CfP: Beyond the ritualized use of questionnaires: Toward a science of actual behaviors and psychological states

Call for Papers / The Leadership Quarterly

„Beyond the ritualized use of questionnaires: Toward a science of actual behaviors and psychological states”

This Special Issue is dedicated to reinvigorating and advancing investigations into actual behaviors and psychological states manipulating or objectively measuring them so that our field can take a similar leap forward. Contributions may include (but are not limited to) the following types of theoretical, methodological, or empirical work in a social science (e.g., leadership or management more broadly)—context:

1. Studies developing clear definitions of important constructs that were heretofore typically captured via questionnaire measures but can be manipulated and objectively codedThe substantive change in the conceptualization of charismatic leadership and how it can be experimentally manipulated is an illustration of such an approach (e.g., see Meslec, Curseu, Fodor, & Kenda, 2020, who also employ consequential outcomes).

2. Studies systematically comparing empirical analyses based on questionnaire measures to those based on unobtrusive or archival measures (e.g., observing real behavior). Chatterjee and Hambrick’s (2007) work on non-questionnaire-based measures of narcissism is a case in point.

3. Studies systematically identifying types of questionnaire measures that are less prone to (conscious or unconscious) misreporting. For instance, Gioia and Sims (1985) developed a measure of leader behaviors that is not prone to bias due to performance cues and people’s implicit leadership theories.

4. Studies using direct observational measures or real-time measures of behaviorarchival data, and neurophysiological measures for variables relevant to the study of leadership or other social science phenomena (e.g., Antonakis, 2017; Gerpott et al., 2018, Wenzel &Van Quaquebeke, 2018).

5. Eliciting preferences and attitudes by using list experiments (Blair & Imai, 2012) and randomized response protocols (Greenberg et al., 1969), which are useful in measuring true states in contexts where social desirability and social norms may constrain true responses.

6. Experimental research in the field or laboratory to highlight biases, demand effects, or endogeneity issues originating from questionnaire measures, as well as the use of game-theoretic designs that consider costs and benefits of choices and actions (Zehnder, Herz, & Bonardi, 2017).

7. Studies purging questionnaire measures that serve as explanatory variable from endogeneity by instrumenting them with experimentally randomized instrumental variables (Meslec et al., 2020; Sajons, 2020) or measured variables that are exogenous (Cavazotte, Moreno, & Hickmann, 2012), whether in laboratory or field settings.

8. Reviews of research to identify problematic areas in studying real behaviors and psychological states and to chart new territory for researchers. Such reviews could serve as go-to guides for scholars developing their studies and seeking to jettison questionnaires.

9. Theoretical articles that contribute to the development of constructs and measures that foster the study of real behaviors in situ. Conceptual work on event-based approaches to studying leadership and management are a case in point (e.g., Hoffman & Lord, 2013; Morgeson, Mitchell, & Liu, 2015).

Special Issue Co-editors:
• Thomas Fischer, Geneva School of Economics and Management, University of Geneva,
• Donald C. Hambrick, Smeal College of Business, The Pennsylvania State University,
• Gwendolin B. Sajons, ESCP Business School,
• Niels Van Quaquebeke, Kühne Logistics University & University of Exeter,

Here you can find the CfP with more information on the submission process: