ABSTRACT

Leadership is a popular term, among scholars and in general. It is romanticized and seems to cover everything and nothing. Its analytical value has therefore been questioned, and so has the very existence of leadership as a phenomenon. Here, based on the social psychology of GH Mead, I argue that leadership is a fundamental human phenomenon emanating from docility. By exploring this through the lens of three classic texts – Milgram’s Obedience to Authority, Foucault’s Discipline and Punish, and Taylor’s The Principles of Scientific Management – I argue that processes that accomplish leadership are often not understood as leadership, but as something else, for example manipulation or management. More generally, I argue that leadership disappears as we identify the details of its manifestations, and from this I argue that leadership is a concept that denies its own ontological foundation. My conclusions suggest that leadership scholars and practitioners increasingly should draw attention to the choices involved in leadership processes and to practices commonly seen as not being about leadership – leadership studies will benefit from making the immaculate concept of leadership dirtier.

摘要

领导力在学者中和一般而言是一个流行的名词。它是浪漫的，似乎涵盖了所有内容。因此，人们对它的分析价值提出了质疑，领导力作为一种现象的存在也受到了质疑。在这里，基于GH Mead的社会心理学，我认为领导力是从服从中产生的一种基本的人为现象。通过三篇经典著作的视角进行探讨：米尔格拉姆对权威的服从，福柯的纪律与惩罚，以及泰勒的《科学管理原理》–我认为完成领导的过程通常不被理解为领导，而是被理解为其他事物，例如操纵或管理。更笼统地说，我认为领导力随着我们确定其表现形式的细节而消失，因此我认为领导力是一个否认其自身本体论基础的概念。我的结论表明，领导学者和从业者应越来越多地注意领导过程中涉及的选择以及通常被视为与领导无关的实践-领导力研究将受益于使无瑕的领导概念更加肮脏。