Search results

This article explores the role of history and historical memory in the formation of early Zionist/Israeli national security doctrine. To that end, it makes three moves. First, it explores a series of public addresses made by Zalman Rubashov (Shazar) in 1942–1943. A key public intellectual in the Jewish community of preindependent Palestine (the Yishuv), Rubashov means to help his listeners make sense of, and respond collectively to, the unfolding destruction of European Jewry. Second, it draws cautious parallels between those public intellectual pronouncements and the postwar work of Friedrich Meinecke, a prominent German historian and public intellectual and a sometime teacher of Rubashov. In both cases, I suggest, history does more than make sense of a moment of political transition: It seeks to reframe the self-understandings of citizens and their collective political relations. Third, drawing on a recent memoir by Noam Chayut, a prominent Israeli antioccupation activist, I explore how those self-understandings can be lost when the historical claims upon which they are predicated lose their sense of immediacy, naturalness, or coherence.

“WHAT Manchester thinks to‐day, London will think tomorrow,” was a current saying a century or less ago. It may be current today in political matters; it may be so even in library matters. Before his lamented death, Charles Nowell drew up a long, careful memorandum for his committee on the desirability of Government grants in aid for libraries such as his own which acted in a very definite way as national libraries, in that their services were drawn upon by thousands outside Manchester who contributed nothing to the rates. In smaller measure the case could be made for every library authority which maintains a reference library, because there are no qualifications or introductions or fees required of any reader whencesoever he may come. To that quite substantial degree every good public library does national service. It could of course be contended that libraries receive services of a like kind for their own readers from all other towns and counties. In any case, the burden on Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow, Bristol—to name only a few important examples—is perhaps unfairly heavy. The case seems a good one. Opposition to the suggestion of tax‐aid which is by no means new, came formerly from the Authority associations, not because of their concern for the taxpayer's pocket, although we do not accuse them of lack of such concern, but because such grants imply a possible, indeed a likely, further interference with local autonomy. It is quite understandable; little by little local authorities have been shorn of their most productive enterprises. School and police in some towns, transport in others, and in all the gas and electricity industries have been appropriated by Government. On terms, it is true, but on capital payments which meant the loss of the recurrent income and, what was worse, loosened the local influence over the services concerned. Perhaps the local authorities can be persuaded that grants, without unreasonable interference and without loss of local control, are desirable. Librarians will watch with practical interest the progress of this proposal which, it should have been mentioned, has been approved by the Manchester City Council.

This study aims to include two major objectives. Firstly, Frederick’s leadership is explored and characterized. Secondly, it is examined as to why a leader may (or may not) adopt servant leadership behavior in the case of Frederick II, King of Prussia.

The applied methodology is a historical examination of Frederick II’s leadership, an eighteenth-century’s monarch who has the reputation of being the “first servant of the state.” The analysis is conducted from the perspective of modern servant leadership research.

This study shows Frederick remains a rather non-transparent person of contradictions. The authors identified multiple reasons which explain why a leader may adopt servant leadership. Frederick’s motives to adopt a certain leadership behavior appear timeless and, thus, he most likely shares the same antecedents with today’s top executives.

The authors identified various antecedents of individual servant leadership dimensions, an under-research area to date.

To the best of authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to look at Frederick's leadership style through the lens of modern servant leadership.

Nobody concerned with political economy can neglect the history of economic doctrines. Structural changes in the economy and society influence economic thinking and, conversely, innovative thought structures and attitudes have almost always forced economic institutions and modes of behaviour to adjust. We learn from the history of economic doctrines how a particular theory emerged and whether, and in which environment, it could take root. We can see how a school evolves out of a common methodological perception and similar techniques of analysis, and how it has to establish itself. The interaction between unresolved problems on the one hand, and the search for better solutions or explanations on the other, leads to a change in paradigma and to the formation of new lines of reasoning. As long as the real world is subject to progress and change scientific search for explanation must out of necessity continue.

For many of the current leadership theories, models, and approaches, the answer to the question posed in the title, “Is leadership more than ‘I like my boss’?,” is “no,” as there appears to be a hierarchy of leadership concepts with Liking of the leader as the primary dimension or general factor foundation. There are then secondary dimensions or specific sub-factors of liking of Relationship Leadership and Task Leadership; and subsequently, tertiary dimensions or actual sub-sub-factors that comprise the numerous leadership views as well as their operationalizations (e.g., via surveys). There are, however, some leadership views that go beyond simply liking of the leader and liking of relationship leadership and task leadership. For these, which involve explicit levels of analysis formulations, often beyond the leader, or are multi-level in nature, the answer to the title question is “yes.” We clarify and discuss these various “no” and “yes” leadership views and implications of our work for future research and personnel and human resources management practice.

Meetings are an integral function in organizations where interaction between leaders and their employees and thus, leadership, happens. A small but growing area of research within the larger workplace meetings domain has started to focus on the role of leaders in promoting effective and satisfying meetings. This chapter provides an overview of research to date on workplace meetings and leadership, and the authors identified seven studies that paired the two areas. The number of publications focusing on meetings and leadership is increasing, with the older papers largely dedicated to qualitative investigations of leader behaviors associated with successful meetings, whereas the more recent papers take a more theoretical and quantitative approach, yet are nonetheless largely isolated from one another. Next, the authors review five theories of leadership (full range of leadership, charismatic leadership, servant leadership, exploitative leadership, and followership), and relate each of the theories to workplace meetings, with a key focus on how the theory may impact subordinates’ perceptions of meetings as well as the utility of meetings for team and organizational functioning. The authors propose seven areas throughout the chapter that future research could explore to extend knowledge about how leadership operates in meetings and how meetings are an important aspect to consider with respect to leadership theories. Primary theoretical contributions are the integration of existing work on leadership and meetings and theoretically based propositions for future research.