Introduction
Much exciting work remains to be done with the Social Process of Leadership Theory that bears Ken's imprimatur. Conceptualising leadership as a social process, Ken (Parry, Reference Parry1998, Reference Parry1999; Parry & Proctor-Thomson, Reference Parry and Proctor-Thomson2001) emphasised the importance of the processes of influence in the context of achieving adaptation and change in response to changes in an organisation's environment. Subsequently, Parry and Meindl (Reference Parry, Meindl, Parry and Meindl2002) elaborated that social processes of leadership (hereafter SPL) optimises an organisation's situation through surviving, investing or transforming. Further, SPL resolves uncertainty through strategies, behaviours and activities demonstrated by leaders. Additionally, SPL enhances followers' adaptability and the leaders' own adaptability as leaders influence their followers' perceptions, creating reciprocal commitment, and improving knowledge of reciprocal benefits of changes. Furthermore, SPL also enhances followers' adaptability by consistently and clearly communicating desirable messages, facilitating experiences of different change situations for followers, and achieving complementarity of values. Finally, SPL promulgates leader vision by meaningfully articulating and communicating the vision to employees.
To stimulate research on SPL, Parry and his colleagues developed the social processes of leadership scale (hereafter SPLS, Parry & Proctor-Thomson, Reference Parry and Proctor-Thomson2001; Proctor & Parry, Reference Proctor and Parry1999). Subsequent studies using the SPLS found that SPL influenced increased perceived morale, organisational commitment, organisational efficacy, citizenship behaviours and overall performance, with the impact witnessed at the individual, team and organisational levels (Muchiri, Cooksey, & Walumbwa, Reference Muchiri, Cooksey and Walumbwa2012; Parry, Reference Parry2004, Reference Parry, Avolio and Yammarino2013; Parry & Proctor-Thomson, Reference Parry and Proctor-Thomson2001). Consequently, Parry challenged researchers to propose new pathways that SPL could influence organisational outcomes. Thus, a major motivation for this article is to broaden the application of SPL in a changing workplace, and we specifically tap into the positive organisational behaviour (hereafter POB) literature (Peterson & Seligman, Reference Peterson, Seligman, Cameron, Dutton and Quinn2003) to connect SPL to the attainment of positive outcomes.
A New Lead for Social Processes of Leadership
Luthans, Avolio, Avey, and Norman (Reference Luthans, Avolio, Avey and Norman2007) propose that leaders play an incremental role in the development of a positive workplace, and that leaders facilitate positive behaviour at the organisation level through maximising the strengths of the followers and providing an enabling environment which is conducive for the development of such strengths (Searle & Barbuto, Reference Searle and Barbuto2010). Related to this, recent findings show SPL is a positive form of leadership, just like transformational, authentic and servant leadership (Muchiri, Cooksey, & Walumbwa, Reference Muchiri, Cooksey and Walumbwa2012; Van Dierendonck, Reference Van Dierendonck2011; Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson, Reference Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing and Peterson2008; Walumbwa, Muchiri, Misati, Wu, & Meiliani, Reference Walumbwa, Muchiri, Misati, Wu and Meiliani2018), and could influence organisational outcomes specified in the POB literature. Consequently, we propose that like other positive forms of leadership, SPL could potentially influence positive work outcomes. As indicated in Figure 1, we illustrate how SPL impacts POBs, represented here by the key construct of psychological capital (hereafter PsyCap).
A framework explaining relationships between social processes of leadership, positive organisational behaviour and desired outcomes
Illustrating the social processes of leadership: psychological capital relationship
As an emerging construct from POB, PsyCap has been defined as ‘an individual's positive psychological state of development that is characterised by: (1) having confidence (efficacy) to take on and put in the necessary effort to succeed at challenging tasks; (2) making a positive attribution (optimism) about succeeding now and in the future; (3) persevering toward goals and, when necessary, redirecting paths to goals in order to succeed; and (4) when beset by problems and adversity, sustaining and bouncing back and even beyond (resilience) to attain success’ (Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio, Reference Luthans, Youssef and Avolio2007: 3). Additionally, past studies relate positive forms of leadership, such as transformational, authentic and servant leader behaviours, to employee PsyCap (Datu, King, & Valdez, Reference Datu, King and Valdez2018; Rego, Sousa, Marques, & Cunha, Reference Rego, Sousa, Marques and Cunha2012; Searle & Barbuto, Reference Searle and Barbuto2010). Given that SPL manifests in similar ways as those other positive forms of leadership, we propose that there are potential linkages between SPL and PsyCap, with the latter being a potential antecedent for other forms of POB that we highlight later in our conclusion section.
At the core of SPL is the leader's ability to be confident and have a clear sense of purpose and direction. The enhancing adaptability dimension of SPL is devoted to enhancing the employee's confidence and efficacy and communication of vision to followers (Parry, Reference Parry1999). Communicating the vision would ideally facilitate the followers' capability to develop goals and have faith in achieving them, set positive evaluation of the future, create a belief in one's capability to achieve goals, which contribute towards achieving the vision, and subsequently generate the ability to recover from adversity. Promulgation of the vision by the leaders could serve as an important pathway which would enhance the followers' sense of direction, motivation and confidence (Parry, Reference Parry, Avolio and Yammarino2013). Additionally, leaders can enhance the adaptability of their followers in order to achieve goals and do this when they ‘create reciprocal commitment, improve knowledge of reciprocal benefits of changes, consistently and clearly communicate desirable messages, facilitate experiences of different change situations for followers, and achieve complementarity of values’ (Parry, Reference Parry1999: 145). Ultimately, such actions increase their follower's self-efficacy and help focus their efforts on achieving goals and finding different pathways to achieve those goals by giving them self-worth, confidence, trust and hope in the future. As such, we propose that SPL will foster followers' positive PsyCap aimed at achieving goals, having faith and confidence to achieve them, and changing paths to attain more desirable futures. Therefore,
P1a.
SPL will positively relate to employee PsyCap.
P1b.
Employee PsyCap will mediate the relationship between SPL and employee desired outcomes (at the individual, team and organisational levels).
Conclusion
Building on Ken's decades of work on SPL, we tap into the POB literature, and propose a research framework with a difference – identifying potential linkages between SPL and PysCap. While our illustrative conceptual framework relates SPL to PsyCap, there are other areas to consider, such as thriving (Spreitzer, Sutcliffe, Dutton, Sonenshein, & Grant, Reference Spreitzer, Sutcliffe, Dutton, Sonenshein and Grant2005) and organisational virtuousness (Cameron, Dutton, & Quinn, Reference Cameron, Dutton and Quinn2003), also part of POB. Our propositions could be contested as being overly ambitious and premature. We know, for example, that past studies have not definitively established the causal pathway in relation to POB and desired organisational outcomes (Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio, Reference Luthans, Youssef and Avolio2007). Acknowledging Ken's scholarship, the cultural context is also vital to explaining the SPL–PsyCap–desired outcomes relationship (Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio, Reference Luthans, Youssef and Avolio2007). Nevertheless, our aim is to inspire the researchers to design studies that explore intuitively sensible and different pathways through which SPL may impact positive organisational outcomes.
From a theoretical and empirical stand point, we encourage researchers to use the SPLS (Proctor & Parry, Reference Proctor and Parry1999) to gather data from diverse research contexts (organisations, cultures and countries), and thus enhance the generalisation of findings from the questionnaire. Finally, we encourage practitioners to use SPL as a developmental tool for enhancing organisational effectiveness.
In memory of a friend and an academic mentor
A review of Prof. Ken Parry's work on SPL influenced Michael Muchiri's doctoral project to such an extent that the Social Processes of Leadership Theory formed a crucial part of Michael's PhD thesis. From 2006 to 2018, Michael formed a close personal and academic relationship with Ken, keenly following Ken's work on SPL, with Ken encouraging Michael and his colleagues to extend the application of the SPL theory. Even while Ken was unwell, he found time to have hot chocolates with Michael, while sharing his knowledge of leadership often as a guest speaker in Michael's postgraduate classes at RMIT University. One of Ken's last involvements with industry was as a key facilitator for a project that Michael was running for the City of Melbourne Council called ‘Empowering African Australian Women through Leadership Development’. Ken's captivating delivery of the workshops made him so popular with the women participants that they nicknamed Ken the ‘African Brother from a different Mother’.
Author ORCIDs
Michael Muchiri, 0000-0001-6816-8350; Oluremi Ayoko, 0000-0003-0208-0254.
