A note of theory-decomposing on hybrid leadership (also via the leadership-as-practice lens) for MBA students

A note of theory-decomposing on hybrid leadership (also via the leadership-as-practice lens) for MBA students

 

Highlight 6 main ideas of James Peter Gronn's theory of "hybrid leadership" and describe 2 claims of his view in terms of Toulmin's model of arguments

    James Peter Gronn’s “hybrid leadership” theory refines the earlier idea of distributed leadership by emphasizing that leadership is always a mixed configuration of focused (individual) and distributed (collective) influence, rather than a single pure form. Below are six main ideas, followed by two reconstructed claims in Toulmin’s model.

---

Six main ideas of hybrid leadership

1.    Leadership as a configuration of influence
Gronn argues that leadership should be understood as a “configuration” of influence‑based relationships that are shaped by time, space, context, and membership, not simply as the actions of one heroic leader. This configuration can include both central figures and multiple dispersed actors.

2.    Hybridity of focused and distributed forms
Real leadership practice is hybrid: elements of focused (individual or positional) leadership and distributed (collective, shared) leadership coexist in varying degrees within the same setting. No organization is purely “distributed” or purely “top‑down.”

3.    Critique of aggregative “distributed leadership” accounts
Gronn criticizes aggregated views of distributed leadership that treat plural leaders as numerically equivalent, because they ignore qualitative differences in influence and power. Hybrid leadership corrects this by attending to how influence is patterned across actors and levels.

4.    Importance of context and role space
The configuration of leadership depends on organizational context, role location, and “role space,” meaning how tasks and responsibilities are distributed and negotiated. Different role spaces generate different hybrid forms (e.g., within‑team vs. cross‑site arrangements).

5.    Dynamic, time‑ and context‑bound relationships
Leadership configurations are not static; they shift over time and in response to problems, routines, and external pressures. Hybrid leadership therefore emphasizes process and relational dynamics rather than fixed structural arrangements.

6.    Implications for research and development
Gronn proposes that the “configuration” should become the unit of analysis for leadership research, moving beyond solo leaders or aggregate “leader counts.” This also shapes how leadership development should target patterns of influence and relational practices rather than individual traits alone.

---

Illustrating two claims in Toulmin’s model

Toulmin’s model of argument consists of claim, grounds (evidence), warrant (reasoning), backing (support for warrant), qualifier (degree of certainty), and rebuttal (exceptions). Here are two grounded claims from Gronn’s hybrid‑leadership view, reconstructed in Toulmin style.

Claim 1

Leadership in organizations is best understood as a hybrid configuration of focused and distributed influence rather than as either purely solo or purely distributed.

·        Claim: Hybrid configurations (mix of focused and distributed) more accurately capture real leadership practice than binary “solo vs. distributed” models.

·        Grounds: Empirical studies show that even in “distributed” organizations individual leaders still appear as central nodes alongside emergent small‑group formations.

·        Warrant: If leadership is observed as a mix of centralized and decentralized influence, then a hybrid model better accounts for this pattern than a one‑dimensional model.

·        Backing: Gronn’s reconceptualization of the “configuration” as the unit of analysis draws on Crozier‑style analyses of power and coalition.

·        Qualifier: Leadership is typically hybrid, though the balance may shift toward more focused or more distributed forms in particular contexts.

·        Rebuttal: In highly routinized or crisis‑driven settings, leadership may temporarily approximate a more centralized form.

Claim 2

Research on leadership should shift from counting individual leaders to analyzing leadership configurations.

·        Claim: Leadership research should treat “configurations of influence” as the primary unit of analysis instead of aggregating leaders or focusing only on individual leaders.

·        Grounds: Aggregated distributed leadership studies often flatten qualitative differences between leading units and ignore relational patterning.

·        Warrant: If leadership is relational and context‑bound, then studying configurations (how influence is structured) yields richer insight than counting leaders.

·        Backing: Gronn’s empirical work identifies multiple “hybrid formations” (e.g., small collaborative groups, coalitions across sites) that cannot be reduced to a simple leader count.

·        Qualifier: Such configuration analysis is particularly important in complex, knowledge‑intensive organizations such as schools and public‑sector agencies.

·        Rebuttal: In very small or simple organizations, counting leaders may still be sufficient for basic descriptions.

Offer three evaluation comments on hybrid leadership from the perspective of "leadership as practice", notably with reference to the MBA research theme of ""evaluating the AI-enabled management innovation competence of the Hong Kong Banking Sector via the hybrid leadership lens".

    From the perspective of “leadership as practice” and your MBA research theme on “evaluating the AI‑enabled management innovation competence of the Hong Kong banking sector via the hybrid leadership lens”, here are three evaluative comments on hybrid leadership:

---

1. Hybrid leadership strengthens the “practice” turn by foregrounding relational work

Hybrid leadership shifts attention from leader traits or positions to how leadership is jointly accomplished through focused and distributed practices across roles, teams, and levels. In your banking‑sector context, this allows you to examine how AI‑enabled innovation is not just “owned” by C‑suite or IT heads but is co‑produced through daily routines, data‑driven decisions, and cross‑functional collaboration—a practice‑oriented view directly aligned with your competence‑building focus.

---

2. Hybrid leadership surfaces power and configuration issues in AI innovation

Because hybrid leadership highlights configurations of influence, it helps reveal who is included or excluded in AI‑driven change, and how power is distributed between business units, technologists, regulators, and frontline staff. For Hong Kong banks, this lens sensitizes your research to whether AI‑enabled management innovation competence is genuinely collective (hybrid) or remains concentrated in a few technical or senior leaders, thereby sharpening your evaluation of “hybridness” in practice.

---

3. Hybrid leadership can under‑specify how practices are embedded institutionally

A limitation, from a leadership‑as‑practice perspective, is that hybrid leadership tends to describe patterns of influence (e.g., coalitions, small groups) without always unpacking the institutional norms, routines, and regulatory scripts that sustain these practices over time. In your Hong Kong banking study, this means you may need to supplement the hybrid leadership lens with institutional or practice‑theoretical tools to explain how AI‑enabled management innovation is routinized, legitimized, and disciplined within the highly regulated banking environment.

 

References

1.    Gronn, P. (2009). “Leadership Configurations.” Leadership, 5(3), 357–369.
This article introduces the idea of leadership as a configuration of influence‑based relationships and explicitly argues that these configurations are best described as hybrid because they combine focused and distributed forms of leadership.

2.    Gronn, P. (2008). “Hybrid Leadership.” In Distributed Leadership According to the Evidence (eds. K. Leithwood, B. Mascall, & T. Strauss), pp. 17–40. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
This chapter develops the core notion of hybrid leadership as a refinement of distributed leadership, outlining how leadership practice emerges from mixed patterns of influence across individuals and groups.

A collection of blog notes on using chatgpt for research purpose.

A note of theory-decomposing on leadership-as-practice for MBA students

A note of theory-decomposing on leadership-as-practice for MBA students

 

Highlight 6 main ideas of Joseph A. Raelin's theory of "Leadership-as-Practice" and describe 2 claims of his view in terms of Toulmin's model of arguments.

Joseph A. Raelin’s Leadership-as-Practice (L-A-P) treats leadership as something that happens in the ongoing social practice of a group, not as a possession of a single heroic person. Six core ideas are: leadership is collective and relational, it emerges in everyday interaction, it is embedded in practice rather than in traits, it depends on shared meaning-making, it is shaped by social/material context, and it values democratic participation and co-creation.

Six main ideas

1.    Leadership is a practice, not a person.
Raelin argues that leadership is less about individual traits or fixed behaviors and more about what people accomplish together in a coordinated practice.

2.    It is socially produced.
Leadership emerges through interaction among participants, rather than being located inside one leader’s mind or role.

3.    It is embedded in everyday activity.
L-A-P focuses on how leadership unfolds through day-to-day work, routines, coping, and problem-solving.

4.    It is relational and collective.
The theory emphasizes interconnectedness, shared agency, and leadership that can occur beyond formal hierarchy.

5.    It is contextual and material.
Social and material conditions are not outside leadership; they shape how leadership happens within a specific practice setting.

6.    It leans toward democratic participation.
Raelin links L-A-P to leaderful and democratic practice, where multiple people can lead through co-creation, dialogue, and shared responsibility.

Toulmin-style claims

Using Toulmin’s model, an argument is built from a claim supported by data/grounds and justified by a warrant. Two central claims in Raelin’s view can be expressed this way:

Claim	Toulmin-style reconstruction
Claim 1: Leadership should be understood as a practice, not as an individual property.	Data/Grounds: Leadership is observed in recurring social interactions, routines, and joint problem-solving within groups. Warrant: If leadership consistently appears in collective action, then it should be theorized at the level where it actually occurs: the practice. Claim: Leadership is an emergent social practice.
Claim 2: Leadership development should be democratic and shared, not centered only on formal leaders.	Data/Grounds: Raelin’s later work stresses collectiveness, concurrency, collaboration, and compassion, and argues for co-creation by all involved. Warrant: If leadership is distributed across practice, then effective development should cultivate participation by many actors, not only those in authority. Claim: Leadership development should privilege leaderful, democratic participation.

How the argument works

In Toulmin terms, Raelin’s core reasoning is that the observable evidence of leadership lies in group practice, so the theory’s claim shifts leadership away from individualism and toward collective action. His democratic extension adds a second claim: because leadership is shared and enacted in practice, organizations should develop conditions that let many people participate concurrently and collaboratively.

A simple illustration: in a project team, leadership may move from one member to another as expertise, timing, and need change; that pattern supports Raelin’s claim that leadership is something the team does together, not something one person permanently has.

Clarify your ideas a bit more with reference to the MBA dissertation research theme of "evaluating the AI-enabled management innovation competence of the Hong Kong Banking Sector via the leadership-as-practice lens".

Joseph A. Raelin's Leadership-as-Practice (L-A-P) lens can sharpen your MBA dissertation by shifting focus from individual bank leaders' traits to how AI-enabled innovations emerge through collective banking practices in Hong Kong. This aligns with your pragmatism-oriented research interests in AI-driven competitive advantages in Hong Kong's financial sector.

Linking L-A-P to your theme

L-A-P views leadership as distributed across everyday interactions, which fits evaluating "management innovation competence" as a relational, practice-based capability rather than top-down skills. For Hong Kong banks adopting AI (e.g., for fraud detection or personalized services), competence isn't just about CEOs' vision but how teams co-produce innovative practices amid regulatory pressures from HKMA.
Your dissertation could use L-A-P to probe how AI tools reshape shared banking routines, fostering innovation through collective sensemaking and material changes like data platforms.

Applying the six main ideas

·        Practice over persons: Assess AI competence by observing team practices (e.g., cross-functional AI pilots in HSBC or DBS HK), not executive surveys alone.

·        Socially produced: Map how bankers collaboratively interpret AI outputs in meetings, revealing innovation barriers like siloed data practices.

·        Everyday activity: Study routine AI uses (e.g., chatbots for customer onboarding) to gauge if they build adaptive competence.

·        Relational/collective: Examine shared agency in AI ethics decisions, linking to Hong Kong's fintech talent shortages.

·        Contextual/material: Factor in Hong Kong's high-regulation, high-competition context, where AI hardware/software shapes practice.

·        Democratic participation: Evaluate if banks enable "leaderful" AI teams, promoting inclusive innovation vs. hierarchical rollouts.

Toulmin claims in your context

Claim	Toulmin reconstruction for HK banking AI
Claim		Toulmin reconstruction for HK banking AI
Claim 1: AI management innovation competence is a collective practice in HK banks.		Data: Observations of AI implementation teams showing emergent innovation in joint problem-solving. Warrant: Competence appears in coordinated action, so it resides in practice. Claim: HK banks' AI competence is leaderful practice, not leader traits.
Claim 2: L-A-P fosters pragmatic AI innovation for competitive edge.		Data: HK bank cases where shared AI practices yield outcomes like efficiency gains. Warrant: If practice drives results, democratic co-creation builds sustainable advantages. Claim: Apply L-A-P for evaluating and enhancing AI competence.

Research fit and methods

This L-A-P framing suits a pragmatist mixed-methods design: qualitative case studies of 3-5 HK banks (e.g., interviews on AI team dynamics) triangulated with quantitative surveys on innovation outcomes, addressing your prior themes like AI downsizing impacts. It provides actionable insights for HK banking leaders, emphasizing practice-level interventions for AI competence.

 

** also study the note on hybrid leadership.

 

References

Raelin, J.A. (ed.) (2016) Leadership-as-practice: theory and application. New York: Routledge.

Raelin, J.A. (2023) 'Leadership-as-practice: its past history, present emergence, and future potential', EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, 2(2), pp. 19-30.

A collection of blog notes on using chatgpt for research purpose.