The Caring General Secretary, or Collective Leadership as Theatre

1994 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 580-590
Author(s):  
Jan Niessen

In the 1970s, during the Cold War era, European and North American states began a dialogue in Helsinki which became known as the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), or the Helsinki process. For Western states the CSCE served as a platform to raise questions related to security in Europe and the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Eastern European states considered the CSCE as a means to secure the postwar borders and an opportunity to discuss economic and scientific cooperation. Today, 51 European States, plus the United States of America and Canada, participate in this process. Notwithstanding the many and often intense political tensions between the West and the East during those twenty years, quite a number of conferences, seminars and other meetings were held and a great many agreements were adopted and documents issued, dealing with matters related to CSCE's three main areas of concern: security in Europe; cooperation in the fields of economics, science, technology and environment; the promotion of human rights. In response to the fundamental changes in Europe in the late 1980s, the CSCE was given a new impetus and its operational framework was broadened. CSCE offices were established in Prague (CSCE Secretariat), Vienna (Conflict Prevention Center) and Warsaw (Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights) with the aim to strengthen and monitor compliance with CSCE commitments, especially in the area of human rights. A Parliamentary Assembly was established and met twice, first in Budapest and then in Helsinki. A General Secretary and a High Commissioner on Minorities were appointed, with offices in Vienna and The Hague, respectively.


2021 ◽  
pp. 154805182098653
Author(s):  
Jonathan C. Ziegert ◽  
David M. Mayer ◽  
Ronald F. Piccolo ◽  
Katrina A. Graham

This research explores the nature of collective leadership by examining the boundary conditions of how and when it relates to unit functioning. Building from a contingency perspective that considers the impact of contextual factors, we propose that collective charismatic leadership will be associated with lowered unit conflict, and this relationship will be strengthened by the contingency elements of individual charismatic leadership, task complexity, and social inclusion. Furthermore, we propose that the interactions of collective charismatic leadership with these contextual factors will relate to performance and satisfaction through conflict. We examine our hypotheses across two unit-level field studies, and the results illustrated that high levels of these contextual factors enhanced the negative relationship between collective charismatic leadership and conflict, which generally mediated the relationships between these interactive effects and performance and satisfaction. The results also highlight the detrimental aspects of collective leadership and how it can relate to reduced unit functioning when it is not aligned with an appropriate context. Overall, these findings begin to provide a more complete picture of collective leadership from a contingency perspective through a greater understanding of when and how it is related to unit functioning.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document