Exhaustive Academic Study Notes on Relational and Distributed Leadership, Social Construction, and Responsible Practice

The Critique and Redeﬁnition of Traditional Leadership Theory Distributed leadership represents a radical attempt to shift the focus of leadership away from the preserve of a single individual at the top of a hierarchy. Historically, leadership has been viewed through the lens of individual attributes or situational ﬂexibility, where one person creates the vision and makes decisions. Thorpe, Gold, and Lawler ( $2007$ ) note that although anecdotal evidence suggests individual leaders are all-pervasive, there is little empirical research to support such a high level of inﬂuence. Peter Gronn ( $2003$ ) developed a rigorous critique of traditional theory across six areas. First, he criticized the privileging of the term 'leader' over 'manager,' noting that managers are often unfairly viewed as mundane while leaders are seen as exceptional, a distinction explored by Alvesson and Sveningsson ( $2003$ ). Second, Gronn questioned the elevation of leadership above concepts of power and inﬂuence, noting that political science views power as distributed, yet leadership studies often fail to transfer this perspective. Third, he argued that leadership holds a 'privileged explanatory status' where it becomes a default explanation for outcomes that could be attributed to task types or individual competence. Fourth, Gronn challenged the binary division of labor between 'leader' and 'follower,' arguing that in reality, everyone reports to someone. A case reﬂection from a non-executive board director ( $CS$ ) illustrates this, noting that even a CEO must follow the lead of the board, regulators, and customers. Fifth, he condemned the 'cult of exceptionality' which implies that if leaders are exceptional, followers must be unexceptional. This belief can lead to 'learned helplessness' among employees. In a housing sector program by Lancaster University Management School, it was found that $70 \, \%$ of employees were female or from ethnic minorities, but most CEOs were white males because delegates held 'shadow beliefs' that they were not exceptional enough to lead. Finally, Gronn criticized 'designer leadership,' where standards-based hiring clones a speciﬁc set of behaviors across a sector. # Concepts and Forms of Distributed and Collective Leadership The concept of distributed leadership suggests that leadership results from people collectively performing acts in collaboration with a shared understanding. Harris ( $2008$ ) suggests the idea dates to the $1920s$ , while Gibb ( $1954$ ) was among the ﬁrst to explicitly term leadership a 'group quality.' Gibb distinguished between 'focused' inﬂuence attached to an individual and 'distributed' inﬂuence moving between group members. Gronn ( $2002$ ) expanded this into three forms of 'concerted action.' Spontaneous collaboration occurs when people come together informally to solve immediate issues. Intuitive working relations develop through high levels of trust and a blurring of roles in close partnerships. Institutional practices involve formal structures designed to facilitate equal interaction. The $2003$ England Rugby World Cup win provides an example of 'conjoint agency,' where acts of leadership by Thompson, Moody, Catt, Dawson, Johnson, Back, and Wilkinson combined to achieve the ﬁnal drop goal. Gosling, Bolden, and Petrov ( $2009$ ) note that while the term is popular, it is often misunderstood as simply team-based activity. Spillane, Halverson, and Diamond ( $2001$ ) argue that while individuals matter, leadership is 'stretched' over social and situational contexts. Similar concepts include shared leadership, described by Pearce and Conger ( $2003$ ) as a dynamic interaction where members lead one another. Collaborative leadership (Kramer and Crespy, $2011$ ) emphasizes the leader’s role in framing issues and mobilizing group talent. Participative leadership (Vroom and Yago, $1998$ ) involves followers in decision-making through information sharing. A study by Huang et al. ( $2006$ ) on $173$ Chinese state-owned enterprises found that participative styles improved the self-conﬁdence of newer workers but were less effective for long-tenured employees due to traditional Confucian parental authority norms. Raelin ( $2003$ ) proposes 'leaderful practice' involving collectiveness, concurrency, collaboration, and compassion. Collective leadership (Friedrich et al., $2009$ ) is a dynamic process where a network of leaders utilize speciﬁc expertise as needed for a task. # Research Evidence and Critical Perspectives on Distributed Leadership Research in education suggests distributed leadership links to improved student outcomes, though evidence in the corporate sector is thinner. Spillane et al. ( $2004$ ) utilized distributed cognition and activity theory—which rejects the individual as the unit of analysis—to study leadership functions in $13$ schools over four years. They found leadership functions were shared during task enactment. Leithwood et al. ( $2007$ ) further extended Gronn’s work into four alignment types: 'planful alignment' (planned distribution), 'spontaneous alignment' (instinctive coordination), 'spontaneous misalignment' (tasks falling to inappropriate sources), and 'anarchic misalignment' (leaders competing to protect their 'turf'). Planful alignment was found to be the most effective for high-priority tasks. However, critics like Gosling et al. ( $2009$ ) found that managers often treat the term as rhetoric for collegial decision-making rather than a concrete reality. Hatcher ( $2005$ ) argues that 'distributed leadership' is often merely delegated authority that can be revoked, acting as a tool for managerialism or invisible organizational control (Hall, Gunter, and Bragg, $2013$ ). Barriers to its adoption include distance, top-down cultures uncomfortable with risk, and functional structures that resist cross-functional collaboration. The case of Semco, led by Ricardo Semler, shows a radical shift; after sacking $60 \, \%$ of senior managers at age $21$ , Semler implemented a democratic system where workers set their own hours and pay, contributing to a company growth from $US\$4 \text{ million}$ in $1982$ to $US\$212 \text{ million}$ in $2003$ . # Leadership as a Social Construction and the Eye of the Beholder The socially constructed view of leadership (Meindl, $1995$ ) posits that leadership is not an objective 'given' but something constructed between people. It focuses on subjective interpretation rather than objective measurement. Shamlir et al. ( $2007$ ) proposed ﬁve follower-centered roles: recipients of inﬂuence, moderators of impact, substitutes for leadership (Kerr and Jermier, $1978$ ), followers-as-leaders, and constructors of leadership. For example, Steven Hunter (a college principal) found that even mundane acts like picking up litter were interpreted as leadership because they aligned with follower-constructed beliefs. This perspective is linked to Attribution Theory, originating with Fritz Heider ( $1958$ ). Followers use performance indicators, direct actions, uniqueness of action, situational information, and leader intentions to attribute success or failure. Meindl ( $1985$ ) also introduced the 'Romance of Leadership,' our tendency to overestimate a leader’s impact on company performance while ignoring external factors. Chen and Meindl ( $1991$ ) illustrated this by analyzing the media portrayal of Donald Burr of People Express Airlines, where metaphors shifted from 'wizard' to 'heroic ﬁghter' despite the company’s eventual failure. Implicit Leadership Theories (ILT) are common-sense ideas about leadership based on social values and experiences. Bresnen ( $1995$ ) found construction industry managers valued traditional behaviors like 'initiating structure' and saw management authority as a necessary condition for leadership. Schyns and Schilling ( $2010$ ) found that ILTs actually include both effective and ineffective attributes. # Relational Dynamics and Cultural Variations in Leadership Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory (Graen and Uhl-Bien, $1995$ ) focuses on the dyadic relationship between a leader and a follower. It identifies 'in-groups' (expanded role responsibilities) and 'out-groups' (formal employment contracts). Leadership-making progresses through three phases: the 'Stranger' phase (rule-bound, low-quality exchange), the 'Acquaintance' phase (testing and sharing resources), and the 'Mature Partnership' phase (high-quality, trustworthy exchange). Social Identity Theory (Van Knippenberg and Hogg, $2003$ ) suggests leaders are chosen based on 'prototypicality'—how well they embody the group’s aspirational behaviors. This process involves three phases: Prototypicality, Social Attraction, and Attribution of success to the person's special personality. Psychoanalytic theories draw on Freud and Jung to suggest that early family experiences shape our leadership responses. Followers may project ideals onto a leader ('projection') or respond to a leader as a parent ﬁgure ('transference'). Cultural differences also shape leadership constructions. Hofstede ( $1980$ ) identified four (later ﬁve) dimensions: Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance, Individualism/Collectivism, Masculinity/Femininity, and Long-Term/Short-Term Orientation. Trompenaars ( $1993$ ) identified seven dimensions, including Universalism vs. Particularism and Neutral vs. Affective. The GLOBE project (House et al., $2004$ ) studied $17,300$ managers across $62$ cultures to identify universal versus culturally speciﬁc leadership attributes. # Leadership-as-Practice and the Discursive Turn Leadership-as-Practice (LAP) views leadership as an ongoing accomplishment brought off in the moment, much like jazz improvisation (Harrison, $2017$ ). Raelin ( $2016$ ) describes LAP as a move away from essentialist entity-based traits toward viewing leadership as a situated process. Practices include constructing positions, weaving shared meanings, and reﬂecting on events. Carroll, Levy, and Richmond ( $2008$ ) argue for demystifying leadership by exploring 'nitty-gritty' routines. In LAP, knowledge is 'socially accomplished' (Orlikowski, $2002$ ). Discursive Leadership (Fairhurst, $2007$ ) focuses on the constitutive power of language. It distinguishes between 'big D' Discourse (systems of thought providing linguistic resources) and 'little d' discourse (talk-in-interaction). Leaders are 'practical authors' (Shotter, $1993$ ) and 'managers of meaning' (Smircich and Morgan, $1882$ ). Samra-Fredericks ( $2003$ ) used video analysis to show how strategizing is 'talked into being' through emotional and moral interactive routines. LAP is critiqued by Margaret Collinson ( $2018$ ), who argues it is not truly 'new' but a variant of post-heroic leadership, and that it fails to address power asymmetries resulting from organizational hierarchies. # Responsible Leadership, CSR, and Sustainability Responsible leadership involves a mindset shift toward using business for the common good and engaging all stakeholders (Maak and Pless, $2006$ ). Ethical leadership requires a 'moral person' (integrity) and a 'moral manager' (socializing ethics) (Treviño et al., $2000$ ). Archie Carroll ( $1979, 1991$ ) proposed a CSR Pyramid containing Economic, Legal, Ethical, and Philanthropic responsibilities. Sustainable development is defined by the Brundtland Commission ( $1987$ ) as 'meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.' Organizations move through phases of sustainability: Rejection, Non-responsiveness, Compliance, Efficiency, Strategic Proactivity, and the Sustaining Corporation (Dunphy et al., $2003$ ). Avery and Bergsteiner ( $2011$ ) distinguish between 'Locust' leadership (short-term, ruthless profit maximization) and 'Honeybee' leadership (long-term, community-focused). Honeybee practices include ethics as a core value, investing in innovation, and building high trust. Paul Polman (Unilever) exemplified this by ending quarterly reporting to focus on a Sustainable Living Plan. Aditya Birla Group illustrates 'trusteeship,' where wealth is held to benefit stakeholders through self-sustaining community projects in $5,000$ villages. # Followership, Bad Leadership, and the Toxic Triangle Followership is the study of how individuals interact with and co-construct their roles in relation to leaders (Uhl-Bien et al., $2014$ ). Robert Kelley ( $1988, 2008$ ) identified five followership styles based on independent thought and active behavior: Sheep, Yes-people, Alienated, Pragmatics, and Star followers. Barbara Kellerman ( $2004$ ) argues that 'bad leadership' is both ineffective and unethical, listing seven types: incompetent, rigid, intemperate, callous, corrupt, insular, and evil. Lipman-Blumen ( $2005$ ) describes 'toxic leadership' as abusive and egotistical, supported by followers who are either gullible conformers, the leader's entourage, or malevolent followers seeking to depose the leader. Padilla, Hogan, and Kaiser ( $2007$ ) proposed the 'Toxic Triangle,' which requires three elements: Destructive Leaders (narcissistic, ideology of hate), Susceptible Followers (conformers with unmet needs or colluders with similar world views), and Conducive Environments (instability, lack of checks and balances). Schyns and Schilling's ( $2013$ ) meta-analysis found destructive leadership correlates strongly with employee absenteeism, turnover, and job tension. Greg Dyke’s resignation at the BBC demonstrated 'star followership' in action, as thousands of staff staged walk-outs and took out a newspaper advert to support his leadership because he had created an environment based on value and trust.