Abstract

In the context of leader development, large number of resources are being invested in order to prepare employees to take a more active role in making organizations more adaptable and staying relevant in a global and competitive market. While interventions oriented at developing leaders have proven to pay back to organizations, how effective an intervention is, can vary dramatically (Avolio, Reichard, Hannah, Walumbwa, & Chan, 2009). This variability is largely explained by the type of intervention and the theory behind the training program (Avolio et al., 2009). Curiously, the field of leader development is filled with different types of interventions that more often than not hold little evidence supporting their effectiveness – or even worse, have evidence that show lack of effectiveness (Day & Thornton, 2018; Zaccaro & Horn, 2003). Thus, there has been and continues to be a call for linking research and practice, to ensure development is indeed occurring. While we know that leaders do develop over time (i.e. change), the process through which this development occurs is complex and results in a unique trajectory for individuals. Time, practice, interactions, and context, as well as the readiness of individuals undertaking development, are critical for this process (Day & Dragoni, 2015; Day & Thornton, 2018). We currently know that individuals often start development programs at different initial levels of effectiveness and that they grow according to different personal trajectories (Day & Sin, 2011; Miscenko, Guenter, & Day, 2017). More specifically, Day and Sin (2011) demonstrated that competencies of leaders undertaking a development program, as well as starting at different levels, developed at different rates, resulting in different developmental trajectories. Further, these researchers showed that leader identity and leader ratings covariate at the within-individual level of analysis. This means that identity strength and leader skills, rated by others, were related and that variation in one variable was also observed in the other variable for the same individual over time. These findings made an argument to focus research on the progression of identity.