Purpose“Reputation management” is widely used as a rationale for public relations, although the public relations practice has problems with its own reputation. Public relations is presented in textbooks as a mature management discipline, yet the term “public relations” is rejected by many practitioners and academics. “Reputation management” may have been introduced to counter negative associations and to gain status for the practice. The purpose of this paper is to use critical theory to question the ideas and assumptions underlying “reputation management” and to examine contradictions within the term.Design/methodology/approachThe paper reviews what this theory has to say about public relations and its claim to be a mature management discipline. It examines how public relations practitioners explain their role to internal and external publics.FindingsAn initial literature review suggests that the contradictions within “reputation management” mirror contradictions within public relations practice.Originality/valueThe paper encourages debate in the public relations field.

Abstract. Frequent conflicts over money, land, power, and other resources make it difficult for some societies to find or sustain any sense of equilibrium. Additionally, racial, ethnic, religious, socioeconomic, educational, and political injustices, among others, require that leaders increase their understanding and commitment to social justice. Such efforts are critical in light of the vastly disparate opinions and increasingly polarized positions at the heart of contentious relationships that exist among people. This paper explores the origins of social justice, discusses the definition and perceptions of social justice, introduces the relationship between social justice and leadership, addresses current social and environmental conditions, presents challenges for leaders in terms of addressing social justice, and offers implications for socially just leadership.

The JOLE Editorial Advisory Board provides an introduction to the 20th anniversary issue of The Journal of Leadership Education. Twenty Years and CountingAhh…2002…the year we sported low-rise jeans, saved up our pennies to buy second-generation iPods with its then-mind-blowing 20 GB of storage with Alicia Keys and Nelly songs, watched Kelly Clarkson win the very first season of American Idol and tried to not confuse her with Kelly Clark who won the first gold medal for the U.S. in the snowboarding halfpipe at the Salt Lake Winter Olympics. #yearofthekelly. And while it may not have made Buzzfeed's Best Pop Culture Moments of 2002, the Journal of Leadership Education (JOLE) released its very first issue. To kick off this 20th Anniversary Special Issue, we offer a retrospective, existive, and prospective look at the Journal that has become a beloved gathering place for leadership educators and the advancement of leadership education. Who We Are and Where We've BeenKatey Walker, former Extension Specialist and Professor at Kansas State University, offered reflections on the history and development of ALE and JOLE in an article for the inaugural issue and volume of JOLE:In 2001, ALE members, in a pre-conference visioning session, reemphasized the need for communication and continuing to work on the association's goals to carry out the mission. The session also reemphasized that ALE has a niche among leadership organizations and the work continues to refine and carry out the vision as identified by the founding members.

This concluding chapter identifies the key shifts in CLDE by weaving together CLDE's roots, progress, and contemporary concerns. It becomes apparent that CLDE is in a time of transition; yet, the authors highlight two models that have balanced tradition and innovation. Additionally, there are three important orientations to CLDE work that will help in recalibrating how we think about, approach, and evaluate CLDE goals: (1) adaptive leadership for addressing the wicked problems of the 21st century, (2) boundary spanning for CLDE goal setting to create work that is both relevant and sustainable, and (3) critical theory and the necessity to embrace disciplinary viewpoints with the common goal of ensuring the viability of CLDE into a future yet to be imagined. The authors conclude by challenging CLDE professionals to consider setting goals for CLDE work through the prism of these three concepts to recalibrate CLDE for a stronger, sustainable future.

No abstract