Why do you think behavior and trait-based theory of leadership are still prevalent today? What is a critique of the different leadership theories in your organizational context? Do you think critical performativity or critical discourse might be ways to provide a counter-discourse to these dominant models? What does a critical performativity approach to organizational leadership look like? What do you think of the notion of critical performativity as a method? Discourse analysis? As Alvesson and Spicer suggest it is the occasions of leadership that could be the units of analysis, not an individual who is a leader. What do alternatives to leadership look like which necessarily lack the ascribed labels of leader and follower? Alvesson and Spicer/Karreman are further suggesting that there can be a study of leadership without leaders and that if we want to really get at the underlying social conditions and complexity of context in which leadership happens, leadership needs to be separated out as something that only resides in and emulates from a leader and examined in its own right. Do you think this could influence leadership science in the future?
Required Readings:
4.1 Beginnings of Leadership Science
4.2 New Leadership Science
4.3 Building Inequality
4.4 Critical Discourse Analysis
4.5 Critical Performativity
The post Why do you think behavior and trait-based theory of leadership are still prevale first appeared on Elite Writers.
The post Why do you think behavior and trait-based theory of leadership are still prevale appeared first on Elite Writers.
