academy of management learning & education games … · len & ibarra, 2009). some...

Games Managers Play:Play as a Form of

Leadership DevelopmentRONIT KARK

Bar-Ilan University

In recent years, organizations have expended considerable effort and resources todevelop and improve managers’ leadership skills through various forms of play. I explorethe role of play in leadership development processes. Drawing on theories of leader andleadership development and theories of play, I develop a conceptual framework,suggesting that play can contribute to different components of leader and leadershipdevelopment processes (i.e., leadership identity, cognitive abilities, and behavioral skills).Furthermore, the role of creating safe play spaces in leadership development processes ishighlighted. The discussion examines the implications and applications of play forleadership development processes, points to the dangers of misuse of play, and outlinesdirections for further empirical research.

........................................................................................................................................................................

“At some point as we get older . . . we aremade to feel guilty for playing. We are toldthat it is unproductive, a waste of time, evensinful. The play that remains is, like leaguesports, mostly very organized, rigid, and com-petitive. We strive to always be productive.This is not the case. . . the truth is that in mostcases, play is a catalyst. The beneficial ef-fects of getting just a little true play canspread through our lives, usually making usmore productive and happier in everythingwe do” (Brown, 2009).

“A child in play acts ‘as though he were ahead taller than himself’” (Vygotsky, 1978:102).

In recent years, organizations have expended agreat deal of effort and resources in an attempt toteach managers how to lead (e.g., Industry reports,2000). Recent approaches to leadership challengethe notion that individuals are born as leaders and

focus on ways to develop individuals’ capacity toengage effectively in leadership roles (e.g., Day &Zaccaro, 2004; McCall, 2004). This has resulted invarious methods, training programs, and work-shops designed for this purpose. Many organiza-tions view leadership development as a majorsource of sustainable competitive advantage andplace leadership development at the core of theircorporate culture (McCall & Hollenbeck, 2002).Leadership development programs and processeshave become instrumental in many organizations,and they have fostered an industry that generatesvast sums of capital and offers a broad range ofpossibilities (e.g., Arthur, Bennett, Edens, & Bell,2003; Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001).

Over the past decade, research attention hasbeen devoted to the theory and practice of leader-ship development (e.g., Avolio & Hannah, 2008;Collins & Holton, 2004; Day, Zaccaro, & Halpin,2004; DeRue & Ashford, 2010). The general consen-sus is that different managerial populations needdifferent kinds of learning opportunities, but littletheoretical and empirical guidance exists to helppractitioners and HR personnel select or combinemethods that are best suited to each group (Guil-len & Ibarra, 2009).

Some leadership development programs consistof experiences that span just a few hours, whileothers may last several days, or even take the formof extended seminars. In addition, the nature of

I am grateful to Irit Feldman-Levy for her meaningful and cre-ative contribution to this paper and to Sim Sitkin and the anon-ymous reviewers for their valuable feedback. I thank MoranAnisman, Tal Ben Shahar, Yair Berson, Avi Carmeli, JacobEisenberg, Shaul Fox, and Rivka Tuval Mashiach for their help-ful comments on earlier versions. I also thank my children—Omer, Ofri, & Clil for reminding me of the importance andenjoyment of play.

� Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2011, Vol. 10, No. 3, 507–527. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amle.2010.0048

........................................................................................................................................................................

507Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’sexpress written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.

such programs runs the gamut from relatively tra-ditional programs to experiential programs for per-sonal and spiritual growth. While the former isgenerally comprised of lectures on theoretical con-cepts and approaches, training in leadershipskills, and feedback on leadership style, the lattertype can be characterized by such wide-rangingapproaches as arts and crafts, Tai Chi, Easternphilosophy, orchestra conducting, and outdoor na-ture challenges (e.g., Conger, 1992; Mirvis, 2008;Starkey & Tempest, 2009). A recent comprehensivestudy that summarizes 163 studies on managementtraining programs indicates that some but not all,of these methods and approaches are effective interms of different criteria, such as the participants’reactions, learning, behavioral change, and mea-surable organizational results (e.g., Arthur et al.,2003).

One type of leadership development programthat is attracting growing attention is programs inwhich managers participate in activities that in-volve play. Spearheading these play-oriented pro-grams are the popular “outdoors programs,” inwhich managers are asked to overcome naturalobstacles, build log structures, go whitewater raft-ing, walk on tightropes, hunt for treasure chests,and experiment with fictional identities (Conger,1992; Jones & Oswick, 2007; Petriglieri & Wood,2005). Managers are also invited to take part in“indoor” play involving role-play and simulations,strategy games, and computer on-line simulations(e.g., Mainemelis & Ronson, 2006; Rafaeli, 2010).

Play is a unique and universal human experi-ence. Huizinga’s (1955) seminal work “HomoLudens,” (the man who plays) demonstrated thecentrality of play to humanity and the constructionof culture as manifested in everyday life. However,the postindustrial revolution has created the “mythof separate spheres” that permeates our culture(Kanter, 1997). This “myth” entails splitting off thepublic sphere and the workplace from the privatesphere, and from leisure and play, in an attempt toenhance organizational efficiency, rationalization,and profitability through control mechanisms (e.g.,Mainemelis & Altman, 2010).

Recently, play has become increasingly ac-knowledged as an important factor in offices andorganizations. Fortune-500 companies are beingconsulted on how to incorporate play into busi-nesses (Brown & Vaughan, 2009; Meyer, 2010). Var-ious companies such as Google, Patagonia, Gore,Motorola, and Du Pont encourage their employeesto use up to 20% of their work time to play freelywith new ideas (Mainemelis & Altman, 2010). In the“Top 10 reasons to work at Google,” number four onthe company Website is “Work and play are not

mutually exclusive: It is possible to code and passthe puck at the same time” (Meyer, 2010: 70). Cur-rent leadership development programs and pro-cesses also rely on play as a central component ofleadership development (Petriglieri & Wood, 2005;Rafaeli, 2010). Social scientists have also under-scored the importance of play in calibrating indi-viduals (Sutton-Smith, 1997) and in contributing toemployees’ development as well as to their mentaland physical well-being (Brown & Vaughan, 2009).However, the role of play in leadership develop-ment processes has not been adequately studiedby researchers, and the theoretical underpinningshave barely been considered.

I endeavor here to make sense of the role of playin the context of leadership development by exam-ining the various potential meanings of play andthe ways it can contribute to the process of leaderand leadership development in an organizationalcontext. I present a conceptual framework for un-derstanding the role of play in leadership devel-opment processes by drawing on theories of leaderand leadership development (Conger, 1992; Day,2000; Day & Harrison, 2007; DeRue & Ashford, 2010;Lord & Hall, 2005) and theories of play from differ-ent streams of thought in the social sciences (e.g.,psychological, anthropological, organizational,and medical). I offer a model suggesting that playcan contribute to different (emotional, cognitive,and behavioral) components of leader and leader-ship development processes, with an emphasis onaspects of the leader’s identity. The first section ofthe paper presents theories of leadership develop-ment, defines the concept of play, and examinesthe importance of safe play spaces for leadershipdevelopment processes. The second draws on dif-ferent theories of play to explore the possible con-tributions of play to leadership development (lead-ership identity development, conceptual andcognitive ability, and leadership-relevant skill de-velopment). The final section discusses implica-tions and applications and depicts the possibledark sides of the use of play in the leadershipdevelopment processes.

However, the role of play in leadershipdevelopment processes has not beenadequately studied by researchers, andthe theoretical underpinnings havebarely been considered.

508 SeptemberAcademy of Management Learning & Education

KEY CONSTRUCTS

Leader and Leadership Development

Leadership has traditionally been conceptualizedas an individual-level skill. Within this tradition,development is thought to occur primarily throughtraining individual intrapersonal skills and abili-ties (e.g., Barling, Weber, & Kelloway, 1996; Neck &Manz, 1996). A complementary perspective ap-proaches leadership as a social process that en-gages community members (Barker, 1997; Wenger& Snyder, 2000). In this way, each person is consid-ered a leader, and leadership is conceptualized asan effect rather than a cause (Drath, 1998). Thesetheories consider that both individual and social-relational lenses are important elements of lead-ership development.

In line with this perspective, Day and coauthors(Day, 2000; Day & Harrison, 2007; Day & Zaccaro,2004) developed a model that distinguishes be-tween leader and leadership development. Theaim of leader development is to enhance humancapital (Brass & Krackhardt, 1999; Lepak & Snell,1999). The primary emphasis of this developmentstrategy is to build the intrapersonal competenceof the individual, foster a mature leader identity,and enable more effective performance. Typicallythe focus is on individual-based knowledge, skills,and abilities associated with formal leadershiproles. Specific examples of the types of intraper-sonal competence associated with leader develop-ment initiatives include self-awareness (e.g., emo-tional awareness, self-confidence); self-regulation(e.g., self-control, trustworthiness, adaptability);and self-motivation (e.g., commitment, initiative,optimism; Day, 2000).

A second, separate concept of development isleadership development. The primary emphasis inleadership development is on building and usinginterpersonal competence. This perspective fo-cuses on social capital (Brass & Krackhardt, 1999).Unlike human capital, which is focused on thedevelopment of individual knowledge, skills, andabilities, social capital is focused on building net-worked relationships among individuals that en-hance cooperation and resource exchange to cre-ate organizational value (e.g., Tsai & Ghoshal,1998). Social capital is based on relationships,which are created through interpersonal ex-change. This view highlights the social nature ofleadership and the idea that effective developmentbest occurs in an interpersonal context. Hence, so-cial capital requires an interpersonal lens that isgrounded in a relational model of leadership(Drath, 1998; Kark, 2011). Key components of inter-personal competence include social awareness

(e.g., empathy and developing others) and socialskills (e.g., collaboration, building bonds, and con-flict management; Day, 2000; Day & Harrison, 2007).

Furthermore, leadership development also in-cludes the development of group-level competen-cies of relational and shared leadership. Whenleadership is shared, it is distributed among a setof individuals instead of centralized in the handsof an individual (e.g., Fletcher & Kaufer, 2003;Pearce & Conger, 2003). Shared leadership putsforward a concept of leadership practice as agroup-level phenomenon. Leadership develop-ment at the shared leadership group level is com-prised of competencies such as group learning,team creativity, and the relevant behavioral skillsfor mutual leadership.

Each framework (leader development vs. leader-ship development) is designed to develop differentlevels of leader identity (individual, relational, andcollective; Brewer & Gardner, 1996). Because lead-ership involves multiple individuals engaged in aprocess of interpersonal and mutual influence thatis embedded within a collective context, the con-struction of a leadership identity invokes all threeelements of self-construal: individual internaliza-tion, relational recognition, and collective endorse-ment. Individual internalization is a state whereindividuals come to incorporate the identity ofleader or follower as part of their self-concept (Day& Harrison, 2007; Gecas, 1982). Relational recogni-tion of the leader by the other calls for a mutuallyrecognized role relationship between the leaderand follower (DeRue & Ashford, 2010; Sluss & Ash-forth, 2007). Collective endorsement is about beingseen within the broader social environment as partof a particular social group, for example, beingpart of the management team (Brewer & Gardner,1996; DeRue & Ashford, 2010). Leader developmentdeals with the level of the individualized self;whereas leadership development is about furtherdeveloping a relational and collective leadershipidentity. Thus, leadership development processesthat engage all three levels of self-construal willreinforce a solid, complex, and mature leadershipidentity. As a result, it is thought that the mostvalue resides in combining what is considered thetraditional, individualistic approach to leader de-velopment with a more shared and relational ap-proach to leadership development.1

1 In actual leadership training programs leader and leadershipdevelopment may be highly linked, since an effort to developthe leader’s intrapersonal capacities may at the same timeenhance individuals’ interpersonal skills. However, I differen-tiate here between the processes that foster leader versus lead-ership development to develop a clear conceptual framework.

2011 509Kark

Components of Leader andLeadership Development

The development of leadership ability is a com-plex process. According to Conger (1992), who ex-tensively studied “learning to lead,” successfulleadership development programs and processesmust be designed to address three features: (1)personal growth, (2) conceptual ability, and (3) skilldevelopment. The first component of personalgrowth relates to experiences that tap individuals’personal needs interests, build self-esteem, andhelp clarify and develop individuals’ interests andmotivation to lead. Conger’s (1992) definition ofpersonal growth can be extended to the formationof a leadership identity at different levels of self-construal (individualized, relational, and collec-tive). Personal growth can be perceived as stronglyrelated to emotional processes and to processes inwhich a leadership identity becomes, is consoli-dated, crystallizes, shaped, reshaped, and trans-formed in interactions with others (DeRue & Ash-ford, 2010; Ibarra & Petriglieri, 2010; Petriglieri &Petriglieri, 2010).

The conceptual and cognitive ability componententails developing individuals’ abilities to thinkabout challenges, analyze a situation, provide aconceptual framing of a situation, stimulate intel-lectually, and develop novel and creative direc-tions. It also includes the ability of the leader tobecome involved in deep learning and to have aclear conception of the leadership role itself. Thethird component of development of skills is fo-cused on learning important behaviors and refin-ing the use of teachable skills that are importantfor the leadership role. The skills needed are likelyto change as individuals advance in roles verti-cally and horizontally in the organizational set-ting. This model proposes that a full range ofleader development process occurs and is effectivewhen the emotional, cognitive, and behavioral as-pects are addressed.

Below I present a conceptual framework thatlinks different levels of “leader” and “leadership”development with play and shows how play cancontribute to leadership development at the indi-vidual and the relational-collective levels. Threeleadership development components will be ex-amined: (1) personal growth through identity de-velopment, (2) conceptual and cognitive abilities,and (3) leadership-relevant skills.2

The Concept of Play

Play is a popular and ancient human activity. Ev-idence of its existence dates back as far as 200 BC

(Habas, 2002) and was evident in some of the larg-est and most complex organizational feats of an-tiquity: the Greek Olympic Games and the bloodyRoman circus (Mainemelis & Altman, 2010). Thenotion of play can be defined in many ways and iscomplex in terms of its nature, purpose, and man-ifestation. Play has been defined as a vacationfrom reality (Erikson, 1950), purposeless activity(Bekoff & Byers, 1998), fundamentally different fromearnest activity (Lorenz, 1994), amphibolous (goingsimultaneously in both directions; Spariosu, 1989),an activity one is not obliged to do (Twain, 1988), ora voluntary intrinsically driven activity without aspecific purpose that is done for its own sake andis associated with pleasure and enjoyment (Brown& Vaughan, 2009; Kolb & Kolb, 2010).

In this paper I follow the definition of Maineme-lis and Ronson (2006) who define play as a behav-ioral orientation consisting of five elements: athreshold experience (threshold between the trueand the false, convention and illusion, inner andouter reality); boundaries in time and space (playis circumscribed within limits in time and space);uncertainty-freedom-constraint (play usually in-volves surprise and uncertainty); loose and flexi-ble association between means and ends; and pos-itive affect (for further elaboration see Mainemelis& Ronson, 2006).

Play may consist of amusing, pretend or imagi-nary interpersonal and intrapersonal interactionsor interplay. The rites of play are visible through-out nature and are observed among human beingsand animals, particularly in the cognitive develop-ment and socialization of those engaged in devel-opmental processes and the young. When play isstructured and goal oriented with preset rules, it isoften defined as a “game” (Brown & Vaughan, 2009;Sutton-Smith, 1997).

“Play” can be distinguished from “work” by con-trasting the purposes, processes, and spaces inwhich it takes place. The notions of work and playdo not represent different activities; rather, theyare characterized by different ways of approachingactivities or different frames for acting (Glynn,1994). In play, the primary drivers of behavior areenjoyment and discovery rather than goals and

2 Each leadership development component includes a wide va-riety of outcomes. For example, personal growth can be seen inthe form of developing a leadership identity, but also as en-hancing self-regulation and optimism. Here, I chose to focus on

some of the possible outcomes in each section to demonstrateand highlight the possible contribution of play to leader andleadership development. For example, with regard to concep-tual and cognitive abilities, I focus on the development of theability to learn and think creatively, although many other out-comes can also be present.


efficiency (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; March, 1976).Another core distinction between work and playactivities concerns their focus on process versusoutcomes, or means versus ends (Miller, 1973).Glynn (1994) found that individuals engaging inactivities framed as “work” tended to have an endsorientation, whereas those engaging in the sameactivity framed as “play” had a means orientation.In work settings, once behavior is no longer chan-neled toward specific goals and ends, it is re-placed by the pleasure of taking a winding route.In such a case, other guidelines for decision mak-ing come to the fore, such as intuition, emotion,and taking a leap of faith (March, 1976). Thesedeviations from normal operating procedures andrules of conduct facilitate expression and creativ-ity (Ibarra & Petriglieri, 2010).

Here, I focus on play that is used in leadershipdevelopment processes (e.g., leadership trainingprograms, workshops, seminars, and on-the-jobtraining) and is designed to develop individuals’and groups’ ability to lead in terms of their lead-ership identity development, conceptual ability,and skill development. This differs from the freeplay that various organizations provide during re-cess, work breaks, or outside working hours.3

When play is designed by organizations and facil-itators to develop leadership, it also risks losing itsessence as “purposeless activity” and its nature asan activity oriented toward the “means and pro-cess” rather than on the “outcome and ends.” How-ever, the differences between play and workare not likely to be dichotomous, rather they maybe on a continuum, and play may be enacted, notmerely for pleasure, but also to promote the goal ofleadership growth and development. Thus, al-though play in leadership development programsmay have some purpose and goal, if it is enacted ina way that involves enjoyment, centers on the pro-cess or means, and the measurable outcomes aresuspended, individuals are likely to experience abehavioral orientation to “play.”

There are different forms and types of play. Playmay vary with regards to the players. It may be

enacted by a sole individual (e.g., the game ofsolitaire), it may take the form of a dyadic interac-tion, or it may be an interaction shared by a teamor a large group. Play may also differ in terms of itslevel of emotional arousal. For example, outdooractivities such as rope climbing or an intense role-play of situations of conflict may elicit higher lev-els of emotional arousal than puzzle completiongames. Play can also be more focused on a specificleadership role in the form of role-play or a simu-lation that is strongly related to an actual situationin the organization, or alternatively, it can take theform of make-believe and be highly imaginativeand diverge from the day-to-day reality of the or-ganizational context. Furthermore, play may bestructured as competitive, or as a communal expe-rience which results in mutual benefits. Here, Irelate to play as a general term; however, it isevident that different forms of play may lead todifferent types of leader and leadership develop-ment outcomes. Therefore I highlight below thetypes of play that may be most beneficial for theproposed outcome.

THE ROLE OF PLAY INLEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

Play Spaces as Sites of Leadership Development

Another important distinction between work andplay is the space in which they take place. Workand play frames are enacted in different physicaland psychological settings. For Huizinga (1955),play has three central characteristics: It is free, itinvolves stepping out of “real” life, and it isbounded in space and time. Play activities areoften buffered from work activities by physical andtemporal boundaries (e.g., sabbaticals, time-outs,and vacations). From an anthropological perspec-tive, the play space is defined as a liminal zone(Turner, 1974), a sacred transitional phase ob-served in different societies where cultural andcommunal practices are freed from normative so-cial structures. Within a liminal space, tribe mem-bers are granted temporary freedom to exploreplayfully the sacred in the form of rituals andmyths. As Turner (1974) notes, “in liminality people‘play’ with the elements of the familiar and defa-miliarize them. Novelty emerges from unprece-dented combinations of familiar elements” (60).

In psychological terms, play is situated withinthe safety of a transitional space where childrencan explore and express themselves without soci-etal pressures. Psychologically, play occurs in aspace in between external and internal reality, ora transitional space (Kolb & Kolb, 2010; Spariosu,

3 Firms such as Google and Patagonia authorize their employ-ees to spend some of their working time in free play. Anotherrecent trend concerning play in organizations is called gamifi-cation (see: http:/gamification.org/wiki/Gamification), which re-fers to applying game design to different nongame applicationsactivities at work, such as marketing, health, and education.Although this type of free play and gamification is also impor-tant it is not the type of play I refer to here, since my focus is onplay that is directly aimed at developing leadership and not onplay in general that may have other important aims (such asencouraging employees’ work involvement, vitality, and workcommitment).

2011 511Kark

1989; Sutton-Smith, 1997; Winnicott, 1971, 1975). Thisbetwixt-and-between nature of play is an impor-tant component. It distinguishes play from otheractivities and makes it a universally recognizablephenomenon (Huizinga, 1955). Play requires a rel-atively safe space to try out new and untestedidentities, thoughts, and behaviors (Glynn, 1994;Shrage, 2000; Winnicott, 1975). Many of the ideasabout the relationship between play and psycho-logical safety derive from research on the stages oftransition periods and children’s maturity. Chil-dren imagine their futures and play out these pos-sibilities through games, reverie, and make-believe explorations (Winnicott, 1975). The playworld they create defines a region between anobjective external reality and an entirely subjec-tive internal world. Through play, the child pre-pares to accommodate illusions to real represen-tations in the external world. This process can bebest achieved in a safety zone, in which childrencan give free rein to their imagination, graduallydefining and testing newly emerging possibleselves (e.g., Ibarra & Petriglieri, 2010; Moustakas,1997), under the watchful and loving eye of thecaregiver.

In recent research on experiential learning andplay, Kolb and Kolb (2010) focused on the impor-tance of ludic, or play spaces where playful behav-iors thrive. They contend that “for a learner to en-gage fully in the learning cycle, a space must beprovided to engage fully in the four modes of thecycle—feeling, reflection, thinking, and action. Itneeds to be a hospitable, safe and supportivespace that is characterized by respect for all, but isalso challenging. It must allow learners to be incharge of their own learning and allow time for therepetitive practice that develops expertise” (Kolb &Kolb, 2010: 45). These spaces are characterized bythe absence of extrinsic evaluation, which thusfrees individuals to set their own learning agendaand terms.

Such environments also tend to have the char-acteristics of holding environments. Holding envi-ronments are spaces in which cognitive and emo-tional experiences, at times unsettling, give way tomeaning. Winnicott (1975) highlighted the funda-

mental importance of holding environments forchildren’s healthy development, not only cognitivelearning but also in developing an embodied, emo-tional understanding of the world. Children are notalone in needing holding environments to progressbetween stages of human development. It hasbeen argued that individuals need safe holdingenvironments in the context of work organizations(Kahn, 2001), mostly when potentially disablinganxiety at work is experienced. In the workplace,holding environments have been defined as a so-cial context that reduces disturbing affect and fa-cilitates sense making (Kahn, 2001). Such organi-zational spaces are likely to provide individualsboth containment, which is the ability to absorb,filter, or manage challenging or threatening emo-tions or ideas so that they can be used for innerwork (e.g., Bion, 1970), and interpretation, namely,the ideas that provide connections, meanings, or away of understanding what can be learned from anexperience (Petriglieri & Petriglieri, 2010).

Thus, in organizational life, certain physical set-tings delimit a psychological space and time thatcreates safety and holding, provides relief from thepressure of social validation, and legitimizes ex-ploration (Ibarra & Petriglieri, 2010; Petriglieri &Petriglieri, 2010). This suggests that for individualsto benefit from processes of leader and leadershipdevelopment, the conditions of safe spaces mustbe provided. Spatial boundaries, such as thosearound leadership development programs inwhich managers can explore in play (scenarios,simulations, role-plays, outdoor experiences,games and other forms of play) can encouragedepartures from existing norms and procedures byallowing people to suspend requirements for con-sistency and rationality, and, as they play withpossibilities, develop new skills or self-imagesthat can be transferred back to their day-to-daywork environment (Brown & Starkey, 2000; Senge,1990; Shrage, 2000).

Leadership development training programs, aswell as structures for “on-the-job” leadership de-velopment following these programs, can provideplay spaces that can function as “safe havens”“protected milieux” or “holding environments” thathave boundaries that partially keep out the world,so that individuals can remain open to what willunfold within them (Louis, 1996). This can enableindividuals who are to become leaders or peoplewho are already in leadership positions to re-hearse a variety of possible selves, new ideas, andto experiment with new skills without necessarilyseeking to adopt any of them on a permanent ba-sis, and eventually make transitions (Ibarra, 2003;Ibarra & Petriglieri, 2010).

This betwixt-and-between nature of playis an important component. Itdistinguishes play from other activitiesand makes it a universally recognizablephenomenon (Huizinga, 1955).


Play is an activity of utmost seriousness which isplayed out within a “consecrated spot” mentallyand physically, with strict rules of its own (Huiz-inga, 1955; Kolb & Kolb, 2010). Leadership develop-ment processes and programs can become “conse-crated spots” for experimenting “seriously” withplay, thus allowing leaders to experience personaland relational growth. The ability to play in a safeenvironment or time-bounded space can help peo-ple develop as leaders. This is because a safeenvironment enables them to experiment with arange of provisional leadership images, switchingfrom one to the other and adopting various possi-ble selves before settling on a new direction andmaking transformations in the way they chose tothink and act as leaders.

However, not all leadership development pro-grams that incorporate play can provide a safehaven or become ideal “concentrated spots” forserious play. Leadership training programs andprocesses can vary in the levels that they suspendevaluation and judgment, focus on ends and effi-ciency, or provide safe holding spaces to experi-ment with play.4 This implies that the potential ofplay to contribute to leader and leadership devel-opment will be enhanced when individuals andgroups taking part in leadership training pro-grams experience psychological safety and feelfree from external critiques, direct judgment, andorganizational implications.Proposition 1: Psychological safety will moderate

the relationship between play andleader/leadership development. Con-texts with a high level of psychologi-cal safety in comparison with con-texts with a low level of psychologicalsafety will yield more positive ef-fects of play on leader and leader-ship development.

Play as Contributing to Personal andRelational Growth

Leadership development programs that focus onpersonal growth are reported to have a strong ef-fect on individuals, because much of the work isdone on an emotional level (Conger, 1992;Petriglieri, 2011). One aspect of personal develop-ment in becoming a leader is closely related to theissue of the formation of a leadership identity. Ac-cording to a recent theory of leadership identitydevelopment (DeRue & Ashford, 2010), leader andfollower identities become socially constructedand form the basis of leader–follower relationshipsin a process of identity work in which individualsactively “claim” an identity and others affirm or“grant” that identity. Claiming refers to the actionspeople take to assert their identity as either aleader or follower, whereas granting refers to theactions that a person takes to bestow an identity(i.e., leader or follower) onto another person (Bartel& Dutton, 2001). Hence identities are seen as flexi-ble states frequently in movement (Sveningsson &Alvesson, 2003). Thus, in the process of leadershipdevelopment, individuals interact in the interplayof claims and grants to explore their identity asleaders.

The literature on identity construction in leader-ship (e.g., DeRue & Ashford, 2010; Gardner & Avo-lio, 1998; Luhrmann & Eberl, 2007) suggests thatclaiming and granting tactics can vary on two ba-sic dimensions: verbal–nonverbal (i.e., a personmaking statements that he or she is a leader vs.manipulating physical artifacts associated withleadership or followership) and direct–indirect (sit-ting at the head of a conference table vs. droppingthe name of an influential organizational leader).When a focal person claims a leader or followeridentity, this stimulates other people in the socialenvironment to consider seeing that focal personin accordance with that particular identity. Theycommunicate their acceptance of this perceptionby granting that particular identity to the focalperson through their words or actions (directly orindirectly). Although this granting of the identitymay not always occur immediately and may evenrequire several claims before the identity isgranted, the relational recognition of the claimthrough a reinforcing grant is essential to identityconstruction. This process of claiming and grant-ing a leadership identity is central to the process ofleadership development and growth. Thus, playcan be a good context for the reversing of claimsand grants dynamics in the process of developinga leadership identity. Being involved in play in aleadership development process is a good oppor-

4 Various researchers see the notion of safety as a definingcomponent of play and suggest that safe spaces allow play tooccur (e.g., Mainemelis & Ronson, 2006; Winnicott, 1971, 1975).Since I focus on workplace and organizational contexts, I sug-gest that play can also occur in contexts which are only par-tially safe and that the degree of safety experienced by indi-viduals will affect the level of learning and development thatan individual can derive from experimenting with play. Thequestion of causality still remains unresolved, because safetycan promote play, and play may promote a sense of safety;however, I contend that the level of safety will moderate thelevel of learning and leadership development derived fromplay. Future studies will need to explore the possible reciprocaleffects of play, safety, and leadership development.

2011 513Kark

tunity to test and experience claiming and grant-ing dynamics.

Huizinga (1955) noted that play is about steppingout of ordinary reality into a “higher order,” whereone can imagine oneself as someone different,more attractive, courageous, and daring. Thepower of play is about the symbolic representationof self as the embodiment and actualization ofwhat one has imagined oneself to be and become(Kolb & Kolb, 2010). Child psychologists note thatplay serves as rehearsal, a form of preparation forthe future (e.g., Miller, 1973; Sutton-Smith, 1997).When children play at being “mummy” or “doctor,”they are rehearsing possible future identities.Likewise, when adults play, they are rehearsingfuture possibilities. Recently, Ibarra and Petriglieri(2010) explored the relationship between play andthe enactment of novel and not yet fully elaboratedidentities at work. Their concept of “identity play”describes an identity process that generates vari-ety, rather than consistency, and is aimed at cre-ating future possibilities, rather than at maintain-ing existing identities and integrating them withexternal role demands. Their work builds on theo-ries of adult development (Levinson, 1978), organi-zational socialization (Van Mannen & Schein, 1979),and individual development (Piaget, 1962; Vy-gotsky, 1978) that suggest that playful behavior isthe underlying mechanism animating transitionsbetween past and future identities. Identity playoccurs at the threshold of current and possibleselves (Markus & Nurius, 1986).

Ashforth (1998) posited that individuals hold de-sired possible selves at a distance, “playing with”their identification with them until they can adoptthem as authentic identities. This distancing com-bined with the “just for fun” element of play facil-itates a feeling of safety within which the individ-ual can freely experiment with the identity inquestion. Similarly, in organizational research,Brown and Starkey (2000) conceptualized play as arange of activities that allow organizational mem-bers to explore the threshold between the currentsituation and future possibilities. Based on thesepreliminary ideas, Ibarra and Petriglieri (2010) sug-gested that identity play involves the crafting andprovisional trial of immature and unelaboratedpossible selves. Identity play aims to explore pos-sible selves rather than to claim and be granteddesired or ought selves, since play processes gen-erate variety, not consistency. Identity play is con-cerned with inventing and reinventing oneself,and becoming according to one’s own internalmotives and guidelines. By contrast, identitywork strives for the preservation of existing iden-

tities or compliance with externally imposed im-age requirements.

This suggests that play may have a central rolein leadership development processes, since it canenable individuals to become involved in identityplay in which they are able to experiment, inventand re-envision themselves in the role of leader-ship by claiming different leadership identities.Furthermore, claiming various novel possibleleadership identities may result in granting theseidentities or rejecting them by others who partici-pate in the process, and this may lead to futureshifts and changes in individuals’ leadership iden-tities. This can also enable individuals to takerisks and attempt to claim leadership in varioussituations that they would not have dared to try incircumstances that did not involve play. In situa-tions of leadership development that allow forplay, individuals can become aware of what en-ables them to claim leadership, how and when it isgranted, the boundary conditions that allow themto lead, and when they may be denied leadership.This can further their ability to develop as leaders.Thus, types of play that encourage identity play,such as role-play, simulations, and outdoor expe-riences, which provide structures in which the in-dividuals have the opportunity to explore a newrole, position, or leadership behavior, are likely tofoster the development of a leader identity.Proposition 2a: Play that enables identity play will

positively relate to the develop-ment of a leader identity.

Apart from leader development at the individuallevel, which centers on the individualized self andis aimed at enhancing human capital to enableleaders to develop an intrapersonal sense of com-petence, play can also allow for leadership devel-opment that enhances social capital in an inter-personal-social context. At this level leadershipinvolves relational and collective self-construal(Kark & Shamir, 2002; Lord & Hall, 2005).

Relational or interpersonal self-identities arebased on relationships between the individual andimportant others. A leader with an active rela-tional identity thinks of the self relative to relation-ships with followers, or other leaders and collec-tive self-concepts, and defines the self in terms ofmembership in important groups or organizations.For example, a leader with a collective self-concept defines the self in terms of organizationalmembership or leadership within a particulargroup or team. Lord and Hall (2005) proposed thatas leaders develop, their identities expand fromthe individual to include relational and then col-lective levels. Thus, leader identity is thought tochange in terms of its underlying level of inclu-


siveness, ranging from least inclusive (individual)to most inclusive (collective) as a function of thedevelopmental process. They suggest that shifts inlevel of identities occur in parallel with the devel-opment of leadership knowledge structures andsocial processes (Day & Harrison, 2007).

Apart from the different levels of identity of theindividual leader, leadership can also be per-ceived as a characteristic of the group. Theoristshave begun recently to conceptualize leadershipas a broader, mutual influence process indepen-dent of any formal role or hierarchical structureand diffused among the members of any givensocial system (e.g., Collinson, 2006; Uhl-Bien, Mar-ion, & McKelvey, 2007). Theories of shared leader-ship, dispersed leadership, and relational leader-ship have developed, conceptualizing leadershipas a shared property of the group such that all itsmembers, regardless of their formal role or posi-tion, participate in the leadership process (Carson,Tesluk, & Marrone, 2007). Individuals and groupswho conceptualize leadership as a process thatcan be shared and mutually enacted among groupmembers approach the process of leadership iden-tity development differently. Given group mem-bers’ beliefs that more than one leader can emergein a group, individuals will likely grant another’sclaim of leadership, but at the same time mayclaim leadership for themselves, and thus recipro-cal support can be obtained from others. In suchsituations leader and follower identities involve adynamic exchange of leadership and followershipthat is constantly being renegotiated across timeand situations. In such contexts the boundariesbetween leader and follower identities are perme-able; as a result, few identity conflicts and littletension over leadership will emerge (DeRue & Ash-ford, 2010).

Various types of play are communal and socialin nature. These are enacted in small or largegroups and call for interpersonal, within-groupand between-groups interactions as well as coor-dination, collaboration, alignment, understandingof the others’ play motives, and other aspects thatmay characterize group play. This type of play cancontribute meaningfully to leadership develop-ment at levels of the relational and collective selfand can also enhance shared and distributed lead-ership. Play has been conceptualized as a majororganizing principle of human culture and civili-zation. According to Huizinga (1955), cooperativeinteractions of play lay the groundwork for humanculture (e.g., rituals, contests, games, art, lan-guage, governance, and science). Sandelands(2010), for example, suggests that play is a form ofhuman community rather than a form of individual

life. He contends that play builds a community invarious ways. First, it involves synchrony, by thecoordinated movement of individuals in time andspace. Second, it involves attraction, because playis enjoyable and “fun” (Abramis, 1990) and is some-thing people like to “join in.” Third, play is a formof selflessness, because in play, the boundariesthat usually isolate one person from another areovercome by the mutual interaction of play and thefact that the individual welcomes the human com-munity into his or her being (Sandelands, 2010).Thus, certain types of play that are enacted in acommunal and social manner can enhance com-munity building and the development of a sharedleadership identity.

Similarly, Kolb and Kolb (2010) found in a casestudy that through play and intergenerational rep-lication of play spaces, individuals involved in agame and in play are able to develop a sense of“communal identity.” Thus, through the process ofplay in leadership development processes, indi-viduals in a group can explore in a context of morepermeable interpersonal boundaries and experi-ence a sense of selflessness, thus developing amore communal identity. In such a situation groupmembers can experiment with simultaneousclaiming and granting dynamics, play dynami-cally with role reversion while exchanging leader-ship, explore the spaces between individuals anddifferent power structures to develop a more com-plex perspective of group leadership, shared lead-ership, and individual leadership that is morecommunal and relational.

This suggests that involvement in various formsof group play that enable identity play and call forgroup coordination, collaboration, and takingturns in leading and following among group mem-bers is likely not only to develop the individualleader and his or her individualized sense of selfand intrapersonal growth, but also likely to con-tribute to the development of a relational and col-lective self and possibly to the development of arelational and collective self. Furthermore, playcan also contribute to the development of sharedand collective leadership, as well as relationaland fluid structures of leadership within acommunity.5

Proposition 2b: Play in a group setting that en-ables identity play will positivelyrelate to the development of (i) arelational leadership identity, (ii) a

5 Competitive group play may limit this effect, although playthat is constructed as a competition between subgroups maylead to shared leadership within these subgroups. Thus, therole of competition has to be further explored in future studies.

2011 515Kark

collective leadership identity, and(iii) a shared leadership identity.

Play as Contributing to Conceptual andCognitive Development

A second major component of leaders and leader-ship development according to Conger (1992) isrelated to the development of cognitive and con-ceptual aspects of leadership. In his analyses of“learning to lead,” Conger focuses more narrowlyon programs that teach individuals conceptualand theoretical models as frameworks they canuse to think of leadership and gain awareness byunderstanding what leadership really is. Morebroadly, this perspective can be seen as focusedon the development of individuals’ cognitive andconceptual abilities as leaders.

Most contemporary theories and discussions onleadership concur that leadership roles are chang-ing to accommodate the new demands promptedby advances in technology, an increasingly heter-ogeneous workforce, intensely felt competitionfrom other corporations, and the weakening of geo-political borders. According to Kanter (1997), man-agerial work is undergoing such enormous andrapid change that many managers are reinventingtheir profession as they go. With little precedent toguide them, they are watching hierarchy fadeaway and the clear distinctions of title, task, de-partment, and even corporation blur. Faced withextraordinary levels of complexity, they watch tra-ditional sources of power erode and the old moti-vational tools lose their magic (see also Senge,1990). The rapid changes and increased complexityof the work environment, as well as periods ofcrisis (e.g., Shamir & Howell, 1999), are compellingmanagers to invent and adopt new managementconceptualizations and tactics. Under these cir-cumstances, the structured learning of manage-ment traditions and existing techniques is not nec-essarily beneficial, since traditional ways to solveproblems and lead may not fit the changing realityand challenges that managers face today.

In such turbulent environments where organiza-tions must continually adapt, innovate, and rein-vent themselves, leaders must be flexible enoughto learn from mistakes, change their assumptionsand beliefs, and refine their mental models. One ofthe most important competencies for successfulleadership in changing situations is the ability tolearn from experience and adapt to change (Ar-gyris, 1991; Dechant, 1990; Mumford & Connelly,1991). This competency involves “learning how tolearn,” which is individuals’ ability to introspec-tively analyze their own cognitive processes (e.g.,

the way they define and solve problems) and tofind ways to improve them. Earlier studies haveshown that the ability to learn and innovate is animportant leadership success factor (e.g., Yukl,2010). This suggests that two important cognitivefactors for leadership development are the abilityto be involved in learning processes and the abil-ity to be creative and innovative. Play has beenshown to have a major role in these processes.

Play and Learning

Studies in education, psychology, and ethologysuggest that play may have a major role in devel-opment and learning. From childhood to maturity,play is central to each stage of development in itsdifferent forms, styles, and meanings (Erikson,1950; Piaget, 1962; Vygotsky, 1978). Theories of playdefine stimulus-seeking activity that leads to twodistinctive modes of play and learning. In the firstmode (epistemic) the child’s attitude is that of se-riousness and focus, followed by intense, attentiveinvestigation of all aspects of a toy. Once the in-vestigation is over, the child then proceeds to thesecond mode (ludic) in which the toy is handledplayfully. As children transition to the secondmode in a relaxed manner they proceed to applythe knowledge gained through investigation intheir play (Ellis, 1973; Mellou, 1994).

Recent developments in neuroscience revealhow play is connected to the internal functioningof the brain of information processing. The epis-temic mode of behavior seems to correspond to theleft hemisphere of the brain, which is abstract,symbolic, analytic, and logical, whereas the sec-ond mode (ludic behavior) may be associated withthe right hemisphere, which is synthetic, concrete,analogical, nonrational, spatial, intuitive, and ho-listic (Kolb & Kolb, 2010). This is similar to Zull’s(2002) description of how brain functioning followsthe process of experiential learning. Studies of an-imal play in neuroethology suggest that humansand other mammals share similar play behaviorsassociated with their neural plasticity (Height &Black, 2000). A cross species comparative studysuggests that play has a central role in brain de-velopment, facilitating the integration of cognitive,social, affective, and sensorimotor systems inmammals (Bekoff & Byers, 1998; Smith, 1982). Fur-thermore, play has been suggested to enhancelearning of complicated fields, to contribute to theacquisition of new knowledge, and to synthesizingof distinct concepts and memory processes (Brown& Vaughan, 2009).

Similarly, cognitive developmental theories ofplay (Piaget, 1962; Vygotsky, 1978, 1997) emphasize


the role of play in the children’s cognitive devel-opment, creativity, innovation, and adaptive flexi-bility. Through an extensive observation of chil-dren’s play, Piaget (1962) contended that in earlychildhood, cognitive development occurs partiallythrough play. For Piaget, play provides a rich con-text in which children interact with the environ-ment and create their own knowledge about theworld. For Vygotsky (1978), play constitutes a pri-mary context for cognitive development and thecapacity for self-regulation for children. Learningto create a constraint-free situation, molded to fitthe child’s own set rules, and learning to controlimpulsive actions, thus give rise to the develop-ment of the child’s ego.

Theories of learning also value play. Accordingto Kolb and Kolb (2010; Kolb, 1984) play exemplifiesone of the highest forms of the experiential learn-ing process in three fundamental ways. First, itencourages learners to achieve authentic andhigher order learning by taking responsibility fortheir learning through creating game rules andconduct standards for themselves. Second, equalvalue is placed on the process and the outcome oflearning. A truly educational experience is onethat sees no difference between utility and fun, theprocess and outcome. Third, in play, the experien-tial learning cycle is fully engaged by allowingplayers to come back to a familiar experience witha fresh perspective. The recursive nature of theplay enables the individual to mature gradually.Thus, play can be a central form of deep learning.

According to Kolb and Kolb (2010) deep learningcan be nurtured within formal organizational set-tings insofar as the work context allows partici-pants to express themselves in authentic ways,self-organize, and create boundaries for recursive,timeless play. This suggests that in leadership de-velopment processes, the ability of managers tolearn new ways of thinking, explore with new con-ceptions, reevaluate their decisions, make betteruse of their cognitive abilities, stay in a curiousmode, and become involved in the processes ofdeep learning can be largely enhanced by a de-velopmental context that allows for play in a safespace.

Play and Creativity

The ability to play is crucial for today’s leadershipand management, since it can enhance leaders’ability to be creative and promote ongoing innova-tion and organizational change. Modern organiza-tions have been described as systems of continualself-renewal in which “change” is a routine pro-cess rather than an outcome or endstate (Marshall,

Mobley, & Calvert, 1995). Many scholars have de-fined leadership as different from management,contending that management promotes stability,preservation of the status quo, order and efficiencyand is risk averse, whereas leadership seeks topromote organizational change, creativity and in-novation (Kotter, 1990; Yukl, 2010). For organiza-tions to change and develop, we need to developleaders that can encourage ongoing experimenta-tion, risk taking, openness, creativity, authenticity,imagination, and innovation (Kofman & Senge,1993).6 The distinction between management andleadership has resulted in attempts by many lead-ership training programs to focus on developingindividuals’ ability to take risks, and think in acreative and innovative manner to become betterleaders.

In line with this perception of leadership, manyproponents contend that for managers to be suc-cessful in today’s environments they must recovera “beginner’s mind” (Chawla, 1995) or the “mind ofa child” (Kofman & Senge, 1993; Senge, 1990) filledwith curiosity, wonder and exploration, to limit theeffect of institutionalized paradigms and practices(Bokeno, 2010).7 As Kofman and Senge (1993: 15)noted: “When we fail to recognize [the principle of‘becoming’], we lose the capacity to learn . . . losethe child within us who lives in awe . . . .” Themetaphor of a “child’s mind” defines an approachcharacterized by curiosity, wonder, exploration, in-nocence, and questioning, by contrast with the“adult’s mind” which is dominated by the con-

6 Various leading consulting firms use play to enhance creativ-ity. One example is IDEO, which is depicted in the firm’s Web-site as follows: “At IDEO, we believe in the power of play. It isan essential part of our approach: We use playfulness to designfun, inspiring experiences. . . and to bring elements of delight tomore “serious” experiences for adults . . .The latter may eveninclude developing new methods for the workplace, such ashelping clients boost the creativity of their innovation pro-cesses” (http://www.ideo.com/expertise/play/).7 Although it may not be essential for every leader to be creativeand promote change, most managers need to lead processes inwhich change occurs and need to have the ability to thinkcreatively or foster creativity among their team members. Manyleadership training programs aim to contribute to individuals’ability to be creative.

The ability to play is crucial for today’sleadership and management, since it canenhance leaders’ ability to be creativeand promote ongoing innovation andorganizational change.

2011 517Kark

straints of work, and by fragmented, reactive andcompetitive managerial practices (Bokeno, 2010).According to Winnicott (1971), play provides an op-portunity for thinking spontaneously, using one’simagination, transforming fragments of realityinto a world full of action and adventure, skippingover missing information, and coping creativelywith complex and unpredictable situations. Onecentral attribute of play is flexibility. Situationsfraught with uncertainty are experienced as intol-erable, and they generally lack playfulness (Per-roni, 2002).

Leadership development programs that encour-age managers to play and behave playfullyprompt the “child’s mind” to come to the fore. Thiscan help managers to develop and draw on analternative way of thinking as leaders, and canenable them to better adapt to the need for con-stant transition, change, innovation, and creativ-ity. Furthermore, leadership development pro-grams that make use of play can enhance leaders’ability in difficult situations of uncertainty to holdon to a sense of playfulness. When leaders areable to experience a sense of play in such situa-tions, bring to the fore the metaphor of play, andthink of the situation in ways that highlight as-pects of play, it can help them maintain a moreflexible and enjoyable perspective and to experi-ence and transform uncertain and difficult situa-tions into ones that are challenging and not intim-idating and anxiety provoking. Furthermore,framing the situation as one that can call for playmay enable managers to more easily skip overmissing information and cope with complex andunpredictable situations creatively in a flexible,playful manner

More specifically, Mainemelis and Ronson (2006)suggested that play is of paramount importancefor creativity at work, and that one of the ways playenhances creativity is through its contribution tocognitive processes. They propose that play facil-itates five creativity-relevant cognitive processes:problem framing, divergent thinking, mental trans-formations, practice with alternative solutions,and evaluative ability. For example, problem fram-ing determines how a problem will be solved,since there is a higher likelihood that problemsthat are presented in a unique way will have novelsolutions. Play provides the ability to redefine asituation. Its betwixt-and-between reality defa-miliarizes the elements of a given activity, in-creasing the possibility of different framing. Fur-thermore, the loose and flexible associationbetween means and ends in play encouragespeople to explore novel directions and avoid thepaths that are already known. This suggests that

managers who are involved in play and can ex-periment with different and not-expected ways toframe problems and with novel thoughts andideas are likely to develop as more creative,change-oriented leaders.

Furthermore, play achieves creativity by facili-tating intrinsic motivation. Current research onwork and play and on the creative process sug-gests that when individuals are in a state of playthey experience a sense of enjoyment and flow andare likely to behave in a creative manner (Csik-szentmihalyi, 1975; Kauanui, Thomas, Sherman, &Waters, 2010). According to Brown and Vaughan(2009), play opens people up to new possibilitiesand is at the core of creativity and innovation.

Overall, play in the leadership development pro-cesses is likely to help managers tap into theirimagination and “inner child” to facilitate flexibil-ity; contribute to cognitive processes that boostongoing learning, creativity, and innovation; andenable them to build the resources needed to leadchange in today’s turbulent and constantly chang-ing organizational climate.Proposition 3a: Play will positively relate to leader

development of conceptual andcognitive abilities (e.g., leaders’ability to learn and their levels ofcreative thinking).

Apart from developing the individual leader’s cog-nitive abilities, play may also contribute to lead-ership development of cognitive abilities in twodirections. First, it can help leaders to structure anorganizational context that enables followers’learning, knowledge sharing, and creativity. Sec-ond, it can contribute to the development of con-ceptual and cognitive skills at the group level inteams in which leadership is shared.

Models of relational and shared leadership havefocused on specific types of interactions that leadto mutual learning and greater shared interac-tions, facilitating team and organizational learn-ing (Fletcher & Kaufer, 2003; Marsick & Watkins,1999). There is growing recognition that leadershipdepends not only on the individuals’ ability tolearn, question assumptions, understand concepts,and think of novel directions for themselves, butalso on their ability to create conditions wherecollective learning can occur and processes suchas organizational silence (Morrison & Milliken,2000) are less likely to occur. Collective learningoccurs when the dialogue between individualswithin a group develops and members are able tomove from taking in the bounds of what is ex-pected and will not endanger them (talking nice) tospeaking their minds, engaging in debate, sharingknowledge, and participating in a generative dia-


logue in which new ideas are co-created (Fletcher& Kaufer, 2003).

Group and organizational learning and teamcreativity are among the cognitive abilities lead-ership training programs focus on developing.This is because new products and processes ne-cessitate synthesizing the experience and exper-tise of all members involved. Team creativity isdefined as the generation of novel and usefulideas based on collaborative exchange of perspec-tives, thoughts, and information (Paulus, Dzindolet,& Kohn, in press). Thus the effective running of anorganization is typically a shared leadership ac-tivity where team members have both individualand collective responsibility for the effective func-tioning of the organizational system (O’Reilly, Sny-der, & Boothe, 1993).

Much of the research on the actual performanceof groups has demonstrated that there are manyfactors that hinder group learning, knowledgesharing, and creativity. There are several facets ofthe collaborative process that may reduce motiva-tion and effective information exchange. Teammeetings may limit the team members’ ability toexpress their ideas because of production block-ing, evaluation apprehension, and social loafing(e.g., Nijstad & Stroebe, 2006), convergence of theperformance in the direction of low performers,and focus on information they have in commonrather than their unique expertise (Stasser & Titus,1985). Team diversity many times may also notbenefit group learning, knowledge sharing, andcreativity (e.g., Mannix & Neale, 2005). This maypartly be due to a lack of interest, sharing, or un-derstanding among individuals who differ in theirareas of expertise. Leadership appears to play animportant role in organizing, facilitating, and cul-tivating processes that enable the team to tap thediverse potential of its members and exhibit a highlevel of creativity (e.g., Mumford, Scott, Gaddis, &Strange, 2002; Shin & Zhou, 2007). Various studieshave shown that leaders can facilitate dialogue,knowledge creation, and knowledge sharing inteams in various ways by providing a supportiveand relationally positive context, encouragingtrust, cooperation, idea exchange, and joint deci-sion-making processes (e.g., Carmeli & Waldman,2010; Collins & Smith, 2006).

Participating in leadership training processesthat incorporate group play is likely to contributeto the development of cognitive abilities of mutuallearning, knowledge sharing, and group creativity.This is mainly because play can be a strong forcein helping teams overcome the blocks to grouplearning and creativity. First, being involved inplay in a group setting can lead to a sense of

“communal identity” and community (Kolb & Kolb,2010). This triggering of the collective self and thecommunal aspects can help individuals buildbridges across differences and allow for individu-als from different backgrounds and diverse char-acteristics to join in and interact in a playful mode,enabling each member to contribute his or herunique ideas and perspectives to the group.

Second, when playing, a group is likely to expe-rience flow. Flow is a state of consciousness inwhich people feel completely involved in an activ-ity to the point where they lose awareness of self,place, and all other irrelevant input. It can lead todeep concentration and a vibrant sense of masteryand coordination (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Hooker& Csikszentmihalyi, 2003). Due to their focus ofattention in play and intense concentration on thepresent moment, individuals are not likely to havetime or available mental space to worry aboutfailing or what others may think of them (Hooker &Csikszentmihalyi, 2003). Thus, group play that en-ables flow will contribute to participants’ ability tointeract more freely together, focus on the task,overcome members’ silence, share knowledge, andoverlook power differences. Group play may alsohelp the group overcome the fear of evaluation andthink more creatively together, thus contributing tothe abilities of a shared leadership team.

Third, play and “fun” in a group context involvesattraction, sharing with others, and a sense of self-lessness and coordination (Sandelands, 2010). Thiscan limit the process of social loafing experiencedin groups and enable better knowledge sharing(Kolb & Kolb, 2010).

The above suggests that managers who haveexperienced play in leadership development pro-cesses can use a more playful orientation in theirteams’ meetings and capitalize on this playfulmode to build a safer environment for team mem-bers to interact. Furthermore, managers who havetaken part in group play in development programsand have understood the power and meaningfuldynamics play can provide in the group context,can further transfer their knowledge to buildingplayful team interactions in their units and cancontribute to enhanced levels of team knowledgesharing and team creativity. Last, managementteams who share leadership can foster the concep-tual and cognitive abilities of their team throughexperimentation with play.Proposition 3b: Play in a group setting will posi-

tively relate to leadership develop-ment of conceptual and cognitiveaspects of shared leadership (e.g.,team learning, team knowledgesharing, and team creativity).

2011 519Kark

Play as Contributing to the Development ofLeadership-Relevant Skills

One definition of leadership is a set of behaviorsthat are different from management behaviors andmay be exercised at any formal level (e.g., Kotter,1990). This definition focuses on the behaviors andskills of the leader. According to this perspective,leadership entails the mastery of numerous behav-iors and domain-relevant skills. Research on lead-ership characteristics has identified several skillsthat are related to the advancement and effective-ness of leaders. For example, leaders need techni-cal skills that include knowledge about methods,processes, and equipment to conduct the special-ized activities of their organizational unit, as wellas social skills that include knowledge about hu-man behavior, group processes, and the ability tounderstand feelings and motivations (Yukl, 2010).According to Conger (1992), one of the major aimsof leadership development programs is to developleadership through skill building. Skill buildingprograms are designed to identify key leadershipskills that are needed and foster the learning ofthese complex skills in workshops or in on-the-jobtraining.

Various researchers have stressed differences inskill priorities at different stages and levels of theorganizational authority and hierarchy (e.g., Mum-ford & Connelly, 1991; Mumford, Marks, Zaccaro,Connelly, & Reiter-Palmon, 2000). The skillsneeded to lead a team for the first time are differ-ent from those needed to lead multiple businessunits or a large firm. Advancement in leadershiproles is often related to advancement along thelifecycle of stages of adult development that pro-foundly influence an individual’s professional de-velopmental agenda (Guillen & Ibarra, 2009; Hall &Mirvis, 1996). These changes in role and life stageincorporate challenges of transitioning into newleadership roles or further developing in an exist-ing one (McCall, 2004). This suggests that the needto learn and master new skills is an ongoing es-sential element in the process of developing leaderand leadership competencies.

Play is often seen as practice for skills needed inthe future. According to animal researchers, whenanimals play-fight, they are practicing to fight orhunt for real later on. Play allows pretend reversalfor the challenges and ambiguities of life, a rever-sal in which life and death are not at stake (Brown& Vaughan, 2009). Support for this notion comesfrom studies of animals in the wild. After carefullydocumenting the play behavior of the Alaskangrizzlies over more than 15 years, a research teamfound that bears that played the most were the

ones who survived best. This is true despite thefact that playing takes away time, attention, andenergy from other activities such as hunting andeating, which seem at first glance to contributemore to the bears’ survival (Brown & Vaughan,2009).

Through play, individuals are able to examinenew behaviors, reverse and experiment with dif-ferent skills they may need to develop, reinforceand refine in the context in which they lead or asthey transition into a new leadership role or con-text. As noted by Senge (1990: 314): “when they playwith dolls, children rehearse ways of interactingwith people. When they play with blocks, theyteach themselves basic principles of spatial geom-etry and mechanics. Later in life they will learn thegeneral properties of the pendulum through swing-ing on a swing . . . Through experimentation. . . .children discover principles and develop skillsthat are relevant in reality beyond play.”

Relevant leadership skills comprise individuals’knowledge and expertise in their role as leadersand provide a set of cognitive pathways for theindividual to follow in approaching his or herwork. Play can help attain and enhance leadershipskill development in a few ways. First, play con-tributes to the development of relevant skills be-cause it minimizes the potential for negative con-sequences of learning by providing a less riskysituation. By uncoupling means from ends, playfosters the exploration of task-related behaviorsand variables which would be less likely to betried in other situations, such as when people carryout tasks for external evaluation and reward(Mainemelis & Ronson, 2006). This safety stimu-lates risk taking and learning from errors (Glynn,1994). Errors are used in play as triggers for explo-ration and practice, allowing individuals to perfecttheir skills and to discover unnoticed variables oropportunities in some of the most troublesomeparts of work (Nachmanovitch, 1990; Schrage, 2000).Systemic failure promotion in organizations hasbeen conceptualized to foster learning, adaptationto changing conditions, and the development ofresilience when confronting unknown futurechange (Sitkin, 1992). Play may allow for experi-mentation with small failures, and thus, enhancedskill development. In the words of Sitkin (1992: 241):“. . . experience with small varied failure reducesthe likelihood that unanticipated changes willspark a self-defeating, threat-rigidity response.”Thus, through play, players can acquire valuableand novel information that can enable them torefine leadership skills and to broaden the reper-toire of skills available.


Second, skill development is facilitated whenindividuals are excited about the task, engage in itprimarily to master it, and are challenged to anoptimal level by it (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Playcontributes to individuals’ vitality, that is, the sub-jective experience of having energy, feeling alive,and fully functioning. It is an affective experiencethat encompasses approaching tasks with excite-ment, energy, enthusiasm, and vigor and not doingthings halfway or halfheartedly. Psychologically,this state of aliveness makes a person feel that hisor her actions have meaning and purpose (Kark &Carmeli, 2009). People who feel high levels of vi-tality tend to view events positively and investmore effort in activities and tasks and feel higherlevels of work engagement (Ryan & Frederick,1997). Thus, when individuals and managers havea high level of energy, vitality, and engagement,they are likely to invest in their learning and prac-tice of skills as leaders and master the neededskills.8

Third, play is one way in which individuals cangain experience and experiment with skills theyneed to learn, then further develop them by ongo-ing rehearsal. Learning from experience has beenthought of as one of the major ways in which lead-ers can develop (McCall, 2004). The voluntary ex-ercise of control systems in play allows people notonly to select an initial optimal balance betweenchallenges and skills, but also to gradually adjustthe level of optimal balance to continue practicingtheir skills at continuously higher levels of mas-tery (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). As Brown andVaughan (2009: 143) noted: “People cannot succeedin rising to the highest levels of their field if theydon’t enjoy what they are doing, if they don’t maketime for play. Without some sense of fun and playpeople cannot make them selves stick to any dis-cipline long enough to master it.” Thus, varioustypes of play that allow for experimenting withtasks and skills that are needed on the job arelikely to enhance leadership development bylearning from experience.

Although play can take the form of a structuredexperience in a leadership development programthat is designed to facilitate the development of aspecific relevant leadership skill, play can alsofurther be practiced on the job, as engagementwith work tasks (Mainemelis & Ronson, 2006),which allows individuals to improve their leader-relevant skills on the job.

As noted by Day and coauthors (Day, 2000; Day &Harrison, 2007), play can contribute to leader de-velopment by enhancing individual-level intraper-sonal skills (e.g., self-regulation, building an in-spiring vision), but the mechanisms above canalso explain how play can contribute to experi-menting and practicing more complex leadershipskills at the interpersonal level (e.g., developinghigh-quality connections, building strong socialnetworks, working more effectively with diversegroups of people of different ethnic, racial, culturaland socioeconomic backgrounds). Furthermore,play can contribute to the development of leader-ship-relevant skills at the group level, by allowingindividuals to experience through play the skillsneeded for shared leadership (e.g., taking turns inleading, coordination, and alignment and the divi-sion of tasks of shared leadership).Proposition 4a: Play will positively relate to leader

development of intrapersonalleadership skills (e.g., decisionmaking, self-regulation, buildingan inspiring vision).

Proposition 4b: Play in a group setting will posi-tively relate to leadership develop-ment of (i) interpersonal skills (e.g.,emotional intelligence, building ofhigh-quality connections and con-flict management), and (ii) leader-ship skills of shared leadership(e.g., taking turns in leading, coor-dination, and the division of tasksof shared leadership teams).

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS FORLEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

I have explored the importance of play for thedevelopment of leadership, suggesting that playcan contribute to both leader and leadership de-velopment and can have a meaningful role in en-hancing leaders’ personal and relational growth,cognitive abilities, and leadership-relevant skillbuilding. More specifically I propose that play cancontribute to the development of leadership iden-tity at the individual, relational, and collective lev-els of self, through the process of identity play.Furthermore, play can be a major factor in en-abling leaders to engage in deep ongoing learningand in creative processes. It can also contribute toleaders’ ability to enhance learning at the grouplevel and foster knowledge sharing and team cre-ativity, as well as contribute to cognitive abilitiesof shared leadership teams. Finally, play contrib-utes to leader and leadership skill development atdifferent stages of career and transitions.

8 Higher levels of energy can also form within organizationalnetworks (Cross, Baker, & Parker, 2003), and enhance practiceand skill building at the group level, possibly contributing toteam or shared leadership.

2011 521Kark

The framework presented here further suggeststhat play is likely to contribute best to leader andleadership development when it is enacted in asafe space. Most organizational settings, includingleadership development programs, can create playspaces that provide holding, psychological safety,relief from the pressure of social validation, andsuspension of evaluation only to a limited extent.However, the more leadership development pro-grams and structured processes are constructed assafe play spaces that provide psychological safetyand legitimize exploration, the more individualsmay benefit from play. This suggests that consul-tants and teachers of leadership should givegreater thought to the construction of the context(play space) in which individuals are invited toplay. The messages conveyed in this context interms of the safety level (e.g., Is this an evaluation-free context? Will the information that is revealedin the training process stay confidential?) is likelyto impact the possible benefits play may have onleader and leadership development. Furthermore,the climate that develops in the process betweenthe facilitator and participants and among thegroup of participants (e.g., one that encouragesfree exploration and enjoyment from play or one inwhich there is criticism) will affect the possibledevelopmental outcomes related to play. Thus,structuring a safe play space is central to consul-tants’ and trainers’ ability to enable managers tobenefit from play.

In today’s organizational climate in which man-agers are assessed and evaluated at every move,they are at risk of losing their ability for flexible,imaginative, innovative, and progressive thinking.The play metaphor has the potential to encouragemanagers to switch gears from administrators pri-marily concerned with damage control to inventiveleaders interested in creating and in change. Thenotion of play, if incorporated into leadership de-velopment programs, may be of value, since it mayenable managers not only to enhance their lead-ership capabilities and enjoyment of training pro-grams but also to weave play and the benefitsderived from it into their day-to-day managerialwork. Furthermore, the effect of play can also con-tribute to leaders’ ability to enhance play andplayfulness in the organization, by building cul-tures that further allow employees to experience amore humanistic work experience through a rela-tional culture which fosters growth and contributesto employees’ psychological well-being andhealth.

Different forms and types of play may lead todifferent leader and leadership outcomes. Leader-ship training programs that incorporate play have

to choose the types of play they use according tothe outcomes they aim to attain. For example, theneed to develop a leadership identity may call fordifferent forms of play than the need to developrelevant skills. Furthermore, if the target is thedevelopment of shared leadership, different formsof play will contribute in comparison with playused to foster individual focused leadership. Thus,leadership training programs should adjust thetype of play used to fit the program’s aims.

Building on the literature on both life and role-cycle transitions, Guillen and Ibarra (2009) suggestthat leadership development interventions musttake into account whether the person is in a tran-sitional or stable period with regard to his or herrole. More specifically, they asserted that in tran-sitional periods, which are typically highly emo-tional, one of the biggest challenges managersface is giving up what made them successful in thepast and learning how to work in real time. In suchtimes there may be a need to apply types of playthat allow individuals to experiment with newleader identities such as role-play and simulationsthat are focused on situations that more tightlymimic their new work context and the dilemmasthey will encounter. This will allow them, throughplay, to consider and confront the demands of thenew role, as well as to go through a process ofcontinuous evaluations and refinements of theiridentity, cognitions, and skills in the role. Further-more, in such situations managers may benefitmore highly from play that is focused on the inter-personal level (leader development), before theyare able to consider interpersonal skills and lead-ership sharing (leadership development).

In stable periods, by contrast, people seek todeepen leadership role-related skills, or to takeadvantage of their experience in-role to broadentheir repertories and to challenge points of weak-ness (Guillen & Ibarra, 2009). In such situationsplay that is focused on unfamiliar contexts mayhelp people to solve familiar problems differently,and play that is focused on risk taking may con-tribute to self-renewal, by infusing routine activi-ties with new meanings and directions. Thus, playsuch as outdoor experiences, imaginative play,and simulations that relate to unfamiliar contexts

The play metaphor has the potential toencourage managers to switch gearsfrom administrators primarily concernedwith damage control to inventive leadersinterested in creating and in change.


and roles may yield the highest payoffs. Further-more, at this stage, managers may be better pre-pared to deal with complexity and can focus on thedevelopment of interpersonal and group-level (re-lational and shared) leadership abilities. This cancontribute to their ability to further develop andmake shifts in their leadership style. Thus, consul-tants, teachers, and managers should considerwhat type of play is relevant for each career stage.

Although learning from experience has beenthought of as one of the major ways in which lead-ers can develop, McCall (2004: 128) points out that“[p]eople don’t automatically learn from experi-ence. They can come away with nothing, the wronglessons, or only some of what they might havelearned.” This is true for engagement in play aswell. To allow people to benefit and learn the mostfrom experience necessitates time and space for“inner work” and reflection, to deepen awarenessof one’s sense of self and enable consciousnessraising. The opportunity to reflect deeply awayfrom the day-to-day rush can contribute to thesense-making processes that enable learning fromexperience from what otherwise might be per-ceived as escapist activities (McCall, 2004; Mirvis,2008; Petriglieri & Petriglieri, 2010; Snook, 2007).This suggests that for play to contribute to leaderand leadership development, it should be coupledwith the opportunity to reflect on the play experi-ence and the learning, to raise consciousness andfacilitate sense-making processes.

The transfer of knowledge from experiences inplay to day-to-day leadership in organizationsis not automatic and should also be given thought.The transfer of specific responses from play to fu-ture situations occurs only occasionally. There isno guarantee that what occurs in play is applica-ble to future environmental demands on leaders.The crux is the discipline of maintaining flexibilityin behavior and plasticity in mental models, whichis facilitated by play. Play allows people to tempo-rarily suspend their mental models and disbeliefin favor of exploration and experimentation withvarious alternative possibilities (Kolb & Kolb,2010). This allows managers to modify their per-ceptual limits of the world by imagining and en-acting in different ways. This suggests that train-ers and teachers who would like managersparticipating in leadership training programs tobenefit the most from play should provide the timeand structured processes for reflexivity and forsense making of the experience, as well as time toreflect on possible ways to implement what theyhave learned in their work context.

The perspective developed here questions thetraditional prevalent discourse on the segregation

of work and play and between workplace and lei-sure time and fun, which negates major aspects ofthe human experience at work. However there aresome issues and questions that merit attention infuture studies. One of them is the possible darksides of play in leadership developmental pro-cesses. First, play may have a connotation of gam-bling and may convey the signal that leadersdo not take the decisions they have to make or theirresponsibilities seriously. This in some cases canlead to situations in which managers act as thoughthey were “playing” with the lives of their employ-ees and the business by taking risks and unleash-ing their desires without considering the possibleconsequences.

Second, suggesting that play may be a key wayto develop leadership may undermine more tradi-tional ways of learning and of formal knowledgeand experience. Furthermore, play has drawbacksand may not be suitable to all forms of leadershipdevelopment. The use of play should be contingenton the expected outcomes. Previous studies haveshown that play may not be the best way to learnin situations in which reliability, efficiency, andcontrol of the learner are primary concerns (e.g.,Glynn, 1994; Sitkin, Sutcliffe, & Schroeder, 1994).However, the same studies have shown that playfosters flexibility, involvement, experimentation,quality in learning, and creativity (Kolb, 1984;Mainemelis & Ronson, 2006), which are particularlyconducive to leaders and leadership. Third, playmay lead to a sense of “childification” of leader-ship which may undermine managers’ authorityand status.

Fourth, social scientists have noted the potentialof play to subvert organized work, its antistructuralessence, and its seductive qualities (Mainemelis &Altman, 2010; Sutton-Smith, 1997; Turner, 1974). Al-though these qualities of play may contribute toleaders’ ability to enhance change and encourageinnovative alternatives to the formal structure,they may also endanger the organization. Finally,there is also the opposite risk. The use of playwithin the domain of work may reinforce a generalmove toward the colonization of individuals’ innerlives by an institutional logic of effectiveness andproductivity. Thus, companies can set up supposed“play spaces” as a subtle form of attaining norma-tive control over their managers.9

Another aspect of play that should be viewedcautiously is its relationship to cultural and gen-dered dynamics. Many play activities, mostly inoutdoor settings, are composed of “macho” games

9 I would like to thank reviewer #2 for suggesting this last point.

2011 523Kark

and challenges that underscore the experience of“masculinity” and reinforce the association be-tween leadership and masculinity. Given the ro-bust association between leadership and mascu-linity (e.g., Kark, 2004; Kark & Eagly, 2010), theimpact of these leadership development programson women managers and their potential harmmerit further examination.

Furthermore, different personal traits and lifeexperience may enhance or hinder the tendency ofindividuals to learn and develop as leaders fromengaging in play. For example, individuals with ahigh level of developmental readiness (e.g., learn-ing goal orientation, developmental efficacy andself-concept clarity; Avolio & Hannah, 2008), aswell as a high level of openness to experience(LePine, Colquitt, & Erez, 2000) may have a strongtendency to benefit from play, in comparison withindividuals who are low on these characteristics.

The current work refers to play in general anddoes not distinguish between different forms ofplay and the ways they are used in leadershipdevelopment programs. Future empirical studiesshould assess the possible contributions andstrengths of different types of play to the leader-ship development process. According to Guillenand Ibarra (2009) pedagogies used in leadershipinterventions cannot be generalized to all leaders,“simply cutting-and-pasting them from one popu-lation to the other” (3). Methods must be in syncwith both job demands and individuals’ needs at aparticular time and place. This suggests that dif-ferent leadership development learning methodsare suited for the different needs and issues facedby leaders at different level, life, and role stages.Thus, there is a need to further study and under-stand the possible contribution of play, as well asdifferent forms and types of play, to leadershipdevelopment for managers at different stages oftheir careers.

On a final note, today children are expected togrow up at a fast pace, to stop playing at an earlyage, and to “begin to behave like adults” and learnleadership and management skills (e.g., time man-agement, stress management, business entrepre-neurship). Most adults may have not had muchexperience with free play when they were young.Beginning in preschool, the natural mayhem that3–5 year olds engage in (normal rough and tumbleplay) is usually suppressed by a well-meaningpreschool teacher and parents who prefer quietand order to the seeming chaos that is typical offree childhood play (Brown & Vaughan, 2009). Thisraises the question of whether these children willactually grow up to be superior leaders and man-agers, or whether they are, paradoxically, missing

out on the period of childhood play they need todevelop into innovative and flexible leaders. Willthese children need to learn to play as adults tobecome leaders? These questions on the relation-ship between play in childhood and leadershipdevelopment constitute intriguing directions for fu-ture research. Thus, although play may have somedrawbacks, the increasingly popular use of play inleadership development programs indicates itsnumerous advantages for leadership growth anddevelopment in the world of modern management.

REFERENCES

Abramis, D. 1990. Play in work: Childish hedonism or adultenthusiasm. The American Behavioral Scientist, 33: 353–373.

Argyris, C. 1991. Teaching smart people how to learn. HarvardBusiness Review, 69: 99–109.

Arthur, W., Jr., Bennett, W., Edens, P. S., & Bell, S. T. 2003.Effectiveness of training in organizations: A meta-analysisof design and evaluation features. Journal of Applied Psy-chology, 88: 234–245.

Ashforth, B. E. 1998. Identification with organization In D. A.Whetten, & P. C. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in organizations:Building theory through conversations: 209–272. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Avolio, J. B., & Hannah, S. T. 2008. Developmental readiness:Accelerating leader development. Consulting PsychologyJournal: Practice and Research, 60: 331–347.

Barker, R. A. 1997. How can we train leaders if we do not knowwhat leadership is? Human Relations, 50: 343–362.

Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. 1996. Effects of transfor-mational leadership training on attitudinal and financialoutcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 827–832.

Bartel, C., & Dutton, J. 2001. Ambiguous organizational member-ships: Constructing organizational identities in interac-tions with others. In M. Hogg, & D. J. Terry (Eds.), Socialidentity processes in organizational contexts: 115–130. Phil-adelphia: Psychology Press.

Bekoff, M., & Byers, J. A. 1998. Animal play. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.

Bion, W. R. 1970. Attention and interpretation. London, U.K.:Maresfield.

Bokeno, R. M. 2010. Marcuse on Senge: Personal mastery, thechild’s mind, and individual transformation. Journal of Or-ganizational Change Management, 22: 307–320.

Brass, D. J., & Krackhardt, D. 1999. The social capital of twenty-first century leaders. In J. G. Hunt, G. E. Dodge, & L. Wong(Eds.), Out-of-the-box leadership: Transforming the twenty-first-century army and other top-performing organizations:179–194. Stamford, CT: JAI.

Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. 1996. Who is this “we”? Levels ofcollective identity and self representations. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 71: 83–93.

Brown, A. D., & Starkey, K. 2000. Organizational identity andlearning: A psychodynamic perspective. Academy of Man-agement Review, 25: 102–120.

Brown, S. 2009. Interview in Amazon on play: How it shapes thebrain, opens the imagination, and invigorates the soul.


(http://www.amazon.com/Play-Shapes-Brain-Imagination-Invigorates/dp/1583333339, accessed 06/20/2011).

Brown, S., & Vaughan, C. 2009. Play: How it shapes the brain,opens the imaginations, and invigorates the soul. New York:Aevry Penguin Group.

Carmeli, A., & Waldman, D. A. 2010. Leadership, behavioralcontext and the performance of work groups in a knowl-edge-intensive setting. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35:384–400.

Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., & Marrone, J. A. 2007. Shared leader-ship in teams: An investigation of antecedent conditionsand performance. Academy of Management Journal, 50:1217–1234.

Chawla, S. 1995. Beginner’s mind. In S. Chawla, & J. Rensch(Eds.), Learning organizations: Developing cultures for to-morrow’s workplaces: 1–10. Portland, OR: ProductivityPress.

Collins, C. J., & Smith, K. G. 2006. Knowledge exchange andcombination: The role of human resource practices in theperformance of high-technology firms. Academy of Man-agement Journal, 49: 544–560.

Collins, D. B., & Holton, E. F. 2004. The effectiveness of mana-gerial leadership development programs: A meta-analysisof studies from 1982 to 2001. Human Resource DevelopmentQuarterly, 15: 217–248.

Collinson, D. 2006. Rethinking followership: A poststructuralistanalysis of follower identities. Leadership Quarterly, 17:179–189.

Conger, J. A. 1992. Learning to lead. San-Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cross, R., Baker, W., & Parker, A. 2003. What creates energy inorganizations? Sloan Management Review, 44: 51–56.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1975. Play and intrinsic rewards. Journalof Humanistic Psychology, 41: 41–63.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1990. Flow: The psychology of optimalexperience. New York: Harper & Row.

Day, D. V. 2000. Leadership development: A review in context.Leadership Quarterly, 11: 581–613.

Day, D. V., & Harrison, M. M. 2007. A multilevel, identity-basedapproach to leadership development. Human ResourceManagement Review, 17: 360–373.

Day, D. V., & Zaccaro, S. J. 2004. Toward a science of leadershipdevelopment. In D. V. Day, & S. J. Zaccaro (Eds.), Leaderdevelopment for transforming organizations: Growing lead-ers for tomorrow: 383–399. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

Day, D. V., Zaccaro, S. J., & Halpin, S. M. (Eds.) 2004. Leaderdevelopment for transforming organizations. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dechant, K. 1990. Knowing how to learn: The neglected man-agement ability. Journal of Management Development, 9:40–49.

DeRue, D. S., & Ashford, S. 2010. Who will lead and who willfollow? A social process of leadership identity constructionin organizations. Academy of Management Review, 35: 627–647.

Drath, W. H. 1998. Approaching the future of leadership devel-opment. In C. D. McCauley, R. S. Moxley, & E. Van Velsor(Eds.), The Center for Creative Leadership handbook ofleadership development: 403–432. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ellis, M. J. 1973. Why people play. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.

Erikson, E. H. 1950. Childhood and society. New York: W. W.Norton.

Fletcher, J. K., & Kaufer, K. 2003. Shred leadership: Paradox andpossibility. In C. L. Pearce, & J. A. Conger (Eds.), Sharedleadership: Reframing the how’s and whys of leadership:21–47. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gardner, W. L., & Avolio, B. J. 1998.The charismatic relationship:A dramaturgical perspective. Academy of Management Re-view, 23: 32–58.

Gecas, V. 1982. The self-concept. Annual Review of Sociology, 8:1–33.

Getzels, S., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1976. The creative vision: Alongitudinal study of problem-finding in art. New York:Wiley.

Glynn, M. A. 1994. Effects of work task cues and play task cueson information processing, judgment, and motivation. Jour-nal of Applied Psychology, 79: 34–45.

Guillen, L., & Ibarra, H. 2009. Seasons of a leader’s development:Beyond a one-size fits all approach to designing interven-tions. Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings.

Habas, L. 2002. Games in the ancient world. In E. Perroni (Ed.),Play: A psychoanalytical view: 36–48. Tel Aviv: Miskal.

Hall, D. T., & Mirvis, P. H. 1996. The new protean career: Psycho-logical success and the path with a heart. In D. T. Hall &associates (ed.), The career is dead—long live the career:15–45. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Height, W. L., & Black, J. E. 2000. A comparative approach toplay: Cross-species and cross-cultural perspectives of playin development. Human Development, 44: 228–234.

Hooker, C., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. 2003. Flow, creativity, andshared leadership: Rethinking the motivation and structur-ing of knowledge work. In C. L. Pearce & J. A. Conger (Eds.),Shared leadership: reframing the how’s and whys of lead-ership: 217–234. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Huizinga, J. 1955. Homo ludens: A study of the play element inculture. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Ibarra, H. 2003. Working identity. Unconventional strategies forreinventing your career. Cambridge, MA: Harvard BusinessSchool Press.

Ibarra, H., & Petriglieri, J. 2010. Identity work and play. Journal ofOrganizational Change Management, 23: 10–25.

Industry report 2000. Training, 37: 45–48.

Jones, P. J., & Oswick, C. 2007. Inputs and outcomes of outdoormanagement development: Of design, dogma and disso-nance. British Journal of Management, 18: 327–341.

Kahn, W. A. 2001. Holding environments at work. Journal ofApplied Behavioral Science, 37: 260–280.

Kanter, R. B. 1997. On the frontiers of management. Boston:Harvard Business School Press.

Kark, R. 2004. The transformational leader: Who is (s)he? Afeminist perspective. Journal of Organization Change Man-agement, 17: 160–176.

Kark, R. 2011. Workplace intimacy in leader-follower relation-ships. In K. Cameron & G. Spreitzer (Eds.), Oxford handbookof positive organizational scholarship, 32: 423–438. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

2011 525Kark

Kark, R., & Carmeli, A. 2009. Alive and creating: The mediatingrole of vitality and aliveness in the relationship betweeninterpersonal work climate and creative work involvement.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30: 785–804.

Kark, R., & Eagly, A. 2010. Gender and leadership: Negotiatingthe labyrinth. In J. C. Chrisler, & D. R. McCreary (Eds.),Handbook of gender research in psychology: 443–468. NewYork: Springer.

Kark, R., & Shamir, B. 2002.The dual effect of transformationalleadership: Priming relational and collective selves andfurther effects on followers. In B. J. Avolio, & F. J. Yammarino(Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership: Theroad ahead, vol. 2: 67–91. Amsterdam: JAI Press.

Kauanui, S. K., Thomas, K. D., Sherman, C. L., & Waters, G. R.2010. An exploration of entrepreneurship and play. Journalof Organizational Change Management, 23: 51–70.

Kofman, F., & Senge, P. 1993. Communities of commitment: Theheart of learning organizations. Organizational Dynamics,22: 5–23.

Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. 2010. Learning to play, playing to learn:Case study of a ludic learning space. Journal of Organiza-tional Change Management, 23: 26–50.

Kolb, D. A. 1984. Experiential learning: Experience as the sourceof learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pren-tice Hall.

Kotter, J. P. 1990. A force for change: How leadership differs frommanagement. New York: Free Press.

Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. 1999. The human resource architec-ture: Toward a theory of human capital allocation anddevelopment. Academy of Management Review, 24: 31–48.

LePine, J. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Erez, A. 2000. Adaptability tochanging task contexts: Effects of general cognitive abilityconscientiousness, and openness to experience. PersonnelPsychology, 53: 563–593.

Levinson, D. J. 1978. Seasons of a man’s life. New York: Knopf.

Lord, R. G., & Hall, R. J. 2005. Identity, deep structure and thedevelopment of leadership skills. The Leadership Quar-terly, 16: 591–615.

Lorenz, K. 1994. Man meets dog. New York: Kodansha Interna-tional.

Louis, M. R. 1996. Creating safe havens at work In D. T. Hall (Ed.),The career is dead, long live the career. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.

Luhrmann, T., & Eberl, P. 2007. Leadership and identity construc-tion: Reframing the leader-follower interaction from anidentity theory perspective. Leadership, 3: 115–127.

Mainemelis, C., & Altman, Y. 2010. Work and play: New twists onan old relationship. Journal of Organizational Change Man-agement, 23: 4–9.

Mainemelis, C., & Ronson, S. 2006. Ideas are born in fields ofplay: Towards a theory of play and creativity in organiza-tional settings. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27:69–81.

Mannix, E., & Neale, M. 2005. What differences make a differ-ence? The promise and reality of diverse teams in organi-zations. Psychology in the Public Interest, 6: 31–55.

March, J. G. 1976. The technology of foolishness. In J. G. March,& J. Olsen (Eds.), Ambiguity and choice in organizations.Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.

Markus, H., & Nurius, P. 1986. Possible selves. The AmericanPsychologist, 41: 954–969.

Marshall, L., Mobley, S., & Calvert, G. 1995. Why smart organi-zations don’t learn. In S. Chawla, & J. Rensch (Eds.), Learn-ing organizations: Developing cultures for tomorrow’s work-places: 111–122. Portland, OR: Productivity Press.

Marsick, V., & Watkins, E. 1999. Facilitating learning organiza-tions: Making learning count. Aldershot, U.K.: Gower.

McCall, M. W. 2004. Leadership development through experi-ence. Academy of Management Executives, 18: 127–130.

McCall, M. W., & Hollenbeck, G. P. 2002. Developing globalexecutives: The lessons of international experience. Boston:Harvard Business School Press.

Mellou, E. 1994. Play theories: A contemporary review. EarlyChild Development and Care, 102: 91–100.

Meyer, P. 2010. From workplace to playspace: Innovation, learn-ing, and changing through dynamic engagement. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Miller, S. 1973. Ends, means, and galumphing: Some leitmotifsof play. American Anthropologist, 75: 87–98.

Mirvis, P. 2008. Executive development through consciousness-raising experiences. Academy of Management Learningand Education, 7: 173–188.

Morrison, E., & Milliken, F. 2000. Organizational silence: A bar-rier to change and development in a pluralistic world. TheAcademy of Management Review, 25: 706–725.

Moustakas, C. 1997. Relationship play therapy. Northvale, NJ:Jason Aronson.

Mumford, M. D., & Connelly, M. S. 1991. Leaders as creators:Leader performance and problem solving in ill-defined do-mains. Leadership Quarterly, 2: 289–315.

Mumford, M. D., Marks, M. A., Zaccaro, S. J., Connelly, M. S., &Reiter-Palmon, R. 2000. Development of leadership skills:Experience, timing, and growth. Leadership Quarterly, 11:87–114.

Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. M. 2002.Leading creative people: Orchestrating expertise and rela-tionships. The Leadership Quarterly, 13: 705–720.

Nachmanovitch, S. 1990. Free play. New York: Tarcher/Perigee.

Neck, C., & Manz, C. C. 1996. Thought self-leadership: The im-pact of mental strategies training on employee cognition,behavior, and affect. Journal of Organizational Behavior,17: 445–467.

Nijstad, B. A., & Stroebe, W. 2006. How the group affects themind: A cognitive model of idea generation in groups. Per-sonality and Social Psychology Review, 10:186–213.

O’Reilly, C. A., Snyder, R. C., & Boothe, J. N. 1993. Executive teamdemography and organizational change. In G. P. Huber, &W. H. Glick (Eds.), Organizational change and redesign:Ideas and insights for improving performance: 147–175. NewYork: Oxford University Press.

Paulus, P. B., Dzindolet, M. T., & Kohn, N. In press. Collaborativecreativity—group creativity and team innovation. In M. D.Mumford (Ed.), Handbook of organizational creativity. Ox-ford, U.K: Elsevier.

Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. 2003. All those years ago: Thehistorical underpinnings of shared leadership. In C. L. Pearce,& J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the howsand whys of leadership: 1–18. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.


Perroni, E. 2002. Play: A psychoanalytical view. Tel Aviv: Miskal.

Petriglieri, G. 2011. Identity workspaces for leadership develop-ment. In S. Snook, N. Nohria, & R. Khurana (Eds.), The hand-book for teaching leadership: in press. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Petriglieri, G., & Petriglieri, J. 2010. Identity workspaces: Thecase of business schools. Academy of Management Learn-ing and Education, 9: 44–60.

Petriglieri, G., & Wood, J. D. 2005. Beyond “fun and games”:Outdoor activities for meaningful leadership development.In P. Strebel, & T. Keys (Eds.), Mastering executive educa-tion: How to combine content with context and emotion:252–266. London: Financial Times-Prentice Hall.

Piaget, J. 1962. Play, dreams and imitation in childhood. NewYork: W. W. Norton.

Rafaeli, S. 2010. Games are a serious business. In T. Heroti (Ed.),Management leading the way.The Marker, 14 (October).

Ryan, R. M., & Frederick, C. 1997. On energy, personality, andhealth: Subjective vitality as a dynamic reflection of well-being. Journal of Personality, 65: 529–566.

Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. 2001. The science of training: Adecade of progress. Annual Review of Psychology, 52: 471–499.

Sandelands, L. E. 2010. The play of change. Journal of Organi-zational Change Management, 23: 71–86.

Schrage, M. 2000. Serious play. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Busi-ness School Press.

Senge, P. 1990. The fifth discipline. New York: Currency Double-day.

Shamir, B., & Howell, J. M. 1999. Organizational and contextualinfluences on the emergence and effectiveness of charis-matic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 10: 257–283.

Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. 2007. When is educational specializationheterogeneity related to creativity in research and devel-opment teams? Transformational leadership as a modera-tor. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 1709–1721.

Shrage, M. 2000. Serious play. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Busi-ness School Press.

Sitkin, S. B., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Schroeder, R. G. 1994. Distinguish-ing control from learning in total quality management: Acontingency perspective. The Academy of Management Re-view, 19: 537–564.

Sitkin, S. 1992. Learning through failure: The strategy of smalllosses. Research in Organizational Behavior, 14: 231–266.

Sluss, D. M., & Ashforth, B. E. 2007. Relational identity andidentification: Defining ourselves through work relation-ships. Academy of Management Review, 32: 9–32.

Smith, P. K. 1982. Does play matter? Functional and evolution-ary aspects of animal in human play. Behavioral and BrainSciences, 5: 139–184.

Snook, S. 2007. Leader(ship) development. Harvard BusinessSchool Note n. 408-064.

Spariosu, M. I. 1989. Dionysus reborn: Play and the aestheticdimension in modern philosophical and scientific dis-course. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Starkey, K., & Tempest, S. 2009. The winter of our discontent—The design challenge for business schools. Academy ofManagement Learning and Education, 8: 576–586.

Stasser, G., & Titus, W. 1985. Pooling of shared and unsharedinformation in group decision making: Biased informationsampling during discussion. Journal of Personality and So-cial Psychology, 48: 1467–1478.

Sutton-Smith, B. 1997. The ambiguity of play. Cambridge: Har-vard University Press.

Sveningsson, S. F., & Alvesson, M. 2003. Managing managerialidentities: Organizational fragmentation, discourse andidentity struggle. Human Relations, 56: 1163–1193.

Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. 1998. Social capital and value creation:The role of intrafirm networks. Academy of ManagementJournal, 41: 464–476.

Turner, V. 1974. Social dramas and ritual metaphors. In V.Turner (Ed.), Dramas, fields and metaphors symbolic actionin human society: 23–60. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UniversityPress.

Twain, M. 1988. The family Mark Twain. New York: Dorset Press.

Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. 2007. Complexity lead-ership theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age tothe knowledge era. Leadership Quarterly, 18: 298–318.

Van Mannen, J., & Schein, E. H. 1979. Toward a theory of orga-nizational socialization. In B. M. Staw, & L. L. Cummings(Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 1: 209–264.Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. 1997. Thought and language. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.

Wenger, E. C., & Snyder, W. M. 2000. Communities of practice:The organizational frontier. Harvard Business Review (Janu-ary–February): 139–145.

Winnicott, D. W. 1971. Playing and reality. London: Tavistock.

Winnicott, D. W. 1975. Transitional objects and transitional phe-nomena. In D. W. Winnicott (Ed.), Through pediatrics topsychoanalysis: 229–242. London: Karnac.

Yukl, G. 2010. Leadership in organizations. Boston: Pearson.

Zull, J. 2002. The art of changing the brain. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Ronit Kark ([email protected]) is a senior lecturer of orga-nizational psychology at the De-partment of Psychology, Bar-IlanUniversity, Israel. She receivedher PhD from the Hebrew Univer-sity of Jerusalem. Her researchinterests include leadership,identity and identification pro-cesses, emotions and positive re-lationships and the interplay ofgender and leadership in the or-ganizational context.

2011 527Kark

Copyright of Academy of Management Learning & Education is the property of Academy of Management and

its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's

express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

academy of management learning & education games … · len & ibarra, 2009). some...

Documents