To assess the relationship between institutional leadership and democratic values. It is often observed that the concept, practice, and processes of leadership are little studied by political scientists. It has in recent years also often been observed that agency’s role in determining political outcomes is little understood. In this class, we shall consider whether these cla ims are warranted and why. We shall also consider what role leadership plays in executive, legislative, judicial, and bureaucratic institutions; and what problems leadership poses for democrats.
Discussion topics:
(a) What is leadership? Under what circumstances and why does agency matter? The first question requires us to consider how ‘leadership’ should be conceptualized. The second requires consideration of the relationship between agency, structure, and culture in policy processes that often exhibit path-dependent characteristics.
(b) Are the qualities of leadership reconcilable with democratic values? This question invites us to consider an awkwardly fundamental question with which Weber struggled and about which he offers a clear view. How does his account sit with liberal understandings of the nature of the state? Is the concept an embarrassment to democrats in general and to liberals in particular?
(c) Why has political science paid so little attention to the concept and practice of leadership? Given that political scientists have written so extensively about the state, executives, power, and policy, why do the notions of agency and leadership feature so little?
Readings:
· Aristotle (1998), The Politics, Cambridge University Press, pp. ix-xxvii;
· Ayman, Roya; Clemens, Martin M., and Fiedler, Fred, ‘The contingency model of leadership effectiveness: its levels of analysis’, The Leadership Quarterly , 6, 2, Summer 1995, pp. 147-167.
· Bienen, Henry, ‘Leaders, Violence, and the Absence of Change in Africa’, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 108, No. 2, Summer, 1993, pp. 271-282.
· Bowles, Nigel, Nixon’s Business: Authority and Power in Presidential Politics, chapters 1, 3, and 7
· Brown, Archie, ‘Mikhail Gorbachev: Systemic Transformer’ in Leaders of Transition, Martin Westlake ed. (2000), New York: St. Martin’s Press
· Capoccia, Giovanni (2001), ‘Defending Democracy: Reactions to Political Extremism in Inter-war Europe’, EJPR, 39.
· George, Alexander L., ‘The ‘Operational Code’: A Neglected Approach to the Study of Political Leaders and Decision-Making’, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 13, No. 2. (Jun., 1969), pp. 190-222.
· Hargrove, Edwin (2004), ‘History, Political Science and the Study of Leadership’ Polity July 36 (4)
· MacGregor Burns, James, Leadership
· Machiavelli, Niccolo, The Prince, chapters XII - XIX
· McLean, Iain, Rational Choice and British Politics: An Analysis of Rhetoric and Manipulation from Peel to Blair
· McLean, Iain (2002), ‘Review Article: William H. Riker and the Invention of Heresthetic (s)’. British Journal of Political Science 32, 535-558.
· Marable, Manning, Black Leadership
· Nagel, Jack H., ‘Populism, Heresthetics and Political Stability: Richard Seddon and the Art of Majority Rule’, British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 23, No. 2. (Apr., 1993), pp. 139-174.
· Post, Jerrold, Leaders and their Followers in a Dangerous World: The Psychology of Political Behavior, Ithaca: Cornell University Press 2004, Chapt 2
· Weber, Max (1946), ‘Structures of Power’, in H.H. Gerth and C.W. Mills, eds., From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. New York: Oxford University Press.
· Weber, Max (1988), ‘Politics as a Vocation’, in H.H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills, From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, London.
· Yukl, Gary (2001), Leadership in Organizations, Prentice-Hall.
