Chapter 15: Dialogue: A Research Agenda for Relational Leadership

We are happy to have this chance to comment on the book chapters in Part II, as it allows us to further the debate on a topic that is important for the social scientific study of leadership. We decided to reflect these views in a conversational format in which Gail will lead off, and John follows with his comments on the chapters and on Gail’s thoughts. After another exchange, the chapter concludes with some joint recommendations.

Dear John,

To make sense of the chapters that were our assignment, I created Table 15.1. Using Gronn’s (2002) distinction between ontological, observational, and analytic units, I classified each of the six chapters accordingly. I also added Mary Uhl-Bien’s (2006)Leadership Quarterly paper as it was often referenced in the chapters. Here’s what this table tells me. Ontological Units define the object of study; in this case, it is the leadership relationship (or aspects of it) for all of the chapters and Uhl-Bien (2006). Interestingly, for Observational Units, which define who or what an analyst observes, Uhl-Bien (2006) locates communication at the center of understanding relationships “because it is the medium in which all social constructions of leadership are continuously created and change” (p. 665). However, the chapters mainly emphasize self-reports and storytelling by individual leadership actors. Analytic Units detail that which is to be deconstructed, measured, or explained, and here we see the panoply of data sources in the third column, in which interviews figure prominently.