Sins of Leadership Research

Common Methodological and Theoretical Pitfalls That Undermine Leadership Research

Leadership research has advanced significantly over the past century, yet persistent methodological and theoretical problems continue to undermine the rigor and validity of studies in the field. These "sins" represent common practices that researchers engage in, often unknowingly, that can lead to flawed conclusions, weak theoretical contributions, and limited practical utility. Recognition of these pitfalls is essential for developing more robust leadership scholarship that advances both theory and practice.

⚠️ Critical Note

The identification of these sins is not intended to diminish the valuable contributions of leadership scholars, but rather to strengthen future research by highlighting areas where greater methodological rigor and theoretical precision can enhance the field's scientific credibility and practical impact.

Video Series: Sins & Redemptions of Leadership Research

This video series explores the most common methodological and theoretical pitfalls in leadership research. Each video examines a specific "sin" with detailed examples and practical redemption strategies for improving research quality.

▶

Sin #1

Conflating Behavior & Perception

Learn to distinguish between actual leadership behaviors and perceptions of leadership, a critical methodological distinction often overlooked in research.

▶

Sin #2

Circular Reasoning

Identify and avoid circular logic that undermines theoretical development and empirical validity in leadership studies.

▶

Sin #3

Mislabeling Leadership: What Leadership is Not

Understand the boundaries of leadership as a construct and avoid common conceptual confusion that dilutes theoretical precision.

▶

Sin #4

Lack of Problematization

Master the art of problematization to ensure your research addresses meaningful gaps rather than pursuing convenience studies.

▶

Sin #5

Lack of Falsifiability

Learn to develop falsifiable hypotheses and theoretical propositions that can be empirically tested and potentially refuted.

▶

Sin #6

Unsubstantiated Causal Claims

Understand the requirements for establishing causality and avoid making unwarranted causal inferences from correlational data.

Key References

Antonakis, J. (2017). On doing better science: From thrill of discovery to policy implications. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(1), 5-21.

Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P., & Lalive, R. (2010). On making causal claims: A review and recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(6), 1086-1120.

Bacharach, S. B. (1989). Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 496-515.

Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81-105.

Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1(1), 104-121.

Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539-569.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903.