Page 104 - Biobehavioral Resilence to Stress

Resilience through Leadership 81

problem of conceptual ambiguity in our current understanding of resilience.
As long as conceptual ambiguity persists, researchers may be understandably
reluctant to propose comprehensive theoretical frameworks to guide addi-
tional research and development. New research should attend to the need
for improved definition and specificity concerning essential factors, criteria,

and measures of resilience. Meanwhile, we would encourage investigators
who are interested in leadership and resilience, to adopt (as we have done

in this chapter) an intuitively useful working definition of resilience, and to

carefully consider associated findings and implications with respect to other
frameworks and disciplinary perspectives.
Researchers in this area must also consider what type(s) of leadership

influence they wish to consider or evaluate. Our review suggests that eff ects of
leadership on subordinates’ resilience may occur and perhaps occur diff erently
within the context of at least three distinct types of leadership (i.e., normal
leadership, inspirational leadership, and institutional leadership). Investiga-

tive orientation should reflect these distinct leadership types as well as their
potentially unique forms of influence upon psychological resilience. Below,

we briefly consider and offer suggestions for future research in each case.

Normal Leadership Effects

Because even ordinary work environments involve routine stressors, many

individuals and work units often experience ongoing, chronic strain. In such

circumstances, effective leadership that helps to increase a workers’ resil-
ience is both valuable and appropriate. Programs that help leaders to identify
and engage in actions that promote resilience should be of interest to policy
makers. As noted earlier, currently available research suggests that leader
actions that buffer and protect against routine stressors also tend to promote

factors and benefits associated with stress resilience. For example, leaders

can emphasize work meaningfulness, help to build and facilitate group cohe-
sion, offer social support when needed, and empower subordinates toward a

greater sense of control in the workplace.
Future studies should be designed to focus, as specifically as possible,

upon the relationship between leadership and resilience. For example, there
is a need to address the full range of leader behavior that may potentially
facilitate (or impede) resilience in individuals and working groups. Such
studies will require careful thought, not only to identify potentially relevant

leader actions, but also to define and measure resilience in a manner that is
both meaningful and useful. Researchers should seek to avoid confound-
ing the relationship between leadership and resilience with other, presum-
ably separable effects of effective leadership (or management) upon other

aspects of subordinate performance such as productivity, job satisfaction, or
professionalism.

1/21/2008 4:49:27 PM
CRC_71777_Ch004.indd 81
CRC_71777_Ch004.indd 81 1/21/2008 4:49:27 PM