Start by pressing the button below! Includes bibliographical references and index. R Rost All rights reserved. No portion of this book may be reproduced, by any process or technique, without the express written consent of the publisher. The Regents of the University of California. Hunt and Lars L. Larson, eds. Reprinted by permission of the publishers. Excerpts from J. Hunt, B. Baliga, H. Dachler, C. Schliesheim eds. Heath and Company. Reprinted by permission of the publisher. Imagine all that and you will have entered the iconoclastic world of Joseph C.
But you need not share my rather daunting experience to gain a sense of the intellectual creativity and critical spirit of that school. You need only read this book. It is a biting critique of the great majority of writings on leadership, and certainly not sparing of my own.
It will be, I expect, an intellectual blockbuster. Rost contends that most of the works on leadership are describing not leadership but something else, such as management. And what is that? For Rost the main point that has been missed is the role of followership in a dynamic interplay of leader-follower activism.
But Leadership for the Twenty-first Century is no mere polemic. Rost offers a fascinating section on the origins of the word leadership—it is old in usage but relatively recent in importance—and many pages on shifting definitions of leadership. All these fundamental concepts Rost criticizes with gusto. These pages alone make the work indispensable for teachers of leadership studies, and for their students. Since the vast majority of leadership studies these days are not about leadership, in Rost's view, but management, writers on that subject will feel challenged—indeed, infuriated—by Rost's views on the matter.
Those studies, he contends, narrow and oversimplify a complex set of influence relationships, leader-follower interactions, and mutual purposes. They lack an adequate concept of power. They underestimate the multiple and complex relationships in which leader and follower activists are involved. Rost makes clear his own distinction between management and leadership—one that many management theorists, I expect, will not accept. This work, in my view, is the most important critique of leadership studies in our time, and as such will stand as one of a half-dozen indispensable works on leadership.
Will it also stand as a major positive contribution to the understanding of leadership? For some time the jury—the many jurors—will be out before rendering this verdict. But I expect that Rost's call for a "post-industrial" concept of leadership—the most important concept in the book—will put him in the vanguard of a whole new force and direction in leadership theory.
In the spirit of Rost and his school, I cannot refrain from seizing this golden opportunity of being the first to criticize Rost's own argument in this volume ah, sweet revenge! I suggest that despite his intense and impressive concern about the role of values, ethics, and morality in transforming leadership, he underestimates the crucial importance of these variables. Even more I miss and this reflects my own strong bias a grasp of the role of great conflict in great leadership; Rost leans toward, or at least is tempted by, consensus procedures and goals that I believe erode such leadership.
But Rost's main theme towers over such criticism. In this work he calls for a new school of leadership to face the leadership demands of the twenty-first century.
This book could well become the Bible of such a school. Preface This book has taken a long time to write. Not the actual writing, but what has happened in my mind and in my life, which is the heart and soul of what is in this book. I can remember very distinctly thinking about leadership as a high school student in the s. More reflection occurred in college, especially when I wrote a thesis on the events in Japan that led to World War II. When I began teaching history and social studies in high school in the Midwest, I facilitated discussions about leadership among the students. I also have done leadership.
I became very involved in a thirteen-state effort to infuse the study of non-Western cultures into the secondary social studies curriculum.
I also spearheaded a youth movement to liberalize Roman Catholicism through the development of lay persons as church leaders. As part of a master's degree, I wrote a thesis on Franklin D. Roosevelt's attempt to pack the Supreme Court in , which was clearly a study of leadership although I did not frame it in that conceptual context. When I became a Catholic school principal and later a public school district superintendent, leadership was constantly on my mind. And I was always involved in reform movements to make high schools more educationally relevant and effective.
For my dissertation, I researched the successful attempt of Governor Patrick Lucey and the Wisconsin Legislature to merge the state's two university systems in I used Lindblom's reconstructive leadership model to make sense of that policy-making process. When I came to the University of San Diego in ,1 helped inaugurate a leadership doctoral program, a master's program in educational administration, and a leadership minor for undergraduates. Starting an educational administration program was an ordinary experience.
Inaugurating the leadership doctoral program was a heady experience, the most extraordinary in my life. Since it was a leadership program not a management or administration program , and since we wanted to study leadership from a multidisciplinary perspective with doctoral candidates from different professions but house the program in the School of Education, we were involved in double-duty and at times multiple-duty change processes simultaneously. There were no models in other universities that we could find, so we had to create the program and the curriculum from the ground up.
With that kind of challenge, leadership had to be one's life, not one's job or profession. Leadership for the Twenty-first Century is a critique of the efforts of leadership scholars and practitioners in the twentieth century to understand leadership based on the values and cultural norms of the industrial paradigm. It is also an effort to move our understanding of leadership forward, toward the postindustrial paradigm that will take hold in the twenty-first century.
Chapter 1 introduces three themes that are addressed throughout the book. Chapter 2 begins the critique of the leadership literature since The first section in Chapter 3 details an investigation into the origins of the word leadership in English-speaking countries.
Then definitions of leadership written in each decade from through are given, grouped in patterns of thought about leadership, and analyzed. Chapter 4 is devoted to understanding how the concept of leadership was viewed in the s, when an explosion of literature about leadership appeared in the bookstores. Again leadership definitions are grouped in patterns of thought and are followed by a more extended analysis of the views of leadership in the s. The chapter ends with an explication of what I call the industrial leadership paradigm.
This illuminating study critiques the concept of leadership as understood in the last 75 years and looks to the twenty-first century for a reconstructed. Leadership for the Twenty-First Century states that the school of leadership characterized by good management has been in evidence all along, yet not well .
Chapter 5 begins with some ideas about the postindustrial era and its connection to our concept of leadership. Then I propose a new definition of leadership that is consistent with what some futurists see as the postindustrial paradigm of the twenty-first century. The definition has four essential elements, each of which is explained and amplified. The chapter ends with some thoughts on transformational leadership.
In Chapter 6,1 deal with the issue of leadership and management. Past attempts to distinguish between the two have not been entirely successful, and I propose a conceptual framework that works because it uses the essential elements of the definitions—not traits, behaviors, and styles of leaders and managers—to make the distinction. Such a distinction, of course, is crucial to a postindustrial paradigm of leadership.
A distinction is made between the process and the content of leadership.
Ethical perspectives concerning the process of leadership are fundamental to the nature of leadership as a relationship. The ethical content of leadership, which involves the changes that leaders and followers intend, poses severe problems because traditional ethical frameworks are only minimally helpful in confronting the ethical issues that leaders and followers must face in proposing changes in their organizations and societies.
Finally, I propose two tentative ways out of this dilemma, but clearly there has to be much more thought given to this critical area of concern.
The final chapter, Chapter 8, summarizes the analysis and conclusions given throughout the book, and I make some suggestions to academic scholars, transition specialists consultants and trainers , and practitioners for improving the study and practice of leadership in the twenty-first century. Actually, in the s it is not too soon to start these efforts to transform our understanding of leadership. Thus, the final plea is for those of us concerned about the future to begin now. While I have benefited enormously from the interactions with and the intellectual stimulation I have received from the leadership professors and students at the University of San Diego, and from the intense collaborations with educators as we have attempted to exert leadership in secondary and higher education, the analysis and proposals in this book are my responsibility alone.
I am happy to take the credit and the blame for them, as the case may be. I am indebted to several colleagues who reviewed the manuscript during various stages of its preparation and who made numerous helpful suggestions to improve the work.
https://senttingodobel.tk Their names shall remain anonymous. However, Alison Bricken of Praeger Publishers deserves special mention for her original evaluation of this book's merits, and she and Bert Yaeger were immensely helpful in editing and publishing the work.
I also want to thank Edward DeRoche, dean of the School of Education at the University of San Diego, for supporting this work by awarding several faculty research grants and a sabbatical leave to facilitate the research for and the writing of this book. Finally, there are family members and close friends who have been very supportive: with encouragement in times of what seemed to be a never-ending research project; with pressure in times of fatigue and letting go; with love and care in times of difficult analysis and writer's block, or fear.
Thanks to one and all. Most of the people who call themselves leadership scholars study leadership in one academic discipline or profession. By far, most leadership scholars are in schools of business and write for corporate executives and business students. These one-discipline scholars are easily recognized because they almost always put an adjective in front of the word leadership, such as business leadership, educational leadership, or political leadership; and they strongly hold the assumption that leadership as practiced in the particular profession they are studying is different from leadership as practiced in other professions.
The same can be said for leadership practitioners—those who lead organizations—and those who are responsible for professional training and development in leadership. Most of these leadership experts are heavily involved in only one profession either as trainers or as leaders, and by far the largest percentage are in business organizations. In the s a cadre of academics, trainers, and practitioners appeared on the scene who rejected the single profession and single academic discipline approach to the study and practice of leadership.