Leadership as Practice: Challenging the Competency Paradigm
By Brigid Carroll, L. Levy, D. Richmond. 2008
429 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Management Information Systems, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/725980f6640dd563a17755c11599936c0892ac6e
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Management Information Systems
In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management
- Gloria Dall’Alba
- H. Nicholson
- Jean-Louis Denis
- Ann Langley
- Viviane Sergi
- J. Raelin
- Linda Rouleau
- Jörgen Sandberg
Citations in the corpus
- Leadership in the Plural (2012, background): “Alvesson & Sveningsson, 2003a , 2003b ; Carroll, Levy, & Richmond, 2008 ; Holmberg & Tyrstrup 2010 ), which underlines the importance of studying leadership as it is practiced in a context and investigates it from the viewpoint of its mundane and daily performance.”
- The Practice of Leadership in the Messy World of Organizations (2010, methodology): “2003a, 2003b; Carroll et al., 2008; Pettigrew, 1992).”
- Returning to Practice Anew: A Life-World Perspective (2009, background): “For example, strategy practice could readily be replaced with leadership: leadership praxis, leadership practices and leadership practitioners (see, for instance, Carroll et al. 2008).”
- Identity undoing and power relations in leadership development (2013, positive): “It draws explicitly on theories such as leadership-as-practice (Carroll et al., 2008), adaptive leadership (Heifetz, 1994; Heifetz and Linsky, 2002), sensemaking (Weick, 1995, 1996), discourse and identity (Cunliffe, 2009; Sinclair, 2007).”
- From leadership-as-practice to leaderful practice (2011, methodology): “Among these perspectives is the movement known as ‘leadership-as-practice’ (L-A-P), which focuses on the everyday practice of leadership including its moral, emotional, and relational aspects, rather than its rational, objective, and technical ones (Carroll et al., 2008).”