Alien tutelage: on generalizability and contextualization in leadership development

Abstract

There has been sustained argument for contextualization of leadership development, none more so than when working with Indigenous and other marginalized peoples. Leadership development programmes are predominantly conducted by ‘outsider’ educationalists and consultants and the question of contextualization, of how much or how little, is a decision that is ultimately made in classrooms around the world under conditions of alien tutelage. Employing an autoethnographic approach, the article examines three examples of leadership development programmes in order to think about generalization and/or contextualization. Overall, this study finds that arguments for and against ‘generalizability’ and ‘contextualization’ might depend more on the skill and experience of the teacher rather than the corpus of knowledge over which so many battles are fought. It suggests that the potential embedded in generalizable programmes can be realized if there is sufficient pedagogic engagement and space created by culturally competent teachers and facilitators for local testing of generalized knowledge claims for their adaptation: personally, organizationally, nationally and globally. It also finds that the people and outcome focus aspects of leadership development seem to be more influenced by culture than other aspects such as personal leadership style preference that would appear to transcend ethic cultural background.

Keywords:

• leadership development
• contextualization
• generalizability

Notes

1. Throughout this article, the word Indigenous is capitalized in recognition of their rights as recognized under international law. The United Nations’ Working Group on Indigenous Populations has been using the following working definition (proposed by UN Special Rapporteur Martinez Cobo in 1986) to guide its work:

Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing in those territories, or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity; as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal systems. (Cobo 1986)