TABLE 9.3 Strengths and weaknesses of authentic leadership

TABLE 9.3 Strengths and weaknesses of authentic leadership

TABLE 9.3 Strengths and weaknesses of authentic leadership

TABLE 9.3 Strengths and weaknesses of authentic leadership

Strengths Weaknesses

Extends the understanding of prosocial leadership theories by identifying authentic leadership as a root construct

Positions ethical and moral values as drivers of leadership

Incorporates the concept of psychological capital as a foundation with attention toward hope, optimism, and resilience

Leadercentric in design and treatment of followers

Lack of conceptual clarity contributing to multiple interpretations of the theory, its core concepts, and measurement

Remains largely conceptual with limited empirical testing, some of which is identified as problematic

Making Connections

How might authentic leadership reflect dominant norms associated with social location? To what extent might exhibiting authenticity be dangerous based on power dynamics?

What stands out as useful about authentic leadership? What do you think needs to be addressed in the deconstruction and reconstruction processes?

ADAPTIVE LEADERSHIP Adaptive leadership is included in the vanguard cluster given the degree to which it disrupts common sense understandings about leaders and leadership. Initially introduced by Heifetz (1994), and advanced over the years in collaboration with other scholars (Heifetz, Grashow, & Linsky, 2009; Heifetz & Linsky, 2002), the purpose of adaptive leadership is to provide a pragmatic approach. However, pragmatism in Heifetz’s world is clearly a relative term; his concepts are complex and disrupt many of the commonly held assumptions about what leadership is, its central purpose, and how it functions.

Dugan, J. P. (2017). <i>Leadership theory</i>. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from apus on 2017-06-23 08:26:38.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.

Overview Heifetz et al. (2009) defined adaptive leadership as “the practice of mobilizing people to tackle tough challenges and thrive” (p. 14). At the heart of this is getting groups to engage in adaptive work, which involves deep learning that alters the assumptions and values that drive individual and collective behaviors. Hmmm … doesn’t this sound a bit like engaging with critical perspectives?

Heifetz (1994) also argued that leadership is anything but values neutral, with adaptive work attempting to reconcile gaps between the espoused and actualized values driving collective action. For example, adaptive work might mean asking the governance board of a company to engage with growing stockholder concerns that their mission explicitly values diversity and their customer base is twothirds people of color but the racial composition of the board is almost entirely White. This represents a clear gap between the values that the organization espouses and the reality of how it operates.

It should be no surprise that engaging in adaptive work is not at the top of most people’s bucket lists. It isn’t particularly fun. Heifetz and Linsky (2002) remind us that “adaptive change stimulates resistance because … it asks [people] to take a loss, experience uncertainty, and even express disloyalty to people and cultures” (p. 30). Thus, leadership becomes about discerning the types of loss that people associate with a particular adaptive challenge and creating a context in which this loss can be examined more closely. For example, what perceptions of loss might cause members of the governance board in the previous example to resist exploring the gap between valuing diversity and having a racially homogenous board? For some, it might be an issue of loyalty and not wanting to see committed board members leave to make space for new members. For others, resistance might be associated with loss of status, social capital, or wealth tied to membership. Still others may resist because concern for diversity is so deeply tied to their sense of identity that even acknowledging that the values gap exists would be equated with failure. It may be easier to ignore the issue than admit to one’s complicity in contributing to it.

Despite the complexity of and potential resistance to adaptive work, Heifetz (1994) suggested it defines the very emergence of leadership. Successfully engaging in adaptive leadership requires an understanding of three key features.

Authority Considerations Heifetz (1994, 2010) stressed the importance of clearly defining and disentangling authority from leadership, recognizing that just because individuals have authority does not mean they practice leadership. Furthermore, adaptive leadership distinguishes between formal and informal authority, each of which leverages power in different ways. Formal authority taps into power via legitimacy and the right to direct others because of a positional role, whereas informal authority reflects the ability to direct others using power acquired via trust relationships and perceived expertise. The two are not mutually exclusive. In other words, a formal authority may or may not also hold informal authority.

TABLE 9.3 Strengths and weaknesses of authentic leadership