Habits and the Social Phenomenon of Leadership

被引:7
作者
Betta M. [1 ]
机构
[1] Faculty of Business and Law H23, Ethics, Organisation and Business, Department of Management and Marketing, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne Hawthorn, 3122, VIC
关键词
Coping; Doxic-theoretical experience; Habit; Intentionality; Leader; Leadership;
D O I
10.1007/s40926-017-0076-8
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Leadership research has grown into two opposing approaches, the scientific approach and the critical approach. The first is focused on leadership, the second on the leaders. For reasons of practicality, they will be described as the leadership-centric and the leader-centric approach, respectively. Each of the two approaches is characterised by two different perspectives: leadership-centric research highlights science and process; leader-centric research deals with the leader using cognitive faculties and drawing on cultural practices. This opposition has created an unproductive gap in leadership scholarship. The present article focuses on how to reduce that gap by bridging some of the differences that currently undermine scholarship. The concept of habits is used to support an argument in favour of leadership as a social phenomenon. The main idea is that a social phenomenon involves both social interactions happening in everyday shared knowledge and intentionality that influences agents’ experiences. By borrowing from the pragmatist John Dewey, leadership is conceptualised as habits embedded in social life. Habits comprise the social sharing of experience and knowledge in a meaningful world. But it seems difficult, it is further argued, to elaborate on people’s intentionality through habits. To overcome this difficulty, Edmund Husserl’s notion of doxic-theoretical experience is used. Habits, it is concluded, help make leadership-centric research less anonymous, and doxic agency the leader’s intentionality more transparent. © 2017, Springer International Publishing AG.
引用
收藏
页码:243 / 256
页数:13
相关论文
共 69 条
[1]  
Alvesson M., Spicer A., Critical leadership studies: the case for critical performativity, Human Relations, 65, pp. 367-390, (2012)
[2]  
Avolio B.J., Gardner W.L., Authentic leadership development: getting to the root of positive forms of leadership, The Leadership Quarterly, 16, pp. 315-338, (2005)
[3]  
Bligh M.C., Kohles J.C., Pillai R., Romancing leadership: past, present, and future, The Leadership Quarterly, 22, pp. 1058-1077, (2011)
[4]  
Boyce L.A., Zaccaro S.J., Wisecarver M.Z., Propensity for self-development of leadership attributes: understanding, predicting, and supporting performance of leader self-development, The Leadership Quarterly, 21, pp. 159-178, (2010)
[5]  
Brown M.E., Trevino L.K., Ethical leadership: a review and future directions, The Leadership Quarterly, 17, pp. 595-616, (2006)
[6]  
Camic C., The matter of habit, American Journal of Sociology, 91, pp. 1039-1087, (1986)
[7]  
Carlisle C., The question of habit in theology and philosophy: from hexis to plasticity, Body & Society, 19, pp. 30-57, (2013)
[8]  
Carlisle C., Sinclair M., Editorial, Journal of the British Society of Phenomenology, 42, pp. 2-5, (2011)
[9]  
Carroll B., Levy L., Richmond D., Leadership as practice: challenging the competency paradigm, Leadership, 4, pp. 363-379, (2008)
[10]  
Ciulla J.B., Ethics, the heart of leadership, (1998)