Thomas Carlyle rang in the modern era of leadership studies in London in 1840, with six public lectures published a year later as On Heroes and Hero-Worship. On that historical milestone, Suze Wilson and Bert Spector are agreed. And their agreement is of interest, since each of them published, in 2016, a critical and historical account of leadership studies. 1 Carlyle's lectures are not, however, about leadership. He shows no interest in corporate leadership, the notion of which still needed at least four years of gestation before Parliament was to pass the Joint Stock Companies Act. Nor is Carlyle especially interested in any sort of formal organizational leadership; that notion only arises in one of the lectures, BThe Hero as King,^where he extols Bthe commander over men; he to whose will our wills are to be subordinated….^2. The word leadership never occurs in the six lectures, and the word leader occurs only five times-less than once per essay. That is because the lectures are about greatness, offering a history of Bwhat man has accomplished in this world.^And that, according to Carlyle, amounts to the history Bof Thoughts that dwelt in the Great Men sent into the world.^3 By understanding their thoughts, we understand the history of the world, so that we too may be inspired to greatness.Carlyle, for all that, is a fine place to begin if your inquiry is into modern leadership discourse. For he has long occupied a rhetorical role in discussions of leadership. Do I believe that leadership makes a big difference, and that the leader should take an out-sized role? Then hooray for Carlyle! Do I believe that leadership is overemphasized, that the leader is only as good as the followers, and that big leaders are big trouble? Then down with Carlyle! Fittingly, Wilson and Spector are indeed inquiring into leadership discourse.
co-authored two books in 2015: Philosophy of Leadership, with Palgrave Macmillan; and The Philosophical Foundations of Management, with Lexington. Two books at once on such consequential topics are reason for great expectations on the part of the readers of Philosophy of Management. I recommend that readers reduce their expectations.The books are structured identically: there is an introductory section in which the plan is laid out; then a series of chapters (constituting about 90% of each book) surveying the history of western thought (several of the chapters have similar names, such as "Heroic Individualism" and "German Romanticism"); and a concluding section that ties it all together. Neither book refers to its twin volume.A third book was also published in 2015, authored solely by Spillane. It, too, has the same structure and many similar or identical chapter titles. That book, An Eye for an I: Philosophies of Personal Power (published with GOKO) is not included in this review.The aims of the two books are similar. Our notions of both leadership and management have roots, say the authors, which reach all the way back to ancient philosophy. By providing a detailed history of western thought, they intend to expose those roots and thereby to deepen our understanding. In addition to this shared goal, each book has its own goal. The leadership book aims to develop a conceptual analysis of leadership. The management book aims to reform the teaching and study of management in academia.What is the distinction between leadership and management that the authors rely upon to justify and guide the two volumes? The question is never directly addressed, and it is not easy to construct an answer. They come closest to addressing it in the leadership book. Darkly describing leadership's "consistent history of mystical propaganda, widespread corruption, arrant stupidity, and mass homicide," (ix) they suggest that the attribution of otherworldly powers or, at least, special Management, Leadership, and the History of Ideas personality traits to leaders made leadership "far more impressive than the mere practice of…managing." Thus "the concept of leadership was eagerly embraced by managers," even though "studies have shown and general observation confirms that senior managers…have bad tempers, do not like their colleagues, and do not care about their anxieties or aspirations." (x) This identifies, at most, a perceived difference between the two concepts. The last sentence of the book provides us, however, with a more substantial difference. They argue briefly that "noble rhetoric" is essential for effective leadership, and conclude the book thus: "If there is a road from management to leadership, noble rhetoric will be the vehicle to create the necessary authority." (222) So, leadership equals management plus noble rhetoric? Not so fast. The management book, which never discusses leadership, states unequivocally: "Rhetoric is the most important skill of managers; everything else comes distant second, if it comes at all." (318) We...
Combining elements of Adam Smith's third-party perspective with the evangelical view of life as a trial, Thomas Chalmers argued for a market-based social order. The viability of this order would depend on the capacity to develop character in response to the choices made possible by the market itself. Character could replace administrative interventions. Chalmers saw well-intentioned administration, especially with respect to the poor laws, as both crowding out inner motivations and creating a focus for the fermenting of dissent over the terms of “legal charity.” Better, he thought, that there should be a reform in the composition of wages, abolishing all allowances, to foster the independence of workers and also then willing and productive work. The latter could be the basis of improving material and moral conditions.
Woodrow Wilson is the only American political scientist to have served as President of the United States. In the time between his political science Ph.D. (from Johns Hopkins, in 1886) and his tenure as president (1913–21), he also served as president of Princeton University (1902–10) and president of the American Political Science Association (1909–10). Wilson is one of the most revered figures in American political thought and in American political science. The Woodrow Wilson Award is perhaps APSA’s most distinguished award, given annually for the best book on government, politics, or international affairs published in the previous year, and sponsored by the Woodrow Wilson Foundation at Princeton University.Wilson has also recently become the subject of controversy, on the campus of Princeton University, and in the political culture more generally, in connection with racist statements that he made and the segregationist practices of his administration. A group of Princeton students associated with the “Black Lives Matter” movement has demanded that Wilson’s name be removed from two campus buildings, one of which is the famous Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs (see Martha A. Sandweiss, “Woodrow Wilson, Princeton, and the Complex Landscape of Race,” http://www.thenation.com/article/woodrow-wilson-princeton-and-the-complex-landscape-of-race/). Many others have resisted this idea, noting that Wilson is indeed an important figure in the history of twentieth-century liberalism and Progressivism in the United States.A number of colleagues have contacted me suggesting that Perspectives ought to organize a symposium on the Wilson controversy. Although we do not regularly organize symposia around current events, given the valence of the controversy and its connection to issues we have featured in our journal (see especially the September 2015 issue on “The American Politics of Policing and Incarceration”), and given Wilson's importance in the history of our discipline, we have decided to make an exception in this case. We have thus invited a wide range of colleagues whose views on this issue will interest our readers to comment on this controversy. —Jeffrey C. Isaac, Editor.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.