An Interdisciplinary Study: Quantum Leadership and Hybrid Leadership

Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Complexity book series (SPCOM)

Abstract

Leadership paradigm has been changing in terms of meanings as well as notions as part of continual innovation; changing emerging with globalism does change organizations, organizations’ culture, and the expectations of workers from the organizations and also from the leader. The first of these paradigms is quantum leadership that can be explained best with quantum physics’ features like disorder, chaos, uncertainty, and uncontinuity. In this study, hybrid leadership and quantum leadership paradigms are studied separately, firstly quantum leadership. The second leadership paradigm is hybrid leadership by Gronn. Hybrid leadership, on the one side, focuses on the leaders that manage their organizations by legal ways. On the other side, hybrid leaders are expected to show distributed leadership features like being flexible, reliable, cooperative, and active and encouraging the followers. Then, these two leadership paradigms that have the leadership abilities of the twenty-first century are tried to be studied together with an interdisciplinary study in terms of their similarities and differences.

Keywords

Leadership Hybrid leadership Quantum leadership Interdisciplinary study 

References

  1. Aktan, C. C. (2007). Yüksek Öğretimde Değişim: Global Trendler ve Yeni Paradigmalar. In C. Can Aktan (Ed.), Değişim Çağında Yüksek Öğretim. İzmir: Yaşar Üniversitesi Yayını.Google Scholar
  2. Alşal, A. (2009). Bir Kamu Kurumundaki Orta Düzey Yöneticilerin, Kuantum Liderlik Davranışlarını Gerçeklestirme Düzeyleri. Ankara: Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Ufuk Üniveristesi.Google Scholar
  3. Baloğlu, N. (2011). Dağıtımcı Liderlik: Okullarda Dikkate Alınması Gereken Bir Liderlik Yaklaşımı. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(3), 127–148.Google Scholar
  4. Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stagdill’s handbook of leadership, theory, research and managerial application. Sydney: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  5. Baxter, J. (2011). Public sector professional identities: A review of the literature. UK: The Open University. Erişim: 08 Nisan 2016, http://oro.open.ac.uk/29793/47/Public_service_professional_identities_a_review_of_the_literature_2012.pdf./.Google Scholar
  6. Bennis, W. (1959). Leadership theory and administrative behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 4, 259–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boe, M., & Hognestad, K. (2014). Knowledge development through hybrid leadership practices. Journal Of Nordıc Early Chıldhood Education Research, 8(6), 1–14.Google Scholar
  8. Bourgeois, T. (2003). The leadership evolution: Creating the hybrid leader. The Center for Workforce Excellence, 1–12. http://www.lesaffaires.com/uploads/references/1266_creatingthehybridleader.pdf.
  9. Crawford, M. (2012). Solo and distributed leadership: Definitions and dilemmas. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 40(5), 610–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Curtin, L. (2011). Quantum leadership: Succeeding in interesting times. Nurse Leader, 9(1), 35–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Erarslan, L. (2004). Liderlik Olgusunun Tarihsel Evrimi, Temel Kavramlar Ve Yeni Liderlik Paradigmasının Analizi. Milli Eğitim Dergisi Sayı:162.Google Scholar
  12. Erçetin, Ş. Ş. (2000). Lider Sarmalında Vizyon. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.Google Scholar
  13. Erçetin, Ş. Ş., & Kamacı, M. C. (2008). Quantum leadership paradigm. World Applied Sciences Journal, 3(6), 865–868.Google Scholar
  14. Erçetin, Ş. Ş., & Kayman, E. A. (2012). How to be a quantum leader in an intelligent organization. In S. Banerjee & Ş. Ş. Erçetin (Eds.), Chaos, complexity and leadership. (s. 247- 251. London: Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
  15. Erçetin, Ş. Ş., Bisaso, S. M., & Saeed, F. (2013). Understanding chaos and complexity in education systems through conceptualization of fractal properties. In S. Banerjee & Ş. Ş. Erçetin (Eds.), Chaos, complexity and leadership. (s. 147- 161. London: Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
  16. Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 423–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gronn, P. (2009a). From distributed to hybrid leadership practice. In A. Harris (Ed.), Distributed leadership different perspectives. (s. 197–217. London: Springer Science+Business Media.Google Scholar
  18. Gronn, P. (2009b). Leadership configurations. Leadership, 5(3), 381–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gronn, P. (2011). Hybrid configurations of leadership. In A. Bryman, D. Collinson, K. Grinth, B. Jackson, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of leadership. London: Sage Publication.Google Scholar
  20. Harris, A. (2008). Distributed leadership: According to the evidence. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(2), 172–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jones, S., Harvey, M., & Lefoe, G. (2014). A conceptual approach for blended leadership for tertiary education institutions. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 36(4), 418–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Karasar, N. (1986). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi. Ankara: Bilim Yayınları.Google Scholar
  23. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  24. Kayman, E. A. (2008). Türkiye’deki Mesleki Eğitim ve Öğretimin Güçlendirilmesi Projesi (MEGEP) İçindeki Yaygınlaştırıcı Okul Yöneticilerinin Kuantum Liderlik Davranışlarını Gerçekleştirme Düzeyleri. Ankara: Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi.Google Scholar
  25. Kilbourne, C. E. (1935). The elements of leadership. Journal of Coast Artillery, 78, 437–439.Google Scholar
  26. Knickerbocker, I. (1948). Leadership: A conception and some implications. Journal of Social Issues, 4(3), 23–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lewis, R. (1994). From chaos to complexity. Executive Development, 7(4), 16–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Memişoğlu, S. P. (2003). Yeni Liderlik Yaklaşımları Işığında Eğitim Örgütlerinde Lider ve Yöneticilere Duyulan Gereksinim. AİBU Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 3(1), 87–97.Google Scholar
  29. Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership, theory and practice. UK: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  30. Papatya, G., Dulupçu, M. (2000). Thınkıng quantum leadershıp for true transformatıon: The Talısman of “Not To Know” at the threshold of new leadershıp. International Joint Symposium on Business Administration, Gökçeada, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University-Silesian University.Google Scholar
  31. Porter-O’Grady, T., & Malloch, K. (2003). Quantum leadership: A textbook of new leadership. Massachusetts: Jones and Barlett Publishers.Google Scholar
  32. Porter-O’Grady, T., & Malloch, K. (2009). The quantum leader: Applications for the new world of work. Massachusetts: Jones and Barlett Publishers.Google Scholar
  33. Shelton, C. K., & Darling, J. R. (2001). The quantum skills model in management: A new paradigm to enhance effective leadership. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 22(6), 264–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tian, Q. (2013). Hybrıd leadershıp: A study of the leadershıp (roles and characterıstıcs) of nıne Chınese Unıversıty Presıdents Wıth U.S. Experıences. Doctoral Thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
  35. Townsend, A. (2015). Leading school networks: Hybrid leadership in action? Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 43(5), 719–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Youngblood, M. D. (1997). Leadership at the edge of chaos: From control to creativity. Strategy and Leadership, 25(5), 8–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in organizations. Pearson Education Inc. http://hplusmagazine.com/2014/03/20/heterarchical-systems-vs-hierarchical-systems/

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hacettepe UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.Başkent UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations