Collective and network approaches to leadership: Special issue introduction

Cullen-Lester, Kristin L.; Yammarino, Francis J.

doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.02.001

Cited by 108 publications

(82 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Theoretical strands in the collective leadership literature include network leadership (Cullen‐Lester and Yammarino ), complexity leadership (Uhl‐Bien and Marion ), discursive leadership (Fairhurst ), and constructionist collective leadership (Drath ; Endres and Weibler ; Ospina et al ). They share a view of leadership as an emergent, interactive process intended to cultivate group members’ capacity and adaptability to navigate complexity.…”

Section: Leadership Studies and Public Leadership Scholarship: Towardmentioning

confidence: 99%

Collective Leadership and Context in Public Administration: Bridging Public Leadership Research and Leadership Studies

Ospina

2016

Public Administration Review

197

206

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article challenges the view that public leadership research should maintain a separate perspective in the study of public leadership. It discusses the benefits of further embedding the public leadership research domain within leadership studies, constructing a cross‐fertilization that contributes to advance both. The article maps key concerns in relational leadership theories, contrasting them with current work in the public leadership research domain and offering suggestions to close the gap. It highlights public leadership scholarship's competitive advantage to contribute to theorizing about leadership, given the importance of context for building contemporary theories of relational leadership.

show abstract

Section: Leadership Studies and Public Leadership Scholarship: Towardmentioning

confidence: 99%

Collective Leadership and Context in Public Administration: Bridging Public Leadership Research and Leadership Studies

Ospina

2016

Public Administration Review

197

206

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This perspective views leadership as a social, collaborative, relational experience focusing on the idea that leadership emerges from the interactions and constructions of people in a particular context (Grint & Jackson, 2010;Kihl, Leberman, & Schull, 2010;Ospina & Foldy, 2009). In this outlook, leadership is viewed as a collective achievement, not something that belongs to an individual (Cullen-Lester & Yammarino, 2016).…”

Section: Sport Leadership: a New Generation Of Thinkingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Each study has recognized that leadership is more than the work of individuals and their ability to assert influence or power over others. Rather, it is something created through the actions, conversations, language, and interactions between groups of people, and within a particular context (Foldy, Goldman, & Ospina 2008;Ospina & Foldy, 2010;Cullen-Lester & Yammarino, 2016). As the SFD articles particularly exemplify, the examination of leadership within a certain context recognizes the intertwining nature of leadership within a situation, as distinct from viewing leadership as being independent of context (Kihl et al, 2010).…”

Section: Overview Of the Articles In The Special Issuementioning

confidence: 99%

Sport Leadership: A New Generation of Thinking

Ferkins

Skinner

Swanson

2018

Journal of Sport Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Although there are different categorizations of leadership (25,(46)(47)(48)(49)(50)(51)(52)(53)(54)(55)(56)(57)(58)(59)(60), the majority of classifications systems include some aspects of Goal-oriented leadership which emphasizes the accomplishment of task objectives (11,12). Therefore, the current task was specifically designed to assess the goal-oriented aspect of leadership.…”

Section: Leadership Measures Collected At the End Of Stagementioning

confidence: 99%

Computational and neurobiological foundations of leadership decisions

Edelson

Polanía

Ruff

et al. 2018

Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Decisions as diverse as committing soldiers to the battlefield or picking a school for your child share a basic attribute: assuming responsibility for the outcome of others. This responsibility is inherent in the roles of prime ministers and generals, as well as in the more quotidian roles of firmmanagers, schoolteachers, and parents. Here we identify the underlying behavioral, computational, and neurobiologicalmechanisms that determine the choice to assume responsibility over others. Leaders must take responsibility for others and affect the well-being of individuals, organizations, and nations. We identify the effects of responsibility on leaders' choices at the behavioral and neurobiological level and document the widespread existence of responsibility aversion, i.e., a reduced willingness to make decisions if the welfare of others is at stake. In mechanistic terms, basic preferences towards risk, losses and ambiguity do not explain responsibility aversion which, instead, is driven by a second-order cognitive process reflecting an increased demand for certainty about the best choice when others' welfare is affected. Finally, models estimating levels of information flow between brain regions processing separate choice components, provide the first step in understanding the neurobiological basis of individual variability in responsibility aversion and leadership scores. We identify and characterize the computations and neural mechanisms underlying choices to lead. This file includes:Hyperlinked Table of Contents Materials and Methods Supplementary ResultsFigs. S1 to S8 Tables S1 to S7 References and notes Appendix S1Appendix S22 Participants and sample size determination.We conducted the experiment with two separate samples of participants -marked throughout the manuscript as original and fMRI replication groups. The difference between the groups was that the latter performed the delegation task in the MRI scanner. Previous laboratory experiments on individual versus group decision making have typically used between 30-50 participants (37-39).Power calculations (40) based on the aforementioned studies average effect sizes suggested a stopping criterion of 40 participants as a reasonable estimate to ensure a statistical power of 0.8 (with an alpha level of 0.05). We thus recruited 40 participants for the original group (21 females; age 25.7 ± 0.66 standard error of the mean). In the fMRI replication group, we added, a priori, four additional participants (constituting one unit of participants, see below, resulting in 44 participants; 25 females; age 23.5 ± 0.43). This was done in anticipation of some minor data loss due to issues such as excessive head movement in the scanner, and because the minimum experimental session size could not be under eight participants (see task design below). The data for three participants were not fully collected (two participants failed the test quiz assessing comprehension of the instructions and one participant did not show up for the second stage), resulting in a fi...

show abstract

Collective and network approaches to leadership: Special issue introduction

Cited by 108 publications

References 37 publications

Collective Leadership and Context in Public Administration: Bridging Public Leadership Research and Leadership Studies

Collective Leadership and Context in Public Administration: Bridging Public Leadership Research and Leadership Studies

Sport Leadership: A New Generation of Thinking

Computational and neurobiological foundations of leadership decisions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About