This article maps current thinking in the emerging field of responsible leadership. Various environmental and social forces have triggered interest in both research and practices of responsible leadership. This article outlines the main features of the relevant research, specifies a definition of the concept, and compares this emergent understanding of responsible leadership with related leadership theories. Finally, an overview of different articles in this special issue sketches some pathways for ongoing research.
All things considered then, responsible leadership is a multilevel response to deficiencies in existing leadership frameworks and theories; to high-profile scandals on individual, organizational, and systemic levels; and to new and emerging social, ethical, and environmental challenges in an increasingly connected world. The scope and complexity of these challenges calls for responsible leadership and responsible leaders who acknowledge their shared, significant responsibility (May 1996) in tackling problems and challenges. That is, they must walk their talk ultimately to rebuild the public trust vested in them.
It should come as no surprise then that business practice has a notable interest in developing responsible leadership in organizations and in encouraging new generations of responsible leaders and academics to understand the origins and outcomes of responsible leadership as a multilevel theory and construct. In what follows, this opening article of the Special Issue seeks to sharpen understanding of responsible leadership by distinguishing this concept from other leadership theories. We specify our understanding of responsible leadership at the individual level, provide an overview of the various articles in this special issue, and offer some tentative pathways for further research.
To explore this concept, we turn to the broader domain of other leadership theories and constructs that are relevant to responsible leadership, and specifically those that are values-centered, such as ethical, authentic, servant, and transformational theories of leadership. Through such a comparison, we can provide snapshots, insights, and orientations that help us navigate an increasingly diverse field, rather than providing a single-focused, in-depth discussion that would be beyond the scope of this article.
Both authentic and responsible leadership theories factor in the organizational impact of leadership. Avolio and Gardner (2005), Avolio et al. (2004), and Luthans and Avolio (2003) assert that authentic leadership can have positive organizational impacts by helping people find meaning at work and contributes to sustained performance and growth through long-term value creation for shareholders (Avolio and Gardner 2005). Similar to authentic leadership, responsible leadership aims for positive organizational outcomes, but extending beyond traditional economic outcome variables, it also proposes that leadership includes contributions to value and social capital by stakeholders in business and society and thus ultimately should result in positive social change (Maak 2007; Pless 2007).
The Army Leadership Requirements Model is the roadmap of the attributes and competencies expected of U.S. Army leaders. Attributes provide leaders a path to follow, and competencies describe what leaders need to master to become successful. After reviewing the LRM's five leadership styles, transactional, transformational, servant, autocratic, and followership, it is possible to see how civilian leadership theories tie into LRM competencies.7
\"One of the challenges facing today's NCOs, are Soldiers who are incredibly smart, catch onto concepts sooner, and who will challenge their NCOs to improve their leadership skills,\" Wesson said. \"Unless NCOs are willing to learn about leadership theories, they won't achieve self-development.\"
Army leadership training continues to define the NCO corps and develops future leaders. Successful NCOs must master leadership techniques that best suit their needs and go beyond provided instructional materials. To understand the Leadership Requirements Model, NCOs should consider its purpose and its contributions to Army leadership training. Understanding these theories and correctly aligning their practice to specific situations are the hallmarks of professional Soldiers.
This study was motivated by the premise that no nation grows further than the quality of its educational leaders. The purpose of this theoretical debate is to examine the wider context of leadership and its effectiveness towards improving school management. This academic evaluation examines recent theoretical developments in the study of educational leadership in school management. It begins with a concise overview of the meaning and concept of leadership in terms of research, theory, and practice. This is followed by an examination of the theories of leadership, principles and styles of leadership. Each section ends with an identification of contemporary issues and possible means of amelioration. This article concludes that success is certain if the application of the leadership styles, principles and methods is properly and fully applied in school management because quality educational leadership tradition offers great opportunity to further refine educational leadership and management policies and practices by accepting and utilizing the basic principles and styles of educational leadership.
When people meet a leader for the first time, they are not a blank slate. Rather, they have ideas as to what this person may be like and how he or she might behave. General ideas about what leaders are like and how they behave are called implicit leadership theories (ILTs). This term was introduced in 1975 by Eden and Leviatan. Although for a long time, leadership research and practice focused on actual leaders' traits and behaviors, the existence of implicit leadership theories is now widely acknowledged. This theory draws attention to the role of the follower in the process of leadership. Leadership is not only what a leader does but also ...
Effective leadership is a complex and highly valued component of healthcare education, increasingly recognised as essential to the delivery of high standards of education, research and clinical practice. To meet the needs of healthcare in the twenty-first century, competent leaders will be increasingly important across all health professions, including allied health, nursing, pharmacy, dentistry, and medicine. Consequently, incorporation of leadership training and development should be part of all health professional curricula. A new type of leader is emerging: one who role models the balance between autonomy and accountability, emphasises teamwork, and focuses on improving patient outcomes. Healthcare education leaders are required to work effectively and collaboratively across discipline and organisational boundaries, where titles are not always linked to leadership roles. This paper briefly considers the current theories of leadership, and explores leadership skills and roles within the context of healthcare education.
In helping researchers and practitioners understand the challenges of leading in higher education today, the text calls to attention how leadership has been influenced in the last two decades. The 1989 publication primarily defined leadership in the context of an institution's chief executive officer (i.e., president, chancellor, etc.). Kezar, et al. give insight into the complexity of higher education organizations through a new lens. This lens allows the reader to view the organizational and administrative structures of an institution as one interconnected, interdependent web of numerous sub-organizations. Influenced by new views, such as transformational leadership, and emerging theories, (e.g. chaos and complexity theories, social and cultural theories, contingency theories, and relational or team-based theories of leadership), this text expands the reader's understanding of the landscape of higher education. Within this new view of the higher education landscape, leadership no longer solely lies with the president. Today's institution will thrive only when individuals on all levels of the organization practice leadership. Previously, leadership had been conceptualized by primarily (and almost exclusively) looking to leaders. Leadership is now being re-conceptualized to be democratic, process-centered, and collaborative. Whereas independence \"at the top\" was previously emphasized, interdependence among leaders and constituents is vital today. A good leader in the past may have been defined as someone who kept their distance from the community they served; today's campus requires leadership that is involved and willing to share power in order to necessarily progress. For many years, management was identified as the motivation for leadership; today leadership aims to invoke change. Vision was at one time the responsibility of the president. This too has shifted to involve many constituents, both inside and outside of the campus community.
The authors also discuss a critical shift in theoretical perspectives. In the 1989 monograph, leadership is not presented as a transformational process. By contrast, Kezar, et al. explicitly challenge the reader to begin practicing transformational and transactional leadership. Unlike their predecessors, who presented solely leadership theories, these authors conceptualize leadership through paradigms, which are defined as \" worldview(s) and . . . the main assumptions brought to the study of leadership\" (p. 15). These distinct, yet interconnected paradigms allow the reader to trace the evolution of leadership theory, begin to understand the worldview through which a given theory has emerged, and critically examine the effectiveness of said theory. The text gives clear insight as to why research and practice of leadership has shifted over the past few decades in order to represent all constituents on college and university campuses. 153554b96e