innovation (the object of our own research), we describe it in some detail to explore its possibilities and limitations. 4.2.1 A constructionist critique to leadership studies of social innovation Recent innovation studies in the leadership literature take a relational stance to explore how leader’s and followers’ cognition (e.g. information processing and strategic thinking), influence social innovation (Mumford et al. 2003; Marcy 2015; Marcy & Mumford 2007; Hansen-Turton & Torres 2014). The research asks what cognitive frameworks guide the thinking and actions of leaders, identifying problem-solving mental schema. In the case of social innovation, this implies creating new configurations of interpersonal and social interactions to advance common goals (Marcy & Mumford 2007). Scholars have identified cognitive tools that leaders use to effectively foster and develop social innovations: diagnostics for scanning, mental shortcuts to address complexity, and causal analysis. Leaders who use these, effectively leverage information already present in their minds as they confront complex challenges (Marcy & Mumford 2007). (2015) moves the agenda closer to our own by connecting the individual, organizational and societal levels of analysis in his study of radical innovation. He argues that doing so may advance knowledge of the role of leadership because it broadens the scope to situations aiming at disruptive changes in relations [involving] a challenge to established ‘social status, power and values’ (Marcy 2015: 371). Building on prior research, Marcy studies five cases of radical social innovation (led by the founding member of the Situationist International, Guy Debord), asking how the leader used cognitions to implement socially innovative ideas at the societal level. Nine propositions articulated from received theory are tested qualitatively to identify cognitive approaches of effective leaders in radical social innovations. In contrast to incremental social innovators, Marcy argues, radical leaders hold more disparate knowledge structures, engage more in sense breaking tactics, are more critical of elite status, values and goals, and are able to make more creative contributions to social problem solving. In addition, radical innovators incorporate elite and public understanding of the issues in their mental models, use themselves and their teams as projects’, have experienced a ‘demonstration catalyst event that allows them to develop alternative mental models, hold multiple interpretations of causal variables within the system and are more critical of it, and leverage informational and expertise power to influence followers and the public.
innovation (the object of our own research), we describe it in some detail to explore its possibilities and limitations. 4.2.1 A constructionist critique to leadership studies of social innovation Recent innovation studies in the leadership literature take a relational stance to explore how leader’s and followers’ cognition (e.g. information processing and strategic thinking), influence social innovation (Mumford et al. 2003; Marcy 2015; Marcy & Mumford 2007; Hansen-Turton & Torres 2014). The research asks what cognitive frameworks guide the thinking and actions of leaders, identifying problem-solving mental schema. In the case of social innovation, this implies creating new configurations of interpersonal and social interactions to advance common goals (Marcy & Mumford 2007). Scholars have identified cognitive tools that leaders use to effectively foster and develop social innovations: diagnostics for scanning, mental shortcuts to address complexity, and causal analysis. Leaders who use these, effectively leverage information already present in their minds as they confront complex challenges (Marcy & Mumford 2007). (2015) moves the agenda closer to our own by connecting the individual, organizational and societal levels of analysis in his study of radical innovation. He argues that doing so may advance knowledge of the role of leadership because it broadens the scope to situations aiming at disruptive changes in ‘social relations [involving] a challenge to established status, power and values’ (Marcy 2015: 371). Building on prior research, Marcy studies five cases of radical social innovation (led by the founding member of the Situationist International, Guy Debord), asking how the leader used cognitions to implement socially innovative ideas at the societal level. Nine propositions articulated from received theory are tested qualitatively to identify cognitive approaches of effective leaders in radical social innovations. In contrast to incremental social innovators, Marcy argues, radical leaders hold more disparate knowledge structures, engage more in sense breaking tactics, are more critical of elite status, values and goals, and are able to make more creative contributions to social problem solving. In addition, radical innovators incorporate elite and public understanding of the issues in their mental models, use themselves and their teams as ‘demonstration projects’, have experienced a catalyst event that allows them to develop alternative mental models, hold multiple interpretations of causal variables within the system and are more critical of it, and leverage informational and expertise power to influence followers and the public.
Ch.%204_Democratic%20Leadership_Pares%2C%20Ospina%20%26%20Subirats.docx