Search results

Peacebuilding is often premised on international intervention in post-conflict situations. This epilogue extends the concept to address preventative peacebuilding in pre-conflict societies. Social movement organizations that spring from democratically oriented movements can either reproduce dominant and dominating leadership styles, or they can cultivate democratizing leadership (Klein, 2016) by developing democratic practices, structures, and cultures within and between organizations. Democratizing leadership promotes leadership as a verb more than a noun: as the operation of power in relationship between people, rather than as positional power grounded in an authority figure. In democratizing leadership, democratic decision-making is preceded by the development of individual and collective voice and followed by responsible collective action. In addition to these processes, democratic values are also essential, including: freedom (differentiated from autonomy), justice (procedural, social, and restorative justice), and equity (more than equality), which underlie structural processes and inform practices. When social movement organizations find creative tension between ad hoc leadership and the tendency toward bureaucratization, they can cultivate a democratic culture through organizational practices and structures for preventative peacebuilding work. Leadership in such organizations recognizes and utilizes creative conflict to sustain agonistic pluralism and promote conflictual consensus (Mouffe, 2013). This epilogue provides examples of democratizing leadership from social movement organizations, including: In the Heart of the Beast Theater, Minnesota Alliance of Peacemakers, Neighborhood Leadership Program, and the Higher Education Consortium for Urban Affairs, that illustrate how democratizing leadership can be developed in pre-conflict preventative peacebuilding organizations by integrating democratic practices, structures, and cultures.

The purpose of this paper is to describe and contextualize the processes of leadership development through mentoring in a Leadership Learning Lab (“the Lab”) and to explore the implications and applications of the Lab's approach as a social learning space.

The authors used a constructivist grounded theoretical approach and conducted semi-structured interviews with participants in the Lab, which operated out of a leadership center in a mid-sized Canadian business school.

The findings show that participants used their individual life experiences to practice leadership development through mentoring in a social learning space of prescribed uncertainty. The participants identified with becoming flexible, self-actualized leaders by learning to view their own experiences and those of their Lab partners through a leadership lens.

This study contributes to an understanding of the “doing” of leadership development in a social learning space and highlights three relational processes through which leadership development emerged through mentoring: rapport-building, democratization and reflection.

Learning outcomes are as follows: understanding the importance of aligning an entrepreneur’s personal orientation and values (e.g. detachment from the enterprise) with business decisions related to enterprise development; appreciating how prior exposure to business settings can be a source of entrepreneurship pursuits for an entrepreneur; and understand whether a different type of leadership can be instrumental in the creation, running and growth of an entrepreneurial venture, especially in terms of introducing differentiated offerings in the target market.

The case is about an entrepreneur, Sangeeth Varghese, with a very humble and conservative background, who worked in various firms, small and large, and become a young global leader at World Economic Forum, before foraying into entrepreneurship. He is driven by the core values of detachment and democratization, which is reflected throughout his life course and has developed his own views on leadership. After running his first venture LeadCap Ventures with some measure of success, Sangeeth is about to launch his new venture LeadBurg, a web- and mobile-based application for behavioral rating and competency discovery for individuals. The predicament for Sangeeth is about the uncertainties related to the new launch from a business perspective, as well as the concern whether the core principles of democratization and detachment that he identified with, would stand the test in this launch.

Master level program (e.g. MBA).

Teaching Notes are available for educators only.

CSS 3: Entrepreneurship.

The world of management and technology has become accustomed to the notion of “2.0” advancements and transformative innovations. Is the field of Change Management/Organizational Development itself in this story? Not enough! We re-examine the field’s foundational beliefs, practices, focus, research directions, and value add. We conclude that there is strong evidence from the front line and from an IBM Case Study that the field must “reboot” – to rethink our methods and frameworks; the role and skills of change leadership for the future; change practitioner capabilities for the future; the metrics needed to evaluate progress; and the knowledge exchange between Academe and practitioners.

This chapter describes the assumptions underpinning the International Study of Principal Preparation. It outlines how cultural reference points for leadership have changed. It explores the changing conceptualization of contemporary leadership, highlights the new economic dimensions of leading, and discusses the changing face of educational personnel. It notes that educational leaders must utilize knowledge of how technology has altered how we perceive the world, live our lives, relate to others, and practice our profession. It highlights the complexities for leaders who must thrive in a milieu characterized by a desire to preserve a civil society, balance student–professional–union–community needs, develop cultural literacies for learners, and respond to accountability demands. Other complexities include the multiple allegiances of leaders, conflicting loyalties of community members, varying levels of digital awareness, and the need for interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligences. The chapter closes with a set of principles and considerations for leadership development.