The Bottleneck Metaphor of Leadership Culture: How Shared Understandings About Leadership Develop in Groups and Impede Diversity and Effectiveness of Leaders

Abstract

There are two big problems related to leadership today: unequal representation and high failure rates among leaders. This conceptual paper argues that commonly shared values, assumptions, and beliefs about leadership, i.e., universal leadership culture, are the common cause of both problems. After the concepts and levels related to leadership culture were explained, we introduce a multilevel, multi-actor process model named the bottleneck metaphor of leadership culture. This metaphor describes how leadership cultures are co-constructed by multiple actors based on their involvement in leader selection and reproduce themselves in groups over time based on emergent leaders' characteristics. Next, a diagnostic tool called “the leadership mirror” is proposed for organizations that want to assess their leadership culture's current state as a starting point for further interventions. Specific suggestions are made for various actors, ranging from individuals to organizations, for their possible roles in preventing undesired leadership cultures.

A theoretical integration of leader emergence and leadership effectiveness: Over, under, and congruent emergence

“…As one example, role congruity theory has been used to explain weakening effects of gender differences in leader emergence over time by suggesting that increased acquaintance between individuals allows raters to rely less on surface-level attributes and instead base decision making on deep-level attributes or concrete behaviors (Eagly & Karau, 2002). Similarly, research has provided initial evidence that more noticeable traits (e.g., facial attractiveness, height, and physical strength) can play a stronger role earlier in the relationship before there have been opportunities for interaction between a prospective leader and follower, while more covert factors (e.g., intelligence and conscientiousness) might play a more important role in predicting leader emergence as the relationship progresses over time (Blaker et al, 2013;Cherulnik et al, 1990;Kalish & Luria, 2016, 2021. In addition, some attributes have the potential to be perceived as leader-like when one is emerging as a leader, but they may be seen in a less positive light over time as there are more opportunities to interact once the individual is in the leader role (Kalish & Luria, 2021).…”

“…This is because followers will likely miss out on development opportunities that working with more effective leaders would have provided. Moreover, followers with attributes similar to the under‐emerged leader may determine that those attributes are not valued in the organization, which may result in follower apathy (Heslin et al, 2012), the perception of an exclusive leadership climate (Day et al, 2014; Özcan, 2021), and worries about taking on a future leadership role (Aycan & Shelia, 2019). It might also result in an eventual opting out of future leadership opportunities (Kossek et al, 2017), perpetuating the under‐emergence of qualified leaders (Özcan, 2021).…”

“…Moreover, followers with attributes similar to the under‐emerged leader may determine that those attributes are not valued in the organization, which may result in follower apathy (Heslin et al, 2012), the perception of an exclusive leadership climate (Day et al, 2014; Özcan, 2021), and worries about taking on a future leadership role (Aycan & Shelia, 2019). It might also result in an eventual opting out of future leadership opportunities (Kossek et al, 2017), perpetuating the under‐emergence of qualified leaders (Özcan, 2021). Therefore, due to opportunity costs associated with under‐emerged leaders and the lackluster effectiveness of the over‐emerged leaders—we propose:Proposition Followers who work with over‐emerged leaders or who do not have the chance to work with under‐emerged leaders will tend to experience negative attitudinal and behavioral consequences over time.…”