Journal of Leadership Studies最新文献

Accelerated development and engagement of artificial intelligence are among the most significant global challenges in transforming the social and economic environment, resulting in the heightened emphasis on inclusive, collaborative, ethical decision-making and responsible leadership. Higher education is an integral part of the global landscape of society and is influenced by its changing context. Accordingly, leadership educators must respond to the changes in the global and institutional environments and the new leadership paradigm in designing and implementing their leadership education programs. Here, we consider the macro level of the “place” within which higher education institutions are situated and reflect upon the impact of Artificial Intelligence on the design and delivery of leadership education programs.

The current article examines interdisciplinary programs in higher education through the lenses of collective leadership, liminal spaces, and communitas. Interdisciplinary programs often exist in transitional, in-between spaces within academic institutions, challenging traditional hierarchical and disciplinary structures. The current article explores how these liminal spaces can be leveraged to foster collective leadership and a sense of communitas, shared community, and identity among program members. Using Kansas State University as a case study, the article highlights the importance of sociomateriality in constructing leadership and practices such as coaching, mentoring, and advising that can support communitas and collective leadership in interdisciplinary contexts. The article suggests that relationship-focused practices are key to navigating and transforming hierarchical pressures in academic environments, ultimately advocating for a more inclusive and collaborative approach to leadership in higher education.

The need for a more specialized and professional workforce is growing, and doctoral programs within the United States are addressing the need with record-breaking increases in conferred doctoral degrees. As leadership education and development is a critical component of doctoral education, the current paper explores the context of doctoral education by examining classification systems for doctoral degrees and doctoral institutions. Recommendations for integrating leadership programming based on these classifications are presented.

The current symposium explores graduate leadership education in the higher education learning environment. The collection, authored by scholars from a multitude of higher education institutional types, analyzes the importance of institutional context and programmatic focus in leadership education, and takes into consideration the important role the external environment serves in informing leadership program development. Through this analysis, we focus upon opportunities and challenges faculty and students encounter given their leadership programs' situational placement, or “The Power of Place.” Examining the placement of leadership programs within a systems framework inspires creativity and encourages reframing of what initially appeared to be a challenge as an opportunity for excellence.

Building a future pipeline of leaders in higher education remains a topic of importance given the challenges and pressures facing colleges and universities. The current article introduces one initiative dedicated to graduate leadership education, the PreDoctoral Leadership Development Academy at Rutgers University, and highlights points of connection to other similar national programs. In response to the symposium theme, we advance three linkages to the power of place, including an emphasis on graduate leadership education as (1) a shared or collective endeavor, (2) a reflection of institutional values, and (3) a laboratory for analyzing organization-specific challenges and opportunities.

Interdisciplinary and online graduate programs have been in existence for decades; yet universities often operate from a disciplinary, campus-based tradition. This can lead to challenges in faculty and student mentoring and student research engagement when expectations mirror a noninterdisciplinary, traditional on-campus model. However, positive mentoring experiences can develop when everyone thinks creatively. The current article highlights research on virtual mentoring of graduate students, mentoring of graduate students in interdisciplinary programs, and ways in which one online graduate program engaged students in a scholar-practitioner leadership development event. The current article concludes with recommendations on ways to engage students in the mentoring and research process, especially those who are distance-learning students in interdisciplinary programs.

Responsible leadership, a construct at the intersection of corporate social responsibility (CSR), ethics, and leadership, is considered to meet the conflicting demands of modern organizations by striking a balance between internal and external responsibilities. To further explore antecedents and outcomes of responsible leadership, scholars and practitioners need an instrument that can gauge the influence of responsible leadership on organizational members. The present study is a combination of four studies and is aimed at developing a measurement instrument using the sequential mixed method equal status approach. The study aims to explore responsibility-oriented dimensions and their subdimensions that are perceived to be comparatively more relevant to responsible leadership by organizational members, while simultaneously, being supported by existing literature. An initial qualitative study, comprising 25 in-depth interviews, revealed six responsibility-oriented dimensions that could reliably measure the construct. Three quantitative studies, entailing collection and analysis of data for each (N = 608, 745, 800), were conducted to refine and validate the instrument. The study used the opinions of followers (organizational members) to determine the influence of responsible leadership in an organization. Based on the validity and reliability statistics of the three studies, the instrument is considered reliable for measurement of the influence of responsible leadership at individual, group, and organizational levels.