Diskussionsfrågor ME2311 Ledarskap

1. "We tend to value our leaders primarily for their abilities as orators" (p. 2)
Is that true? How else do we judge our leaders? How should we judge our leaders?

2. Is “follower” a good term to describe other parties in a leadership relationship? If not, what do you think would
be a better term? 

3. The authors state that geographical place is an important component of leadership. How so? Do you agree?
Why/why not?

4. In the section on power and leadership, the authors describe the “total organization”: each member’s daily life
is carried out in the immediate presence of a large number of others; members are very visible – there is no
place to hide from the surveillance of others; members tend to be strictly regimented; life in a total organization is
governed by a strict, formal and rational planning of time; people are not free to choose how they spend their
time – instead it is strictly prescribed for them; members lose a degree of autonomy because of an all-
encompassing demand for the interpretation of rules." (p 84). Can you think of any modern examples of such
organizations (bearing in mind the definition of organization you met in Grey: all forms of collective activity)?

5. The authors state that the purpose of leadership is "create a mutually important identity, purpose and
direction". Do you agree? Why/why not?

6. The authors write about ethical leadership. Is there one objectively correct answer to what is the ethical thing
to do at any given time? What is the leader's role in deciding (and defending) what is ethical? Which other parties
are important in deciding what is good and what is bad?

7. The authors state that business schools have propagated ideologically inspired amoral theories. Instead, they
propose “some elements of a new discourse and narrative for business that might contribute towards realizing a
more moral form of capitalism” (p 116). Is it possible to propose moral theories that are not in some way
ideological? How could you as students approach this issue?

8. The authors describe a relatively new approach to leadership studies, authentic leadership, meaning having
clear and certain knowledge about oneself in all regards (e.g., beliefs, preferences, strengths, weaknesses) and
behaving consistently with that self-knowledge (p. 111). They also describe a new approach to teaching
leadership, where “each student is encouraged to dig deep into their own history, investigating their own path as
leader and follower” (p. 133). Do you think self-knowledge and authenticity is important to lead well? Is it
important to you? Have you thought about this in relation to your studies?

9. The authors talk about aesthetic leadership, and further state that leadership is drama (p. 120): “Be your
authentic self as you live out the role, the script, the costume, the plot, the audience, the emotional impact and
the sensemaking”. Is that a helpful way of thinking about leadership? Why? Why not?

10. Do you exercise leadership? If so, when?