Social scientists often estimate models from correlational data, where the independent variable has not been exogenously manipulated; they also make implicit or explicit causal claims based on these models. When can these claims be made? We answer this question by first discussing design and estimation conditions under which model estimates can be interpreted, using the randomized experiment as the gold standard. We show how endogeneity – which includes omitted variables, omitted selection, simultaneity, common-method variance, and measurement error – renders estimates causally uninterpretable. Second, we present methods that allow researchers to test causal claims in situations where randomization is not possible or when causal interpretation could be confounded; these methods include fixed-effects panel, sample selection, instrumental variable, regression discontinuity, and difference-in-differences models. Third, we take stock of the methodological rigor with which causal claims are being made in a social sciences discipline by reviewing a representative sample of 110 articles on leadership published in the previous 10 years in top-tier journals. Our key finding is that researchers fail to address at least 66% and up to 90% of design and estimation conditions that make causal claims invalid. We conclude by offering 10 suggestions on how to improve non-experimental research.

On making causal claims : A review and recommendations

This study examined the effects of vision content, delivery and organizational performance on perceptions of leader charisma and effectiveness. Subjects included 304 undergraduates who were presented videotaped speeches by a bogus CEO of a software company. A 2 × 2 × 2 design was employed in which message content (visionary/non-visionary), delivery (strong/weak), and organizational performance (high/low) were manipulated. A modified, 7-item version of Meindl and Ehrlich's (1988) Romance of Leadership Scale (RLS-D) served as a covariate. A MANCOVA analysis indicated significant effects of delivery, content, and organizational performance on both perceived leader charisma and effectiveness. The RLS-D was unrelated to either dependent variable as a covariate. The results suggest that strength of delivery is an especially important determinant of perceptions' of leader charisma and effectiveness. Although speech content and organizational performance cues likewise accounted for variance in these perceptions, their effects were at times offset by those of delivery.

Perceptions of leader charisma and effectiveness: The effects of vision content, delivery, and organizational performance

Leadership remains a popular and heavily researched area in the social sciences. Such popularity has led to a proliferation of new constructs within the leadership domain. Here, we argue that such construct proliferation without pruning is unhealthy and violates the principle of parsimony. Our purpose was to examine construct redundancy via a comprehensive review of task-oriented, relational, passive, and inspirational leader behaviors as well as values-based and moral leadership behaviors. Our findings, as indexed via meta-analytic correlations, reveal that construct redundancy remains problematic for the leadership literature. In addition, many of the values-based and moral behavior models correlated heavily with constructs traditionally examined as outcome variables (e.g., trust, LMX, justice). Implications for future research are discussed in regards to construct redundancy and how to avoid endogeneity bias in primary studies in the leadership literature.

Construct redundancy in leader behaviors: A review and agenda for the future

How and to what extent does extraversion relate to work relevant variables across the lifespan? In the most extensive quantitative review to date, we summarize results from 97 published meta-analyses reporting relations of extraversion to 165 distinct work relevant variables, as well as relations of extraversion's lower order traits to 58 variables. We first update all effects using a common set of statistical corrections and, when possible, combine independent estimates using second-order meta-analysis (Schmidt & Oh, 2013). We then organize effects within a framework of four career domains-education, job application, on the job, and career/lifespan-and five conceptual categories: motivations, values, and interests; attitudes and well-being; interpersonal; performance; and counterproductivity. Overall, extraversion shows effects in a desirable direction for 90% of variables (grand mean ρ = .14), indicative of a small, persistent advantage at work. Findings also show areas with more substantial effects (ρ ≥ .20), which we synthesize into four extraversion advantages. These motivational, emotional, interpersonal, and performance advantages offer a concise account of extraversion's relations and a new lens for understanding its effects at work. Our review of the lower order trait evidence reveals diverse relations (e.g., the positive emotions facet has consistently advantageous effects, the sociability facet confers few benefits, the sensation-seeking facet is largely disadvantageous), and extends knowledge about the functioning of extraversion and its advantages. We conclude by discussing potential boundary conditions of findings, contributions and limitations of our review, and new research directions for extraversion at work. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Extraversion advantages at work: A quantitative review and synthesis of the meta-analytic evidence.

The incursion of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) reached global scale in 2020, requiring a response from leaders worldwide. Although the virus is a ubiquitous problem, world leaders have varied appreciably in their responses resulting in substantially different outcomes in terms of virus mitigation, population health, and economic stability. One explanation for this inconsistency is that leaders have taken differential approaches to making sense of the crisis that, in turn, have driven their approaches to decision making and communication. The present article elaborates on the role of leaders as sensemakers and explains how a leader's sensemaking approach is a critical element in successful crisis management efforts. Through the charismatic, ideological, pragmatic (CIP) leadership model, a sensemaking-focused theory of leadership, it is explained how specific, relatively stable sensemaking approaches manifest and what actions leaders engaged in those styles are likely to take in times of crisis. These connections are then reinforced through case examples of 3 world leaders, framed through CIP, and demonstrate how their sensemaking approach has influenced their response to COVID-19. The article concludes with a discussion of the impacts that these differential approaches to COVID-19 may have on the global community, and recommendations for more explicit incorporation of sensemaking into our understanding of leadership. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Making sense of crisis: Charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leadership in response to COVID-19.

Charismatic leadership is a critical construct that draws much attention from both academic and practitioner literatures. Despite the positive attention received by the charisma construct, some have criticized its conceptualization and measurement. These critiques have, in turn, cast doubt on what we know regarding the antecedents and outcomes of charismatic leadership. In this review, we adopt a recently developed definition of charismatic leadership and then conduct a meta-analysis of its antecedents and objective outcomes. Following an examination of 76 independent studies and 36,031 individuals, results indicate that the Big Five traits and cognitive ability vary in their association with charismatic leadership. Other findings show that dimensions of charismatic leadership predict outcomes of interest, such as supervisor-rated task performance, supervisor-rated citizenship behaviors, and group or organization performance. Several shortcomings are identified, however, in testing theoretical and methodological moderating variables. The present research ultimately provides a roadmap for new frontiers in theoretical, measurement and empirical work on charismatic leadership.

A meta-analytic review and future research agenda of charismatic leadership

Voice in safety-oriented organizations: Examining the intersection of hierarchical and mindful social contexts

We explore safety climate, risk attitude, and risk decisions through a new framework - the risk attitude chain. We discuss intersubjective processes as a foundation of behaviours and attitudes. Given these intersubjective processes, we relate how a decision model may incorporate attitudinal measures to evaluate risk strategies.

Krista N. Engemann

Papers

A meta-analytic review and future research agenda of charismatic leadership

Voice in safety-oriented organizations: Examining the intersection of hierarchical and mindful social contexts

Risk attitude chain: safety climate, risk attitude and risk decisions