DOCSLIB.ORG

Exploring the Social Processes of Leadership and Organizing

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Exploring the Social Processes of Leadership and Organizing View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by UNL | Libraries University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Leadership Institute Faculty Publications Leadership Institute 12-2006 Relational Leadership Theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing Mary Uhl-Bien University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/leadershipfacpub Part of the Management Sciences and Quantitative Methods Commons Uhl-Bien, Mary, "Relational Leadership Theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing" (2006). Leadership Institute Faculty Publications. 19. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/leadershipfacpub/19 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Leadership Institute at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Leadership Institute Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Published in The Leadership Quarterly 17:6 (December 2006), pp. 654-676: The Leadership Quarterly Yearly Review of Leadership; doi 10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.007 Copyright © 2006 Elsevier Inc. Used by permission. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10489843 Published online November 16, 2006. Relational Leadership Theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing Mary Uhl-Bien Department of Management University of Nebraska–Lincoln Lincoln, NE 68588 USA Abstract Relational leadership is a relatively new term in the leadership literature, and because of this, its meaning is open to interpretation. In the present article I describe two perspectives of relational leadership: an entity perspective that fo- cuses on identifying attributes of individuals as they engage in interpersonal relationships, and a relational perspec- tive that views leadership as a process of social construction through which certain understandings of leadership come about and are given privileged ontology. These approaches can be complementary, but their implications for study and practice are quite different. After reviewing leadership research relative to these two perspectives I offer Rela- tional Leadership Theory (RLT) as an overarching framework for the study of leadership as a social influence process through which emergent coordination (e.g., evolving social order) and change (e.g., new approaches, values, attitudes, behaviors, ideologies) are constructed and produced. This framework addresses relationships both as an outcome of investigation (e.g., How are leadership relationships produced?) and a context for action (e.g., How do relational dy- namics contribute to structuring?). RLT draws from both entity and relational ontologies and methodologies to more fully explore the relational dynamics of leadership and organizing. Keywords: relational leadership, entity perspectives, relationality We consider the relational perspective and [the approaches within it] … to be at the fore- front of emerging leadership thrusts. … The relational focus is one that moves beyond unidi- rectional or even reciprocal leader/follower relationships to one that recognizes leadership wherever it occurs; it is not restricted to a single or even a small set of formal or informal leaders; and, in its strongest form, functions as a dynamic system embedding leadership, en- vironmental, and organizational aspects. (Hunt & Dodge, 2000, p. 448). While the concept of relationship-oriented behavior has been around since the earliest formal studies of leadership in organizations (Stogdill & Coons, 1957), the term relational leadership is surprisingly new (Brower et al., 2000; Drath, 2001; Murrell, 1997; Uhl-Bien, 2003; Uhl-Bien, 2005). Because of this, its mean- ing is still uncertain. In traditional management discourse, the term relational means that “an individual likes people and thrives on relationships” (Lipman-Blumen, 1996, p. 165). Traditional research on lead- ership examines behavioral styles that are relationship-oriented (Likert, 1961), meaning considerate and supportive (Stogdill, Goode, & Day, 1962) or leadership behaviors focused on developing high quality, 654 R ELATIONAL L EADE R SHIP T HEO R Y : S OCIAL P R OCESSES OF LEADE R SHIP AND O R GANIZING 655 trusting, work relationships (Brower et al., 2000; Graen and Scandura, 1987; Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995; Uhl-Bien et al., 2000). In recently developing discourse (Drath, 2001; Hosking, in press; Murrell, 1997), however, the term re- lational is being used to describe something quite different for leadership—a view of leadership and orga- nization as human social constructions that emanate from the rich connections and interdependencies of organizations and their members (cf., Bradbury and Lichtenstein, 2000; Hosking et al., 1995). In contrast to a more traditional orientation, which considers relationships from the standpoint of individuals as inde- pendent, discrete entities (i.e., individual agency) (Bradbury and Lichtenstein, 2000; Hosking et al., 1995), a “relational” orientation starts with processes and not persons, and views persons, leadership and other re- lational realities as made in processes (Hosking, in press). The more traditional orientation, which can be called an entity perspective because it focuses on individ- ual entities, is consistent with an epistemology of an objective truth and a Cartesian dogma of a clear sep- aration between mind and nature (Bradbury & Lichtenstein, 2000). It assumes that: a) individuals have a “knowing mind,” b) individuals have access to the contents of their mind (mind contents and knowledge are viewed as properties of entities, as individual possessions), and c) these entities can be distinguished from other entities (i.e., people) and the environment (Dachler & Hosking, 1995). As such, the “knowing” individual is understood as the architect and controller of an internal and external order which makes sense with respect to the array of their personal “possessions” (their mind contents) (Dachler & Hosking, 1995). This view approaches relationship-based leadership by focusing on individuals (e.g., leaders and followers) and their perceptions, intentions, behaviors, personalities, expectations, and evaluations relative to their re- lationships with one another (e.g., Hollander, 1978; Lord et al., 1999; Uhl-Bien et al., 2000). Dachler & Hosk- ing (1995) call this approach a “subject–object” understanding of relationships: “Social relations are enacted by subjects to achieve knowledge about, and influence over, other people and groups” (p. 3). The second, and less well-known, relational perspective views knowledge as socially constructed and socially distributed, not as “mind stuff” constructed or accumulated and stored by individuals: “That which is understood as real is differently constructed in different relational and historical/cultural set- tings” (Dachler & Hosking, 1995, p. 4). Taking a relational orientation means recognizing that organiza- tional phenomena exist in interdependent relationships and intersubjective meaning: “… [K]nowing occurs between two subjects or phenomena simultaneously, therefore we must attend to the multiple meanings and perspectives that continuously emerge…” (Bradbury & Lichtenstein, 2000, p. 552). From this perspec- tive, knowing is always a process of relating; relating is a constructive, ongoing process of meaning mak- ing—an actively relational process of creating (common) understandings on the basis of language; meaning can never be finalized, nor has it any ultimate origin, it is always in the process of making; and meanings are limited by socio-cultural contexts (Dachler & Hosking, 1995). Applied to leadership (Dachler and Hosk- ing, 1995; Hosking, in press), a relational orientation does not focus on identifying attributes of individu- als involved in leadership behaviors or exchanges, but rather on the social construction processes by which certain understandings of leadership come about and are given privileged ontology (cf., Meindl, 1995). In the sections below I review leadership theory relative to these two perspectives. As we will see in this discussion, although both entity and relational approaches view leadership as a social process, what they mean by process, particularly with respect to their ontology and epistemology, is quite different. The former views relational processes as centered in individuals’ perceptions and cognitions as they engage in exchanges and influence relationships with one another, while the latter views persons and organizations as ongoing multiple constructions made “in” processes and not the makers “of” processes (Hosking, 2000). As will be described later in the article, these different ontologies result in very different ways of concep- tualizing and operationalizing relational leadership, with the former adopting primarily a variable-based approach and the latter more of a constructionist approach. Following this review, I present an overarching framework for the investigation of relational leader- ship. I identify relational leadership as a social influence process through which emergent coordination (i.e., evolving social order) and change (e.g., new values, attitudes, approaches, behaviors, and ideologies) are constructed and produced. This perspective does not restrict leadership to hierarchical positions or roles. Instead it views leadership as occurring in relational dynamics throughout the organization;
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Renewable Energy Partnerships in Development Cooperation: Towards a Relational Theory of Technical Assistance
    Sustainability Research Institute SCHOOL OF EARTH AND ENVIRONMENT Renewable energy partnerships in development cooperation: Towards a relational theory of technical assistance Lena J. Kruckenberg January 2015 Sustainability Research Institute Paper No. 77 Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy Working Paper No. 200 SRI PAPERS SRI Papers (Online) ISSN 1753-1330 A later version of this paper is forthcoming in Energy Policy: Kruckenberg, L.J., 2015. Renewable energy partnerships in development cooperation: Towards a relational understanding of technical assistance. Energy Policy, 77, 11–20. Doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2014.11.004 First published in 2015 by the Sustainability Research Institute (SRI) Sustainability Research Institute (SRI), School of Earth and Environment, The University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)113 3436461 Fax: +44 (0)113 3436716 Email: [email protected] Web-site: http://www.see.leeds.ac.uk/sri About the Sustainability Research Institute The Sustainability Research Institute conducts internationally recognised, academically excellent and problem-oriented interdisciplinary research and teaching on environmental, social and economic aspects of sustainability. We draw on various social and natural science disciplines, including ecological economics, environmental economics, political science, policy studies, development studies, business and management, geography, sociology, science and technology studies, ecology, environmental science and soil science in our work. The Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy (CCCEP) brings together some of the world's leading researchers on climate change economics and policy, from many different disciplines. It was established in 2008 and its first phase ended on 30 September 2013. Its second phase commenced on 1 October 2013.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Ontology of Spacetime: Substantivalism, Relationism, Eternalism, and Emergence
    Found Sci DOI 10.1007/s10699-015-9476-1 On the Ontology of Spacetime: Substantivalism, Relationism, Eternalism, and Emergence Gustavo E. Romero1 Ó Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015 Abstract I present a discussion of some issues in the ontology of spacetime. After a characterisation of the controversies among relationists, substantivalists, eternalists, and presentists, I offer a new argument for rejecting presentism, the doctrine that only present objects exist. Then, I outline and defend a form of spacetime realism that I call event substantivalism. I propose an ontological theory for the emergence of spacetime from more basic entities (timeless and spaceless ‘events’). Finally, I argue that a relational theory of pre-geometric entities can give rise to substantival spacetime in such a way that relationism and substantivalism are not necessarily opposed positions, but rather complementary. In an appendix I give axiomatic formulations of my ontological views. Keywords Ontology Á Physics Á Spacetime For there neither is nor will be anything else besides what is, since Fate has fettered it to be whole and changeless. Parmenides (Fragment 8. From the translation in Kirk et al.1983). 1 Introduction Discussions and controversies about the nature of space and time in Western thought can be traced to the early Pre-Socratic philosophers (Graham 2006; Jammer 2012; Romero 2012). The position of Aristotle, who understood time as a measure of motion, and its contrast with the Platonic view, shaped the ontological controversy of the Hellenistic period, the Late Antiquity, and even the Middle Ages (see Sorabji 1983). It was not, however, until the development of Newtonian physics and the Leibniz–Clarke corre- spondence (Leibniz and Clarke 2000), that what is now called relationism-substantivalism & Gustavo E.
    [Show full text]
  • Biology Assessment
    Master thesis Biology Assessment on the feasibility of anticipating Synthetic Biology Wietse Hage Under the supervision of dr. Y. Saghai and dr. M.A.J. MacLeod January 21, 2021 ”It is not down on any map; true places never are.” Moby-Dick, or, the Whale Herman Melville MSc Philosophy of Science, Technology and Society - PSTS Faculty of Behavioural, Management, and Social Sciences, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands Acknowledgements Arnhem, January 21, 2021 What a fascinating journey we’ve had. First and foremost, I would like to thank Yashar Saghai. During the one and a half year this thesis took to write, Yashar and I met almost every two weeks! This adds up to 40 plus meet- ings, not including our trip to the Anticipation conference in Oslo. It is hard for me to find words that convey my gratitude towards you Yashar: I hope that my future work shows the influence you had on me, both as a philosopher and a writer. The second person who played a crucial part lifting this thesis up to the level it standstoday is Miles MacLeod. Having someone with your background take a critical look at my work is a true gift: thank you for the insightful comments and the time you took to discuss Robert Rosen’s controversial ideas with me. Another individual who deserves mentioning is Virgil Rerimassie, who took the time to sit down over coffee to explain his work in his own words. I would like to thank my girlfriend Iris, who during all of these months remained patient, caring and loving; thank you for sticking by my side piertje, definitely during my grumpier phases.
    [Show full text]
  • Relationalism and (General) Relativistic Physics Relationalism and (General) Relativistic Physics
    Relationalism and (General) Relativistic Physics Relationalism and (General) Relativistic Physics Two distinct issues: To what extent is GR a relationalist theory? Can we construct a Leibnizian relational theory with a particle ontology, which is as empirically adequate as GR? General Relativity Einstein’s field equations: G[g] = κT[g; Φ]: G[g] is the Einstein’s tensor. It encodes information about the 4-dimensional spacetime geometry. T[g; Φ] is the stress-energy tensor. It encodes information about the distribution of a matter field Φ in spacetime. A model of GR is a solution of Einstein’s field equation. It is a triple < M; g; T >. General Relativity Einstein’s field equations: G[g] = κT[g; Φ]: Space acts on matter, telling it how to move. In turn, matter reacts back on space, telling it how to curve. (C.W. Misner, K.S. Thorne, J.A. Wheeler - Gravitation. Freeman & Co., 1973, p.5) General Relativity It is commonly said that GR unifies gravity and physical geometry. GR describes gravitational forces as curvature effects of spacetime geometry. In this (weak) sense, GR succeeds in “geometrizing away” gravity. However, there is no straightforward reduction here: “spacetime” and “gravitational field” are two ways to refer to the same entity. Two Senses of “Relationalism” in General Relativity 1 Spatiotemporal facts fully reducible to material facts (eliminative relationalism). 2 Spatiotemporal facts fully reducible to facts about spatiotemporal relations instantiated by material relata (non-eliminative relationalism). Against Relationalism in GR GR admits cosmological models of the form < M; g; 0 >, which means that it makes physical sense in GR to think about a universe totally deprived of matter, where still there is spacetime.
    [Show full text]
  • The Relational Account of Meaning in Life: a Critique
    Journal of Philosophy of Life Vol.10, No.1 (July 2020):58-77 The Relational Account of Meaning in Life A Critique Joshua Chang and Michelle Pitassi* Abstract The relational account by Robert Nozick (1981; 1989) posits meaning as engaged, external connection to an array of value, and it has been widely influential in debates concerning life’s meaning. Thaddeus Metz (2001; 2013; 2016) proffers several counterexamples to the view, arguing that it does not best account for what is conceptually important to meaning in life. We evaluate these criticisms, determining that while some objections are less persuasive, others are more compelling, particularly Metz’s subjectivist critique which we go on to expand in developing a novel counterexample to the relational view. We conclude with positing another final counterexample—a being who accrues meaning in life solely through internal relations. 1. Introduction In recent decades, the relational theory has been one of the most prominent accounts in the philosophical literature on life’s meaning. The basic notion is simple: meaning in life requires that one intensely connects with an array of value beyond oneself. It was first made popular by Robert Nozick in his two works Philosophical Explanations (1981) and Examined Life (1989); many have subsequently adopted his approach, or at least prominent features of it, as a viable framework for grasping meaning in life (Cooper 2003: 29-30, 132; Bennett- Hunter 2014; Bennett-Hunter 2016: 1277; Benatar 2017: 18, 54). One of the most notable critics of this view is Thaddeus Metz (2001: 145-147; 2013: 29-31; 2016).
    [Show full text]
  • Absolute Quantum Mechanics*
    Absolute Quantum Mechanics∗ Steven Weinstein Abstract Whereas one can conceive of a relational classical mechanics in which absolute space and time do not play a fundamental role, quantum mechanics does not readily admit any such relational formulation. Newton’s mechanics is formulated against a backdrop of what he called “absolute” space and time. However, absolute position and velocity appear to be unobservable, and there is a long tradition, beginning with Leibniz, of criticizing the postulation of these unobservable properties, and suggesting that mechanics would better be reformulated in a way that does not make reference to them There are several such reformulations (see Earman [1989]), varying in their commitments, which are all typically called “relational”. What they have in common is a restriction of the domain of predication of the physical theory to observable quantities. (Where they differ is in what is construed to be “observable”. In particular, they differ on whether various sorts of acceleration, including rotation, are deemed to be observable.) “Observable” is cashed out as “relational”, where “relational” means a physical quantity that is a relation between two objects or properties. For instance, the distance between two objects is a relational property — the relative position. What is, or is not, an observable quantity is a matter of much debate. At a minimum, it would seem that relative positions are observable, or physical. Change in relative position with respect to time (usually called “relative velocity”) should be observable to the extent that time is observable. And so on. For the purposes of this paper, I will suppose that any theory which is relational with respect to spatiotemporal properties will represent relative position as an observable.
    [Show full text]
  • Science and Mind in Contemporary Process Thought
    Science and Mind in Contemporary Process Thought Science and Mind in Contemporary Process Thought Edited by Jakub Dziadkowiec and Lukasz Lamza Science and Mind in Contemporary Process Thought Series: European Studies in Process Thought Edited by Jakub Dziadkowiec and Lukasz Lamza This book first published 2019 Cambridge Scholars Publishing Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2019 by Jakub Dziadkowiec, Lukasz Lamza and contributors All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-5275-3697-1 ISBN (13): 978-1-5275-3697-5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword .................................................................................................. vii Part I: Towards a Science of Process Introduction to Part I .................................................................................. 2 Bogdan Ogrodnik Chapter 1 .................................................................................................... 6 Formal Representation of Space Michael Heather and Nick Rossiter Chapter 2 .................................................................................................. 19 An Inductively Formulated Process Metaphysics Lukasz Lamza Chapter 3 .................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Epistemological Vs. Ontological Relationalism in Quantum Mechanics: Relativism Or Realism?
    Epistemological vs. Ontological Relationalism in Quantum Mechanics: Relativism or Realism? C. de Ronde∗ and R. Fernandez Moujan Philosophy Institute Dr. A. Korn Buenos Aires University, CONICET - Argentina Center Leo Apostel and Foundations of the Exact Sciences Brussels Free University - Belgium Abstract In this paper we investigate the history of relationalism and its present use in some interpretations of quantum mechanics. In the first part of this article we will provide a conceptual analysis of the relation between substantivalism, relationalism and relativism in the history of both physics and philosophy. In the second part, we will address some relational interpretations of quantum mechanics, namely, Bohr’s relational approach, the modal interpretation by Kochen, the perspectival modal version by Bene and Dieks and the relational interpretation by Rovelli. We will argue that all these interpretations ground their understanding of relations in epistemological terms. By taking into account the analysis on the first part of our work, we intend to highlight the fact that there is a different possibility for understanding quantum mechanics in relational terms which has not been yet considered within the foundational literature. This possibility is to consider relations in (non-relativist) ontological terms. We will argue that such an understanding might be capable of providing a novel approach to the problem of representing what quantum mechanics is really talking about. Keywords: relationalism, relativism, epistemic view, ontic view, quantum mechanics. Introduction In this article we attempt to discuss the possibility of providing a relational account of quantum mechanics. For such purpose we intend to clarify which are the main distinctions between substantivalism, relationalism and relativism.
    [Show full text]
  • 09. the Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence 2
    1. Relationism 09. The Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence 2. Leibniz's Arguments • Series of letters written in 1715-1716. Against Absolute Space - Newton's spokesperson. - Defends absolutism (absolute space exists). Samuel Clarke (1675-1729) - Critic of Newton. - Defends relationism (relational theory of space). - Offers two versions of a "Shift" argument against Gottfried Wilhelm the existence of absolute space. Leibniz (1646-1716) Tally: Against Relationism Against Absolutism - Newton's Bucket - Leibniz's Shift Arguments 1 1. Relationism (1) Descartes' "negative" statement: There is no absolute reference frame separate from all the relative reference frames defined by material objects. Recall Problem for Descartes: (a) The Principle of Inertia requires the existence of privileged reference frames. (b) What material objects can be said to define such privileged frames? (All objects interact potentially with each other.) (2) Leibniz's "positive" statement: Space consists of "an order of coexistences". "...a situation of bodies among themselves" • In other words: Space consists of the relations between material objects. 2 2. Leibniz's Arguments Against Absolute Space. • First note: Newton's absolute space is unobservable. - Absolute position (position with respect to absolute space) is unobservable. - Absolute velocity (velocity with respect to absolute space) is observable. • Moreover: Recall that positions and velocities cannot be detected by experiments governed by Newton's Laws of Motion. • But: Newton must claim that every material obJect has a unique value of absolute position and a unique value of absolute velocity. • Thus: Newton's theory of motion requires the existence of quantities (absolute position and absolute !!! velocity) that are in-principle unobservable. • Note: This doesn't hold for absolute acceleration, since it is observationally detectable (it always !!! comes accompanied by inertial forces).
    [Show full text]
  • Space, Time, and Ontology in Classical and Quantum Gravity
    WHATEVER IS NEVER AND NOWHERE IS NOT: SPACE, TIME, AND ONTOLOGY IN CLASSICAL AND QUANTUM GRAVITY by Gordon Belot B.Sc., University of Toronto, 1991 M.Sc., University of Toronto, 1993 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of University of Pittsburgh in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Pittsburgh 1996 John Earman Joseph Camp Adolf Grünbaum John Norton Carlo Rovelli ii WHATEVER IS NEVER AND NOWHERE IS NOT: SPACE, TIME, AND ONTOLOGY IN CLASSICAL AND QUANTUM GRAVITY Gordon Belot, Ph.D. University of Pittsburgh, 1996 Substantivalists claim that spacetime enjoys an existence analogous to that of material bodies, while relationalists seek to reduce spacetime to sets of possible spatiotemporal relations. The resulting debate has been central to the philosophy of space and time since the Scientific Revolution. Recently, many philosophers of physics have turned away from the debate, claiming that it is no longer of any relevance to physics. At the same time, there has been renewed interest in the debate among physicists working on quantum gravity, who claim that the conceptual problems which they face are intimately related to interpretative questions concerning general relativity (GR). My goal is to show that the physicists are correct—there is a close relationship between the interpretative issues of classical and quantum gravity. In the first part of the dissertation I challenge the received view that substantivalism has a commanding advantage over relationalism on grounds internal to GR. I argue that this view is based on a misconception of the relationships between realism and substantivalism, and between empiricism and relationalism.
    [Show full text]
  • Modelling and Generating Complex Emergent Behaviour
    MODELLING AND GENERATING COMPLEX EMERGENT BEHAVIOUR A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy By Kirsty Kitto B.Sc.(Hons), B.Comp.Sci. The School of Chemistry, Physics and Earth Sciences, The Flinders University of South Australia June 2006 Abstract Despite a general recognition of the importance of complex systems, there is a dearth of general models capable of describing their dynamics. This is attributed to a complexity scale; the models are attempting to describe systems at di®erent parts of the scale and are hence not compatible. We require new models capable of describing complex behaviour at di®erent points of the complexity scale. This work identi¯es, and proceeds to examine systems at the high end of the complexity scale, those which have not to date been well understood by our current modelling methodology. It is shown that many such models exhibit what might be termed contextual dependency, and that it is precisely this feature which is not well understood by our current modelling methodology. A particular problem is discussed; our apparent inability to generate systems which display high end complex- ity, exhibited by for example the general failure of strong ALife. A new model, Process Physics, that has been developed at Flinders University is discussed, and arguments are presented that it exhibits high end complexity. The features of this model that lead to its displaying such behaviour are discussed, and the generalisation of this model to a broader range of complex systems is attempted. Themes: contextuality and complexity; reductive failure; Process Physics; quantum the- ories as models of complexity i I certify that this thesis does not incorporate without acknowledg- ment any material previously submitted for a degree or diploma in any university; and that to the best of my knowledge and belief it does not contain any material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made in the text.
    [Show full text]
  • Bridging Police and Communities Through Relationship: the Importance of a Theoretical Foundation for Restorative Policing
    Restorative Justice An International Journal ISSN: 2050-4721 (Print) 2050-473X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rrej20 Bridging police and communities through relationship: the importance of a theoretical foundation for restorative policing Krystal Glowatski, Nicholas A. Jones & R. Nicholas Carleton To cite this article: Krystal Glowatski, Nicholas A. Jones & R. Nicholas Carleton (2017) Bridging police and communities through relationship: the importance of a theoretical foundation for restorative policing, Restorative Justice, 5:2, 267-292, DOI: 10.1080/20504721.2017.1343416 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/20504721.2017.1343416 Published online: 10 Aug 2017. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 52 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rrej20 Download by: [Eastern Mennonite University] Date: 27 November 2017, At: 10:35 RESTORATIVE JUSTICE: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, 2017 VOL. 5, NO. 2, 267–292 https://doi.org/10.1080/20504721.2017.1343416 ARTICLE Bridging police and communities through relationship: the importance of a theoretical foundation for restorative policing Krystal Glowatskia, Nicholas A. Jonesb and R. Nicholas Carletonc aPhD Student, School of Criminology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada; bAssociate Professor, Department of Justice Studies, University of Regina, Regina, Canada; cAssociate Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Regina, Regina, Canada ABSTRACT Various models of policing have been studied in the past, but have primarily focused on practice. The current paper applies Llewellyn’s integration of relational theory and restorative justice to the notion of restorative policing. The paper explores how several demographic factors, police organisational support and theoretical constructs associated with relational theory influence the willingness of police officers (n = 296) to engage in practices associated with a restorative approach to policing.
    [Show full text]