Siin üks huvitav ja organisatsiooniteooriaid ehk organisatsiooni mõtestamise erinevaid mõttekäike ning nende muutuseid puudutav kommentaar.
Artikkel juhatatakse sisse (kriitilise mõtlemise) vääriliselt, st näidatakse sisemiste vastuolude võimekust muudatuste esikutsumisel.

Around the turn of the millennium, criticism fueled by corporate scandals revealed the dark side of the then fashionable charismatic and other heroic leadership styles. Managerial misconduct and the financial crisis made people angry and at least for a brief moment turned the flashlight on the doings and morality of business executives. The time was ripe for a different narrative. A new, less heroic, and more humble leadership concept, authentic leadership, was born.

Kommentaari eesmärgiks märgitakse:

In this commentary, we lay out what to us appear as perils of authentic leadership theory (ALT) in a modest effort to help weed out one theory that has gone amiss to pave the way for new ideas. We have made a detailed argument against ALT elsewhere (Alvesson and Einola, 2019; Gardner et al., 2021; see also Nyberg and Sveningsson, 2014; Tourish, 2019) and are not going to repeat ourselves here. Instead, we focus on developing an argument for why ALT is not only wrong in a harmless manner, but it may be outright perilous to leadership scholars, scholarship, and those who believe in it.

Neli ohtu, mis varitsevad usaldavat juhtimist:

1) Undermining academic work – we as academics risk coming out as naive and out of touch with work life reality.

2) Delegitimizing our institutions – universities and business schools may in the short term benefit from the cash flow from paying students and all the hype, but in the long term, they risk losing credibility and respectability as scientific institutions.

3) Making false promises to organizations – we may risk propagating, supporting, or legitimizing pseudosolutions.

4) Causing identity trouble – managers and others overeager to live up to the proposed formula, may experience adverse consequences from being “too authentic,” or their narcissistic tendencies may be reinforced with an incessant focus on the “self.”

Epiloogis märgitakse muuhulgas:

We think that we, academics, need to develop a stronger sense of collective consciousness to weed out theories scoring higher on ideology than intellectual qualities […] We could, for instance, do exemplary work like Jackall (1988), uncovering dilemmas and traps in corporate life and promoting understanding of what may happen when people try to navigate in contested, ambiguous, and multi-moral organizational terrains.

He, hee … ja mulle tundub, et vastus või võimalik leevendus ei peitu sugugi juhtimisteooriates, õppekavades või organisatsioonides. See on mujal ja diskussioonid on üsna tõsised. Eks paistab, kuidas neid arenguid jõuan mõtestada-jagada.

Einola, K., & Alvesson, M. (2021). The perils of authentic leadership theory. Leadership. https://doi.org/10.1177/17427150211004059