Search results

By adopting the dictum that all knowledge is knowledge from a point of view, educators can arrange the literature on leadership into nine categories from three conceptually distinct points of view, namely the Leader, the Follower, and the Investigator. Students who come to appreciate and account for point of view not only increase their understanding of leadership, but also prepare to compensate, if not transcend their own point of view – a skill that successful participants in leadership will increasingly require.

During the first half of the twentieth century, a handful of German speaking scholars examined leadership through the lens of what came to be known as philosophical anthropology, a field of study inaugurated by Max Scheler. Not only do their contributions belong in the history of leadership studies, but the findings of philosophical anthropology can make contributions today. This paper introduces philosophical anthropology and more specifically what Scheler had to say about leadership. One of his primary insights distinguished leaders from what he referred to as exemplary persons, or what we call role models today. This distinction offers a basis for leading by example. Scheler found five universal ideal types that set the tone, so to speak, for any group or society.

In the 1880s, William James argued that individuals do make a difference in history, and that the study of influential people is a defensible academic pursuit. The literature on leadership today raises three distinct challenges to his position: (a) that everyone is a leader, (b) that no one is a leader, and (c) that leadership is self-leadership. To avoid confusion, educators should look closer at the arguments, not only for historical reasons. There are sound theoretical, conceptual, and psychological reasons, for teachers and students alike to look closer at his argument.

This essay applies one of the lessons from the lectures of James March on the necessity of imagination for understanding real-world phenomena such as the processes of innovation, despite the imagination's potential to ruin learning. A science of innovation depends on empirical studies from the past, yet it must capture those studies within stories. The essay concludes by encouraging scholars to examine the adequacy of those stories and consider enriching the storehouse of stories about processes of innovation from great works of literature.

There is an ongoing concern about workplace ethics. Many voices say that our educational system ought to do something about it, but they do not agree about how to do this. By the time students reach post‐secondary education, they will have already developed a general moral sense. The concern is whether their moral sense is sufficient for ethical situations in the workplace. If not, post‐secondary education is expected to close the gap. In order to do this, educators need information about what is missing. Educators can set clear, work‐related objectives and use classroom activities to reach those objectives based on an identification of these gaps.

Henri Ellenberger argued that in many instances, illness serves as an integral stage in the creative process. This paper begins by contrasting the simplistic image of cause-and-effect with Ellenberger's three-part model, with illness in the middle. Then, it sets forth five different ways to construe the period of illness as a contribution to a creative process that will have begun before the illness. It concludes by introducing a familiar example from Western history of a leader whose contributions might have built upon years of exemplary preparation, but actually began in earnest only after a defining period of sudden illness.

Henri Ellenberger [1] wrote an influential essay in the 1960s titled "The Concept of Creative Illness." Part of its brilliance is due to the fact that it took a relatively common model of cause-and-effect and added something to it, presenting a slightly more sophisticated model that raised interesting new questions about the relationship between illness and creativity. This paper considers the importance of studying the creative process through the lens of illness as liminality.

The pursuit of innovation depends on creativity as a competency, yet creativity-especially in organizational settings — is difficult to understand, let alone manage. By consulting works of Maurice Merleau-Ponty (art), Martin Heidegger (philosophy), and Hannah Arendt (political science), this article offers a composite account of creativity that suggests the aggressive pursuit of creativity in an organizational setting should include an expenditure of effort by leaders to create a social environment where participants can reflect upon and accept their own inner creativity, known as natality, as well as the creativity of others as a collective response to aspects of a reality we ordinarily overlook.