Search results
1 – 10 of 176Academic work on responsible leadership has emphasised two aspects: the value orientation of leaders, and the scope of interests they consider in their leadership – the range of…
Abstract
Academic work on responsible leadership has emphasised two aspects: the value orientation of leaders, and the scope of interests they consider in their leadership – the range of stakeholders, current and future, human and non-human. I address these via two questions that are equally important but different in scale: one is about the motives for individual action and the other about the coordination of multiple organisations. Possible answers are considered in the context of leadership development: the developmental pathways, and the structure of leader and leadership development programmes, that are most likely to promote responsible leadership.
On the question of moral motivation (drawing on the work of Paul Ricoeur) I suggest four influential factors: witnessing the suffering of others, admonitions of “masters of justice”, welfare of loved ones, and networks within which to discuss these matters. These I summarise as “the echo of conscience”.
On the question of coordinated change at a systemic level, I review several approaches commonly found in leadership development programmes, interpret these as emerging from four “logics” and consider the implications for responsible leader development. The four logics are: systems are so complex that entrepreneurial innovation is a primary mode of responsible leadership; specific issues might be resolved by bringing “the system in the room”; sector-specific organising to change the rules of the game towards greater social responsibility; identifying “positive tipping points” and seeking triggers for change.
I conclude with a meditation on idealism in responsible leadership.
Details
Keywords
It's hard to envision a system more global and more integrated than research. Many stakeholders affect and are affected by changes in the research ecosystem; the ecosystem differs…
Abstract
It's hard to envision a system more global and more integrated than research. Many stakeholders affect and are affected by changes in the research ecosystem; the ecosystem differs in significant ways across the globe and between researchers, institutions and fields of study; and there are many questions that exclusive action can't address. There are also broad ecosystem-level questions that need answering. For these reasons alone, global approaches to reform are needed.
The first step in this exploration isn't to start looking for “solutions”, but to develop a better understanding of how our needs and interests overlap. By identifying the broad contours of common ground in this conversation, we can build the guardrails and mileposts for our collaborative efforts and then allow the finer-grained details of community-developed plans more flexibility and guidance to evolve over time.
What are these overlapping interests? First, the people in this community share a common motive – idealism – to make research better able to serve the public good. We also share a common desire to unleash the power of open to improve research and accelerate discovery; we are all willing to fix issues now instead of waiting for market forces or government intervention to do this for us; and we want to ensure that everyone everywhere has equitable access to knowledge.
There is also very broad agreement in this community about which specific problems in scholarly communication need to be fixed and why, and well as many overlapping beliefs in this community. OSI participants have concluded that four such beliefs best define our common ground: (1) research and society will benefit from open done right; (2) successful solutions will require broad collaboration; (3) connected issues need to be addressed, and (4) open isn't a single outcome, but a spectrum.
OSI has been observing and debating the activity in scholarly communication since late 2014 with regard to understanding possible global approaches and solutions for improving the future of open research. While the COVID-19 pandemic has made the importance of open science abundantly clear, the struggle to achieve this goal (not just for science but for all research) has been mired in a lack of clarity and urgency for over 20 years now, mostly stalling on the tension between wanting more openness but lacking realistic solutions for making this happen on a large scale with so many different stakeholders, needs and perspectives involved.
Underlying this tension is a fundamental difference in philosophy: whether the entire scholarly communication marketplace, driven by the needs and desires of researchers, should determine what kind of open it wants and needs; or whether this marketplace should be compelled to adopt open reform measures developed primarily by the scholarly communication system's main billpayers-funders and libraries. There is no widespread difference of opinion in the community whether open is worth pursuing. The debate is mostly over what specific open solutions are best, and at what pace open reforms should occur.
OSI has proposed a plan of action for working together to rebuild the future of scholarly communication on strong, common ground foundation. This plan – which we're referring to as Plan A – calls for joint action on studies, scholarly communication infrastructure improvement, and open outreach/education. Plan A also calls for working together with UNESCO to develop a unified global roadmap for the future of open, and for striving to ensure the community's work in this space is researcher-focused, collaborative, connected (addressing connected issues like peer review), diverse and flexible (no one-size-fits-all solutions), and beneficial to research. UNESCO's goal is to finish its roadmap proposal by early 2022.
For a full discussion of OSI's common ground recommendations, please see the Plan A website at http://plan-a.world.
Details