离散型真实领导行为的谬误:在互动中定位真实领导

M. Larsson, J. Clifton, S. Schnurr
{"title":"离散型真实领导行为的谬误:在互动中定位真实领导","authors":"M. Larsson, J. Clifton, S. Schnurr","doi":"10.1177/17427150211015845","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The concept of authentic leadership is increasingly the focus of much leadership scholarship, and many have called for a review of the basic assumptions that underpin it. Taking an interactional approach to authentic leadership (AL) and using naturally occurring workplace interaction as data, we seek to question two basic assumptions of AL scholarship, namely (1) that authentic leadership emanates from the atomized leader and (2) that there is a causal logic to it so that authentic leadership behaviours are the cause of follower outcomes. Addressing the research questions – what is the nature of the empirical phenomenon that is called AL and where can this be ontologically located? – our findings indicate that these two fundamental assumptions that underpin current AL research are not justified. Rather, what is taken to be AL is better understood as a collective and collaborative achievement, which can neither simply be attributed to the leader nor can the leader’s actions alone lead to follower outcomes.","PeriodicalId":92094,"journal":{"name":"Leadership (London)","volume":"19 1","pages":"421 - 440"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The fallacy of discrete authentic leader behaviours: Locating authentic leadership in interaction\",\"authors\":\"M. Larsson, J. Clifton, S. Schnurr\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17427150211015845\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The concept of authentic leadership is increasingly the focus of much leadership scholarship, and many have called for a review of the basic assumptions that underpin it. Taking an interactional approach to authentic leadership (AL) and using naturally occurring workplace interaction as data, we seek to question two basic assumptions of AL scholarship, namely (1) that authentic leadership emanates from the atomized leader and (2) that there is a causal logic to it so that authentic leadership behaviours are the cause of follower outcomes. Addressing the research questions – what is the nature of the empirical phenomenon that is called AL and where can this be ontologically located? – our findings indicate that these two fundamental assumptions that underpin current AL research are not justified. Rather, what is taken to be AL is better understood as a collective and collaborative achievement, which can neither simply be attributed to the leader nor can the leader’s actions alone lead to follower outcomes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":92094,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Leadership (London)\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"421 - 440\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Leadership (London)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17427150211015845\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Leadership (London)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17427150211015845","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

真实领导力的概念日益成为许多领导力学术研究的焦点,许多人呼吁重新审视支撑这一概念的基本假设。采用互动的方法来研究真实领导(AL),并使用自然发生的工作场所互动作为数据,我们试图质疑真实领导学术的两个基本假设,即:(1)真实领导来自原子化的领导者;(2)存在因果逻辑,因此真实的领导行为是追随者结果的原因。解决研究问题-被称为人工智能的经验现象的本质是什么,它在本体论上可以定位在哪里?我们的研究结果表明,支撑当前人工智能研究的这两个基本假设是不合理的。相反,被认为是人工智能的东西最好被理解为一种集体和协作的成就,它既不能简单地归因于领导者,也不能单独归因于领导者的行动导致追随者的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The fallacy of discrete authentic leader behaviours: Locating authentic leadership in interaction
The concept of authentic leadership is increasingly the focus of much leadership scholarship, and many have called for a review of the basic assumptions that underpin it. Taking an interactional approach to authentic leadership (AL) and using naturally occurring workplace interaction as data, we seek to question two basic assumptions of AL scholarship, namely (1) that authentic leadership emanates from the atomized leader and (2) that there is a causal logic to it so that authentic leadership behaviours are the cause of follower outcomes. Addressing the research questions – what is the nature of the empirical phenomenon that is called AL and where can this be ontologically located? – our findings indicate that these two fundamental assumptions that underpin current AL research are not justified. Rather, what is taken to be AL is better understood as a collective and collaborative achievement, which can neither simply be attributed to the leader nor can the leader’s actions alone lead to follower outcomes.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信