Editors' Notes

Abstract

Summer has ended and fall is around the corner. Many of our readers find themselves in the middle of the academic semester. The current issue of the Journal of Leadership Studies contains articles that may take us back to our philosophical foundations. Sprinkled throughout the articles we will find references to St. Anslem, ontology, self, Nisbet, Existential–Experiential, Metaxy, Rogers, Voegelin, Nietzsche, Maslow, Heidegger, and more. Our authors implore us to consider how philosophical traditions can challenge us as leaders or may shape us as leaders. In our lead article, Existential–Experiential View of Self-Sourced (In)Authentic Healthcare Identity, the concept of self is used to frame leadership in healthcare professionals. Although the framework provided by Koskiniemi, Perttula, and Syväjärvi is focused on healthcare professionals (i.e., doctors and nurses), the authors argue that their framework is applicable to leadership in any field (e.g., law, social work) where leaders possess a strong professional identity. Stork, Grant, and Darmo in the second feature article (Leadership Graduate Degree Programs: A Comparative Review and Analysis of Value Propositions) provide an extensive examination and analysis of the discourse styles found on graduate leadership programs’ websites to communicate to potential students the “value” of the program. History in the Study of Leadership is the focus of the symposium. Guest symposium editor Nathan Harter has assembled a variety of articles and authors that explore the context of history on leadership, the intersection of history and leadership, and the role history can play in leadership. Harter argues in his introduction that history is of “greatest importance to the study of leadership.” His article explicates the role and intersection between history and leadership. The second article by Tim Blessing provides an Anselmian argument for the use of history in leadership studies. Blessing uses the logic of St. Anselm's ontological proof for the existence of God to argue that leadership studies has no choice but to deal with a history that “imprisons us” as an “inescapable matrix.” Harter's second article introduces Robert Nisbet's thoughts about history and social change. Harter cautions leadership scholars that history has its own nuances, so that when using history to understand leadership one must be careful to take into account those nuances. The role of history, the understanding of history, and the need to reflect on history is essential for leaders according to Thomas in his article Eric Voegelin, Reflexive Distance, and Harnessing the Benefits of Metaxy: The Leader's Imperative to Participate in History and Becoming. Thomas argues that understanding these aspects of history will provide a leader “a deeper understanding of a person's place in society.” The last two articles of the symposium examine the use of history in training military leaders and the examination of leadership during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Williams offers his robust insights into the “staff ride,” a technique used to train military leaders to take into account the historical aspects of war and its impact on leadership. Chace's article on leadership during the Cuban Missile Crisis frames President Kennedy's leadership through the frameworks of historical consciousness (Voegelin) and adaptive leadership (Heifetz). As you can see, this issue of the Journal of Leadership Studies offers significant depth and breadth in its topics. We think this issue of the journal offers readers unique articles that do indeed bring us back to our philosophical foundations.