Search results

The term “destructive leadership” has been utilized as an overarching expression to refer to various “bad” leader behaviors thought to be associated with damaging outcomes for followers and organizations. Yet, there is a recognition in the broader leadership literature that leadership involves much more than the behaviors of leaders. It is a dynamic, cocreational process that unfolds between leaders, followers, and environments, the product of which results in group outcomes. In this chapter, I argue that in order to achieve a more balanced view on destructive leadership, it is vital to develop more integrative approaches that are grounded in the contemporary leadership discourse and that recognize flawed or toxic leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments as interdependent elements of a broader destructive leadership process. To this end, I provide a critique of the extant literature, propose a broader definition of destructive leadership, and discuss strategies to examine destructive leadership in a broader, holistic manner.

Leader-centric views have become a dogma in contemporary accounts of school leadership, and organizational performance is seen to reduce to explanations of what individuals do. Hence, a school’s failure is attributed to poor principal performance that may range from merely indifferent to outright unethical conduct that may exhibit “the dark side” of leadership. Judging “good” or “bad” behavior in individualistic terms has a long history and is enshrined in the doctrine of the autonomous agent in possession of “free will.” Conceived thus, the autonomous agent can be held responsible for his or her actions. This chapter examines the notion of “free will” both in its philosophical and everyday meaning and argues that biological agents, such as principals, act responsibly or irresponsibly (or unethically), not on the basis of the presence or absence of metaphysical “free will,” but on the basis of the neurobiology of non-conscious decision-making processes and the constraints of the social, organizational, environments in which they work. The argument is developed by examining two positions from social psychology and neuroscience, respectively, which raise the specter of “free will” as mere illusion, with potentially negative consequences for responsible and ethical conduct. But “free will skepticism” is not warranted and “free will,” or the ability of biological-social agents to choose, is real but is also constrained by external, non-biological, factors. While individual responsibility remains important, it is enmeshed in a much wider causal field and cannot be assumed a priori. If and when it obtains is to be determined after investigation. Some implications of the social cognitive perspective on responsible action and accountability are sketched in the last part of this chapter.

The concept of civic engagement, defined independently of engagement in political, social, or vocational organizations connects the parallel concept of followership to civic engagement with two kinds of follower motivation emerging: mission-oriented and leader- oriented. The mission-driven follower “owns” the cause and supports it with an ongoing, sustainable energy, while the leader-driven follower participates based on esteem for the leader. In the latter case, the leader must continually renew the follower’s engagement through direct requests and exhortation. This research has identified an area of emergent opportunity in the leadership and followership literature, conceptualizing civic engagement as most significantly motivated by mission-driven followership. Practically, mission-driven followers should be sought out and encouraged to volunteer because they support the mission and are more likely to stay with the organization through leadership changes. Theoretically, the addition of a quantitative analysis of mission-driven and leader-driven followership contributes to the emerging scholarship on followership.

The concept of distributed leadership within library services is explored in this chapter. It focuses on how this model of leadership, which devolves leadership functions and practice widely throughout organizations, can lead to intra- and interorganizational collaboration as a catalyst for library service development and innovation. The chapter discusses the distributed leadership approach by presenting selected results of a study of team leaders in public and university library services in the East Midlands region of the United Kingdom. The study employed an online questionnaire and individual interviews with library team leaders to identify the level and nature of collaboration taking place in library services and also to ascertain the skills needed for successful partnership work. The interviews focused primarily on how and why collaborations occurred and it emerged that the team leaders had considerable autonomy to establish and participate in partnerships, fitting well within the distributed leadership paradigm. The chapter adds to, and augments the limited literature on distributed models of leadership in libraries by exploring how this approach works in practice. It also proposes and evidences a link between distributed leadership, collaborative working, and innovation. The authors suggest that distributed leadership can help library services innovate and lead service development by freeing up the creativity of employees through a less formal, hierarchical leadership approach. The chapter ends with propositions for a research agenda to establish the best conditions and most appropriate format of distributed leadership in library services.

More studies are beginning to support the role of distributed, as opposed to solo, leadership in team performance, but distributed leadership (DL) has not always been linked to higher performance. It may need to be co‐ordinated, rather than misaligned or fragmented, and may be most effective in teams performing interdependent tasks. DL has not often been linked to team information processing, however; viewing leadership as involving information management, it is proposed that DL may be linked to higher levels of information exchange and information integration, of both shared and unshared information. A series of research propositions are then developed with the purpose of exploring further the role of DL in team decision making, especially in terms of information exchange and information integration processes in Chinese and Western groups.

The paper derives a number of research propositions from the literature on DL and information processing and applies them to decision making by Chinese and Western teams.

The paper presents a series of propositions on the factors affecting the effectiveness of DL and possible differences between Chinese and Western teams.

The paper presents a series of propositions about DL and relates the literature on DL to the literature on information processing in an original way.

This chapter considers how social capital is evolving in the era of globalization today especially under COVID-19 pandemic conditions globally. Definitions of social capital have varied: some broad others narrow. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), for example, currently has a broad research project on social capital. These researchers have defined social capital as comprising four key areas. These areas are:

• Personal relationships, referring to the structure of people’s social networks.

• Depth and breadth of social network support available to each person in their networks.

• Civic engagement activities such as volunteering and community action.

• Beliefs, attitudes, and action frames of reference such as trust and cooperative norms, of reciprocity.

Personal relationships, referring to the structure of people’s social networks.

Depth and breadth of social network support available to each person in their networks.

Civic engagement activities such as volunteering and community action.

Beliefs, attitudes, and action frames of reference such as trust and cooperative norms, of reciprocity.

Thus, there are tacit as well as explicit aspects of social capital though some of these may seldom if ever be articulated and delineated for others.

As Claridge (2020) indicates, there are distinct, but dynamically interrelated, levels of social capital. These levels range between the micro- or individual level. That is personal “habitus” – which Bourdieu (1977) describes as a person’s “taken-for-granted” – ways of being, thinking, and reacting to events and to other people. Then, the next level above the individual is the meso-level, which is “how things are done here amongst us,” that is, the level of a group’s social capital (such as a team, or an organizational or local community level). Lastly, and wider still, the top level is the macro- or cultural-societal structural level of the nation.

The social capital systems in any location encompasses sets of acceptable or culturally legitimated behavioral norms and rules of engagement between community members which include types of greetings, forms of cooperation, communications, and signaling between diverse members. Thus, social capital may be present in the tacit, or unspoken/taken-for-granted assumptions as much as in explicit or formalized codes of behavior. The forms of social interactions at each of the levels may have norms for specific types communication and address in particular sets of circumstances such as social gatherings at home or in public or when attending communal gatherings or ceremonial occasions, or between people of different social status. Social capital generates trust and social cohesion and some level of cultural and attitudinal consensus and interest, which in turn delivers a stable environment for the local community or larger society, business, or the economy.

• (1)

  Social capital is the development of relationships that help contribute to a more efficient production of goods and services as there is embedded trust, embodied in practice, that is, in behaviors regarded as trustworthy and socially helpful.

• (2)

  There are three types of social capital at each level of interaction – bonding, bridging, and linking. Bridging and linking are similar though they operate in different directions socially. Bonding social capital describes the connections between people in similar social levels or groups of people who share the same characteristic norms and beliefs, whereas linking social capital facilitates connects between different groups.

• (3)

  Social capital can therefore make or break businesses, especially small businesses or start-ups as those with the right kind and amount of social capital, such as good connections and contacts in the trade or profession, can usually thrive as they are able to get work done more quickly, effectively, and efficiently. Conversely, a lack of social capital denoting some distrust between groups can undermine social stability.

Social capital is the development of relationships that help contribute to a more efficient production of goods and services as there is embedded trust, embodied in practice, that is, in behaviors regarded as trustworthy and socially helpful.

There are three types of social capital at each level of interaction – bonding, bridging, and linking. Bridging and linking are similar though they operate in different directions socially. Bonding social capital describes the connections between people in similar social levels or groups of people who share the same characteristic norms and beliefs, whereas linking social capital facilitates connects between different groups.

Social capital can therefore make or break businesses, especially small businesses or start-ups as those with the right kind and amount of social capital, such as good connections and contacts in the trade or profession, can usually thrive as they are able to get work done more quickly, effectively, and efficiently. Conversely, a lack of social capital denoting some distrust between groups can undermine social stability.

The meso- or macro-levels of bridging type social capital ensures acceptance of established social roles locally and linking forms of social capital boost levels of acceptance of other roles such as those of leaders and followers.

All three forms of social capital and the three levels are not mutually exclusive but instead are mutually inclusive and interrelated. That is, they co-evolve, each impacting the other while dynamically interacting with the social capital anchored as it is emerging from the complex and interwoven fields of tacit and explicit norms of social interaction underpinning each of the levels of interaction over time.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the concept of leadership culture and analyse how leadership cultures are produced in higher education reforms, in a hybridised discursive context of traditional academic values and emerging managerialism and leaderism.

Building on a perspective on leadership as a cultural phenomenon emerging in processes in which societal, sectorial and professional discursive resources are invoked, this study adds to earlier studies on how notions of leadership are involved in the transformation of higher education organisations. To this end, the method combines a traditional qualitative study of change initiatives over a long period of time with participative observation. Focusing on two vignettes, the analysis centres on how several discursive resources are drawn upon in daily interaction.

The emergence of hybrid leadership cultures in which several discursive resources are drawn upon in daily interaction is illustrated. This paper emphasises how hybrid cultures develop through confirmation, re-formulation and rejection of discursive influences.

An extended empirical material would enable further understanding of what cultural constructions of leadership that become confirmed, re-formulated or rejected. International comparisons would also enrich the analysis.

This paper may influence leadership, leadership development and change initiatives in higher education organisation.

Higher education organisations are crucial for societal development and this paper contributes to better understanding how they are changing.

The perspective proposed builds on recent developments in leadership studies and expands the means for focusing on social processes rather than individuals.