Collective dimensions of leadership: Connecting theory and method

Abstract

In this introductory article we explain the impetus for creating the Special Issue, along with its goals and the process by which we created it. We present a map of the terrain of collective leadership (CL) that builds on earlier frameworks, recognizing that the terrain is expanding and has become increasingly difficult to traverse. The map is comprised of two axes or dimensions. The first axis, the ‘locus of leadership,’ captures how scholars conceptualize where to look for manifestations of leadership. That is, does the leadership reside in the group or does it reside in the system? The second axis is the view of ‘collectivity’ that plots how scholars conceptualize the collective. Do they see it as an empirical type of leadership or a theoretical lens through which to study leadership? We then plot distinctive CL research into four cells, providing definitions and references to empirical work emblematic for each cell. In introducing and summarizing each of the five articles we have selected for this Special Issue, we show where each of these is located on the CL research map, and distil how each provides a clear connection between theory and method in a way that advances our understanding of CL.

Advancing constructionist leadership research through paradigm interplay: An application in the leadership–trust domain

“…The challenge is to ensure that the interplay yields coherence between a study’s theoretical lens and the methodological choices to tap the empirical reality under research. For leadership scholars, for example, this will prevent grounding the empirical research in a relational stance at the ontological level (privileging the relationship), but applying an individualistic stance at the observational level (privileging the individual) (Ospina et al., 2020).…”

“…The growing interest in the relational dimensions of leadership (Denis et al., 2012; Ospina et al., 2020; Uhl-Bien, 2006) has brought a new agenda and theoretical innovation to the field. Relational leadership research, defined as “the study of both relationships and relational dynamics of leadership” (Uhl-Bien, 2006: 667) has gained considerable relevance.…”

“…By advocating for the value of multi-paradigm approaches, we promote a plural social science that addresses the difficulties of building knowledge in arenas where paradigms compete for the legitimacy of knowledge claims, as is the case in leadership (Corman and Poole, 2000; Uhl-Bien and Ospina, 2012). The second challenge points to methodological risks and the importance of addressing them to ensure coherence between a study’s theoretical lens and the empirical reality under research (Ospina et al., 2020).…”

Collective Leadership Dynamics among Professional Peers: Co-constructing an unstable equilibrium

“…Scholars within this emerging field view leadership ‘not as a property of individuals … but as a collective phenomenon that is distributed or shared among different people, potentially fluid, and constructed in interaction’ (Denis et al, 2012, p. 212), therefore emphasizing leadership processes and interactions. A variety of overlapping terms have proliferated to describe this broad phenomenon, including collective (Ospina et al, 2018), plural (Denis et al, 2012) and relational (Uhl-Bien & Ospina, 2012), as well as related concepts such as shared (Pearce & Conger, 2003), distributed (Gronn, 2002) and complexity leadership (Uhl-Bien, Marion, & McKelvey, 2007). In the context of PSFs, the most pertinent form of collective leadership is that described by Denis et al (2012, p. 231) as ‘pooling leadership at the top to direct others’.…”

“…However, two recent and related developments in leadership research, the emerging literatures on collective leadership and leader–follower relations, represent useful lenses through which to develop a more nuanced understanding of leadership dynamics among professional peers. Scholars of collective leadership (such as Cullen & Yammarino, 2014; and Ospina, Foldy, Fairhurst, & Jackson, 2018) focus on the process of leadership as co-constructed among an extended group of colleagues, rather than the actions of individual leaders alone. Empirical studies of collective leadership ‘emphasize processual “how” questions, aimed at understanding how leadership is produced and performed’ (Denis, Langley, & Sergi, 2012, p. 255).…”