Journal of Leadership Studies最新文献

Destructive leadership has been thoroughly described in the literature. As the term itself indicates, destructive leadership is a leadership style that violates the well-being or job satisfaction of subordinates, and destroys value for the organization directly, or through less motivated and effective employees. Despite such negative effects, some members might prosper from it and may even support destructive leadership. Worse, sometimes destructive leaders are promoted. If the organization rewards destructive leaders with promotions and responsibility, followers may see these behaviors as a way to get ahead and destructive behavior can become a part of the organizational culture. The literature still reports increased turnover intentions. In the current article, the consequences of destructive leadership on leaders and followers are examined. Specifically, destructive leadership is examined through a literature review and by using Gresham's law as an analogy. Gresham's law states that “bad money drives out good money,” and the current article demonstrates that a Gresham-tendency can also be observed for leaders under certain circumstances. Thus, the current study converts Gresham's law into a conceptual model for the evolution of destructive leadership in organizations. The proposed model qualitatively describes how various types of destructive leaders influence the organization under certain circumstances.

Traits and/or behavior theory of leadership has a long tradition but the popular understanding of it may lead to fallacious positions. The current paper provides a critique, stemming from logic, of a reductionist approach to leadership in popular sources. The reductionist approach is manifested in propositions such as “possession of trait and/or behavior X makes one a leader.” First, the logical fallacy of the undistributed middle is explained. Second, the paper presents the appearance of the fallacy of the undistributed middle in leadership training and popular leadership materials. The paper demonstrates that popular unchecked traits and/or behavioral understandings of leadership generate misleading and logically flawed statements about leadership. The understanding of leadership built on such statements both originates and increases the ambiguity of the term leader and it likely results in ineffective training programs and actual performance on the job.

This short piece questions the utility and preferable form of academic criticisms about popular materials on leadership, such as Ted talks, blogs, and what are called airport books. It then addresses an effort to say that when these materials claim that a leader is or does something in particular, what they are saying is that anyone who is, or does that particular thing is therefore a leader. It is unclear that anyone makes that argument. If these materials are instead stipulating a definition, then it is not invalid to apply that definition. But even if they are saying that among the things that leaders are or do is something in particular, they are still not saying that anyone who is or does that particular something is necessarily a leader. It is not illogical to identify what a person believes that leaders are or do. That much can be helpful. The question is what logical inferences they draw from this premise.

The disciplinary backgrounds of leadership studies educators have considerable influence on the future of the field; however, disciplinary expertise and credentialing have yet to be examined thoroughly in the literature. Decisions pertaining to the preparation and credentialing of leadership educators, particularly among faculty, are a necessary supplement to existing discourse on the standardization of academic programs and the aim and scope of scholarship privileged within the field. While disciplinary boundaries are permeable and fluid, the organizational boundaries defined within institutions based on disciplinary affiliation impose specific expectations and limitations that may artificially constrain interdisciplinary pursuits, including those within leadership studies. The current article presents a conceptualization of how disciplinary expertise and faculty credentialing may shape the future of leadership studies. It is recommended that leadership studies faculty cultivate program-level consensus, demonstrate the integrity of leadership studies curricula, enhance interdisciplinary legitimacy through boundary spanning, determine the future trajectory of leadership studies, and set the course accordingly.