Disentangling Neoliberalism from Leadership Education: Critical Approaches to Leadership Learning and Development in Higher Education

ABSTRACT

Ideological commitments to neoliberalism have re-shaped demo-cratic institutions. Situating public higher education as an institution of democracy, this article identifies and unpacks the ways in which traditional approaches to leadership learning and development in public higher education affirm neoliberal ideology in the United State of America (USA). Artificially produced consumer demand for specific types of leadership education in higher education are increasingly positioned to play on the social, political, and economic insecurities of those disadvantaged by neoliberal ideology. The “Tripod Ontology” of leader, follower, and shared purpose is proble-matized through the political lens of power and choice. A critical ontology of leadership education and devel-opment in higher education that resists neoliberal ideology will center practices of immanent critique. Interpretative work that creates space for dialogue, relationship, and everyday practice can become part of the ontological basis of a critical approach to leader-ship learning and development in higher education.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

¹ David Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2005).

² Wendy Brown, Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism’s Stealth Revolution (New York, NY: Zone Books, 2015).

³ Brandon W. Kliewer, “Why the Civic Engagement Movement Cannot Achieve Democratic and Justice Aims,” Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning 19:2 (2013), pp. 72–9. Land-Grant Institutions are colleges and universities that have been designated by Congress under the Morrill Acts of 1862, 1890, and 1994.

⁴ Steven Ward, “From E Pluribus Unum to Caveat Emptor: How Neoliberal Policies are Capturing and Dismantling the Liberal University,” New Political Science 36:4 (2014), pp. 459–73.

⁵ Clyde W. Barrow, “Realpolitik in the American University: Charles A. Beard and the Problem of Academic Repression,” New Political Science 36:4 (2014), pp. 438–58.

⁶ Tracy L. Lightcap, “Academic Governance and Democratic Processes: The Entrepreneurial Model and Its Discontents,” New Political Science 36:4 (2014), pp. 474–88.

⁷ Joseph M. Schwartz, “Resisting the Exploitation of Contingent Faculty Labor in the Neoliberal University: The Challenge of Building Solidarity between Tenured and Non-Tenured Faculty,” New Political Science 36:4 (2014), pp. 504–22.

⁸ Romand Coles, “Transforming the Game: Democratizing the Publicness of Higher Education and Commonwealth in Neoliberal Times,” New Political Science 36:4 (2014), pp. 622–39.

⁹ Margaret A. Post et al, Publicly Engaged Scholars: Next-Generation Engagement and the Future of Higher Education (Sterling, VA: Stylus, 2016); John Saltmarsh and Matthew Hartley,“To Serve a Larger Purpose”: Engagement for Democracy and Transformation of Higher Education (Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 2012); Lorilee R. Sandmann and Diann O. Jones, Building the Field of Higher Education Engagement: Foundation Ideas and Future Directions (Sterling, VA: Stylus, 2019).

¹⁰ Brandon W. Kliewer and Kerry L. Priest, “Creating the Conditions of Political Engagement: A Narrative Approach for Community-Engaged Scholarship and Civic Leadership Development,” in Krista M. Soria and Tania D. Mitchell (eds), Civic Engagement and Community Service at Research Universities (London, UK: Palgrave-Macmillan, 2016), pp. 47–62; Brandon W. Kliewer and Kerry L. Priest, “Normative Foundations of Community-Engaged Scholarship as a Method of Leadership Inquiry,” Journal of Leadership Studies 11:11 (2017), pp. 41–4.

¹¹ A critique of the “tripod ontology” concept can be found in the following: Wilfred H. Drath, et al., “Direction, Alignment, Commitment: Toward a More Integrative Ontology of Leadership,” The Leadership Quarterly 19 (2008), pp. 635–53. Each leg of the tripod has a stream of literature in leadership studies. A general place to start understanding examples of leadership that accept the tripod ontology is the following: Peter G. Northhouse, Leadership: Theory and Practice (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2010). Each leg of the tripod has a stream of literature. Leader – great man theories, trait theories, leader-member exchange theory; Follower – Relationships between charismatic leaders and followers and followership theory; Shared purpose – path-goal theory, transformational leadership theory.

¹² See Mats Alvesson and André Spicer, “Critical Leadership Studies: The Case for Critical Performativity,” Human Relations 65:3 (2012), pp. 367–90.; Wilfred H. Drath, Cynthia D. McCauley, Charles J. Palus, Ellen Van Velsor, Patricia M. G. O’Connor, and John B. McGuire, “Direction, Alignment, Commitment: Toward a More Integrative Ontology of Leadership,” The Leadership Quarterly 19 (2008), pp. 635–53; Jackie Ford, Nancy Harding, and Mark Learmonth. Leadership as Identity: Constructions and Deconstructions (New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008); Heather M. Zoller and Gail T. Fairhurst, “Resistance Leadership: The Overlooked Potential in Critical Organization and Leadership Studies,” Human Relations 60:9 (2007), pp. 1331–60.

¹³ There is a growing scholarly critique of dominant leadership paradigms, but these critical approaches to leadership studies have not thoroughly reached education and development spaces where the focus is on deepening leadership capacity in higher education and are not just about studying the literature on leadership.

¹⁴ Wilfred H. Drath et al. “Direction, Alignment, Commitment: Toward a More Integrative Ontology of Leadership,” The Leadership Quarterly 19 (2008), pp. 635–53.

¹⁵ Mary Uhl-Bien et al. “Followership Theory: A Review and Research Agenda,” The Leadership Quarterly 25:1 (2014), pp. 83–104.

¹⁶ David Collinson, “Dialectics of Leadership,” Human Relations 58:1 (2005), pp. 1419–42.

¹⁷ See Research Priority Four: Anthony Andenoro et al. National Leadership Education research agenda 2013–2018: Providing strategic direction for the field of leadership education (2013), available online at: http://leadershipeducators.org/ResearchAgenda.

¹⁸ Many consider James MacGregor Burns as one of the contemporary founders of Leadership Studies. His theory of leadership draws upon ancient and modern political theory but offers a perspective that leadership is closely related to leveraging formal role and power to elevate the actions of followers to a higher moral plain. His conception of leadership includes instrumental conceptions of power tied to formal role. Effectively leveraging power to create transformed followers is conceptualized as leadership within this paradigm. See James M. Burns, Leadership (New York, NY: Harper & Row, 2010).

¹⁹ Higher Education Research Institute, A Social Change Model of Leadership Development: Guidebook (Los Angeles, CA: UCLA, 1996).

²⁰ See for example “Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership” at http://leadershipstudy.net.

²¹ Jacob Segal, “Ideology and the Reform of Public Higher Education,” New Political Science 36:4 (2014), pp. 489–503.

²² See Corey Seemiller, Student Leadership Competencies, https://studentleadership.com/ (November 1, 2019); Dan Jenkins, & Arthur J. Schwartz, Collegiate Leadership Competition: An Opportunity for Deliberate Practice on the Road to Expertise (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2017).

²³ Mark Learmonth and Kevin Morrell, “Is Critical Leadership Studies ‘Critical’?” Leadership 13:1 (2017), pp. 257–71.

²⁴ An understanding of constitutive forms of power can be found in the scholarship of Michel Foucault. Constitutive forms of power recognize the ways social construction creates, assigns, and bounds meaning. Constitutive forms of power navigate systems in ways that acknowledge how a sense of self in relation to systems of power and knowledge is maintained. See Michel Foucault, Luther H. Martin, Huck Gutman, and Patrick H. Hutton, Technologies of the Self: A Seminar with Michel Foucault (Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press, 1988). The concept has been linked to leadership studies in the following article: Gail Fairhurst and David Grant, “The Social Construction of Leadership: A Sailing Guide,” Management Communication Quarterly 24:2 (2010), pp. 171–210.

²⁵ The potential of the Leadership-as-Practice frame and categories of relationship, dialogue, and practice to make a critical turn is currently being contested in the leadership studies literature. See Joeseph A. Raelin, “Introduction,” in J. A. Raelin (ed.), Leadership-as-Practice: Theory and Application (London, UK: Routledge, 2016), pp. 1–17; Margaret Collinson, “What’s New About Leadership-as-Practice?” Leadership 14:3 (2018), pp. 363–70; Joseph A. Raelin, S. Kempster, H. Youngs, B. Carroll, and B. Jackson, “Practicing Leadership-as-Practice in Content and Manner,” Leadership 14:3 (2018), pp. 371–83; Margaret Collinson, “So What is New about Leadership-as-Practice,” Leadership 14:3 (2018), pp. 384–90.

²⁶ Categories of relationship, dialogue, and practice are well documented in the leadership studies literature. Connecting these disparate areas of literature to leadership education in higher education and as a way to respond to neoliberal ideology is what makes my argument novel. This manuscript connects a series of theoretical perspectives and introduces them in a unique way that can address problematic aspects of leadership education in higher education.

²⁷ Carroll Brigid, Lester Levy, and David Richmond. “Leadership as Practice: Challenge the Competency Paradigm,” Leadership 4:4 (2008), pp. 363–79; Jennifer Chandler and Robert E. Kirsch, Critical Leadership Theory: Integrating Transdisciplinary Perspectives (New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan, 2018); Wilfred Drath et al., “Direction, Alignment, Commitment: Toward a More Integrative Ontology of Leadership,” The Leadership Quarterly 19 (2008), pp. 635–53.; Joeseph A. Raelin, et al., “Practice Leadership As-Practice in Content and Manner,” Leadership 14:3 (2008), pp. 371–83.

²⁸ Robert Kirsch and Jennifer Chandler developed a critical leadership theory that exists and moves across interdisciplinary space. My argument extends their framing of critical theory and immanent critique to the field and practice of leadership education in public universities. See Jennifer Chandler and Robert E. Kirsch, Critical Leadership Theory: Integrating Transdisciplinary Perspectives (New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan, 2018).

²⁹ Robert J. Antonio, “Immanent Critique as the Core of Critical Theory: Its Origins and Developments in Hegel, Marx and Contemporary Thought,” The British Journal of Sociology 32:3 (1981), p. 332.

³⁰ Dan Sabia,“Defending Immanent Critique,” Political Theory 38:5 (2010), p. 687.

³¹ Ibid.

³² Theodor Adorno, “Democratic Leadership and Mass Manipulation,” In A. W. Gouldner (ed.), Studies in Leadership: Leadership and Democratic Action (New York, NY: Russell & Russell, 1950), pp. 418–38.

³³ Steven Dandaneau, “Adorno on Leadership,” Leadership in the Humanities 4:2 (2016), pp.134–52.

³⁴ John P. Dugan, Leadership Theory: Cultivating Critical Perspectives (San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass, 2017).

³⁵ Donna Haraway, “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective,” Feminist Studies 14:3 (1980), pp. 575–99.

³⁶ This calls upon practice theory that emphasizes the experiences of everyday life. Practice theory is contrasted in this case, with a notion that a ‘true’ or ‘objective leadership experience can be discovered. See the general works of Henri Lefebvre, Pierre Bourdieu, and Michel de Certeau.

³⁷ Mary Uhl-Bien and Sonia M. Ospina, Advancing Relational Leadership Research: A Dialogue Among Perspectives (Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, 2012).

³⁸ Ibid., 541.

³⁹ Ibid., 545.

⁴⁰ Brigid Carroll, Lester Levy, and David Richmond, “Leadership as Practice: Challenge the Competency Paradigm,” Leadership 4:4 (2008), pp. 363–79; Jackie Ford, Nancy Harding, and Mark Learmonth, Leadership as Identity: Constructions and Deconstructions (New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008).

⁴¹ The who, what, when, and how of what is ‘recognized’ when talking about leadership is contested. I am situating this contestation through a political lens. Current patterns of recognition not only affirm the triad ontology but also run parallel to neoliberal ideology. Critical ontologies of leadership are broadening what is considered leadership, who has access to leadership activity, and how leadership is enacted through agency, structure, and practice. Charles Taylor “The Politics of Recognition,” in Amy Gutman (ed.), Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994), pp. 25–74. For a conceptual explanation of “recognition” in the context of social identity. Leadership identity, efficacy, and agency are inherently tied to systems of power and social identity.

⁴² Kenneth J. Gergen, Mary M. Gergen, and Frank J. Barrett, “Dialogue: Life and Death of the Organization,” in David Grant, Cynthia Hardy, Cliff Oswick, and Linda L. Putnam (eds), The Handbook of Organizational Discourse (New York, NY: SAGE, 2004), pp. 42–4.

⁴³ Rob Anderson, Leslie A. Baxter, and Kenneth N. Cissna, Dialogue: Theorizing Different in Communication Studies (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2004); Kevin J. Barge and Martin Little. “Dialogical Wisdom, Communication Practice, and Organizational Life,” Communication Theory, 12 (2002), pp. 438–58; Gail Fairhurst and Stacey L. Connaughton, “Leadership: A Communication Perspective,” Leadership 10:1 (2014), pp. 7–35.

⁴⁴ See Complex Adaptive Leadership Frameworks, such as "gap exercises." Gap exercises have also been referenced as a framing guide to provide political direction within a critical leadership studies lens.

⁴⁵ Vivana Sergi, “Who’s Leading the Way?: Investigating the Contributions of Materiality to Leadership-As-Practice,” in Joseph A. Raelin (ed.), Leadership-As-Practice: Theory and Application (New York, NY: Routledge, 2016), pp. 110–32.

⁴⁶ Pierre Bourdieu, Outline of A Theory of Practice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977); Michael de Certeau, The Practice of Everyday Life, Trans. Steven Rendall (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1988).

⁴⁷ Allen Kathleen, Diverse Voices of Leadership: Different Rhythms and Emerging Harmonies (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1990).

⁴⁸ See Peter G. Northouse, Leadership: Theory and Practice (New York, NY: SAGE, 2015); James M. Burns, Leadership (New York, NY: Harper Perennial Political Classics, 2010).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Brandon W. Kliewer

Brandon W. Kliewer, Ph.D. is an assistant professor of civic leadership in the Mary Lynn and Warren Staley School of Leadership Studies at Kansas State University. Brandon studies civic leadership through the lens of leadership coaching, deliberative civic engagement, democratic theory, and systems change. He is currently working on a series of manuscripts that report the results of civic leadership development programs, deliberative civic engagement forums, and community engagement theories and practices. His scholarship often involves undergraduate & graduate students, community members, and working professionals in ways that create the conditions to mobilize new knowledge for systems and organizational change. Brandon holds a Ph.D. from The University of Georgia in political science and a Master’s degree in political science from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. He can be reached at [email protected].