Product details

By continuing to use our site you consent to the use of cookies as described in our privacy policy unless you have disabled them.
You can change your cookie settings at any time but parts of our site will not function correctly without them.
Book chapter
-
Reference no. 6123BC
Chapter from: "Handbook of Leadership Theory and Practice: A Harvard Business School Centennial Colloquium"
Published by: Harvard Business Publishing
Published in: 2010

Abstract

The authors of this chapter contend that the study of leadership in organizational theory went awry when interest in leadership became too tightly coupled with organizational performance. Leading organizational theorists in the latter part of the twentieth century, such as Max Weber, Chester Barnard, and Philip Selznick, were not concerned with leadership because of its ability to explain financial performance. Instead, they were concerned with leadership's importance in infusing purpose and meaning into the lives of individuals. Although performance was not judged irrelevant by these earlier theorists, neither was it central. For them the primary significance of leadership rested in its importance in stemming the loss of meaning that they and other scholars of their time ascribed to modernity. The authors of this chapter conclude that if we are to judge the importance of leadership to organizational life, we need to break free from the strict interdependence of leadership success and organizational performance-and take a much broader view. This chapter was originally published as Chapter 3 of 'Handbook of Leadership Theory and Practice: A Harvard Business School Centennial Colloquium.' This chapter is excerpted from ‘Handbook of Leadership Theory and Practice: A Harvard Business School Centennial Colloquium'.

About

Abstract

The authors of this chapter contend that the study of leadership in organizational theory went awry when interest in leadership became too tightly coupled with organizational performance. Leading organizational theorists in the latter part of the twentieth century, such as Max Weber, Chester Barnard, and Philip Selznick, were not concerned with leadership because of its ability to explain financial performance. Instead, they were concerned with leadership's importance in infusing purpose and meaning into the lives of individuals. Although performance was not judged irrelevant by these earlier theorists, neither was it central. For them the primary significance of leadership rested in its importance in stemming the loss of meaning that they and other scholars of their time ascribed to modernity. The authors of this chapter conclude that if we are to judge the importance of leadership to organizational life, we need to break free from the strict interdependence of leadership success and organizational performance-and take a much broader view. This chapter was originally published as Chapter 3 of 'Handbook of Leadership Theory and Practice: A Harvard Business School Centennial Colloquium.' This chapter is excerpted from ‘Handbook of Leadership Theory and Practice: A Harvard Business School Centennial Colloquium'.

Related