Analysis of Leadership Development in Top Organizations

by

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would take this opportunity to thank my research supervisor, family and friends for their support and guidance without which this research would not have been possible.

DECLARATION

I, [type your full first names and surname here], declare that the contents of this dissertation/thesis represent my own unaided work, and that the dissertation/thesis has not previously been submitted for academic examination towards any qualification. Furthermore, it represents my own opinions and not necessarily those of the University.

Signed __________________ Date _________________

ABSTRACT

Research on leadership development in organizations is abundant, as are the resources invested in developing their leaders. Although rarely made explicit, much of this writing and activity is driven by functionalist assumptions, with a primary concern for good design and enhanced corporate performance. Given the politically sensitive, culturally complex and institutionally embedded nature of leadership, as well as controversy over the way leadership itself is best defined and developed, the author argues that this reliance on a single perspective is potentially limiting. The aim of this paper is to enhance leadership development practice in organizations by proposing a fresh and theoretically informed approach for exploring the multiple meanings of leadership development. This is done, first, by clarifying the discursive assumptions underlying studies in this field and revealing the distinctive insights that arise from functionalist, interpretive, dialogic and critical discourses of leadership development; and second, by exploring how each of these discourses, or 'readings', might promote quite different approaches to leadership development in organizations.

Analysis of Leadership Development in Top Organizations

Introduction

Leadership development in organizations is a high-profile activity. It often focuses on senior or 'elite' staff, it frequently comprises a key element in competitive strategy (Becker and Huselid, 1998), it consumes a significant amount of time and proportion of budget (Fulmer and Goldsmith 2001; Lamoureux 2007) and, perhaps for these reasons, remains a politically contentious activity. A wide range of stakeholders have vested interests in finding ways to develop leadership capability; these range from government to professional agencies, from in-house learning units to corporate universities, and from consultancy firms to business schools (Storey 2011).

Practitioner commentary and academic analysis is prolific, but what does it offer those seeking deeper, theoretical understanding and more reflective practice of leadership development in and around organizations? Authors tend to remain committed to their favoured ontological approaches, with little constructive dialogue between them. As pointed out by others (Clegg and Hardy 1999; Morgan 2000), this has the effect of stunting debate and progress in a given field of study. In a recent review, Jackson and Parry (2008, p. 119) observe that calls for more empirical studies that examine leadership development, made a decade earlier, 'have remained largely unheeded'. The consequence of all this is that guidance for those responsible for designing and delivering leadership development remains indistinct.

All those concerned with leadership development are operating within a discourse. A discourse can be thought of as a connected set of statements, concepts, terms and expressions that constitute and condition a way of talking and ...