Zombie leadership: Dead ideas that still walk among us

IF 9.1 1区 管理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT Leadership Quarterly Pub Date : 2024-06-01 DOI:10.1016/j.leaqua.2023.101770
S. Alexander Haslam , Mats Alvesson , Stephen D. Reicher
{"title":"Zombie leadership: Dead ideas that still walk among us","authors":"S. Alexander Haslam ,&nbsp;Mats Alvesson ,&nbsp;Stephen D. Reicher","doi":"10.1016/j.leaqua.2023.101770","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Considerable progress has been made in the field of leadership in recent years. However, we argue that this is undermined by a strong residual commitment to an older set of ideas which have been repeatedly debunked but which nevertheless resolutely refuse to die. These, we term <em>zombie leadership</em>. Zombie leadership lives on not because it has empirical support but because it flatters and appeals to elites, to the leadership industrial complex that supports them, and also to the anxieties of ordinary people in a world seemingly beyond their control. It is propagated in everyday discourse surrounding leadership but also by the media, popular books, consultants, HR practices, policy makers, and academics who are adept at catering to the tastes of the powerful and telling them what they like to hear. This review paper outlines eight core claims (axioms) of zombie leadership. As well as isolating the problematic metatheory which holds these ideas together, we reflect on ways in which they might finally be laid to rest.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48434,"journal":{"name":"Leadership Quarterly","volume":"35 3","pages":"Article 101770"},"PeriodicalIF":9.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1048984323000966/pdfft?md5=5d086526cf586a7c9a24357b9b855abe&pid=1-s2.0-S1048984323000966-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Leadership Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1048984323000966","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Considerable progress has been made in the field of leadership in recent years. However, we argue that this is undermined by a strong residual commitment to an older set of ideas which have been repeatedly debunked but which nevertheless resolutely refuse to die. These, we term zombie leadership. Zombie leadership lives on not because it has empirical support but because it flatters and appeals to elites, to the leadership industrial complex that supports them, and also to the anxieties of ordinary people in a world seemingly beyond their control. It is propagated in everyday discourse surrounding leadership but also by the media, popular books, consultants, HR practices, policy makers, and academics who are adept at catering to the tastes of the powerful and telling them what they like to hear. This review paper outlines eight core claims (axioms) of zombie leadership. As well as isolating the problematic metatheory which holds these ideas together, we reflect on ways in which they might finally be laid to rest.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
僵尸领导力:仍在我们中间游荡的死亡思想
近年来,领导力领域取得了长足的进步。然而,我们认为,这种进步受到了对一套旧观念的强烈残留承诺的破坏,这些观念已被反复驳斥,但却坚决拒绝消亡。我们称之为 "僵尸领导力"。僵尸领导力之所以存在,并不是因为它有经验上的支持,而是因为它谄媚和迎合了精英们、支持他们的领导力工业综合体,以及普通人在一个似乎无法控制的世界中的焦虑。围绕领导力的日常讨论、媒体、通俗读物、咨询顾问、人力资源实践、政策制定者以及善于迎合权势者口味并告诉他们喜欢听的话的学者们都在传播这种观点。本文概述了僵尸领导力的八个核心主张(公理)。我们不仅分析了支撑这些观点的元理论存在的问题,还思考了如何才能让这些观点最终寿终正寝。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
15.20
自引率
9.30%
发文量
58
期刊介绍: The Leadership Quarterly is a social-science journal dedicated to advancing our understanding of leadership as a phenomenon, how to study it, as well as its practical implications. Leadership Quarterly seeks contributions from various disciplinary perspectives, including psychology broadly defined (i.e., industrial-organizational, social, evolutionary, biological, differential), management (i.e., organizational behavior, strategy, organizational theory), political science, sociology, economics (i.e., personnel, behavioral, labor), anthropology, history, and methodology.Equally desirable are contributions from multidisciplinary perspectives.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Exogenous shocks: Definitions, types, and causal identification issues Editorial Board Advancing Organizational Science With Computational Process Theories The research transparency index
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1