This book offers innovative approaches to leadership from a post-industrial and ecological vantage point. Chapters in this collection are informed by a variety of global and critical perspectives, including post-heroic approaches, systems thinking, and the emerging insights of Critical Leadership Studies (CLS). It builds on previous scholarly work in the growing field of environmental leadership to examine in critical detail the challenges and possibilities of leadership aimed at fostering a more just and sustainable world. By taking the natural environment seriously as a foundational context for leadership, Innovation in Environmental Leadership offers fresh insights and compelling visions of leadership pertinent to the post-modern world.

An important aim of this book is to foster understanding and practice of environmental leadership as promoting the flourishing of both the natural environment and humanity within its natural home. Values such as social justice, peace, equality, emancipation, and human rights are thus integral to the discussion (Satterwhite et al., 2015). This collection furthermore reinforces and develops the emerging insight that the biosphere is the ultimate context for all forms of leadership, and that placing leadership into its environmental context transforms and enriches our understanding of leadership in all sectors of human experience. It therefore advances the study and practice of leadership beyond the industrial, managerial, and extractive contexts in which it first took shape while providing direction for those who wish to reconceptualize and redirect leadership for the benefit of all.

Until very recently, the notion that “leadership” as a general construct had anything to do with concern for the natural environment was not widely held in the field of leadership studies (see the literature review in Redekop, 2010, pp. 2–6). This has begun to change, with the recent publication of comprehensive works that situate leadership within its environmental and ecological contexts, including, for example, Western’s Leadership: A Critical Text (2008/2013 – discussed further below), Gallagher’s Environmental Leadership: A Reference Handbook (2012), Stober et al.’s Nature-Centered Leadership (2013), and a variety of journal articles and book chapters.

The present volume is in some respects a sequel to Leadership for Environmental Sustainability (Redekop, 2010), the first multi-disciplinary edited collection to foreground “leadership” as a construct imbued with environmental implications. That work, like Environmental Leadership: A Reference Handbook, did not stipulate any particular theoretical or disciplinary perspective, beyond acknowledging the inherent connections and linkages between widely accepted notions of “leadership” and concern for the natural world as the ultimate context for human life and flourishing. The present volume continues the discussion by consciously developing critical, post-heroic, and global perspectives on environmental leadership. In what follows, we briefly highlight the theoretical contours and goals of this book, before introducing individual chapters.

Modern Conceptions of Leadership and the Critical Response

As stated by Western (2013), and echoed by others (e.g. Evans, 2011; Sinclair, 2007; Wilson, 2016), the dominant modern discourses of leadership have taken shape largely from the world of business, industry, and commerce, and are fundamentally “instrumentalist” in orientation, aimed at maximizing profit and efficiency at the expense of all else, including social and environmental well-being (Western, 2013, pp. 7–8). In other words, modern conceptions of leadership arose in concert with what has turned out to be an environmentally unsustainable socio-economic world system, and reflect the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of that system. This is not to say that modern industry is the only context in which the study and practice of leadership have been salient, only that it has been – and continues to be – a highly influential context for the study, practice, and development of “leadership” as a construct.

Since business schools and the larger world of business and industry have been highly active and influential in how we understand and practice leadership, it comes as no surprise that the most stringent criticisms of modern conceptions of leadership have come from the same sector (see for example the literature review in Alvesson & Spicer, 2012). Arising in the wake of Critical Management Studies (CMS), Critical Leadership Studies (CLS) has emerged for the most part out of business schools. According to Collinson (2011), writing in the SAGE Handbook of Leadership, CLS denotes “broad, diverse and heterogenous perspectives that share a concern to critique the power relations and identity constructions through which leadership dynamics are often reproduced, frequently rationalized, sometimes resisted and occasionally transformed” (p. 181).

CLS critiques essentialist, heroic, and dualistic understandings of leadership, suggesting instead dialectical approaches that acknowledge follower agency and the realities of power and complexity in human and organizational dynamics (Collinson, 2014; Collinson & Tourish, 2015; Dugan, 2017; Sinclair, 2007; Wilson, 2016). It draws on critical theory (including, importantly, the works of Michel Foucault) to foreground the power/knowledge nexus in social and organizational life, and the hidden and varied ways that those in positions of authority exercise dominance and hegemony, as well as the existence of resistance and nonconformity. It suggests that dominant modern leadership discourses ignore and/or repress the complex power dynamics at play in organizational life, assuming instead consensus and compliance even when they are not present, and ignoring the roles of followers and followership in shaping the leadership process. “Proposing a more nuanced approach to leader and follower power, influence, and agency, critical [leadership] courses re-conceptualise leadership as a co-constructed, asymmetrical and shifting dynamic characterized by complex situated and mutually-reinforcing relations between leaders and followers” (Collinson & Tourish, 2015, p. 577).

A fundamental component of CLS is a strong social/cultural constructivism and critique of essentialism, with CLS scholars holding that “leadership,” as a social and cultural construct, is in fact highly dependent upon, and interwoven with, embodied and contextual factors. At the same time, however, what gets mentioned as relevant contexts in these studies normally does not include the natural environment (see for example Collinson, 2011; Collinson, 2014; Collinson & Tourish, 2015; Dugan, 2017; Sinclair, 2007), except occasionally as an afterthought (Wilson, 2016, p. 209). “Context” is often discussed by leadership scholars mainly in reference to cultural context (e.g., Jackson & Parry, 2011, pp. 69–94). Thus, although leadership scholars have for some time been drawing attention to the importance of contextual factors in shaping and conditioning the nature of leadership and the process (e.g., Osborn et al., 2002), even critical theorists and students of the field remain blind to the natural environment as an important – if not the ultimate – context for leadership.

Leadership scholar Barbara Kellerman, in seeking to take context seriously as a factor in leadership (Kellerman, 2015), consigns her discussion of the natural environment to a journalistic chapter on climate change toward the end of her book, and leaves unchallenged the leader-centric focus of the “leadership industry” that she so resolutely criticizes in other texts (e.g., Kellerman, 2012). Kellerman treats “the environment” from within the dominant paradigm of heroic leaders who simply need to be well-informed and well-intentioned in order for positive change to occur, rather than embedding contextual factors like the natural environment into a critique and reconceptualization of “the leadership industry,” of which her many works must be counted a part. The result is a repetition of some of the well-known facts and challenges of climate change, combined with boilerplate blandishments for industry leaders to pay more attention to the issue, “manage” others to stop degrading the environment, and plan for the future particularly via the provision of renewable energy (Kellerman, 2015, pp. 223–232).

Thus, both mainstream and critical theorists tend to be myopic when it comes to the foundational role of the natural environment in our lives and leadership. The CLS focus on the socio-cultural construction of leadership ignores the fact that we all inhabit a physical/natural universe that is in the end not a human construction – at least not in its fundamental features. One can certainly argue that our understandings and conceptions of “nature” are at some level social/cultural constructions and that the human–natural system is a “hybrid” of nature and culture; but we do not “construct” the physical world and the laws of nature that govern it any more than we are able to avoid death or change the fact that spewing large quantities of CO₂ into the atmosphere results in global warming.

To take any other view is to succumb to the modern technocratic optimism that has thus far only dug us deeper into ecological crisis, and which has produced unsustainable conceptions of leadership (for discussion of the latter see especially Chapters 1 and 4 in this volume). And to focus solely on human emancipation as the paramount goal of leadership (e.g., Alvesson & Spicer, 2012; Sinclair, 2007), laudable as it may be, is simply to perpetuate the anthropocentrism that is ultimately behind our degradation of the natural world. It should not be a revolutionary statement to say that a normative conception of “leadership” aims not only at human emancipation, but also includes larger and more inclusive ideals about the flourishing of all life on this wondrous and life-filled planet. The causes and effects of human leadership extend to the nonhuman lifeworld; any factory or plantation led by a titan of industry or agriculture that pollutes the biosphere is an example of this proposition.

It is therefore a goal of this collection to broaden CLS to include the natural environment as a fundamental – and neglected – context for thinking critically about leadership. Just as powerful, “heroic” leaders can easily dominate followers and repress healthy resistance and feedback (Collinson, 2011, p. 185; Collinson & Tourish, 2015, pp. 588–589), so can they also dominate the natural world, repressing the important feedback that it has to offer. We suggest that CLS needs to broaden its scope to the wider nonhuman world as a locus for leader domination as well as healthy feedback and resistance. In other words, the “dialectical approach” of CLS (Collinson, 2011, p. 184) needs to include nonhuman actors – and forms of life – in the dialectics of leadership. That such a conclusion logically follows from the CLS critique of leadership as traditionally conceived is demonstrated in that Wilson (2016) belatedly calls for the development of “environmental leadership” at the conclusion to her extended critique of leadership as conceived and taught in business schools (p. 209).

The Eco-Leadership Paradigm: Critical Leadership Studies Meets Ecology

Simon Western is one of the few critical theorists who has advanced a comprehensive social, historical, contextual, and dialectical analysis of the evolution of modern leadership discourse. As such, it takes full account of the natural environment as the ultimate frame, context, and ground for leadership (Western, 2013; see also Western, 2010, and Chapter 3 in this volume). According to Western, there are four historical yet overlapping modern discourses of leadership: Controller (Scientific Management), Therapist (the Human Relations movement), Messiah (Transformational and other forms of “heroic” leadership), and Eco-leadership (Systemic, ethical, distributed leadership models).

Eco-leadership, according to Western, is an emerging discourse that has become salient in the early 21st century in the face of a wide range of emerging trends and dilemmas – the rise of social movements and the quest for environmental sustainability not least among them. The eco-leadership discourse (or “paradigm” – Western uses both terms) is however not simply an “environmental” discourse applicable only to the natural environment, but rather an all-encompassing way of talking and thinking ultimately rooted in ecological and systems-thinking but applicable to all forms of social and organizational life. If the early 20th century era of the “Controller” discourse was rooted in machine metaphors, the 21st century “Eco-leadership” discourse is rooted in ecological metaphors, for obvious reasons: we are being forced to come to terms with the larger ecological system of which we are but a part, which our machines have been steadily altering, impairing, transforming, and destroying.

The emerging eco-leadership discourse “is characterized by new understandings of organizations as ecosystems within ecosystems. The focus is on networks, connectivity, and interdependence, where new forms of distributed leadership occur within organizations, and new connections with stakeholders and wider society takes place. Ethics is at the heart of eco-leadership” (Western, 2013, p. 4). Whether or not we are aware of it, we are increasingly thinking, talking, and acting within the realm of this discourse, since discourses shape and frame what is “thinkable.” The various forms and types of leadership thinking that undermine the dominant paradigm of heroic visionary leaders transforming their organizations and followers can be located within this discourse, regardless of any one theorist’s ecological concern. The aim of the present work, and others like it, is to bring to the surface the systemic environmental and ecological dimensions and implications of this discourse. According to Western, “‘Ecology is not the exclusive domain of the environmentalist’ (Hasdell, 2008: 99), and the ecosystems I refer to are not only natural ecosystems, they are also hybrids, made up of nature, technology and the human/social. Eco-leadership therefore is not exclusive to environmental leadership, but applies to all leadership” (2013, pp. 244–245).

Readers who consult Western’s work will thus find a fully grounded critical theory, with attention paid to social, political, historical, economic, psychological, and therapeutic elements, in intimate relation and interaction with the ecological systems and processes that sustain and support all life on this earth. Western’s contribution has thus been to connect CLS to the natural environment, embedding the insights of CLS within a constructive vision of what leadership can and should look like in the 21st century, and providing a historical and conceptual framework for understanding it and how we got here. As such his work represents one of the most fully-developed critical theories of environmental leadership currently available, and it informs the present collection.

However, to highlight Western’s work does not mean that a variety of other thinkers have not also begun to explore the deep connections between post-heroic, critical conceptions of leadership and ecological concerns and perspectives; and this volume is offered as a state-of-the-art collection of some of the best recent thinking on this topic. Readers will find a series of stimulating, readable chapters that range across the spectrum of scholarly disciplines, devoted to critical exploration of relationships and connections between “leadership” and the natural world. In addition, readers will notice different emphases and perspectives at work: for example, some contributors focus more on leadership, while others focus more on followership; some are highly theoretical, others more praxis-oriented. Some chapters are more personal and oriented toward individual consciousness and self-development, while others are more sociological and outward-looking. A number of the chapters have an international/global dimension, and many of the chapters weave empirical data into their analyses. The chapter sequence flows from more overtly critical/theoretical pieces to more praxis-oriented and empirical studies, culminating in chapters that emphasize more personal and spiritual/philosophical perspectives. We suggest that reading the chapters in order will provide a rich and unfolding sequence of ideas, data, and reflections on environmental leadership.

Finally, it is our contention that while critical perspectives can help illuminate the contours of post-heroic forms of leadership that are attuned not only to social but also environmental justice, it would be naïve to dismiss the role of powerful positional leaders in all walks of life, and thus a critically informed pragmatism is in order: there is unlikely to be one single form or conception of “leadership” that is “the” answer. The best critical theory is not simply deconstructive but also reconstructive, leveling the playing field so that new and diverse perspectives and understandings can emerge alongside – and perhaps help transform – existing ones, and it is our hope that this volume can play a constructive role in this process.

Chapter Descriptions

In Chapter 1, “The Seven Unsustainabilities of Mainstream Leadership,” Jem Bendell, Richard Little, and Neil Sutherland argue that the prevailing leadership imaginary, so far from supporting the transition to a sustainable society and economy, may actually hinder it and be itself unsustainable. This is because it depends on the discoursal maintenance of power relations and a narrow range of organizing possibilities, and may thus discourage or disable more collective, collaborative, or distributed forms of leadership, deliberation, organizing, and problem-solving. Drawing on the field of Critical Leadership Studies (CLS), the authors integrate these critiques by outlining “seven unsustainabilities” of mainstream leadership thinking, and the antidotes that are relevant to sustainability, before offering a definition of sustainable leadership and outlining some potential implications for the future of research, practice and education.

Chapter 2, “A Case for Universal Contexts: Intersections of the Biosphere, Systems, and Justice Using a Critical Constructionist Lens,” by Rian Satterwhite, examines the natural intersections between the biosphere, systems, and justice, and their role as universal contexts for leadership. Utilizing critical theory and constructionist perspectives, Satterwhite suggests that leadership theory and practice need common ground to stand upon and that acknowledging these universal contexts helps to achieve this. They are descriptive rather than prescriptive in nature, meaning that acknowledging their reality shapes our discourse and practice while still allowing space for the myriad of cultural and organizational realities that spring from this common ground. Satterwhite argues that this approach does not lead to a grand unified theory of leadership; rather, it provides a common language and a common set of overarching goals across the diversity of leadership theory, research, and practice.

In “The Eco-Leadership Paradox” (Chapter 3), Simon Western examines some of the challenges and paradoxes faced by those desiring to introduce Eco-leadership into their organizations. For example, leaders can revert to “Messiah” or “Controller” leadership in seeking to bring Eco-leadership into an organization. In response to this paradox, Western develops the idea that Eco-leadership is a “Meta-Discourse” that allows us to understand and deploy previously dominant leadership discourses in a useful fashion, and he explores the deep ideological underpinnings of prevailing leadership discourses – which he characterizes as “Individualism-More” – and the need for the development of a new ideology of “Network-Ethics.” Doing so helps to productively engage with the paradoxes that can arise when an attempt is made to move from “Controller,” “Therapist,” and “Messiah” discourses to Eco-leadership, a radically different approach to leadership.

In Chapter 4, “Sustainable Leadership: Toward Restoring the Human and Natural Worlds,” Tina Lynn Evans asks: “Can we develop leadership today that is not inherently corrupt and manipulative? Can we organize people effectively within systems of leadership and participation in order to (re)cast societies into forms that nurture and justly serve people and nature simultaneously?” In answering these and other questions, Evans argues that sustainability cannot be achieved in the absence of social justice because social injustice derives from the same mindset – the same narrow instrumentalist orientation to the world and others – that fuels environmental destruction. To pursue sustainability through manipulative and exploitive means would entail creating new systems of domination that would feed the creation of new, unsustainable systems. Rather, Evans makes several claims: 1) sustainable leadership is centrally defined by the purposes it serves; 2) sustainable leadership embodies a fitting response to the socio-ecological challenges implicated in the decisions and actions taken; 3) sustainable leadership is integrative and ultimately place-centered; 4) everyone must have access to serve as a leader; 5) leadership must be actively developed in everyone in a sustainable society; and 6) sustainable leadership engages imperfectly in processes of long-term cultural change.

Heretofore, there have been few, if any, empirical studies linking an ecological approach to leadership with organizational success. In “Eco-Leadership, Complexity Science, and 21st-Century Organizations: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis” (Chapter 5), D. Adam Cletzer and Eric K. Kaufman address this gap by offering empirical findings, informed by complexity science and systems theory, supporting the claim that an ecological approach will lead to more adaptive organizations that have greater success over time. They first discuss the promise of complexity science in leadership studies and the 21st century organization as an ecological system, before turning to their empirical findings and discussion of what an eco-leader might do to help their organization to become truly ecological in form and function.

In Chapter 6, “Toward an Understanding of the Relationship Between the Study of Leadership and the Natural World,” Robert M. McManus proposes that leadership scholars must more fully incorporate the natural world into their understanding of leadership if we are to better understand the leadership process. Building upon the Five Components of Leadership Model advanced by McManus and Perruci in Understanding Leadership: An arts and humanities Perspective (2015), McManus proposes that the natural world be conceived as playing a role equal to the other five components of the model, resulting in a more capacious definition of leadership: “Leadership is the process by which leaders and followers develop a relationship and work together toward a goal (or goals) within a context shaped by cultural values and norms, and functions within and is constrained by the natural world.” Echoing the biologist E.O. Wilson, McManus concludes that “Perhaps the time has also come to cease calling the incorporation of the natural world into the process of leadership simply ‘environmental leadership’ and start calling it real-world leadership.”

Chapter 7, “The Unseen Revolution: Leadership for Sustainability in the Tropical Biosphere,” by Paul Kosempel, Linda G. Olson, and Filiberto Penados, explores sustainability leadership efforts that are quietly taking place in the tropical biosphere in Belize. The authors answer the call to examine leadership efforts in the “majority world,” and to understand how these leadership efforts reflect the concerns and perspectives of critical approaches to leadership studies. Friends for Conservation and Development, Long Caye at Lighthouse Reef Atoll, and The Nature Conservancy-Belize are three such efforts that make significant contributions to sustainable development within the tropical biosphere. Their work is largely unseen by the larger world, but is essential to their nation and our world, and provides examples of eco-leadership in practice.

The following three chapters turn our attention to leadership in the context of climate change. In Chapter 8, “Heroes No More: Businesses Practice Collaborative Leadership to Confront Climate Change,” Deborah Rigling Gallagher details the efforts of United Nations Global Compact (UNGC) members to perform collaborative environmental leadership and engage in climate policy development at the global level under the auspices of the UNGC’s Caring for Climate (C4C) platform. The author attended a series of UNGC meetings from 2013–2015, interacting with attendees to uncover the ways in which environmental leadership practice evolved and to knit together a working theory of collaborative environmental leadership. The chapter begins with an overview of the history and structure of the United Nations Global Compact as a transnational public–private partnership and agent of environmental leadership. The Caring for Climate platform is then detailed. This sets the stage for a larger consideration of how UNGC members engaged collaboratively in two C4C initiatives, Responsible Corporate Engagement in Climate Policy and Carbon Pricing Leadership, and were thereby instrumental in facilitating the landmark 2015 Paris Climate Agreement.

In “Climate Change Leadership: From Tragic to Comic Discourse” (Chapter 9), Benjamin W. Redekop and Morgan Thomas begin their analysis with an overview of the first-generation climate leadership of Al Gore, James Hansen, and Bill McKibben, whom they characterize as propounding a “tragic” and “catastrophizing” discourse. It then moves to analysis of interviews with 14 second-generation climate leaders from the US, Canada, Mexico, the Philippines, Hungary, South Africa, Taiwan, and Australia, contextualized by recent academic research on this topic. The authors suggest that this second generation of climate leaders offers a more “comic” discourse that acknowledges the tragic consequences of inaction but tends to avoid catastrophizing rhetoric, appealing to a sense of hope and possibility despite limited progress on this issue. They show that despite significant variations in approach and emphasis, interviewees generally lend credence to Western’s conception of an emerging eco-leadership discourse (discussed above, and at greater length in Chapter 3).

In “Followers’ Self-Perception of Their Role in Addressing Climate Change: A Cultural Comparison” (Chapter 10), David J. Brown and Robert M. McManus report on survey data collected over the past four years as part of a travel class they have taught on conservation and leadership in Central America. While traveling, the class administered surveys in Costa Rica and Belize based upon a survey that was conducted in the United States in 2007 (Yale Environmental Poll, 2007). The authors first examine three portions of the survey that are directly linked to followership and the role followers play in understanding and addressing the problem of climate change, before putting the findings into cultural, educational, economic, and media context. The relevance of climate change to followers, and the role of followers in addressing climate change, are then discussed, followed by the authors’ conclusions. Throughout the chapter, survey data from Costa Rica, Belize, and the United States is analyzed in a comparative fashion, and provisional explanations for differences between the three countries are advanced. This comparative perspective allows for a broader understanding of why climate change in the United States is more controversial and not as well understood as in most other countries in the world. Here, as in other chapters in this volume, there is much to be learned about environmental leadership and followership from people in the “majority world” (Kosempel et al., Chapter 7).

In Chapter 11, “Ending the Drought: Nurturing Environmental Leadership in Ethiopia,” Fentahun Mengistu, Girma Shimelis, and Vachel Miller argue that the intensified severity of environmental problems and their social justice implications call for a new kind of leadership attuned to the interconnections of ecology and social equity as integral to national development. In a country like Ethiopia where rapid economic growth has become a coveted (and often unchallenged) prize, they suggest that leadership across the institutional landscape should be reoriented toward concern for ecological responsibility and social justice. As such, they favor a locally-grounded approach to environmental leadership, anchored in the economic, social, cultural, political, and religious limitations and possibilities of particular places. Their analysis challenges a sometimes assumed ideal in environmentally oriented leadership discourse of an “eco-champion” leader who can operate fluidly in an unbounded (or undefined) cultural/geographic space.

“We Don’t Conquer Mountains, We Understand Them: Embedding Indigenous Education in Australian Outdoor Education” (Chapter 12), by Shawn Andrews, provides a compelling personal narrative demonstrating how Andrews embeds lessons about Indigenous Australian history and culture into outdoor experiences run by the company he founded, Indigicate. Andrews highlights the importance of forging “connection” between leaders and participants as they tell their stories in outdoor settings. By doing so, participants are linked to each other, the natural environment, and the history of aboriginal peoples who were on the land long before the arrival of European colonists. Andrews suggests that when leaders share their story and lead from a position of connection to self, community, and the environment, they are able to immerse groups in that connection. Their connection-driven leadership opens the senses and provides a platform for the individual to engage in new sights, sounds, and feelings.

In Chapter 13, “Critical Internal Shifts for Sustainable Leadership,” Kathleen E. Allen explores the “interior work” of environmental leadership, examining critical internal shifts to value systems and deep motivations for integrating sustainable leadership practices into our personal and organizational lives. She identifies four “worldview shifts” needed for environmental leaders: 1) from seeing our organizations and communities as closed systems to seeing them as open systems; 2) from a worldview of separation to one that recognizes our connection and interdependence with other beings; 3) from short-term to long-term thinking; and 4) from seeing our organizations and our environment as inert systems to seeing them as living systems. The chapter draws out the implications of these shifts and concludes with a discussion of strategies that can be used to help an individual shift their worldviews.

The final chapter, “From Peril to Possibility: Restorative Leadership for a Sustainable Future” (Chapter 14), by Seana Lowe Steffen, suggests that achieving a sustainable and peaceful coexistence of all living beings in the biosphere will require that we answer this ultimate leadership question: How do we bring out the best of our diverse humanity to ensure a sustainable future? For Steffen, the emergence of “restorative leadership” offers a response. This chapter draws on research and interview data showcasing underrepresented voices across a range of geographic and sector engagement. In addition to the international women’s coalition WECAN and its members such as Amazon Watch (an indigenous rights advocacy organization), insights are illustrated by a rural community in the United States (Greensburg, Kansas), scientific leadership representing the voiceless interests of nature (biologist Janine Benyus and oceanographer Sylvia Earle), and the INGO Tostan. Findings illuminate the paradigm of restorative leadership and highlight practices that translate to remarkable outcomes including the establishment of marine protected areas, arresting deforestation, evolving sustainable design innovation, and thriving out of natural disaster. As such, the chapter provides a hopeful and inspiring valediction to this collection.

The Conclusion briefly reviews and synthesizes some of the main themes and ideas presented in this collection. However, we expect that readers will come to their own conclusions as well, and that this collection will foster continued discussion, debate, reflection, and action that helps to build a more just and sustainable world for all of its inhabitants.

The Editors

References

Alvesson, M., & Spicer, A. (2012). Critical Leadership Studies: The Case for Critical Performativity. Human Relations, 65(3), pp. 367–390.

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), pp. 36–55.

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

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

Evans, T. (2011). Leadership Without Domination? Toward Restoring the Human and Natural World. Journal of Sustainability Education, 2(March), pp. 1–16. www.jsedimensions.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Evans2011.pdf.

Gallagher, D. (2012). Environmental Leadership: A Reference Handbook (2 vols.). Los Angeles, CA & London: Sage Publications, Inc.

Jackson, B., & Parry, K. (2011). A Very Short, Fairly Interesting and Reasonably Cheap Book about Studying Leadership (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA & London: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Kellerman, B. (2012). The End of Leadership. New York: HarperCollins.

Kellerman, B. (2015). Hard Times: Leadership in America. Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books.

McManus, R. M., & Perruci, G. (2015). Understanding Leadership: An Arts and Humanities Perspective. Abingdon: Routledge.

Osborn, R., Hunt, J., & Jauch, L. (2002). Toward a Contextual Theory of Leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 797–837.

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

Satterwhite, R., McIntyre Miller, W., & Sheridan, K. (2015). Leadership for Sustainability and Peace: Responding to the Wicked Challenges of the Future. In M. Sowcik et al. (Eds), Leadership 2050: Critical Challenges, Key Contexts, and Emerging Trends (pp. 59–74). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.

Sinclair, S. (2007). Leadership for the Disillusioned: Moving Beyond Myths and Heroes to Leading that Liberates. Crows News, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

Stober, S., Brown, T., & Cullen, S. (2013). Nature-Centered Leadership: An Aspirational Narrative. Champaign, IL: Common Ground Publishing LLC.

Western, S. (2010). Eco-Leadership: Towards the Development of a New Paradigm. In B. Redekop (Ed.), Leadership for Environmental Sustainability (pp. 36–54). New York & London: Routledge.

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

Wilson, S. (2016). Thinking Differently About Leadership: A Critical History of Leadership Studies. Cheltenham & Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Yale Environmental Poll. (2007). Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy (undertaken by Global Strategy Group). In the authors’ possession. For a summary, see: http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/american-opinions-on-global-warming/.