Juhtimine kui praktika on erialakirjanduses viimastel aastatel palju tähelepanu saanud nii empiiriliste uuringute kui kriitika tähenduses. Tegemist on kindlasti lähenemisega, mis võiks huvi pakkuda kõikidele organisatsioonidega puutumuses olijatele. Kuna intervjuud on sageli need allikad, kus autorid avavad veidi avaramalt oma tekstide tagamaid, siis seetõttu siinviidatu oma koha leidiski. Siinse intervjuu teeb eriliseks-kasulikuks ka asjaolu, et see on avaldatu kõrgetasemelises erialaajakirjas, st seda saab allikaviitena kasutada.
The ﬁeld is evolving toward a theory, as advised by Kempster (2018), provided that it encourage, enumerate, and appraise criticism of its principal inter-related concepts and continue to invite research on these concepts. At this stage of L-A-P’s development, new researchers of the ﬁeld require a state-of-thepractice to assess some of its reﬁnements so as to discern the ﬁeld’s conceptual boundaries for more consistent and integrated study.
In contrast, “practice theory” is derived directly from the data of emerging experience or from practice interventions rather than from a priori knowledge. It would emerge from an epistemology of practice (Raelin, 2007) in which concurrent reﬂection on experience not only expands knowledge but also improves practice. Theory would not be preestablished but constituted as a living construction to capture the useful ingredients of a performance.
But we made it clear that we were not interested in such practices in which the focus is on what a designated person does. We’re interested in what it is within all the associated elements constituting a practice—its artifacts, its setting, its time, its people, its voices, its dialogue, its gestures—that produce leadership.
Eriti oluline! Erinevus relatsioonilisest perspektiivist:
The relational approach to leadership tends to focus on interactions between people, be they through conversation or through other semiotic means, such as signs and symbols. Although these interactions explain a good deal of ontological experience, L-A-P looks at the totality of the practices, including the material artifacts, the technologies, the rituals, not to mention, time and space. […] So, where’s the leadership, one might ask: in L-A-P, practice can be treated as an intra-action (rather than an inter-action) among parties that at times allow people at work to move from the relational to the transpersonal—thus transcending their own immediate embeddedness (Barad, 2003; Raelin, 2016a).
In particular, we point incessantly to horizontal discourse across a range of individuals connected with each other rather than to vertical discourse through the transmission of instructions. I have also referred to this ontological condition as a participant-directed praxis in which participants naturally assemble or in which the manager in charge encourages the dispersion of control (Raelin, 2012).
Kontekstuaalne ruum – lugemishuvi suurendamiseks:
So context does not reside outside of leadership nor is it a condition for leadership, but rather it is embedded in leadership activity across multiple levels; context and practice are mutually constitutive. For example, at the individual level, practice is intertwined with the mind and body, shaping cognition and emotion.
Raelin, J. A., & Robinson, J. L. (2022). Update of leadership-as-practice “practice theory”: Featuring Joe Raelin Interviewed by Jenny Robinson. Leadership. https://doi.org/10.1177/17427150221100594