Complexity theory and leadership practice: A review, a critique, and some recommendations
Complexity theory and leadership practice: A review, a critique, and some recommendations
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.07.002
复制
发表时间：
2019-08
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
J. Rosenhead;L. Alberto Franco;K. Grint;Barton Friedland
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Rosenhead;L. Alberto Franco;K. Grint;Barton Friedland
自然科学家撰写了大量关于复杂性理论的文献，这些文献涉及他们自己活跃的研究领域。也有越来越多的文献利用这项工作来解决领导力问题和实践，但其作者在领导力教育方面经验丰富，而不是在他们报告和解释研究结果的实质性科学领域。我们将把这个竞技场称为复杂性领导。20世纪90年代，复杂性管理和领导力的热情最初爆发，作为一个概念框架，为组织实践提供信息，并没有保持其早期的强度。然而，该领域继续吸引人们的兴趣。本文的目的是有助于讨论的有效性和意义，这些想法的领导组织。我们通过对文献的回顾、批评和一些建议来实现这一点。我们将提出的问题类型是：（1）当前领导理论或实践中的哪些缺陷需要纠正？(2)从复杂性理论中得出的领导力处方有多新颖，有多合理？(3)复杂性理论为这些处方提供了科学权威吗？我们在复杂性领导信息中发现了一个悖论，一方面，它声称植根于复杂性理论，但同时又拒绝了硬科学的关键解释者。最后，我们就如何建设性地处理这一明显的悖论提出了建议。
There is an extensive literature on complexity theory authored by natural scientists writing about research fields in which they are themselves active. There is also a growing literature that draws on this work to address leadership concerns and practices, but whose authors are experienced in leadership education rather than in the substantive scientific fields whose findings they report and interpret. We shall refer to this arena ascomplexity leadership. The initial burst of enthusiasm for complexity management and leadership in the 1990s, as a conceptual framework for informing organisational practice, has not been sustained at its early intensity. However, the field continues to attract interest. The purpose of this paper is to contribute to a discussion of the validity and significance of these ideas for the leadership of organisations. We enable this through a review of the literature, a critique, and some recommendations. The type of questions which we will be raising are: (1) What failings in current leadership theory or practice are claimed to be corrected? (2) How novel, and how plausible, are the leadership prescriptions which are derived from complexity theory? (3) Does complexity theory provide scientific authority for these prescriptions? We find a paradox in the complexity leadership message which, on the one hand, claims to be rooted in complexity theory, but at the same time, rejects key denominators of the hard sciences. Finally, we offer suggestions on how to constructively handle the apparent paradox.