Crafting leaders for people and organizational adaptability: A preliminary validation of the Crafting Leadership Questionnaire

Research goals. What kind of leadership is needed for the transition to more agile organizations is still a matter of debate. The Complexity Leadership Theory (Uhl-Bien et al., 2007) addresses how leaders may enable potential to adaptively address shifting environments. However, a specific tool applicable to employee management is still lacking. Hence, this study aims to propose a conceptual and measurement model (CLQ) that specifically interprets the enabling function of leadership for coworkers management. Theoretical background. Enabling leadership is the process that allows adaptability, creative problem-solving and learning to emerge within organizations (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018). Starting from Uhl-Bien et al. (2017) and from behavioral models (e.g., Yukl, 2012), we declined the concept into competencies. Crafting leaders adjust their style to the characteristics of coworkers (to activate their capability to shape the work environment and its outcomes) and manage the organization-coworkers interface (to provide consistency with the organization's strategic mission and to stimulate innovation throughout the organization). The concept naturally resonates with a situational approach to leadership (Hernandez et al., 2011). Indeed, by crafting we mean the leader’s shaping of an adaptive context in which coworkers are able to explore and nurture their diverse skills/talents/needs and to contribute to organizational development (Tims et al., 2021; Tummers & Bakker, 2021). Although transformational leadership (TL) involves a top-down approach of managing employees (Northouse, 2016), we expect the two perceived styles to be positively correlated as they converge on employee’s development. Moreover, we expect significant associations between CL and coworkers’ job crafting (JC; proxy of adaptability; Bindle et al., 2019), as well as with engagement (WE) and exhaustion (EX) based on previous research (Tummers & Bakker, 2021). Design. A total of 1507 employees from different organizations completed an online survey. Measures: CLQ (21 items), assessing CL as an higher-order construct derived from three behaviours (as perceived by coworkers), namely Person-Organization Alignement (POA; managing the organization-to-coworkers interface by strenghtening the comprehension of the organizational strategic and operational context), Tailoring (TAIL; valuing heterogeneity by seeding the conditions to engage co-workers in exploring, nurturing and integrating their characteristics) and Catalysing (CAT; managing the innovation-to-organization interface by facilitating the implementation and dissemination of innovative products). Transformational Leadership (TRL; 16 items, Avolio & Bass, 2004; α=.93); Promotion-oriented JC (PRO-JC; 9 items, Tims et al., 2012; α=.79). Prevention-oriented JC (PRE-JC; 6 items, Demerouti & Peeters, 2018 α= .72). The distinction between PRO-JC and PRE-JC is in line with Lichtenthaler and Fischbach (2019); WE (3 items, Schaufeli et al., 2019; α= .66); EX (3 items, Mazzetti et al., 2022; α= .81). We employed an investigator triangulation approach for the item development (Denzin, 1978). Confirmatory factor (CFA) analyses were performed to test CLQ factorial validity (1-factor, 3-factor, the hypothesised higher-order and bifactor models; Credè & Harms, 2016). Reliabilities were estimated. The discriminant validity of CL with regard to TL was tested, with the specification of a common method factor (Marsh, 1996). Then, we tested for predictive validity by estimating latent associations between CL, TL and outcomes (PRO-JC, PRE-JC, WE and EX). Multicollinearity indices (i.e., VIF and TI) were checked (Markoulides and Raykov, 2019). Results. The higher-order model fitted the data better than alternative models according to fit indices and χ2 test (χ2=1187.04, df =186, CFI=.96, TLI=.95, RMSEA=.06, SRMR=.03). The scales showed good reliability (POA α= .87; TAIL α= .91; COD α= .93; CLtotal α= .96). As expected, the correlation between CL and TL was strong and positive (r=.75). Both CL and TL correlated with PRO-JC (CL r=.46; TL r=.38), PRE-JC (CL r=.32; TL r=.25), WE (CL r= .60; TL r=.57) and EX (CL r= -.35; TL r= -.28). Moreover, CL outperformed TL in all regressions (with the latter resulted as nonsignificant). To be sure, VIF and TI values did not indicate the presence of multicollinearity between CL and TL. Limits. This cross-sectional study employed self-report measures. Divergent and predictive validity of CL should be further investigated. Conclusions. This study provided a valid and reliable model for reconsidering leadership in the contemporary scenario. Notably, CL uniquely associated with proactive behaviours, motivation and strain. The model may help practitioners to design developmental paths for leaders. Relevance to the Congress Theme. As organizations face increasingly changing and complex scenarios, we proposed a leadership model for enabling people and organizational adaptability.