黑箱式领导:导致管理者中心主义的方法论实践

M. Larsson, Johan Alvehus
{"title":"黑箱式领导:导致管理者中心主义的方法论实践","authors":"M. Larsson, Johan Alvehus","doi":"10.1177/17427150221132398","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The scholarly literature on leadership has long been characterized by leader-centrism, in the sense of a focus on individual leaders, their characteristics and actions. This tendency has been strongly criticized, not least by scholars with a critical perspective. However, we still see a strong emphasis on leaders and managers in empirical studies of leadership. In this article, we suggest that this tendency is at least in part a consequence of common methodological blackboxing practices within leadership studies. We identify two such blackboxing practices: delegation, where identification of the core phenomenon is left to informants, and proxying, when more easily defined phenomena are taken to stand for leadership. We suggest that a consequence of such practices is an unintended focus on managers, and attempts to avoid leader-centrism that rely on these blackboxing practices therefore paradoxically might result in manager-centrism.","PeriodicalId":92094,"journal":{"name":"Leadership (London)","volume":"77 1","pages":"85 - 97"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Blackboxing leadership: Methodological practices leading to manager-centrism\",\"authors\":\"M. Larsson, Johan Alvehus\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17427150221132398\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The scholarly literature on leadership has long been characterized by leader-centrism, in the sense of a focus on individual leaders, their characteristics and actions. This tendency has been strongly criticized, not least by scholars with a critical perspective. However, we still see a strong emphasis on leaders and managers in empirical studies of leadership. In this article, we suggest that this tendency is at least in part a consequence of common methodological blackboxing practices within leadership studies. We identify two such blackboxing practices: delegation, where identification of the core phenomenon is left to informants, and proxying, when more easily defined phenomena are taken to stand for leadership. We suggest that a consequence of such practices is an unintended focus on managers, and attempts to avoid leader-centrism that rely on these blackboxing practices therefore paradoxically might result in manager-centrism.\",\"PeriodicalId\":92094,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Leadership (London)\",\"volume\":\"77 1\",\"pages\":\"85 - 97\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Leadership (London)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17427150221132398\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Leadership (London)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17427150221132398","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

长期以来,关于领导力的学术文献一直以领导者中心主义为特征,即关注领导者个人、他们的特征和行动。这种倾向受到了强烈的批评,尤其是具有批判观点的学者。然而,在领导力的实证研究中,我们仍然看到对领导者和管理者的强调。在这篇文章中,我们认为这种趋势至少在一定程度上是领导力研究中常见的方法黑盒实践的结果。我们确定了两种这样的黑盒做法:授权,其中核心现象的识别留给线人;代理,当更容易定义的现象被用来代表领导时。我们认为,这种做法的后果是意外地关注管理者,试图避免依赖于这些黑盒实践的领导中心主义,因此矛盾的是,可能会导致管理者中心主义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Blackboxing leadership: Methodological practices leading to manager-centrism
The scholarly literature on leadership has long been characterized by leader-centrism, in the sense of a focus on individual leaders, their characteristics and actions. This tendency has been strongly criticized, not least by scholars with a critical perspective. However, we still see a strong emphasis on leaders and managers in empirical studies of leadership. In this article, we suggest that this tendency is at least in part a consequence of common methodological blackboxing practices within leadership studies. We identify two such blackboxing practices: delegation, where identification of the core phenomenon is left to informants, and proxying, when more easily defined phenomena are taken to stand for leadership. We suggest that a consequence of such practices is an unintended focus on managers, and attempts to avoid leader-centrism that rely on these blackboxing practices therefore paradoxically might result in manager-centrism.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Examining employee willingness to execute shared leadership: The role of leadership behaviour, gender, age, and context Leading like lions: The model junior officer in the Great War and a critique of present-day mainstream leadership models Imagining aesthetic leadership Letter to Putin Leadership and systems change. The 21st International Studying Leadership Conference 31st July 2023. Call for proposals
×
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