In the leadership development sector, it is widely acknowledged that there is a gap between the theory and practice of leadership. Within the field, rapid changes in business, technology, political, and social factors have resulted in a genuine need for knowledge workers to put into practice leadership skills and to draw conclusions about the interplay between their own roles, domain, and organizational context. This article puts forward an arts–based leadership training approach that uses improvisatory theater techniques, which allows knowledge workers to engage reflexively in the concept of shared leadership. The major focus of this approach is to develop shared leadership competencies among participants, which they acquire by acting out different scenarios they are presented with. This paper argues that art–based leadership activities can be an effective means of fostering confidence, being empowered to lead and leading others through change. It argues for the need to steer away from traditional models of leadership towards a transformative model using an art–based approach. This essay also presents key features shared leadership before discussing the proposed model in greater detail.
ClarkeN. (2018). Relational leadership: Theory, practice and development. New York: Routledge.
5.
CongerJ. A., & PearceC. L. (2003). A landscape of opportunities: Future research onshared leadership. InPearceC.L., &CongerJ.A.(Eds.)Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership(pp. 285–303). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6.
CunliffeA. L. (2009). The philosopher leader: On relationalism, ethics and reflexivity – A critical perspective to teaching leadership. Management Learning, 40(1), 87–101.
7.
DessG. G., & PickenJ. C. (2000). Changing roles: Leadership in the 21st century. Organizational Dynamics, 28(3), 18–34.
8.
DigglesD. (2004). Improv for actors. New York: Allworth Press.
9.
D'InnocenzoL., MathieuJ. E., & KukenbergerM. R. (2016). A meta–analysis of different forms of shared leadership–team performance relations. Journal of Management42(7), 1964–1991.
10.
ElmD. R., & TaylorS. S. (2010). Representing wholeness: Learning via theatrical productions. Journal of Management Inquiry, 19(2), 127–136.
11.
FletcherJ. K., & KauferK. (2003). Shared leadership, paradox and possibility. InPearceC.L., &CongerJ.A.(Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership (pp. 21–47). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12.
FrostA., & YarrowR. (2015). Improvisation in drama, theater and performance: History, practice, theory. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
13.
GagnonS., VoughH. C., & NickersonR. (2012). Learning to lead, unscripted: Developing affiliative leadership through improvisational theater. Human Resource Development Review, 11(3), 299–325.
14.
GaravanT. N., McGarryA., WatsonS., D'Annunzio–GreenN., & O'BrienF. (2015). The impact of arts–based leadership development on leader mind–set: A field experiment. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 17(3), 391–407.
15.
GhoshalS. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 75–91.
16.
JacksonB., & ParryK. (2008). A very short, fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book about studying leadership. London, England: Sage.
17.
KerrC., & LloydC. (2008). Pedagogical learnings for management education: Developing creativity and innovation. Journal of Management & Organization, 14(5), 486–503.
18.
KolbD. A. (2014). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. New Jersey: FT Press.
19.
KouzesJ. M., & PosnerB. Z. (2002). Seven Lessons for Leading the Voyage to the Future. In GravesS. R. & AddingtonT. G. (Eds.), Life @ Work on Leadership (pp. 77–88). San Francisco: Jossey–Bass.
20.
LadkinD., & TaylorS. S. (2010). Leadership as art: Variations on a theme. Leadership, 6(3), 235–241.
21.
LeonardK., & YortonT. (2015). Yes, and: How improvisation reverses “No, But” thinking and improves creativity and collaboration – Lessons from the Second City. New York: HarperBusiness.
22.
MezirowJ. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New directions for adult and continuing education, 1997(74), 5–12.
23.
ParushT., & KoivunenN. (2014). Paradoxes, double binds, and the construction of ‘creative’ managerial selves in art–based leadership development. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 30(1), 104–113.
24.
PearceC. L., & CongerJ. A. (Eds.) (2003). Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
25.
PearceC. L., & CongerJ. A. (2002). All those years ago: The historical underpinnings of shared leadership. InPearceC. L., &CongerJ. A.(Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership (pp. 1–18). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
26.
PearceC. L., & SimsH. P.Jr. (2000). Shared leadership: Toward a multi–level theory of leadership. In BeyerleinM. M., JohnsonD. A., & BeyerleinS. T. (Eds.), Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams (pp. 115–139). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
27.
PearceC. L., & SimsH. P.Jr. (2002). The relative influence of vertical vs. shared leadership on the longitudinal effectiveness of change management teams. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6(2), 172–197.
28.
PearceC. L. (2007). The future of leadership development: The importance of identity, multi–level approaches, self–leadership, physical fitness, shared leadership, networking, creativity, emotions, spirituality and on–boarding processes. Human Resource Management Review, 17(4), 355–359.
29.
PearceC. L. (2004). The future of leadership: Combining vertical and shared leadership to transform knowledge work. The Academy of Management Executive, 18(1), 47–57.
