Bridging the gap between learning and practicing leadership: developing new instruments to evaluate leadership and adaptation

Abstract

This dissertation aimed to narrow the gap between learning and exercising leadership. It tried to address three main gaps in the field of leadership development assessment as its main research objectives: 1) the measurement gap which concerns the divergence between academic and industry perspectives on leadership development 2) the teaching-assessment gap, involving the misalignment between the content taught and what is being assessed; and 3) learning and practicing environments gap which is about training-transfer. These gaps complicate assessing the true impact of leadership development. To bridge the gaps and in an engaged approach to research, the researcher chose the Kansas Leadership Center’s (KLC) 2023 leadership development path as the research site for a mixed-method sequential design. To address the first two gaps, the researcher engaged with KLC’s faculty and staff to develop instruments grounded in adaptive leadership as the theoretical foundation of their teaching framework. Four main impact assessment tools were developed to track the reasoning processes leading to leadership intervention at the individual level: leadership and adaptation behavior (ALB) four-factor scale, adaptive leadership self-awareness (ALSA) three- factor scale, self-efficacy (ALSE) two-factor scale, and shifting-reflectiveness (ALSR) two-factor scale. The scales underwent rigorous validation steps, including content and face validity, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, criterion-related and construct validity, reliability checks, and generalizability tests. Drawing from Stanovich’s (2011) tripartite model of reasoning, the researcher also developed a linear mixed effect model comprising of these scales that simulates the reasoning process underlying leadership and adaptation behavior. Moreover, in an evaluation study on KLC’s 2023 path, this research presented a model finding that KLC exhibits balanced and unbalanced effects on the cognitive processes represented by these scales. To tackle the third gap, the researcher engaged with KLC’s participants through a maximum of two rounds of existential phenomenological interviews to delve into how individuals decide to exercise leadership in their professional settings. Building upon and corroborating certain findings from the quantitative phase regarding the cognitive processes entailed in leadership practice, the qualitative research elucidated the manner, context, and timing of these processes during the decision-making phase. The qualitative phase revealed that the reasoning process toward adaptive leadership intervention starts with cognitive dissonance and ends in a dialogic action space where individuals engage others to make multiple simulations about the problem at hand and design a collective solution. It also uncovered a post-intervention reflection/assessment phase that may offer an alternative reasoning path toward a more successful intervention. Finally, the research provided specific recommendations for leadership development programs using adaptive leadership framework to consider bridging the gap between learning and practice. Emphasizing the conflict-ridden and emotion-laden nature of adaptive intervention, which may strain individuals’ cognitive capacities and potentially lead them to withdraw from the intervention process, the researcher highlighted the significance of “relationality” in effectively navigating the intense moments.