Journal of Leadership Studies最新文献

The current article introduces an integrated model centering culturally relevant leadership learning and incorporating the leadership learning framework through social justice pedagogy. The integrated model for contextualizing leadership learning addresses how a leadership educator informs the leadership learning process through their identity, culture, and commitment. By acknowledging these influences, educators can begin to address social justice in developing leadership learning opportunities for students.

A leadership educator's identity development is central to the Culturally Relevant Leadership Learning (CRLL) and socially just leadership process. Understanding one's own social and leadership identities is foundational to how an educator approaches (or avoids approaching) the five CRLL contextual dimensions (Bernard Jones et al., 2016; Milem et al., 2005). The educator identity exploration allows for the individual to ask themselves important questions to consider issues of power and privilege that inherently influence the learning environment. The current piece details how to deconstruct and reconstruct one's own identities by (un)modeling the way – empowering non-dominant voices and ways of leading in the learning environment. It also showcases powerful tools for educators to foster an inclusive CRLL environment.

This article troubles a culture of niceness that upholds racism, whiteness, and other forms of oppression, as well as challenges the simplistic application of social change in leadership education. Leadership educators have several responsibilities for challenging ideologies, practices, and discourses that secure whiteness when teaching about leadership for social change. The current article begins with situating the relationship of whiteness and niceness, then offers liberatory considerations for troubling niceness in leadership education. Considerations for why leadership educators and students, based on their social identities and lived experiences, might resist addressing social inequality, power, inclusion, and equity in leadership are discussed. Pedagogical considerations for responding to resistance and disrupting systems of oppression are described, drawn from liberatory pedagogical frameworks

The construct of resilience has become increasingly important given workplace trends in high pressure, frequent change and uncertainty. Leaders have a multi-faceted role in resilience-building within organisations. They need to personally invest in the resources that build their own resilience in order to both mitigate against personal burnout and overtly demonstrate resilience to followers. At the same time they need to foster resilience in the teams they lead. Emerging priorities for leaders are explored through the framework of the Resilience at Work Individual Scale, including the need for alignment of personal role modeling with current levels of team functioning. To date, most focus on resilience has been at the individual level, both for leaders and employees. The concept of team resilience is new and emerging, as is the leaders role in developing this. Principles for creating resilient team cultures and leader responsibilities within this are explored through the Resilience at Work Team Scale. The components of this scale are related to common demands experienced by teams postpandemic. Furthermore, the inter-relationship between employee resilience and the creation of resilient organisations is discussed and identified as an area for future research.

In the current study, a mixed-method research design was used to explore how team members' transformational leadership and effective followership relate to teamwork quality. Data were collected from 10-student project teams (N [team] = 10; N [individual] = 84 team members) in a leadership class at a large-sized public university in the United States. As a follow-up, focus group interviews were conducted with two teams (n = 13 team members) to explore how team members' transformational leadership and effective followership work during team interactions. Correlation results showed that team members' transformational leadership was positively related to teamwork quality (r (82) = .84, p < .01). In the qualitative phase, findings showed that the team exhibiting centralized transformational leadership also exhibited passive team followership and low-quality teamwork. Low-quality teamwork was described as social loafing and polarization. In contrast, the team exhibiting shared transformational leadership also exhibited proactive team followership and high-quality teamwork. High-quality teamwork was described as conflict resolution and team synergy. The findings have important implications for leaders, followers, leadership educators, teams, organizations, and researchers.