Keywords

Would it be possible, even desirable, to turn something that today isn’t even regarded as an occupation, but probably is best described as a role or function, into a true profession? In this academic book of debate, authors from various parts of the world present their differing arguments as to whether or not leadership is, can become and should become a true profession. Another, connected question debated in the book is whether or not it is a good idea to offer bachelor programs in leadership, in contrast to the much more common bachelor programs in management and/or business.

As could be expected from a book of debate, a broad variety of positions are reflected in the set of chapters. This is at least true when it comes to the main debate of the book, circulating around leadership as a profession—that is, the debate on whether or not leadership is already a profession, and whether or not leadership can and/or should be turned into a true profession. This stands in contrast to most of the previous works connected to this debate, which tend to contain fewer standpoints. This book is far more nuanced. Some authors argue that leadership should be turned into a true profession, while others argue against this. In some of the chapters, the main argument is that leadership cannot be turned into a true profession, while other authors argue that leadership could already be regarded as a profession. A few chapters are positioned between these opposites.

However, the other debate, whether it is reasonable for higher education institutions (HEIs) to offer bachelor programs in leadership, is reflected in this book in a more one-sided way. It has been quite difficult to find scholars willing to contribute with argumentations against the occurrence of such bachelor programs (even if critics do exist), something that could be explained by the relative newness of this debate—as well as of the phenomenon of offering bachelor programs in leadership per se.

As also could be expected from a book of debate, there is no unified conclusion in terms of a single position for or against the professionalization of leadership. In contrast, the very purpose of the book is to provide the reader with a diversity of arguments and counter-arguments. Each chapter is to be regarded as a stand-alone argument in one of the debates.

This introductory chapter gives a background to the two main debates, and is divided into three sections. In the first section, a brief background to the main debate on leadership and management as professions is offered, and the three sub-debates (“is”, “can”, and “should”) are presented. In this section, reasons for prioritizing the term “leadership” in this book rather than the term “management” are also discussed, and a brief review of some literature that previously has debated management as a profession is offered. In the second section, the debate on whether it can be assumed to be a good idea for HEIs to offer bachelor programs in leadership is introduced. In the third section, the chapters in the book are introduced and briefly presented.

The Debate on Leadership/Management as a Profession

The debate on leadership/management as a true profession has been going on for some time. If not continuously, then it could at least be said to have popped up now and then. A relatively recent example of a publication that probably has triggered the debate is Rajesh Khurana’s book From Higher Aims to Hired Hands: The Social Transformation of American Business Schools and the Unfulfilled Promise of Management as a Profession (Khurana 2007).

In most previous works, management as a true profession has been debated. However, the main term being used in this book is leadership. One reason for this is that some of the arguments put forward against turning management into a true profession may be eliminated when focusing on leadership instead. For instance, it may be somewhat easier to find a common knowledge-base for leadership than it is for management. Also, there is reason to explore if leadership, which perhaps is less thought of as an occupation than management, could really be turned into a profession. Yet another reason for focusing on leadership instead of management is that leadership could be said to be a broader concept than management, and thus it provides opportunities to include such themes as political leadership into the debate.

Nevertheless, the span of how various authors interpret and apply this terminology is broad, in that they have been given freedom to use any of the concepts. Thus, there are those who make a distinction between the terms and either use the term “management” or the term “leadership”, and those who more or less use the terms as synonyms. Another reason for focusing on leadership instead of management is because it is easier to connect it to the other debate that the book deals with: whether it is reasonable to offer bachelor programs in leadership.

The debate on leadership/management as a profession could actually be said to consist of three sub-debates: whether or not leadership/management already is a true profession, whether or not leadership/management can become a true profession, and whether or not leadership/management should become a true profession. Just as in the literature that has previously debated management as profession, some chapters in this book focus rather on whether or not leadership/management is a true profession already, some chapters focus on whether or not leadership/management can be turned into a true profession, and other chapters focus on whether or not leadership/management should be turned into a true profession. In some chapters more than one of these three debates is addressed.

A Brief Review of Literature Debating Management as Profession

The results of a non-systematic, historical review of some previous works that have explicitly addressed the issue of management as a profession are briefly presented in Table 1.1. These works have undergone a “discourse analysis light”, shown in the table. There are three main themes or “discourses” that the literature discusses, with a set of sub-themes for one of the main themes. These themes and sub-themes could be said to have appeared during the analysis, but, of course, not totally decoupled from existing frameworks of what a profession is and how professions come about (e.g. Abbott 1991; Wilensky 1964).

Table 1.1 Some previous works on management as a profession, standpoints taken in this literature and a theme-based categorization of the arguments brought up
Full size table

The most frequently occurring of the three main themes is defined as the technical theme. In this theme, the focus is put on whether or not management is, can become and/or should become a true profession in relation to a certain definition of a “profession”, often together with a set of certain characteristics of a “profession”. This theme could, in turn, be divided into six sub-themes, one for each of an element of how a “profession” may be defined: (1) social responsibility (the main objective is to serve the common good); (2) a systematized knowledge base (in terms of context-independent, systematized, and non-fragmented knowledge that is feasible to learn); (3) standardized admission (e.g. serves as a way of keeping out the under-qualified from the profession); (4) an ethical code of conduct (inclusive of an objective treatment of the customer/client); (5) an organization for self-criticism (helping to uphold high ethical standards); and (6) an individual responsibility (each individual can be held responsible, not as part of any organization/bureaucracy).

In addition to the technical theme, two other main themes were identified in the reviewed literature. In the humanistic theme, which is much less common than the technical theme but still is relatively frequently occurring, the focus is put on the exercise of management and its consequences for people (such as employees and customers) and the environment. This theme is often occupied with questions of ethics and whether or not it is more beneficial for people and the environment if management was turned into a true profession. The least common of the main three themes is the capability/ legitimacy theme. In this theme, the focus is on the question of whom of (1) those with knowledge within the core operation, or (2) those who are specialists in leadership, make the most appropriate managers (see, e.g., Goodall 2010), but the theme also focuses on what to base authority on for managers (e.g. Paterson 1956).

The humanistic and capability/legitimacy themes overlap with the technical theme to some extent— for instance, the humanistic theme and the sub-theme (to the technical theme) of an ethical code of conduct both deal with ethics—but there is a difference: works categorized to the technical theme have the definition of a profession in focus, while the other two themes put the focus on other issues, that is, on humanism and capabilities/legitimacy (respectively), more or less isolated from any definition or characteristics of a “profession” or efforts to professionalize management.

This review could be regarded as a background for the current book, in which authors strengthen already existing arguments, put forth new arguments, and/or put the focus on leadership (in contrast to management) as a profession.

The Debate on Offering Bachelor Programs in Leadership

The other, related question that is debated in this book is whether or not it is a good and reasonable idea for HEIs to offer bachelor programs in leadership. To a considerable extent, the debate on leadership/management as a profession is connected to the debate on whether it is a good idea to offer bachelor programs in leadership, especially if the former debate is framed so that it is about leadership as a profession, but also when management as a profession is at stake. One clear connection between the two debates is that the existence of a certain education is one important criteria of a true profession (see Otterlei, Chap. 2 in this volume).

Literature which discusses the idea of bachelor programs in leadership is virtually non-existent. One of very few works is a piece in which the authors offer an overview of the few bachelor programs in leadership that were in existence when the article was written (Brungardt et al. 2006). What has happened since then is not clear, but from an unsystematically conducted web search on “bachelor program in leadership” (and similar search entries), it seems that such programs are becoming increasingly common, at least in North America.

The kind of bachelor program in leadership at stake here is that in which students major in leadership (there are places where students can take leadership as a bi- or extracurricular activity, but this is not the kind of program debated in this book). Furthermore, the programs at stake here are those that approach leadership generally, not focusing on any particular sector or industry. Of interest are the bachelor programs in leadership that deal mainly with leadership, not management or business, and where it is presumed that the students will learn to practice leadership—that is, at stake are bachelor programs in leadership (as opposed to bachelor programs on leadership). Table 1.2offers an overview of a few such bachelor programs in leadership. These were among the first programs found during a non-systematic web search that seemed to fulfil the criteria listed above.

Table 1.2 Some existing bachelor programs in leadership
Full size table

From this search, it would appear that leadership positions are often suggested as career opportunities for graduates of such bachelor programs in leadership:

The premise that leadership is a process and can be learned through understanding theory, analyzing scenarios, case studies and complex problems will provide the opportunity for students to acquire their learning experientially. The Bachelor of Science in Organizational Leadership is designed to give students the opportunity to develop the skills needed to be an effective leader in team and group settings within organizations. It is intended to help students move from an authoritarian paradigm to one of collaboration and integration. (National University 2016)

Bachelor programs in management and/or business typically include courses in general business, such as in finance, accounting etc., together with some courses in management of which often only a minority are in leadership, while bachelor programs in leadership instead have a strong focus on leadership, in terms of (1) leading people (not the business operations); and (2) a more broader perspective than “doing business”.

Quite often, ethics’ connection to leadership is an important part of such bachelor programs. For instance, one of the learning outcomes from the Bachelor of Science in Organizational Leadership at the National University is to “evaluate the ethical implications of leadership decisions and strategies” (National University 2016). Another ingredient often included in these programs is critical thinking. For example, Trident University states, about their Bachelor of Science in Leadership, that the students will “gain critical thinking and research skills” (Trident University 2016). Subjects within the fine arts and history, for example, are also common elements of these programs. Several of these programs are available online. Furthermore, it is also often explicitly expressed that the bachelor degree in leadership involves some (or sometimes many) elements of experienced-based or practice learning.

One example of an existing bachelor program in leadership is the “Bachelor of Arts degree with a major in Leadership Studies”, which the Jepson School of Leadership, University of Richmond, offers. It focuses mainly on leadership issues from a variety of perspectives, and includes topics such as environmental sustainability, social inequality, and international relations, and courses such as “Justice and civil society”, “Critical thinking”, “Theories and models of leadership”, and “Leadership ethics” (University of Richmond, Jepson School of Leadership Studies 2017). In the “Bachelor of Science in Organizational Leadership” program offered at National University, the following leadership courses make up the major: “Introduction to leadership”, “Leading diverse groups & teams”, “Adaptive leadership in change”, “Conflict/negotiation for leaders”, “Leadership overview of organizational functions”, “Advanced group dynamic theory”, “Ethics and decision making”, “Classic studies of leadership”, “Research for leaders”, and “Leadership capstone project” (National University 2017).

It is the kind of bachelor program in leadership that is described above, and of which some examples are offered in Table 1.2, which are debated in this book, even if the programs that the contributors to this book suggest differ, to some extent, from the programs presented in this chapter.

An Outline of the Remainder of the Book

The chapters in this book are grouped into five parts. Part I makes an introduction to the book, Parts II, III and IV debate leadership as a profession, and Part V argues that HEIs should offer bachelor programs in leadership. The chapters in Parts II and IV are categorized further into some sub-parts or “sections”. To avoid the risk of creating too many categories (with only one chapter in each section), the chapters in these parts have been positioned according to their major standpoints, respectively, even if there sometimes also are other standpoints.

In Part I: Introduction, there are two chapters. In addition to the introductory chapter that you are currently reading, there is a chapter that defines one of the main concepts in this book, “profession”, namely Chap. 2, “What Is a Profession, and What Are the Prerequisites for Being a Profession?”, authored by Jill Beth Otterlei. More specifically, Otterlei discusses what qualifies as a profession and highlights some conditions of professional status. She also offers a brief history of professionalization research, which comes with examples from other professions (such as physicians).

The second part of the book, Part II: Against Leadership as a Profession, gathers the chapters that argue that leadership is not a profession, and cannot or/and should not be turned into a true profession. This part of the book is divided into three sections. In the first section, “Section A: Is not a profession”, containing one chapter only—Chap. 3, “How and Why Management Has Not Become a Profession”—Haldor Byrkjeflot and Pål Nygaard argue that management is not a profession. Byrkjeflot and Nygaard offer a historical case study on three waves of attempts to professionalize top management in Norway and conclude that management is not a profession because managerial elites have not succeeded in achieving closure over management as an occupational field with distinct knowledge and qualification criteria.

In the second section of Part II, “Section B, Can Not Become a Profession”, the authors argue that it is not possible to turn leadership into a true profession, even if one wanted to do so. Thus, these authors do not mainly argue against the advantages of turning leadership into a true profession, but instead focus on the possibility of accomplishing such a change. Susanna Fellman, the author of Chap. 4, “Management as a Profession: The Historian’s Perspective”, is also explicitly occupied with management as a profession. Fellman takes a historical perspective and puts forward two arguments as to why management cannot be turned into a true profession. Both arguments are heavily influenced by the historical perspective taken: a lack of consensus among management people, and the fact that previous attempts to turn management into a profession have failed. In Chap. 5, “The Professional Leader: Man of Many Talents or Jack of All Trades? Five Questions About Professional Leadership”, Leif-Kristian Monsen considers it very unlikely that leadership ever can be turned into a true profession. Monsen argues that academic, practice-related and contextual premises are too divergent and contradictory, and concludes that there are no isolated conditions independent enough to qualify someone as a professional leader.

In Chap. 6, “Leadership as a Profession: A Special Case Dependent on Organizational Ownership, Governance, Mission and Vision”, Peter Davis regards private ownership as a constraint against turning leadership into a true profession, and hence argues that leadership in the business management area never can become a true profession. However, Davis thinks that in the case of collective ownership, such as in co-operatives, it would be possible to professionalize leadership. In Chap. 7, “Can Leadership Become a Profession?”, Frederik Hertel and Michael Fast discuss the case of a leader who was tasked with leading people who had a different occupation from himself, and point out challenges stemming from leading with “decontextualized” leadership knowledge and skills. Hertel and Fast claim that these challenges cannot easily be overcome, hence arguing that leadership cannot be turned into a true profession.

In the third section of Part II, “Section C, Should Not Become a Profession”, the authors have instead turned the attention to the desirability of turning leadership into a profession—which they argue against—and are less occupied with whether or not leadership can be turned into a true profession. Kenneth Mølbjerg Jørgensen and Marita Svane, in Chap. 8, “Against Professionalizing Leadership: The Roles of Self-Formation and Practical Wisdom in Leadership”, focus on a knowledge aspect of the professionalization debate. They argue that to execute leadership, it is necessary to learn practice-based knowledge and skills, something which they believe stands in sharp contrast to professionalizing leadership. With this background, Jørgensen and Svane strongly suggest that all attempts to turn leadership into a profession are avoided.

In Chap. 9, “The Case for Behavioral Professionalism in Leadership”, C. Ken Weidner II argues not only that leadership cannot be turned into a true profession, but that leadership should not be turned into a true profession. Weidner interprets calls for the professionalization of leadership as a call for better leadership behavior, and argues for behavioral professionalism among leaders and managers but against professionalization of the field as such, as it could lead to the responsibility for leadership lying outside the individual. The final chapter in Section C, Chap. 10, “Professionalizing Political Leaders: Is This the Cure? Lessons from Political Theory”, is authored by Hans Petter Saxi. He argues against turning political leadership into a profession, as it would threaten innovation and democracy. Saxi draws parallels with leadership in general, which he hence advocates must not be turned into a true profession.

Part III: In Between For and Against Leadership as a Profession contains two chapters that most reasonably could be placed somewhere in between the two endpoints and, thus, they neither argue for or against leadership as a profession—or, alternatively, they argue both. Alexandra Moskovskaya takes a neutral position in Chap. 11, “The Future of Management: Global Trends and Possible Scenarios of Development of Managerial Profession”, and discusses trends that could shape the future of management in the coming decades and the likely scenarios of its professional development. In Chap. 12, “Management/Leadership: Profession, Professional, Professionalization”, Rikke Kristine Nielsen, Thomas Duus Henriksen and Kenneth Børgesen do argue that management/leadership should be professionalized, but not that it should be turned into a true profession—they suggest instead that management/leadership is turned into a semi-profession.

Part IV: For Leadership as a Profession contains three sections, all of which include chapters where the authors argue for leadership as a profession. In “Section A, Is Already a Profession”, there are two chapters. David Lutz argues in Chap. 13, “Leadership, Management, and the Common Good”, that leadership could, in fact, already be considered to be a true profession, even if this is not how many people consider it. Lutz argues that leadership, when executed properly, does possess the one essential property of a true profession, namely that it promotes the common good. Victor J. Delacruz suggests, in Chap. 14, “Management Can Be Considered as a Profession”, that “profession” is not viewed as a dichotomy—that is, something that occupations either are or are not—but that any occupation instead could be assessed along a professionalization continuum ranging from non-professions to true professions. Delacruz argues that management is an emerging profession, and the role of civil society as a determinant will remain a key variable in any assessment of occupations.

“Section B, Should but Can Not Become a Profession”, contains only one chapter. Ewan Ferlie focuses on medical management in Chap. 15, “The Professionalization of Medical Management? The Slow and Chequered Case of UK Health Care”. Ferlie argues that the professionalization of medical management would be a positive development from a societal and public interest perspective, in that it would bring advantages such as an ethics code and the inculcation of a sense of vocation. However, he is simultaneously unable to see any good prospects for this to happen.

In “Section C, Can and Should Become a Profession”, there are four chapters in which the authors argue—more or less—that it is both desirable and possible to turn leadership into a true profession. In Chap. 16, “Leadership as a Profession: The Need for an Authentic Jurisdiction”, Kelly C. Jordan shows how leadership could be turned into a true profession. Jordan claims that what needs to be done is to establish an abstract body of knowledge, and to develop an accepted scope of services and a code of ethics. Grace Wangui Kinyanjui is similarly arguing for turning leadership into a true profession in Chap. 17, “Should Leadership Be Considered a Profession?”. Kinyanjui describes some leadership myths that she believes have led to poor leadership, and that leadership still is unprofessionalized. She sees a need to professionalize leadership, through, among other things, the articulation of ideals and principles, and the standardization and formalization of selection and career development procedures.

Chapter 18, “Leadership as a Profession? The Significance of Reflexive Judgment”, is authored by Lone Hersted and Mette Vinther Larsen, who also argue that leadership both can and should be turned into a true profession. Hersted and Larsen propose that reflexivity, through reflexive dialogues, in organizational life is vital for turning leadership into a profession, and that without such reflexivity the professionalization project may be doomed. Chapter 19, “Preparing for Turning Leadership into a True Profession”, is authored by Anders Örtenblad, who sees a need for an outline of the professionalization process, but in this chapter suggests some pre-professionalizing measures that he claims should preferably be taken before the actual professionalization process can begin, to facilitate the realization of such a process.

The final part of the book, Part V: On the Need for Bachelor Programs in Leadership, contains six chapters in which the authors argue that offering bachelor programs in leadership is a good thing. In Chap. 20, “Bachelor Programs in Leadership: The Beginning of a Profession”, Allan Næs Gjerding, Kenneth Mølbjerg Jørgensen, René Nesgaard Nielsen and Jørgen Gulddahl Rasmussen suggest a bachelor program in leadership based on an integrative approach to practical wisdom and theoretical knowledge. In Chap. 21, “‘As the Twig Is Bent, so the Tree Shall Grow’: Developing Strategic Intuition Through Reflective Practices in Bachelor Programs in Leadership Studies”, G. K. Cunningham and Richard M. Meinhart emphasize that bachelor programs in leadership could build a foundation for intuitive judgment, a key strategic leader attribute that could be enhanced by introducing self-reflective techniques in early educational programs. Daniel Belet advocates, in Chap. 22, “Yes, We Should Develop New Action-Learning-Based Bachelor Programs in Leadership”, the need for bachelor programs in leadership that are based on an action learning approach. Chapter 23, “The Need to Consider the Context When Offering Bachelor Programs in Leadership”, is authored by Andrew Bolt and Pandora Rupert Bolt, who argue that there is an acute need for taking the context into account when developing bachelor programs in leadership. In Chap. 24, “How a Bachelor in Leadership Would Fill a Gap”, Kenneth Børgesen, Rikke Kristine Nielsen and Thomas Duus Henriksen develop a prototype of a bachelor program in leadership well-suited for the Danish educational system. Chapter 25, “Why Universities Should Give Bachelor Programs in Leadership” is authored by Anders Örtenblad, who suggests what needs to be included in a bachelor program in leadership and argues why there is a need for such programs.

Enjoy reading!