PEDAGOGY, LEADERSHIP, AND LEADERSHIP

DEVELOPMENT
John R. Turner, PhD Rose Baker, PhD

Leadership and leadership development have negotiated identities with individuals, dyads, collectives,
and even complex adaptive systems. Leadership development needs to extend from traditional
competency development to a broader, multilevel spectrum of leading complex interactions with people,
social entities, and organizational elements. Turner’s Leadership Development Spectrum provides the
groundwork for the examination of leadership capacities and developmental theories, laying the
foundation for the investigation of capacity and theory investments in leadership development
applications.

LEADERSHIP HAS BEEN identified as being individ-
ualistic (trait-based, Xu et al., 2014; competency-based,
Hollenbeck, McCall, & Silzer, 2006), a dyadic relation-
ship (Epitropaki, Kark, Mainemelis, & Lord, 2017) be-
tween the leader and follower, and as a multilevel phe-
nomenon (Gooty, Serban, Thomas, Gavin, & Yammarino,
2012) while taking place “in and of complex (CAS) dy-
namics” (Uhl-Bien & Marion, 2009, p. 632). Leadership
research has spanned from the individual to the collective
and to organizations (Bliese, Halverson, & Schriesheim,
2002), and even to the environment. Some leadership re-
search has had a crippling effect by identifying only a
few capacities belonging to an idealized leader. Instead,
a leader should be capable of being adaptive by utilizing
multiple leadership styles given the situation and environ-
ment (the landscape).
Although situational leadership (Blanchard, 2010)
views leadership operating at differing levels of direc-
tive and supportive, based on the situation and based
on the follower’s level of experience, situational leader-
ship theory primarily focuses on the leader–follower dyad.
Other leadership theories follow the leader–follower dyad
such as House’s path-goal theory (House, 1971; House
& Mitchell, 1975; House, 1996) and leader-member ex-
change (LMX) theory (Hooper & Martin, 2008). These
theories have been criticized, thereby indicating that
leader–follower dyads are not necessarily “representative
of the nature of leadership situations, which are character-
ized most often by a leader and multiple members working
together in some type of interacting collectivity” (Graen &
Uhl-Bien, 1995, p. 233). This has forced leadership theory
to expand further into the realms of systems, network as-
semblies (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995), and complex adaptive
systems (Uhl-Bien & Marion, 2009).
These trends in leadership theory, the trends ranging
from individual leader traits to collective views to net-
works, are representative of the progress that the discipline
of leadership has made over the years. Unfortunately, this
same progress has not necessarily been found on the lead-
ership development front. The following section touches
more on leadership development.
LEADER AND LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
A distinction needs to be made between leader develop-
ment and leadership development. Leader development is
often associated with leader education (Callahan & Rosser,
2007), which focuses more on the content being delivered.
Leader-development efforts typically teach leadership the-
ory to individuals, often to introduce them to a “narrow or
homogeneous model of the ideal leader” (Gagnon, Vough,
& Nickerson, 2012, p. 304). This can become problematic
when these individuals are expected to change their be-
haviors from an ideal leadership type if they believe that

Performance Improvement, vol. 56, no. 9, October 2017

© 2017 International Society for Performance Improvement
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) • DOI: 10.1002/pfi.21734 5
 Some leadership research has
had a crippling effect by
identifying only a few
capacities belonging to an
idealized leader.
one style can work in all situations. New leaders are re-
peatedly being challenged to develop their individual skill
sets (i.e., critical reflection, self-development, time man-
agement) as an effort to aid them in leading others in the
workplace. Leadership development, on the other hand,
focuses more on “a process of development that inherently
involves multiple individuals (e.g., leaders and followers or
among peers in a self-managed work team)” (Day, Fleenor,
Atwater, Sturm, & McKee, 2014, p. 64). Leadership devel-
opment needs to be adaptive so that leaders are better able
to reflect how leadership occurs in the real world (Uhl-
Bien & Marion, 2009) given today’s complex landscape.
Leadership development views leadership as a collec-
tive construct rather than being an individual construct
(Gagnon et al., 2012), as being non-linear rather than
linear, and involving complex interactions that involve
people, social entities, and organizational environments
(Day et al., 2014).
Multilevel
Leadership development programs also need to address
the multilevel nature of leadership rather than concen-
trating only on the individual level. Leadership has been
identified as being a multilevel construct (Day et al.,
2014) and a multilevel phenomenon (Gooty et al., 2012)
that involves more than just the individual leader. Lead-
ership also involves the leader’s followers, with some
consideration that the leader is being influenced by
someone higher up in the hierarchical level within the
organization. In addition, leadership affects the larger
organization, the industry that the organization oper-
ates in, its community, and the environment. Day et al.
(2014) maintained that leadership development should
take a broader multilevel perspective while address-
ing both intrapersonal and interpersonal processes. This
multilevel perspective of leadership presents a type of
paradigm shift in the leadership phenomenon (Gooty
et al., 2012), indicating that leadership development
efforts also need to view leadership as a multilevel
phenomenon.
6 www.ispi.org • DOI: 10.1002/pfi • OCTOBER 2017
Leadership development
should take a broader
multilevel perspective.
Pedagogy
Leadership development is positioned in the context of
adult development (Day et al., 2014) and, in most cases,
for adult learners. Today, traditional leadership devel-
opment efforts are being challenged with some claims
asserting that these programs are not preparing lead-
ers to address their broader societal responsibilities (An-
dreadis, 2002). Andreadis (2002) highlighted this prob-
lem and recommended that “new strategies are needed to
ensure that the curriculum and pedagogy for leadership
development are aligned with this expectation” (p. 144),
referring to the expectation of being more societally re-
sponsible. While pedagogy studies adult learning, critical
pedagogy believes that adult learning is more than indi-
vidual learning; it also involves “social and even political
process[es]” (Yang, 2004, p. 255, emphasis added). Peda-
gogical efforts toward leadership development should be
more societally responsible as well as focusing as much at-
tention on social interactions and processes as on individ-
ual processes.
Leadership Development Defined
Day et al. (2014) defined leadership development as “a
dynamic process involving multiple interactions that
persist over time” (p. 78). Knowing that leaders need to
be able to adapt to today’s complexity, leadership devel-
opment efforts also need to be able to adapt to the various
scenarios that leaders will face in tomorrow’s geopolitical
environment. Here, and for the current article, leadership
development is defined as a dynamic process involving
multiple interactions over time (Day et al., 2014) that pro-
vides leaders and their organizations with the tools and
information required to adapt to changing environments
and landscapes.
The following section presents a development typology
followed by an expanded version of this typology that was
designed specifically for leadership development efforts.
This development typology identifies both leadership ca-
pacities and development techniques. This typology is
beneficial to organizations in that it is flexible and could
 ment identifies the organizational level (Garavan et al.,
2015) such as in organization learning (OL).
This typology is beneficial in that organizations can
identify their development need first and then identify
which development techniques best meet their needs.
For individual leadership development, the acquisitive-
development dimension would be relevant. In contrast,
team or departmental leadership would fall under the
dialogic-development dimension. This flexibility is ex-
panded upon by Turner, Chih-Hung, Schroeder, and
Johnson (2016) in the following section to better iden-
tify leadership development techniques that cater to
the desired leadership development capacities of an
organization.

FIGURE 1. GARAVAN ET AL.’S (2016) DEVELOPMENT

TYPOLOGY. (FROM “RECLAIMING THE ‘D’ IN HRD: A
TYPOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTUALIZATIONS,
ANTECEDENTS, AND OUTCOMES,” BY T. N. GARAVAN,
D. MCGUIRE, AND M. LEE, 2016, HUMAN RESOURCE
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, 14, P. 365. COPYRIGHT 2017 BY
SAGE PUBLICATIONS AND COPYRIGHT CLEARANCE
CENTER. REPRINTED WITH PERMISSION.)
be implemented in most organizational development
efforts.
TURNER ET AL.’S (2016) EXPANDED
TYPOLOGY OF LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
Garavan et al.’s (2015) typology of development was ex-
panded upon to allow more flexibility for organizations
to identify leadership development techniques specifically
for the leadership capacities that needed to be developed.
In Figure 2, Turner et al. (2016) categorized leadership
capacities into 31 categories. Each of these 31 categories is
presented with its associated typology. Most of the lead-
ership capacities fell in the acquisitive-development di-
mension, followed by the acquisitive-dialogic and dialogic

GARAVAN’S TYPOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT

Garavan, McGuire, and Lee (2015) introduced a devel-
opment typology based on their definition of develop-
ment: “an unfolding process of growth that occurs in
various ways along multiple trajectories at different lev-
els of analysis, influenced by context and leading to a
range of positive outcomes” (p. 364). Their typology iden-
tified two separate dimensions: independent and interde-
pendent, planned and emergent. These dimensions were
presented as a typology (see Figure 1) consisting of four
development dimensions: acquisitive, autonomous, dia-
logic, and networked (Garavan et al., 2015). There were
two dimensions associated with the independent level
of analysis: acquisitive and autonomous. Acquisitive rep-
resents individual development geared toward develop-
ing knowledge, skill, and behaviors, essentially related to
professional advancement, whereas autonomous is best
represented as being related to personal development
(Garavan et al., 2015). Two dimensions were associated
with the interdependent level of analysis: dialogic and
networked. Dialogic development begins development
through social interactions, while networked develop- FIGURE 2. LEADERSHIP CAPACITIES

Performance Improvement • Volume 56 • Number 9 • DOI: 10.1002/pfi 7

dimensions. This pattern identified leadership develop-
ment from the individual perspective (acquisitive) to the
group perspective (dialogic) with the combined dimen-
sion that requires social interactions at both an individual
and a group level (acquisitive-dialogic).
For example, if an organization needs to develop new
employees, it would first develop these employees at the
acquisitive dimension. Here the organization could fo-
cus on any of the identified leadership capacity categories
found in the acquisitive dimension in Figure 2 (i.e., devel-
opmental skills, moral/ethical skills, trustworthiness). As
employees grow within the organization, they are required
to expand their individual skills so that they can be useful
in more social and interactive settings, identifying with the
acquisitive-dialogic dimension (i.e., leadership competen-
cies, motivational skills, problem-solving skills). Finally,
as employees move into managerial and executive posi-
tions, their focus becomes related to larger collectives such
as groups, departments, and the organization. The leader-
ship capacities for this dialogic dimension could involve FIGURE 3. LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT TECHNIQUES
the development of coaching and organizational learning
skills.
of growth. Identifying leadership development techniques
These three dimensions, acquisitive to acquisitive-
based on an organization’s needs, for all levels within the
dialogic to dialogic, have been identified as the leadership
organization, support organizations in being more adap-
development spectrum by Turner et al. (2016). This spec-
tive to their leadership development needs.
trum acknowledges most leadership development capaci-
ties from individual development through organizational-
learning development. Most leadership capacities will fall CONCLUSION
within this spectrum. However, there are still some capac- Despite the significant amount of time and money that is
ities in the other dimensions. These dimensions are geared being directed toward leadership development efforts in
more to specific needs that organizations may encounter today’s organizations, some remain skeptical as to leader-
beyond the normal. For example, as an organization be- ship development’s return on investment to the organiza-
comes more global it will require development in the areas tion as well as to the communities in which these orga-
of global orientation and networking, which are identified nizations serve and operate. Cullen-Lester, Maupin, and
in the networked dimension. Carter (2017) supported this view by stating: “There is
growing concern that developmental efforts are not suffi-
LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT TECHNIQUES ciently building the leadership capacity required by today’s
complex and interdependent organization” (p. 130). Oth-
AND THE TYPOLOGY ers claim that leadership development programs should
Moving beyond the leadership capacities, Turner et al. be able to show positive economic returns (Peters, Baum,
(2016) identified various leadership development tech- & Stephens, 2011). Still, others have identified traditional
niques that could be utilized for each of the dimensions in leadership development efforts, mostly those that con-
their typology. Figure 3 presents the different development centrate on developing individual traits only, as being
techniques associated with each development dimension. insufficient for understanding leadership as a dynamic,
For example, if an organization has a need for leader- shared, distributed, emergent, and adaptive function (Uhl-
ship development at the individual level, it would con- Bien & Marion, 2009). Unfortunately, leadership has of-
centrate on the acquisitive dimension. Here the develop- ten fallen short of expectations with somewhere near 78%
ment techniques of peer-coaching, scenario planning, and of companies not even attempting to measure ROI of
instructor-as-coach could be used to help develop these leadership development programs (Tourish, 2012). There
leadership capacities. As an organization grows and as the are some calls to redefine or to broaden the matrices used
needs of the organization change, the typology presented to measure ROI when it comes to leadership development
by Turner et al. (2016) could be utilized during this period programs. Tourish (2012) reported that “measurable and

8 www.ispi.org • DOI: 10.1002/pfi • OCTOBER 2017

repeatable ROI for leadership development is the wave of
the future” (p. 23). One such effort looks at changing the
assumptions that surround leadership development ex-
pectations that are grounded in reality (Peters et al., 2011)
as compared with being based on idealized assumptions.
Leadership development needs should be designed to
meet the needs of the organization. In doing so, Tourish
(2012) presented the following five steps toward leader-
ship development design:
1. Start with clarity on the organization’s vision and
goals.
2. Identify those leadership behaviors that are needed to
achieve these goals. Be specific.
3. Select leaders based on these leadership behaviors.
4. Identify problems that might obstruct organizations
from achieving their goals. Give people the job of solv-
ing them.
5. Assess for behavior change and impact on business
performance (pp. 25–29).
Most important, Tourish (2012) reported that leader-
ship development programs should link the development
efforts to people’s jobs for maximum return on investment.
The leadership development presented in the current ar-
ticle could be another tool to help support such ROI eval-
uation efforts. The leadership capacities and development
techniques presented in the current article highlight those
desired leadership behaviors that are identified in steps 2
and 3. Also, if a company does not already have someone
who exhibits the desired leadership behaviors, as indicated
in step 3, specific development techniques could be identi-
fied to develop new leaders within the organization rather
than seeking leaders from outside the organization.
Applications of Leadership Development
Each of the articles in this special issue were tasked with
one objective: to identify required leadership capacities for
a specific situation or context, to identify a leadership the-
ory for that situation, and to identify methods to develop
those leadership capacities within the boundaries of the
stated situation. The authors of the articles in this special
issue are all doctoral students from the Applied Technol-
ogy and Performance Improvement (ATPI) program, now
part of the Learning Technologies (LT) program, at the
University of North Texas (UNT). This assignment was re-
quired for a class in Leadership Development.
The first article by Jae Schroeder involved an applica-
tion of Turner et al.’s (2016) typology as part of a new
leadership development program that a NYSE financial-
services firm in the Southwest region of the United States
has taken on as a test project. This financial firm has fo-
cused its attention on developing adaptive leaders, and
the typology was used as a tool (a) to make a distinc-
tion between traditional leadership development efforts
that had been taking place at the firm with non-traditional
development efforts being proposed, and (b) to identify
which leadership development techniques could be uti-
lized to better develop the leadership capacities that were
desired.
The second article utilized adaptive leadership for a
separate financial services organization. Alaina Doyle fo-
cused on leadership development from the context of
organization learning (OL) using Andert’s (2011) train-
ing matrix and identifying the leadership capacities from
Turner et al.’s (2016) typology.
In the third article, Erik Wright utilized situational
leadership theory and matched the development tech-
niques from the dialogic dimension (Garavan et al., 2015;
Turner et al., 2016). He also utilized social constructivism
theory to support the dialogic dimension of leadership de-
velopment.
The fourth article utilized the dialogic/network di-
mension of development while focusing on path-goal
leadership theory for software training consulting teams.
Jason Bickle’s technique for development was innovative
in that he utilized the dimensions of path-goal theory
to develop the desired leadership capacities of customer
service, creativity/innovation, listening/communication,
coaching/mentoring, and conflict management (Turner
et al., 2016). These leadership capacities were identified to
support leadership development among software-training
consulting team members.
Leadership is also critical when it comes to making so-
cial policies that affect everyday people, from day-to-day
politics to nation building. In our fifth article, Edward
Secka utilized servant leadership to aid in the political pan-
demonium that most developing nations have to deal with
from time to time. Edward identified the leadership ca-
pacities from Turner et al.’s (2016) acquisitive domain to
best represent servant leadership traits and proposed the
development techniques from the same domain to assist
developing nations to foster future leaders.
Finally, Shanae Jefferies took a sociological perspec-
tive on adaptive leadership from the lens of symbolic in-
teractionism (SI). She connected adaptive leadership to
SI through the social interactions required of leaders us-
ing the dialogic typology for development. This viewpoint
places the leader in the crowd as opposed to being in front
of the crowd.
The examples provided in the articles of this special is-
sue help to identify Turner et al.’s (2016) leadership de-
velopment spectrum as a useful tool for identifying and
Performance Improvement • Volume 56 • Number 9 • DOI: 10.1002/pfi 9
matching leadership capacities with development tech-
niques. The variety of leadership theories, situations, envi-
ronments, and uses that are presented in this special issue
acknowledges that the leadership development spectrum
has utility but also needs to be tested and continuously
updated.
References
Andert, D. (2011). Alternating leadership as a proactive
organizational intervention: Addressing the needs of the baby
boomers, generation Xers and millennials. Journal of
Leadership Accountability and Ethics, 8(4), 67–84.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15350770.2013.810494
Andreadis, N.A. (2002). Leadership for civil society:
Implications for global corporate leadership development.
Human Resource Development International, 5, 143–149.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13678860110071443
Blanchard, K.H. (2010). Leading at a higher level. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Bliese, P.D., Halverson, R.R., & Schriesheim, C.A. (2002).
Benchmarking multilevel methods in leadership: The articles,
the model, and the data set. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(1),
3–14. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S1048984301001011
Callahan, J.L., & Rosser, M.H. (2007). Pop goes the program:
Using popular culture artifacts to educate leaders. Advances in
Developing Human Resources, 9, 269–287.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422306298902
Cullen-Lester, K.L., Maupin, C.K., & Carter, D.R. (2017).
Incorporating social networks into leadership development: A
conceptual model and evaluation of research and practice. The
Leadership Quarterly, 28, 130–152.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.10.005
Day, D.V., Fleenor, J.W., Atwater, L.E., Sturm, R.E., & McKee,
R.A. (2014). Advances in leader and leadership development: A
review of 25 years of research and theory. The Leadership
Quarterly, 25, 63–82.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.004
Epitropaki, O., Kark, R., Mainemelis, C., & Lord, R.G. (2017).
Leadership and followership identity processes: A multilevel
review. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(1), 104–129.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.10.003
Gagnon, S., Vough, H.C., & Nickerson, R. (2012). Learning to
lead, unscripted: Developing affiliative leadership through
improvisational theatre. Human Resource Development Review
11, 299–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484312440566
10 www.ispi.org • DOI: 10.1002/pfi • OCTOBER 2017
Garavan, T.N., McGuire, D., & Lee, M. (2015). Reclaiming the
“D” in HRD: Atypology of development conceptualizations,
antecedents, and outcomes. Human Resource Development
Review, 14, 359–388.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484315607053
Gooty, J., Serban, A., Thomas, J.S., Gavin, M.B., & Yammarino,
F.J. (2012). Use and misuse of levels of analysis in leadership
research: An illustrative review of leader–member exchange.
The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 1080–1103.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.10.002
Graen, G.B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based
approach to leadership: Development of leader-member
exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a
multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership
Quarterly, 6, 219–247.
https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5
Hollenbeck, G.P., McCall, M.W., & Silzer, R.F. (2006).
Leadership competency models. The Leadership Quarterly,
17(4), 398–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.
04.003
Hooper, D.T., & Martin, R. (2008). Beyond personal
leader-member exchange (LMX) quality: The effects of
perceived LMX variability on employee reactions. The
Leadership Quarterly, 19, 20–30.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.12.002
House, R. J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 321–339.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2391905
House, R.J. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons,
legacy and a reformulated theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 7,
323–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(96)90024-7
House, R.J., & Mitchell, T.R. (1975). Path-goal theory of
leadership (No. TR-75-67). Washington University Seattle
Department of Psychology. Retrieved from
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA009513
Peters, L., Baum, J., & Stephens, G. (2011). Creating ROI in
leadership development. Organizational Dynamics, 40,
104–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2011.01.004
Tourish, D. (2012). Developing leaders in turbulent times.
Organizational Dynamics, 41, 23–31.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2011.12.004
Turner, J.R., Chih-Hung, C., Schroeder, J., & Johnson, K.
(2016). Expanded typology of leadership development.
Unpublished manuscript.
Uhl-Bien, M., & Marion, R. (2009). Complexity leadership in
bureaucratic forms of organizing: A meso model. The
Leadership Quarterly, 20, 631–650.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j/leaqua.2009.04.007
Xu, L., Fu, P., Xi, Y., Zhang, L., Zhao, X., Cao, C., & Ge, J. Yang, B. (2004). Can adult learning theory provide a
(2014). Adding dynamics to a static theory: How leader traits foundation for human resource development. Advances in
evolve and how they are expressed. The Leadership Quarterly, Developing Human Resources, 6, 129–145.
25(6), 1095–1119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.10.002 https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422304263325

JOHN R. TURNER, PhD, is an assistant professor at the University of North Texas for the Department of
Learning Technologies in the College of Information. He began his career in engineering after receiving
a bachelor’s degree from Maine Maritime Academy. His career in engineering spanned over 15 years
including four years of international experience (China, South Korea, Argentina). After leaving engineer-
ing he completed a second bachelor’s degree in psychology from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock,
followed by a master’s degree in human resource development from the University of Texas at Tyler. He com-
pleted his doctorate from the University of North Texas in Applied Technology & Performance Improvement
(ATPI). His research interests are in teams, team cognition, knowledge management, performance improve-
ment, leadership, theory building, complexity theory, multilevel models, and meta-analysis techniques. He
has published articles in Advances in Developing Human Resources; International Journal of Technology,
Knowledge, & Society; Journal of Information and Knowledge Management; Journal of Knowledge Man-
agement; Performance Improvement; and Performance Improvement Quarterly. He may be reached at
john.turner@unt.edu

ROSE M. BAKER, PhD, is assistant professor in the Department of Learning Technologies, College of Infor-
mation, University of North Texas. Dr. Baker holds a BA degree in mathematics and chemistry from Wash-
ington and Jefferson College, a MeD degree in adult education theory and practice, and a PhD degree
in instructional systems from Penn State. Her research interests include financial forecasting of workplace
learning investments, impact of career and technology education, management techniques and statistical
applications for operations and performance improvement, economic analysis, occupational forecasting,
benchmarking, survey and evaluation design, evaluation of training outcomes, training needs assessment,
and job task analysis. She may be reached at Rose.Baker@unt.edu

Performance Improvement • Volume 56 • Number 9 • DOI: 10.1002/pfi 11