Changing Definitions of Leadership or Same old “Hero” Leader?

IF 1.7 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Community College Review Pub Date : 2022-09-24 DOI:10.1177/00915521221125304
Pamela L. Eddy, Kim Vanderlinden, Catherine Hartman
{"title":"Changing Definitions of Leadership or Same old “Hero” Leader?","authors":"Pamela L. Eddy, Kim Vanderlinden, Catherine Hartman","doi":"10.1177/00915521221125304","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective/Research Question: The urgency to replace retiring community college leaders has been a topic of research and discussion for the past two decades. Concurrently, expansive definitions of leadership and collaborative approaches to leading have emerged. The central research question for this study was: How do sitting community college leaders define leadership? The sub-questions included: Do definitions of leadership differ by gender? Do definitions of leadership differ by position? Methods: Coding of survey data from approximately 770 sitting leaders occurred based on responses to the prompt: How do you define leadership? Descriptive statistical analysis occurred based on demographics and on position related to the coded responses. Results: This study found three prevalent ways of defining leadership: leader-focused (leader’s abilities mentioned); other-focused (leader included others, collaboration mentioned); institution-focused (leader focused on institutional needs/mission). About half of both women and men used leader-focused definitions, with slightly more men than women in the tallies. More women than men used other-focused definitions, whereas men used definitions more institutionally focused compared to women (not statistically significant). Leader-focused definitions were also most prevalent by position, with mid-level leaders using this definition slightly more than top-level leaders. Top-level leaders used a combination of institution-focused definitions more so than mid-level leaders, however (not statistically significant). Conclusions: A shift to more other-focused ways of leading is emerging. Those in mid-level positions hold onto leader-focused definitions of leadership, and this points to the need to reconceptualize mid-level leadership and ideas of leading that include others and connect to institutional missions and initiatives. The complex nature of today’s organizations requires broader conceptions of leadership.","PeriodicalId":46564,"journal":{"name":"Community College Review","volume":"51 1","pages":"30 - 51"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Community College Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00915521221125304","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective/Research Question: The urgency to replace retiring community college leaders has been a topic of research and discussion for the past two decades. Concurrently, expansive definitions of leadership and collaborative approaches to leading have emerged. The central research question for this study was: How do sitting community college leaders define leadership? The sub-questions included: Do definitions of leadership differ by gender? Do definitions of leadership differ by position? Methods: Coding of survey data from approximately 770 sitting leaders occurred based on responses to the prompt: How do you define leadership? Descriptive statistical analysis occurred based on demographics and on position related to the coded responses. Results: This study found three prevalent ways of defining leadership: leader-focused (leader’s abilities mentioned); other-focused (leader included others, collaboration mentioned); institution-focused (leader focused on institutional needs/mission). About half of both women and men used leader-focused definitions, with slightly more men than women in the tallies. More women than men used other-focused definitions, whereas men used definitions more institutionally focused compared to women (not statistically significant). Leader-focused definitions were also most prevalent by position, with mid-level leaders using this definition slightly more than top-level leaders. Top-level leaders used a combination of institution-focused definitions more so than mid-level leaders, however (not statistically significant). Conclusions: A shift to more other-focused ways of leading is emerging. Those in mid-level positions hold onto leader-focused definitions of leadership, and this points to the need to reconceptualize mid-level leadership and ideas of leading that include others and connect to institutional missions and initiatives. The complex nature of today’s organizations requires broader conceptions of leadership.
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
领导定义的变化还是老的“英雄”领导?
目标/研究问题:在过去的二十年里,更换即将退休的社区大学领导的紧迫性一直是一个研究和讨论的话题。与此同时,出现了对领导力的广泛定义和合作领导方法。这项研究的核心研究问题是:在职社区大学领导如何定义领导力?子问题包括:领导的定义是否因性别而异?领导力的定义是否因职位而异?方法:根据对提示的回答,对大约770位现任领导人的调查数据进行编码:你如何定义领导力?描述性统计分析是基于人口统计数据和与编码反应相关的职位进行的。结果:本研究发现了三种普遍存在的领导力定义方式:以领导者为中心(提及领导者的能力);其他重点(领导者包括其他人,提到合作);以机构为中心(领导者关注机构需求/使命)。大约一半的女性和男性都使用了以领导者为中心的定义,统计中男性略多于女性。使用其他重点定义的女性多于男性,而与女性相比,男性使用的定义更注重制度(无统计学意义)。以领导者为中心的定义在职位上也最为普遍,中层领导者使用这一定义的人数略多于高层领导者。然而,与中层领导相比,高层领导更多地使用以机构为中心的定义组合(在统计上不显著)。结论:正在出现一种向更注重其他方面的领导方式的转变。那些处于中层职位的人坚持以领导者为中心的领导力定义,这表明有必要重新定义中层领导力和包括他人在内的领导理念,并将其与机构使命和举措联系起来。当今组织的复杂性需要更广泛的领导力概念。
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
Community College Review
Community College Review EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
7.70%
发文量
22
期刊介绍: The Community College Review (CCR) has led the nation for over 35 years in the publication of scholarly, peer-reviewed research and commentary on community colleges. CCR welcomes manuscripts dealing with all aspects of community college administration, education, and policy, both within the American higher education system as well as within the higher education systems of other countries that have similar tertiary institutions. All submitted manuscripts undergo a blind review. When manuscripts are not accepted for publication, we offer suggestions for how they might be revised. The ultimate intent is to further discourse about community colleges, their students, and the educators and administrators who work within these institutions.
期刊最新文献
STEM Enrollment Decision Trees as Graduation Predictors for Community College Students Enrolled in Remedial Mathematics Exploring Economic & Workforce Development Alignment: A Content Analysis of California’s Community College Baccalaureate Program Applications Applying What We Know About Student Success to Creating a Model for Faculty Success The Academic and Personal Experiences of Engineering Technology and Welding Technology Students: A Literature Review The Good, The Bad, and the Balanced: A Typology of State Merit-Aid Programs for Community College Students
×
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