The current article acknowledges the absence of followership from the leadership literature for many years. Major theories of leadership are reviewed to assert that (1) modern leadership studies have been developed strictly from the leader's perspective with little or no attention on followership, (2) leadership studies have primarily been based on the static understanding of leadership (leaders always remain leaders),1 and (3) there seems to be a need for a new paradigm for leader–follower relationships, which may result in organic relationships between leaders and followers through exchange of leadership and followership functions and roles. Thus, it is argued that the mutuality of relationships and influence between the follower and the leader exists. To address the need for a new paradigm for leadership, the leader–follower trade (LFT) approach is introduced, which may result in the nonstatic and organic approach to leadership–followership as two valuable human behavioral functions. In this case, leadership and followership functions and roles may be traded or exchanged by the positional leaders and followers in different situations or organizational settings toward mutual respect, empowerment, and effectiveness.

This chapter examines the emerging literature on contemporary leadership, particularly leadership in the digital age, digital leadership, e-leadership, and cyber leadership, in the context of socio-cultural changes, theoretical shifts in leadership studies, and leadership education changes observed in the United States in the last two decades. Although the above literature shows a shift from leader-centered and hierarchical to follower-centered and relational leadership, it is not clear how the old may yield to the new paradigm of leadership. There seem to be no discussion in the leadership literature on how to transition from pre-digital to digital era of leadership. While this study acknowledges the discontinuity and tension between the contemporary and the traditional leadership approaches, it offers theoretical and practical alternatives for transitioning from traditional to contemporary leadership in the digital age. Since leadership research has already shifted from single-role identity to multiple-role identities, which enables individuals to acquire and master both leading and following skills in today's organizations, this study is optimistic that the leader-follower trade (LFT) or similar approaches may build bridges between digital native and digital immigrant generations of leader-followers for a smoother transition from hierarchical to distributed, shared, collective, and adaptive leadership for the digital age.

Aim/Purpose: This study explores the various teaching and learning approaches, curriculum design, and program requirements for 70 doctoral programs in leadership. Background: Early research indicates that few studies have addressed learner-centred and process-based approaches to leadership studies among doctoral programs in leadership worldwide. This study is the first complete review of programs in the interdisciplinary field of leadership. Methodology: A qualitative method approach through internet-mediated research was employed to identify explicit and implicit textual data on learning approaches of doctoral programs in leadership. The sample represents a list of 70 doctoral programs in leadership studies and organisational leadership (62 programs are in the United States and eight in Europe, Canada, Philippines, and South Africa). Contribution: This study provides an overview of doctoral program characteristics, delivery methods, coursework and research requirements, discipline-relevant teaching and learning approaches, and process-based approach to leadership. It may serve as a resource and a roadmap to assess teaching and learning approaches of doctoral programs in leadership for program reviews and improvement. Findings: The significant findings of this study are: (a) 91.4% of doctoral programs are coursework-driven, leaving little room for original research. (b) 46% of programs show lack of evidence to context-based approaches to learning (learning as a social activity served outside of classroom environment where learning tools and the context intersect with human interactions). (c) Various teaching and learning approaches, including those prescribed to constructivist, interactionist, situated, and action-based learning approaches. Recommendations for Practitioners: Leadership cannot be understood or learned without social interactions in context. In order to produce experts and “stewards of the field,” a clearer learner-centred strategy to doctoral education, including context-based experiences, should be considered. This pedagogical approach needs to be explicitly articulated (on the public website) to enable students to make an informed decision about doctoral programs in leadership. Recommendation for Researchers: In order to produce theoreticians and “stewards of the discipline” (Golde & Walker, 2006), doctoral curricula design and implementation should seek a balance between coursework, independent research, and creation of collaborative learning environment between students and faculty. Further, due to the shift from the leader-centred to the process-based understanding of leadership, doctoral programs in leadership should consider the relationship process between leaders and followers as one academic inquiry or continuum. Impact on Society: Doctoral programs in leadership that utilise more learner-centred and context-based approaches for knowledge acquisition (epistemologies) as well as studying the leadership phenomenon as a relationship process are more likely to become more impactful and sustainable in society. Future Research: More research seems necessary to identify the extent to which learner-centred approaches within doctoral programs in leadership positively impact on doctoral students’ motivation for learning, program completion, retention, and personal and professional development.

This article addresses the traditional view of leader (ship)

No abstract