Leader errors and the influence on performance: An investigation of differing levels of impact

Abstract

Errors will inevitably occur when one is involved in decision making tasks with complex, illdefined problems. Qualitative research on this topic has illuminated the complex nature of problems faced by many leaders and organizations as they make decisions. Although this research has answered many questions about the nature of errors, empirical research on errors among leaders remains scarce. To further explore this topic, 170 undergraduates were assigned to one of five work conditions and asked to read three cases with initiating structure problems and three cases with consideration problems while taking on the role of the CEO in the scenario.Errors committed by leaders were examined to answer questions about how work conditions influence errors committed. Additionally, how these errors influence performance outcomes was also examined. Results indicated that work conditions paired with errors made by leaders influenced levels of performance. Under certain conditions, most notably process overload, errors led to negative performance. We also discuss the implications of these findings for understanding the influence of work conditions on errors committed and their combined influence on performance outcomes.

A process model of self-regulation and leadership: How attentional resource capacity and negative emotions influence constructive and destructive leadership

“…In addition, a number of leader dispositions such as anger, anxiety and poor self-regulation have been linked to destructive leadership (Kant et al, 2013;Krasikova, Green, & LeBreton, 2013;Mawritz et al, 2014). In reviewing this evidence, Krasikova et al (2013) argue that destructive leadership is the product of both contextual and dispositional factors (see also Eubanks & Mumford, 2010a). In particular, they propose that destructive leadership is a response to goal blockage when leaders lack sufficient psychological resources, such as attention or emotional self-regulation (Krasikova et al, 2013).…”

The weakness of strong ties: Sampling bias, social ties, and nepotism in family business succession

“…The ability of leaders to solve these social problems is a crucial aspect of leader performance (Eubanks & Mumford, 2010;Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding, Jacobs, & Fleishman, 2000).…”

Leaders' sensemaking under crises: Emerging cognitive consensus over time within management teams

“…Prior research suggests that leaders put much reliance on case-based prior knowledge and experience when thinking but this can result in errors especially when addressing complex ill-defined problems that are likely to be encountered in crises (Eubanks & Mumford, 2010;Mumford et al, 2007). Such errors are also likely to limit leaders' creative thinking required to resolve a crisis (Mumford, Blair, Dailey, Leritz, & Osburn, 2006).…”

“…This model postulates that the onset of a crisis would first force leaders to activate descriptive mental models based on case based prior knowledge and experience as they confront ambiguous and novel problems (Eubanks & Mumford, 2010;Mumford et al, 2007). In other words, leaders would initially use a mental model based on how their world is currently configured and operates to try to make sense of what is happening.…”