American Indian Ways of Leading and Knowing

Abstract

Having drawn some brief historical lines for our research, we suggest that significant differences exist between American Indian and western approaches to, and perspectives on, leadership, and we illustrate some of these differences drawing particularly upon Indian educational leadership. American Indian leadership was often interpreted by non-indigenous observers as an inability to lead rather than a different ability to lead. Western models are often rooted in positional approaches, despite their assertions to the contrary, whereas Indian models are more concerned with persuasive techniques, and while western approaches are almost always individual in form, American Indian models are more concerned with how different forms of leadership in different circumstances can serve the community rather than enhance the reward and reputation of their individual embodiment. We illustrate this with a model of American Indian leadership that exposes the differences by concentrating upon the methods through which persuasion works, especially the different deployment of the written or spoken word.

Positive Leadership, Legacy, Lifestyles, Attitudes, and Activities for Aboriginal Youth: A Wise Practices Approach for Positive Aboriginal Youth Futures

“…Module 1: Leaders and Leadership. Aboriginal leadership models are often defined in terms of skills, abilities, and traditional gifts underlying an individual's traditional-spiritual name, clan, life experience, or Aboriginal identity (Cowan, 2008;Warner & Grint, 2006). Aboriginal leadership development is based on mentoring from the community's traditional teachers, healers, and Elders.…”

Understanding leadership in the environmental sciences

“…Other aspects of the critical turn in leadership studies emphasize the importance of perspective: how different people view the legitimacy of leaders and the success of leadership outcomes (Turnbull et al 2012). Many leadership scholars have argued for wider anthropological (Jones 2005(Jones , 2006, postcolonial (Banerjee 2004, Banerjee and Linstead 2001, and non-Western (Chia 2003, Jullien 2004, Warner and Grint 2006 perspectives on the phenomenon. Others have highlighted that leaders and leadership can often be dysfunctional, emotionally charged, and toxic (Maccoby 2000, Furnham 2010, Lemmergaard and Muhr 2013.…”

“…Variations of such research persist to this day in mainstream studies of leadership. Nevertheless, alternative perspectives on leadership are emerging; these go beyond the notion of the individual, heroic leader that underpins conventional concepts of leadership (see Hosking 1988, 1999, Gemmill and Oakley 1992, Maccoby 2000, Banerjee and Linstead 2001, Jones 2005, Warner and Grint 2006, Carroll et al 2008, Lemmergaard and Muhr 2013. Our purpose was to understand how leadership is conceptualized in the environmental sciences.…”

A critical review of race and ethnicity in the leadership literature: Surfacing context, power and the collective dimensions of leadership

“…In their description of American Indian managers, Warner and Grint (2006) argue that there is no one way of leading, given the enormous variation in tribal norms and traditions. However, they do note that Native Americans are less likely to be positional leaders and, therefore, leadership is more about creating and expanding a sphere of influence than simply exercising authority.…”