English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Writers in leadership and organizational studies have accrued a long history of interest in assorted complexity ideas, ranging from the pseudo-scientific and almost evangelistic (Wheatley 1994, 1996) to the more scholarly and empirical (Stacey 1995, 2005). Complexity language offers an ebullience that fits well with the predilection of some to insist upon a leadership/management dualism: that is, the claim that leadership is an art, involving creativity, flow and dialogue, in contrast to ‘management’ which is unenlightened plodding in dull administration, hierarchy, and authoritative direction. Leadership consultants wielding versions of ‘chaos’ or complexity ‘science’ have flooded paperbacks and boardrooms with notions of emergence, self-organization and interconnectivity since at least the 1990s (Eoyang 1996, Senge 1990). So successful has been this wave that many organisational leaders were swept into adoption of ‘complexity’ approaches. For researchers, one happy result has been the proliferation of organisational sites offering concrete demonstration of the diverse impacts of complexity principles implemented as leadership strategy (e.g. Houchin &Maclean 2005).

Response to Jeffrey McClellan. Complexity Theory, Leadership, and the Traps of Utopia