The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Critical leadership studies: The case for critical performativity
Abstract
Existing accounts of leadership are underpinned by two dominant approaches: functionalist studies, which have tried to identify correlations between variables associated with leadership; and interpretive studies, which have tried to trace out the meaning-making process associated with leadership. Eschewing these approaches, we turn to an emerging strand of literature that develops a critical approach to leadership. This literature draws our attention to the dialectics of control and resistance and the ideological aspect of leadership. However, it largely posits a negative critique of leadership. We think this is legitimate and important, but extend this agenda. We posit a performative critique of leadership that emphasizes tactics of circumspect care, progressive pragmatism and searching for present potentialities. We use these tactics to sketch out a practice of deliberated leadership that involves collective reflection on when, what kind and if leadership is appropriate.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Tightening the Iron Cage: Concertive Control in Self-Managing Teams
Barker, J. R. (1993) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393374 · Cited by 2,305
Relational leadership theory: exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing
Uhl-Bien, M. (2006) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.007 · Cited by 1,973
Cited by
Contradictions, Dialectics, and Paradoxes in Organizations: A Constitutive Approach
Putnam, L. L., Fairhurst, G. T., & Banghart, S. (2016) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520.2016.1162421 · Cited by 1,116
A Stupidity‐Based Theory of Organizations
Alvesson, M., & Spicer, A. (2012) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01072.x · Cited by 534
Self-citationGond, J., Cabantous, L., Harding, N., & Learmonth, M. (2016) · International Journal of Management Reviews · doi:10.1111/ijmr.12074 · Cited by 405
Seyama-Mokhaneli, S. (2024) · Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal · doi:10.1108/edi-01-2023-0033 · Cited by 13
Metadata
- Authors
- Alvesson, M., & Spicer, A.
- Venue
- Human Relations
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2012-03
- Volume
- 65
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 367-390
- ISSN
- 0018-7267 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-282X
- OpenAlex
- W2115606824
- Cited by
- 496
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 73.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Critical leadership studies: The case for critical performativity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0018726711430555
- The paper
- Alvesson, M., & Spicer, A. (2012). Critical leadership studies: The case for critical performativity. Human Relations. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726711430555
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.