Article Summary
The paper presents a critique of a business research article published in the Journal of Business Ethics. Schilling et al. (2023), in their article “When your leader just does not make any sense: Conceptualizing inconsistent leadership,” explore the concept of leadership inconsistency and its effects on overall organizational performance. The authors focus on identifying behavioral features that can lead to inconsistent leadership.
Schilling et al. (2022) define the concept as the process when followers “register salient/important leader behavior that is novel, ambiguous, and/or confusing when compared to behavioral expectations for that leader” (p. 2019). They assess the impact of the leader’s ambiguous and confusing behavior on team relationships and communication. The authors compare existing leadership styles to clearly define the concept within the leadership framework. However, Schilling et al. (2023) do not propose any practical implications that can address the problem of inconsistent leadership. The article is theoretical and aims to lay a solid foundation for further research in the field.
Article Critique
Assumptions
The authors assume that inconsistent leadership does not align with other leadership theories because they do not sufficiently explain followers’ reactions to ambiguous or confusing behavior. Schilling et al. (2023) describe the process of noticing discrepancies in a leader’s behavior, interpreting them, and engaging in action. Inconsistent leadership, as the article points out, does not meet the ethical standards, which require it to be clearly distinguished from other leadership theories.
The author’s caret assumption is based on a sensemaking perspective proposed by previous researchers. The argument proposed is consistent with the model developed by Zhang et al. (2021), which used the same theoretical basis. However, Schilling et al. (2023) propose that inconsistent leadership can be considered a type of “negative and destructive forms of leadership” (p. 217).
Zhang et al. (2021), on the contrary, describe it as a tool that helps followers apply situational decision-making by changing “behaviors, feelings, and thoughts in response to environmental demands.” The authors present two contrasting views; however, the argument described by Zhang et al. (2021) appears more academically plausible, as they utilize a multi-respondent cross-sectional survey to test their hypothesis. Schilling et al. (2023) base their model on a theoretical foundation, drawing on the findings of previous researchers and incorporating their own assumptions into the argument.
Some authors support the article’s point, underscoring the adverse effects of inconsistent leadership on organizational performance. De Clercq et al. (2020) argue that a leader’s arrogant behavior results from inconsistent actions, leading to gossip among employees and creating an image of unreliable leadership. However, the article focuses primarily on arrogant behavior, shifting the emphasis away from inconsistent leadership and its direct influence. Arrogance may be only one separate part of the behavior, which does not accurately reflect the overall impact of the concept.
Klebe et al. (2022) conclude that leadership inconsistency increases employee strain and poses additional risks to organizational performance. Although the article defines the concept as a negative factor, it focuses on a leader’s inconsistent behavior in stressful situations, which cannot be attributed to the broader environment. Therefore, the assumptions about the influence of inconsistent leadership on organizational outcomes proposed do not seem plausible within the leadership literature.
Clarity
The authors present a clear argument that describes the problem their research targets and the importance of the study for the field. The authors identify the central concept and define it in detail, describing its difference from existing theories. They then elaborate on the process by which followers interpret the behavior of inconsistent leaders, creating propositions that summarize the main points of the research. It helps the reader to follow from one idea to another without losing track of the research.
Schilling et al. (2023) conclude by outlining both theoretical and practical implications, though the latter are limited. It can point to the research’s theoretical orientation, which could be expanded to include more specific practical applications. The article concludes with a concise summary that restates the study’s main points. Therefore, the article’s clarity helps the authors explain their assumption in full detail without confusing the reader.
Data Interpretation
The authors interpret the data presented in previous research, which enables them to select information suitable for their model. However, it negatively affects the article’s overall quality and credibility, as Schilling et al. (2023) can manipulate it to support their argument. For example, they distinguish between inconsistent and paradoxical leadership, as proposed by Zhang et al. (2021), based on differences in followers’ sensemaking processes. Zhang et al. (2021) do not specifically identify that followers’ sensemaking is affected by environmental and situational factors.
Schilling et al. (2023) note that their model differs in that it does not account for external factors that may lead to inconsistent behavior. In this regard, it is unclear how inconsistent behavior is formed and what causes it. The concept, then, is purely theoretical and does not account for any possible factors that could trigger it. Therefore, it cannot be applied in real-world settings, as it contains universal concepts that are not affected by external conditions.
Relevance
The research’s relevance is clearly identified and explained as the authors present the problem, its connection to existing theories, and elaborate on future research prospects. It is also based on a sensemaking model that is often utilized as a fundamental theory for studies of the leadership-followers relationship. Schilling et al. (2023) explain the features that distinguish their concept from existing ones; however, the distinction between inconsistent and paradoxical leadership is questionable. Therefore, the research is highly relevant, as it proposes novel ideas in the field and builds on previous work.
Methodology
The research methodology is the article’s weakest point, as it lacks empirical observations. Schilling et al. (2023) draw on existing studies to support their argument. They connect inconsistent leadership to a widely accepted sensemaking model.
However, they base their assumptions about the impact of inconsistent leadership on the conclusions of other researchers, often overlooking the influence of the broader concept. They take individual parts that have been tested in literature and demonstrate inconsistent leadership, combining them to create projections of the theoretical implications. The authors do not measure the impact of inconsistent leadership in real-world conditions or account for individual differences that may arise. The study’s methodology does not allow for defining the actual process of sensemaking due to a lack of empirical data.
Literacy
The article demonstrates the authors’ high level of information literacy. They integrate only relevant information and provide specific details to elaborate on the concepts used. Schilling et al. (2023) transition from introducing the concept to defining it in detail, grounded in a solid theoretical basis. The authors relate inconsistent leadership to other theories, thereby increasing clarity. The information utilized is relevant to the study’s goals; the article does not contain any excessive information that does not contribute to the argument.
Addressing the Points Raised by the Critique
I might address the point raised in the critique by including a more detailed discussion on practical implications. Although the authors’ goal is to develop a theoretical model of inconsistent leadership, business literature tends to be oriented toward action research. This type of research focuses on identifying and addressing specific business needs or organizational problems, and on presenting viable solutions. However, the article by Schilling et al. (2023) elaborates on the theoretical implications, which may have limited applicability in business practice. Therefore, they could make the research more practice-oriented to enhance its value.
The previous point is connected with the proposed critique of the implausible difference between paradoxical and inconsistent leadership. The concept defined by Zhang et al. (2021) appears more convincing due to the empirical data. The research of Schilling et al. (2023) could benefit from testing the model developed in a real business environment.
The authors could first describe their theoretical concept, then present the results of surveys or observations. It could also help them identify the impact of inconsistent leadership on followers, as it currently lacks plausible reasoning. Therefore, the article’s methodology could be revised to adopt a more empirical approach, thereby providing a more convincing argument.
References
De Clercq, D., Fatima, T., & Jahanzeb, S. (2020). Gossiping about an arrogant leader: Sparked by inconsistent leadership, mitigated by employee resilience. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 57(3).
Klebe, L., Klug, K., & Felfe, J. (2022). When your boss is under pressure: On the relationships between leadership inconsistency, leader and follower strain. Frontiers in Psychology, 13.
Schilling, J., Schyns, B., & May, D. (2023). When your leader just does not make any sense: Conceptualizing inconsistent leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 18, 209-221.
Zhang, W., Liao, S., Liao, J., & Zheng, Q. (2021). Paradoxical leadership and employee task performance: A sense-making perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 12.