Leadership in the civic arena

Abstract

This paper focuses on leadership in the civic arena. Over the past four decades the field of leadership studies has moved away from a narrow leader-centric focus to a more expansive view that includes other dimensions such as the leader's relationship with followers and the fulfillment of the needs of both leaders and followers. But this progress within the field has not been matched by a similar shift in popular cultural conceptions of leadership. Our hypothesis is that the dominant cultural narrative of leadership with its central focus on the authority of the leader is inadequate for making progress in the civic arena. We need a more capacious and flexible conception of leadership to help address complex civic challenges. In this paper we explore the dominant cultural narrative of leadership and its communicative practices. We analyse the civic context to which leadership must respond. We discuss corrective experiments that attempt to make leadership more responsive to this context. We define the gap between how the dominant cultural narrative describes leadership and what's needed in this particular context. Finally, we ask the field to help reshape this dominant cultural narrative to reflect contemporary understandings of leadership within the field and to help advance the study of leadership in the civic context through research, pedagogy, and practice.

Developing a civic capacity index: measuring community capacity to respond to civic challenges

“…These are living agreements subject to revision as people and circumstances change. Progress is determined by the degree to which the current situation is improved or made less unjust rather than on the movement toward or achievement of an ideal state (Chrislip et al. , 2016; Sen, 2009; Steffensmeier and Chrislip, 2019).…”

“…, 2017; Uhl-Bien, 2006; Uhl-Bien and Ospina, 2012) rather than as a hierarchical relationship between leaders and followers (Burns, 1978). Its energizing power comes from many people exercising leadership in synergistic ways in support of collective action (Chrislip et al. , 2016; Chrislip and Larson, 1994; Chrislip and O'Malley, 2013; Lasker and Weiss, 2003).…”

“…Stakeholders reflect the diversity of lived experience, circumstance, and need within the community. This emphasis on inclusion recognizes that civic challenges are collective predicaments requiring widespread civic engagement to achieve legitimate and equitable outcomes (Briggs, 2008; Boyte, 2005; Chrislip et al. , 2016; Chrislip and Larson, 1994; Hartley, 2018; Lasker and Weiss, 2003; Mathews, 2020).…”

“…These hard-won lessons reflect a distinct shift in thinking about where the impetus for adaptation and change should come from in neighborhoods, communities and regions (Briggs, 2008;Chrislip et al, 2016;Pares et al, 2017;RWJF, 2020;Silver et al, 2010). The fickleness of government direction and assistance, philanthropic interests and corporate benevolence indeed forced communities to take more control of their own futures.…”

Introduction: Advancing Leadership Studies Through Community‐Engaged Scholarship

“…Chrislip, Arensdorf, Steffensmeier, and Tolar () argued that the “dominant cultural narrative of leadership with its central focus on the authority of the leader is inadequate for making progress in the civic arena” (p. 126). Ospina and Foldy () described how relational, collaborative leadership practices are needed for social change organizations to work effectively within and across constituent groups.…”