About every two weeks we will have our Leadership Lab meetings. Guests are welcome, both to present ideas and to simply attend and listen. If you want to learn more or would like to attend, please contact Wendy de Waal-Andrews (firstname.lastname@example.org).
Here are our most recent and upcoming meetings:
26.08.2019 MF-A420 at 12:00: Sofia Schlamp (VU, Shell)
09.09.2019 MF-D134 at 12:00: Omar Solinger (VU: Management & Organization)
Title: The emergence of moral leadership
The emergence of moral leadership, discussed here as a situation where individuals take a moral stance on an issue, convince others to do the same and together spur change in a moral system, abounds in practice. Existing ethical and moral leadership theories, however, have remained confined to micro-level behavioral research. We therefore develop a process theory of the socially situated emergence of moral leadership and its development into a broader movement affecting moral systems within and across formal organizations. We theorize the pathways through which moral leadership emerges; the triggers that bring about moral awareness and the moral courage to offer an alternative moral stance toward an issue, and leaders’ ability to deftly connect followers and their moral convictions into a broader movement, such that a moral system changes from within. With our process theory, we bridge between micro and macro levels of analysis, and highlight the crucial ability of leaders to be both principled and pragmatically savvy, thus bridging between their own moral convictions and those of others in order to develop a common and mutually binding ground towards change.
23.09.2019 MF-D134 at 12:00: Gijs Schumacher (UvA: Political Science)
07.10.2019 MF-D134 at 12:00: Rina Joosten (Seedlink)
17.06.2019 MF-G502 at 12:00: Alexandra (Sasha) Cook (TU Chemnitz)
Title: Individual Differences in Perceiving Shared Leadership in Teams
Leadership perceptions as social-cognitive constructs are a function of both the exhibited and perceived behavior of the target, as well as categorization processes determined by the fit of a target with the rater’s leader schema or implicit leadership theories. The target’s information processing can lead to systematic biases in the perception of informal leadership in leaderless teams. Although shared leadership, i.e. the magnitude and degree to which leadership in teams is exerted by multiple team-members has been prominently features in recent research on leadership in teams, the majority of studies assess leadership in terms of the team members perceptions. In this study, we determine whether Leadership Structure Schemas (LSS; DeRue & Ashford, 2010), i.e. schemas related to the distribution of leadership in groups (hierarchical vs. shared), systematically impact the perceived pattern of perceived leadership in teams across time. We analyze the leadership perceptions of student team members (Nindividuals= 106, Nteams = 41 ) across 5 measurement points covering the entire team collaboration. Furthermore, we analyze to which degree and under which conditions the effects of LSS on perceived leadership patterns are mediated by the rater’s perceived communication network in the team.
03.06.2019 MF-A210 at 12:00: Leander van der Meij (TuE)
(in collaboration with Andrew Demetriou, Marina Tulin, Ileana Méndezd, and Peter Dekker, and Tila Pronk)
Title: Hormones in speed-dating: The role of testosterone and cortisol in attraction
There is evidence that testosterone and cortisol levels are related to the attraction of a romantic partner; testosterone levels relate to a wide range of sexual behaviors and cortisol is a crucial component in the response to stress. To investigate this, we conducted a speed-dating study among heterosexual singles. We measured salivary testosterone and cortisol changes in men and women (n = 79) when they participated in a romantic condition (meeting opposite-sex others, i.e., potential romantic partners), as well as a control condition (meeting same-sex others, i.e., potential friends). Over the course of the romantic speed-dating event, results showed that women’s but not men’s testosterone levels increased and cortisol levels decreased for both men and women. These findings further indicate that men’s testosterone and cortisol levels were at ceiling level in anticipation of the event, whereas for women, this appears to only be the case for cortisol. Concerning the relationship between attraction and hormonal change, four important findings can be distinguished. First, men were more popular when they arrived at the romantic speed-dating event with elevated cortisol levels. Second, in both men and women, a larger change in cortisol levels during romantic speed-dating was related to less selectivity. Third, testosterone alone was unrelated to any romantic speed-dating outcome (selectivity or popularity). However, fourth, women who arrived at the romantic speed-dating event with higher testosterone levels were more selective when their anticipatory cortisol response was low. Overall, our findings suggest that changes in the hormone cortisol may be stronger associated with the attraction of a romantic partner than testosterone is.
06.05.2019 MF-J173 at 12:00: Gert-Jan Munneke (UvA)
Title: Evolutionary Mismatch in Moral judgement
In this presentation, I will present my PhD. research on moral cognition. How do people judge moral dilemmas? Two specific moral dilemmas are addressed: 1) How do people judge stealing, especially in the situation of physical theft versus digital theft (e.g. copyright infringement). 2) How do people judge killing; especially when killing one life can save multiple others (aka the Trolley problem). I will argue that the peculiar patterns of moral judgment that these problems elicit are best explained by the evolutionary Mismatch hypothesis. In defense of this thesis, I will showcase four dissertation chapters: 1) an EEG study on how (fast) people judge instances of theft vs. copyright infringement. 2) Behavioral studies, digging deeper into the actual determinants of the moral dissociation between physical and digital theft, 3) Similar behavioral studies on the Trolley problem. 4) Propose a symbolic logical framework as a language to formalize evolutionary aspects of moral cognition; and contemplate on potential ramifications this logical language could have for ethical philosophy: what can this research say (if anything) about what actually distinguishes right from wrong.