Employing a critical approach typical of humanities-based research, this article investigates the changing nature of toxic leadership in our digital world. Drawing on the perspective of media ecology, which asserts that the prevailing... more
Employing a critical approach typical of humanities-based research, this article investigates the changing nature of toxic leadership in our digital world. Drawing on the perspective of media ecology, which asserts that the prevailing communication technologies at a given moment create the
social conditions that, in turn, condition us, the authors illustrate how the digital logics of publicity, intransigence, impertinence, and impulsivity remake the contours of leadership. Based on a critical case study of Elon Musk’s public management of Twitter, which has subsequently been rebranded as “X”, it is argued that the four digital logics transform toxic leadership into digital authoritarianism, an unabashed form of authoritarian rule. A concluding section of the essay explores the implications of this evolution for traditional categories of leadership; the importance of attending to communication technologies in leadership research; and the individual, institutional, and social harms of digital
authoritarianism.
social conditions that, in turn, condition us, the authors illustrate how the digital logics of publicity, intransigence, impertinence, and impulsivity remake the contours of leadership. Based on a critical case study of Elon Musk’s public management of Twitter, which has subsequently been rebranded as “X”, it is argued that the four digital logics transform toxic leadership into digital authoritarianism, an unabashed form of authoritarian rule. A concluding section of the essay explores the implications of this evolution for traditional categories of leadership; the importance of attending to communication technologies in leadership research; and the individual, institutional, and social harms of digital
authoritarianism.
Research Interests:
This manuscript presents two studies on arguing goals. In Study 1, participants (N = 147) provided open-ended descriptions of their goals while arguing with others. A content analysis of their answers revealed 10 arguing goals: mutual... more
This manuscript presents two studies on arguing goals. In Study 1, participants (N = 147) provided open-ended descriptions of their goals while arguing with others. A content analysis of their answers revealed 10 arguing goals: mutual understanding, problem solving, conflict resolution, persuasion, dominance, personal expression, emotional release, standing up for oneself, enjoyment, and intellectual growth. In Study 2, participants (N = 303) rated statements measuring these goals. The convergent validity, reliability, and factor structure of the measures developed were examined. Results indicated good validity and reliability, as well as unidimensional factors, with strong loadings for indicators in each scale, suggesting a promising measurement for the assessment of goals in nonserial argumentative exchanges.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
This manuscript presents two studies on arguing goals. In Study 1, participants (N = 147) provided open-ended descriptions of their goals while arguing with others. A content analysis of their answers revealed 10 arguing goals: mutual... more
This manuscript presents two studies on arguing goals. In Study 1, participants (N = 147) provided open-ended descriptions of their goals while arguing with others. A content analysis of their answers revealed 10 arguing goals: mutual understanding, problem solving, conflict resolution, persuasion, dominance, personal expression, emotional release, standing up for oneself, enjoyment, and intellectual growth. In Study 2, participants (N = 303) rated statements measuring these goals. The convergent validity, reliability, and factor structure of the measures developed were examined. Results indicated good validity and reliability, as well as unidimensional factors, with strong loadings for indicators in each scale, suggesting a promising measurement for the assessment of goals in nonserial argumentative exchanges.