Leadership Field Theory: A Contemporary Perspective [1]

ABSTRACT

?

This article presents a transformative exploration of the confluence of psychological, sociological, and developmental perspectives within the realm of contemporary leadership studies. Integrating Spinoza’s archetypal typology, Winnicott’s developmental theories, and Bourdieu’s sociological dimensions into the foundational framework of Kurt Lewin’s field theory, the synthesis aims to redefine our theoretical understanding and practical approach to leadership in the 21st-century organizational landscape. The archetypal typology introduces nuanced insights into diverse leadership roles, while Winnicott’s concept of the transitional environment becomes a crucial linchpin for fostering creativity and adaptability in the context of enabling leadership. Bourdieu’s sociological dimensions contextualize leadership within social structures, emphasizing the role of diverse perspectives and cultural dynamics. By revisiting Lewin’s field theory through this integrative lens, the article offers a comprehensive framework for comprehending the multifaceted nature of leadership. Beyond a theoretical construct, this synthesis serves as a practical guide for leaders navigating the complex dynamics of modern organizations. The overarching goal is to equip scholars and practitioners with a robust toolkit for effective leadership in the intricate landscape of the 21st century.

Keywords: Leadership, Leadership Field's Theory, Contemporary Leadership Studies, Enabling Leadership, Transitional Environment.

?

Introduction

?

In the dynamic landscape of contemporary leadership studies, the intersectionality of psychological, sociological, and developmental perspectives offers a rich tapestry for reimagining leadership theories (Alvesson & Sveningsson, 2003). Considering this, the present article embarks on a transformative exploration that weaves together the archetypal typology of Spinoza, Winnicott’s developmental theories, and Bourdieu’s sociological dimensions within the foundational framework of Kurt Lewin’s field theory (Spinoza, 1994; Winnicott, 1965; Lewin, 1951). The synthesis of these diverse strands aims not only to deepen our theoretical understanding but, more critically, to reshape our practical approach to leadership in the complex and ever-evolving 21st-century organizational milieu (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018).

In this regard, the archetypal typology proposed by Spinoza introduces a lens through which one can discern the myriad personalities shaping the social field of leadership. By acknowledging the inherent qualities of the Slave, Tyrant, Priest, and Free Person archetypes (Spinoza, 1994), one lays the groundwork for a nuanced appreciation of the diverse roles leaders play in influencing relationships, power structures, and collective identities within organizations.

Furthermore, Winnicott’s developmental theories, notably the concept of the transitional environment, emerge as a linchpin in our exploration (Winnicott, 1965). This intermediate realm between personal attributes and the external environment becomes the crucible for creativity, innovation, and adaptive leadership. In the context of enabling leadership (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018), Winnicott’s ideas offer a roadmap for creating conditions that foster adaptability, learning, and the development of individuals and teams.

In addition, Bourdieu’s sociological dimensions cast a wide net over leadership, contextualizing it within the intricate web of social structures (Uhl-Bien, Arena, Drath, 2018). The recognition of various forms of capital - economic, social, cultural, and symbolic - illuminates leadership as a socially constructed phenomenon. This sociological perspective adds layers to the enabling leadership approach, emphasizing the role of diverse perspectives, symbolic capital, and cultural dynamics in fostering creativity (Bourdieu, 1986, 1977).

At the heart of this exploration is the revisitation of Lewin’s field theory (Lewin, 1951). By integrating and reframing Lewin’s foundational ideas through the lenses of Spinoza (1994), Winnicott (1953), and Bourdieu (1977), one aspires to transcend traditional boundaries and cultivate a comprehensive understanding of contemporary leadership (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018). This synthesis serves not only as a theoretical framework but also as a practical guide for leaders navigating the intricate dynamics of current organizations.

As one delves into this integrative journey, the overarching goal is to present a framework that not only captures the essence of leadership in its multifaceted glory but also equips scholars and practitioners with a robust toolkit for navigating the challenges and opportunities of leadership in the 21st century (Avolio & Yammarino, 2013; Brown, 2009; Uhl-Bien Marion, McKelvey, 2007; Senge, 2006; Gergen, McNamee, Barrett, 2001).

?

Lewin’s psychological field theory

?

Kurt Lewin, a seminal figure in social psychology and organizational behavior, introduces Kurt Lewin, a seminal figure in social psychology and organizational behavior, introduces a groundbreaking conceptual framework known as field theory, which has significantly shaped the landscape of leadership studies (Lewin, 1951, 1936). Born out of Lewin’s holistic approach to understanding human behavior, this theory departs from reductionist perspectives, emphasizing the interdependence of various factors that influence individual and group dynamics (Cartwright & Zander, 1953; Lewin, 1943; Lewin, Lippitt, White, 1939).

Lewin’s theory challenges traditional, individual-centric views of leadership by emphasizing the importance of considering the broader social and environmental context (Lewin, 1951, 1943, 1936; Lewin, Lippitt, White, 1939). It introduces the notion that effective leadership is not solely a product of individual traits but is intricately tied to the interplay of forces within the psychological field (Cartwright & Zander, 1953).

Developed in the early to mid-20th century, at its core, the theory introduces the idea of a “psychological field”, a space where internal and external factors interact to shape human behavior (Lewin, 1951, 1936). This departure from individual-centric views marked a paradigm shift, highlighting the importance of considering the broader context in understanding human dynamics (Lewin, 1947, 1935). The field is not a static backdrop but a dynamic space in constant flux (Lewin, 1943).

A key element of Lewin’s theory is the distinction between driving and restraining forces within the psychological field (1951. 1935). Driving forces propel individuals or groups toward a particular behavior or goal while restraining forces act as obstacles (Lewin, Lippitt, White, 1939). Behavioral changes occur when the balance between these forces is altered, reflecting the dynamic nature of the social environment (Lewin, 1943).

In this regard, the psychological field is conceptualized as a dynamic interplay between individual characteristics (Personality) and the surrounding context (Environment). The equation, often expressed as F Psychological (P, E), captures the idea that the psychological field (F) is a function of the individual’s personality traits (P) interacting with the environmental factors (E). This formulation suggests that human behavior and experiences cannot be fully understood by examining either the person or the environment in isolation; rather, the dynamic relationship between the two shapes psychological phenomena (Lewin, 1951, 1936, 1935).

Personality (P) refers to the unique set of characteristics, traits, and dispositions that define an individual. By these components, Lewin recognizes the importance of understanding how these internal factors contribute to behavior within a given psychological field (McCrae & Costa, 1997; Eysenck, 1990; Cattell, 1957; Allport, 1937).

On the other hand, the Environment (E) encompasses external influences, such as social, cultural, and situational factors. By it, the author emphasizes that the environment is not a passive backdrop but an active force that interacts with and shapes individual behavior (Gifford, 2007; Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Barker, 1968; Lewin, 1936).

As a function, the interactive and mutually influential nature of Personality (P) and Environment (E) indicate that changes in either component have an impact on the psychological field, leading to shifts in behavior, attitudes, and perceptions (Cervone &Pervin, 2019; Bandura, 1986; Heider, 1958; Lewin, 1951).

His concept of “life space” further expands the theory, encompassing the psychological realm within which an individual operates (Lewin, 1951, 1936). Life space includes perceptions, desires, and external stimuli, offering a comprehensive view of the factors influencing behavior. Lewin’s emphasis on the subjective experience within this space acknowledges the uniqueness of everyone’s perspective (Festinger, 1957; Lewin, Dembo, Festinger, Sears, 1944).

Action research, another significant component, emphasizes integrating theory and practice. Lewin advocated for researchers to actively engage in addressing real-world issues, bridging the gap between academia and practical application. This methodological innovation reinforces the theory’s relevance by promoting solutions to societal problems (Whyte, Greenwood, Lazes, 1989; Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988; Lewin, 1946; Lewin & Grabbe, 1945).

?Lewin’s field theory extends beyond individual psychology to group dynamics and organizational change. The application of the theory in understanding social processes, leadership dynamics, and group behavior highlights its versatility. The emphasis on the interdependence of factors within a field aligns with contemporary notions of systemic thinking (French & Bell, 1999; Lippitt, Watson, Westley, 1958; Cartwright, 1952; Lewin, 1951).

In essence, Lewin’s field theory laid the groundwork for a holistic and interconnected understanding of human behavior. Its enduring legacy is evident in its continued influence on social sciences, organizational development, and leadership studies. The theory’s emphasis on dynamism, context, and the practical application of insights remains a guiding principle in contemporary research and practice (Cummings & Worley, 2014; Burnes, 2004; Lewin, 1951, 1947).

?

The leadership’s field theory

?

From this perspective, the leadership field can be understood as intricately woven through the dynamic interaction of three major components: Personality, Environment, and Transitional Environment.

Under this perspective, Personality (P) encompasses the unique set of characteristics, traits, and behaviors inherent to a societal agent. Within the leadership field, individualities serve as a foundational element, influencing how leaders perceive, interact, and respond to various challenges and opportunities.

In addition, the Environment (E) signifies the external surroundings, contexts, and situational factors that leaders navigate. It includes organizational structures, cultural norms, and the broader socio-economic landscape. The interaction between personality and the environment shapes leadership styles, decision-making processes, and overall effectiveness within a given context.

Lastly, the Transitional Environment (T) represents the intermediate enabling environment between an individual’s internal world (P) and the societal surroundings (E). This dynamic arena - Field Leadership ?(P, T, E) - serves as a fertile ground for creativity, learning, and innovation. In the leadership field, the transitional environment acknowledges the fluidity of leadership dynamics, fostering adaptability and the co-construction of meaning.

Table 1 offers a holistic view of the leadership field by recognizing the interplay between internal and external factors, as well as the crucial role of the transitional environment in fostering creativity and adaptability.

Unveiling personality (P) through the lens of the Spinoza archetypal typology

?

As the landscape of leadership studies evolves, there is a growing recognition of the need for nuanced measurements, particularly in the assessment of personality. Traditional approaches to measuring personality often fall short of capturing the intricacies and diversity of leadership styles. Recognizing this gap, scholars and practitioners alike are turning their attention to more comprehensive frameworks (Day & Antonakis, 2012; Bass & Riggio, 2006; Hogan, Kaiser, 2005; Lord & Hall, 2005).

According to these authors, the limitations of conventional personality assessments become apparent when confronted with the dynamic and complex nature of leadership roles (Antonakis & House, 2014; Hogan & Hogan, 2001; Lord, De Vader, Alliger, 1986). In this sense, Spinoza’s typology offers a nuanced lens, allowing for the categorization of leaders based on archetypal characteristics that extend beyond traditional personality traits (Spinoza, 1994).

Unlike conventional personality assessments that often oversimplify individual characteristics, Spinoza’s archetypal classification recognizes the complexity inherent in the human psyche (Spinoza, 1994). Each archetype represents a unique constellation of traits, shedding light on the various ways individuals may manifest their personalities within different contexts (McAdams, 1995; Costa & McGrae, 1992).

Baruch Spinoza, a Dutch philosopher of the 17th century, made significant contributions to philosophy, and his archetypal classification reflects his insights into human nature his archetypal typology categorizes individuals into four distinct archetypes: Slave, Tyrant, Priest, and Free Person (Spinoza, 1994). Each archetype represents a different mode of interaction, influence, and engagement within social contexts (De Dijn, 1996; Curley, 1988), as presented in Table 2.

Spinoza’s typology offers an understanding of the diverse ways individuals engage with social structures and leadership roles. It recognizes that people embody different archetypal tendencies, and these tendencies can influence their approach to relationships, power dynamics, and collective identities within organizations (Spinoza, 1994; De Dijn, 1996; Curley, 1988).

By incorporating Spinoza’s archetypal classification into discussions of leadership, scholars and practitioners gain insights into the complex interplay of personalities within social fields (Balibar, 1998; Spinoza, 1994; Deleuze, 1988). This typology provides a rich framework for analyzing leadership dynamics, understanding how diverse archetypes contribute to organizational culture, and fostering effective leadership that considers the multifaceted nature of human behavior.

Each archetype represents a unique combination of characteristics, allowing for a more comprehensive and dynamic portrayal of individuals (Jung, 2014; Pearson, 2002; Moore & Gillette, 1990). In the context of leadership studies, where the demands and dynamics are multifaceted, this nuanced typology aligns with the complex nature of leadership roles.

In turn, the interconnectedness of Spinoza’s typology with the systemic viewpoints of both Lewin and Bourdieu becomes evident (Bourdieu, 1986; Lewin, 1951). Personality traits, social structures, and cultural dynamics are intricately linked, emphasizing the need for an approach that goes beyond simplistic categorizations (Deleuze, 1996). Leaders, operating within specific social fields and cultural contexts, exhibit a diverse range of traits that may align with different archetypes depending on the circumstances.

By integrating Spinoza’s typology into the framework, one moves away from one-size-fits-all approaches to personality measurement (Spinoza, 1994). Instead, one embraces a more flexible and adaptive model that recognizes the dynamic nature of personality within the fluid context of leadership (Hogan & Shelton, 2006). This alignment enhances the comprehensiveness and applicability of the framework, offering a more accurate portrayal of how individuals express their personalities as leaders in diverse and evolving situations.

Overall, leaders are not monolithic entities defined by a singular trait but are rather a blend of characteristics that may align with different archetypes in varying degrees (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Lord, Foti, De Vader, 1984). As one navigates the complexities of leadership dynamics, Spinoza’s typology offers a more textured and contextually sensitive lens through which to explore the diverse manifestations of personality within the leadership domain.

Table 3 synthetizes the implications of Spinoza’s archetypal typology on understanding individuals in leadership roles.

Contributions from Bourdieu’s social field to environments (E) of the contemporary

?

Pierre Bourdieu, a towering figure in sociology, significantly influenced the leadership’s field theory, bringing forth a paradigm shift with his groundbreaking sociological revisions, by introducing the concept of a structured social space where individuals and institutions engage in dynamic interactions. Within Bourdieu’s perspective, a “field” represents a distinct social domain characterized by specific rules, values, and power dynamics (Bourdieu, 1996, 1993, 1992, 1984).

According to him, the field refers to a structured social space where individuals and institutions engage in struggles mobilizing various forms of capital. This social space is not homogeneous but rather consists of different positions and relations, each with its own set of rules, values, and power structures (Bourdieu, 2000, 1986, 1977; Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992).

Additionally, Bourdieu’s field theory challenges simplistic views that isolate social phenomena by emphasizing the interconnectedness of different elements within a given field. These fields can range from the cultural and academic to the economic and political, and individuals or entities within them vie for symbolic, cultural, economic, and social capital (Bourdieu, 2005, 1996, 1993, 1984).

Furthermore, the concept of the field is dynamic, acknowledging that it evolves because of ongoing social interactions and struggles. Within a field, agents (P) strive to accumulate and deploy different forms of capital to enhance their positions and influence (E). This perspective offers a more comprehensive understanding of social phenomena by considering the structural constraints and opportunities embedded in specific fields (Bourdieu, 2000, 1992, 1986; Swartz, 1997).

Moreover, Bourdieu’s concept of field is relational, meaning that the positions and power relations within a field are defined concerning one another. The dynamics of a field are not solely determined by individual actions but are shaped by the interactions and conflicts between agents occupying different positions (Calhoun, LiPuma, Postone, 1993; Wacquant, 1992; Bourdieu, 1993, 1989).

Table 4 provides a concise overview of Bourdieu’s key capitals and their manifestations in the context of leadership. It also illustrates how leaders can leverage different forms of capital to enhance their positions within organizational fields.

In the context of organizational behavior studies, Bourdieu’s contribution enriches the understanding of leadership dynamics by recognizing that individuals and entities within a field engage in a complex interplay for various forms of capital. These forms of capital, including economic resources, social connections, cultural knowledge, and symbolic recognition, become crucial elements that influence one’s position and impact within a given social context (Bourdieu, 1986).

In contrast to Lewin’s emphasis on psychological forces (Lewin, 1951), Bourdieu’s framework acknowledges the broader societal dimensions that shape leadership. The competitive nature of a field extends beyond mere psychological interactions to encompass economic transactions, political maneuvering, and cultural negotiations. This expanded view underscores the intricate ways in which individuals and institutions navigate and vie for different types of capital, ultimately affecting their roles and influence within a given social field (Bourdieu, 1986).

Therefore, Bourdieu’s insights complement and enhance Lewin’s field theory by providing a more comprehensive understanding of the social spaces in which leadership unfolds (Bourdieu, 1986; Lewin, 1951). The inclusion of economic, political, and cultural capitals broadens the analytical lens, offering a nuanced perspective on how diverse forms of capital contribute to the complexities of leadership within dynamic social environments.

Moreover, Bourdieu’s introduction of the concept of “habitus” adds a layer of depth to the examination of leadership dynamics. The notion of habitus refers to ingrained dispositions and behaviors that individuals acquire through their cultural experiences. In the context of leadership within organizational fields, habitus becomes a crucial lens through which to understand how leaders navigate and respond to various situations (Bourdieu, 1977).

Leaders’ behaviors are not merely a result of conscious decisions or rational choices but are deeply influenced by their habitus, which is formed by the cultural and social context in which they operate. Bourdieu (1990) argues that habitus encompasses not only explicit knowledge but also implicit, taken-for-granted ways of thinking, feeling, and acting. As such, leaders’ responses to challenges, decision-making processes, and interactions with others are shaped by this ingrained set of dispositions.

The incorporation of habitus into the analysis of leadership provides a more nuanced understanding of why leaders may exhibit certain patterns of behavior. It acknowledges the role of cultural background, socialization, and past experiences in shaping the way leaders approach their roles. This concept aligns with Bourdieu’s broader sociological perspective, emphasizing the enduring influence of social structures on individual actions (Bourdieu, 1977).

Therefore, in the exploration of leadership within organizational fields, the concept of habitus becomes a key element in unraveling the complexities of leaders’ behaviors. It adds a dynamic dimension to the understanding of how individuals, through their ingrained dispositions, navigate the intricate interplay of cultural, social, and organizational forces within leadership contexts (Bourdieu, 1980).

Furthermore, Bourdieu’s introduction of the concept of “distinction” enhances our understanding of leadership dynamics within organizational fields. The notion of distinction, as proposed by Bourdieu (1984), refers to how individuals and groups seek to differentiate themselves from others through various symbolic markers and cultural practices.

Regarding the context of leadership, the concept of distinction becomes relevant as leaders and organizations engage in symbolic struggles to establish and maintain their positions within a field. Leaders may employ distinct styles, symbols, or cultural elements to differentiate themselves and their organizations from competitors. This can include choices in language, attire, organizational rituals, and other symbolic practices that contribute to the construction of a unique identity (Bourdieu, 1984).

The pursuit of distinction is intricately tied to the accumulation and deployment of various forms of capital, such as economic, social, and cultural (Bourdieu, 1986). Leaders strategically use these forms of capital to create a sense of exclusivity or superiority, reinforcing their symbolic power within the field. By doing so, they aim to distinguish themselves as authoritative figures, influencers, or trendsetters.

Understanding the dynamics of distinction in leadership adds a layer of complexity to the analysis of power relations and cultural influences within organizational fields. It highlights the symbolic dimensions of leadership and how leaders strategically leverage cultural elements to shape perceptions and gain legitimacy. The concept of distinction, therefore, becomes a valuable tool in unraveling the intricate interplay between symbolic practices, power dynamics, and leadership within Bourdieu’s sociological framework (Bourdieu, 1984).

Table 5 summarizes the contributions of Bourdieu’s field theory to leadership’s field studies.

Shaping the transitional environment (T) with Winnicott’s framework

?

Winnicott’s theoretical framework, particularly his concept of the transitional environment, significantly contributes to the expansion of Lewin and Bourdieu’s field theories in the realm of contemporary leadership studies, specifically within the domain of complex leadership and enabling leadership as elucidated by Uhl-Bien and her colleagues (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018; Uhl-Bien, Arena, Drath, 2018; Uhl-Bien & Marion, 2009; Uhl-Bien, Marion, McKelvey, 2007; Lichtenstein, Benyamin, Uhl-Bien, Marion, Seers, Orton, Schreiber, 2006; Uhl-Bien, 2006). The transitional environment, as proposed by Winnicott (1971), represents an intermediate realm between an individual’s internal world (P) and the external environment (E). This transitional environment serves as a dynamic arena for creativity, learning, and innovation.

In the context of leadership, integrating Winnicott’s maturational development theory introduces a nuanced perspective on how leaders navigate and shape the space between personal attributes and the organizational context (Winnicott, 1971). Enabling leadership, as analyzed by Uhl-Bien and Arena (2018), emphasizes creating conditions that foster adaptability, learning, and the development of individuals and teams. Winnicott’s transitional environment aligns with the notion of creating a space where leaders serve as “holders”, facilitating the exploration and experimentation essential for adaptive leadership.

Moreover, Winnicott’s framework underscores the importance of recognizing the interplay between individual personality traits and the surrounding environment, challenging rigid dichotomies (Winnicott, 2005). Leaders, in adopting an enabling approach, acknowledge the need for flexibility in leadership styles and the importance of adapting to diverse contextual needs. This aligns with the dynamic and complex nature of contemporary organizational landscapes.

In essence, Winnicott’s contributions enrich the theoretical foundation of Lewin and Bourdieu’s field theories, offering a bridge to contemporary leadership paradigms. The emphasis on the transitional environment encourages leaders to embrace uncertainty, stimulate innovation, and facilitate the co-construction of meaning within the organizational field (Winnicott, 1987). The integration of Winnicott’s framework, within the broader context of Lewin and Bourdieu, provides a comprehensive lens for understanding and practicing leadership in today’s multifaceted and rapidly changing world.

In this regard, the conceptual framework proposed by Winnicott (Table 6) adds a layer of richness to the study of leadership by introducing the notion of a transitional environment - a dynamic intermediate zone where an individual’s inherent traits (P) interact with the external environment (E). This transitional environment the dynamics of leadership studies (Winnicott, 1971).

Within this framework, the transitional environment assumes a crucial role in providing the necessary conditions for the exploration within the transitional space (Winnicott, 1971). In the context of leadership field theory, this underscores the importance of organizational culture and structures that actively support adaptive learning, experimentation, and the incubation of novel ideas.

Transitional objects, serving as symbols or shared elements within the transitional environment, play a pivotal role in facilitating the shift from internal to external realities (Winnicott, 1953). These objects provide a sense of security and familiarity within teams, fostering effective communication and cohesion in the leadership field.

The concept of “holder enough good” emphasizes the capacity of leaders to act as caregivers, creating secure and supportive environments within the transitional environment (Winnicott, 1960). This aligns with the responsibility of leaders to cultivate an atmosphere where team members feel valued, secure, and encouraged to explore and innovate.

The notion of holding, in terms of supportive actions and behaviors, is fundamental for enabling individuals to engage in the transitional process (Winnicott, 1986). In the context of leadership, this translates to leaders providing guidance, mentorship, and emotional support during times of change and uncertainty, contributing to the resilience and adaptability of the team.

Encouraging spontaneous gestures within the transitional environment is crucial for authentic expression (Winnicott, 2005). In the realm of leadership, this concept underscores the value of team members freely sharing ideas, emotions, and perspectives, fostering a culture of openness and genuine collaboration.

The concept of the “true self” becomes significant in the transitional environment, emphasizing authenticity and individuality (Winnicott, 1965). In leadership studies, this encourages a culture where team members can express their unique talents and perspectives, contributing to diversity and inclusion in the leadership domain.

Lastly, “play”, as unstructured and imaginative activities within the transitional environment, is fundamental for fostering creativity, learning, and self-discovery (Sutton-Smith, 1997; Winnicott, 1997). In the leadership context, this concept advocates for a culture where teams engage in collaborative problem-solving, experiment with new approaches, and embrace continuous learning as integral components of the leadership field.

This nuanced perspective, anchored in Winnicott’s transitional environment within the leadership domain, has the potential to reshape practices and theories in the contemporary landscape in several transformative ways (Winnicott, 1953). Firstly, it challenges the traditional dichotomy between individual traits and the external environment by introducing a dynamic transitional space that serves as a fertile ground for creativity, learning, and innovation.

In terms of leadership practices, this perspective encourages leaders to adopt an enabling leadership approach, emphasizing the creation of conditions that foster adaptability, learning, and the development of individuals and teams. Leaders become “holders” within the transitional environment, providing a secure and facilitating environment for team members to explore and experiment. This approach aligns with the demands of today’s complex and rapidly changing organizational landscapes (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018).

Moreover, Winnicott’s conceptual framework adds a layer of richness to the study of leadership by emphasizing the importance of the transitional environment (Winnicott, 1971). Organizational cultures and structures that actively support adaptive learning, experimentation, and the incubation of novel ideas become imperative. This challenges leaders to cultivate an atmosphere where team members feel valued, secure, and encouraged to explore and innovate.

The incorporation of transitional objects, and symbolic elements within the leadership field, becomes essential for effective communication and cohesion (Winnicott, 1953). Leaders need to identify and leverage these objects, fostering a sense of security and familiarity within teams. The concept of “holder enough good” underscores the responsibility of leaders to act as caregivers, creating secure and supportive environments that contribute to the resilience and adaptability of the team.

Encouraging “spontaneous gestures” within the transitional environment reshapes leadership by fostering authentic expression (Winnicott, 1960). This calls for leaders to create a culture where team members feel free to share ideas, emotions, and perspectives, fostering openness and genuine collaboration (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). The emphasis on the “true self” within the transitional environment encourages leaders to nurture a culture where individual talents and perspectives are celebrated, contributing to diversity and inclusion.

Lastly, the concept of play, as unstructured and imaginative activities within the transitional environment, advocates for a culture of continuous learning and experimentation (Winnicott, 1971). Leaders need to create environments where teams engage in collaborative problem-solving, experiment with new approaches, and embrace continuous learning as integral components of the leadership field.

In essence, this nuanced perspective challenges leaders to move beyond traditional paradigms, embracing uncertainty, stimulating innovation, and facilitating the co-construction of meaning within the organizational field. It invites a shift from rigid leadership models to adaptive and enabling approaches that acknowledge the dynamic interplay between personal attributes and the organizational context in the contemporary landscape (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018).

Table 7 articulates how Winnicott’s ideas can reshape leadership practices and theories, emphasizing the dynamic and adaptive nature required in today’s organizational environments.

In revisiting Lewin’s field theory through the lenses of Bourdieu and enriching it with insights from Spinoza and Winnicott, one unveils a comprehensive framework with profound implications for the study of contemporary leadership, particularly in the realm of enabling leadership focused on context, creativity, and innovation (Figure 1).

In the realm of organizational studies, it is crucial to note that the notion of the transitional environment has a significant connection with the concept of “Ba”. Originally proposed by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), the term originates from the Japanese language and can be roughly translated to mean a shared space or platform where knowledge is created, shared, and utilized within an organization.

The evolution of this concept can be traced back to the author’s exploration of knowledge conversion processes. As a result, Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) identify four modes of knowledge conversion: socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization. Within this framework, “Ba” emerges as the context or environment that facilitates these knowledge-creation processes.

It is crucial to highlight that “Ba” is not limited to physical spaces but extends to virtual, mental, and even spiritual realms. The authors categorize it into four types: Originating Ba (facilitating socialization), Interacting Ba (facilitating externalization), Cyber Ba (facilitating combination), and Exercising Ba (facilitating internalization). Each type serves as a unique context for different aspects of knowledge creation (Nonaka & Konno, 1998).

The rich tapestry of “Ba” is interwoven with cultural, social, and organizational contexts. It emphasizes the importance of shared contexts in fostering knowledge creation, encouraging interactions, and providing a foundation for collective learning. “Ba” encapsulates the notion that knowledge is not created in isolation but is deeply embedded in the relationships and interactions among individuals within a specific context (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).

In the realm of contemporary leadership, leaders who grasp the essence of “Ba” recognize its role in fostering collaboration among team members. By providing a platform for socialization and interaction, “Ba” becomes a catalyst for collective knowledge creation. In today’s collaborative landscape, where performance often hinges on the ability to work together seamlessly, the creation of spaces that facilitate the exchange of tacit knowledge and the co-creation of ideas becomes a strategic imperative (Nonaka & Konno, 1998).

Moreover, “Ba” is instrumental in driving innovation within organizations. The concept offers a context for the synthesis of diverse knowledge elements, providing an environment conducive to creative thinking and the generation of novel solutions. Leaders who understand and harness the power of “Ba” can strategically position their teams for innovation, a key competitive advantage in the contemporary business environment (Nonaka & Toyama, 2005).

Furthermore, “Ba” contributes to the ongoing process of organizational learning. It supports internalization, where individuals absorb and apply knowledge gained from interactions within these shared spaces. Leaders who actively cultivate a culture of learning within different “Ba” contexts contribute to the continuous development of their teams and organizations (Nonaka & Von Krogh, 2009).

Ultimately, the significance of “Ba” in contemporary leadership extends to its role in shaping organizational culture. Leaders who prioritize the creation of spaces that value knowledge exchange and collaboration contribute to the establishment of a knowledge-centric culture. In such cultures, learning is not a separate initiative but is deeply embedded in the fabric of the organization, creating a fertile ground for sustained success in the ever-evolving landscape of modern leadership (Nonaka, Toyama, Byosiere, 2001).

In leadership studies, the Winnicottian notion of a transitional environment is also related to the concept of “enabling leadership” (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018; Uhl-Bien, Arena, Drath, 2018; Uhl-Bien & Marion, 2009; Winnicott, 1971). Its early foundations in the complexities expounded by complexity theory, challenging traditional, hierarchical leadership models that struggled to navigate the intricate nature of modern organizational systems (Morgan, 2006).

An essential moment in enabling leadership development came with the rise of adaptive leadership approaches (Uhl-Bien & Marion, 2009; Heifetz, Grashow, Linsky, 2009). This perspective emphasizes the need for leaders to not only guide but also to empower and facilitate adaptive change, laying the groundwork for the enabling leadership paradigm (Uhl-Bien, Marion, McKelvy, 2007; Hollander & Julian, 1970).

As organizations transitioned towards flatter structures and collaborative cultures, the concept of enabling leadership became intertwined with shared and collaborative leadership models (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018; Pearce & Conger, 2003; West, 2002; Spreitzer, 1995). Enabling leaders, in this context, are those who distribute leadership responsibilities, foster collaboration, and create environments where team members actively contribute to decision-making processes. The emphasis on psychological safety and empowerment further solidified the concept (Edmondson, 1999). Enabling leaders are envisioned as creating spaces where individuals feel safe to express ideas, take risks, and contribute meaningfully.

Concomitantly, these concepts resonate with the principles of servant and authentic leadership, where leaders prioritize serving the needs of their team members, enabling their performance and development (Northouse, 2015; Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, Peterson, 2008; George, 2003; Greenleaf, 2002). In synthesis, these concepts align with the broader shift in leadership paradigms towards more inclusive, adaptive, innovative, and people-centric approaches (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018; Uhl-Bien, 2006).

?

The transitional leadership framework

?

This comprehensive approach intertwines Spinoza’s archetypal typology, Winnicott’s transitional environment, and Bourdieu’s sociological revisions, creating a robust framework for understanding contemporary leadership practices. The Slave, Tyrant, Priest, and Free Person archetypes from Spinoza contribute nuanced insights into power dynamics within organizations, particularly within the enabling leadership paradigm (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018).

Winnicott’s concept of the transitional environment adds a layer of depth, urging leaders to act as “holders enough good” in the interplay between personal attributes (P) and the external environment (E). This resonates seamlessly with the ethos of enabling leadership, emphasizing the creation of secure and facilitating environments that spur exploration and innovation (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018; Bass & Riggio, 2006).

Within the Spinozan context, leaders embodying the Priest archetype play a vital role in cultivating an environment conducive to the transitional space (Spinoza, 1994). Their authoritative and charismatic influence aligns with Winnicott’s concept of leaders as “holders,” fostering a culture where team members feel supported, valued, and empowered to take risks (Winnicott, 1971).

Bourdieu’s sociological concepts, including field, habitus, and various forms of capital, provide a broader context for leadership within the social field (Bourdieu, 1992, 1986). The leadership field is seen as a structured social space where agents compete for economic, social, cultural, and symbolic capital. This framework acknowledges the multidimensionality of leadership and recognizes the impact of broader social structures on enabling leadership practices.

In the contemporary landscape, characterized by rapid change and uncertainty, the enabling leadership paradigm emerges as a natural evolution. Leaders, drawing from the nuanced typology of Spinoza (1994), the transitional insights of Winnicott (1971), and the sociological grounding of Bourdieu (1986), are well-equipped to navigate the complexities of their roles. They actively promote diversity, create environments for spontaneous gestures, and leverage the symbolic capital within their teams to foster a culture of creativity and innovation.

This reimagined Lewinian field theory (Lewin, 1951) through Bourdieu’s sociological dimensions (Bourdieu, 1986), enriched by Spinoza’s archetypes (Spinoza, 1994), and Winnicott’s transitional dynamics (Winnicott, 1971), becomes a powerful tool for scholars and practitioners exploring the intricacies of enabling leadership. It not only offers a holistic understanding of leadership but also provides actionable insights for cultivating adaptive, context-aware, and innovative leadership practices in the contemporary organizational landscape.

The integrated framework proposed in Table 8 synthesizes insights from Spinoza, Winnicott, and Bourdieu to provide a comprehensive understanding of contemporary leadership practices. It offers a holistic lens for scholars and practitioners to explore the nuanced dynamics of enabling leadership, emphasizing adaptability, context awareness, and innovation.

?Conclusion

?

The interweaving of Spinoza’s archetypal typology, Winnicott’s transitional environment, and Bourdieu’s sociological dimensions in this article construct an integrated framework that reshapes contemporary leadership through the lens of enabling practices (Spinoza, 1994; Bourdieu, 1986; Winnicott, 1971). This synthesis offers a nuanced perspective for comprehending and navigating the intricacies of leadership in the 21st century (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018).

Spinoza’s archetypal typology (Spinoza, 1994) introduces an innovative approach to understanding the diverse personalities shaping the social field of leadership. By recognizing and harnessing the unique qualities of each archetype, leaders can tailor their approaches within the enabling leadership paradigm, fostering environments conducive to innovation and adaptability.

Winnicott’s transitional environment (Winnicott, 1971), serving as a dynamic intermediate realm between personal attributes and the external environment, takes center stage in the leadership narrative. Leaders, akin to “holders enough good”, become catalysts for secure spaces that nurture exploration, creativity, and innovation within teams. This seamlessly aligns with the principles of enabling leadership, emphasizing the significance of adaptability and continuous learning.

Bourdieu’s sociological dimensions (Bourdieu, 1986) provide a contextual backdrop, placing leadership within broader social structures. The acknowledgment of the influence of various forms of capital - economic, social, cultural, and symbolic - adds depth to the understanding of leadership as a socially constructed phenomenon. This sociological lens enriches the transitional leadership approach, emphasizing the role of diverse perspectives, symbolic capital, and cultural dynamics in fostering creativity (Figure 2).

?

?

?Transitional leadership, as the guiding philosophy within this integrated framework, encapsulates adaptability, context awareness, and innovation. Leaders practicing transitional leadership actively champion diversity, spontaneity, and symbolic capital, creating a fertile ground for creativity and innovation to thrive. The framework challenges traditional leadership paradigms, advocating for a shift towards dynamic, context-specific, and inclusive leadership practices (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018).

In summary, this integrated framework encourages scholars and practitioners to reimagine leadership theories, embracing the interconnectedness of personality, environment, and sociocultural dynamics. By adopting the principles of transitional leadership within this holistic framework, one lays the foundation for leadership practices aligned with the demands of contemporary, complex, and ever-evolving organizational landscapes. As we continue navigating the intricate tapestry of leadership studies, this synthesis serves as a guiding compass for those seeking a comprehensive and adaptive understanding of contemporary leadership (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018; Gardner, Cogliser, Davis, Dickens, 2011).

?

References

?

Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Antonakis, J., & House, R. J. (2014). Instrumental leadership: Measurement and extension of transformational–transactional leadership theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(4), 746-771.

Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39.

Avolio, B. J., & Yammarino, F. J. (Eds.). (2013). Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead. Emerald Group Publishing.

Balibar, é. (1998). Spinoza and Politics. Verso.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.

Barker, R. G. (1968). Ecological psychology: Concepts and methods for studying the environment of human behavior. Stanford University Press.

Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational Leadership (2nd ed.). Psychology Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1980). The Logic of Practice. Stanford University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Harvard University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital, In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1989). Social Space and Symbolic Power. Sociological Theory, 7(1), 14-25.

Bourdieu, P. (1992). The Logic of Practice. Stanford University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1993). The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature. Columbia University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1996). The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field. Stanford University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (2000). Pascalian Meditations. Stanford University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (2005). The Social Structures of the Economy. Polity Press.

Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. University of Chicago Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.

Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. HarperCollins.

Burnes, B. (2004). Kurt Lewin and the planned approach to change: A re‐appraisal. Journal of Management Studies, 41(6), 977-1002.

Calhoun, C., LiPuma, E., & Postone, M. (Eds.). (1993). “Bourdieu: Critical Perspectives.” University of Chicago Press.

Cameron, K. S., & Dutton, J. E. (2003). “Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline.” Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Carmeli, A., & Spreitzer, G. M. (2009). “Trust, connectivity, and thriving: Implications for innovative behaviors at work.” The Journal of Creative Behavior, 43(3), 169-191.

Cartwright, D. (1952). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers by Kurt Lewin. Social Forces, 31(4), 427-428.

Cartwright, D., & Zander, A. (Eds.). (1953). Group dynamics: Research and theory. Row, Peterson.

Cattell, R. B. (1957). Personality and motivation structure and measurement. Yonkers-on-Hudson, NY: World Book.

Cervone, D., & Pervin, L. A. (2019). Personality: Theory and research. John Wiley & Sons.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.

Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2014). Organization development and change. Cengage Learning.

Curley, E. M. (1988). Behind the Geometrical Method: A Reading of Spinoza’s Ethics. Princeton University Press.

Day, D. V., & Antonakis, J. (2012). The nature of leadership. Sage Publications.

De Dijn, H. (1996). Spinoza: The Way to Wisdom. Purdue University Press.

Deleuze, G. (1996). Spinoza: Practical Philosophy. City Lights Books.

Edmondson, A. C. (1999). “Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.

Eysenck, H. J. (1990). Biological dimensions of personality. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 244-276). Guilford Press.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.

French, J. R. P., & Bell, C. H. (Eds.). (1999). Organization development: Behavioral science interventions for organization improvement (6th ed.). Prentice Hall.

Frijda, N. H. (2007). The Laws of Emotion. Erlbaum.

Gardner, W. L., Cogliser, C. C., Davis, K. M., & Dickens, M. P. (2011). Authentic leadership: A review of the literature and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(6), 1120-1145.

George, B. (2003). Authentic leadership: Rediscovering the secrets to creating lasting value. Jossey-Bass.

Gergen, K. J., McNamee, S., & Barrett, F. J. (2001). Toward transformative dialogue. International Journal of Public Administration, 24(7-8), 679-707.

Gifford, R. (2007). Environmental psychology: Principles and practice. Optimal Books.

Greenleaf, R. K. (2002). “Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness.” Paulist Press.

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. John Wiley & Sons.

Heifetz, R. A., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership: Tools and tactics for changing your organization and the world. Harvard Business Press.

Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2001). Assessing leadership: A view from the dark side. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9(1‐2), 40-51.

Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2005). What we know about leadership. Review of General Psychology, 9(2), 169-180.

Hogan, R., & Shelton, D. (2006). Using theory to evaluate personality and job-performance relations: A socioanalytic perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 235–246.

Hollander, E. P., & Julian, J. W. (1970). Contemporary trends in the analysis of leadership processes. Psychological Bulletin, 74(3), 241.

Jung, C. G. (2014). Man and His Symbols. Dell.

Kahr, B. (2003). D. W. Winnicott: A Biographical Portrait. Karnac Books.

Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). The action research planner: Doing critical participatory action research. Springer.

Lichtenstein, B. B.; Uhl-Bien, M.; Marion, R.; Seers, A.; Orton, J. D.; & Schreiber, C. (2006). Complexity leadership theory: An interactive perspective on leading in complex adaptive systems. Management Department Faculty Publications. 8.

Lewin, K. (1935). A Dynamic Theory of Personality: Selected Papers. McGraw-Hill.

Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of Topological Psychology. McGraw-Hill.

Lewin, K. (1943). Defining the “Field at a Given Time”. Psychological Review, 50(3), 292–310.

Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34-46.

Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in Group Dynamics: Concept, Method and Reality in Social Science; Social Equilibria and Social Change. Human Relations, 1(1), 5–41.

Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. Harper & Row.

Lewin, K., & Grabbe, P. (1945). Conduct, knowledge, and acceptance of new values. Journal of Social Issues, 1(3), 57-65.

Lewin, K., Dembo, T., Festinger, L., & Sears, P. S. (1944). Level of aspiration. Houghton Mifflin.

Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created “social climates”. Journal of Social Psychology, 10(2), 269-299.

Lippitt, R., Watson, J., & Westley, B. (1958). The dynamics of planned change. Harcourt, Brace & World.

Lord, R. G., & Hall, R. J. (2005). Identity, deep structure and the development of leadership skill. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(4), 591-615.

Lord, R. G., De Vader, C. L., & Alliger, G. M. (1986). A meta-analysis of the relation between personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity generalization procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 402-410.

Lord, R. G., Foti, R. J., & De Vader, C. L. (1984). A test of leadership categorization theory: Internal structure, information processing, and leadership perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34(3), 343–378.

Luthans, F., Youssef, C. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2007). Psychological capital: Developing the human competitive edge. Oxford University Press.

McAdams, D. P. (1995). What do we know when we know a person? Journal of Personality, 63(3), 365-396.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52(5), 509-516.

Moore, R., & Gillette, D. (1990). King, Warrior, Magician, Lover: Rediscovering the Archetypes of the Mature Masculine. HarperOne.

Morgan, G. (2006). Images of Organization. Sage Publications.

Nonaka, I., & Konno, N. (1998). The concept of “Ba”: Building a foundation for knowledge creation. California Management Review, 40(3), 40-54.

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press.

Nonaka, I., & Toyama, R. (2005). The theory of the knowledge-creating firm: Subjectivity, objectivity and synthesis. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(3), 419-436.

Nonaka, I., & von Krogh, G. (2009). Tacit knowledge and knowledge conversion: Controversy and advancement in organizational knowledge creation theory. Organization Science, 20(3), 635-652.

Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Byosiere, P. (2001). A theory of organizational knowledge creation: Understanding the dynamic process of creating knowledge. In J. R. Kimberly & R. A. Quinn (Eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (pp. 116-142). The University of Chicago Press.

Northouse, P. G. (2015). Leadership: Theory and practice. Sage Publications.

Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). All those years ago: The historical underpinnings of shared leadership. In Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership (pp. 1-18). Sage Publications.

Pearson, C. S. (2002). Awakening the Heroes Within: Twelve Archetypes to Help Us Find Ourselves and Transform Our World. HarperOne.

Seligman, M. E., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). Positive psychology: An introduction. Springer.

Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday.

Spinoza, B. (1994). Ethics. Penguin Classics.

Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442-1465.

Sutton-Smith, B. (1997). The Ambiguity of Play. Harvard University Press.

Swartz, D. (1997). Culture and Power: The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. University of Chicago Press.

Uhl-Bien, M., & Arena, M. (2018). Leadership for organizational adaptability: A theoretical synthesis and integrative framework. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(1), 89-104.

Uhl-Bien, M., & Marion, R. (2009). Complexity leadership in bureaucratic forms of organizing: A meso model. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(4), 631-650.

Uhl-Bien, M., Arena, M., & Drath, W. (2018). Leadership as a complex adaptive system: An introduction. In M. Uhl-Bien, R. Marion, & B. McKelvey (Eds.), Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams: Leadership Now: Reflections on the Legacy of Boas Shamir (Vol. 24, pp. 11–27). Emerald Publishing Limited.

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(4), 298-318.

Wacquant, L. (1992). Toward a Reflexive Sociology: A Workshop with Pierre Bourdieu. Sociological Theory, 10(2), 226-253.

Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management, 34(1), 89-126.

West, M. A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology, 51(3), 355-387.

Whyte, W. F., Greenwood, D. J., & Lazes, P. (1989). Participatory action research: Through practice to science in social research. American Sociological Review, 54(1), 133-147.

Winnicott, D. W. (1953). Transitional Objects and Transitional Phenomena. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 34, 89-97.

Winnicott, D. W. (1960). The Theory of the Parent-Infant Relationship. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 41, 585-595.

Winnicott, D. W. (1965). The Maturational Process and the Facilitating Environment. International Universities Press.

Winnicott, D. W. (1971). Playing and Reality. Routledge.

Winnicott, D. W. (1986). Holding and Interpretation: Fragment of an Analysis. In The Maturational Processes and the Facilitating Environment (pp. 104-115). Karnac Books.

Winnicott, D. W. (1987). The collected works of D. W. Winnicott (Vol. 6). Oxford University Press.

Winnicott, D. W. (2005). The maturational processes and the facilitating environment: Studies in the theory of emotional development. Routledge.

[1] The paper was developed within the framework of the Leadership Observatory NEOP FGV-EAESP. The S?o Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) supports this research.

Sant'Anna, A. S. (2023). Leadership Field Theory: A Contemporary Perspective. Manuscript Discussion Series, 1(6):1-21. NEOP FGV-EAESP. (Work in progress). DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33616.28160.

?

?

?

?

?

?

?