Leading Organizational Learning Through Authentic Dialogue 1

Management Learning Copyright © 2008 Sage Publications Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore http://mlq.sagepub.com Vol. 39(4): 437–456 1350–50...
3 downloads 1 Views 118KB Size
Management Learning Copyright © 2008 Sage Publications Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore http://mlq.sagepub.com Vol. 39(4): 437–456 1350–5076

Article

Daina Mazutis Richard Ivey School of Business, The University of Western Ontario, Canada

Natalie Slawinski Richard Ivey School of Business, The University of Western Ontario, Canada

Leading Organizational Learning Through Authentic Dialogue1 Abstract This article explores how authentic leaders enable learning in organizations through the mechanism of dialogue. Using Crossan et al.’s multi-level framework, we examine how top managers who exhibit the authentic leadership capabilities of selfawareness, balanced processing, self-regulation and relational transparency can shape an organizational culture characterized by authentic dialogue. This culture then supports feed-forward and feedback learning across individual, group and organizational levels, promoting and reinforcing double-loop learning. We develop propositions that integrate the leadership and organizational learning literatures and offer suggestions for future research. Key Words: authentic leadership; dialogue; organizational learning Introduction In a recent retrospective on Argyris and Schön’s foundational contribution to the field of organizational learning, Peter Senge (2003) remarked that their work seems to have been ahead of its time. Indeed, only a limited number of concepts from Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective (Argyris and Schön, 1978) have received in-depth research attention in the last 30 years, whereas others, such as Model I and Model II organizations and the role of dialogue, have remained curiously underexplored (Easterby-Smith and Lyles, 2003b). In parallel, the personalized role that strategic leaders play within organizational learning has also not been adequately studied (Crossan and Hulland, 2002; Easterby-Smith and Lyles, 2003b; Senge, 2003; Vera and Crossan, 2004) and the

DOI: 10.1177/1350507608093713

438

Management Learning 39(4)

two fields of leadership and organizational learning have therefore remained for the large part disconnected (Berson et al., 2006). The purpose of this article is to integrate these two literatures and uncover the mechanisms through which strategic leadership impacts organizational learning at multiple levels. We propose that authentic dialogue may serve as this bridge and that recent developments in authentic leadership theory in particular provide the impetus for a re-examination of the intersection of these disparate research domains at this time. The notion of dialogue plays a central part in Argyris and Schön’s (1978) original thesis, and yet it has received surprisingly little attention in the literature (EasterbySmith and Lyles, 2003b). Dialogue lies at the core of organizational learning, for without dialogue, individuals and groups cannot effectively exchange ideas, nor can they develop shared understanding. Organizational norms and routines that prevent open and honest dialogue continue to act as impediments to organizational learning, and specifically to the detection and correction of errors (Argyris, 2003). Although dialogue has been addressed in the organizational learning literature (Baker et al., 2005), it has not been examined explicitly as the core mechanism by which strategic leaders influence the learning process at and between the individual, group and organizational levels.2 Given both the complexity of Argyris and Schön’s (1978) arguments and the role they give to both individuals and the organization in the learning process, a multi-level approach, such as that proposed by Crossan et al. (1999) is needed to explore what impedes and what enables learning in organizations. Organizational learning is conceptualized as a multi-level dynamic process through which the thoughts and actions of individuals and groups change and become embedded in the organization over time (Crossan et al., 1999; Vera and Crossan, 2004). Argyris and Schön (1978) also conceptualized learning as both personal and systemic, requiring a ‘personal willingness to detect and correct the errors in my own behaviours, as well as continual improvement in the processes, practices, metrics, and governance structures of larger organizations. It is both, not one or the other’ (Senge, 2003: 48). In summary, organizational learning must start with the individual, especially those in leadership positions. To date, the link between strategic leadership and organizational learning has been relatively underdeveloped (Crossan and Hulland, 2002). In recent years, however, researchers have begun to more directly examine the role of leadership in generating organizational learning outcomes (Berson et al., 2006; Crossan and Hulland, 2002; Vera and Crossan, 2004). Although some of this research refers to the role of dialogue, it does not address how the type of dialogue in organizations may differ as a result of strategic leadership capabilities. We propose that authentic leadership, a relatively new stream of research emerging from the positive organizational scholarship movement, may impact the type of dialogue that takes place in organizations. Specifically, the authentic leadership capabilities of self-awareness, balanced processing, self-regulation and relational transparency, allow the authentic leader to encourage open and honest dialogue among organizational members. We argue that these authentic leadership capabilities translate into self-aware, balanced, congruent and transparent dialogue which facilitates learning at and between multiple levels of the organization. We refer to this type of dialogue as authentic dialogue. Our research therefore

Mazutis & Slawinski: Leading Organizational Learning Through Authentic Dialogue

439

examines the following question: How do strategic leaders, who exhibit these authentic leadership capabilities, enable learning in organizations? In fusing authentic leadership theory with research on organizational learning, we make the following contributions. First, we highlight the importance of dialogue, and authentic dialogue specifically, to the organizational learning process, taking a fine-grained approach to these concepts. Second, we use Crossan et al.’s (1999) 4I framework to examine how authentic leaders at the top of the organization impact learning at three levels: individual, group and organizational In doing so, we focus on four authentic leadership capabilities by which authentic leaders and followers share information and open themselves up to feedback. These elements of authentic leadership have not previously been explicitly connected to the learning mechanism of dialogue and yet they may help explain how authentic leaders encourage learning in organizations. We begin the article by briefly reviewing the organizational learning and authentic leadership literatures. We then develop propositions that link authentic leadership to the organizational learning feed-forward and feedback processes through a culture characterized by authentic dialogue. Next, we explore some of the barriers or constraints that may act on authentic leaders in their efforts to shape a culture that encourages authentic dialogue. We end with a discussion of managerial implications and avenues for future research.

Organizational Learning In the organizational learning literature, an agreed-on definition of organizational learning remains elusive (Bapuji and Crossan, 2004; Easterby-Smith and Lyles, 2003a). Thirty years ago, Argyris and Schön (1978) argued that the detection and correction of errors was essential to organizational learning, yet many individuals and organizations are trapped by so-called Model I behaviors characterized by defensiveness, conflict-avoidance and self-protection. These behaviors, at both the individual and organizational levels, prevent errors from surfacing or being addressed properly. Individuals are prone to withholding negative information so as to avoid confrontation. They protect themselves and others from receiving blame and they avoid conflicts that could evoke negative feelings. In Model I organizations, these patterns of behavior exist throughout the organization, including at the senior levels, and become reinforcing. The result is a culture of competition and win/lose dynamics in which individuals avoid confrontation because they fear losing control over situations. Although differences exist between individuals’ espoused theory and theory-in-use (i.e., what they say they do vs. what they actually do), organizational norms suppress public inquiry into such incongruity. This sort of organizational learning system does not allow dilemmas to surface and it prevents members from engaging in dialogue (Argyris and Schön, 1978). By contrast, a Model II organization is characterized by openness, public reflection and double-loop learning. Double-loop learning is learning that leads to fundamental changes in an organization’s norms, priorities and behaviors (Argyris and Schön, 1978). The incongruence between espoused theory and

440

Management Learning 39(4)

theory-in-use is more likely to be uncovered when conflict is confronted through inquiry and dialogue, rather than through power struggles. Dialogue has been described as ‘“better conversation” . . . a conversation with a centre, not sides. It is a way of taking the energy of our differences and channeling it toward something that has never been created before’ (Isaacs, 1999: 19). Dialogue is therefore critical to double-loop learning as it enables inconsistencies to surface and be addressed. Although double-loop learning has received some attention from researchers (Easterby-Smith and Lyles, 2003b), Argyris (2003) noted that it is poorly understood and remains difficult to implement within organizations. Defensive reasoning continues to permeate organizational life and sensitive issues remain largely undiscussable. The paucity of research on Model I and Model II organizations, and other difficult concepts presented by Argyris and Schön (1978) may be due in part to the largely neglected role of leadership in the organizational learning literature. This neglect is surprising given the clear importance placed by Argyris and Schön upon the role of individuals, and managers in particular, in leading organizational change. The role of leadership has not figured prominently in the organizational learning literature also in part due to the different levels of analysis at which the two streams operate. The leadership literature, predominantly grounded in either psychology or organizational behavior, has largely been focused at the individual, dyadic or group level (House and Aditya, 1997; Yammarino et al., 2005), whereas organizational learning research has been predominantly at the firm level (Bapuji and Crossan, 2004). However, organizational learning as conceptualized by Argyris and Schön (1978) is fundamentally a multi-level phenomenon. As they argued, ‘organizational learning is not merely individual learning, yet organizations learn only through the experience and actions of individuals’ (1978: 9). So, although the sum of individual learning does not equal organizational learning, we must still look to individuals and how they learn to understand learning as an organizational level phenomenon. As Senge noted, ‘The “fantasy” that somehow organizations can change without personal change, and especially with change on the part of people in leadership positions, underlies many change efforts doomed from the start’ (2003: 48). Furthermore, given the complexities described earlier surrounding Argyris and Schön’s conceptualization of organizational learning, we argue that it is a process that must be led. In other words, leadership is needed to provide the focus, attention and priority required for the development of Model II behaviors. Authentic leadership theory holds promise in the domain of organizational learning in that it encompasses specific capabilities that allow for personal change and that enable change in organizations. As discussed, a multi-level approach is needed to explore how the detection and correction of error by an individual can translate into learning at the organizational level. Crossan et al. (1999) have developed a multi-level framework (the 4I framework) that explains how learning at the individual level impacts learning at the group and organization levels—the feed-forward process. Knowledge that is embedded in the organization also impacts learning through a feedback process from the organizational level back through groups to individuals. Crossan et al. (1999)

Mazutis & Slawinski: Leading Organizational Learning Through Authentic Dialogue

441

describe four social psychological processes by which this occurs: intuiting, interpreting, integrating and institutionalizing. Intuiting involves the process by which individuals (often at a subconscious level) recognize patterns and make connections from their personal experiences. At the interpreting stage, this tacit knowledge is interpreted by the individual using his or her cognitive map and it is shared with others using words or actions. The individual uses dialogue to share ideas with others but it is not until the integrating stage that members of a group find common language and begin to create shared meaning. At this stage, ‘individual interpretive processes come together around a shared understanding of what is possible, and individuals interact and attempt to enact that possibility’ (Crossan et al., 1999: 528). Shared meaning develops as a result of continuous dialogue among group members which can lead not only to the transference of knowledge, but also to the creation of new knowledge and understanding among participants. Finally, some of this individual and group learning becomes embedded in the strategy, structures and routines of the organization. This process is what Crossan et al. (1999) refer to as institutionalizing. Dialogue is therefore at the core of the socio-psychological processes of the 4I model of organizational learning (Crossan et al., 1999). Barriers to Learning Organizational learning can be conceived of as ‘a process of change in thought and action both individual and shared—embedded in and affected by the institutions of the organization’ (Vera and Crossan, 2004: 224). However, during each of these processes and at each level—individual, group and organizational—there may be barriers to change in thinking and action. Individuals, including organizational leaders, may engage in defensive routines that inhibit their learning (Argyris and Schön, 1978). For example, detecting and correcting errors is difficult as it involves taking the time to analyze and learn from actions just completed as well as overcoming individuals’ natural inclination to withhold, manipulate or spin information that may be perceived as detrimental to their well-being. Argyris (2003) argues that we have gone so far as to see information ‘massaging’ as a sign of effective leadership itself. This style of ‘in-authentic’ communication, however, widens the gap between managers’ espoused theory and their theory-in-use (Argyris and Schön, 1978) and is therefore a barrier to learning. Another barrier to organizational learning is transferring knowledge between levels (Crossan and Hulland, 2002). Learning may occur in individuals or in groups but the transference from one level to the other may be impeded by organizational norms such as the practice of only delivering good news to senior managers, and hiding bad news. Individuals need information to be able to detect and correct errors, but some organizational norms prevent such information from being discussed (Argyris and Schön, 1978). Baker et al. (2005: 425), for example, conclude that some ‘norms determine what can be said and not said, what and who is heard and not heard, who has voice and who does not have voice . . . who is in and who is out of the conversation’. These norms not only inhibit learning in individuals, but also prevent knowledge from being shared openly across functional silos, divisions and levels.

442

Management Learning 39(4)

Dialogue is therefore a critical mechanism by which barriers to learning can be addressed. As such, we introduce the concept of authentic dialogue as the type of dialogue that encourages the detection and correction of errors, encourages participants to be reflective and self-aware, to be open, honest and balanced in their accounts, to continually monitor their expressions so that they are congruent with their values and beliefs and to communicate these values transparently. When authentic dialogue is encouraged, organizational members are more likely to inquire into errors and confront conflict. Incongruities between espoused theory and theory-in-use are more likely to surface and new understanding may emerge once conflicts and incongruities are addressed. The idea that the type of leader may influence the type of learning has been explored in the emotion literature and has simple face validity. Gabriel and Griffiths (2002), for example, argue that the type of learning that occurs under a beloved teacher or respected supervisor is obviously very different from the type that occurs under a dreaded professor or a cynical manager. Similarly, one can imagine that the learning that develops within a cohesive team is different from the learning emerging from a broken cohort. They argue that it is not that other types of leadership discourage learning, but rather that cynical leaders, dysfunctional groups and silo organizations may lead to a type of learning characterized by defensiveness and the destruction of new ideas (Gabriel and Griffiths, 2002). Similarly, we develop an argument that authentic leaders shape an organizational culture that encourages the detection and correction of error through authentic dialogue—distinguished by open, honest, balanced, congruent and transparent communication. Similar to Argyris and Schön’s (1978) Model II learning system, in which culture supports double-loop learning, the culture that is shaped by authentic leaders is one that encourages learning that confronts conflict through inquiry rather than through power struggles. This is a more productive form of learning, and approaches the concept of double-loop learning.

Strategic Leaders and Authentic Leadership Capabilities Strategic Leadership Strategic leadership theory argues that organizations are reflections of their top managers’ knowledge, experience, values and preferences (Finkelstein and Hambrick, 1996; Hambrick and Mason, 1984). The focus is on top managers because they tend to be responsible for decision making that impacts organizationlevel variables, including strategy, structure and overall performance (Daft, 2005). Research on strategic leaders has also focused on the specific activities and behaviors that leaders must engage in to improve firm outcomes (Ireland and Hitt, 1999; Rowe, 2001). These include determining the firm’s purpose or vision, exploiting and maintaining core competencies, developing human capital, sustaining an effective organizational culture, emphasizing ethical practices and establishing balanced controls (Ireland and Hitt, 1999). Strategic leadership research, however, is not without its critics. Cannella and Monroe (1997), for example, argue that strategic leadership theory overstates the

Mazutis & Slawinski: Leading Organizational Learning Through Authentic Dialogue

443

positive aspects of top managers. Others argue that the role of leadership in organizational outcomes tends to be overestimated and even romanticized (Meindl et al., 1985). Rather than attribute ‘heroic’ characteristics to top executives, we argue that by virtue of their position, CEOs and top management team members are in a position to influence firm-level outcomes. However, we concur with Cannella and Monroe (1997) that strategic leadership theory could benefit from the infusion of other leadership perspectives that delve into more social and psychological processes. Authentic leadership permits us to do that, and, as a multi-level construct, allows us to explore the impact of strategic leaders at different levels. Authentic Leadership Authentic leadership is described as a process ‘which results in both greater self-awareness and self-regulated positive behaviours on the part of leaders and associates, fostering positive self-development’ (Luthans and Avolio, 2003: 243). Although much of the current discourse on authentic leadership has centered on describing authentic leader character traits (e.g., hopeful, optimistic, resilient, trustworthy), this focus on excessively ‘positive’ attributes has also garnered criticism (Fineman, 2006). As such, rather than focus on unchangeable state-like characteristics, we focus herein on those authentic leadership capabilities that can be developed. These include self-awareness, balanced processing, self-regulation and relational transparency (Avolio and Gardner, 2005; Gardner et al., 2005; Ilies et al., 2005; Kernis, 2003). Walumbwa et al. (2008) recently found support for the validity of the authentic leadership construct, determining that it is made up of the same four dimensions that we explore in this article. We elaborate on each of these capabilities in turn. Self-awareness Self-awareness ‘refers to one’s awareness of, and trust in, one’s own personal characteristics, values, motives, feelings, and cognitions. Self-awareness includes knowledge of one’s inherent contradictory self-aspects and the role of these contradictions in influencing one’s thoughts, feelings, actions and behaviors’ (Ilies et al., 2005: 377). Self-awareness has been described as an emerging process by which leaders come to understand their unique capabilities, knowledge and experience (Avolio and Gardner, 2005) and is particularly linked with selfreflection as a key mechanism through which leaders achieve clarity with regard to their core values and mental models (Chan et al., 2005; Gardner et al., 2005). With this clarity and understanding of who they are as people, these leaders will be less likely to engage in defensive behaviors. However, being self-aware might not be sufficient on its own. Authentic strategic leaders must also be willing to self-declare, or to communicate learnings about themselves with others in the organization, otherwise followers will remain unaware about a leader’s core values and beliefs (Goffee and Jones, 2006). Extending this logic, leaders who exhibit a heightened ability to understand

444

Management Learning 39(4)

their internal self-schemas will also be able to better detect their personal biases (increased self-awareness) and, if coupled with the ability to communicate these biases, will be more likely to be able to correct for these biases. Balanced Processing Related to the concept of self-awareness is balanced, or unbiased, processing. While engaging in the self-reflective process of gaining self-awareness, either through internal introspection or external evaluations, authentic leaders do not distort, exaggerate or ignore information that has been collected (Kernis, 2003), but rather pay equal attention to both positive and negative interpretations about themselves and their leadership style (Gardner et al., 2005). Balanced processing has been described as ‘the heart of personal integrity and character’, thereby significantly influencing a leader’s decision making and strategic actions (Ilies et al., 2005). Given that human beings are psychologically predisposed to hide their weaknesses, this particular capability is especially difficult for leaders who have been trained to withhold or ‘spin’ negative information about themselves or their actions (Argyris, 2003). Acknowledging weaknesses as a strategic leader is particularly problematic as it encompasses additional risk and consequences for the entire organization. However, denying mistakes or distorting personal weaknesses can be just as disastrous for the company (George, 2003; Goffee and Jones, 2006). As such, balanced processing is critical in accurately self-assessing one’s abilities and using this knowledge in communications with others. Self-regulation ‘Self-regulation is the process through which authentic leaders align their values with their intentions and actions’ (Avolio and Gardner, 2005: 325). This process includes making one’s motives, goals and values completely transparent to followers, leading by example and demonstrating consistency between espoused theories and theories-in-use (Avolio and Gardner, 2005). Key to this concept is that the regulatory system is internally driven, not a reaction to external forces or expectations (Gardner et al., 2005). Furthermore, self-regulation is distinct from concepts such as self-monitoring or impression management, which can encompass purposively distorted communications and therefore lead to inauthentic dialogue (Chan et al., 2005). Rather, self-regulation involves establishing congruence between one’s internal standards and anticipated outcomes (Gardner et al., 2005) and the discipline to convert core values into consistent actions (George, 2003). As such, authentic leaders, possessing self-regulatory capabilities will say what they mean and mean what they say, thereby managing tensions and confronting conflicts between their personal values and organizational responsibilities (Novicevic et al., 2006). Authentic leaders act according to their own true selves and model norms of authenticity by remaining consistent in their actions.

Mazutis & Slawinski: Leading Organizational Learning Through Authentic Dialogue

445

Relational Transparency Lastly, relational transparency encompasses all of the earlier capabilities in the act of open and truthful self-disclosure (Ilies et al., 2005). In addition to being self-aware, balanced and congruent in one’s goals, motives, values, identities and emotions, authentic leaders are also transparent in revealing these expressions to their followers (Hughes, 2005). Disclosing one’s true self to one’s followers builds trust and intimacy, fostering teamwork and cooperation (Gardner et al., 2005) and feelings of stability and predictability (Chan et al., 2005). Furthermore, relational transparency requires the willingness to hold oneself open for inspection and feedback, thereby also being an essential component in the learning process (Popper and Lipshitz, 2000). In summary, authentic leadership, as a construct, is multidimensional and multilevel (Avolio and Gardner, 2005). Luthans and Avolio (2003) argue that authentic leadership behavior ‘should cascade from the very top of organizations down to the newest employee’ and that this cascading process is rooted and reinforced by the culture of the organization. Authentic leaders therefore are those who exhibit the capabilities of self-awareness, balanced processing, self-regulation and relational transparency and foster the same positive self-development in other organizational members. Strategic leaders, given their executive decision making role, are uniquely positioned to influence the culture (McGill and Slocum, 1993; Schein, 1992). When they exhibit the capabilities of authentic leadership, they can shape and support an organizational culture in which authentic dialogue is encouraged, supporting both the feed-forward and the feedback learning processes. The specific relationship between authentic leadership and organizational learning is explored in detail in the following section.

Fusion: Authentic Leadership and Organizational Learning To date, the link between leadership and organizational learning has been relatively underdeveloped (Crossan and Hulland, 2002) and much of the research that has been done has confounded levels-of-analysis. For example, Berson et al. (2006), provide a summary of research linking leadership to organizational learning where the dependent variables range from individual and group creativity to firm innovativeness, and from subordinate information-seeking practices to successful technology implementation. In fact, of all of the articles reviewed, only a handful actually dealt with organizational learning explicitly. The conceptualization of leadership in this review is also problematic as group or team leadership is not distinguished from strategic leadership. Strategic leadership, however, is explicitly concerned with leadership ‘of’ the organization, focusing on how the character traits, values and cognitions of the upper echelon influence strategic decisions and processes that impact the entire organization (Boal and Hooijberg, 2001). Some work has been done linking top management demographics and personality traits with firm-level outcomes such as innovation (Bantel and Jackson, 1989; Barker and Mueller, 2002; Elenkov et al., 2005;

446

Management Learning 39(4)

Jung et al., 2003). However, explicit consideration of strategic leadership and a process-based, multi-level conceptualization of organization learning have been explored by only a handful of studies (Vera and Crossan, 2004). Of the many different streams of leadership literature, authentic leadership in particular has the potential to make a significant contribution to both strategic leadership and organizational learning literatures and to bridge the two research domains. Authentic leadership theory seeks to uncover the type of leadership best suited to the increased ethical and transparency standards of today’s turbulent and dynamic business environment (Luthans and Avolio, 2003). Although discussed primarily as a leadership process that may occur at any level within the organization, the construct nonetheless implicitly invokes the need for authentic leaders at the strategic apex of an organization (Luthans and Avolio, 2003). Furthermore, this lens provides a unique profile of leader capabilities ideally suited for the detection and correction of error. As such, we examine authentic leadership from the upper echelons perspective, exploring how the capabilities of the authentic strategic leader are reflected in organizational outcomes (Hambrick and Mason, 1984) such as organizational learning. Shaping a Culture of Authentic Dialogue Research has highlighted the role of leadership in creating certain aspects of an organizational culture that can facilitate learning, including openness, participative decision making and positive supervisory behavior (Bapuji and Crossan, 2004). Some studies have proposed that organizational culture mediates the relationship between leadership and learning (Berson et al., 2006), while others have argued that it acts as a moderator (Chan et al., 2005). We take the position that culture mediates the relationship between authentic leaders and organizational learning. Over time, authentic leaders who are responsible for strategic decision making can shape their organization’s culture such that the shared beliefs and expectations about how members of the organization should behave come to reflect authentic leadership capabilities (Chan et al., 2005). Different organizational cultures are said to influence the prejudgments, assumptions and expectations individuals bring into dialogue, affecting both what is heard and what is perceived in dialogue (Baker et al., 2005). Strategic leaders who possess authentic leadership capabilities may actively work towards changing their organization’s norms such that inquiry and open discussion of topics, including sensitive ones, will be encouraged. Unlike transformational leaders who encourage dialogue for the purpose of achieving consensus and buyin to organizational goals (Vera and Crossan, 2004), authentic leaders encourage dialogue around potentially difficult topics in order to foster transparency and openness. We expect that the culture likely to emerge in an organization led by an authentic leader would be one in which authentic dialogue is valued and encouraged. Authentic dialogue means that differences are not approached through power struggles, but rather, they are approached as an opportunity to create new understanding. Some organizational norms can and do inhibit learning and encourage error. However, by fostering self-awareness and balanced processing in both themselves

Mazutis & Slawinski: Leading Organizational Learning Through Authentic Dialogue

447

and in followers, authentic leaders model norms that encourage dialogue for the purpose of surfacing dilemmas that exist within the organization. A culture that supports authentic dialogue bears some resemblance to the Model II organization, in which sensitive issues and gaps between espoused theory and theory-inuse surface (Argyris and Schön, 1978). Given their capabilities, we would expect authentic leaders to be both motivated and able to shape this type of culture. As such, we propose: Proposition 1: The more a strategic leader exhibits the authentic leadership capabilities of self-awareness, relational transparency, balanced processing and self-regulation, the more the organizational culture will be characterized by authentic dialogue.

Dialogue and Learning Authentic dialogue supports the feed-forward flow of learning specifically by allowing for balanced, open and transparent communications between the individual and group levels and then the group and organizational levels through the processes of intuiting, interpreting, integrating and institutionalizing (Crossan et al., 1999). An individual’s subconscious or intuitive insights and experiences are communicated to others by explaining, through words, images, metaphors and actions, one’s insights to others (Crossan and Hulland, 2002). Dialogue enables shared meanings and understandings to emerge through the interpretation processes. The process of interpreting is, in and of itself, ‘a social activity that creates and refines common language’ and therefore ‘small differences in the metaphors employed and the ways in which conversations unfold and language develops may ultimately result in great differences in where the company ends up’ (Crossan et al., 1999: 528). Open, honest and transparent exchanges can have a great impact on how groups learn to detect and correct errors. These exchanges encourage members to question assumptions and lead to a greater likelihood that doubleloop learning (i.e., a significant change in behavior) will occur. Furthermore, these norms encourage individuals and groups to participate in dialogue, allowing both novel ideas and pertinent concerns to flow up through the organization. Moving from interpreting to integrating, however, is usually more problematic as it involves ‘taking personally constructed cognitive maps and integrating them in a way that develops a shared understanding among the group members’ (Crossan et al., 1999: 532). Language and dialogue are key mechanisms used to involve others in the development of shared understanding (Crossan et al., 1999). Given an open and transparent culture of authentic dialogue, members are able to negotiate mutual adjustments through common language and the dialogical processes that are integral to the learning process (Crossan et al., 1999). Knowledge sharing between levels is therefore more likely because individual and group behaviors are less defensive and employees are less likely to withhold information. There is less of a feeling that sensitive issues are undiscussable and will have negative consequences. Authentic dialogue also supports the flow of newly uncovered knowledge up to the organizational level. This culture of open, balanced and transparent communication becomes embedded over time in the organization’s formal routines and procedures, thereby allowing new norms that emerge from the detection and

448

Management Learning 39(4)

correction of error to become institutionalized. Because difficult issues have been allowed to surface, change is more likely, including changes in strategy, structure and culture. In this environment, negative information is less likely to pass through progressive levels of ‘spin’ and more likely to make its way to the top of the organization because employees recognize that authentic leaders are willing to address important issues and incorporate them into their decision making. Organizational learning is fundamentally a process of change and reconciliation of differences that requires individuals to be open to feedback. One of the problems discussed by Argyris and Schön (1978) is that individuals may be unaware of their own biases and unaware that they are not open to having their ideas challenged. However, in an organization that encourages open dialogue, patterns of behavior emerge whereby organizational members are more open to feedback and less likely to become defensive when challenged. This is an environment that is more conducive to double-loop learning, whereby fundamental changes in norms and behaviors occur. Some organizational cultures, such as those characterized by participation, openness and psychological safety, may be more conducive to learning than others (Bapuji and Crossan, 2004; Berson et al., 2006). There are similarities between the characteristics of a learning culture and those of a culture shaped by authentic strategic leaders. These include allowing inquiry, challenging ideas and a supportive environment. The main difference, however, is that authentic leaders actively encourage differences to surface. The set of norms that emerges promotes authentic dialogue, encourages greater congruence between what is said and done, and discourages defensive behaviors. Given the important role of culture and dialogue in feed-forward learning, we propose: Proposition 2: A culture that is characterized by authentic dialogue will be positively associated with feed-forward learning that promotes double-loop learning.

Feedback learning refers to the process by which institutionalized learning (including culture) impacts the learning of individuals and groups (Crossan et al., 1999). The culture of authentic dialogue is shaped by both the feed-forward flows of information and directly by authentic strategic leaders who shape the culture within which organizational members interpret events or experiences. This culture influences individuals’ and groups’ cognition and behavior such that they may become less defensive and less likely to avoid confrontation. The detection and correction of errors would be more likely to occur in these individuals and groups, as a result of organizational norms that allow for open, balanced and transparent communications. Again, dialogue plays a critical role in ensuring the flow of learning back to groups and individuals. This also means that institutionalized learning, including culture, can feedback to impact strategic leaders. So while we argued in Proposition 1 that authentic strategic leaders shape the organizational culture, the culture also acts on top managers, impacting their values and cognitions. By possessing the capabilities of self-awareness and balanced processing, however, authentic leaders are better situated to detect this process and ensure that the culture still supports a dialogue that continues to be transparent and congruent with their values.

Mazutis & Slawinski: Leading Organizational Learning Through Authentic Dialogue

449

The feedback flow therefore captures how the nonhuman elements of the organization, such as procedures, routines and systems, support learning at the group and individual levels (Crossan and Hulland, 2002). Authentic dialogue can become institutionalized at the organizational level through formal mechanisms such as systems learning tools, employee evaluation procedures or generative coaching sessions. As such, authentic dialogue becomes part of an organization’s routines and practices. Norms, practices and systems that encourage double-loop learning flow back down to the group and the individual. For example, a ‘no risk’ error-reporting system at all levels in the organization that is coupled with periodic reviews and adjustments to the underlying causes of systemic issues facilitates balanced processing at the group and individual levels. Similarly, the use of self-reflective diagnosis tools, where an individual has to identify his/ her strengths and weaknesses as part of a formalized performance review can also raise group- and individual-level self-awareness. This encourages authentic dialogue that moves the individual beyond the simple detection and correction of errors to resolving conflicts (Argyris and Schön, 1978). As such, we propose: Proposition 3: A culture that is characterized by authentic dialogue will be positively associated with feedback learning that reinforces double-loop learning.

Discussion: Barriers to Authentic Dialogue Although we have proposed that authentic dialogue helps to overcome some of the barriers to learning, we recognize that there are also barriers to authentic dialogue. For example, natural tensions will exist at the strategic leadership level that might prevent an authentic leader from being completely transparent. Some strategic information will be, by its very nature, confidential or potentially damaging if not kept at least somewhat concealed. This will constrain the authentic leader’s ability to disclose sensitive information to the entire organization that she would otherwise share as part of her commitment to engaging in self-regulatory and relationally transparent behaviors. Competitive tactics, such as new product introductions or merger discussions, for example, can not be openly discussed with all organizational members, leading to potential conflict between one’s values and the needs of the larger group. Gardner et al. (2005: 357) would argue that ‘authenticity occurs when one responds to internal cues, as opposed to societal pressures’ yet, this may simply be strategically impossible. As such, although ‘secrecy is the enemy of learning’ (Yukl, 1998: 459), strategic considerations can be a barrier to authentic dialogue and therefore to organizational learning. Similarly, strategic leaders are required to manage corporate communications to multiple stakeholders, at which point the very definition of authentic dialogue may become somewhat attributional: which stakeholder(s) will perceive which dialogue(s) as authentic? May et al. (2003), for example, argue that many moral issues in particular will vary in the degree of consensus others, including employees, have regarding what the leader should or should not do. The question then becomes whether it is possible to hold the same, congruent,

450

Management Learning 39(4)

self-regulatory, relationally transparent dialogue with all stakeholders or will one or more groups be alienated by the exchange? Labor disputes would be a classic example of this dilemma. The same issue can arise internally between business units or even between supervisors and their staff. Managing the tension between complete transparency and protecting concerned interests is therefore crucial to maintaining a culture in which authentic dialogue continues to be encouraged. Individuals also have cognitive sunk costs in the status quo that lead to an automatic resistance to change or even a resistance to learning about the change that is required. As such, even if there is a strong need to adapt to changing environments, organizational members may resist this authentic dialogue due to personal barriers to learning. Avolio and Gardner (2005) claim that there are four particular organizational contexts that will moderate the relationship between authentic leadership and organizational performance; in addition to an inclusive, ethical and positively oriented strength-based internal corporate climate, they point to environmental uncertainty as a key variable that may affect an authentic leader’s ability to foster self-awareness in other organizational members. There are also other cultural factors that can impede authentic dialogue in multinational, multidivisional or multicultural contexts in particular. Not only have North American managers been taught to massage or spin information before presenting it to their intended publics, but in certain cultures, saving ‘face’ is almost a national barrier to authentic dialogue (Schein, 1993). Politeness, tact or good manners, for example, can prevent one from correcting any errors detected in the expression of ideas, opinions and objectives of their leaders, especially in some Asian cultures. In addition, for certain ‘minority groups’, such as women (Eagly, 2005) or African Americans (Pittinsky and Tyson, 2005), what constitutes an authentic leadership capability may be different from the capabilities described herein. Having self-awareness, self-regulation, balanced processing and relational transparency capabilities may simply be insufficient for other organizational members to grant some leaders the opportunity to create a culture that fosters authentic dialogue. Barriers to authentic dialogue are therefore plentiful yet in conjunction with the model we have built herein have important implications for both research and practice, as discussed in the following section.

Implications for Research and Practice Implications for Research The propositions developed regarding the relationship between authentic leadership capabilities and organizational learning have been purposefully crafted so as to allow for empirical testing. Although empirical research in authentic leadership is very new, Walumbwa et al. (2008) have recently developed the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ), which measures leader selfawareness, relational transparency, balanced processing and internalized moral perspective (which encompasses the capability of self-regulation). Through multiple studies, they have validated the scale as related, yet distinct, from ethical and transformational leadership surveys, such as the Multi-factor Leadership

Mazutis & Slawinski: Leading Organizational Learning Through Authentic Dialogue

451

Questionnaire (MLQ). Furthermore, their research shows multicultural support (China, Kenya and the USA) that authentic leadership is in fact a higher-order, multidimensional construct consisting of the four factors described in this article. The authors have also found preliminary positive associations between authentic leadership and various individual-level outcomes such as job satisfaction and performance. As such, the ALQ has potential to test the independent variable in Proposition 1 which requires a direct measure of a strategic leader’s authentic leadership capabilities. Measures of the mediating variable of an organizational culture characterized by authentic dialogue would have to be created. Studies that have sought to measure specific characteristics of an organizational culture have employed a variety of quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. For example, to measure the level of involvement in the organizational culture, Denison and Mishra (1995) first conducted in-depth case studies of five organizations and then used the findings to construct and validate a survey that was then empirically tested among a second group of executives. This type of multi-method research allows for a deep and rich understanding of the phenomena. Identifying a culture characterized by authentic dialogue could be assessed through similar techniques. The measurement of organizational learning, however, has historically been the most problematic given that the phenomenon itself has eluded a cogent definition (Bapuji and Crossan, 2004) and research has been fractured by focus (e.g., conditions, antecedents, processes, stages of learning) and level of analysis (individual, group or organization) (Lahteenmaki et al., 2001). Crossan and Hulland’s (2002) methodology, however, offers a direct application to the 4I framework, and as such, is considered the most appropriate to capture the important concepts of feedback and feed-forward learning flows discussed in Propositions 2 and 3. The authors built a survey tool that measured individual, group and organization learning processes of intuiting, interpreting, integrating and institutionalizing as well as expanded items to include leadership variables. Sample scale items include ‘different points of view are encouraged in my group’ and ‘ideas generated by the group are used to improve products, services and processes’. The danger with using survey research to capture the phenomenon of organizational learning, of course, is that learning by its very definition necessitates a longitudinal, rather than cross-sectional research design. In applying the 4I framework to strategic renewal, Crossan and Bedrow (2003), for example, employed a case study methodology to explore the process of organizational learning within the context of a single organization. Given our focus on a culture characterized by authentic dialogue, a case study strategy that includes indepth interviews, participant/meeting observation and archival analysis would greatly enhance the study’s reliability and validity through the triangulation of evidence sources. Furthermore, specific changes in structures, systems, policies and procedures which encourage more open, transparent and balanced dialogue could also be captured through case study methodology. In summary, we would echo the call of Easterby-Smith (1997) for more longitudinal and qualitative research, of both successful and unsuccessful cases of organizational learning and strategic leaders who do and do not exhibit authentic

452

Management Learning 39(4)

leadership capabilities. Some other challenges remain to empirically testing our model. In particular, work on emotion and politics in the workplace presents an alternate perspective on learning impediments and may be best observed in situ (Vince, 2007). Developments in the field of psychology also propose that some individuals may simply be incapable of authentic dialogue given their own inability to be self-reflective and self-aware or to understand or express emotion (Landry, 2007). Such nuances would also likely be best captured in an iterative case-based methodology. We therefore leave it to future researchers to test our model and to extend it to examine the conditions under which authentic leadership, and authentic dialogue specifically, enable organizational learning. Implications for Practice Our research has important implications for practice. Given the key role played by authentic leadership capabilities in shaping a culture that promotes and reinforces double-loop learning, strategic leaders may wish to devote time to cultivating these capabilities. Research has already shown that authentic leadership capabilities can lead to positive outcomes at the individual level of the organization (Walumbwa et al., 2008). We suggest here that nurturing these capabilities can also have an impact across levels by shaping a culture that supports organizational learning. Strategic leaders can learn to be aware of their own cognitive biases and the way in which these affect their selective perception, interpretation and therefore strategic choices (Hambrick and Mason, 1984). They can also learn to encourage their top management team members to be open to discovering their own limitations and biases in a manner that encourages open, honest and transparent dialogue across levels. Authentic leadership is seen to cascade from the top of the organization to the newest employee (Luthans and Avolio, 2003) and successful organizational learning is said to start with the individual, especially those in leadership positions (Senge, 2003). As such, cultivating authentic leadership capabilities including self-awareness, balanced processing, self-regulation and relational transparency may be the first step in shaping a culture in which authentic dialogue is encouraged in the feed-forward and feedback learning flows in a manner that both promotes and reinforces double-loop learning. Given the focus on leadership capabilities rather than personality traits, authentic leadership researchers stress that it is a skill that can be developed (Luthans and Avolio, 2003).

Conclusion In this article, we have argued that authentic leadership, through the mechanism of dialogue, enables learning at the individual, group and organizational levels. We used the 4I framework (Crossan et al., 1999) to demonstrate how authentic leaders, who exhibit self-awareness, balanced processing, self-regulation and relational transparency capabilities shape a culture in which authentic dialogue can help with the detection and correction of errors at every level of analysis and across levels of analysis—strategically leading both the feed-forward and the

Mazutis & Slawinski: Leading Organizational Learning Through Authentic Dialogue

453

feedback learning processes. However, we acknowledge that there are multiple barriers to authentic dialogue, and therefore organizational learning, that can render authentic leadership a particularly challenging endeavor. By fusing authentic leadership theory with organizational learning processes, we have contributed to both literatures by highlighting the neglected importance of the role of dialogue. Authentic dialogue serves as a mechanism through which managers and organizations can begin to shed their defensive routines and overcome other challenges inherent to successful learning. Although the work of Argyris and Schön may have been ahead of its time, recent developments in authentic leadership suggest that the particular capabilities of authentic leaders may hold promise in the development of double-loop learning and Model II organizations that has proven to be so very elusive.

Acknowledgement The authors would like to thank Dr Mary Crossan for her invaluable and insightful feedback on this article which was originally presented at the 2007 OLKC conference in London, Ontario.

Notes 1. Daina Mazutis and Natalie Slawinski contributed equally to this article and are listed alphabetically. 2. Despite broad similarities between the terms ‘conversation’ and ‘dialogue’, we use the latter throughout this article as it more accurately describes the act of exchanging ideas or opinions that can contribute to learning. ‘Dialogue’ addresses the complexities of thinking and language (Baker et al., 2005) and has been described as ‘a way of thinking and reflecting together’ (Isaacs, 1999: 9). Further, ‘dialogue’ is more in keeping with the cognitive approach to organizational learning originally taken by Argyris and Schön (1978) and has been specifically described as a mechanism that can lead people to acknowledge the inconsistencies in their behaviors and detect and correct errors (Easterby-Smith and Lyles, 2003b). By contrast, the word ‘conversation’ is used more to describe an informal interchange of thoughts and information and focuses more on the relational aspects of social, experiential learning (Baker et al., 2005). As such, we use the term ‘dialogue’ rather than ‘conversation’ throughout this article.

References Argyris, C. (2003) ‘Altering Theories of Learning and Action: An Interview with Chris Argyris by Mary Crossan’, Academy of Management Executive 17(2): 40–6. Argyris, C. and Schön, D. (1978) Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Avolio, B. J. and Gardner, W. L. (2005) ‘Authentic Leadership Development: Getting to the Root of Positive Forms of Leadership’, Leadership Quarterly 16(3): 315–38. Baker, A., Jensen, P. and Kolb, D. (2005) ‘Dialogue as Experiential Learning’, Management Learning 36(4): 411–27.

454

Management Learning 39(4)

Bantel K. and Jackson S. (1989) ‘Top Management and Innovations in Banking—Does the Composition of the Top Team Make a Difference’, Strategic Management Journal 10: 107–24. Bapuji, H. and Crossan, M. (2004) ‘From Questions and Answers: Reviewing Organizational Learning Research’, Management Learning 35(4): 397–417. Barker V. and Mueller, G. (2002) ‘CEO Characteristics and Firm R&D Spending’, Management Science 48(6): 782–801. Berson, Y., Nemanich, L. A., Waldman, D. A., Galvin, B. M. and Keller, R. T. (2006) ‘Leadership and Organizational Learning: A Multiple Levels Perspective’, Leadership Quarterly 17(6): 577–94. Boal, K. B. and Hooijberg, R. (2001) ‘Strategic Leadership Research: Moving On’, Leadership Quarterly 11(4): 515–49. Cannella, A. A., Jr and Monroe, M. J. (1997) ‘Contrasting Perspectives on Strategic Leaders: Toward a More Realistic View of Top Managers’, Journal of Management 23(3): 213–37. Chan, A., Hannah, S. and Gardner, W. (2005) ‘Veritable Authentic Leadership: Emergence, Functioning, and Impacts’, in W. Gardner, B. Avolio and F. Walumbwa (eds) Authentic Leadership Theor y and Practice: Origins, Effects and Development, Monographs in Leadership and Management, Volume 3. Boston: Elsevier. Crossan, M. and Bedrow, I. (2003) ‘Organizational Learning and Strategic Renewal’, Strategic Management Journal 24(11): 1087–105. Crossan, M. and Hulland, J. (2002) ‘Leveraging Knowledge Through Leadership of Organizational Learning’ in C. Choo and N. Bontis (eds) Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge: A Collection of Readings, pp. 711–23. New York: Oxford University Press. Crossan, M., Lane, H. and White, R. (1999) ‘An Organizational Learning Framework: From Intuition to Institution’, Academy of Management Review 24(3): 522–38. Daft, R. L. (2005) The Leadership Experience (3rd edn). Mason, OH: Thomson, SouthWestern. Denison, D. R. and Mishra, A. K. (1995) ‘Toward a Theory of Organizational Culture and Effectiveness’, Organization Science 6(2): 204–23. Eagly, A. (2005) ‘Achieving Relational Authenticity in Leadership: Does Gender Matter?’, Leadership Quarterly 16(3): 459–74. Easterby-Smith, M. (1997) ‘Disciplines of Organizational Learning: Contributions and Critiques’, Human Relations 50(9): 1085–103. Easterby-Smith, M. and Lyles, M. A. (2003a) The Blackwell Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Easterby-Smith, M. and Lyles, M. A. (2003b) ‘Re-reading Organizational Learning: Selective Memory, Forgetting, and Adaptation’, Academy of Management Executive 17(2): 51–5. Elenkov, D. S., Judge, W. and Wright, P. (2005) ‘Strategic Leadership and Executive Innovation Influence: An International Multi-cluster Comparative Study’, Strategic Management Journal 26(7): 665–82. Fineman, S. (2006) ‘On Being Positive: Concerns and Counterpoints’, Academy of Management Review 31 (2): 270–91. Finkelstein, S. and Hambrick, D. C. (1996) Strategic Leadership: Top Executives and Their Effects on Organizations. St. Paul, MN: West. Gabriel, Y. and Griffiths, D. S. (2002) ‘Emotion, Learning and Organizing’, The Learning Organization 9(5): 214–21. Gardner, W., Avolio, B., Luthans, F., May, D. and Walumbwa, F. (2005) ‘Can You See the Real Me?: A Self-based Model of Authentic Leader and Follower Development’, Leadership Quarterly 16(3): 343–72.

Mazutis & Slawinski: Leading Organizational Learning Through Authentic Dialogue

455

George, B. (2003) Authentic Leadership: Rediscovering the Secrets to Creating Lasting Value. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Goffee, R. and Jones, G. (2006) Why Should Anyone be Led by You? What it Takes to be an Authentic Leader. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Hambrick, D. C. and Mason, P. A. (1984) ‘Upper Echelons: The Organization as a Reflection of its Top Managers’, Academy of Management Review 16(2): 193–206. House, R. J. and Aditya, R. N. (1997) ‘The Social Scientific Study of Leadership: Quo Vadis?’, Journal of Management 2(23): 409–73. Hughes, L. (2005) ‘Developing Transparent Relationships Through Humor in the Authentic Leader–Follower Relationship’ in W. Gardner, B. Avolio and F. Walumbwa (eds) Authentic Leadership Theor y and Practice: Origins, Effects and Development, Monographs in Leadership and Management, Volume 3. Boston: Elsevier. Ilies, R., Morgeson, F. and Nahrgang, J. (2005) ‘Authentic Leadership and Eudaemonic Well-being: Understanding Leader–Follower Outcomes’, Leadership Quarterly 16(3): 373–94. Ireland, R. D. and Hitt, M. A. (1999) ‘Achieving and Maintaining Strategic Competitiveness in the 21st Century: The Role of Strategic Leadership’, The Academy of Management Executive 13(1): 43–57. Isaacs, W. (1999) Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together: A Pioneering Approach to Communicating in Business and in Life. New York: Currency. Jung, D., Chow, C. and Wu, D. (2003) ‘The Role of Transformational Leadership in Enhancing Organizational Innovation: Hypotheses and Some Preliminary Findings’, Leadership Quarterly 14(4–5): 525–44. Kernis, M. H. (2003) ‘Towards a Conceptualization of Optimal Self-esteem’, Psychological Inquiry 14(1): 1–26. Lahteenmaki, S., Toivonen, J. and Mattila, M. (2001) ‘Critical Aspects of Organizational Learning Research and Proposals for its Measurement’, British Journal of Management 12(2): 113–29. Landry, J. R. (2007) ‘Emotional Dead-fish as Impediments to Organizational Learning’, Proceedings of OLKC 2007—Learning Fusion, pp. 518–26. London, Ontario. Luthans, F. and Avolio, B. (2003) ‘Authentic Leadership Development’, in K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton and R. E. Quinn (eds) Positive Organizational Scholarship, pp. 241–58. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. May, D., Chan, A., Hodges, T. and Avolio, B., (2003) ‘Developing the Moral Component of Authentic Leadership’, Organizational Dynamics 32(3): 247–60. McGill, M. and Slocum, J. (1993) ‘Unlearning the Organization’, Organizational Dynamics 22(2): 67–79. Meindl, J. R., Erlich, S. B. and Dukerich, J. M. (1985) ‘The Romance of Leadership’, Administrative Science Quarterly 30: 78–101. Novicevic, M., Harvey, M., Buckley, M. and Brown, J. (2006) ‘Authentic Leadership: A Historical Perspective’, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 13(1): 64–76. Pittinsky, T. and Tyson, C. (2005) ‘Leader Authenticity Markers: Findings from a Study of Perceptions of African American Political Leaders’, in W. Gardner, B. Avolio and F. Walumbwa (eds) Authentic Leadership Theory and Practice: Origins, Effects and Development, Monographs in Leadership and Management, Volume 3. Boston: Elsevier. Popper, M. and Lipshitz, R. (2000) ‘Organizational Learning: Mechanisms, Culture and Feasibility’, Management Learning 31(2): 181–96. Rowe, W. G. (2001) ‘Creating Wealth in Organizations: The Role of Strategic Leadership’, Academy of Management Executive 15(1): 81–94. Schein, E. (1992) Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schein, E. (1993) ‘On Dialogue, Culture and Organizational Learning’, Organizational Dynamics 22(2): 40–51.

456

Management Learning 39(4)

Senge, P. (2003) ‘Taking Personal Change Seriously: The Impact of Organizational Learning on Management Practice’, Academy of Management Executive 17(2): 47–50. Vera, D. and Crossan, M. (2004) ‘Strategic Leadership and Organizational Learning’, Academy of Management Review 29(2): 222–40. Vince, R. (2007) ‘Political Relatedness: The Fusion of Emotion and Politics in Action-based Learning’, Proceedings of OLKC 2007—Learning Fusion, pp. 1059–74. London, Ontario. Walumbwa, F., Avolio, B., Gardner, W., Wernsing, T. and Peterson, S. (2008) ‘Authentic Leadership: Development and Validation of a Theory-based Measure’, Journal of Management 34(1): 89–126. Yammarino, F., Dionne, S., Chun, J. and Dansereau, F. (2005) ‘Leadership and Levels of Analysis: A State-of-the-Science Review’, Leadership Quarterly 16(3): 879–919. Yukl, G. (1998) Leadership in Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ; Prentice Hall.

Contact Addresses Daina Mazutis and Natalie Slawinski are in the Richard Ivey School of Business, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, N6A 3K7, Canada. [email: [email protected] and [email protected]]