Advanced Topics in Leadership Research

Associate Professor Magnus Larsson, Department of Organization, CBS.

Professor (mso) Sara Louise Muhr, Department of Organization, CBS.

Associate Professor Sverre Spoelstra, Department of Management, Politics and Philosophy, CBS

The participants are expected to submit a 5-page description of their full PhD project one week before the course. The student papers will be discussed in parallel on-line group sessions with a faculty member before course start. The students are therefore required to read each other’s papers before the first on-line session.

This course offers an overview over current debates and themes in the field of leadership studies, including a broad range of perspectives, ranging from transformational, shared and distributed leadership, leadership and ethics, discursive leadership studies, critical perspectives, leadership development, among others. In particular the course aims to focus existing and potential interfaces, connections and frictions between leadership studies and other fields within organization studies.

The course will be divided into 2 themes a day, that is, 8 themes in total plus an on-line session before and after the physical part of the course:

Pre-session: On-line group discussion of the student projects in relation to the field of leadership studies

Theme 1: Overview and history of leadership studies

Theme 2: Shared, distributed, complexity leadership

Theme 3: Leadership and identity

Theme 4: Leadership in interaction

Theme 5: Leadership development

Theme 6: Leadership Ethics

Theme 7: Diversity, inclusion and leadership

Theme 8: Discussion of student projects in relation to course theory and discussions

Post-session: On-line discussion of how the course has developed student projects

The course is organised as a 4-day on-site learning experience combined with on-line modules before and after the course, so the course in total spans 5 days. The pedagogy includes teacher and student-presentations, break-out sessions, “PhD trouble shooting” sessions (a half-day session focused on the specific problems or challenges that the participants encounter in their PhD work in relation to the topic of leadership) and intensive reading and discussion of texts. The pedagogical approach reflects that a productive learning experience is co-created; hence, students will be invited to mobilize their knowledge (their PhD research) in relation to not just the texts but also in relation to their colleagues’ work. This interactive learning experience is complemented by concise input and guidance of debates by faculty.

Literature for the themes:

Theme 1: Overview and history of leadership studies

• Avolio, Bruce J, Fred O. Walumbwa, and Todd J. Weber. 2009. “Leadership: Current Theories, Research, and Future Directions.” Annual Review of Psychology 60: 421–49.
• Fairhurst, Gail T. 2011. “Discursive Approaches to Leadership.” In The SAGE Handbook of Leadership, 495–507. London: SAGE.
• Pondy, Louis R. 1978. “Leadership Is a Language Game.” In Leadership: Where Else Can We Go?, edited by M. McCall and M. Lombardo. Durham: Duke.

Theme 2: Shared, distributed, complexity leadership

• Denis, Jean-Louis, Ann Langley, and Viviane Sergi. 2012. “Leadership in the Plural.” Academy of Management Annals 6 (1): 211–83.
• Pearce, Craig L, Jay A Conger, and Edwin A Locke. 2008. “Shared Leadership Theory.” The Leadership Quarterly 19: 622–28.
• Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity Leadership Theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era.The Leadership Quarterly, 18(4): 298–318.

Theme 3: Leadership and identity

• DeRue, D. Scott, and Susan J Ashford. 2010. “Who Will Lead and Who Will Follow? A Social Process of Leadership Identity Construction in Organizations.” Academy of Management Review 35 (4): 627–47.
• Lord, Robert G, and Rosalie J Hall. 2005. “Identity, Deep Structure and the Development of Leadership Skill.” The Leadership Quarterly 16: 591–615.
• Nicholson, Helen, and Brigid Carroll. 2013. “Identity Undoing and Power Relations in Leadership Development.” Human Relations 66 (9): 1225–48. doi:10.1177/0018726712469548.

Theme 4: Leadership in interaction

• Clifton, J. (2017). Taking the (heroic) leader out of leadership. The in situ practice of distributed leadership in decision-making talk. In Cornelia Ilie & Stephanie Schnurr (Eds.), Challenging Leadership Stereotypes through Discourse (pp. 45–68). Singapore: Springer.
• Larsson, Magnus, and Susanne E Lundholm. 2013. “Talking Work in a Bank: A Study of Organizing Properties of Leadership in Work Interactions.” Human Relations 66 (8): 1101–29. doi:10.1177/0018726712465452.

Theme 5: Leadership development

• Gagnon, S. and Collinson, D. (2014) “Rethinking Global Leadership Development Programmes: The Interrelated Significance of Power, Context and Identity”. Organization Studies, 35(5): 645-670.
• Mabey, C. (2013) “Leadership Development in Organizations: Multiple Discourses and Diverse Practice, International”, Journal of Management Reviews, 15(4): 359-380.
• Day, David V, and Michelle M. Harrison. 2007. “A Multilevel, Identity-Based Approach to Leadership Development.” Human Resource Management Review 17: 360–73.

Theme 6: Diversity, inclusion and leadership

• Ashcraft, K.L. and Muhr, S.L. (2018): ‘Coding Military Command as a Promiscuous Practice? Unsettling the Gender Binaries of Leadership Metaphors’, Human Relations, 71(2): 206-228.
• Muhr, S. L. (2011). Caught in the gendered machine: On the masculine and feminine in cyborg leadership. Gender, Work and Organization, 18(3), 337–357.
• Muhr, S. L., and Sullivan, (2013) “None so queer as folk”: Gendered expectations and transgressive bodies in leadership. Leadership, 9(3), 419–435.

Theme 7: Leadership Ethics

• Spoelstra, S. (2017) 'Spirituality, religion and notions of leadership' Routledge Companion to Leadership, ed. J. Storey et al. London: Routledge.
• TBA

Wrap-up: The future of leadership studies

• Hunt, James G, and George E Dodge. 2000. “Leadership Déjà vu All over Again.” Yearly Review of Leadership 11 (4): 435–58. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(00)00058-8.

After the course, the student is expected to be able to

• Engage with the field of leadership studies, acknowledging the variety of methodological and theoretical approaches, and formulate a valid research contribution to it.
• Critically discuss current issues in the field of leadership studies, particularly concerning the intersection between leadership and organization studies.
• Advance their PhD significantly within a deeper sense of the overall leadership research terrain.

• Avolio, Bruce J, Fred O. Walumbwa, and Todd J. Weber. 2009. “Leadership: Current Theories, Research, and Future Directions.” Annual Review of Psychology 60: 421–49.
• Ashcraft, K.L. and Muhr, S.L. (2018): ‘Coding Military Command as a Promiscuous Practice? Unsettling the Gender Binaries of Leadership Metaphors’, Human Relations, 71(2): 206-228.
• Clifton, J. (2017). Taking the (heroic) leader out of leadership. The in situ practice of distributed leadership in decision-making talk. In Cornelia Ilie & Stephanie Schnurr (Eds.), Challenging Leadership Stereotypes through Discourse (pp. 45–68). Singapore: Springer.
• Ford, J., and Harding, N. (2011). The impossibility of the ‘true self’of authentic leadership. Leadership, 7(4), 463-479
• Day, David V, and Michelle M. Harrison. 2007. “A Multilevel, Identity-Based Approach to Leadership Development.” Human Resource Management Review 17: 360–73.
• Denis, Jean-Louis, Ann Langley, and Viviane Sergi. 2012. “Leadership in the Plural.” Academy of Management Annals 6 (1): 211–83.
• DeRue, D. Scott, and Susan J Ashford. 2010. “Who Will Lead and Who Will Follow? A Social Process of Leadership Identity Construction in Organizations.” Academy of Management Review 35 (4): 627–47.
• Fairhurst, Gail T. 2011. “Discursive Approaches to Leadership.” In The SAGE Handbook of Leadership, 495–507. London: SAGE.
• Gagnon, S. and Collinson, D. (2014) “Rethinking Global Leadership Development Programmes: The Interrelated Significance of Power, Context and Identity”. Organization Studies, 35(5): 645-670.
• Hunt, James G, and George E Dodge. 2000. “Leadership Déjà vu All over Again.” Yearly Review of Leadership 11 (4): 435–58. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(00)00058-8.
• Larsson, Magnus, and Susanne E Lundholm. 2013. “Talking Work in a Bank: A Study of Organizing Properties of Leadership in Work Interactions.” Human Relations 66 (8): 1101–29. doi:10.1177/0018726712465452.
• Lord, Robert G, and Rosalie J Hall. 2005. “Identity, Deep Structure and the Development of Leadership Skill.” The Leadership Quarterly 16: 591–615.
• Mabey, C. (2013) “Leadership Development in Organizations: Multiple Discourses and Diverse Practice, International”, Journal of Management Reviews, 15(4): 359-380.
• Muhr, S. L. (2011). Caught in the gendered machine: On the masculine and feminine in cyborg leadership. Gender, Work and Organization, 18(3), 337–357.
• Muhr, S. L., and Sullivan, (2013) “None so queer as folk”: Gendered expectations and transgressive bodies in leadership. Leadership, 9(3), 419–435.
• Nicholson, Helen, and Brigid Carroll. 2013. “Identity Undoing and Power Relations in Leadership Development.” Human Relations 66 (9): 1225–48. doi:10.1177/0018726712469548.
• Pearce, Craig L, Jay A Conger, and Edwin A Locke. 2008. “Shared Leadership Theory.” The Leadership Quarterly 19: 622–28.
• Pondy, Louis R. 1978. “Leadership Is a Language Game.” In Leadership: Where Else Can We Go?, edited by M. McCall and M. Lombardo. Durham: Duke.
• Spoelstra, S. (2017) 'Spirituality, religion and notions of leadership' Routledge Companion to Leadership, ed. J. Storey et al. London: Routledge.
• Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity Leadership Theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era.The Leadership Quarterly, 18(4): 298–318.
• Zaleznik, A. 1977. “Managers and Leaders: Are They Different?” Harvard Business Review 15 (3): 67–84.