We take the view, along with Gibney et al (2009), Mabey and Freeman (2010), Guthey et al (2014) and Ropo et al (2015) that place is too important a component of leadership to continue to be side-lined in public leadership research and development. For both leaders and leadership researchers, place is ‘a satisfying, humane, and responsible way by which to approach larger questions of environmental prudence and social justice’ (Light & Smith, 1998). Put even more poignantly, ‘place literally brings the flighty realms of leadership theory down to earth (Grint and Holt, 2011, p.97).
In this paper we argue that we need to go beyond simply recognising the influence that place or more broadly, context, exerts on leadership to identifying the various ways in which place actively shapes leadership practice and vice versa. Collinge et al. note that ‘there is no overarching theory of the leadership of place and only relatively limited empirical work done to date’ (2010, p. 368). Responding to this challenge, we argue that the connection between Leadership and Place is an interdependent relationship that is actively forged by leaders and followers through inclusive and exclusive means and for both responsible and irresponsible ends.
Viewed this way, place can act as both an enabler and a constraint of leadership. It provides a potent strategic resource as the basis for forging a common identity, purpose and direction. Less desirably, place can be delineated to define what is one’s ‘own’ and who the ‘outsiders’ are (Benington & Turbitt, 2007). By the same token, place is at least partially shaped by leadership. A key task of leadership is to redefine a shared understanding of place by persuading others that the current place they occupy is either undesirable, untenable or unsustainable and needs to be re-placed.
To move place-based leadership work forward we present a conceptual framework for examining the ways in the relationship between leadership and place might be explored at a variety of levels (i.e. community, city, regional, national and supra-national). This relationship is scrutinised for its instrumental, ethical and aesthetic qualities.
The framework identifies the following relationships: the influence that place has on guiding individual leaders in how they create leadership (i.e. Leadership From Place); the use of place to unite and divide groups (i.e. Leadership For Place and Leadership Against Place); the type of leadership processes that have to be created in order for groups to respond to particular geographic challenges (e.g. climatic, geological, geomorphic, geopolitical) posed by the place in which they are located (Leadership in Response to Place); and the type of leadership that is created when a group consciously decides to make their place they share the focus of their leadership purpose (Leadership With Place).
These relationships and their sub-variants are illustrated through the deployment of specific place-based leadership case studies at community. The paper closes by laying out key areas for further theoretical refinement, addressing the more pressing methodological challenges; and identifying opportunities and priorities for empirical inquiry.
References: On Request.
