Mod 4 reading response

The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 876–896

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Leadership Quarterly

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r.com/ locate / l eaqua

A critical review of race and ethnicity in the leadership literature: Surfacing context, power and the collective dimensions of leadership

Sonia Ospina⁎, Erica Foldy Wagner School of Public Service, New York University, The Puck Building, 295 Lafayette St., 2nd floor, New York, NY 10012, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 212 998 7436. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S. Ospina

1048-9843/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Inc. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.09.005

a b s t r a c t

Keywords:

Leadership studies focusing on race–ethnicity provide particularly rich contexts to illuminate the human condition as it pertains to leadership. Yet insights about the leadership experience of people of color from context-rich research within education, communications and black studies remain marginal in the field. Our framework integrates these, categorizing reviewed studies according to the effects of race–ethnicity on perceptions of leadership, the effects of race–ethnicity on leadership enactments, and actors' approach to the social reality of race– ethnicity. The review reveals a gradual convergence of theories of leadership and theories of race–ethnicity as their relational dimensions are increasingly emphasized. A shift in the conceptualization of race–ethnicity in relation to leadership is reported, from a constraint to a personal resource to a simultaneous consideration of its constraining and liberating capacity. Concurrent shifts in the treatment of context, power, agency versus structure and causality are also explored, as are fertile areas for future research.

© 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Critical race theory Relational leadership Social identity Intersectionality

1. Introduction

As the USmarks the first year in office of its first African American president, the need for a review of the research on leadership and race–ethnicity is compelling. Research suggests that even as many black leaders and other leaders of color thrive–in part by drawing on their racial and ethnic identity–they continue to face profound obstacles to their leadership. On its own, this contradiction suggests that an exploration of the intersecting territories of race and leadership would be productive. However, for a number of reasons, we believe that mapping this territory is crucial.

First, race continues to create “a fundamental fault line” in the US (Marable, 1996; Wood, 2002, p. 3). Indeed, as Omi and Winant (1994) suggest, social actors are inserted in a structure permeated with racial meanings that affect how we comprehend, explain and act in the world. As they indicate, “…despite its uncertainties and contradictions, the concept of race continues to play a fundamental role in structuring and representing the social world” in this society (Omi & Winant, 1994, p. 55). Because of this critical role, race–ethnicity is often central to how individuals and collectives define themselves, either explicitly or implicitly (Yanow, 2003). If society, communities and individuals are all significantly informed by race, then leadership must be as well.

Second, this inquiry allows us to address a larger concern in the field: to effectively conceptualize and incorporate context in understandings of leadership. Despite overwhelming agreement about the importance of context (Biggart & Hamilton, 1987; Jackson & Parry, 2008; Kets de Vries, 2001; Osborn, Hunt, & Jauch, 2002) this remains an “under-researched area” particularly in organizational leadership (Porter & McLaughlin, 2006, p. 206). Without addressing context, our theories of leadership remain incomplete, making it more difficult to offer practical guidelines to address the leadership demands of changing organizations in contemporary society.

), [email protected] (E. Foldy).

All rights reserved.

877S. Ospina, E. Foldy / The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 876–896

Effectively conceptualizing and incorporating context provides a path to explore the ‘how’ of leadership, thus bringing back the “ship” to leadership (Grint, 2005). An earlier focus on positional leaders' traits pointed to the ‘who’ and ‘where’. A later focus on styles, behaviors, cognitions and functions clarified the ‘what’ of leadership. A focus on the ‘how’ of leadership examines how the influence process unfolds among actors engaged in producing desired outcomes and the mechanisms underlying the construction of influence. This agenda is particularly relevant given present theoretical developments that emphasize the shared and collective dimensions of leadership (Ford & Seers, 2006; Hiller, Day, & Vance, 2006; Ospina & Sorensen, 2006; Pearce & Sims, 2002; Uhl-Bien, 2006).

Third, the organizational trends that amplify functional demands to cultivate both connectedness and difference (Saz-Carranza & Ospina, 2008) provide an important setting where the complex reality of race–ethnicity becomes part of the phenomenon of leadership. The movement toward less bureaucratic, more loosely associated organizational forms increases the urgency of demands for unity within increasingly fragmented environments. Moreover, the valuing of difference while finding common purpose is required by a growingly diverse workforce and clientele across all organizational contexts (Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding, Jacobs, & Fleishman, 2000). Identifying insights about the role that race–ethnicity plays in this work is the beginning of a deeper understanding of how connection is fostered without suppressing difference. This is an important dimension of the work of leadership (Fletcher, 2008, 2004; Foldy, Rivard, & Buckley, 2009; Ospina & Foldy, forthcoming) that demonstrates the need for the richer conceptualizations of context that are necessary for its empirical study.

Finally, attention to race also surfaces particular understandings of the role of power in leadership and the context of leadership (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001; Omi &Winant, 1994; Yosso & Solorzano, 2005). Of course, as others have noted, leadership and power are inextricably intertwined (Burns, 1978). But attending to race brings an understanding of power not only as a resource for individuals, but also as a web of institutionalized inequities that systematically, and at the expense of others, provides privilege to some communities and some perspectives. At the same time, examining leadership–since leadership is fundamentally about agency–helps us understand how individuals and collectives have resisted, and in some cases transformed, these inequities- creating spaces where marginalized voices become powerful.

In research on leadership, the experiences of people of color are often treated as a special case, rather than as the potential source for theorizing from within a particularly important social context, given the pervasiveness and impact of race in social experience. Insights from research that explicitly concern the inside perspective of people of color are often downplayed or ignored (Tillman, 2004). These gaps in the field considerably reduce our capacity to understand the full complexity of leadership. We suggest that the field can–and must–learn from leadership studies that focus on race–ethnicity as particularly rich contexts within which insights about the human condition as it pertains to leadership can be gained.

For all these reasons, we undertook this exploration of the intersection of race and leadership. A two-fold question guides this review: How has the leadership literature to date treated race? And, given key theoretical developments in the field, what particularly fertile areas in the relationship between race and leadership should be explored?

Altogether our review suggests the gradual convergence of theories of race–ethnicity and theories of leadership. Leadership studies that explore race increasingly use a fluid and dynamic conceptualization of social identity that highlights its collective dimensions. Similarly, the leadership field itself increasingly views leadership as the dynamic relationships between both leaders and followers (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Uhl-Bien, 2006), and moving beyond this paradigm, as the relational property of a system manifested in collective achievements owned by a group (Drath, 2001; Ospina & Sorensen, 2006; Uhl-Bien, 2006). Emphasizing the collective dimensions of both race–ethnicity and leadership may yield context-rich leadership research, and contribute to the goal of exploring the “how” of leadership.

In addition to “race,”we also consider “ethnicity” in this review. Both race and ethnicity represent important ingredients in the constitution of collective identities and in thework of leadership (Ospina & Su, 2009).While race and ethnicity are contested terms that have often been used interchangeably, traditionally, race has been conceptualized as a classification based largely on visible physical traits, while ethnicity has been seen as relating more to customs and traditions learned from ancestors.. In practice, the boundaries between them are increasingly murky and their social effects are often impossible to disentangle (Landson-Billings, 2000). In our paper we follow Yanow's (2003) choice to use the single referent “race–ethnicity” for both identities, unless we are specifically referring to one of them. (We also want to acknowledge Cox's (1993) term “racioethnicity”which had been introduced some years earlier.) In addition, in this review we employ a variety of terms–black and African American, Latino and Hispanic– which usually follow the nomenclature of the authors reviewed.

In summary, to clarify what race–ethnicity can tell us about leadership, our review inquires into the ways scholars have treated the relationship between them. We hope that our analysis advances the field's deeper consideration of context, and further opens the “black box” about the ‘how’ of leadership. The paper is structured as follows:We first briefly describe the methodology used to develop our review, clarifying the scope and limits of the article. We then present our findings, classifying them around three questions that reflect the broader areas of inquiry we found in our review. First, how does race–ethnicity affect the perception and evaluation of leaders? Second, how does race–ethnicity affect how leadership is enacted? And finally, how do leaders grapple with the social reality of race–ethnicity? We then discuss broad implications of these findings for the leadership field. We end by applying our insights to propose directions for future research.

2. Literature review

An abundance of literature addresses the theme of race and leadership. Our review included work from leadership studies, education, management, and some from political science, cultural studies, and gender studies, where appropriate. Table 1

878 S. Ospina, E. Foldy / The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 876–896

Table 1 Summary of sources analyzed and cited in the article.

Empirical Non-empirical

Analyzed Cited Analyzed Cited

Qualitative 52 31 Theory building 76 54 Quantitative 14 9 Literature review 6 5

Discipline Discipline

Education studies 18 14 Education studies 15 8 Leadership studies 9 7 Leadership studies 24 21 Management and organizational development 8 7 Management and organizational development 3 3 Political science 13 5 Political science 8 0 Psychology 7 3 Psychology 13 12 Racial and ethnic studies 5 2 Racial and ethnic studies 14 11 Women's and gender studies 6 2 Women's and gender studies 5 4 Total empirical 66 40 Total non-empirical 82 59

Total number of sources analyzed: 148. Total number of analyzed sources cited in article: 99.

summarizes and describes the sampled studies, including the sourcesmentioned in this article and the entire sample we reviewed. A total of 148 sources were identified, reviewed and categorized. Of these, 99 are cited.

Search terms–leadership, race, diverse, ethnicity, African American, black, white, Latino, Hispanic, Asian, and color–were used both in isolation, and in combination with one another, to screen the relevant scholarship available on a range of academic databases. We looked at specific journals within the leadership field, such as The Leadership Quarterly and the International Journal of Leadership Studies, in addition to databases containing journals across disciplines. These included: ProQuest, Science Direct, ERIC, PsycInfo, SAGE, JSTOR, and Google Scholar. Identical query terms were used for all of the databases.

The range of disciplines in the analysis provided a variety of frameworks for examining the work of leadership. Among these disciplines, education and management produced the greatest number of pertinent results. Where the studies were empirical we focused mostly on those based in the US. Because they offered significant insights, we included some studies from other English speaking countries like the UK and Australia, but they were exceptions. The process for selecting and categorizing the studies was as follows: a team of two research assistants collected and read all the identified references from the first and second round of literature searches and created a brief summary of each that was read by the co-authors. Based on these summaries (and in many cases by their previous knowledge of the article), the co-authors chose 148 pertinent articles and reviewed the full text. The research team used this review to develop a preliminary classification system which was refined through several iterations into the framework used here to report our findings.

Two qualifications further clarify the scope of this review. First, we have chosen to focus on race–ethnicity while also acknowledging that this is only one of several relevant and overlapping collective identities to understand social experience. In fact, research indicates that race–ethnicity seldom operates in isolation from other identities such as gender, class, sexual orientation, nationality, religious preference and so on (Collins, 2005; Crenshaw, Gotanda, Peller, & Thomas, 1995; Delgado & Stefancic, 2001; Richardson&Loubier, 2008). In some caseswe address these overlaps by incorporating studies that simultaneously included a focus on race and gender; but the analytical focus was on the relationship between race–ethnicity and leadership.

Second, we decided to largely exclude from this review work from two potentially relevant traditions of scholarship. While we briefly touch on some work on political leadership found in the black leadership scholarly tradition and which is one stream of the political science literature reviewed,we do not specifically include this work in the analysis, because the construct of race–ethnicity is not given analytical primacy within the big tradition and because we were specifically interested in leadership within organizations.

The other explicit exclusion is the work on managing or leading diverse teams or organizations, for several reasons. First, with few exceptions, most of this work does not reference or explore leadership explicitly. (One exception is DiTomaso and Hooijberg, who argue in their 1996 paper that the diversity literature falls short on the role it sees for leaders in maximizing diversity efforts, in part because current models of leadership use implicit theories that sanction and perpetuate inequality.) Second, this literature usually includes many dimensions of diversity, sometimes including race, more often including gender, age, tenure, professional background and the like. Therefore, much of it is not relevant. In this review we considered only diversity studies focusing solely on race–ethnic diversity and only if they contained a direct reference to leadership or managerial supervision. We did include studies that focus on the race–ethnicity of managers that address the implications for their relationship with employees, since this represents the most studied formal leader-follower relationship in the literature.

3. Findings on Race–ethnicity and Leadership

Our review yielded sources that answered one of three fundamental questions that are implicit or explicit in the scholarship:

• How does race–ethnicity (of leaders, followers or both) affect perceptions of leadership? • How does race–ethnicity affect the ways leadership is enacted? and • How do leaders (and/or followers) grapple with the social reality of race–ethnicity?

879S. Ospina, E. Foldy / The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 876–896

Specific approaches may cut across these categories, but in general, the research clustered well within them, and will be reviewed accordingly.1 We review the literature in each category below.

3.1. Effects of race–ethnicity on perceptions of leadership

The first set of studies focuses roughly on the questions of how the race–ethnicity of the leaders and/or of the followers affect– positively or negatively–perceptions of leadership. Most of these studies try to understand how the race–ethnicity of either the perceiver or the target affects who is authorized to be a leader, as well as how leaders are evaluated or treated. In general, in this category, scholars view race–ethnicity as an independent variable that helps explain how leaders are viewed or experienced. Some studies explore how the race–ethnicity of the leader impacts the way he or she is viewed by followers, while others investigate how the race–ethnicity of followers (or of a general audience that represents potential followers) impacts their view of the leader, given his or her race–ethnicity.

Work in this category stems, for the most part, from an underlying assumption that leaders of color are disadvantaged because, for various reasons, they are not perceived as legitimate. Some research suggests that perceivers or potential followers are less likely to authorize people of color as leaders, while other research finds that positional leaders of color, such as managers, may face challenges to their leadership that white leaders do not.

In either case, however, much of this work sees race as a constraint or obstacle that must be managed because the research has been done in contexts (usually American or British) where whites are the dominant racial group. In that sense, this research at least implicitly and sometimes explicitly acknowledges the importance of racial identity as well as the impact of contexts that include racially-based power inequities. Studies in this category then respond to this context by focusing on how those inequities translate into constraints placed on individual leaders of color. (The majority of research has compared whites and African Americans; however more recent research has investigated Latino/a, Asian and Native American leaders as well.) Some studies have been interested solely in establishing that these obstacles exist, while others have also investigated different explanations for the disadvantage, as well as the influence of particular contextual factors that may moderate the effect of race.

3.1.1. Documenting the constraints of race–ethnicity Much of this work draws on quantitative designs that view race as a variable, which can be isolated to assess the extent to

which it has an effect on dependent variables such as performance ratings or perceptions of leadership ability. An early review of research on black and white leaders (Bartol, Evans, & Stith, 1978) noted that the preponderance of evidence from field studies showed black managers were rated more negatively than white managers. However, other studies showed no difference or even, in one study, that African Americanswere ratedmore positively thanwhites. The authors also point out that there appeared to be a difference in what leadership characteristics were given more weight: “across the studies, there does appear to be a tendency to evaluate blacks in leadership positions more heavily on interpersonal factors than on content or task-related factors” (p. 298), though little research at that time investigated why this might be the case. This review article also cites an early study that found that white subordinates of black managers often act in ways that challenge and undermine their leadership (Richards & Jaffee, 1972; as cited in Bartol et al., 1978), while a large study in 1989 which included both civilian and military employees continued to find that both whites and non-whites rated non-white leaders more negatively (Sackett & DuBois, 1991).

More recent lab and survey studies of this kind have also generally found that non-whites are at a disadvantage, though different kinds of comparisons have been used. Vecchio and Bullis (2001) gathered data from almost 3000 army officers and their subordinates, finding that Hispanic supervisors were rated slightly less positively than non-Hispanics. Knight, Hebl, Foster, and Mannix (2003) compared white and black managers in an experimental study and found that participants tended to give lower ratings to black leaders and white subordinates, and higher ratings to white leaders and black subordinates, “thus affirming these workers in their stereotypical societal positions” (p. 85). Rosette, Leonardelli, and Phillips (2008) also compared white and black “business leaders” in an experimental study, finding that whites were seen as more effective leaders and as having more leadership potential. Chung-Herrera and Lankau (2005) found that Asians might be advantaged as well as whites: when participants compared profiles of a successful manager to stereotypical profiles of managers of different races, they tended to see a greater correspondence between ratings of white and Asian Americanmanagers and the successful manager prototype, compared with black and Hispanic managers.

Finally, these quantitative studies have been complemented by mixed methods or qualitative research on African American, Latino and Native American leaders, often women. These document that many from these groups feel they face significant obstacles in exercising their authority, though sometimes it is difficult to distinguish the effects of race from the effects of sex. A study of black managers in education found that they named isolation, lack of professional acceptance and limited networks as consequences of their race (MacKay & Etienne, 2006). In an extensive study of white and black women managers (Bell & Nkomo, 2001), a number of the African American participants recounted incidents of outright racism as well as more subtle challenges to

Two studies by Jung and colleagues have investigated how leadership styles have consequences for leadership outcomes depending on race of the follower (not the leader), comparing whites and Asians (Jung & Avolio, 1998; Jung & Yammarino, 2001). In the first Asians generated more ideas than did white students when working with a transformational leader, while in the second Asian followers felt more collective empowerment than whites, who in turn felt more individual empowerment. These studies are anomalies that do not fit our framework: not being about the race of the leader, they do not fit into category 2; not being about how race of the followers affects perceptions of the leaders, they do not fit into category 1. Perhaps the emerging follower-centric perspective to leadership (Shamir et al., 2007) will stimulate more work of this type, but so far it stands on its own.

1

880 S. Ospina, E. Foldy / The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 876–896

their authority as well as being held to a higher standard (see chapter 7). Fitzgerald's (2006) cross-national study of indigenous women educational leaders in New Zealand, Australia and Canada found that they feel marginalized and tokenized, believing that others were “waiting for me tomake amistake,” in the words of one participant (p. 208). Latina school superintendents also feel at a disadvantage according to a study by Méndez-Morse (2003). Thomas and Gabarro's study of the career paths of black and Hispanic executives showed that, while ultimately successful, they had to log many more years of experience than their white counterparts before they broke through to the executive suite (Thomas & Gabarro, 1999).

3.1.2. Explaining the constraints of race–ethnicity Many of these studies also investigate or speculate about why these obstacles exist. Bass (1990) cites early studies to suggest

that “stress created bymarginality” is likely to be a constraining effect for black leaders (p. 742), even as he allows that marginality in some circumstances can be quite beneficial. He specifies that African Americanmanagersmay lack access to important networks and “appreciation and encouragement” from their superiors (p. 743).

The presence of stereotypes and biases is a widely accepted explanation. Méndez-Morse (2003), for example, argues that Latinas are subject to the stereotype that they are only wives and mothers and dominated by the men in their community. Chung- Herrera and Lankau (2005) also name biases and stereotypes as the explanation for their finding that whites and Asians are more likely to be seen as embodying the profile of a successful manager. Reviewing earlier studies, Bass (1990), on the other hand, speculates that racial prejudice, a “cultural background that stresses modesty” and the stereotype of Asians as “passive and retiring” may all contribute to the reasons they are not found in management in higher numbers, despite their relatively large representation in technical and professional fields (p. 754).

Others squarely name racism. Knight et al. (2003), mention aversive racism, a modern form of racism that avoids outright white supremacy while more insidiously rationalizing white dominance. They argue that it is “perhaps the most difficult obstacle for blackmanagers to overcome” (p. 87). Bell and Nkomo (2001) in contrast, name “racialized sexism,” a “particular form of sexism shaped by racism and racial stereotyping” (p. 137) as the basic barrier to advancement for black women managers. While Rosette and her colleagues (2008) acknowledge the presence of negative racial bias and stereotypes, they believe anothermechanismmay also be at play: that “being white” (that is, race itself rather than stereotypes about race) is part of the business leader prototype and therefore whites are more likely to be seen as leaders.

Furthermore,many of these studies and others also explore contextual factors thatmightmodify in someway thebasic assumption that leaders of color are handicapped by unfair expectations or evaluations. The most common factor is the race of the perceiver: a numberof scholars suggest that perceivers (or followers) aremore likely toauthorize leaders fromtheir own racial groupormore likely to rate them favorably. Lee (2008) in fact, argues that in organizational or policy contexts dominated by issues that disproportionately face people of color, such as child welfare, leaders of color might be more legitimate and more likely to be authorized.

However, the evidence here is mixed. In their review article, Bartol et al. (1978) do suggest “an interaction between the ethnic characteristics of rater and ratee may influence evaluations” with ratees more likely to view leaders of their own race more positively. Kraiger and Ford (1985) did a meta-analysis of more than 50 studies involving black and white subjects, finding that whites tended to give higher ratings towhites and blacks to blacks, though these effects weremuch stronger in the field than in the lab. Bass (1990) cites studies with the same conclusion in his review and then directly explores whether poorer evaluations of black managers and leaders is due to white racial bias; however, he ultimately decides he cannot draw firm conclusions (p. 752) see also (Bass, 2008, pp. 959–961). He also cites one study of Chicano subordinates of white and black managers which found they gave white managers higher performance ratings than black managers (Bass, 2008, p. 967).

Other studies undermine the notion that followers will more highly rank leaders of their own racial group. Dubey (1970) found that African Americans are generally “indifferent to the race” of those holding leadership roles in business or religious organizations. A large study of black andwhite managers, subordinates and peers found that black subordinates rated black bosses more highly than they rated white bosses; however the same effect was not true for whites: white subordinates did not differ in their ratings of white and black bosses (Mount, Sytsma, Hazucha, & Holt, 1997). Recent lab studies also suggest that same-group membership is not as predictive as one might think. Rosette et al. found that participants of color (Asian, Hispanic and African American) also had a bias in favor of white leaders. A study by Ritter, Fischbein, and Lord (2005) found that subordinates of color were more likely to expect injustice from their managers, regardless of the manager's race.

Others have identified additional factors that could affect how race influences subordinates' evaluations of superiors. In one early study, more liberal white subordinates rated their black managers more favorably than less liberal subordinates (Richards & Jaffee; 1972: as cited in Bartol et al., 1978). In a conceptual paper, Slay (2003) argues that black andwhite subordinates' positive or negative reactions will result from the interaction of organizational context and how black leaders manage their own racial identity. In summary, she suggests African American leaders in “majority” (predominantly white) contexts who emphasize their social identification as executives rather than as African Americans are more likely to be seen positively by whites and less positively by blacks. Those who emphasize their racial identity are more likely to be seen less positively by whites and more positively by blacks. In “minority” contexts, however, the opposite dynamic would exist.

Ellis, Ilgen, and Hollenbeck (2006) investigated another possible contingent influence on ratings of black vs. white leaders: attributions about team performance. They found no direct effect of race on performance ratings. Instead, team performance and whether subordinates attribute performance to internal or external factors, influenced the performance ratings of black and white leaders.

Finally, Bass posits one final reason for lower evaluations of African American leaders: their purported lower cognitive ability as measured on IQ tests and the like (2008, p. 953). While we strongly reject this conclusion, we feel it is important to draw attention

881S. Ospina, E. Foldy / The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 876–896

to this material in our review. In his fourth edition of the Handbook of Leadership, (2008) Bass begins by noting, without citation or comment, that only a small percentage of blacks score high on IQ tests, compared with a large percentage of whites. He goes on to say that “[m]ore intellectually demanding jobs tend to employ proportionately fewer blacks,” (againwithout citation or comment) as another data point apparently attesting to the lower intelligence of African Americans.

He then cites a 1974 review of research which concluded that “the lower average job performance of blacks from cognitive ability tests is accurately predicted from their lower average test scores” and goes on to note, “The lower scores of blacks than whites are not due to test biases. In fact, if anything, the job performance of blacks has been overestimated based on their test results” (2008, p. 953). Here he specifically rejects the notion that these tests could be racially biased. Later, he notes, “25% of blacks are still higher in tested intelligence than 50% of whites. Although they may be proportionately fewer than the number of whiteswho are available, a substantial number of blacks with the necessary cognitive skills are on hand for positions of leadership” (2008, p. 953). Here he is affirming the notion that fewer blacks are capable of effective leadership, given lower cognitive ability.

Finally, Bass also uses a number of research studies from the 1960s and 70s to describe what he calls “the slum subculture” and make other simplistic generalizations about African Americans (2008, p. 954).While Bass also notes that blacks experience greater stress due to their “marginality” and acknowledges the existence of racial discrimination (2008, p. 954), this does not begin to outweigh the damage done by his drawing conclusions based on suspect (and dated) research that denigrates African Americans. We will return to this in the discussion.

Before concluding this section, we need to reference the extensive work of Hogg (2001) and colleagues on their “social identity theory of leadership”which is broadly relevant to discussions of the intersection of race and leadership, though little of it investigates the effects of race–ethnicity, per se. Rather, influenced by social identity and social categorization theory (e.g., Brewer & Gardner, 1996), they argue that most work on leadership overlooks the fact that “leaders not only lead groups of people, but are also themselves members of these groups” (Van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003, p. 244; italics theirs). They suggest that groups authorize those most prototypical of the group to be their leaders, particularly when group members have strong group identification.

Empirical research by Hogg and Terry (2000) tends to focus on groups artificially formed in the lab. Nevertheless in their conceptual work they suggest that race and racial groups may prompt similar dynamics. For example, they suggest that “minorities may find it difficult to attain top leadership positions in organizations because they do not fit culturally prescribed organizational prototypes” (p. 130). They also argue that when members identify with a group faced by a “social dilemma,” they aremore likely to authorize a leader fitting the group prototype. However, that would suggest that, for example, African Americans would bemore likely to positively evaluate leaders from their own groupwhich, as we have seen, has not consistently proved true.

In summary, work in this first category of our framework tends to share several similarities. First, this work sees both race and leadership as individual characteristics, even while it understands that perceptions and evaluations of individual leaders are profoundly affected by societal and organizational power inequities that privilege whiteness. It takes an individual-orientation, which sees race as one ofmultiple dimensions of identity that individuals possess and that impacts their fate. And it suggests that it is only individual leaders–as opposed to the work of leadership–who are affected by the racial hierarchy. These individual leaders then face a lonely and difficult undertaking since they are generally in the minority, must attend constantly to how they are being assessed, and will have fewer colleagues to whom they can authentically connect.

Second, this category is about leader as target, or the one being perceived. These studies are most concerned with the perceptions of subordinates or potential followers. Hence the leaders are often construed–whether the researchers meant to do this or not–as the passive recipients of these perceptions, as opposed to active agents that challenge them. However, some of these studies, as well as other research, suggest that these societal, organizational and individual perceptions also can shape how leaders of color enact their leadership, including drawing on their race–ethnicity as part of their leadership style. This research falls into a second category of work that examines how race affects the enactment of leadership.

3.2. Effects of race–ethnicity on leadership enactments

The second category in our framework addresses the question of how the race–ethnicity of the leader affects the ways that he or she enacts that leadership. As in the first group, studies in this category tend to view race–ethnicity as an independent variable, but in this case, they tend to emphasize its impact on preferences, styles and behaviors. Unlike the first category, here the focus is on the leader, paying less attention to followers, unless one aspect of the enacted leadership is to reach particular audiences, usually members of the same racial–ethnic group. Some studies in this category explore how racial–ethnic identity affects leadership style. Others, particularly the rich tradition of black leadership scholarship, go further to explore how race–ethnicity affects individuals' construction of the purpose of their leadership.

Work in this area falls into two distinct sub-categories. Quantitative studies, almost all of them from the 1970s, compared the supervisory styles of white and black managers, as well as whether managers, either explicitly or unconsciously, differentially supervise employees of different races. Bass has reviewed this work (1990, 2008), so we touch on this relatively briefly. Instead we focus on more recent work, most of it qualitative, which goes beyond seeing race–ethnicity as a demographic variable to be statistically manipulated, to understanding it as something lived and carried out, including in leadership style. Therefore, this work tends to view race–ethnicity as a more complex, fluid identity negotiated by a social actor, usually the leader, in ways that afford some agency to turn this identity into an individual resource. As one researcher notes, “leadership is influenced and shaped by our own personal and social identity constructions and politics” (Dillard, 1995, p. 558). We summarize each sub- category in turn.

882 S. Ospina, E. Foldy / The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 876–896

3.2.1. Comparing white and black leadership styles The research comparing black and white supervisory styles provides few consistent findings and took place mostly in the

1970s. For example, one study found black participants in a supervisors' training were less likely to suggest use of harsh punishment than were white participants (Shull & Anthony, 1978; as cited in Bass, 2008). In contrast, an experimental study showed that white undergraduates playing a supervisor were seen as having greater human relation and administrative skills than black students in that role (Richards & Jaffee, 1972; as cited in Bass, 1990). Similarly, one study showed blackmanagerswere lower in power motivation (Watson & Barone, 1976; as cited in Bass, 2008), while another found African American supervisors to be higher in motivation to manage than their white colleagues (Miner, 1977; as cited in Bass, 2008). One study, which stands out because it was conducted relatively recently (Pitts, 2005), broadly compared school superintendents of color with white superintendents, hypothesizing that the former would be more empowering of their staff than the latter, but found the opposite was true. The author speculates that because there are so few superintendents of color, they may feel more vulnerable and therefore need to exercise greater control.

Much of this research looks at how the race of the manager interacts with the race of his employees (and seems to implicitly or explicitly presume a male supervisor). Bartol et al. (1978) review research about whether black and white managers supervise their black and white subordinates differently. They find little difference: overall, studies concluded that African American managers are not more considerate with their black subordinates nor are they less directive.

Bass (1990, 2008) however, argues that black managers are likely to be at a disadvantage because they are less likely to be viewed as legitimate and thereforemay enact their leadership differently to address this concern. For example, King & Bass (1974), as cited in Bass (2008) argued that African American managers would be less directive and more considerate with their white employees. And, in fact, one study reported that white subordinates found black managers exhibited more consideration than did white managers (Adams, 1978; as cited in Bass, 2008). King & Bass (1974) also expected that white supervisors would be more directive with their black subordinates. This was originally supported by a study that found whites were more likely to use coercion when dealing with their black, as opposed to white, subordinates (Kipnis, Silverman, & Copeland, 1973; as cited in Bass, 2008). However, studies of black and white leaders with mixed racial subordinates show no clear pattern of results.

As a whole, this kind of work is quite similar to the work we reviewed in the first category: race–ethnicity is an individual characteristic, a fixed categorical variable that often acts as a constraint on leaders of color. Further, the vast majority of it is at least thirty years old, reviewed elsewhere (Bass, 1990, 2008) and, taken as a whole, inconclusive. Therefore, we focus on work in the second sub-category–how leaders of color deliberately and consciously draw on their racial identity to perform their leadership. This more recent work provides a very different theoretical understanding of the intersection of race and leadership.

3.2.2. Exploring individual race–ethnicity as a personal resource The work of Hogg and colleagues, (e.g., Hogg, 2001; Hogg & Terry, 2000; Van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003) cited above goes

beyond just investigating the question of how leaders are authorized to considering how those leaders (or those who seek to be leaders) shape their leadership style in order to be more prototypical. For example, the authors speculate that they will be more likely to emphasize or heighten their prototypicality by displayingmore pronounced group behavior, as well as by showing loyalty to their group, perhaps by providing favors and opportunities. As noted above, this research operates at a higher degree of abstraction and generality than the other work in this area, with little empirical work exploring the effect of race–ethnicity, per se.

Most of the other relevant articles we found investigated the leadership style of particular racial groups, including Native Americans, Latinos, Asians and African Americans. Overall, this literature shows how these leaders turnmechanisms of oppression into “effective vehicles for constructive change” as one researcher noted (Alston, 2005, p. 677). In fact, while these leaders are exquisitely aware of the importance of perceptions in a systemwhere race matters, they transform this into strength because they are attuned to how they are viewed by others (Case, 1997; Dillard, 1995). Another theme across the groups is that non-white managers and leaders must be bi-culturally fluent (Bell, 1990), able to lead in ways that resonate with members of their own racial-ethnic group but also connect with the dominant ways of working in their white-majority contexts.

Muller (1998) describes this bifurcation as “living in two worlds” in her study of Native American women managers. Focusing particularly on the Navajo, she describes the culture as consensus oriented, present- (rather than future-) oriented, environmentally aware and deeply committed to spirituality, contrasting these qualities with typical Anglo culture. As a result, these women managers “are not brought up to be assertive and competitive” which can put them at a disadvantage (p. 12). However, Muller finds that these women also adopt behaviors that are more in sync with their Anglo-dominated work environments and therefore use “switching techniques” to “transition and balance between different worlds” (p. 22) to negotiate their lives.

In their description of American Indianmanagers, Warner and Grint (2006) argue that there is no one way of leading, given the enormous variation in tribal norms and traditions. However, they do note that Native Americans are less likely to be positional leaders and, therefore, leadership is more about creating and expanding a sphere of influence than simply exercising authority. Inherent in having influence is the art of persuasion, and the authors describe four different vehicles through which this persuasion occurs: observation, narrative, experience and tradition. They then identify four different leadership styles–the social scientist, the elder, the author and the role model–and describe how each draws more heavily on some kinds of persuasion more than others.

In her study of women political leaders, Prindeville (2003) compares Native Americans and Latinas in the American state of NewMexico. She identifies both similarities–valuing equality, community participation and consensus–as well as differences. For example, she found that issues related to race/ethnicity and culture–indeed the very survival of their culture–seemed to be more

883S. Ospina, E. Foldy / The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 876–896

salient for Native Americans, while gender consciousness was more salient for the Hispañas. Consistent with this point, Pardo (1998) and Chahin and Rodriguez (2005) emphasize the gender related notions of family and particularly maternal influence as a source of leadership in the Latino immigrant community.

Similarly, Latino and black women leaders in the labor movement report overcoming structural hurdles and the unwelcoming environment characterized by lack of political will to change. They reported self-reliance, diligence, resourcefulness and gamesmanship to navigate the system. They also used forms of collective leadership and shared responsibilities more consistent with their cultures. They tapped and developed new social networks to find the support needed to navigate an institution that tended to replicate the larger racial-ethnic and gender hierarchies in society (Dickerson, 2006).

An article on Chinese leadership explored how “moral leadership,” which has received increasing attention, may emerge naturally from Chinese culture which incorporates influences of Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism (Wong, 2001). All three traditions have consequences for assumptions about leadership, in particular that “China, since Confucius' time, has had a long history of preparing leaders on moral grounds.” (p. 314). The author goes on to note that Chinese philosophers have been more interested in practical aspects of morality, rather than on more Western traditions of abstract reflection. In practice, the kind of moral leadership embedded in Chinese traditions emphasizes service to the state and to the notion that everyone can succeed. Wong adapts this latter notion to his particular audience of educational scholars and leaders to argue that all students are capable of learning.

Altogether, the emphasis on culture adds significant texture to these scholars' understanding of the effect of race–ethnicity on leadership enactments in various communities of color. Attention to contextual detail tends to focus on identifying contingencies and factors that influence leadership styles, downplaying issues of context and power.

Even though the focus of our review is organizational, we highlight here a few examples from the broader literature that focuses on African American leaders because its emphasis on context and power, we believe, has influenced recent management and educational research on black leadership in organizational contexts. Offering cases of well-recognized black leaders from the 1960s, Williams (1998), for example, analyzes “the social and economic forces (that) have historically influenced the tenor, style and aims of African American leadership” (p. 183). Likewise, Walters and Smith's (1999) extended treatise on African American leadership explores leadership in the political and social arenas. They argue that black leaders are concerned with the collective interests of people of African descent and that they rely on social rather than economic resources and on coalitional strategies rather than individual power since they tend to have less of it.

Other African American leadership scholarship emphasizes the variations, recurrent themes and debates that characterize black social thought and its impact on leadership models through history (Childs, 1989; Marable, 1998). Some scholars focus on the often unrecognized contributions of women minority leaders to social progress. For example, some work argues that black women's role in the civil rights movement has much to teach about the leadership that produced the great transformations associated with this movement (Robnett, 1997).

Work about black leaders in the management discipline focuses on high-level employees in corporate settings. Parker (2001) and Parker and Ogilvie (1996) provide a detailed framework that focuses on African American women executives in particular. Drawing on a variety of studies, they argue that these executives' leadership behaviors, such as creativity, risk taking, boundary spanning and divergent thinking, grow out of their leadership strategies, including biculturalism, avoidance and confrontation. These strategies are formed in part by the context of these women's leadership–including racial and gender discrimination and devalued leadership ability, and in part by their socialized traits and behaviors–including independence, assertiveness, direct communication and self-confidence (p. 192). Bell and Nkomo's (2001) study of black andwhite womenmanagers found that their black participants succeeded through perseverance, sassiness, and staying culturally grounded.

A large number of articles address African American leadership in the educational arena. Foster (2005) argues African American leadership is “historical in nature and collaborative in its context and scope…it is integrated in its approach to viewing the student as a holistic individual who profits optimally frommultiple levels of community influence” (p. 692). She draws off work byWalker and Archung (2003) to describe this leadership style as involving both “interpersonal caring” and “institutional caring” and suggests this caring draws on the input and participation of parents, teachers and principals. Dantley (2005) notes the centrality of spirituality in African American culture and argues that it should be woven into educational leadership, which would include welcoming the “total self” into the educational process and proposing “ways to unpack the cultural realities of racism, elitism, classism and other institutionalized forms of silencing” often found in schools (p. 658).

“Othermothering,” a survival technique from slavery in which mothers take responsibility for the children of other mothers, is evident in how African American women educators care for their students, according to Case (1997). In the educational context, othermothering is demonstrated by “a commitment to, a compassion for, and an understanding of African American children and the communities in which they live” (p. 36). Dillard (1995) echoes this approach without referencing othermothering explicitly: “[N]urturing and protecting children for African Americans hails from a history of communal responsibility for African children, for that matter, all children…” (p. 551).

Murtadha andWatts (2005) see evidence of historical continuity between these contemporary practices and black educators in earlier periods, especially highlighting the tradition to advocate for students' well being while fighting oppression. Presenting evidence of coping and resiliency, Pollard (1997) theorizes black urban school principals' historical and contemporary experiences of resistance to oppression as a key source of leadership. Acknowledging the constraints posed by their social identity, instead of taking a defensive perspective, these leaders chose to position themselves as individuals who bring a unique contribution to their role as principals precisely because of their social identity. They actively used it to their advantage in several ways: to help their students, especially their black students; to mediate between the latter and their predominantly white staff; and to “get things

884 S. Ospina, E. Foldy / The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 876–896

done” with parents, policies and procedures to lead their institutions. These researchers suggest that black leadership work in education extends far beyond the classroom, into extracurricular work with students, parents and the larger community.

Underlying these and other articles are a number of themes that the authors contend characterize African American educational leadership. First, these educators have a purpose for their leadership that goes beyond the organization: They work on behalf of the black community and they are concerned with protecting and transmitting black culture. Second, they have a deep awareness of the needs of black families; for example they are more likely to be aware of widespread concerns in the African American community that their children could be taken away by child welfare services (Case, 1997, p. 32). Lomotey (1993) thinks of these qualities as reflective of an ethno-humanist role identity that many African American principals assume. To ensure a good education of African American students, these principals draw on their insider status and emphasize a distinct black culture (Tillman, 2004).

However, some articles caution against relying on generalizations about black educators (Lomotey, 1993; Reed & Evans, 2008; Tillman, 2004). They reflect a new generation of scholars that build on the reviewed educational tradition but argue for a more complex understanding of the role of race and its interaction with other social identities such as gender. They also stress the need to consider historical conditions that give meaning to the social positions fromwhere people of color enact leadership. We further review these studies in the last category of our framework.

Overall, like the earlier work we reviewed, this research is about individual leaders, but otherwise it is quite different. This literature paints a portrait of leaders of color as active agents, drawing on race–ethnicity as an individual resource (Roberts, 2005). As Alire (2001) documents, some ethnic leaders' advice is to rely on “their traditional cultural heritages and the extent of their life experiences, as minorities, to help them lead.” This provides extra resources and enriched insight to confront challenges, as the obstacles faced within “a white society” teaches them “the courage to act” (p. 101). Here, what is viewed as a constraint in mainstream leadership is shifted into becoming a source of strength and influence. Followers, so critical in the first category, are only obliquely present in most of the research in this category. Generally, it is assumed that followers will value these different leadership styles, especially if they are from same race–ethnicity group as the leader.

Further, most of the research in this category shares a similar point of departure: a critique of the cultural bias in traditional leadership theories (Bordas, 2007; Wong, 2001) and an acknowledgement that context matters in leadership research (Jansen, 2005). All of the writings that explore individual racial groups do so in order to construct a more capacious and multi-faceted image of what leadership looks like. They point to bodies of knowledge located at the periphery that are worth exploring (Fitzgerald, 2006). They highlight the importance of studying leaders who come from non-mainstream cultures and who have had different life experiences, because of their minority status. Because culture informs leadership style, some argue that minority leadership surfaces new approaches to leadership that offer additional tools for the leader's toolkit in the new contexts of increased complexity and diversity (Bordas, 2007). In particular, some of this work suggests that there are already groups and communities enacting the more collaborative, non-heroic style of leadership that is currently receiving so much attention.

For studies in this category race–ethnicity is both a constraint and a resource that, when salient in the environments social actors navigate, influences leadership. It is however, something that belongs to the leader, who may decide to use it or not, for personal survival and advancement or for community wellbeing and social change. Studies in the next category build on this tradition to further emphasize the collective dimensions of this resource.

3.3. Grappling with the social reality of race–ethnicity

The third category seeks to understand how social actors–leaders and/or followers–grapplewith the reality of race–ethnicity as it manifests in their environment. Here race–ethnicity is treated not only or exclusively as an individual characteristic. It is also a social or political issue with personal and collective meaning, which may become salient within the context in which leadership happens. The direction of causality is less clear than it is in the other two categories. Rather than strictly an independent variable, race–ethnicity influences the context and is, in turn, shaped by it. In some cases, where race–ethnicity is viewed as a social construction, it becomes the equivalent to a dependent variable. Studies in this category explore not only how leaders respond to an environment where race–ethnicity is salient, but how they explicitly make it more salient as part of their leadership work.

Studies in this category thus treat race–ethnicity as a social reality that colors and constructs perceptions, interactions and relationships. This approach builds in part on previous work on race in organizations which may not reference leadership per se, but provides a strong theoretical foundation for understanding how race, sometimes invisibly, permeates organizational life, including leadership (Alderfer & Smith, 1982; Bell, 1990; Cox & Nkomo, 1990; Nkomo, 1992; Thomas, 1989; Thomas & Proudford, 1999).

Scholars exploring leadership from this perspective take for granted that race–ethnicity can be a constraint affecting leaders' and followers' fates and behaviors. But they understand that it is also a personal resource drawn on through strategic choices that influence attributions or address collective interests. They recognize the relevance of culturally-grounded leadership styles. These acknowledgements are, however, points of departure to explore how social actors–be they leaders or followers–grapple with race–ethnicity as a reality that infuses specific meanings in concrete social contexts.

While acknowledging the existence of race-based inequalities, not all of this work explicitly incorporates a power analysis in their treatment of race–ethnicity. This category therefore includes two sub-categories. Scholars in the mainstream leadership tradition, particularly from a social psychological viewpoint, emphasize how collective dimensions of social identity influence leaders' and follower's behaviors; in other words, exploring collective identity as a personal resource (Hogg, 2001; Kark & Shamir, 2002; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993). But the connection between power and identity is taken as a given, rather than as a factor to

885S. Ospina, E. Foldy / The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 876–896

incorporate in the analysis. Scholars from other fields emphasize leaders' response to an external environment where race– ethnicity is influential and, ubiquitous, resulting in systemic inequities (Evans, 2007; Kezar, 2000; Ospina & Su, 2009). They make power dynamics central to the analysis.

3.3.1. Exploring collective identity as personal resource Social identity theory scholars as well as neo-charismatic leadership scholars underscore the role of collective identity. Hogg

(2001) and his associates' (e.g., Abrams & Hogg, 1990) leadership theory is very much about what happens to leadership when race and other identities are in the context, thus we review here this dimension of their work. In this theory, perceptions, evaluations and endorsements of leadership are highly influenced by “context specific, multidimensional fuzzy sets of attributes that define and prescribe attitudes, feelings, and behaviors” typical and distinct (or prototypical) from group to group (Hogg, 2001, p. 187; italics ours).

Social minorities, the theory argues, will most likely encounter obstacles in contexts that render them “intrinsically less prototypical than majorities” (Hogg, 2001, p. 195). As indicated before, in this theory minorities can use race–ethnicity as a strategic resource. Slay (2003) for example, suggests that emerging African American leaders will choose how to identify themselves and others according to the organizational context they navigate, particularly whether they work in a so-called minority or a majority firm.

Social identity leadership theories thus implicitly acknowledge racial hierarchies and unequal power dynamics, while race– ethnicity is viewed as both personal and collective, in that individuals make choices about managing their own racial identity in part due to the nature of race–ethnicity in their context. But context is generally conceived in narrow terms, referring to the demographic make-up of their immediate surroundings rather than taking into account socially and historically embedded racial dynamics that make these decisions much more complex.

If in social identity theory leaders manage their identity to navigate a contested organizational experience, studies in the neo- charismatic tradition shift the focus to how leaders manage the social identity of their followers. The emphasis moves to the leader-follower relation as it occurs within particular circumstances, and a broadened interest in social context. In this theory, leaders nurture social identity characteristics of their followers to motivate them to do things that they would not otherwise have done (Shamir et al., 1993; Shamir, Zakay, Breine, & Popper, 1998). Shared and collective identities are key mechanisms to induce followers to transcend their personal interests and perform beyond expectations (Conger, Kanungo, & Menon, 2000; Lord & Brown, 2004; Lord, Brown, & Feiberg, 1999; Shamir et al., 1993; Shamir et al., 1998).

This tradition does not include empirical studies of race–ethnicity. Yet race is mentioned to illustrate how symbolic and expressive efforts help the follower to find intrinsic value and meaning at work. Shamir and his associates (1993) state: “Charismatic leaders may use existing identities and emphasize their uniqueness or superiority (‘black is beautiful’), or they may create ‘new’ desirable social categories for the followers (‘the master race’). In both cases, the self-concepts of the followers are clearly engaged.” (p. 582). Leaders “prime” or activate the collective level of the self-concept of followers to engage them in shared identities, that in turn trigger motivational forces for performance (Kark & Shamir, 2002; Shamir et al., 1993, Shamir et al., 1998), including increasing “the likelihood of self-sacrificial, collective-oriented behavior” (Shamir et al., 1993, p. 582). Race–ethnicity is thus a dimension of the collective self, which belongs simultaneously to the individual (as being black) and to the work group (as in being part of a community of practice).

Building on these notions, Lord et al. (1999) propose that leaders can prime different levels of the followers' self-concept to change conditions such as followers' self perceptions, degree of identification with the leader and willingness to make commitments to the group rather than for the self. In later work Kark & Shamir (2002) differentiate between leader behaviors that prime the relational self (and help followers bond with the leaders) and those that prime the collective self (and foster identification with the unit). Strategies mentioned include “symbolic, verbal and performance acts” (slogans, rituals, labels, metaphors, ceremonies and communication strategies that emphasize the ‘we’); emphasizing common ground; and generating a shared identity by linking shared values and ideologies to tasks and goals (Kark & Shamir, 2002, p. 80).

Neo-charismatic scholars emphasize the cultural dimensions of context and the self-expressive and collective aspects of both identity and leadership. There is not, however, an equivalent emphasis on the power dynamics of organizational life. The highly contested and racialized hierarchies are either taken for granted or ignored. Moreover, further elaborations of the theory seem to have focused on gender (Kark, 2004) leaving empirical work on race–ethnicity unattended.

3.3.2. Introducing power to connect collective meanings of race–ethnicity and leadership Reviewed studies so far emphasize the impact of the collective dimensions of social identity on behavior. Scholars reviewed

below emphasize leaders' response to an external environment where race is influential and affects people's fate. These studies argue that the personal and collectivemeaning of race–ethnicity is always present and ubiquitous, even if it is not always salient to everyone in the environment. Race–ethnicity affects leaders, followers, their relationship and the context where leadership happens: racial meanings influence howwe comprehend, explain and act in the world (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001; Omi &Winant, 1994). They construct the social context, as well as our individual identities.

Work in this category tends to be influenced by constructs from Critical Race Theory, a scholarship that draws on legal studies and social theory to explore phenomena like racism, racial subordination and discrimination (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001; Nagel, 2000; Nkomo, 1992; Omi & Winant, 1994; Valdes, McCristal Culp, & Harris, 2002; Yosso & Solorzano, 2005).

Most studies in this category start with the premise that race–ethnicity not only shapes individuals' psychological makeup and their relationships, but is also intrinsically part of their collective identities and of the larger social structures and representations

886 S. Ospina, E. Foldy / The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 876–896

of the world within which leadership emerges. In this view, a reciprocal causal mechanism operates: social structure shapes individuals' experience of race and conditions itsmeanings; at the same time, these interpretations shape how individuals relate to the institutions and organizations which imbed them in social structure (Omi & Winant, 1994, p. 60). Race–ethnicity constructs individuals and individuals construct race–ethnicity. The racial sensemaking that emerges from these dynamics contributes to both reproduce and challenge the processes that create inequality, such as racism, subordination, discrimination and segregation (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001; Yosso & Solorzano, 2005). This critical lens emphasizes the relevance of considering power when studying the relationship between race–ethnicity and leadership.

Some studies, mostly in the educational leadership field, bring power dynamics fully into the analysis. They focus on the response of leaders to rapid demographic change (Evans, 2007), explore responses to racialized environments through leadership enactments (Kezar, 2000; Loder, 2005; Lomotey, 1993; Tillman, 2004) or challenge interpretations of these enactments based on one single identity marker like race (Reed & Evans, 2008). Other studies, in management, document explicit efforts to shape representations of race–ethnicity in these environments (Foldy, Goldman, & Ospina, 2008; Ospina & Su, 2009). We discuss each of these approaches below.

Evans (2007) studied the sense-making of principals in three suburban high schools with the racial majority of students shifting fromwhite to African American. In-depth interviews of faculty and staff reveal that independent of race, the principal with a positive view of diversity was more likely to engage in affirmative forms of sense-making around emerging racial issues. This principal also allocated more time and resources to addressing the issues proactively. In contrast, the two race-neutral principals were reluctant to recognize underlying tensions, reacting only to overt conflict. Evans concludes that effective school leaders in racially diverse institutions must ‘see’ race, acknowledge the various sociopolitical manifestations of racism, and recognize their own dominance or marginalization of others” (p. 184).

A distinctly black perspective on leadership, some argue, can be linked to African American principals' awareness of social exclusion dynamics which affect the educational experience of their community. As reviewed earlier, Lomotey (1993) contrasts the role of black principals as “bureaucrat/administrators,” primarily attending to student academic success and to overall school effectiveness, with the role of “ethno-humanists,”more “concerned with the individual life chances of their students and with the overall improvement of the status of African American people” (p. 396).

Lomotey notes that not all black principals play both critical roles. Yet Tillman (2004) does find sufficient evidence of this black cultural approach in her thorough review of the literature on leadership roles of African American principals before and after the Brown v. Board of Education decision. Many, though certainly not all black principals, did embody Lomotey's (1993) ethno- humanist role identity. They were highly committed to black students, confident in their intellectual ability and compassionate to them and their families. In addition to Lomotey, Tillman (2004) cites three studies whose authors find that black principals practice leadership drawing heavily from the distinctive black culture [the reviewed studies were: Siddle Walker (1993), Dillard (1995), and Bloom and Erlandson (2003)].

These studies describe a complex social context that leads the analyst to explore the combined impact of micro and macro power dynamics on leadership. Because the principals' leadership was embedded in a system of unequal power relations, the use of black culture was a strategic response to a complex social reality rather than an automatic reflection of cultural preferences. Black principals often resisted an oppressive “white power structure” (Tillman 2004, p. 133) as they tried to educate black children: “They fought against theories of inferiority, funding structures that disadvantaged black students, the emphasis on vocational over academic preparation, and the displacement of massive numbers of black teachers and principals” (p. 132). These principals' purposive use of culture aimed both to counter a social message of racial subordination and to offer an equitable education for African American children, given a reality of inequality despite the larger reforms associated with desegregation. Leadership work was meant not only to educate but to ensure the “perpetuation of African American culture” in the context of strong opposition and extremely adverse conditions that threatened to eliminate it (Tillman, 2004).

These racialized social realities influenced school principals' leadership styles, their relationship to teachers, parents and students, the purpose of their leadership and how they constructed meanings to mobilize relevant stakeholders to accomplish the job. Leadership work included capitalizing on the rich cultural and symbolic resources drawn from the deep well of the African American community to grapple with the negative effects of discrimination and inequality in their schools.

Given these strategic adjustments, it is clear that leadership enactments were not the same among all principals. Scholars in other educational contexts who also view leadership enactments as responses to racialized environments point to the variations in the leadership that emerges in such contexts. For example, Kezar (2000) finds three different constructions of leadership in an urban community college campus where race was salient. She documents how thesewere associatedwith “power conditions such as history of relationships, differential allocation of resources, salary arrangements, and collective bargaining processes” (p. 740). She thus draws attention to the intimate linkages between race and power and to their unique impact on leadership work.

Some scholars do take note and explicitly caution against generalizations about black educational leaders in studies that only consider race. For example Reed and Evans (2008) critique two assumptions behind the idea of a “blanket” black cultural approach to leadership. First—that all African American leaders have different values and attitudes from white leaders and that they will tend to empathize with black students, and second—that all female black leaders are more nurturing than other leaders. They provide an extended analysis of one African Americanwoman principal of a virtually all black school, to demonstrate how she does not generally conform to either of these viewpoints.

They argue that race will not always trump other identities and issues in black educators' practice. These scholars take to heart the notion of intersectionality (Richardson & Loubier, 2008) to locate race–ethnicity within a broader spectrum of multiple and overlapping identities. According to this theory–race, class, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, ability, and other markers of

887S. Ospina, E. Foldy / The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 876–896

difference intersect in unique ways to influence how human beings interpret their experiences, including power conditions, and how they react to them. These scholars claim it is “the fluidity” of African American identity which shapes these educators' “leadership orientation towards their students and schools” (p. 497). Loder's study (2005) illustrates the impact of this intersectionality on the leadership work of African Americanwomen principals. Awareness of the power dynamics associatedwith school conditions motivated them to strategically adjust their leadership work. Yet she finds that it was specifically the intersections of race, gender and generational status that contributed to shape their role perceptions and interpretations of urban school reform.

The debate about the role of black culture should be incorporated in leadership research. When race–ethnicity is part of the research agenda, an empirical exploration of how the intersection of identities influences the choices that leaders of color make is important in describing the contextual dimensions of leadership. It also points to the paramount role of social context, which is not just relevant background to understand leadership, but is instead where people construct their understandings of both their racialized identity and their experience of leadership, be it from a leader or a follower perspective.

In sum, studies that explicitly link individual dilemmas to broader structures and their cultural representations aim to explore the rich cultural milieus where collective meanings of race–ethnicity, largely influenced by structures of power, play a significant role in shaping leadership. They illuminate how the constraints imposed by race–ethnicity are transformed into individual and collective resources that can be used in the work of leadership to shape meanings, representations and even power relations. By doing so, these studies implicitly emphasize the collective dimensions of leadership. This approach to leadership, however, does not represent a deliberate theoretical strategy to influence the leadership field, but rather a strategy to understand leadership in particularly rich contexts.

3.3.3. Capitalizing on converging theoretical developments The increasing influence of critical race theory on the reviewed studies of race–ethnicity and leadership highlights the fluid and

collective dimensions of this social identity, and its implications to understanding leadership. This is converging with recent developments in the leadership literature that invite attention to the relational, constructed and collective dimensions of leadership work. This emergent scholarship attends to the collective nature of the leader-follower relationship (Collinson, 2005; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Shamir et al., 2007), to more distributed and dispersed forms of leadership (Fletcher & Kaufer, 2003; Pearce & Conger, 2003), as well as to the organizing, meaning-making and communicative processes that constitute the substance of leadership (Drath, 2001; Fairhurst, 2007; Hosking, 2007; Ospina & Sorensen, 2006).

Scholars interested in the collective dimensions of leadership have started to explicitly explore the association between leadership and race–ethnicity in ways that capitalize on the implications of the described convergence. Foldy et al. (2008), drawing on neo-charismatic approaches as well as social movement theory, empirically demonstrated how social change leaders attempt to shape the racial and ethnic identities of their followers; for example, by encouraging them to identify with a marginalized cultural identity from which they had previously distanced themselves.

Ospina and Su (2009) dug more deeply into how leadership shapes race–ethnicity by asking how participants in social change organizations understand and approach issues of race to advance their work. Using narratives from 22 social change organizations and building six in-depth cases, they document three distinct means of constructing race: interweaving narratives from multiple race-ethnic groups, drawing off time-honored cultural traditions and creating understandings of self through reflection on racialized lived experience. They suggest that these means of understanding race moved the work forward by, respectively, building a sphere of interdependence, developing organizational strength and transforming individuals. In turn, these three outcomes helped organizations leverage the power needed to sit at the policy table or influence those capable of addressing the community's problems and aspirations.2

In summary, like in the second category, studies in the third category of our framework portray leaders of color as active agents who draw on their race–ethnicity as a resource. However, unlike those in the second category, these leaders emphasize the collective dimension of race–ethnicity, and in some instances, link them to the collective dimensions of leadership. As the collective side of both phenomena is emphasized, it becomes more evident that the personal efforts or strategic choices of leaders in racialized contexts representmerely themost visible part of a broader collective process that unfolds over time and thatmust be uncovered empirically. By increasingly understanding leadership as embedded in context, and empirically exploring the implications, research linking race to leadership in this category offers several examples of ways to open the black box of the how of leadership.

4. Discussion

As we hope we have demonstrated, race–ethnicity in general and the experiences and narratives of people of color–both as leaders and as followers–in particular, have garnered significant attention over time. Yet we observe an intriguing discontinuity: as mainstream leadership work on race has plateaued, other interesting work on race and leadership is being

It is worth noting that this research approximates social movement scholars' renewed interest in culture, identity, and the micro-dynamics of movement work, but bringing a leadership perspective. Polletta and Jasper (2001) for example, point to “the historical construction of what seem like ‘natural’ identities such as… ‘black” and invite more research to better understand the role of this process to advance movement goals. This represents another potential area of convergence, and future research based on common assumptions could yield positive results.

2

888 S. Ospina, E. Foldy / The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 876–896

done within education, communication, black studies and other management domains outside leadership studies. This work offers important insights about the leadership experience and about context-rich research approaches that treat race in its full complexity. At the same time, some of the insights from these studies appear to remain marginal to the extant literature. We first explore this discontinuity to set the stage for our discussion of the broader implications of our review for leadership theory and future research.

4.1. A discontinuity in theory building

Early leadership scholars tended to explore how the race–ethnicity of leaders and their subordinates affects their performance ratings (for a summary, see Bass, 1990, 2008). Both race–ethnicity and leadership were viewed as relatively fixed attributes that belonged to individual actors, independent of the context where they were embedded. Developing amore nuanced understanding of context, later work underscored the role for leadership theory of social identities and their cultural representations. The power analysis introduced in some studies offered more complex portraits of the work of leadership by incorporating the notion that “identities are resources actors use to obtain social goals” (Williams, 2007, p. 93).

Acknowledging racialized contexts, some scholars explored the relationship between race and leadership by giving primacy to the experience of people of color and to their perspective of the world. They took a stance that sees the experiences of both researchers and the leaders of color they study as located within power-infused environments where fluid social identities inform people's understanding of who they are vis-à-vis the institutions they inhabit (an approach called standpoint research) (Parker, 2001). Some scholars complicated this by viewing race–ethnicity as part of a broader spectrum of multiple and overlapping identities whose combination informs experience (called intersectionality) (Richardson & Loubier, 2008). These studies linked these complex realities to leadership styles, behaviors and practices, thus offering a different perspective on thework of leadership and how it unfolds over time and in context.

However, our review suggests that these perspectives remain separate from the mainstream leadership tradition and are often ignored or dismissed as a source of theorizing. Indeed, some scholars have suggested that insights based on the study of non-white groups are less likely to permeate the knowledge base of what is traditionally viewed as the leadership studies field (Calas, 1993; Landson-Billings, 2000; Murtadha & Watts, 2005; Tillman, 2004). There may be a number of dynamics at play here.

First, this invisibility may come from different ontological, epistemological and methodological assumptions, that is, from different understandings about the nature of the social world, how we can know it and how we can study it (Crotty, 1998). For example, “standpoint research” demands privileging an “outsider within” perspective (Harding, 2004; Parker, 2001; Weis & Fine, 2004) that relies on narrative and phenomenological methods, placing the experience of leaders of color in particular contexts–for example African American school leaders or corporatemanagers–“at the center of the inquiry rather than at themargins” (Tillman, 2004, p. 104). To illustrate, an entire section of Chin, Lott, Rice, & Sanchez-Hucles's (2007) edited book, Women and Leadership, is devoted to bringing “from margin to center”…“the voices of diverse feminist leaders.” Several chapters review literature on the leadership experiences of Latina, African American, Asian American, American Indian women with disabilities (and also of lesbian feminists).

The assumptions and standards of quality of research in these methodologies, however, clash with dominant definitions of research in western scientific discourse that encourage validity standards based on an objective, distant stance toward the research subjects (Crotty, 1998; Landson-Billings, 2000). This has practical implications. For example, scholars of educational leadership argue that in a field dominated by white administrators, “findings from aminority insider's perspective are regarded as dubious and unlikely to be published in professional journals” (Bloom & Erlandson, 2003, p. 344; as cited in Tillman, 2004, p. 125). Hence, the perspective of an important group of leaders with relevant experience and expertise is unrecognized and excluded from policy and educational reform debates.

Second, the nature of traditional leadership theory and research itself assumes a generic relevance of western ideas (House & Aditya, 1997; Landson-Billings, 2000; Lumby, 2006). This is reflected both in the preference for positivist methodologies and in dominant definitions of leadership. Partly as a result, traditional leadership theory has tended to operate with color-blind or gender-blind assumptions (Collinson, 2005; DiTomaso & Hooijberg, 1996). Indeed, existing leadership theories have taken those in positions of formal authority for granted (usually white people, often men) as the standard social identity referent in leadership scholarship (Tillman, 2004). Even recent work that explores collective and shared forms of leadership (e.g. Ford & Seers, 2006; Hiller et al., 2006; Pearce & Sims, 2002) is largely color-blind.

The impact on the field of removing race–ethnicity and gender from the study of leadership is doubly negative. First, it makes western perspectives and “whiteness” the default categories to measure the leadership experience of people from any race– ethnicity. This means that we lose a full recognition of the leadership experience of both non-white leaders who tend to be dismissed and white leaders whose race is unseen. Ignoring “whiteness” as a social category with its own social meanings reduces our ability to understand leadership in largely white contexts where racial-ethnic dynamics are less obvious, though nevertheless present (Frankenberg, 1993). As a consequence, our understanding of the racialized and gendered leadership experience of all individuals is incomplete.

For example, the literature on women's leadership, which draws on insights from feminist research and gender studies, often notes that one reason women are at a disadvantage is that traditionally they were relegated to the private sphere of the home, rather than the public sphere of the workplace. But black women rarely had the luxury to work solely in their own house; instead they have traditionally labored long hours working outside their home, both during slavery and in the many decades since. Therefore, it is less likely that black women would be disadvantaged by the stereotype that their “place” is in running their own

889S. Ospina, E. Foldy / The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 876–896

home and raising their own children. But when researchers write about “women and leadership,” they implicitly refer to white women, rarely distinguishing between the experiences of white women and black women or between the different types of stereotypes they are subject to: in other words, white women tend to avoid a racialized lens.

Whether using a standpoint perspective or a traditional approach to its subjects, leadership research about people of color becomes seen as atypical, and its cases have not contributed to the generalized findings of research. Reflecting a broader tendency in the social sciences (Williams, 2001, 2007), leaders and followers of color are seldom treated as “paradigmatic humans” who “can serve as the source of data…to develop theories about the human condition” (Williams, 2001, p. 1). The tendency to treat people of color as non-paradigmatic represents a missed opportunity for theorizing about leadership. Building on black feminist- standpoint theory, Parker (2001) argues that black women “have created knowledge about leadership that historically has been ignored or devalued” (p. 48) and thus leadership theory can be enhanced by placing them at the center of analysis.

A second problem with a color-blind approach is the isolation of important insights from mainstream leadership research. Embedded in different disciplines, studies of race–ethnicity and leadership are separated into silos with invisible walls that are hard to cross. This situation is illustrated by the scant influence of the large scholarship in African American political leadership (Walters & Johnson, 2000) and African American educational leaders (Tillman, 2004) on the received knowledge of the US mainstream leadership studies field.

It is not our role to state whether this treatment is intentional–to render invisible “the other”–as some critical management scholars suggest (Calas, 1993), or whether it is an unfortunate oversight from scholars in the field. Yet the result is an approach that inhibits the understanding of the experience of people of color and reduces their important contributions to the theory and practice of leadership (Gordon, 2000; Murtadha & Watts, 2005; Parker, 2001; Tillman, 2004). As the scholars offering this argument conclude, the received literature has tended to obscure “logics and practices of leadership” that may be different from the conventional ones (Calas, 1993; Murtadha & Watts, 2005), thus diminishing considerably our capacity to understand leadership in its full complexity.

In the worst-case scenario, the received leadership literature may offer distorted or questionable knowledge about the relationship between race and leadership that can be detrimental to the field and to the referenced identity groups. This is the case with the chapter reviewing the role of race in Bass's fourth edition of The Handbook of Leadership (2008).3 Our discussion suggests that unless leadership scholars raise their awareness and develop a deep, social science-based theoretical conceptualization of the construct of race, they may contribute to perpetuate stereotypes and use material as evidence that reproduces racist discourses and representations. But even espousing a so-called color-blind approach that negates the impact of racialized environments and discourses on the experience of leadership is problematic. By doing so, the fieldmay not only ignore but diminish the experience of people of color in its treatment of the relationship between race and leadership.

In summary, despite this possibility, there is a solid record of systematic research on the role of race–ethnicity on leadership, however, a large part of it has remained marginal to extant theory. Most leadership theory implicitly or explicitly claims to be identity-neutral and thus does not consider insights from studies that take an insider perspective, or incorporate generalizations from research about people of color. Our review represents an effort to integrate these insights and to explore their implications for leadership theory and research.

4.2. Toward an integrated framework of knowledge about race and leadership

We found that the categories inherent in the three questions that the scholarship has tried to address can be arranged in three concentric circles, where the first category is embedded in the second and both are embedded in the third, as depicted in Fig. 1.We contend that this framework offers a cumulative progression of insights about race–ethnicity and leadership. Each circle holds a set of core assumptions that make it unique, but some of the assumptions of the first category still influence the second, and some of the first and second still inform the third. At the same time, internal variationswithin each category suggest subcategories inside each larger circle, though studies within each circle hold sufficient commonality to differentiate them. This framework thus integrates emergent insights previously generated in silos, so as to offer new ways of theorizing about leadership.

In the first category, race–ethnicity is seen largely as a constraint because of the marginalization and significant disempowerment of people of color. Work in the second category recognizes these dynamics, but documents how leaders of color respond to and often rise above those constraints through their own agency, transforming race–ethnicity into a resource. In the third category, race–ethnicity is evenmore fluid, and the emphasis moves from its individual to its collective dimension. In this outermost circle, social identity is both constraint and resource, used by the leader or collectively, according to circumstances, purposes and meanings.

As we move outward through these concentric circles several ingredients build our understanding of the complex relationship between race–ethnicity and leadership. First, a treatment of context gradually shifts from simple to complex. Second, the treatment of context gradually incorporates a more explicit analysis of power dynamics in understanding how race–ethnicity and leadership connect, thus increasingly linking micro and macro levels of analysis. Third, as a corollary of the two previous shifts,

It is possible that Bass's unanticipated death contributed to the situation described in our review and mentioned in this discussion. Perhaps had he been able to continue to edit and polish the Handbook at his own pace, he would have had the opportunity to assess the quality and content of the collected material for the chapter in question, and, further think through the implications of including this material, particularly without comment or critique. The unfortunate outcome given the circumstances of its publication, however, must be mentioned in a review that aims at exploring the way the leadership field has treated race, particularly given the Handbook's impact on the field.

3

890 S. Ospina, E. Foldy / The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 876–896

Fig. 1. An integrated framework of insights about race–ethnicity and leadership.

there is a shift in the role of agency and structure in understanding the associations between race–ethnicity and leadership. Fourth, the categories vary in terms of how scholars see the direction of causation, from race as an independent variable, to a dependent variable, to a situation of reciprocal causality.

While these ingredients are very much interrelated, for analytical purposes we will briefly explore each and their implications in relation to extant leadership theory and research practices. These four shifts also reflect a gradual convergence between theories of race–ethnicity and theories of leadership, with a more fluid characterization of race–ethnicity and more emphasis on the relational, collective dimensions of leadership. We will discuss this convergence as appropriate when addressing each shift.

4.2.1. From simple to complex considerations of context Moving outward through the circles, context gradually shifts to finally consider the individual and collective dimensions of

both social identity and leadership. This also entails a gradual shift from studies that attempt to control for characteristics of the context or explore contingencies, to those that incorporate nuanced dimensions of the social, cultural and structural milieus affecting leadership, to finally those that view context as the rawmaterial fromwhich leadership emerges and thus as constitutive of both race–ethnicity and leadership.

Context represents a key construct in leadership theories (Biggart & Hamilton 1987; Kets de Vries, 2001), particularly for contingency theorists (Fiedler, 1967) and transformational leadership scholars (Beyer, 1999; Bryman et al., 1996). The field highlights the need to consider the interconnections between leadership and the circumstances and conditions from which it emerges (Alvesson, 1996; Bryman, Stephens, & Campo, 1996; Osborn et al., 2002; Parry & Bryman, 2006). Yet, despite strong arguments for its relevance, systematic attention to organizational context in the literature is still scant and poor (Porter & McLaughlin, 2006). Context takes the form of moderating factors like organizational structure, culture, goals, strategy, demographics, and so on (Jackson & Parry, 2008), or of environments where leaders' decisions are staged, from stable environments to the edge of chaos (Osborn et al., 2002). Placed in the background, these are assumed to exist prior to leadership (Ospina & Hittleman, forthcoming). The leader's traits, styles, behaviors, tasks, or roles in relation to the followers (or to followers' response to leaders, in follower-centered approaches) are studied in the foreground, considering the identified background characteristics.

Our review suggests that increased considerations of race–ethnicity as a fluid social phenomenon guide the analyst to add texture and nuance to explorations of leadership in context. For example, capitalizing on the theoretical convergence described earlier, Ospina and Su (2009) considered how race–ethnicity infused meaning into the social context which was used to advance social change work. Because the policy contexts where the work was embedded were highly racialized, information about them was not just supplemental background data, but the raw material from which to explore how leadership emerged.

A more fluid view of identity has also informed traditions like social cognition, neo-charismatic and transformational leadership, whose scholars distinguish individual, interpersonal and collective levels of identity (Hogg, 2001; Kark & Shamir, 2002; Lord & Brown, 2004). Nevertheless, the treatment of context largely remains quite narrow or simplistic. Hogg's social identity theory would hypothesize that in a diverse environment people would look for the prototype of whatever group identity was salient. However, in such environments, multiple identities are likely to be salient. Assuming one salient group identity and one dominant prototype suggests an impoverished view of the complexity of today's organizations.

Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, Hogg's theory assumes that people in subordinate groups will look for their own prototype as opposed to being influenced by the broader social context to value the dominant prototype. Yet members of subordinate groups may come to internalize the devaluation of their group and truly believe that individuals who embody the dominant prototype would make better leaders. They could also simply believe–probably unconsciously–that characteristics of that dominant prototype are part of what a leader looks like. Indeed, Rosette et al. (2008) demonstrates that employees of all races see whiteness as part of the leadership schema, a point that challenges the work of Hogg and colleagues (e.g., Hogg, 2001; Hogg &

891S. Ospina, E. Foldy / The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 876–896

Terry, 2000; Van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003). Finally, employees might believe that they will be better served by someone prototypical of the dominant group, given power inequities in the environment. For example, employees of color might believe it would be better to have a white manager than one of color since whites may have stronger networks and greater access to resources. Consistent with this simplistic view of context, considerations of power in the theory are not fully developed.

4.2.2. From acknowledging power to a power analysis Moving outward in the framework's circles we see a shift from implicit acknowledgments of power, to deliberate

considerations of unequal power relations at the micro and macro levels of analysis. Research on black leadership in school contexts (e.g, Lomotey, 1993; Reed & Evans, 2008; Tillman, 2004) illustrates the benefits

of incorporating a power analysis. This work offers exemplars of rich, textured understandings of how leaders constructed their leadership and made sense with parents, teachers and students of an adverse environment characterized by blatant inequalities disadvantaging the black community. The debate around the risks of over-generalizing around race per Reed & Evans' discussion (2008) makes clear that the use of culture in the work of leadership cannot be just assumed, but instead, must be unpacked through systematic empirical research that names race and acknowledges the power dynamics surrounding it.

The debate also underscores the promise of exploring how the intersection of identities like race, gender and professional roles influences the choices school leaders made. Black principals' culturally rooted leadership enactments are explained less as a function of personal preferences associated with their black identity, and more as the product of the combined effect of fluid identities influencing their interpretations and reactions.

This contrasts with leadership studies described in the second circle of our framework, where culture shaped a distinct leadership style and transformed identity into a personal resource. Culture was assumed to cover all individuals who shared the same identity, an assumption that must be tested empirically, as indicated above. Similarly, in the transformational and neo- charismatic studies reviewed in the third circle, the simplified role assigned to cultural values to prime a salient collective identity ignores that the collective self reflects a social context pervaded by power dynamics.

Empirical work in management may offer some insights into the importance of inequality when thinking about phenomena like priming. Caver and Livers (2004) document stressors or challenges of black individuals in leadership roles that may trigger their capacity to influence others. Stressors like identity, interactions between race and gender, responsibility demands for networking and political maneuvering suggest that identity-related constraints may activate something in the leaders that yields positive outcomes for their leadership. Research by Meyerson (2001) had also documented acts of resistance in leaders viewed as outsiders (often women and people of color) who challenged taken-for-granted assumptions of the dominant culture and unexpectedly produced innovation. This is similar to priming but it appears self-motivated in leaders of color.

Leadership traditions that highlighted the role of culture in the relationship between race–ethnicity and leadership have made important contributions to the field. That they acknowledged power but did not develop a power analysis may help understand how far they were able to take their insights about the linkages between social identity and leadership.

4.2.3. From dualistic to holistic explorations of agency and structure As a corollary of the previous shifts, a study's location in a given circle signals variations in attention to the role of agency and

structure as they connect race–ethnicity to leadership. Well-established sociological theories (Giddens, 1979) challenge the dualistic separation between person and situation, individual and organization, and at the most abstract level, agency and structure. They suggest that actions and interactions of social agents are both generative of social structure and constrained by it (Giddens & Turner, 1987). Our review suggests that much is gained by considering this reciprocal relationship in leadership studies.

While leadership theory has always emphasized agency over structure, studies that focus on leaders of color as only constrained by their race–ethnicity, as those from the first circle, inevitably portray them as relatively passive, lacking control over their fate. In research that views social identity as an individual resource, as in the second circle, leaders of color become stronger agents. Further, a view of identity as a group resource, per studies in the third circle, explores collective agency, while offering a more balanced understanding of the limits set by structure and the possibilities for action stemming from the shared work of leadership.

Insights from the educational leadership illustrate this. Intersectionality underscores the situated response to multiple, shifting identities interacting in particular cultural contexts and power structures. The portrait of leaders of color as active agents contrasts with earlier studies that compare black and white leadership styles as if these happened in a vacuum, and may help explain the mixed findings of earlier reviews that used a fixed understanding of race (Bartol et al., 1978; Bass 1990, 2008).

The simultaneous consideration of individual and collective dimensions of both phenomena also leads the analyst to grapple with the interconnections between agency and structure. The explicit introduction of a power lens acknowledges the salience of social inequality. As leadership underscores the role of agency, and race–ethnicity calls attention to culture and structure, the analyst must also attend to both the micro and the macro dynamics of power influencing the experience of leaders and followers. This in turn helps to balance attention to the ‘who’ and the ‘how’ of leadership.

Viewing race–ethnicity from several vantage points highlights both agency and structure in the work of leadership. Race– ethnicity is a constraint imposed on social actors per studies in the first circle. But it is also a potential resource to navigate organizational life, per studies in the second circle, and to do collective leadership work per studies in the third circle. The key lesson is that considering both the constraining and the liberating potential of race–ethnicity for individuals and for their capacity to engage in leadership work represents a very powerful assumption to inform future empirical research.

892 S. Ospina, E. Foldy / The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 876–896

4.2.4. From linear to reciprocal causation Finally, the categories in our framework vary in terms of how scholars see the direction of causation. Moving progressively

from inner to outer circles, race–ethnicity shifts from an independent variable affecting perceptions or enactments of leadership to a dependent variable influenced by the work of leadership and finally to a view that incorporates understandings of race–ethnicity as both cause and outcome. This shift also reflects the gradual progression toward a deeper interest in the collective dimensions of leadership and social identity.

In studies from the first and second circles, the direction of causality between race–ethnicity and leadership is given from the offset: the question is how does race–ethnicity affect leadership? This assumes that identities cannot be changed, while leadership can, so the causality is always from race–ethnicity to leadership. Neo-charismatic discussions of priming as reviewed in the third circle introduce amore fluid view of social identity that loosens this assumption: leadership can help to shape followers' identities. Yet the direction of influence associated with this mechanism, from leaders to followers, remains unchallenged. In documenting self-activation and reciprocal activation of salient identities, management and educational studies (e.g. Caver & Livers, 2004; Loder, 2005; Meyerson, 2001; Tillman, 2004) suggest that the image of leaders priming the identities of followers to motivate them may represent only part of the story about the relationship between social identity and leadership.

Considering the collective dimensions of both leadership and social identity challenges the assumptions of linear causation from race–ethnicity to leadership and from leaders to followers. A similar logic can be extended to analyze the relationship between leadership and context. A fluid view of both constructs suggests that context is where processes and structures required to organize collective action emerge. And race–ethnicity is one of the raw materials from which leadership is co-constructed in interaction, given the constraints, opportunities and conditions required to address the demands that call forth leadership (Drath, 2001). This view is consistentwith relational scholars' notion that leadership is embedded in context and that theymust be treated as the two interacting sides of the same reality (Ospina & Hittleman, forthcoming; Uhl-Bien, Marion, & McKelvey, 2007).

Summing up, we have first discussed the costs associated with color blind approaches and with considering insights from research on people of color only as special cases rather than as sources for theorizing. We then offered an integrated framework of the insights from our review of the received literature on the relationship between race–ethnicity and leadership. We have reviewed the key shifts identified in our analysis and drew implications for theory and research in the leadership field: from simple to complex considerations of context, from an implicit acknowledgment of power to a power analysis, from dualistic to holistic explorations of agency and structure, and from linear to reciprocal causation. In discussing these shifts we also highlighted the theoretical convergence that considers the fluid and collective dimensions of both race–ethnicity and leadership.

5. Implications for future research

Our review has illustrated the enormous range of topics and approaches to the intersection of race and leadership. While not explicitly highlighting it, we have also documented awide array ofmethodswithwhich to study leadership, from experiments and surveys to ethnographies, narrative inquiry, and phenomenological studies.

Yet our discussion also suggests important challenges that require urgent attention. First, within the sub-field of race and leadership studies there is inconsistency in findings and few efforts to replicate studies to clarify these inconsistencies, particularly given the variety of conceptual frameworks and methodologies. Second, there is a lack of dialogue across disciplinary silos, particularly between mainstream leadership and management studies on the one hand, and the educational, communications, policy and other applied fields on the other. Third, mainstream theorizing on leadership overlooks the important insights from research on race and leadership and underestimates the value of the experience of leaders of color. And finally, there is an implicit bias in the mainstream literature to construct models that use western views and “whiteness” as the referent fromwhich to study and theorize leadership as a universal phenomenon.

Despite these gaps, we believe the field is poised for important breakthroughs. Here, we offer some suggestions for next steps and promising areas for future research.

First, researchers may consider the key questions posed in this review. How does race–ethnicity affect perceptions of leadership? How does it affect the ways leadership is enacted? And how do leaders grapple with the social reality of race– ethnicity? We believe that all three questions still require attention but that they might be more fruitfully pursued together since each informs the other. Research studies designed to consider all three could move the field forward considerably.

Second, there is value in continuing to support the use of multiple methodologies to study the relationship between race– ethnicity and leadership. Nevertheless, inconsistency in findings must be addressed methodologically. For example, a formal meta-analysis of the quantitative work may begin to lay the groundwork for dealing with these inconsistencies. For future work, another possible avenue is to consistently use mixed and hybrid methodologies (like survey and ethnographic or phenomenological work) that can incorporate context more explicitly. Of course, the choice of method is a function of the question under study. The key point is that positivist and interpretivist studies alike, whether using quantitative, qualitative or mixedmethodologies, ought to inform conceptual, methodological and analytical choices with special attention to the fluid nature of race–ethnicity and leadership.

Third, there is need to develop a healthy pluralism that fosters much more cross fertilization among disciplines and among research perspectives. Scholars in mainstream leadership studies could draw important knowledge to inform their work in corporate and nonprofit settings with the insights gained in educational settings.

Fourth, we suggest four promising topical areas for future exploration. One refers to “whiteness” as a social identity with equally charged social meanings to consider when exploring the relationship between race–ethnicity and leadership. While there

893S. Ospina, E. Foldy / The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 876–896

is increasing work on “whiteness” in sociology, anthropology and cultural studies, little of it has reached the management and organizations' literature, much less the leadership literature (a significant exception is Rosette et al. (2008)). It could be useful to explore the role of whiteness in leadership. How have understandings of leadership become so connected with whiteness? Also, our image of white leaders emphasizing their own race is that of white supremacists. Are there examples of white leaders who draw on their culture and identity, but in egalitarian ways?

Another promising topic is intersectionality. Richardson and Loubier (2008) offer a compelling reason to bring it to the study of leadership: “analysis of complex social situations should not reduce understanding to a singular category; rather, it should facilitate the understanding of substantively distinct experiences from the effects of inextricably connected roles and situations” (p. 143). What would we learn about the relationship of race–ethnicity and leadership if we introduced other dimensions of leaders' and follower's multiple layered social identities such as gender, class, sexual orientation and so on? How would this illuminate attributions of leaders and followers? How do these intersected identities influence leadership enactments, including styles and choices associated with the purpose of leadership? How do they affect reactions to environments where race–ethnicity is salient, or constructions of both race–ethnicity and leadership? Additional work can also deepen received insights about the intersection of race and gender.

A third area of promise refers to the potential from the convergence of theoretical developments in critical race theory and leadership theory. As both race–ethnicity and leadership are increasingly understood as malleable and collective, the direction of causality between them cannot be assumed, but becomes an empirical question. If prior leadership research assumed that race– ethnicity influences actors' enactments, some scholars now ask whether leadership itself affects how social actors experience, use, and live their race–ethnicity.

Making race–ethnicity the dependent variable in studies exploring its association to leadership opens a new agenda for empirical research with questions such as: how do people define and understand both leadership and race–ethnicity? How do these understandings help people draw on their race–ethnicity as they create leadership practices? Towhat extent do social actors use their race–ethnicity, that of their leaders or followers, and social identity in general to create, negotiate and navigate leader- follower relational dynamics and the ongoing demands for “organizing” and “structuring” that require leadership? These questions are first and foremost questions about the how of leadership.

The final area of promise refers to broadening the scope of social actors, contexts and policy arenas used in empirical research on race–ethnicity and leadership. For example, how can the rich insights from black leadership scholarship be tested with social actors from other races-ethnicities different from African Americans? Can insights from the educational field be used to inform research on other policy contexts like immigration or health? Can these insights be tested in other service areas such as social work and counseling? Similarly, how does the relationship between race–ethnicity and leadership change at different hierarchical levels or in organizational sub-units differing in demographic composition? Does the way race–ethnicity and leadership connect vary across different models of leadership, from less to more distributed forms, or in contexts where leadership is shared or decentralized?

Clearly, the proposed agenda is quite ambitious. It will require that the next generation of researchers be equippedwith a more varied conceptual and methodological toolkit. This means that their mentors at least understand the advantages of encouraging and supporting new scholars in their journey. In other words, future research aim at a better understanding of the role of race– ethnicity in the work of leadership might require some important change in the mental models of those who shape curriculum, pedagogy and structure rewards in doctoral programs that train leadership researchers today.

Acknowledgements

Our thanks and appreciation for the excellent support provided by Research Assistant Sindri V. McDonald and Research Associate Waad El Hadidy, from the Research Center for Leadership in Action of Wagner Graduate School of Public Service, New York University.

References

Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (Eds.). (1990). Social Identity Theory: Constructive and Critical Advances. Hemel Hempstead UK: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Adams, E. G. (1978). A multivariate study of subordinate perceptions of and attitudes toward minority and majority managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63,

277−288. Alderfer, C. P., & Smith, K. K. (1982). Studying Intergroup Relations Embedded in Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 35−65. Alire, C. (2001). Diversity and Leadership: The Color of Leadership. In M. Winston (Ed.), Leadership in the Library and Information Science Professions: Theory and

Practice (pp. 95−109). Philadelphia: Haworth Press. Alston, J. A. (2005). Tempered Radicals and Servant Leaders: Black Females Persevering in the Superintendency. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(4),

675−688. Alvesson, M. (1996). Leadership Studies: From Procedure and Abstraction to Reflexivity and Situation. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(4), 469−485. Bartol, K. M., Evans, C. J., & Stith, M. T. (1978). Black Versus White Leaders: A Comparative Review of the Literature. Academy of Management Review, 3, 293−304. Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications, 3rd ed. New York: Free Press. Bass, B. M. (2008). The Bass Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research and Managerial Applications, 4th ed. New York: Free Press. Bell, E. L. (1990). The Bicultural Life Experience of Career Oriented Black Women. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 459−477. Bell, E. L., & Nkomo, S. M. (2001). Our Separate Ways: Black andWhite Women and the Struggle for Professional Identity Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School

Press. Beyer, J. M. (1999). Two Approaches to Studying Charismatic Leadership: Competing or Complimentary? The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 575−578. Biggart, G., & Hamilton, N. W. (1987). An Institutional Theory of Leadership. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 23, 429−441.

894 S. Ospina, E. Foldy / The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 876–896

Bloom, C. M., & Erlandson, D. A. (2003). African American Women Principals in Urban Schools: Realities, (Re)Constructions and Resolutions. Education Administration Quarterly, 39, 339−369.

Bordas, J. (2007). Salsa, Soul and Spirit: Leadership for a Multicultural Age. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. L. (1996). Who is this “We”? Levels of Collective Identity and Self Representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 83−93. Bryman, A., Stephens, M., & Campo, C. (1996). The Importance of Context: Qualitative Research and the Study of Leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3),

353−370. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Row. Calas, M. B. (1993). Deconstructing Charismatic Leadership: Re-reading Weber from the Darker Side. The Leadership Quarterly, 4(3–4), 305−328. Case, K. I. (1997). African American Overmothering in the Urban Elementary School. Urban Review, 29(1), 25−39. Caver, K., & Livers, A. (2004). Latino Leaders Can Gain Insights from Black Colleagues. Leadership in Action, 24(1), 14−16. Chahin, J., & Rodriguez, R. (2005). Where leadership is really learned. Leader to Leader, 35, 57−59. Childs, J. B. (1989). Leadership, conflict and cooperation in Afro-American social thought. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Chin, J. L., Lott, B., Rice, J., & Sanchez-Hucles, J. (Eds.). (2007). Women and Leadership: Transforming Visions and Diverse Voices. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Chung-Herrera, B. G., & Lankau, M. J. (2005). “Are We Here Yet?”: An Assessment of Fit Between Stereotypes of Minority Managers and the Successful-Manager

Prototype. Journal of Applied Psychology, 35(10), 2029−2056. Collins, J. (2005). Good to Great and the Social Sectors: Why Business Thinking is not the Answer. Boulder, CO: Jim Collins. Collinson, D. (2005). Dialectics of Leadership. Human Relations, 58(11), 1419−1492. Conger, J. A., Kanungo, R. N., & Menon, S. T. (2000). Charismatic Leadership and Follower Effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 747−767. Cox, T. H. (1993). Cultural Diversity in Organizations: Theory, Research, and Practice San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Cox, T. H., & Nkomo, S. M. (1990). Invisible Men and Women: A Status Report on Race as a Variable in Organization Behavior Research. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 11, 419−431. Crenshaw, K., Gotanda, N., Peller, G., & Thomas, K. (Eds.). (1995). Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings that Formed the Movement. New York: New Press. Crotty, M. (Ed.). (1998). The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the Research Process. St. Leonards, Australia: Allen & Unwin. Dantley, M. E. (2005). African American Spirituality and Cornel West's Notions of Prophetic Pragmatism: Restructuring Educational Leadership in American Urban

Schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(4), 651−674. Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2001). Critical Race Theory New York: New York University Press. Dickerson, N. (2006). We are a Force to be Reckoned with: Black and Latina Women's Leadership in the Contemporary Us Labor Movement. Working USA, 9(3),

293−313. Dillard, C. (1995). Leading with Her Life: An African American Feminist (Re)Interpretation of Leadership for an Urban High School Principal. Educational

Administration Quarterly, 31, 539−563. DiTomaso, N., & Hooijberg, R. (1996). Diversity and the Demands of Leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(2), 163−187. Drath, W. (2001). The Deep Blue Sea: Rethinking the Source of Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Dubey, S. N. (1970). Blacks' Preference for Black Professionals, Businessmen and Religious Leaders. Public Opinion Quarterly, 34(1), 113−116. Ellis, A. P. J., Ilgen, D. R., & Hollenbeck, J. R. (2006). The Effects of Team Leader Race on Performance Evaluations: An Attributional Perspective. Small Group Research,

37(3), 295−322. Evans, A. E. (2007). School Leaders and their Sensemaking about Race and Demographic Change. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(2), 159−188. Fairhurst, G. (2007). Discursive Leadership: In Conversation with Leadership Psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York: McGraw Hill. Fitzgerald, T. (2006). Walking Between Two Worlds: Indigenous Women and Educational Leadership. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 34(2),

201−213. Fletcher, J. (2004). The Paradox of Post-Heroic Leadership: An Essay on Gender, Power and Transformational Change. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 647−661. Fletcher, J. (2008, May 29th-30th). Reflection on Leadership, Race and Power. Symposium on Race and Leadership at the Intersections. Research Center for Leadership

in Action, Wagner Graduate School of Public Service. New York: New York University. Fletcher, J., & Kaufer, K. (2003). Shared Leadership: Paradox and Possibility. In C. Pearce & J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared Leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys of

Leadership (pp. 21−47). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Foldy, E., Goldman, L., & Ospina, S. (2008). Sensegiving and the role of Cognitive Shifts in the Work of Leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 514−529. Foldy, E. G., Rivard, P., & Buckley, T. R. (2009). Power, Safety and Learning in Racially Diverse Groups. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 8(1), 25−41. Ford, L. R., & Seers, A. (2006). Relational Leadership and team Climates: Pitting Differentiation Versus Agreement. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 258−270. Foster, L. (2005). The Practice of Educational Leadership in African American Communities of Learning: Context, Scope, and Meaning. Educational Administration

Quarterly, 4(41), 689−700. Frankenberg, R. (1993). White Women, Race Matters: The Social Construction of Whiteness. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Giddens, A. (1979). Central Problems in Social Theory. London: Macmillan. Giddens, A., & Turner, A. (1987). Social Theory Today. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. Gordon, J. (2000). Black Leadership for Social Change. Westport: Greenwood Press. Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-Based Approach to Leadership: Development of Leader–Member-Exchange (LMX) Theory over 25 years:

Applying a Multi-Level Multi-Domain Perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219−247. Grint, K. (2005). Leadership: Limits and Possibilities. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Harding, S. (Ed.). (2004). The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader: Intellectual and Political Controversies. New York: Routledge. Hiller, N. J., Day, D. V., & Vance, R. J. (2006). Collective Enactment of Leadership Roles and Team Effectiveness: A Field Study. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 387−397. Hogg, M. (2001). A Social Identity Theory of Leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(3), 184−200. Hogg, M., & Terry, D. (2000). Social Identity and Self-Categorization Processes in Organizational Contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 121−140. Hosking, D. (2007). Not Leaders, Not Followers: A Post-Modern Discourse of Leadership Processes. In B. Shamir, R. Pilai, M. Bligh, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), Follower-

centered perspectives of leadership (pp. 167−186). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The Social Scientific Study of Leadership: Quo Vadis? Journal of Management, 23, 3409−3473. Jackson, B., & Parry, K. (2008). A Very Short, Faintly Interesting, and Reasonably Cheap Book About Leadership. London: Sage. Jansen, J. D. (2005). Black Dean: Race, Reconciliation, and the Emotions of Deanship. Harvard Educational Review, 75(3), 306−326. Jung, D., & Avolio, B. (1998). Examination of Transformational Leadership and Group Process among Caucasians and Asian-Americans: Are they Different? Research

in International Business and International Relations, 7, 29−66. Jung, D. I., & Yammarino, F. J. (2001). Perceptions of Transformational Leadership among Asian Americans and Caucasian Americans: A Level of Analysis

Perspective. Journal of Leadership Studies, 8(1), 3−21. Kark, R. (2004). The Transformational Leader: Who is (S)He? A Feminist Perspective. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17(2), 160−176. Kark, R., & Shamir, B. (2002). The Dual Effect of Transformational Leadership: Priming Relational and Collective Selves and Further Effects on Followers. In B. J.

Avolio & F. Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and Charismatic Leadership: The Road Ahead (pp. 67−91). Stamford, CT: JAI. Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (2001). The Sociology of Leadership in Organizations. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social and

Behavioral Sciences (pp. 8573−8578). Oxford: Pergamon. Kezar, A. (2000). Pluralistic Leadership: Incorporating Diverse Voices. Journal of Higher Education, 71(6), 722−743. King, H. D., & Bass, D. C. (1974). Leadership, power and influence. In H. L. Fromkin & J.J. Sherwood (Eds.), Integrating the organization: A social psychological analysis.

New York: Free Press. Kipnis, D., Silverman, A., & Copeland, C. (1973). The effects of emotional arousal on the use of supervised coercion with black and unionmembers. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 57, 38−43.

895S. Ospina, E. Foldy / The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 876–896

Knight, J. L., Hebl, M. R., Foster, J. B., & Mannix, L. M. (2003). Out of Role? Out of Luck: The Influence of Race and Leadership Status on Performance Appraisals. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9(3), 85−93.

Kraiger, K., & Ford, J. (1985). A Meta-Analysis of Ratee Race Effects in Performance Ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 56−65. Landson-Billings, G. (2000). Racialized Discourses and Ethnic Epistemologies. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 257–277), 2nd ed.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lee, N. (2008). Thirty Years of Advocacy in San Francisco: Lessons Learned and theNext Generation of Leadership.NewDirections for Youth Development,117(1), 61−75. Loder, T. L. (2005). African American Women Principals' Reflections on Social Change, Community Othermothering, and the Chicago Public School System. Urban

Education, 40(3), 298−320. Lomotey, K. (1993). African American Principals: Bureaucrat/Administrators and Ethno-Humanists. Urban Education, 27(4), 395−412. Lord, R. G., & Brown, D. J. (2004). Leadership Processes and Follower Self-Identity. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Lord, R. G., Brown, D. J., & Feiberg, S. J. (1999). Understanding the Dynamics of Leadership: The Role of Follower Self-Concepts in the Leader/Follower Relationship.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 78(3), 167−203. Lumby, J. (2006). Conceptualizing Diversity and Leadership: Evidence From 10 Cases. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 34(2), 151−165. MacKay, F., & Etienne, J. (2006). Black Managers in Further Education: Career Hopes and Hesitations. Education Management Administration and Leadership, 34(113),

9−28. Marable, M. (1996). Speaking Truth to Power: Essays on Race, Resistance and Radicalism. Boulder, CO: West View. Marable, M. (1998). Black Leadership. New York: Columbia University Press. Méndez-Morse, S. (2003). Chicana Feminism and Educational Leadership. In M. D. Young & L. Skrla (Eds.), Reconsidering Feminist Research in Educational Leadership

(pp. 161−178). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Meyerson, D. (2001). Tempered Radicals: Everyday Leadership Transforming Organizations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Miner, J. B. (1977). Motivational potential for upgrading among minority and female managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(6), 691−697. Mount, M. K., Sytsma, M. R., Hazucha, J. F., & Holt, K. E. (1997). Rater–Ratee Race Effects in Developmental Performance Rating of Managers. Personnel Psychology,

50, 51−69. Muller, H. J. (1998). American Indian Women Managers: Living in Two Worlds. Journal of Management Inquiry, 7(1), 4−28. Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Harding, F. D., Jacobs, T. O., & Fleishman, E. A. (2000). Leadership Skills for a Changing World: Solving Complex Social Problems. The

Leadership Quarterly, 11, 11−35. Murtadha, K., & Watts, D. M. (2005). Linking the Struggle for Education and Social Justice: Historical Perspectives of African American Leadership in Schools.

Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(4), 591−608. Nagel, J. (2000). False Faces: Ethnic Identity, Authenticity, and Fraud in Native American Discourse and Politics. In J. Davis (Ed.), Identity and Social Change

(pp. 81−106). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Nkomo, S. M. (1992). The Emperor has no Clothes: Re-Writing “Race in Organizations”. Academy of Management Review, 17(3), 487−513. Omi, M., & Winant, H. (1994). Racial Formation in the United States: From the 1960s to the 1990s. New York: Routledge. Osborn, R., Hunt, J. G., & Jauch, L. R. (2002). Toward a Contextual Theory of Leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 797−837. Ospina, S., & Foldy, E. (forthcoming). Building bridges from the margins: The work of leadership in social change organizations. The Leadership Quarterly, (Special

Issue on Integrative Public Leadership). Ospina, S., & Hittleman, M. (forthcoming). Sociological contributions to leadership research. In M. Harvey & R. Riggio (Eds.), Research companion to leadership

studies: The dialogue of disciplines. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Ospina, S., & Sorensen, G. (2006). A Constructionist Lens on Leadership: Charting New Territory. In G. Goethals & G. Sorenson (Eds.), In Quest of a General Theory of

Leadership (pp. 188−204). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Ospina, S., & Su, C. (2009). Weaving Color Lines: Race, Ethnicity, and the Work of Leadership in Social Change Organizations. The Leadership Quarterly, 5(2),

131−170. Pardo, M. S. (1998). Mexican American Women Activists: Identity and Resistance in Two Los Angeles Communities. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Parker, P. S. (2001). African American Executives within Dominant Culture Organizations: Reconceptualizing Notions of Instrumentality and Collaboration.

Management Communication Quarterly, 15(1), 42−82. Parker, P. S., & Ogilvie, D. T. (1996). Gender, Culture, and Leadership: Toward a Culturally Distinct Model of African American Women Executives' Leadership

Strategies. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(2), 189−214. Parry, K., & Bryman, A. (2006). Leadership in Organizations. In S. C. Clegg, T. Hardy, T. Lawrence, & W. Nord (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Organization Studies

(pp. 448–468), 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (Eds.). (2003). Shared Leadership: Reframing the Hows And Whys of Leadership Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pearce, C. L., & Sims, J. P. (2002). Vertical Versus Shared Leadership as Predictors of the Effectiveness of Change Management Teams: An Examination of Aversive,

Directive, Transactional, Transformational, and Empowering Leader Behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6, 172−197. Pitts, D. W. (2005). Leadership, Empowerment and Public Organizations. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 25(5), 5−28. Pollard, D. (1997). Race, Gender and Educational Leadership: Perspectives from African American Principals. Educational Policy, 11(3), 353−375. Polletta, F., & Jasper, J. (2001). Collective Identity in Social Movements. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 283−305. Porter, L. W., & McLaughlin, G. B. (2006). Leadership and the Organizational Context: Like The Weather? The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 559−576. Prindeville, D. (2003). Identity and the politics of American Indian and Hispanic women leaders. Gender and Society, 17(4), 591−608. Reed, L., & Evans, A. E. (2008). ‘What You See is [Not Always] What You Get!’ Dispelling Race and Gender Leadership Assumptions. International Journal of

Qualitative Studies in Education, 21(5), 487−499. Richards, S. A., & Jaffee, C. L. (1972). Blacks supervising whites: A study of interracial difficulties in working together in a simulated organization. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 56, 234−240. Richardson, A., & Loubier, C. (2008). Intersectionality and Leadership Studies. International Journal of Leadership, 3(2), 142−161. Ritter, B. A., Fischbein, R. L., & Lord, R. G. (2005). Implicit and Explicit Expectations of Justice as Function of Manager and Subordinate Race. Human Relations, 58(12),

1501−1521. Roberts, L. M. (2005). Changing Faces: Professional Image Construction in Diverse Organizational Settings. Academy of Management Review, 30(4), 685−711. Robnett, B. (1997). How Long? How Long? How Long?: African American Women in the Struggle for Civil Rights. New York: Oxford University Press. Rosette, A. S., Leonardelli, G. J., & Phillips, K. K. (2008). The White Standard: Racial Bias in Leader Categorization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(4), 758−777. Sackett, P. R., & DuBois, C. L. (1991). Rater–Ratee Race Effects on Performance Evaluation: Challenging Meta-Analytic Conclusions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76,

873−877. Saz-Carranza, A., & Ospina, S. (2008). Leadership of interorganizational networks: Managing the Unity/Diversity paradox. Unpublished working paper. Research

Center for Leadership in Action, Wagner Graduate School of Public Service, New York University, New York. Shamir, B., House, R., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The Motivational Effects of Charismatic Leadership: A Self-Concept Based Theory. Organization Science, 4(4),

577−594. Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breine, E., & Popper, M. (1998). Correlates of Charismatic Leader Behavior in Military Units. Academy of Management Journal, 41(3), 387−409.

Shamir, B., Pilai, M., & Uhl-Bien, M. (Eds.). (2007). Follower-Centered Perspectives of Leadership. Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Shull, F., & Anthony, W. P. (1978). Do black and white supervisory problem solving styles differ? Personnel Psychology, 31, 761−782. Siddle Walker, E. V. (1993). Interpersonal Caring in the “Good” Segregated Schooling of African-American Children: Evidence from the Case of the Caswell County

Training School. Urban Review, 25, 63−77. Slay, H. S. (2003). Spanning Two Worlds: Social Identity and Emergent African-American Leaders. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9(4), 56−66. Thomas, D. A. (1989). Mentoring and Irrationality: The Role of Racial Taboos. Human Research Management, 28(2), 279−290.

896 S. Ospina, E. Foldy / The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 876–896

Thomas, D. A., & Gabarro, J. J. (1999). Breaking Through: The Making of Minority Executives in Corporate America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Thomas, D. A., & Proudford, K. (1999). Theory for Practice: Making Sense of Race Relations in Organizations. In R. Carter (Ed.), Addressing Cultural Issues in

Organizations: Beyond the Corporate Context (pp. 51−68). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Tillman, L. C. (2004). African American Principals and the Legacy of Brown. Review of Research in Education, 28, 101−146. Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational Leadership Theory: Exploring the Social Processes of Leadership and Organizing. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 654−676. Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity Leadership Theory: Shifting Leadership from the Industrial Age to the Knowledge Era. The Leadership

Quarterly, 18, 298−318. Valdes, F., McCristal Culp, J., & Harris, A. (Eds.). (2002). Crossroads, Directions and a New Critical Race Theory. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Van Knippenberg, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2003). A Social Identity Model of Leadership Effectiveness in Organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 243−295. Vecchio, R., & Bullis, R. (2001). Moderators of the Influence of Supervisor–Subordinate Similarity on Subordinate Outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,

884−896. Walker, V. S., & Archung, K. N. (2003). The Segregated Schooling of Blacks in the Southern United States and South Africa. Comparative Education Review, 47(1),

21−40. Walters, R., & Johnson, C. (2000). Bibliography of African American Leadership Westport, CT: Greenwood. Walters, R., & Smith, R. (1999). African American Leadership Albany: State University of New York Press. Warner, L. S., & Grint, K. (2006). American Indian Ways of Leading and Knowing. Leadership, 21(2), 225−244. Watson, J. G., & Barone, S. (1976). The self-concept, personal values, and motivational orientations of black and white managers. Academy of Management Journal,

19, 36−48. Weis, L., & Fine, M. (Eds.). (2004). Working Method: Research and Social Justice. New York: Routledge. Williams, L. (1998). Servants of the People: The 1960s Legacy of African American Leadership. New York: St. Martin's Griffin. Williams, R. (2001, October). Theory from Whom? Conference Sociological Perspectives on the Holocaust and Post-Holocaust Jewish Life. Rutgers University. Williams, R. (2007). Responses to the Holocaust: Discussing Jewish Identity through the Perspective of Social Construction. In J. Gerson & D. Wolf (Eds.), Sociology

confronts the Holocaust: Memories and identities in Jewish diasporas (pp. 92−110). Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Wong, K. (2001). Chinese Culture and Leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 4(4), 309−319. Wood, R. (2002). Faith in Action: Religion, Race and Democratic Organizing in America Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Yanow, D. (2003). Constructing Race and Ethnicity in America New York: M. E. Sharp. Yosso, T., & Solorzano, D. (2005). Conceptualizing a Critical Race Theory in Sociology. In M. Romero & E. Margolis (Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Social

Inequalities (pp. 117−145). Wiley-Blackwell.