Leadership Development in Organizations: Multiple Discourses and Diverse Practice

Abstract

Research on leadership development in organizations is abundant, as are the resources invested in developing their leaders.Although rarely made explicit, much of this writing and activity is driven by functionalist assumptions, with a primary concern for good design and enhanced corporate performance. Given the politically sensitive, culturally complex and institutionally embedded nature of leadership, as well as controversy over the way leadership itself is best defined and developed, the author argues that this reliance on a single perspective is potentially limiting. The aim of this paper is to enhance leadership development practice in organizations by proposing a fresh and theoretically informed approach for exploring the multiple meanings of leadership development. This is done, first, by clarifying the discursive assumptions underlying studies in this field and revealing the distinctive insights that arise from functionalist, interpretive, dialogic and critical discourses of leadership development; and second, by exploring how each of these discourses, or 'readings', might promote quite different approaches to leadership development in organizations.

An Integrated Diagnostic Framework to Manage Organization Sustainable Growth: An Empirical Case

“…When employees feel that they have helpful mechanisms, such as resource support for change, there is an increased likelihood that organizational achievements will increase and that sustainable change implementation will be realized [22,81,[85][86][87]. Employees' perceptions of the extent to which their organization has sufficient helpful mechanisms to achieve change (e.g., readily available finance, communication technologies, flexible systems, and responsive training and education), and the degree to which they can actively and genuinely participate in the process, are significant factors in accomplishing successful change [22,81,[85][86][87].…”

Leadership Formation: Interpreting Experience

“…We do not claim that this approach will deliver the kind of leaders that many people seem to want -that is, it does not serve the cult of the supremely confident, charismatic, strong leader -but it could help to form the kinds of altruistic, servant minded, engaged leaders that some of the leadership development literature argues that we need (Mabey, 2013). Although our approach offers a vision of a new purpose and process, it still connects with some debates in the literature in interesting ways.…”

“…In the context of the emerging debates about collective conceptualizations of leadership, Day (2000;, Day et al (2014) and DeRue & Myers (2014) argue that most of the current theory and practice of leadership development would more properly be described as leader development -since it is focused on building the skills and competencies of a particular individual, rather than the leadership capacity of an organization or community. However, the need for a clear distinction between 'leader development' and 'leadership development' has not been uniformly acknowledged in the literature (see recent reviews from Carroll, 2015 andMabey, 2013); and while Day's (2011) recent review of the field does explore such distinctions in depth, it still bears the simple title "Leadership Development"…”

“…Typically, leadership development has focused on the range of skills and capabilities that an 'expert leader' should develop -such as self-management, cognitive abilities, interpersonal skills and work facilitation competencies -and general business and strategic skills (Mumford, Campion & Morgeson, 2007;Van Velsor & McCauley, 2004). But authors such as Mabey (2013) have argued that such conceptualizations are too functionalist and are rooted in a 'deficit' model of leadership: simply supply the missing skills and leadership competencies are developed. Mabey (2103) argues that deficit approaches fail to consider the more difficult questions of behavioral change, and how to lead within complex and changing organizational and relational contexts (see also: DeRue & Myers, 2014;Gagnon & Collinson, 2014).…”

“…Similarly, Day (2012) critiques the literature on leadership development for being too simplistic and often "prescribing the answer" (p. 109). Mabey (2013) adds detail to this critique by arguing that interpretive, dialogic and critical discourses of leadership, which engage with dissensus as well as consensus and emergent as well as pre-defined concepts and practices, are under-represented in the leadership development literature. We suggest, therefore, that it is fruitful to explore a particular holistic approach to leadership education through considering the concept of formation (Davey, 2013;Grondin, 2011) -an ongoing process of forming the 'whole person' -for leadership.…”