Who Cares About Leadership Scholarship Anyways?

My working title for this post was, “A Tale of Two Theories.” However, while discussing my recent posts with a colleague over lunch she asked, “Who really cares about the theories though?” It was a fair point. Theory can be esoteric and difficult to apply directly for the practicing leader. The popularity of “five things” posts on the web speaks to the interest in practical approaches to leadership. That said, the popular dialogue on the web also leans heavily on leadership theory as well. This brings me back to my tale of two theories, namely transformational and transactional leadership.

Transformational leadership, an inspirational, supportive, and individual approach has been identified as one of the most promising theories of leadership. It has been positively associated in numerous studies with exceptional performance, engagement, and retention in teams. It is almost always presented in relationship with transactional leadership, or a style based on exchanges of rewards and punishment based on performance. The two modes of leadership have an interdependent relationship. At the most basic level transformational leadership requires trusting relationships. Transactional leadership can help build that trust. It also reinforces the changes wrought by transformational leadership. Scholarship on these theories has increased significantly since the 2006 peak I previous identified. On the web there was a peak of interest in 2010. Since then popular discussion of these two theories has declined significantly.

A random sample of the popular discussion on these two theories revealed a problem. While many of the postings captured the nuanced relationship, some described an opposing relationship. Transformational leadership is good. Transactional leadership is bad. Misunderstandings such as these and the difference in the intensity in the popular and scholarly discussions highlights Harry Collins’ argument on expertise, namely that in order to be an expert you need to be engaged in the evolving dialogue of the discipline. Without the insight this provides it can be very challenging to discriminate between opinions and ideas in the popular dialogue.

So who should care about leadership scholarship? I believe as leaders we need to care. It allows us to make better decisions regarding how we will act and grow as leaders. Engineers, project managers, doctors, business analysts, and lawyers must keep their skills and knowledge current. Given that our decisions and actions as leaders affect so many should we expect anything different from ourselves?

What do you think?

Leadership on the Web: A Cautionary Tale

The irony of a post cautioning readers in regards to leadership writing on the web is not lost on me. That said, the decline I found in scholarly publication related to leadershiphas been accompanied by a erratic but increasing trend in web publications on leadership. There is more material on the web than scholarly sources by more than an order of magnitude. The 6.5 million pages from 2014 alone represent more than all of the scholarly articles ever published... Leadership lessons from Captain Kirk, Jimi Hendrix, and Scooby Doo anyone?

Amidst this deluge of information how is a leader to decide? Human nature inclines us to select material that tends to agree with what we already know. This is called confirmation bias, and in practice it tends to play out like the old saw of, “to a hammer every problem looks like a nail.” There is also still new leadership scholarship related to outmoded theories. As a result the complex nature of the academic discourse make it impossible for someone on the outside to judge what is currently viewed as viable as social scientist Harry Collins has recently argued. Anti-vaxvers, climate change deniers, and creationists are all symptoms of this problem. Polarized topics such as these are also easier to navigate than the dozens of current theories and topics related to leadership.

If you cannot trust everything you read in a scholarly journal what does that say with regards to the web? Every person you interact with may have a completely different idea of what constitutes good leadership. If that person is your boss what seems like an exciting new article on leadership to you may fall flat in the face of their beliefs. If you lead others they will likely respond differently to new ideas on leadership as well. Your own bias may also lead you to reject something you read as well.

So what is a leader to do? Given the complexity of the situation, an act of inquiry may be the only undeniable act of leadership. Reflect on what makes you agree or reject a post. See what the scholars say, and explore the responses of those you live and work with. Out of that dialogue a shared understanding of leadership can be developed. This not only opens the door to new material, it can also enable you to lead more effectively!

What do you think?

Leadership Scholarship: Finding the Focus

Since I wrote regarding the significant decrease in scholarly leadership articles since 2006 some interesting possibilities arose in the feedback. While the expansion of the grey literature, web publication, and self publication are indeed on the rise, evidence that they are the smoking gun is not apparent.

With one exception articles related to the theories identified in Avolio, and Walumbwa, and Weber’s 2009 survey, “Leadership: Current Theories, Research, and Future Directions” increased significantly. While publication related to global leadership peaked in 2012, as a whole these topics have expanded by an order of magnitude from 2% in 2006 to 20% today. When the hot topics of the neuroscience and gender were included the portion rose to 30%. Clearly there is an increase in the focus of scholarly attention on these topics.

A random sample of the articles being considered did not reveal any victims of this focus that may have resulted in the decline. However, the question of strategy wove its way through them all. Strategy recurred so frequently it was impossible to analyze it as a distinct category. This led me to consider it as an overarching theme. My expectation was that articles related to strategy and leadership would show the same increasing trend, and the decline in scholarly publication would remain a mystery.

I could not have been more wrong! In 2006 over 120,000 articles were published representing 35% of the total publications. The surprise was that articles related to strategy had dropped approximately 80,000 articles! There was 25% of the overall decrease in one place! However, a closer look revealed that while the total may have dropped, the question of strategy appears in over 60% of the scholarly leadership articles published. So while there is a significant decrease in numbers, it is clear that the question of strategy lies in the focus of the lion’s share of scholarly publication.

Considering the data holistically it seems reasonable to argue that the increase in attention on these theories is related to their role in enabling strategy. Upon reflection this seems appropriate. What is our purpose as leaders if it is not to define a vision of a better future, and engage others in a strategy that will achieve it?

What do you think?

Where has all the Leadership Scholarship Gone?

When I began my Master of Arts in Leadership program at Royal Roads University last year one of our advisers commented that more articles on leadership had been published in the last few years than ever before. The topic came up in a discussion with some of my colleagues over lunch last week. At the time I opined that the past several years had produced the lion’s share of the work. I was curious afterwards. When, in fact, was the break point in the publication of leadership articles? Fortunately, provides excellent statistics on the searches you run there.

As you can see in the figure above the watershed moment occurred towards the end of 2004. More articles on leadership have been published in the past decade than in the previous 185 years. However, the research also revealed another interesting pattern which can be more clearly seen in the figure below.

Leadership scholarship hit an all time high in 2006. Since that peak in 2006 there has been a dramatic drop in publications related to leadership. After 2011 fewer articles have been published per year than any other time since 2001. This is surprising given we live in an age where the topic of leadership is on many minds. Leadership programs at universities, training programs, coaches, and books abound. You can’t turn around without stumbling over another blog post related to leadership, the leadership gap, or how to lead effectively. Given this, what has caused the discrepancy between academic activity and popular activity? It is not as if there has been an extinction event affecting leadership scholars. While Peter Drucker is sadly no longer with us, the likes of Senge, Oshry, Uhl-Bien, Boyatzis, and many more are all going strong.

An obvious answer does not immediately occur. Has the evolution of the scholarship pared off theories and paths of studies as dead ends from the heyday of the mid-2000's? Have the scholars moved onto to other studies? Have the editors of the journals been drawn to newer topics? This opens the door to the possibility of a more granular analysis based on articles related to complexity leadership, neuroleadership, transformational leadership, and other current topics to see which have received the focus of academic attention.

I will undertake that analysis in the near future. Until then, what thoughts do you have? Where have all of the leadership articles gone?