Search results

The purpose of this paper is to examine two contrasting leadership development methodologies, Reflective Practice and Scharmer’s Theory U.

Gibbs’ Reflective Cycle and Scharmer’s Reflecting Deeply exercise were applied to the same leadership incident on separate days.

Reflective Practice provided helpful insights through focusing on one’s thoughts, feelings and motives during the event, as well as the actions of others and the author’s responses to them. The author found that using Scharmer’s Reflecting Deeply exercise enabled a deeper understanding of the incident to emerge, which also provided new and distinct insights.

The main limitation was the case study nature of this exercise; these findings are merely the result of one person’s experiences.

To develop rounded leadership skills, leaders can benefit from tapping into all of their resources; these two approaches allow different aspects of one’s intelligence to be accessed, which ought to facilitate greater development.

Many authors cite a current crisis of leadership, not least of all a perceived failure to tackle the environmental challenges we face. By seeking to develop more intelligent and rounded leaders, leadership itself ought to improve which in turn should help society tackle pressing issues.

To the author’s knowledge, a direct comparison of the leadership development methodologies used in this paper has not been previously described. This paper provides useful insights into the practical application of Reflective Practice and Scharmer’s Theory U, which will help inform others seeking to develop as leaders.

We explore how scholarly understandings of and the practice of organizational transformation have evolved since Bartunek and Louis’s (1988) Research in Organizational Change and Development chapter. While Bartunek and Louis hoped to see strategy scholarship and OD approaches to transformation inform each other, strategy literature has drifted away from transformation toward more continuous change. OD practice has focused on the implementation of its own versions of transformation through Large Group Interventions, Appreciative Inquiry, the new dialogic OD, and Theory U. Based on a discussion of Theory U, we call attention to the importance of individuals as an important source of new ideas in understanding and practicing large-scale change.

This chapter presents a unique perspective on opportunities that the Covid pandemic has created for the sector. Drawing on extensive, professional experience of working with leaders in the higher education sector, a more holistic perspective is offered in relation to organisational development; transforming university cultures into more inclusive, collaborative and evolutionary environments. Three key leadership skills needed for the post-pandemic world are outlined: presencing, taking courageous actions and transmuting the ego in the service for others. System thinking, leaderful and holistic development models are used to consider the practical implications of leading the new.

This paper explores how leaders identify their roles and selves when they lead change in a dynamic organizational context.

Using a qualitative approach, ten ICT leaders participated in semi-structured interviews depicting their experiences of change. A thematic method of interpretative analysis was used to develop findings, supported by Theory U as a conceptual tool for leadership self-awareness.

Leaders struggle with organizational constraints and boundaries, specifically the complexities that form and limit their leadership underpinned by unrealistic expectations due to the construction of romanticized heroic leadership. While these restrictions lead to feelings of detachment of leaders from their organizations, leadership development exists in the acts of letting go of old behaviors, and welcoming emergence and experimentation by trusting more.

This study may be limited by its small sample and the use of one framework to make sense of the leaders' experience of change. It confirms that change can challenge organizing norms and how leadership is identified.

Despite the feeling of detachment from their organizations, developing greater self-awareness, being open to new ideas and trusting more can bring about better organizational outcomes, which is represented with Theory O as a contribution both for theory and practice.

This study illustrates (1) leaders' inner work or personal experience of change, and (2) how improvement of self-awareness can contribute to the involvement of leaders to the change process. Based on self-awareness, trust and feedback relationship, this study suggests a new practical and conceptual tool called Theory O by advancing Theory U.

This study examines the significance of time as a paradoxical factor and value in 21^st century public policy, management, and planning. Five areas are considered: (1) time as a strategic and moral concern, (2) examples of planning and time in public environments ranging from the individual level to the agency, policy, process, and contextual levels, (3) time in recent social and administrative theory, (4) time as a cognitive capability, and (5) the connection between time, planning, and learning. Conclusions and implications are developed to highlight the paradoxical status of planning and time in todayʼs public environment, and to suggest that, for public administrators, serving the public interest, near-term and long-term, is the heart of assuring that time becomes a central strategic and moral concern for public administration today.

The paper introduces the concept of not‐yet‐embodied or self‐transcending knowledge. The concept of self‐transcending knowledge proposes a distinction between two types of tacit knowledge: tacit‐embodied knowledge on the one hand and not‐yet‐embodied knowledge on the other hand. The distinction is relevant because each of the three forms of knowledge – explicit, tacit‐embodied, and self‐transcending – is based on different epistemological assumptions and requires a different type of knowledge environment and learning infrastructure. Moreover, the differentiation among markets with decreasing, steady, and increasing returns suggests that, in order to successfully compete for increasing return markets, leaders need a new type of knowledge that allows them to sense, tune into and actualize emerging business opportunities – that is, to tap into the sources of not‐yet‐embodied knowledge.