Introduction

Leadership is a socially constructed phenomenon, situated in context, place, and time. This book makes the case that 1) the biosphere is a predominant and pervasive context of leadership theory and practice, and that 2) critical and constructionist perspectives are important tools in exploring what leadership does – and can – look like when the biosphere is an acknowledged context of leadership practice.

This chapter makes explicit the natural intersections between the biosphere, systems, and justice utilizing a critical constructionist lens. These topics are threads throughout the book, but it is worth more fully exploring their intersection at the outset. While each is yet a niche topic in leadership studies literature, their union creates a powerful tool that serves to refocus leadership – an otherwise amorphous concept – toward purposes of justice, shared responsibility, and more intentionally shaping the interwoven systems that form the warp and weft of our biological and social lives. This framework is also consistent with the call for more complex and inclusive ways of understanding the world (Kegan, 1994), and by extension, leadership.

Drath (2001) observes that “… leadership is in fact changing in ways determined by changes in our way of life, in our ways of understanding, and especially in our ways of interrelating” (p. xiv). In other words, the context of leadership continues to evolve and our understanding of it must keep pace. One of the challenges of situating leadership in context is the associated presumption that it then becomes problematic to translate lessons learned to other contexts, each of which is seen as essentially unique. The dominant thought seems to be that we must adapt ourselves and our behavior repeatedly; navigating new waters, new priorities, new values, and new relationships with each new leadership challenge. The fractured landscape of the field itself is reflective of this thinking. Business leadership. Nonprofit leadership. Public leadership. Youth leadership. Followership. Leadership for social change. Leadership development. Leadership education. Executive coaching. Organizational consulting. It is possible to identify sub-genres, industries, and consulting practices so numerous as to be nearly limitless. Our ability to parse leadership into infinitesimally discrete domains is astonishing. The implicit message in all of this is that while there may be translatable lessons, the context in each scenario or environment is different enough to warrant disparate and sometimes competing studies, methods, purposes, and philosophies.

Further, efforts in the literature to ground leadership in something more substantial that will apply across contexts have either been anchored in a problematic reductionism or largely amount to personal values and identity clarification. Stop me if you’ve heard this before: bringing our authentic selves to each context is the only way to ensure any consistency and translatable lessons from experience to experience. After all, we are the only constants from context to context, correct? If so, leadership development simply becomes personal development … an awfully slippery (and worryingly narcissistic) slope. In this narrative, we are assumed to be the only mobile and consistent thread woven throughout our varied leadership experiences and, even more concerningly, our values are frequently presumed to be natural unto themselves, having been born from within through little to no external influence. The unfortunate effect of this focus on internal, personal development is that it blinds us to several truths that have become increasingly apparent, but with which we continue to struggle: 1) we are not alone, nor have we arrived “here” on our own; 2) discrete otherness is a falsehood except at a microbiological level; 3) our inherent and fundamental interconnectedness is frequently uncomfortable because it conveys weight – and responsibility – to seemingly intractable challenges that can easily overwhelm our sense of self-efficacy and agency. The result is too often a vicious spiral of willful blindness and valued ignorance. The alternative – the picture that the biosphere, systems, and justice together paint – is uncomfortable for many to contemplate: a shared responsibility for challenges, timelines, systems, species, and generations that span far beyond our normal perceived sphere of influence (or concern).

Donella Meadows, in sharing her wisdom on systems thinking, has a great deal to say about our state of willful ignorance. She writes that:

We rarely see the full range of possibilities before us. We often don’t foresee (or choose to ignore) the impacts of our actions on the whole system. So instead of finding a long-term optimum, we discover within our limited purview a choice we can live with for now, and we stick to it, changing our behavior only when forced to … we misperceive risk … we live in an exaggerated present … we discount the future … We don’t give all incoming signals their appropriate weights. We don’t let in all news we don’t like, or information that doesn’t fit our mental models. Which is to say, we don’t even make decisions that optimize our own individual good, much less the good of the system as a whole.

(2008, pp. 106–107)

One of the fundamental lessons of systems thinking is that we create the boundaries that define a system; that, in truth, most of these boundaries are permeable, as systems are connected to other systems in an intricate and beautiful tapestry. Creating these boundaries is an important exercise in filtering a potentially overwhelming set of information and has proven to be a powerful analytical tool, but mistaking the tool for an immutable truth is equivalent to not seeing the forest for the trees. Unfortunately, this is a mistake we make repeatedly and often.

Margaret Heffernan (2011) offers related research on willful blindness, arguing that despite genuine utility (greasing social interactions, limiting the debilitating stress of major traumatic events, etc.), “the mechanisms that make us blind to the world also put us in peril … And all the time that these perils go unacknowledged, they grow more powerful and more dangerous” (p. 4). Continuing, Heffernan alerts us to “a central truth about willful blindness: We may think being blind makes us safer, when in fact it leaves us crippled, vulnerable, and powerless. But when we confront facts and fears, we achieve real power and unleash our capacity for change” (ibid.). It is my hope to better illuminate some of these facts and fears in examining the biosphere, systems, and justice as universal contexts and critical constructionism as an important lens to employ in leadership in the 21st century. First, let’s explore critical and constructionist approaches, and then we can make the case for the three universal contexts.

Critical Theory

Critical theory questions “the hidden assumptions and purposes of competing theories and existing forms of practice … [insisting] that thought must respond to the new problems and the new possibilities for liberation that arise from changing historical circumstances” (Bronner, 2011, p. 1). Most importantly, it concerns itself not “merely with how things were but how they might be and should be” (ibid, pp. 1–2). Brookfield (2005) clarifies that “critical theory is normatively grounded in a vision of a society in which people live collectively in ways that encourage the free exercise of their creativity without foreclosing that of others. In such a society people see their individual well-being as integrally bound up with that of the collective” (p. 39). Brookfield proceeds to articulate a set of seven “learning tasks” that must be undertaken to create such a society: challenging ideology, contesting hegemony, unmasking power, overcoming alienation, learning liberation, reclaiming reason, and learning democracy (ibid).

Owen (2015) adapts these generalized learning tasks to leadership studies, calling on leadership educators to “interrogate their own biases, beliefs, and practices” in order to “develop critical consciousness” (p. 14). Adapting Brookfield’s learning tasks referenced above, Owen poses difficult and thought-provoking reflective prompts for leadership educators including

How/where are leadership educators learning forms of reasoning and action that challenge social, cultural, and political ideologies? How are we modeling these processes for students? How are leadership educators learning about hegemony … and their own complicity in its continued existence? How might leadership itself intentionally or unintentionally support hegemonic processes? To what extent do leadership educators challenge notions of groupthink or the dominance of the collective? Where do leadership learners experience individualized learning and support so that they can foster “rebellious subjectivity”?

(p. 15)

These and other questions challenge us to more effectively and critically examine our own role in advancing hegemonic and normative ideology in the theory and practice of leadership.

The unapologetic future orientation found within critical theory is consistent with how leadership studies should function as well as how it needs to function in our present times. There is insight to be gained from studying history and present-day practices, but I worry that the field is too timid in boldly envisioning how leadership ought to be, even if that is different from how it is currently perceived and enacted. We have the opportunity to shape what future leadership looks like. Critical theory points us strongly in this bold new direction with its liberatory purpose.

Employing a critical lens in leadership studies is not simply an exercise in wishful optimism. It demands a willingness to wrestle with fundamental questions, unearth hidden assumptions, participate in a difficult process of deconstruction/reconstruction, and to more critically analyze our social location as leadership scholars, trainers, educators, practitioners, and students. Criticality provides a moral direction to leadership, focusing as it does on emancipation and unearthing unequal power relations. Western (2013) writes that “The task of critical theory is to study power and knowledge relations, to challenge dominating structures, and also to prevent leadership becoming another instrumental project, serving only to promote greater efficiency, productivity, profit, with little reflection on its wider impact on society” (p. 8). Much of the dissonance within the field itself can be seen as a reflection of this struggle: contributions to the field either shaping leadership as an instrumental tool for unequal power relations and historical systems of oppression, or seeking to reframe, challenge, and ground the concept in emancipatory goals like social justice and sustainability.

It is important to recognize that much of leadership studies itself is thoroughly situated in what Dugan (2017) calls “the story most often told;” in other words, awash in a particular and dominant ideology, shaped by hegemonic norms and assumptions, and generally driven by a belief (sometimes implicit, sometimes explicit) in the power of reductionist analysis. Dugan reminds us that:

Given leadership is a socially constructed phenomenon, society naturally plays an enormous role in how it is framed. That framing, however, is through the lens of dominant stocks of knowledge, ideology/hegemony, and social location. Without intervention and the application of critical perspectives, leadership theory inherently reflects a “story most often told.” We have the power and agency to disrupt this, but doing so requires critical learning.

(2017, p. 327)

By becoming more critical learners and actively disrupting these processes, we may shape leadership theory and practice to be an affirming place of reclamation and social change. Further, I will argue that adopting this critical perspective is complemented by a constructionist paradigm that expands our capacity to see these shared contexts and effectively co-construct our future, guided by the universal contexts of the biosphere, systems, and justice.

A Critical Constructionist Lens

Critical theory is a powerful analytical perspective that, despite an established history in what is called Critical Management Studies (Alvesson & Willmott, 1992, 1996; Alvesson & Spicer, 2012; Collinson, 2011, 2014; Collinson & Tourish, 2015; Fulop & Linstead, 1999; Klikauer, 2015), has yet to be broadly embraced in the field of leadership studies. Constructionist perspectives have also been slow to be explored fully in the field. In one of the most notable examples of a constructionist approach to leadership, Ospina & Sorenson (2006) write that,

A constructionist lens suggests that leadership happens when a community develops and uses, over time, shared agreements to create results that have collective value. Grounded in culture and embedded in social structures such as power and stratification, these agreements influence and give meaning to members’ actions, interactions and relationships, and help people mobilize to make change happen.

(p. 188)

This perspective pushes us further toward a collective approach to leadership where leadership is the property of the group/community/organization, and is consistent with other efforts in the field to disentangle the work of leadership from the heroic individual. Bringing critical and constructionist lenses together reinforces the strengths of each and yields powerful insights about meaning making, power, and the structures that shape our perceptions. Here, I advocate for utilizing a critical constructionist approach when examining the three universal contexts of leadership: the biosphere, systems, and justice.

Ospina & Sorenson (2006) further explore a constructionist lens on leadership:

The generation of meaning is always a social, rather than an individual process, because to engage in meaning-making human beings draw from existing previous meanings in their culture, and the latter, in turn, is embedded in historically grounded social structures … A constructionist view presumes that our understanding of leadership is socially constructed over time, as individual interact with one another, rather than being something embodied in individuals or possessed by them.

(pp. 189–190)

Thus, if meaning (and, for these purposes, our understanding of leadership) is socially constructed over time and necessarily shaped (and limited) by ideas already established, then these previously established ideas take on critical importance. Drath (2001) argues that “leadership effectiveness is related more to the sharing of meaning in a community than it is to any particular style or approach to leadership” (p. 28). If, as a constructionist lens suggests, we are working with the tools – the meaning – that those before us have built, we must be mindful of the limitations of those tools. Critical theory allows just such a stance as it examines ideology/hegemony, and offers the ability to, as Dugan (2017) deftly demonstrates, deconstruct and reconstruct concepts in ways that are more inclusive and equitable. A constructionist approach, then, further illuminates the consequences of ideology/hegemony and the hidden constraints on our thinking and being that critical theory unearths, while critical theory deepens the implications of the social construction of reality that constructionism explores.

Importantly, constructionism and critical theory are also to some extent in tension with one another. By this I mean that constructionism runs the danger of being overly constrictive; too focused on what is rather than on what might be. The previously discussed future orientation of critical theory and its inherently hopeful orientation (see the discussion of “critical hope” in Preskill & Brookfield, 2009, p. 171) challenges us to learn from and interrogate – but not be trapped by – what has existed in the past. At the same time, the analysis of shared and historically situated meaning in constructionism serves to ground critical theory in practice and lived experience. The tension in time orientation between the two frameworks (present and future versus present and past) serves to strengthen both when brought together and may even contribute to expanding our relationship to multiple time scales as Satterwhite, Sheridan, and McIntyre Miller (2016) call for.

Successfully bridging theory and practice is also particularly important here. Critical theory and constructionist perspectives are highly active, recognizing the power of our interaction with the world and with one another in shaping meaning and purpose. Martin & Te Riele (2011) argue that “An urgent need exists for educational work that is situated, reflexive, and hopeful. This will require a new relation between theory and practice where critical pedagogy is responsive to the generative possibilities of place-based struggles and politics” (p. 24). The same holds true for leadership and leadership education. A critical constructionist lens is a powerful analytical tool that yields significant and challenging insights for the field, not the least of which is a valuing of lived experience and local context. However, an equally true but seemingly opposite insight – dialectical in nature – is that these same local contexts are shaped, to one extent or another, by universal ones.

The Case for Universal Contexts of Leadership

What is the meaning of leadership? What is the purpose of leadership? What are we to make of a concept so vexing that the greatest scholars of the topic cannot agree on a basic definition? Every field of study thrives and innovates from its contested approaches and philosophies, but most mature fields tend to have some basic building blocks from which to begin. A vigorous and active dialogue about fundamental truths is vital for any field, but so too is the seeking of common ground, of building bridges and generating shared meaning. I suggest that in leadership we can, in fact, find common ground from which to begin.

A comprehensive literature review of the field of leadership studies is beyond the scope of this chapter. My assertion is simply this: despite any number of earnest attempts to wrestle with these core questions (e.g. Burns, 1978; Drath, 2001; Drath, et al., 2008; Goethals & Sorenson, 2007; Rost, 1991), the field finds itself in an all-too familiar place of patchwork narratives that function to disprove and contend with one another more often than integrate and build. My hope, here, is to provide a platform from which we can more successfully integrate and build, to identify threads that are or should be woven throughout all leadership theory and practice. I wish to deconstruct the story most often told about leadership – that of heroic individuals generating novel visions independently of their contexts and communities – and reconstruct it in such a way as to recognize our universal contexts.

One approach is to analyze the ideology of the field. Are there ideologies so entrenched that other voices have been constrained, concepts so dominant (hegemonic) as to crowd out the possibilities of alternative pathways? Senge (2006; Senge et al., 2008) has strongly made the case for both systems and sustainability, eventually integrating the two and calling “systems citizenship” (in the context of sustainability) the “leadership mandate for this millennium” (2006). Heifetz (1994, 2006), too, has contributed significantly to these emerging areas of focus, to the point that the concept of adaptive leadership was noted as central in Leadership for Environmental Sustainability (Redekop, 2010, p. 243), the first full multidisciplinary treatment of the concept. Others, including Wheatley (2006) and Uhl-Bien & Marion (2008), have received praise but still find general disengagement with their important conceptual contributions in the literature. The point here is not to call attention to all overlooked thinkers and authors (that list is indeed long), but simply to establish that there are dominant and nondominant narratives, concepts, and perspectives within leadership studies, and that critical constructionism is an important tool for generating and analyzing this map of power and ideology in the field. Applying a critical constructionist lens helps us break down the barriers that we have built – challenging our willful blindness – and just as importantly offers meaningful pathways to reconstruct more inclusive and holistic perspectives. We must better nurture the ability to unearth, question, critique, and ultimately reshape fundamental assumptions.

With the background on critical and constructionist approaches in place, let’s now attempt to establish the case for the three universal contexts: the biosphere, systems, and justice (Figure 2.1).

No matter our individual background, I assert that we share these common contexts. Even as we continually learn to more genuinely value and engage our differences, we should also become more adept at acknowledging our commonalities. This is not born out of a reductionist universalism, but instead a truth that clearly emerges when examining the biosphere, systems, and justice.

Universal Context: The Biosphere

We are, at a fundamental level, biological beings composed of numerous complex systems, interacting with our environment in the reproduction of self (Capra & Luisi, 2014; Maturana & Varela, 1987; Satterwhite, 2010). We are also highly complex beings possessing consciousness and wrestling with questions of purpose and meaning and value. We do this in community. We are taught by, learn from, rail against, and seek out the company of others. But we are not alone as a species; we are dominant but not solitary, uniquely-powerful yet strangely susceptible. We are surrounded by, embedded in, made from, and reliant upon natural systems of both organic and inorganic processes. We are deeply interconnected in ways that are fractal in nature; this interconnectedness repeated and present at deeper and deeper levels of analysis. To be clear, this interconnection is dynamic and changeable, but it is also unavoidable.

If we share these starting places, then leadership (which for this purpose is essentially how people come together and do coordinated work in order to achieve a mutually beneficial outcome), as a human activity, is necessarily built upon this common biological and interdependent foundation. Aside from any moral arguments that could – and should – be made about our larger responsibility to multiple generations or other species, our biological reality necessitates that we tend to the natural systems of which we are a part.

The responsibility to tend to our relationship with nature is as fundamental as it is shared. This idea is of course not new, but it has yet to fully seep into daily consciousness let alone the calculations of our constructed systems. Writers and thinkers calling for this fundamental reorientation abound: Wendell Berry, Henry David Thoreau, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Rachel Carson, E.O. Wilson, and countless others. Those calls are difficult to heed because they so fundamentally challenge not necessarily our beliefs, but our comfort. Our social systems and therefore our lives are typically constructed around a particular willful blindness: ignoring the true costs and unsustainable nature of our decisions and consumption habits.

In addition to the biological and ethical arguments to be made, there are also practical ones in favor of situating the study and practice of leadership squarely in its biospheric context. Shriberg (2012) makes a convincing case that “leadership skills required for sustainability closely mirror the skills needed to address other major challenges of the 21st century” (p. 469). He continues, arguing that “This shift is necessary not only because it would be good for the planet and, therefore, for the natural capital that underlies all wealth but also because this form of leadership would create fundamentally different and higher functioning organizations” (p. 477). In other words, leadership that acknowledges the biosphere as the ultimate frame in which we operate has the potential to transcend environmental sustainability and positively influence other important leadership goals that we might share.

At first glance, responsibility to natural systems may appear to be localized, but systems thinking (and modern ecological studies) teach us that we are not so separate from natural systems located at a geographical distance. Everything is connected; it is simply a matter of degree and time. This is an idea whose time has come, a reality we must now embrace and integrate. Kuenkel (2016), writes that:

The times of paralysis are over. There is a larger goal everybody can tap into. Sustainability leadership is on the agenda, yet many are afraid to make a move that pushes the comfort zone. Today, ten [or more] years farther along in our global discussion on sustainability, the answer is there: If we want to learn to lead better, we can place our leadership in the context of sustainability. Sustainability is a leadership task. It creates meaning. It creates a better world.

(p. 220)

While this book examines environmental leadership – and thereby participates in the discourse of environmental sustainability – the concept necessarily extends beyond what usually comes to mind when thinking of environmental sustainability. Edwards (2005) succinctly expands the discourse of sustainability to include the “four Es:” environment, equity, education, and economy. In doing so, many complex global (and local) challenges are linked together, helping us to better understand them as common facets of broader systems.

For these reasons, we arrive at the natural world – the biosphere – as the ultimate context within which all leadership challenges occur. Some localized leadership challenges will more explicitly incorporate the sustainability of human/natural systems as a goal than others, but to ignore the biosphere entirely is to ignore both our long-term good and a shared biological reality. With this context, I reissue a challenge in reframing leadership: “Leadership’s purpose, in any capacity, becomes nothing less than the pursuit of a just relationship with one another and the world around us” (Satterwhite, 2012, p. 582).

Universal Context: Systems

Systems are a second universal context. Meadows (2008) offers a clear starting point in defining a system: “A system is an interconnected set of elements that is coherently organized in a way that achieves something” (p. 11). The term complex systems is, in essence, simply a recognition of the interconnectedness of any particular system that we might identify with others around it (and the complex behavior of systems as a result of their interconnectedness). Our primary challenge related to this context is to reframe (i.e., expand) the way we see the world while nurturing an ability to see, read, influence, and shape systems. Toward that end and explicitly building upon Meadow’s definition referenced above, Stroh (2015) defines systems thinking as “the ability to understand these interconnections in such a way as to achieve a desired purpose” (p. 16). This, I suggest, is a fundamental challenge of leadership education and development.

One of the best starting places for seeing systems is looking inward and locally. We are surrounded by – and reliant upon – systems. We are, inescapably, made of systems ourselves (Burn, 2013; Meadows, 2008; Satterwhite, 2010). What’s more, we actively construct systems (and are frequently confounded by them) as a means to deal with complex realities. In order to move beyond this hopeless cycle of being surprised by the actions and consequences of the systems that we have created, we must learn to think and see differently, more expansively. Stroh (2015) offers important insights emerging from systems thinking that are eminently relevant to sustainability leadership: 1) The relationship between problems and their causes is indirect and not obvious. 2) We unwittingly create many of our own problems but have the ability to address them through our own behavior. 3) Most quick fixes generate unintended consequences, ultimately distancing us from our goals. 4) In order to optimize the whole, we must improve relationships among the parts. 5) Only a few key coordinated changes sustained over time will produce large systems change (p. 15). Stroh continues, suggesting that “People’s good intentions to improve social systems are often undermined when they apply conventional thinking to chronic, complex social problems” (2015, p. 16).

We live in a world shaped and defined by systems and their interplay – their interdependence – with one another. This is the second universal context of leadership and we must strive to better see and shape these systems. Any leadership that does not start here will inevitably make the mistakes of conventional thinking that Stroh warns against.

In her reflection on the development of systems thinking, Meadows (2008) writes that:

What was unique about our search was not our answers, or even our questions, but the fact that the tool of systems thinking, born out of engineering and mathematics, implemented in computers, drawn from a mechanistic mind-set and a quest for prediction and control, leads its practitioners, inexorably I believe, to confront the most deeply human mysteries … the future can’t be predicted, but it can be envisioned and brought lovingly into being.

(pp. 167–169)

Further, she writes that “Living successfully in a world of complex systems means expanding not only time horizons and thought horizons; above all, it means expanding the horizons of caring” (2008, p. 184). Systems shape our lives, and adopting a systems perspective allows us to see these systems, ultimately challenging us to expand our spheres of concern. Systems thinking is akin to falling down the rabbit hole in Alice In Wonderland: once we begin to see these systems and our interconnection/interdependencies, we cannot see the world in the same way as before.

Universal Context: Justice

As has already been named, critical theory has “progressive intentions” and, when applied to leadership, it “aims to create a better society by rethinking, rediscovering and reinventing leadership” (Western, 2013, p. 3). Western’s use of critical theory in leadership theory and practice is the same as my own: “to situate leadership within an ethical and emancipatory framework” (ibid.). He notes that “the lens of emancipation is concerned with promoting justice, equality, ethics, a sustainable environment, liberation and autonomy” (Western, 2013, p. 11). Here one can see how the universal contexts begin to weave together: using critical theory (also holding true for a critical constructionist lens) recasts the purpose of leadership to the enactment of justice and sustainability while uncovering and reshaping systems of power that hinder these goals.

Justice, of course, is not only the domain of critical theory and has been a discourse present in leadership studies for some time. The social change model of leadership (Higher Education Research Institute, 1996) is often cited as one of the most commonly used leadership models with college students both in programming and research, and it may be seen as orienting learners toward a social justice perspective. Additionally, Ospina et al. (2012) offer a strategic social change leadership model utilizing a constructionist framework and grounded humanism as the foundation. The model aims for long-term outcomes of changed structures, policies, and thinking (p. 256). Importantly, this model also clearly defines social justice as “a call for fairness and equality of opportunity for all human beings. It encompasses particular values of inclusion, social solidarity, transparency and accountability, democracy, and equity” (p. 271). Justice discourse in leadership theory can be found elsewhere as well, but it is typically treated as a special case as opposed to a universal or shared purpose.

To whatever extent the discourse of justice is present in the field, it is almost always limited to the human frame. It must now be expanded to include the biospheric level, to the non-human realm. This bridge between social and environmental justice has already been constructed using Schlosberg and Carruthers’ (2010) “pluralistic discourse of justice” and Amartya Sen’s capabilities theory approach (Satterwhite et al., 2015). It is increasingly apparent that the pursuit of justice in the human realm requires the pursuit of justice in the natural realm, and vice versa. This insight further emphasizes the interconnected nature of our three universal contexts, but it also signals a dramatic shift in the perceived contexts and purposes of leadership.

Conclusion

Paulo Freire (1970) notes that, “Knowledge emerges only through invention and re-invention, through the restless, impatient, continuing, hopeful inquiry human beings pursue in the world, with the world, and with each other” (p. 72). This chapter is a call to recognize that as we restlessly pursue knowledge about the world, with the world, with each other, we do so in the world, shaped by shared contexts and unequal power relations. Adopting a critical constructionist lens begins to unearth the ways in which leadership theory and practice have, at times overtly but often unintentionally, served the interests of the few and advanced normative ideology inconsistent with progressive goals such as shared liberation, environmental sustainability, and justice. Systems thinking helps us to expand our spheres of concern and see the ways in which we participate in – and, for some, benefit from – systems of oppression. Ultimately, I believe leadership theory and practice needs common ground to stand on and the universal contexts help us to achieve this. They are descriptive, rather than prescriptive in nature, meaning that acknowledging this reality shapes our discourse and practice while still allowing for the myriad of cultural and organizational realities that spring from this common ground.

I have made the case that the biosphere, systems, and justice are universal contexts that must be acknowledged in leadership theory and practice. These are backdrops against which we must see and measure ourselves, but they must also increasingly be foregrounded in our purpose and practice. They do not lead to a grand unified theory of leadership; rather, they provide a common language and perhaps a common set of overarching goals across the diversity of leadership theory and research. They are threads by which we might weave a more integrative tapestry of leadership. Throughout this book, you will find examples from around the world of people actively framing leadership in similar ways, throughout a variety of environments and fields of work.

Kenny Ausubel (2012), referencing David Orr’s work around ecological literacy, writes, “What all education is finally about is how we are to live in this interdependent world” (p. 189). Leadership theory and practice has the potential to help us achieve that end, but only if we are brave enough to surface and question the hidden assumptions and constraints of our cultural and discipline-based perspectives.

One caution I should offer is this: acknowledging universal contexts is not the same as leaping to a “we are all human and therefore the same” stance. If anything, the constructionist framework used here emphasizes the uniqueness inherent in each of our experiences as we interact with the world and those around us. Layer on top of that the socialization of group and cultural norms that critical theory helps unearth, and it becomes quite clear that our experiences and perspectives have not all been shaped in the same ways. Nonetheless, we have been socialized and lived our lives within these three universal contexts. Our richness and diversity springs from this common ground. My intent in making the case for universal contexts of leadership is that doing so provides a foundation from which to more effectively explore our differences while arriving at shared meaning and purpose. bell hooks (2003) notes that

Creating trust usually means finding out what it is we have in common as well as what separates us and makes us different. Lots of people fear encountering difference because they think that honestly naming it will lead to conflict … it will always be vital, necessary for us to know that we are more than our differences, that it is not just what we organically share that can connect us but what we come to have in common because we have done the work of creating community, the unity within diversity, that requires solidarity within a structure of values, beliefs, yearnings that are always beyond the body, yearning that have to do with universal spirit.

(pp. 109–110)

Much of the hard work remains in nurturing the “unity within diversity,” building shared meaning and purpose over time. In doing so, we are well served in coming to recognize our shared contexts of the biosphere, systems, and justice while adopting a critical constructionist lens. Doing so holds transformative potential for leadership theory and practice. This chapter has barely scratched the surface in exploring the full implications of these contexts; they run deep and will require our collective investment to explore, engage, and adjust our thinking and systems accordingly.

References

Alvesson, M., & Spicer, A. (2012). Critical Leadership Studies: The case for critical performativity. Human Relations, 65(3), 367–390.

Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. (1992). Critical Management Studies. London: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. (1996). Making Sense of Management: A critical introduction. London, UK: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Ausubel, K. (2012). Dreaming the Future: Reimagining civilization in the age of nature. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green.

Bronner, S. E. (2011). Critical Theory: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Brookfield, S. (2005). The Power of Critical Theory: Liberating adult learning and teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Burn, S. (2013). Seeking Alignment in the World Body: The art of embodiment. In Melina, L., Burgess, G., Falkman, L., & Marturano, A. (Eds), The Embodiment of Leadership (pp. 65–83). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Capra, F., & Luisi, P.L. (2014). The Systems View of Life: A unifying vision. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Collinson, D. (2011). Critical Leadership Studies. In A. Bryman, D. Collinson, K. Grint, B. Jackson, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds), The SAGE Handbook of Leadership (pp. 181–194). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Collinson, D. (2014). Dichotomies, Dialectics and Dilemmas: New directions for critical leadership studies? Leadership, 10(1), 36–55.

Collinson, D., & Tourish, D. (2015). Teaching Leadership Critically: New directions for leadership pedagogy. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 14(4), 576–594.

Drath, W. (2001). The Deep Blue Sea: Rethinking the source of leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Drath, W.H., McCauley, C.D., Palus, C.J., Van Velsor, E., O’Connor, P.M.G., & McGuire, J.B. (2008). Direction, Alignment, Commitment: Toward a more integrative ontology of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 635–653.

Dugan, J. (2017). Leadership Theory: Cultivating critical perspectives. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Edwards, A.R. (2005). The Sustainability Revolution: Portrait of a paradigm shift. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum.

Fulop, L., & Linstead, S. (1999). Management: A critical text. London: Macmillan.

Goethals, G., & Sorenson, G. (Eds) (2007). The Quest for a General Theory of Leadership. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Heffernan, M. (2011). Willful Blindness: Why we ignore the obvious at our peril. New York: Bloomsbury.

Heifetz, R. (1994). Leadership Without Easy Answers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Heifetz, R. (2006). Anchoring Leadership in the Work of Adaptive Progress. In F. Hesselbein, & M. Goldsmith (Eds), The Leader of the Future 2: Visions, strategies, and practices for the new era (pp. 73–84). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Higher Education Research Institute. (1996). A Social Change Model of Leadership Development: Guidebook (Version three). Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute.

hooks, bell. (2003). Teaching Community: A pedagogy of hope. New York: Routledge.

Kegan, R. (1994). In Over Our Heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Klikauer, T. (2015). Critical Management Studies and Critical Theory: A review. Capital & Class, 39(2), 197–220.

Kuenkel, P. (2016). The Art of Leading Collectively: Co-creating a sustainable, socially just future. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.

Martin, G., & Te Riele, K. (2011). A Place-based Critical Pedagogy in Turbulent Times: Restoring hope for alternative futures. In C.S. Malott and B. Porfilio (Eds), Critical Pedagogy in the Twenty-first Century: A new generation of scholars. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Maturana, H., & Varela, F. (1987). The Tree of Knowledge: The biological roots of human understanding. Boston, MA: Shambhala Publications.

Meadows, D. (2008). Thinking in Systems: A Primer. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green.

Ospina, S., Foldy, E.G., El Hadidy, W., Dodge, J., Hofmann-Pinilla, A., & Su, C. (2012). Social Change Leadership as Relational Leadership. In M. Uhl-Bien & S. Ospina (Eds), Advancing Relational Leadership Research: A dialogue among perspectives (pp. 255–302). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Ospina, S., & Sorenson, G.L.J. (2006). A Constructivist Lens on Leadership: Charting new territory. In G. Goethals & G. Sorenson (Eds), The Quest for a General Theory of Leadership (pp. 188–204). Northhampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Owen, J. (2015). Transforming Leadership Development for Significant Learning. New Directions for Student Leadership, 145, 7–17.

Preskill, S., & Brookfield, S.D. (2009). Learning as a Way of Leading: Lessons from the struggle for social justice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Redekop, B. (Ed.). (2010). Leadership for Environmental Sustainability. New York & London: Routledge.

Rost, J. (1991). Leadership for the Twenty-First Century. New York: Praeger.

Satterwhite, R. (2010). Deep Systems Leadership: A model for the 21st century. In B. Redekop (Ed.), Leadership for Environmental Sustainability (pp. 230–247). New York & London: Routledge.

Satterwhite, R. (2012). Halting the Decline: How leadership theory and practice can address global biodiversity loss. In D. Gallagher (Ed.), Environmental Leadership: A reference handbook (pp. 577–585). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Satterwhite, R., McIntyre Miller, W., & Sheridan, K. (2015). Leadership for Sustainability and Peace: Responding to the wicked challenges of the future. In M. Sowcik, A. Andenoro, M. McNutt, & S.E. Murphy (Eds), Leadership 2050: Critical challenges, key contexts, and emerging trends (pp. 59–74). Bingley: Emerald.

Satterwhite, R., Sheridan, K., & McIntyre Miller, W. (2016). Rediscovering Deep Time: Sustainability and the need to re-engage with multiple dimensions of time in leadership studies. Journal of Leadership Studies, 9(4), 47–53.

Schlosberg, D., & Carruthers, D. (2010). Indigenous Struggles, Environmental Justice, and Community Capabilities. Global Environmental Politics, 10(4), 12–35.

Senge, P. (2006). Systems Citizenship: The leadership mandate for this millennium. In F. Hesselbein & M. Goldsmith (Eds), The Leader of the Future 2: Visions, strategies, and practices for the new era (pp. 31–46). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Senge, P., Smith, B., Kruschwitz, N., Laur, J., & Schley, L. (2008). The Necessary Revolution: How individuals and organizations are working together to create a sustainable world. New York: Doubleday.

Shriberg, M. (2012). Sustainability Leadership as 21st Century Leadership. In D. Gallagher (Ed.), Environmental Leadership: A reference handbook (pp. 469–478). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Stroh, D.P. (2015). Systems Thinking for Social Change: A practical guide to solving complex problems, avoiding unintended consequences, and achieving lasting results. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.

Uhl-Bien, M., & Marion, R. (Eds) (2008). Complexity Leadership Part 1: Conceptual foundations. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Western, S. (2013). Leadership: A critical text (2nd ed.) London & Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Wheatley, M. (2006). Leadership and the New Science. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koheler.