Inter-leadership: Why and How Should We Think of Leadership and Followership Integrally?

Abstract

This article raises questions about and provides meta-paradigmatic perspectives on an integral understanding of leadership. In view of the various shortcomings of conventional leadership discourse, an integral orientation considers that leadership research demands a comprehensive framework and multi-level approach suited for investigating the complex, interrelated processes involved. Correspondingly, the outlined integral framework of leadership covers the interdependent subjective, intersubjective and objective dimensions of leaders and leadership. Furthermore, developmental levels and lines -classified in a dynamiccycle -open up a processual understanding of leadership. Finally, theoretical and methodological implications are discussed and some avenues for future research and perspectives of integral leadership presented.

Leaders Enhance Group Members' Work Engagement and Reduce Their Burnout by Crafting Social Identity

“…These would also differ from more conventional well-being and stress reduction programs (e.g., those involving relaxation classes, massage therapy, gym classes), whose focus is on the individual rather than the broader social context that affect individuals' sense of self (Helliwell, 2011;Sani et al, 2012). More particularly, the present findings make the case for leadership interventions that help to create work environments which allow employees to embrace and live out group memberships at various levels of abstraction (e.g., the workgroup, de-partment, organisation as a whole) and which, rather than focussing on leaders or on followers alone, are conducted with leaders and followers together (Kellerman, 2012;Küpers & Weibler, 2008).…”

Leadership development in SMEs: an action learning approach

“…In a progressively more turbulent, complex and dynamic business environment successful leaders and effective leadership are increasingly viewed as sources of competitive advantage (Küpers and Weibler 2008;Yukl 2008). This is because there is an implicit assumption that leadership is important, that leaders will actually make a difference and that positive group and organisational effects are produced by leaders and the leadership process (Pierce and Newstrom 2000).…”

Evaluation of a Long-Term Transformational Leadership Development Program

“…(Taylor, Russ-Eft, & Taylor, 2009). Due to the increased complexity of leadership duties and responsibilities, this narrow exploration of leadership development hardly meets organizations' needs of leader competencies (Collins, Lowe, & Arnett, 2000;Küpers & Weibler, 2008). Although during the past 25 years leadership research has mainly focused on complex leadership behaviors such as the transformational leadership style (Bass, 1985), virtually no complex leadership training evaluation studies exist (Collins & Holton, 2004;Taylor et al, 2009).…”