCap will partially mediate the relationship
between workload and leader development behaviors.
Method
Participants
Study participants were 120 U.S. leaders with supervisory
responsibilities. We recruited participants from a database of
leaders who previously engaged in assessments or training as
part of a small, regional consulting firm. The mean age was
49.54 (SD = 13.07). The majority of the sample was Caucasian
(78%) and female (60%). On average, participants had 28
years of work experience. More specifically, participants had
an average of 18 years of leadership experience with an
54
average of 16 direct reports (SD = 36.4). Many participants
(42%) worked in medium-sized organizations (between
50-500 employees) and in education (47%) and arts, enter-
tainment, and recreation (18%) industries. The sample was
well-educated with 42% of participants having a master’s
degree and 24% having a doctorate.
Measures
Leader Development PsyCap. Items from F. Luthans, Avolio,
et al. (2007) workplace PsyCap were modified to fit with
the leader development context. For example, the original
workplace PsyCap item, “At this time, I am meeting the
work goals that I have set for myself,” was slightly modi-
fied to assess LD PsyCap by replacing the phrase “work”
with the phrase “leader development” as follows: “At this
time, I am meeting the leader development goals that I have
set for myself.” In total, there were initially 32 items con-
sisting of 7 LD optimism items (e.g., “When facing difficul-
ties in my development as a leader, I usually expect the
best.”), 8 LD hope items (e.g., “I can think of many ways to
reach my current leadership developmental goals.”), 10 LD
efficacy items (e.g., “I feel confident seeking feedback to
improve as a leader.”), and 7 LD resilience items (e.g., “I
usually take stressful leader development activities in
stride.”).
To ensure that the adapted items operated effectively, we
tested the adapted 32 LD PsyCap items with 264 U.S. man-
agers or supervisors on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (20-
cent compensation). After removing 19 careless responses
(e.g., trap items and extremely fast completion times) and
multivariate outliers, we ended up with the sample size of
245. The managers validly responding had an average age
of 37, were mostly Caucasian (78%) and female (60%), and
had an average of 16 years of work experience, 7 years of
leadership experience, and an average of 10 direct reports.
To examine item fit, we performed confirmatory factor
analysis in Mplus 7. Initial fit indices for a four-factor struc-
ture within a second-order model indicated mediocre fit,
root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .08,
90% confidence interval (CI) [.08, .09], comparative fit
index (CFI) = .83, standardized root mean square residual
(SRMR) = .06 (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002; Hu & Bentler,
1999). We examined factor loadings and all five of the
reverse-coded items, which can sometimes negatively influ-
ence reliability (Woods, 2006), had poor loadings (less than
.5). In addition, two other items exhibited lower factor load-
ings (less than .5). Thus, we removed a total of seven items
including four items tapping optimism, two items tapping
resilience, and one item tapping efficacy. For example, the
reverse-coded LD resilience item, “When I have a setback
when developing my leadership, I have trouble recovering
from it and moving on” had a low factor loading of .41 and
was removed from the scale. The removal of these seven
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 25(1)
items significantly improved model fit, Δχ2(189) = 561.35,
p < .001, resulting in fair to good fit (RMSEA = .08, 90% CI
[.07, .09], CFI = .90, SRMR = .05) with all 25 factor load-
ings greater than .6. We compared the second order model
with alternative models and it had significantly better fit
over a one-factor model, Δχ2(4) = 14.69, p = .005, and simi-
lar fit to a four-factor model, Δχ2(2) = 0.37, p = .83.
Therefore, in the current study, LD PsyCap was mea-
sured using 25 items adapted from the original workplace
PsyCap scale to the domain of leader development.1 The
rating scale was a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) and 6 (strongly agree). The overall LD
PsyCap score was computed by averaging the 25 items,
which demonstrated strong reliability (α = .94).
Leader Development Behaviors. As the dependent variable
measure, we measured leader development behaviors using
Reichard’s (2006) instrument consisting of 18 items. Each
item asked leaders to identify the degree to which they
intend to engage in each specific leader development behav-
ior in the next month. Some examples include “in the next
month, I will implement my game plan/strategies for my
leadership development,” and “in the next month, I will
seek jobs/positions that stretch my leadership skills.” The
response option is a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from
1 (very unlikely) to 5 (very likely). We calculated the com-
posite score by averaging the scores of all 18 items on
leader development behaviors (α = .92).
Workload. We measured workload by Spector and Jex’s
(1998) Quantitative Workload Inventory consisting of five
items. There were no reverse-coded items. A sample ques-
tion includes “How often does your job leave you with little
time to get things done?” Participants rated items on a
5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (less than once per
month or never) to 5 (several times per day). We calculated
the composite score for workload by averaging the five
items (α = .87).
Workplace PsyCap. Workplace PsyCap, or the original
PsyCap, was measured using F. Luthans, Avolio, et al.’s
(2007) 12-item PsyCap scale (short version). There were
four subscales including efficacy, hope, resilience, and opti-
mism with no reverse-coded items. A sample item includes
“At this time, I am meeting the work goals that I have set for
myself” with a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). We calculated the
overall score by averaging the individual items, which dem-
onstrated strong reliability (α = .89).
Core Self-Evaluations. Core self-evaluations was measured
using Judge, Erez, Bono, and Thoresen’s (2003) 12-item
core self-evaluations scale. There were six reverse-coded
items. The scale consists of four subscales (i.e., locus of
Pitichat et al.
control, generalized self-efficacy, self-esteem, and neuroti-
cism). Sample items include “I am capable of coping with
most of my problems” and “I am filled with doubts about
my competence” (reverse coded). The rating scale was a
5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree)
to 5 (strongly agree). The composite core self-evaluations
score was calculated by averaging the 12 items (α = .84).
Proactive Personality. To minimize survey length, we
assessed proactive personality by randomly selecting five
items from Seibert et al.’s (1999) 10-item scale. There were
no reverse-coded items. A sample item includes “I am con-
stantly on the lookout for new ways to improve my life.”
The 7-point Likert-type scale used ranged from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The overall score was calcu-
lated by averaging the five items, which demonstrated ade-
quate reliability (α =.77).
Motivation to Lead. Motivation to lead was measured by
Chan and Drasgow’s (2001) nine-item scale of affective-
identity motivation to lead. There were four reverse-coded
items. Sample items include “I am the type of person who
likes to be in charge of others” and “I am definitely not a
leader by nature” (reverse coded). Participants rated items
on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (very strongly
disagree) to 5 (very strongly agree). The composite score
was calculated by averaging the nine items (α =.85).
Learning Climate. Learning climate was measured by Tracey
and Tews’s (2005) nine-item learning climate scale. The
learning climate scale consists of three subscales: facilita-
tion learning climate, appreciation learning climate, and
error avoidance learning climate. Each subscale consists of
three items with the last subscale (error avoidance) being
reverse coded. Sample questions include “my organization
provides appealing educational facilities” (facilitation),
“employees get quickly promoted here, if they engage in
continuous professional development” (appreciation), and
“in my organization, employees are anxious to openly dis-
cuss work-related problems” (error avoidance; reverse
coded). The 5-point Likert-type scale ranged from 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). We averaged the
items across the three subscales to form the composite
learning climate score (α = .76).
Perceived Organizational Support. We measured perceived
organizational support using Eisenberger et al.’s (1997)
eight-item scale. There were four reverse-coded items.
Some sample questions include “the organization values
my contribution to its well-being” and “even if I did the best
job possible, the organization would fail to notice” (reverse
coded). The rating scale ranged from 1 (strongly disagree)
to 7 (strongly agree). The total score was computed by aver-
aging the items (α = .88).
55
Social Support. To limit survey length, we randomly selected
12 of 24 items to measure social support from Noe and
Wilk’s (1993) scale. Three reverse-coded items were
selected. Sample items include “I feel comfortable discuss-
ing my skill weakness with my manager” and “In general,
coworkers view training as a waste of time” (reverse coded).
Participants rated each item on a 5-point Likert-type scale
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
The average across all items formed a composite social sup-
port score (α = .88).
Control Variables. We controlled for years of work experi-
ence and years of leadership experience because these
demographic factors can potentially influence leader devel-
opment behaviors (Day, 2000). Reflecting the diversity of
our sample, we observed a large range in these variables
with years of work experience ranging from 1 to 59 with a
mean of 27.96 (SD = 12.43) and years of leadership experi-
ence ranging from 0.5 to 48 with a mean of 17.62 (SD =
11.33). We did not control for age because it was highly
correlated with years of work experience and demonstrated
a similar pattern of results. Years of work experience is a
more relevant control variable than age because it is con-
ceptually more related to study variables.
Procedure
This study used a cross-sectional design collecting data via
the Qualtrics online survey platform. Participants first had to
meet the requirements (i.e., currently living in the United
States and being in a supervisory role with at least one direct
report) to participate. Then, they responded to the LD PsyCap
items. We attempted to avoid common method bias by add-
ing a distraction activity on the completion of the LD PsyCap
measure. As recommended by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee,
and Podsakoff (2012), separating the predictor and outcome
constructs can help mitigate common method bias. After a
distraction task, participants completed the dependent vari-
able measure of leader development behaviors. Because of
the length of the survey, we prioritized the collection of the
LD PsyCap and leader development behaviors measures.
Finally, we collected demographics and the remaining inde-
pendent variable measures (e.g., proactive personality, social
support).
Results
Before engaging in hypothesis testing, we first examined sta-
tistical assumptions of the data. We identified 19 univariate
and multivariate outliers, which were removed from the data
set leaving us a sample size of 120. Skewness and kurtosis of
all studied variables were between 1 and −1, which was
acceptable (Aguinis, Gottfredson, & Wright, 2010). Next, we
computed a correlation matrix of all study variables (see
56 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 25(1)

Table 1. Correlations Among Key Study Variables (N = 120).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

1. Leader development PsyCap .94

2. Leader development behaviors .43*** .92
3. Learning climate .25** .28** .76
4. Perceived organizational support .25** .17 .59*** .88
5. Social support .25** .30** .55*** .61*** .88
6. Core self-evaluations .52*** .16 .28** .45*** .39*** .84
7. Workload .20* .10 −.17 −.09 −.16 −.08 .87
8. Proactive personality .66*** .36*** .11 .13 .13 .40*** .05 .77
9. Motivation to lead .54*** .25** .18 .20* .17 .34*** .28** .35*** .85
10. Workplace PsyCap .76*** .30** .31** .45*** .38*** .63*** .13 .58*** .44*** .89
11. Age .07 −.28** −.01 −.04 −.20* .15 .09 −.06 .03 16 —
12. Direct report .04 .11 −.04 −.09 −.11 −.08 .19* .04 .05 0.03 .07 —
13. Years of leadership experience .16 −.15 .14 .05 −.10 .24** .02 .11 .11 .24** .79*** .02 —
14. Years of work experience .06 −.29** −.04 −.06 −.19* .15 .10 −.03 .06 .16 .96*** .05 .82***

Note. The values in italics are Cronbach’s alpha.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 1). Interestingly, age (r = −.28, p < .01) and years of Table 2. Hierarchical Regression, Workplace PsyCap, Core
work experience (r = −.29, p < .01) were negatively related to Self-Evaluations, Proactive Personality, Motivation to Lead, and
leader development behaviors. These correlations suggest LD PsyCap Predicting Engagement in Leader Development
Behaviors (N = 120).
that younger, less experienced employees in our sample
engage in more leader development behaviors. B SE β ΔR2 Model R2
To test Hypothesis 1, we examined the relationship
between the core construct of LD PsyCap with the outcome Step 1 .10** .10
Constant 4.16 0.15
variable, engagement in leader development behaviors and
Years of leadership 0.01 0.01 .24
found a positive correlation between LD PsyCap and leader
experience
development behaviors (r = .43, p < .001). Next, we con- Years of work −0.03 0.01 −.48**
ducted a hierarchical regression predicting leader develop- experience
ment behaviors while controlling for years of leadership Step 2 .15*** .25
experience and years of work experience by entering these Workplace PsyCap 0.26 0.15 .21
factors in the first step and entering LD PsyCap in the sec- Core self- −0.08 0.13 −.06
ond step. Years of work experience (β = −.48, t = −3.19, p = evaluations
.002) negatively and significantly predicted leader develop- Proactive 0.18 0.10 .19
ment behaviors, whereas years of leadership experience personality
was positively but not significantly predictive. Moreover, Motivation to lead 0.10 0.07 .13
results indicated significant results for LD PsyCap as a pre- Step 3 .04** .29
dictor of leader development behavior after controlling for LD PsyCap 0.46 0.18 .37**
years of leadership and work experience (β = .44, t = 5.46, Note. LD PsyCap = leader development psychological capital;
p < .001). The results showed that LD PsyCap predicted SE = standard error.
above and beyond control variables accounting for an addi- *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
tional 18.4% to the prediction of leader development behav-
iors (p < .001). Altogether, we found strong support for experience by entering these factors in the first step. Next,
Hypothesis 1 that LD PsyCap positively relates to leader workplace PsyCap, core self-evaluations, proactive person-
development behaviors. ality, and motivation to lead were entered in the second step
Next, for Hypothesis 1a to 1d, we expected that LD predicting leader development behaviors. Results were sig-
PsyCap would positively predict leader development nificant for workplace PsyCap (β = .21, t = 1.73, p = .086)
behaviors above and beyond (a) workplace PsyCap, (b) and proactive personality (β = .19, t = 1.86, p = .066).
core self-evaluations, (c) proactive personality, and (d) Finally, after entering LD PsyCap as a predictor in the third
motivation to lead. To test these predictions, we conducted step, we found that LD PsyCap (β = .37, t = 2.59, p = .011)
hierarchical multiple regression predicting engagement in significantly predicted leader development behaviors above
leader development behaviors (see Table 2). First, we con- and beyond the control variables and other individual dif-
trolled for years of leadership experience and years of work ferences variables, accounting for an additional 4.3% to the
Pitichat et al. 57

prediction of leader development behaviors. Therefore, we Table 3. Mediation Effects of LD PsyCap on the Relationship
found support for Hypothesis 1 regarding the incremental Between Independent Variables (Learning Climate,
validity of LD PsyCap above and beyond (a) workplace Organizational Support, Social Support, Workload) and Leader
Development Behaviors (N = 120).
PsyCap, (b) core self-evaluations, (c) proactive personality,
and (d) motivation to lead. 95% CI
Next, we turn to organizational-level predictors of LD
PsyCap for Hypotheses 2 to 5. We predicted that (Hypothesis Effect B SE Lower Upper
2) learning climate, (Hypothesis 3) perceived organizational Learning climate → LD PsyCap → LDB
support, and (Hypothesis 4) social support would positively Total .27** .10 .08 .47
relate to LD PsyCap and that (Hypothesis 5) workload Direct .18* .09 .00 .36
would be negatively related to LD PsyCap. Regarding cor- Indirect (mediation)a .10 .05 .02 .20
relations, the relationships between LD PsyCap with learn- Organizational support → LD PsyCap → LDB
ing climate, perceived organizational support, and social Total .08 .05 −.03 .19
support were statistically significant and positive (r = .25, p Direct .02 .05 −.08 .12
= .005; r = .25, p = .007; r = .25, p = .005, respectively). Indirect (mediation)a .06 .03 .02 .12
Contrary to expectations, the relationship between LD Social support → LD PsyCap → LDB
PsyCap and workload was also positive (r = .20, p = .026). Total .24** .09 .07 .41
To further test these hypotheses, we conducted four hierar- Direct .14 .08 −.02 .30
chical regressions predicting LD PsyCap, controlling for Indirect (mediation)a .10 .10 .04 .20
Workload → LD PsyCap → LDB
work experience and leadership experience in Step 1, and
Total .09 .06 −.02 .21
entering the respective predictor variable in Step 2. In terms
Direct .03 .06 −.07 .14
of control variables, we found that leadership experience (β
Indirect (mediation)a .06 .03 .02 .12
= .32, t = 2.06, p = .041) significantly predicted LD PsyCap.
In terms of predictor variables, we found that learning cli- Note. LD PsyCap = leader development psychological capital; LDB = leader
mate (β = .22, t = 2.35, ΔR2 = .044, p = .02), perceived orga- development behavior; CI = confidence interval; SE = standard error.
a
Indirect effects in this table do not show p values. Rather, results
nizational support (β = .23, t = 2.51, ΔR2 = .049, p = .014), provide bias-corrected CIs based on 5,000 bootstrapped samples. If
social support (β = .26, t = 2.91, ΔR2 = .065, p = .004), and zero is not included in the CI ranges, the indirect effect is statistically
workload (β = .22, t = 2.44, ΔR2 = .047, p = .016) were sig- significant at the .05 level.
nificant and positive predictors of LD PsyCap. Taken *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
together, we found support for Hypotheses 2 to 4; however,
results testing Hypothesis 5 (workload) were significant in Discussion
the opposite direction than expected.
Last, we examined the role of LD PsyCap as a mediator Facilitating continuous leader development is an imperative
between the predictors and the outcome of leader develop- in many organizations (Banks et al., 2015; Reichard &
ment behaviors (see Table 3). Using the PROCESS macro Johnson, 2011). Several forms of capital—financial, social,
by Hayes (2013), we conducted mediation analyses for each human, and positive PsyCap—are necessary to succeed in
variable (i.e., learning climate, social support, perceived developing leaders. In this article, we focused on positive
organizational support, and workload). The analyses fol- PsyCap because it adds a unique and difficult to replicate form
lowed Hayes’s (2013) recommendation for estimating the of capital and because maintaining high levels of individual
size and significance of the indirect effect of predictors on motivation propensity to develop is necessary for ongoing
outcomes variables through a mediating variable using leader development (F. Luthans & Youssef, 2004, 2007).
bootstrap CIs. We used 5,000 bootstrapped samples with PsyCap grew from the field of positive organizational behav-
bias corrected CIs and used 95% CIs to assess the signifi- ior and was initially studied extensively in the domain of the
cant effects. We analyzed the data examining the indirect workplace with much utility in predicting important work out-
effect of each predictor on leader development behaviors comes (Avey et al., 2011). We built on this tradition and the
through PsyCap. After controlling for years of leadership domain-specific nature of PsyCap to adapt and define it in the
experience and years of work experience, the results showed context of leader development, specifically, as composed of
that relationship between all four predictors and leader LD efficacy, LD hope, LD optimism, and LD resilience.
development behaviors were partially mediated by LD We successfully adapted PsyCap to the leader develop-
PsyCap: learning climate (indirect effect = .097, CI [.020, ment context, like how prior researchers adapted it to other
.197]), perceived organizational support (indirect effect = domains such as academic performance (B. C. Luthans,
.060, CI [.018, .148]), social support (indirect effect = .102, Luthans, & Jensen, 2012) and cross-cultural interactions
CI [.037, .197]), and workload (indirect effect = .062, CI (Dollwet & Reichard, 2014). In fact, the utility of LD
[.015, .123]). PsyCap in predicting leader development behaviors
58
exceeded workplace PsyCap. Effectively adapting PsyCap
has important implications not just for the predictive valid-
ity of the new construct of LD PsyCap but it also further
demonstrates that PsyCap is, in fact, domain-specific and
that it is important to align the PsyCap domain with the spe-
cific outcome of interest. In other words, although work-
place PsyCap was positively related to leader development
behaviors, LD PsyCap accounted for additional variance in
this specific outcome. As such, we have broadened the theo-
retical boundaries of the PsyCap construct, as called for by
Hackman (2009). Future scholars and practitioners can
expect similar success in incremental validity when tailor-
ing PsyCap to other outcome domains of interest.
In addition to outperforming workplace PsyCap, LD
PsyCap predicted additional variance in leader develop-
ment behaviors than the other relevant individual differ-
ences variables of core self-evaluations, proactive
personality, and motivation to lead. If this were not the case,
then the utility of the new LD PsyCap construct would be
null. Furthermore, of the individual differences included in
this study, LD PsyCap is expected to be the most malleable
and, thus, open to development (i.e., state-like). This paral-
lels the proposition from Chaplin, John, and Goldberg
(1988) that traits are more stable, that they are longer last-
ing, and internally influenced, whereas states are more tem-
porary, shorter lasting, and externally influenced. In this
study, core self-evaluations, proactive personality, and
motivation to lead are considered traits and trait-like char-
acteristics, which are relatively stable. As mentioned previ-
ously, PsyCap is considered “state-like,” meaning it is more
malleable than traits and persists over weeks and months.
For example, in a classroom training intervention designed
to increase cross-cultural PsyCap, Reichard, Dollwet, and
Louw-Potgieter (2014) found that gains in PsyCap were
maintained at least 1 month following training. Additionally,
a study aimed at exploring the state-like nature of PsyCap
yielded further support that workplace PsyCap is state-like
and produced varied results from more trait-like constructs
such as core self-evaluations (McElravy, 2014). Because
LD PsyCap predicts beyond these traits and because it is a
state-like individual difference (F. Luthans et al., 2006),
human resources practitioners and managers can design and
implement programs and strategies to facilitate the develop-
ment of LD PsyCap in their current and future leaders
(Chaplin et al., 1988; F. Luthans, Avey, Avolio, & Peterson,
2010). We can then reinforce this training through periodic,
relatively short refresher interventions to extend the lasting
impact of increases in PsyCap (F. Luthans et al., 2006).
One such strategy is to ensure that the organizational
context and direct supervisor are perceived as supportive.
Having a supportive context influences participation in
development through LD PsyCap. Maurer et al. (2003) sim-
ilarly found that work support (i.e., development-oriented
policies, coworker support for development, and learning
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 25(1)
and development resources available) influenced participa-
tion in employee development through perceived intrinsic
benefits. However, in their study, intrinsic benefits empha-
sized the learner’s interest in outcomes resulting from
development, which differs from LD PsyCap’s focus on the
motivational wherewithal possessed by the learner.
Although Maurer et al. (2003) assessed developmental effi-
cacy, which is like one component of LD PsyCap, they did
not examine it as a mediator between situational support
and participation in development. Therefore, in the current
study, we find a new motivational mediator of the effects of
supportive context on participation in development and in
the context of leader development.
Contrary to our expectations, we found that workload
was positively related to LD PsyCap; and that LD PsyCap
positively mediated the relationship between workload and
leader development behaviors. It is possible that leaders
who have high work responsibilities are exposed to addi-
tional leader developmental opportunities. Ongoing prac-
tice through daily activities provides a rich context for
leader development (Day et al., 2014). Moreover, these
leaders are more likely to handle multiple projects and pri-
orities beyond the average leader and, thus, are confident
and optimistic about including leader development into
their long list of work activities. Similarly, extending the
rationale of the job demands–resources activation hypothe-
sis (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007), high levels of workload
activate the use of LD PsyCap to facilitate effective leader
development. We maintain, however, that at extreme levels,
workload may become a hindrance for LD PsyCap and
leader development behaviors, which future researchers
could test by examining a possible curvilinear relationship.
In fact, DeRue and Wellman (2009) found a curvilinear
relationship between developmental challenge and leader
development. Perhaps, workload operates similarly.
Practical Implications
Because LD PsyCap is state-like and malleable (F. Luthans,
Youssef, et al., 2007) and organizational context relates to
LD PsyCap, we suggest strategies to develop LD PsyCap
and its components based on F. Luthans et al. (2006). For
example, human resource practitioners can facilitate LD
PsyCap by having leaders establish leader development
goals that are broken down into short-term steps and begin
with easier leader development goals that gradually become
more challenging, yet realistic stretch goals. Partnering
leaders with mentors who encourage the leaders to develop,
communicate effective leader development strategies, and
role model leader development can further develop LD
PsyCap. Building such social relationships and support for
leader development (i.e., assets) while eliminating stress,
conflict, abusive leadership, and job insecurity (i.e., risk
factors) will facilitate LD PsyCap through high levels of
Pitichat et al.
social support and establishing a safe learning climate for
development.
Facilitating the development of LD PsyCap can be ben-
eficial prior to not only formal leadership training such as
workshops or coaching but especially for experiential learn-
ing such as challenging assignments or on-the-job learning.
Although leadership experience is at the core of leader
development (McCall, 2010), translating experience into
learning is not without limitations (Day, 2010). The crite-
rion of leader development behaviors used in this study
emphasized experiential leader development, including
looking for leadership opportunities, seeking jobs that
stretch one’s leadership skills, and reflecting on experi-
ences. By boosting LD PsyCap prior to such leadership
experiences, our findings indicate that leaders will be more
likely to engage in leader development behaviors.
Limitations
A few methodological constraints limit the conclusions
drawn from the current study. First, all data were collected
from the same source making common method bias a threat
to internal validity (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Podsakoff,
2003; Podsakoff et al., 2012). To address this threat, we
separated the LD PsyCap measure and the leader develop-
ment behaviors measure with a distraction task as recom-
mended by Podsakoff et al. (2003). We also included
attention checks and eliminated participants who failed
them. Similarly, the cross-sectional design of this study
only allows for conclusions regarding correlations among
variables and limits predictive conclusions. It would have
been helpful to measure the dependent variable again after
a few months to see if the independent variables predicted
future behaviors. Finally, we adapted the prior measure of
workplace PsyCap to the context of leader development.
Although we collected preliminary data to examine item
loadings, additional validation of the LD PsyCap measure is
needed, particularly to establish the higher order nature of
the construct.
Future Research
The conceptualization of LD PsyCap opens the door to the
possibilities of several future studies. To begin, future
researchers should overcome the methodological limita-
tions of the current study. For example, a repeated measures
design could examine the degree to which LD PsyCap is
state-like versus trait-like by examining within-person and
between-person fluctuations in participants’ responses over
time. Researchers can implement experimental or quasi-
experimental designs where groups of leaders receive an
LD PsyCap intervention to examine if LD PsyCap can, in
fact, be developed as theorized. Multisource data, such as
360-degree assessment, should be leveraged in future
59
research to go beyond an examination of self-reported
leader development behaviors toward understanding the
change in others’ perceptions of leader effectiveness as a
result of interventions targeting LD PsyCap. Research on
LD PsyCap should be conducted on a larger sample of lead-
ers both in the United States and in other countries to exam-
ine its generalizability. Overall, we encourage additional
testing of the measure of LD PsyCap to further situate the
construct in the nomological network and, thus provide fur-
ther evidence of convergent, discriminant, and predictive
validity.
Beyond LD PsyCap itself, understanding the relation-
ships between workload, LD PsyCap, and leader develop-
ment would be an enticing area for future research. Does
workload activate psychological resources to further
engagement in leader development? Or is there, in fact, a
cutoff point where too much workload becomes detrimen-
tal? Specifically, future research can further investigate
workload and LD PsyCap by examining their interactive
effects on engagement in leader development and the curvi-
linear relationship between workload and LD PsyCap and
leader development behaviors. Experience sampling meth-
odology or the daily diary method would be instrumental
for examining the dynamic interplay between workload,
LD PsyCap, and leader self-development on the job.
Finally, the utility of LD PsyCap may go beyond leader
self-development behaviors and influence other leader
development processes and outcomes. Future research
should examine if LD PsyCap relates to engagement in for-
mal leader development programs such as training or men-
toring. Differences in LD PsyCap may predict changes in
proximal (e.g., self-awareness, leader identity, leadership
knowledge, skills, and ability) and distal (e.g., meaning-
making structures) developmental outcomes resulting from
formal development (Day & Dragoni, 2015). Will those
higher in LD PsyCap engage in leader development pro-
grams at a higher level? As a result, will they learn more as
a result of programs? Will they subsequently perform better
as leaders? Our understanding of the role of LD PsyCap in
leader development is only just beginning, and we encour-
age future researchers to examine these questions.
Conclusion
In conclusion, LD PsyCap reflects an individual’s motiva-
tional propensity to develop as a leader and consists of the
four positive psychological states of LD efficacy, LD hope,
LD optimism, and LD resilience. Demonstrating initial util-
ity, LD PsyCap accounts for additional variance in leader
development behaviors beyond established traits and medi-
ates the relationship between organizational context vari-
ables on leader development behaviors. Future practice and
research should examine the development of LD PsyCap
longitudinally to determine the true utility of the construct.
60
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Note
1. Items are available from the corresponding author.
References
Aguinis, H., Gottfredson, R. K., & Wright, T. A. (2010). Best-
practice recommendations for estimating interaction
effects using moderated multiple regression. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 31, 776-786.
Avey, J. B., Reichard, R. J., Luthans, F., & Mhatre, K. H. (2011).
Meta-analysis of the impact of positive psychological capital
on employee attitudes, behaviors, and performance. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 22, 127-152.
Avolio, B. J., & Hannah, S. T. (2009). Leader developmental read-
iness. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2, 284-287.
Avolio, B. J., Reichard, R. J., Hannah, S., Walumbwa, F. O., &
Chan, A. (2009). A meta-analytic review of leadership impact
research: Experimental and quasi-experimental studies.
Leadership Quarterly, 20, 764-784.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources
model: State of art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22,
309-328.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of
behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A
social cognitive theory. New Jersey, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Banks, G. C., Pollack, J. M., Kirkman, B. L., O’Boyle, E. H., &
Whelpley, C. E. (2015). Bridging the science-practice gap in
management by identifying grand challenges (Unpublished
manuscript). University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component
of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 14, 103-118.
Beehr, T. A., & Bhagat, R. S. (1985). Introduction to human stress
and cognition in organizations. In T. A. Beehr & R. S. Bhagat
(Eds.), Human stress and cognition in organizations (pp. 3-
19). New York, NY: Wiley.
Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Core self-evaluations: A review
of the trait and role in job satisfaction and job performance.
European Journal of Personality, 17, 5-18.
Boyce, L. A., Zaccaro, S. J., & Wisecarver, M. Z. (2010).
Propensity for self-development of leadership attributes:
Understanding, predicting, and supporting performance of
leader self-development. Leadership Quarterly, 21, 159-178.
Chan, K. Y., & Drasgow, F. (2001). Toward a theory of individual
differences and leadership: Understanding the motivation to
lead. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 481-498.
Chaplin, W. F., John, O. P., & Goldberg, L. R. (1988). Conceptions
of states and traits: Dimensional attributes with ideals as
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 25(1)
prototypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,
541-557.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-
of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural
Equation Modeling, 9, 233-255.
Colquitt, J., LePine, J., & Noe, R. (2000). Toward an integrative
theory of training motivation: A meta-analytic path analysis
of 20 years of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,
678-707.
Crant, M. J. (1996). The proactive personality scale as a predic-
tor of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Small Business
Management, 34, 42-49.
Day, D. V. (2000). Leadership development: A review in context.
Leadership Quarterly, 11, 581-613.
Day, D. V. (2010). The difficulties of learning from experience and
the need for deliberate practice. Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, 3, 41-44.
Day, D. V. (2011). Integrative perspectives on longitudinal inves-
tigations of leader development: From childhood through
adulthood. Leadership Quarterly, 22, 561-571.
Day, D. V., & Dragoni, L. (2015). Leadership development:
An outcome-oriented review based on time and levels of
analyses. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Organizational Behavior, 2, 133-156.
Day, D. V., Harrison, M. M., & Halpin, S. M. (2009). An inte-
grative approach to leader development: Connecting adult
development, identity, and expertise. New York. NY: Taylor
& Francis.
Day, D. V., Fleenor, J. W., Atwater, L. E., Sturm, R. E., & McKee,
R. A. (2014). Advances in leader and leadership development:
A review of 25 years of research and theory. Leadership
Quarterly, 25, 63-82.
Day, D. V., & Sin, H. P. (2011). Longitudinal tests of an integra-
tive model of leader development: Charting and understand-
ing developmental trajectories. Leadership Quarterly, 22,
545-560.
DeRue, D. S., & Wellman, N. (2009). Developing leaders via
experience: The role of developmental challenge, learning
orientation, and feedback availability. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 94, 859-875.
Dollwet, M., & Reichard, R. J. (2014). Assessing cross-cultural
skills: Validation of a new measure of cross-cultural psycho-
logical capital. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 25, 1669-1696.
Egan, T. M., Yang, B., & Bartlett, K. R. (2004). The effects of
organizational learning culture and job satisfaction on moti-
vation to transfer learning and turnover intention. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 15, 279-301.
Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S., & Lynch, P. (1997).
Perceived organizational support, discretionary treatment and
job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 812-820.
Hackman, R. J. (2009). The perils of positivity. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 30, 309-319.
Haims, J., Stempel, J., & van der Vyver, B. (2015). Learning
and development: Into the spotlight. Retrieved from https://
dupress.deloitte.com/dup-us-en/focus/human-capital-
trends/2015/learning-and-development-human-capital-
trends-2015.html
Pitichat et al.
Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., & Harms, P. D. (2008).
Leadership efficacy: Review and future directions. Leadership
Quarterly, 19, 669-692.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and
conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach.
New York, NY: Guilford.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes
in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus
new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
Judge, T. A. (2009). Core self-evaluation and work success.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 58-62.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-
evaluations traits—self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy,
locus of control, and emotional stability with job satisfaction
and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86, 80-92.
Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2003).
The core self-evaluation scale: Development of a measure.
Personnel Psychology, 56, 303-331.
Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., & Durham, C. C. (1997). The disposi-
tional causes of job satisfaction: A core evaluations approach.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 19, 151-188.
Kacmar, K. M., Collins, B. J., Harris, K. J., & Judge, T. A. (2009).
Core self-evaluations and job performance: The role of the
perceived work environment. Journal of Applied Psychology,
94, 1572-1580.
Lamas, T., Froh, J. J., Emmons, R. A., Mishra, A., & Bono, G.
(2014). Gratitude interventions: A review and future agenda.
In A. C. Parks & S. M. Schueller (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell
handbook of positive psychological interventions (pp. 3-19).
Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
Liu, Y. (2013). Mediating effect of positive psychological capi-
tal in Taiwan’s life insurance industry. Social Behavior and
Personality, 41, 109-111.
Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., Avolio, B. J., Norman, S. M., & Combs,
G. M. (2006). Psychological capital development: Toward a
micro-intervention. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27,
387-393.
Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., Avolio, B. J., & Peterson, S. J. (2010).
The development and resulting performance impact of posi-
tive psychological capital. Human Resource Development
Quarterly, 21, 41-67.
Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Avey, J. B., & Norman, S. M. (2007).
Positive psychological capital: Measurement and relationship
with performance and satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 60,
541-572.
Luthans, B. C., Luthans, K. W., & Jensen, S. M. (2012). The
impact of business school students’ psychological capital on
academic performance. Journal of Education for Business,
87, 253-259.
Luthans, F., Norman, S. M., Avolio, B. J., & Avey, J. B. (2008).
The mediating role of psychological capital in the supportive
organizational climate–employee performance relationship.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 219-238.
Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2004). Human, social, and now
positive psychological capital management: Investing in peo-
ple for competitive advantage. Organizational Dynamics, 33,
143-160.
61
Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2007). Emerging positive organi-
zational behavior. Journal of Management, 33, 321-349.
Luthans, F., Youssef, C. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2007). Psychological
capital: Developing the human competitive edge. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Major, D. A., Turner, J. E., & Fletcher, T. D. (2006). Linking
proactive personality and the big five to motivation to learn
and development activity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91,
927-935.
Marsick, V. J., Watkins, K. E., Callahan, M., & Volpe, M. (2009).
Informal and incidental learning in the workplace. In M.
Smith & N. DeFrates-Densch (Eds.), Handbook of research
on adult learning and development (pp. 570-600). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Maurer, T., Mitchell, D., & Barbeite, F. (2002). Predictors of atti-
tudes toward a 360-degree feedback system and involvement
in post-feedback management development activity. Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 87-107.
Maurer, T. J., & Tarulli, B. A. (1994). Investigation of perceived
environment, perceived outcome, and person variables in
relationship to voluntary development activity by employees.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 3-14.
Maurer, T. J., Weiss, E. M., & Barbeite, F. G. (2003). A model of
involvement in work-related learning and development activ-
ity: The effects of individual, situational, motivational, and
age variables. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 707-724.
McCall, M. W. (2010). Peeling the onion: Getting inside expe-
rience-based leadership development. Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, 3, 61-68.
McElravy, L. R. (2014). Exploring PsyCap’s state-like nature by
measuring the impact of service learning (Unpublished doc-
toral dissertation). University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska.
Meyers, M. C., Woerkom, M., Reuver, R. S. M., Bakk, Z., &
Oberski, D. L. (2015). Enhancing psychological capital and
personal growth initiative working on strengths or deficien-
cies. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 62, 50-62.
Murphy, S. E., Reichard, R. J., & Johnson, S. K. (2008). Self-
regulation and leadership: Implications for leader performance
and leader development. In C. L. Hoyt, G. R. Goethals, & D.
R. Forsyth (Eds.), Leadership at the crossroads: Leadership
and psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 250-264). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Noe, R. A., & Wilk, S. L. (1993). Investigation of the factors that
influence employees’ participation in development activities.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 291-302.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N.
P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A
critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012).
Sources of method bias in social science research and rec-
ommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of
Psychology, 63, 539-569.
Popper, M., & Lipshitz, R. (2000). Organizational learning:
Mechanisms, culture, and feasibility. Management Learning,
31, 181-196.
Reichard, R. J. (2006). Leader self-development intervention study:
The impact of self-discrepancy and feedback (Unpublished doc-
toral dissertation). University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska.
62
Reichard, R. J., Avey, J. B., Lopez, S., & Dollwet, M. (2013).
Having the will and finding the way: A review and meta-
analysis of hope at work. Journal of Positive Psychology, 8,
292-304.
Reichard, R. J., Dollwet, M., & Louw-Potgieter, J. (2014).
Development of cross-cultural psychological capital and its
relationship with cultural intelligence and ethnocentrism.
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 21, 150-164.
Reichard, R. J., & Johnson, S. K. (2011). Leader self-development
as organizational strategy. Leadership Quarterly, 22, 33-42.
Reichard, R. J., Walker, D. O., Putter, S., Middleton, E., & Johnson,
S. J. (2016). Believing is becoming: The role of leader devel-
opmental efficacy in leader self-development. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 24, 137-156.
Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1992). Effects of optimism on
psychological and physical well-being: Theoretical overview
and empirical update. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 16,
201-228.
Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., & Kraimer, M. L. (1999). Proactive per-
sonality and career success. Journal of Applied Psychology,
84, 416-427.
Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Crant, J. M. (2001). What do
proactive people do? A longitudinal model linking proactive
personality and career success. Personnel Psychology, 54,
845-874.
Seligman, M. E. (1991). Learned optimism: How to change your
mind and your life. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the
learning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday/Currency.
Seyler, D. L., Holton, E. F., Batese, R. A., Burnett, M. F., &
Carvalho, M. A. (1998). Factors affecting motivation to
transfer training. International Journal of Training and
Development, 2, 2-16.
Snyder, C. R., Harris, C., Anderson, J. R., Holleran, S. A., Irving,
L. M., Sigmon, S. T., . . . Harney, P. (1991). The will and
the ways: Development and validation of an individual-dif-
ferences measure of hope. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 60, 570-585.
Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1998). Development of four self-
report measures of job stressors and strain: Interpersonal
Conflict at Work Scale, Organizational Constraints Scale,
Quantitative Workload Inventory, and Physical Symptoms
Inventory. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3,
356-367.
Tracey, J. B., & Tews, M. J. (2005). Construct validity of a general
training climate scale. Organizational Research Methods, 8,
353-374.
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 25(1)
Woods, C. M. (2006). Careless responding to reverse-worded
items: Implications for confirmatory factor analysis. Journal
of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 28, 186-191.
Wright, T. A., & Quick, J. C. (2009). The role of positive-based
research in building the science of organizational behavior.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 329-336.
Author Biographies
Thiraput Pitichat, MA, is a doctoral student in positive organiza-
tional psychology at Claremont Graduate University (CGU). His
research interest includes electronic leader development, leader-
ship development, and positive psychological capital, and coach-
ing. Following graduation with his doctorate, Thiraput will teach
and conduct research at Chulalongkorn Business School, Thailand.
Rebecca J. Reichard, PhD, is an associate professor of Leadership
at Claremont Graduate University (CGU). She teaches graduate-
level classes. She conducts and publishes research on the topic of
leader development. As a director of LeAD Labs, Becky’s vision
is to advance and align the research and practice of leader develop-
ment. To do so, LeAD Labs conducts research that matters, pro-
vides evidence-based services, and seeks to bridge the gap by
building connections between researchers and practitioners.
Amber Kea-Edwards is a doctoral student in positive organiza-
tional psychology at Claremont Graduate University. She is also
the recipient of several fellowships such as the Coco Cola
Fellowship, Minority Fellowship (CGU), and Dean’s Merit
Fellowship (CGU). She hopes to take strides in bridging the
research practice gap. Her research interest includes leader devel-
opment, positive leadership and minority leadership.
Eric Middleton, MA, is a doctoral student in the Organizational
Behavioral program at Claremont Graduate University (CGU). He
is also a graduate research assistant with LeAD Labs, a leadership
assessment and development consultancy housed within CGU. He
has received a master’s in industrial/organizational psychology
from the University of West Florida, as well as a master’s in orga-
nizational behavior from CGU.
Steven M. Norman earned his PhD from the University of
Nebraska-Lincoln and is an associate professor of Management
and Business School Head at Colorado Mesa University in Grand
Junction, CO. He teaches courses in organizational behavior, man-
agement, and leadership. His research and consulting interests
include the areas of authentic and transformational leadership,
electronic leadership, positive psychological capital, OBSE, and
select other organizational behavior concepts.