Leslie Pratch | University of Chicago (original) (raw)

Papers by Leslie Pratch

Looks Good on Paper?, 2014

Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 1996

The relationship between integrative capacity and evaluations of leadership effectiveness was exa... more The relationship between integrative capacity and evaluations of leadership effectiveness was examined in a nine-month program for developing business leaders. Integrative capacity was conceptualized as a central dimension of the structural psychological characteristic, active coping, and differentiated from the cognitive construct, integrative complexity. Self-report, semiprojective, and projective measures of integrative capacity obtained at the beginning of the program were correlated with peer and faculty ratings of leadership at the end of the program. Significant correlations ranged from .27 (p < .05) to .52 (p < .001). Intelligence and integrative capacity contributed separately to leadership. The findings support the value of examining variables related to personality structure and the use of projective techniques to assess candidates for positions of business leadership. In this article, we address the relationship between personality and effective leadership in business settings. In particular, we examine the structural psychological characteristics associated with perceptions of small task group leadership effectiveness in a fluid situation. Previous empirical research has focused on discrete personality traits and isolated behaviors as determinants of effective leadership. This approach has had limited results, as narrowly defined traits have frequently been found to be situation specific in their associations with leadership. Maintaining effective leadership in business settings requires the capacity to respond in a differentiated manner to emergent and fluid situations (Carroll & Gillen, 1987; Kotter, 1990; Skinner & Sasser, 1977; Whitley, 1989). This capacity, in turn, depends on the ability to develop continually new skills for coping with change. The literature, however, has largely neglected a developmental perspective. To understand how and why an individual functions in a specific way at a specific stage of development, we may distinguish between two types of theories and models: those that view the issue from a developmental perspective and those that discuss it from a current-state perspective. Developmental models are concerned with the ontogeny of relevant aspects of the individual, the timing and environmental events in his or her past and present, and the ways these factors interact to produce current functioning. Models that emphasize the current perspective analyze and explain why individuals function as they do in isolation from developmental processes that may have led to the individual's present state and that may lead to future behaviors. Such accounts are framed in terms of one major quality of the individual at a time and only secondarily in terms of the relationships among these qualities. Developmental models typically view personality as a complex structure, having characteristic and relatively stable functional dimensions that interact and respond to changing internal and external circumstances. The term structural refers to the relations among different components, or functions, of personality. From this perspective, underlying dimensions of the personality structure determine the degree of flexibility, consistency, resiliency, and creativity of an individual's responses across situations. There are personality structures that exhibit relatively fixed and circumscribed responses to diverse circumstances just as there are those that demonstrate a wide variety of responses to an evolving situation. Indeed, it is both differences between structures (" interindividual variability ") and within structures (" intraindividual variability ") that determine how a specific individual behaves in a specific situation. Accordingly, we have proposed that effective leaders possess personality structures capable of responding to static and changing circumstances in adoptively resourceful ways (Pratch & Jacobowitz, 1997). This resourcefulness is

The effects of gender, coping, and motivational orientation in evaluating individual leadership w... more The effects of gender, coping, and motivational orientation in evaluating individual leadership were investigated. The setting was an intensive leadership development program at a leading business school. A Sentence Completion Technique, Jackson's Personality Research Form, and Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices were used to predict peer ratings of leadership at the end of the nine-month program. The data reveal significant gender differences on the measures of motivation, with men showing higher levels of agentic-instrumental tendencies and women exhibiting higher levels of communal-social qualities (p < .05). These qualities, in turn, were differentially correlated with evaluations of leadership. Women exhibiting strong agentic characteristics were negatively perceived as leaders (p <.05). There was no relationship between agentic or communal qualities and evaluations of leadership received by male leaders. Finally, individuals with active coping tendencies were evaluated as more effective leaders for males and females. The findings are discussed in terms of gender role congruency theory.

A structural psychological approach to understanding effective executive leadership is presented.... more A structural psychological approach to understanding effective executive leadership is presented. It is argued that effective leadership requires the capacity to respond in an adaptive manner to emergent, dynamic, and complex situations. This capacity, in turn, depends on the readiness to acquire new skills and strategies for coping with complexity and change. Nevertheless, empirical research has largely overlooked the vital potentiality of self that seems necessary to engender and sustain effective leadership. Accordingly, a structural approach to leadership is proposed. In this approach, the whole (the personality organization, the self-system), in addition to being different from and greater than the sum of its parts, causally determines the fate of the parts, so that the emergent, holistic properties of the whole at all different levels become causally real in their own form. The psychological construct of active coping (Shanan, 1990) is used to demonstrate the conceptual link between personality structure and effective leadership. Propositions toward a general psychological model of leadership are outlined, and suggestions for investigating the model empirically are made. In this article, we address the relationship between personality and effective leadership in business settings. In particular, we examine the psychological characteristics required to generate leadership and sustain it at the highest ranks of an organization. Previous empirical research on determinants of leadership effectiveness has focused on discrete personality traits or behaviors. This emphasis has had limited results because narrowly defined traits have frequently been found to be situation specific in their associations with leadership. Indeed, effective executive leadership depends on the ability to respond in an adaptive manner to emergent, dynamic, and complex situations (Carroll & Gillen, 1987; Kotter, 1990; Skinner & Sasser, 1977; Whitley, 1989). This ability, in turn, requires the readiness to continually develop new skills and knowledge for coping with complexity and change. Published research, however, has largely neglected the potential for leaders to grow and change over time. Consequently, we argue that it is not a single trait or set of traits that determines a leader's current and continuing effectiveness, but rather a structural psychological characteristic. To examine this assertion, we have divided this article into four sections. We begin with a few definitions, to ensure a common understanding of terms. We then present a brief historical overview of the empirical literature on the relationship between personality and leadership. In the second section, we identify four areas of personality that this literature has neglected. We argue that those oversights may be connected by a structural approach. In the third section we delineate such an approach, using the psychological construct of active coping (Shanan, 1990), to demonstrate the conceptual link between personality structure and leadership. Integrating material discussed in the previous sections, in the fourth section we outline propositions toward a general psychological model of leadership. Finally, we make suggestions for investigating these propositions empirically.

Looks Good on Paper?, 2014

Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 1996