Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This article argues that rather than returning to a traditional “sociology of leadership,” which is modernist and positivist in nature, seeking both to offer multiple frameworks yielding relatively true accounts of leadership as well as providing a sing positivist foundational met a narrative that attempts to underwrite this relativism as “science,” we ought to adopt a critical and pragmatic strategy toward the leadership quandary. This pragmatism would attempt to reveal the historic sources of our contemporary leadership malaise; shift inquiry to the form of life which warrants current leadership rhetoric; and seek to locate and surface here to for hidden leadership transactive events in our postmodern/poststructural fin de sile.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Spencer J. Maxcy (1995) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: