Fotoluminiscencia de Silicio Poroso

Bibliography—Topics in Leadership

Leadership Theory and Practice

1)Bass, B., and Steidlmeier, P. (1998) “Ethics, Character, and Authentic

Transformational Leadership.” Online at

http://cls.binghamton.edu/BassSteid.html.

This paper, by Bass and Steidlmeier of the SUNY Binghamton Center for Leadership Studies, attempts to rebut criticism of transformational leadership from libertarians and other groups that have underlying philosophical traditions rooted in individual emancipation. Such critics suggest that transformational leadership is immoral because it appeals to emotion rather than reason, is undemocratic, and manipulates followers into acting against their own best interests. The authors argue that these critics fail to distinguish between transformational leadership, which is firmly grounded in moral foundations (in both Eastern and Western traditions), and pseudo-

transformational leadership, which may be unethical, deceptive, and manipulative. They contrast transformational leadership with

pseudo-transformational leadership across each of the four

components of transformational leadership (idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration), demonstrating that rather than being unethical or self- aggrandizing, true transformational leaders “identify the core values and unifying purposes of the organization and its members, liberate their human potential, and foster pluralistic, and effective, satisfied followers.”

2) Bolman, L., and Deal, T. (1997) Reframing Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.

In this book, the authors posit that effective organizational leaders must be able to analyze and make sense of daily and workplace situations by looking at them holistically through various lenses. They advance a “four frame” model, suggesting that leaders think about and address problems and challenges using structural, human resource, political, and symbolic frames. Leaders may choose one, some, or all four approaches as circumstances dictate.

Annotated Bibliography Entries

Topic Entry #

Leadership Theory and Practice 1-14 Cross-cultural Leadership Theory 15-21

Africa 22-49

Asia 50-61

Middle East 62-70

Latin America 71-73

North American Marginalized Groups 74-80 Women, Gender, and Leadership 81-92 Educational Leadership 93-96

2

3) Chrislip, D., and Larson, C. (1994) “Skills for a New Kind of Leadership,” in

Collaborative Leadership: How Citizens and Civic Leaders Can Make a Difference, 127–146. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Chrislip and Larson discuss the collaborative response of local business, civic, and religious leaders, as well as leaders of nonprofit organizations and neighborhood groups, to the profound physical, social, and financial decay of Newark, New Jersey, that began in the late 1960s and continued through the early 1980s. Though each group had its own perspectives and interests, they designed and implemented community-wide collaborative initiatives that added thousands of new housing units, built a badly needed supermarket in a low-income neighborhood, instituted one of the world’s most successful urban garbage recycling programs, and created programs that addressed child care, health services, education, crime, and unemployment. From this case, the authors distill four principles that characterize collaborative leadership, asserting that

collaborative leaders: 1) inspire commitment and action, 2) lead as peer problem solvers, 3) build broad-based involvement, and 4) sustain hope and participation.

4) Fiol, C.M., Harris, D., & House, R. (1999) “Charismatic Leadership: Strategies for Effecting Social Change,” online at

http://leadership.wharton.upenn.edu/l_change/publications/House/Charismatic %20Leadership%20-%20House%20.doc

In this paper, the authors study and attempt to determine the specific communication strategies charismatic leaders use to facilitate social change, and to determine how and why the interaction between these leaders and followers can generate social change. Treating charismatic leadership as a series of social process rather than as set of characteristics, they utilize semiotic analysis and Lewin’s (1951) three-phase model describing the process by which social norms and values change (frame breaking, frame moving, and frame re-aligning phases), studying the type of language used in the speeches of 14 20th _{century US presidents (both charismatic and} uncharismatic presidents) and comparing language patterns used with each president’s effectiveness (based on multiple criteria) in facilitating social change. They studied

communication strategies including negation, inclusion, abstraction, and consensus building and concluded that the leaders employed a “predictable, consistent set of linguistic techniques to break down, move, and re-align certain beliefs of their followers.” These techniques, the timing by which each was employed to most effectively facilitate change, and the reasons for employing each strategy at particular times in the change process are critical in enabling leaders “to

simultaneously construct and destroy what people know and believe,” affirm identity, and facilitate trust and consensus building. Understanding effective communication patterns that have advanced social change in the past is one way that contemporary social justice leaders can learn to construct communication strategies facilitating positive change today.

5) Foster, R. (2000) “Leadership in the Twenty-First Century: Working to Build a Civil Society.” National Civic Review 89 no. 1: 87–94.

Using data from four Kellogg Foundation studies that review Kellogg-funded leadership

development programs in the United States, Latin America, the Caribbean, and southern Africa, the author (the foundation’s vice president for programs) summarizes the organization’s findings on what comprises “cutting-edge” thinking and best practices in leadership effectiveness, development, and education. The article does not attempt a full analysis, but rather seeks to describe major themes, including significant leadership challenges for the 21st century; skills, abilities, and attributes necessary for future leaders; and ways organizations can cultivate leadership.

3

6) Gemmill, G. (2002) “Leadership in the Shadow of ‘9/11.’” Ephemera 2 no. 1: 53– 60.

This paper revisits a 1992 article written by the author in which he deconstructed contemporary conceptualizations of leadership, referring to leadership as a “social myth.” Using attribution theory and research on the “cause” of outcomes (as he did in his 1992 article), he explores the thesis of the earlier article in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the U.S., asserting that groups ritualistically “invent” leaders in times of instability or uncertainty to give themselves feelings of stability and control. The flawed process of reality construction and the illusory reality they create serves as a social defense, and “deskills” them in terms of emotions and mindfulness. The undiscussability of the myth they have created leads to “self- sealing non-learning about the myth,” and a paradoxical “pull towards magical or charismatic leaders.” The author asserts in this article that 9/11 triggered leadership myths about George Bush, Tony Blair, and Osama bin Laden, and that these have blinded people to the real

precipitating causes of the event, led to palliative, rather ethiological solutions, and preserved the existing world social system. To truly understand the causes of 9/11 and to address the shadow dynamics that “continue to haunt the world order,” people must collectively lead and manage social processes, “embracing mindfulness” and “working together to define and achieve meaningful goals” for all.

7) Gemill, G., and Oakley, J. (1992) “Leadership: An Alienating Social Myth?” Human Relations 45 no. 2: 113–129.

The authors, professors of management at Syracuse University, apply the radical humanist perspective to the concept of leadership, deconstructing it to try to “unravel its hidden assumptions, internal contradictions, and repressed meanings.” Asserting that leadership is a myth, a social defense, and a flawed process of reality construction reified in our collective unconscious to “repress uncomfortable needs, emotions, and wishes that emerge when people attempt to work together,” the authors contend that our acceptance of and reliance on this construct leads to a massive “deskilling” of society, as people helplessly accept the

uncontrollable, alienating social forms of the workplace. The authors then explore ways that this construct can be reframed, suggesting that discourse on leadership must promote a greater awareness of “covert and undiscussable power and authority dynamics in an organizational context.”

8) Hailey, J., and James, R. (2004) “Trees Die from the Top: International

Perspectives on NGO Leadership Development,” Voluntas 15 no. 4: 343–-353. Hailey, cofounder of INTRAC and professor at London City University’s Cass Business School, and James, a principal capacity-building specialist at INTRAC, examine research on leadership

development in NGO capacity building. They explore the attributes and characteristics of NGO leaders, study the contextual issues NGO leaders confront, and examine “the challenges of developing a new generation of NGO leaders.” NGOs, they assert, face management challenges quite distinct from those of government or business, rooted in their social change mission; their role as bridges between donors, beneficiaries, and other constituencies; the limited resources to which they have access; and the often volatile circumstances under which they operate. Though leadership in both the for-profit sector and the public sector have been the subject of much study, leadership for NGOs has not been researched in great depth. The authors call for further research on the roles and responsibilities of NGO leaders as well as on the skills and

competencies needed for leadership, and for active campaigns to develop leadership capacity in the NGO world. Averring that leadership in NGOs is typified by high staff turnover that frequently leads to “programmatic dysfunctionality and organizational collapse,” they assert that systems

4