Theory: Connective Leadership
Foundation of Theory: Is one of three core Relationship-Centered Theories. These theories elevate the power of reciprocity, connectedness and interdependence. These theories emphasize the process and people parts of leadership. Entity perspectives and constructionist perspectives are vital to the process of relationship centered theories. These perspectives will be vital in examining the power of relationships when it comes to leadership.
Core of Theory: This is the earliest theory. The core of the theory is operating in an increasingly relational, diverse and interdependent word. We see this theory in government, business and public policy. This theory is not widely published because it doesn’t challenge the status quo.
Summary of Theory: There are three principles that are the architecture for this theory. They are, it provides insight on how to achieve goals, but not what those should be. Second is, individuals must expand the range of achieving styles that they employ rather than defaulting to those that are most comfortable. Finally, preferred achieving styles are learned through socialization, but because they are learned can be adapted or altered. For this theory there is also three meta-categorical “sets”. They are direct, relational and instrumental. Under these there are nine achieving styles. The theory represents an extension of behavioral/ style theory and is better suited for inclusion in the theories of production and effectiveness.
Key Terminology of Theory:
Entity Perspectives – Focus on the identification and augmentation of individual capacities to engage in group processes.
Constructionist Perspectives – Leadership as a process that emerges from the social relationships in which knowledge is co-constructed.
Nine achieving styles: Intrinsic, competitive, power, collaborative, contributory, vicarious, personal, social and entrusting. These can be found on page 233-234 in Dugan.
My Thoughts of Theory: I do not like this theory because it relies heavily on all leaders behaviors being similar. People are all different. Also, for this theory there is a lack of published research, which is brought up multiple times in the reading. I do like how there is a need for inclusiveness with the theory. Also, how this theory can be used with training programs to facilitate capacity building.