Search results

This article begins by examining the recommendations of Uhl-Bien and Marion that the LAMPE theory of organizational leadership could be enhanced and improved if it were to incorporate elements of complexity and complexity leadership theory. Their advice should be reversed: complexity leadership theory should incorporate the theory, methods, and models already tested in the construct of the LAMPE theory. The reasons for this conclusion are based on a general discussion of the conditions under which a processual theory can be tested and the testing procedure be made rigorous. According to this approach, complexity leadership theory cannot be most rigorous and the LAMPE organizational leadership theory might be.

Current organizations face a complex competitive landscape driven by globalization and technology that puts them in the course of a new economic age. This complexity stresses learning and innovation as fundamental mechanisms for organizational survival. This paper aims to propose that how learning and innovation emerge and affect organizational performance can be better understood through the complexity leadership theory.

The authors review literature on complexity leadership theory, learning and innovation in complex bureaucratic environments and then present reflections regarding how learning and innovation can be achieved through the interaction of three complexity leadership functions: adaptive, administrative and enabling. This conceptual framework suggests that individuals are in constant interaction, exchange information, influence each other and collectively produce emergent properties that promote effective learning and innovation.

We propose that learning and innovation can be better achieved in organizations if the complexity leadership theory is applied as an alternative to centralized forms of influence and control.

This paper presents a reflection on the benefits of the complexity leadership theory as an alternative framework to understand organizational leadership. Furthermore, this paper proposes that the complexity leadership theory is more adequate to generate learning and innovation in complex, fast-changing work environments.

Leadership, organizational, and institutional theories provide competing explanations on the nature of leadership and role of leaders. Part of the problem is that each theory is often studied in isolation, leading to incomplete perspectives on the essence of leadership in value- driven contexts. A holistic paradigm that blends the three dominant models for understanding the work of the collective is warranted and necessary to optimize organizational outcomes. This article briefly highlights the contributions and limitations of each frame and provides an overview of complexity theory as a model for reconciling major differences. The paper provides specific perspectives, practices, and metaphors for navigating the collective to bring about desired outcomes.

Technological advances, globalization, network complexity, and social complexity complicate almost every aspect of our organizations and environments. Leadership educators are challenged with developing leaders who can sense environmental cues, adapt to rapidly changing contexts, and thrive in uncertainty while adhering to their values systems. In a complex leadership context, inadequate leader responses can result in devastating organizational impacts akin to the butterfly effect from chaos theory. This paper advances a simple model for leadership education based on a program we designed to develop leaders who understand the nature of complex systems, reliably use their ethical value systems, are emotionally intelligent and resilient, and can adapt to emergent situations.

This paper aims to help develop an understanding of how complexity theory may be applied to an understanding of leadership and organizational dynamics and contributes to the growing body of literature in the same subject.

Stacey's theory of complex responsive processes is used to analyse leadership and organizational dynamics in an unusual example of an organizational simulation exercise on an MBA programme.

This article shows how the theory of complex responsive processes may offer the potential to understand episodes of emergent, and potentially creative, forms of organization and leadership. It demonstrates how to recognise and work with the qualities of participation, conversational life, anxiety, diversity, and with unpredictability and paradox.

This paper complements previous articles in LODJ that seek to use complexity theories in the analysis of leadership and organizational dynamics. It demonstrates how an analysis from the perspective of complex responsive processes differs from that of complexity theories that focus on systemic rather than process thinking and that do not incorporate insights from psychology and social theory.

Mackenzie's LAMPE theory provides a new view of leadership that is multi-level, processual, and reflective of leadership as it actually occurs in practice. While we see this approach as representing a much needed frameshift for leadership research, we believe Mackenzie may be able to “break the frame” even farther by incorporating elements of complexity science into his thinking. We suggest how complexity science might help Mackenzie flesh out his ideas about distributed leadership, as well as consider leadership that is not only about alignment and control but also about enabling and releasing informal, interactive dynamics within the organization.

Major social changes, such as those induced by the COVID-19 pandemic, intensify the need for organisations in Africa to accelerate adaptation. Leadership plays an important role in their organisations’ adaptation. This study focuses on how leaders can build adaptive organisations through appropriate complexity leadership practices by establishing which of these most predict organisational adaptation. The study aims to contribute to dramatic social change (DSC) theory and to empirically confirm conceptual relationships between complexity leadership theory and perceptions of organisational adaptability (OA).

The convenience non-probability sample include 126 senior management respondents from 24 small and medium enterprises in Zimbabwe. The study focuses on these individual senior managers’ perceptions of their organisations’ adaptation, leadership practices and the social changes during COVID-19. The questionnaire used a five-point Likert scale, based on some items from existing scales on entrepreneurial, operational and enabling leadership of complexity leadership and items on OA and DSC. The study applied structural equation modelling using SmartPLS and SPSS software.

The study formulates recommendations for the boundary conditions under which each or a combination of the complexity leadership practices will bring about the appropriate level of adaptability. The enabling and entrepreneurial leadership practices required, include brokering, decentralisation and establishing multilevel collaboration.

The study contributes insight for leaders to differentiate between the levels of adaptation their organisations require at particular times in particular contexts. Different adaptations will require a different combination of complexity leadership practices. When the adaptation sought is internal, operational leadership is more appropriate, whereas if the motive is market adaptation, entrepreneurial leadership is more appropriate.

This paper aims to identify the life-cycle of leadership theory from both the human resource development (HRD) and the organizational/leadership literature while providing a contrast between the two bodies of literature. The current research identifies which theories are being represented within the HRD literature, followed by a review of current directions in the leadership fields, primarily from literature in the organizational and leadership fields. By identifying these two bodies of leadership theories, the following research question will be answered: How current are the leadership theories provided in the literature of HRD compared to research that is reported from other external leadership fields?

This paper examines how leadership theories are represented in the HRD literature. Data for the current article provide a preview of leadership theories that are used to inform HRD scholars and scholar–practitioners for a period of 15 years (2000-2015) in the four Academy of Human Resource Development (AHRD) publications (Advances in Developing Human Resources; Human Resource Development International; Human Resource Development Quarterly; and Human Resource Development Review). The four journals within the AHRD were reviewed to identify which leadership theories were being researched and used to inform members of HRD. The search terms for the current study included “leadership AND theory,” “team AND leadership,” “leadership AND development” and “team AND development.” Studies that presented a leadership theory and either described or defined the theory were coded for the current study. Within this body of literature, there were a total of 74 leadership theories identified (some repeating), among those there were a total of 20 unique leadership theories. The literature external of HRD was identified using the ScienceDirect database for 10 years (2007-2017) with the topics limited to “topics–leadership.” Once the HRD and organizational/leadership literature are presented, a comparison between the two literature streams will be provided, highlighting any deficiencies within either body of literature and recommendations for future research efforts for the field of HRD.

This examination of leadership theory study within HRD and other fields highlights the deficiencies within either body of literature and offers recommendations for future research efforts for the field of HRD. In line with the trend in leadership research, HRD should call for more longitudinal and multi-level research efforts to be conducted as opposed to cross-sectional studies.

The current study is limited in the literature that was used to collect/code data. Also, the time frame for the HRD literature ended in 2015 due to the long duration required to review articles and to code the data. Secondary data were obtained from organizational/leadership literature and are more current because they are more recent. Overall, even with an end date of 2015 for the HRD literature, the HRD field has not changed too much during this time and the authors recognize some minor changes, but the research findings are still relevant and the leadership deficits presented are still realized.

The field of HRD is behind when it comes to leadership theories. This paper identifies this in an effort to aid researchers, students and practitioners to look beyond the leadership theories presented in the HRD literature for more relevant and current leadership theories. This paper highlighted a number of newer and current leadership theories and trends for scholars and scholar-practitioners to begin to focus on; however, this list is only a snapshot and is bounded by the data collected for the current paper.

This paper is original in that it is both critical of leadership research within the HRD literature while also providing new directions for the field. The snapshot of where the field of HRD is compared to the leadership and organizational fields becomes apparent with multiple future directions for research.

Planners are expected to leave leadership to elected officials. Yet, they are often asked to do more. Should planners lead? The purpose of this paper is to examine how leadership is seen in the profession and then outline major theories of leadership and planning.

Using content analysis, the major theories of planning and descriptions of what planners do from professional planning organizations’ codes of ethics from around the world are compared.

Results indicate that new ways of thinking about leadership (Group leadership, Servant, Adaptive, Authentic and Followership) can help planners find leadership styles that fit their comfort zones better than old leadership definitions emphasizing heroic individuals.

Existing literature regarding leadership in planning indicates that planners must run for office if they are to lead. This examination of planners’ codes of ethics and newer theories of leadership indicates they can be leaders and operate well within current ethical boundaries.