Search

Organizations are making huge investments in training their leaders to take on the challenge of leading more complex and continually changing scenarios. Despite the flourishing research into leader development there is much to be learnt about how to develop leaders more effectively, promoting positive leader development trajectories for all those engaging in developmental experiences. This symposium fulfils this need by reviewing state- of-the-art theory and research in leader development and the role of identity with papers by researchers in Australia, Chile, France, the UK and Spain. From the perspective of leader development, the first presentation explores the role of self- leadership development, exploring how personal purpose and future- self declarations affect objective and subjective career success. The second paper focuses on the construct of leader self- concordance in order to predict positive leader development trajectories. The third paper looks at conflicts in the leader identity and how they can be turned into positive developmental opportunities by investigating the identity conflict experienced by new leaders and the strategies that they use to face these challenging situations. The last paper explores the conflict created when followers' proactive behavior is perceived as a threat to the leader's identity. Finally, Russell E. Johnson concludes with an insightful discussion of the topic. This symposium ultimately provides a critical overview of current and relevant theory along with well-supported propositions in order to both draw attention and to encourage further scholarship in potentiating positive leader development trajectories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the last few decades we have witnessed an exponential growth of neuroscience research thanks to developments in brain imaging technology. Under the impulse of neuroscience research new fields of study are being developed, refining traditional theories with neuro-scientific evidence. Also the fields of leadership and work-family research can profit from insights generated by the neurosciences (Goleman, Jack, and Boyatzis (2013; 2014); Balthazard, Hannah & Waldman (2011; 2012; 2013), and Rock & Ringleb (2015)). The work of these pioneers empirically demonstrates that management scholars can profit from neural measures to provide additional information to existing research methods to get a deeper insight into organizational behavior. In this symposium, we offer a collection of five presentations, in order to inform scholars about some of the inter-disciplinary theory, research, and challenges researchers face in advancing the emerging field of neuro-leadership. The theoretical paper of Sipahi Dantas provides a neuroscience-based framework for understanding social behavior and emotional regulation. The theoretical paper of Poelmans & Stepanova introduces a neuroscience-based model for regulating conflicts between work and family. The methodological paper of Rubio et al. gives some deeper insight in the EEG measures that can be used in neuroleadership research. The empirical paper of Sipahi-Dantas & Poelmans analyses 360° feedback processes between managers and collaborators to extract three leadership paradoxes and associated EEG patterns. Finally, the empirical paper of Poelmans, et al. reveals how these same leadership paradoxes and EEG indicators can explain successful negotiations between managers and collaborators requesting flexitime. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The current study aims to understand why employees' use of home- based telework and part-time work is not consistently linked to intended employee outcomes, in particular lower work-life conflict, lower life-work conflict, more job satisfaction and work attitudes and better job performance. We propose an approach wherein the focus lies on motivational conditions under which employees do or do not make use of work-life practices. Specifically, we argue that two motivational dimensions explain outcome variability within both the group of users and the group of non-users, namely (1) preferences for a certain practice (i.e., the extent to which employees prefer to use or to not use that practice) and (2) perceived pressures (i.e., the extent to which employees experience pressures from the work environment or from their private life to use or to not use a practice). The relevance of these two dimensions is examined using survey data with 382 Flemish employees. We contribute to the literature by challenging the dichotomy between users and non-users and by highlighting the importance of preferences and pressures from two different life spheres. By taking preferences for and pressures affecting practice use into account, the potential difference between employees' wants and needs is emphasized. Considering this nuance, scholars might gain a more comprehensive understanding of how work-life practices are linked to outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]