Human Resource Development International

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rhrd20

A cinematic analysis of the leadership behaviours

of Robin Hood

Kenneth R. Bartlett , Soebin Jang , Ying Feng & Eniola Aderibigbe

To cite this article: Kenneth R. Bartlett , Soebin Jang , Ying Feng & Eniola Aderibigbe (2020): A
cinematic analysis of the leadership behaviours of Robin Hood, Human Resource Development
International, DOI: 10.1080/13678868.2020.1789400

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2020.1789400

Published online: 07 Jul 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 14

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rhrd20
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL
https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2020.1789400

ARTICLE

A cinematic analysis of the leadership behaviours of Robin

Hood
a b a
Kenneth R. Bartlett , Soebin Jang , Ying Feng and Eniola Aderibigbea
a
Department of Organizational Leadership, Policy, and Development, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities,
United States; bDepartment of Business Administration, Augsburg University, Twin Cities, United States

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This study conducts a critical examination of leadership behaviour Received 17 September 2019
practices in a selection of film adaptations of the Robin Hood Accepted 25 June 2020
legend. This paper extends traditional efforts with theorizing lea­ KEYWORDS
dership beyond leaders and their followers to consider acted per­ Leadership behaviours; film;
formance exhibitions of leadership through cultural artefacts. The cinematic analysis; Robin
theory of dramatism was used to consider the portrayal of leader­ Hood
ship behaviours of the title character in six Robin Hood films
released over the years 1922–2018. A coding scheme using the
GLOBE study six global leadership dimensions and associated 21
primary leadership behaviours were used to examine the action
and dialogue of acted behaviours in each scene in each film. The
results showed that the Robin Hood character most frequently
presented a charismatic/value-based leadership style across all
films. The results are discussed in terms of the ability of film to
explore issues of leadership with results highlighting how leader­
ship traits and behaviours of traditional cultural legends evolve and
are adapted to modern audiences. This study contributes to
ongoing investigations of analysis of leadership from an HRD theory
and practice lens as represented in cultural artefacts such as film.

Introduction
The location of the 2019 University Forum for Human Resource Development (UFHRD)
Conference in Nottingham was the inspiration of this study that conducted a critical and
discursive examination of leadership behaviours in a selection of film adaptations of the
Robin Hood legend. Nottinghamshire County in the East Midlands region of England,
and especially nearby Sherwood Forest are associated with several sites directly linked to
stories of Robin Hood. Robin Hood is a heroic outlaw regarded by historical scholars as
an enduring English folklore legend with a history of at least 700 and perhaps 1000 years
(Holt 1989). According to the legend, Robin Hood led a group of outlaws to rob from the
rich and give to the poor while avoiding capture from his chief opponent, the Sheriff of
Nottingham. It is important to note that there is no single literary text that enshrines the
‘real’ version of the Robin Hood story. Rather, the story of Robin Hood, and his various
supporting characters have been told in a wide range of communication mediums which

CONTACT Ying Feng Email fengx472@umn.edu

© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 K. R. BARTLETT ET AL.

have changed and evolved over time with cultural norms, public interests, and
technology.
The first cinematic production on Robin Hood was released in 1908, with over 50 films
and numerous television series based on this folk legend produced over the last 100 years
(Chapman 2011; King 2010; Knight 1999a, 2006). As bell hooks (2009) observed ‘whether
we like it or not, cinema assumes a pedagogical role in the lives of many people. It may
not be the intent of the filmmaker to teach audiences anything, but that does not mean
that lessons are not learned’ (2–3). Film is acknowledged as a communication medium
that both reflects and shapes public opinion, and therefore, provides a useful resource for
exploring the portrayal of various aspects of human nature, including professional and
work-related life roles (Felton, Dimnik, and Bay 2008). As Long (2017) stated, films do
more than tell stories about leaders as they ‘contribute to particular leadership discourses
by defining leaders, followers, the relationships between them (complete with power
asymmetry), and the purpose of leadership in very specific ways’ (75). Therefore, film can
influence the lived practice and experience of leadership ‘when the ideas and norms
about leadership are internalized and brought to life’ (Long 2017, 75).
Film and other visual media have long been applied to formal and informal education as
an important medium to teach students (Wise 1939) because of the recognition of the
positive cumulative effects to learning (Champoux 1999). The application of film, consid­
ered by some as a ‘celluloid blackboard’ (Marcus 2007) has been explored in detail across
many fields of academic inquiry (Engert and Spencer 2009; Marcus and Levine 2007),
including management (e.g. Bell 2008; Billsberry, Charlesworth, and Leonard 2012;
Huczynski and Buchanan 2004; Roth 2001; Tyler, Anderson, and Tyler 2009), organiza­
tional behaviour (e.g. Smith 2009), and Human Resource Development (HRD) (e.g. Carter
and Howell 1998; Callahan, Whitener, and Sandlin 2007; Wright 2013; Wright and Sandlin
2009). Cinematic examination of themes associated with leadership has been a common
feature of many of these studies in HRD and related management disciplines.
HRD scholars have increasingly recognized popular media, and especially film, as
cultural artefacts, worthy of analysis and interpretation for representations of concepts
related to the management and development of people (Callahan and Rosser 2007;
Comer 2001; Gray and Callahan 2008; Hutchins and Bierema 2013; Malloch and
Callahan 2009; Smith 2009). As Rosser (2007) suggested, leadership is ‘best learned in
the moment, and creating these moments can be difficult; however, these moments have
been captured in simulation and case studies and now can be created using film (movies)’
(236). Concurrently, the move towards critical approaches to leadership studies (Zoller
and Fairhurst 2007) has also attracted attention for analysis of leadership and leadership
development through film (Cranmer and Harris 2015; Edwards et al. 2015).
The study of perceptions of leadership behaviour remains an important topic for
researchers as well as leaders, their followers, and professionals engaged with the design
and delivery of programmes for leadership development. Yost (2017) encouraged scho­
lars to consider the ways representations of leaders in television and film influence
conceptualizations of leaders and leadership. Popular culture in general, as well as
specific examples such as film ‘establish norms, social boundaries, rituals, and innova­
tions, while also paving the way for social change’ (Kidd 2007, 71). Huczynski and
Buchanan (2004) noted that ‘films can be regarded either as entertaining fictions, as
reflections of reality, or as cultural artifacts that shape and constitute our understanding
 HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL 3

of social and organizational life’ (708). They also make an important connection to
management education, and we argue equally applicable to HRD, that ‘film can be
used to develop as well illustrate theoretical understandings’ (Huczynski and Buchanan
2004, 708). Yet, international study of leadership in HRD has largely overlooked cine­
matic representation of the behaviour of leaders with little research on famous historical
and heroic leaders.

Research purpose and research question

Research on representations of leadership behaviours remains an understudied topic in
HRD (Callahan and Rosser 2007), especially considering how changes in acted beha­
viours of idealized leaders are presented in film across time. The purpose of this paper
was to apply cinematic analysis to explore how major motion films portray leadership
behaviours. We suggest such analysis could inform theory building, or theoretical
explanation for presentations of leadership behaviours shown on screen (Huczynski
and Buchanan 2004) as well as potential for application for teaching and professional
development related to leadership. More specifically, we critically examine how a series of
films focused on the central title character present interpretations of what it means to be
a leader. In this study, the leader is Robin Hood with analysis of acted leadership
behaviours of the title character in a selection of major movie productions based on
the folk legend. The overarching research question was: What themes related to leader­
ship behaviour are identified in a selection of Robin Hood films?
This study adds to the growing body of HRD literature related to analysis of cultural
artefacts, in this case film, to explore leadership. In this way, this study considers the
lasting power of the Robin Hood legend to entertain, educate, and reflect traditional and
evolving socio-cultural realities of behaviours associated with leadership. Existing theory
of leadership is dominated by leader behaviours as understood by leaders or followers.
We extend the existing literature by theorizing about how leadership may be explored
from film as a cultural artefact for cinematic representations of leadership. Extending
dramatism theory, we suggest films that feature leadership behaviours as a central aspect
to character development and the plot, play a role to inform and perhaps reinforce
stereotypes of what it means to be a leader. This broadened approach to leadership theory
advocated in this study with the application of the GLOBE leadership framework,
extends consideration of the experience of either leaders or their followers to people
with no direct involvement with the leader. More specifically, this study considers the
audience and their cinematic relationship with acted leadership behaviours. Yet,
observed leadership behaviours may shape future interpretations of being a leader or
experiencing leadership within organizational contexts.
In the following sections of the paper, we present the theoretical base and literature
review used to frame the study, description of the method and analysis techniques,
results, and discussion of our findings.

Theoretical background and literature review

A broad theory base and body of existing literature was reviewed to frame the study.
Drawing from cinema studies, film theory seeks to explain the relationships between the
4 K. R. BARTLETT ET AL.

work, the artist, and the observer (Monaco 2000). As Braudy and Marshall (2016) noted
in the latest edition of their introductory text, film theory provides conceptual frame­
works to consider the film’s relationship to reality, other art forms, individual viewers,
and society at large. The German cultural theorist Hans Robert Jauss (1982) introduced
the notion of a horizon of expectations which has been applied to films with a common
focus or genre. As Aronstein (2005) noted in reference to the genre of Hollywood films
related to the legend of King Arthur, directors, writers, actors, costume and set designers
are all well aware of what the audience expects and this expectation shapes all aspects of
production as experienced by the viewer. The specific experience and role of the audience
with interpretation and meaning making of the film supported the application of Burke
1985 theory of dramatism. Dramatism theory seeks to consider how audience attention is
directed towards specific components of a story while deflecting attention from other
elements of the plot and character development (Murphy and Harris 2018). Further,
dramatism can be considered more broadly as an interpretive communication theory
developed to analyse human relationships. As Blakesley (2002) summarized, this theory
conducts an examination of life as if it is a performance on a stage to understand human
motives and relations. In this instance, aspects of the film that show examples of the
character Robin Hood performing leadership behaviours were considered from the
perspective of how the audience might interpret such depictions, compared to a more
scholarly analysis.
The majority of film analysis studies in management and related fields have adopted
critical, relational, and discursive theoretical approaches in studying leadership (Edwards
et al. 2015). This study attempted to build on and expand such frameworks to consider
representations of leadership in films based on the English folklore legend character of
Robin Hood. Our analysis of performed leadership behaviours identified in the selected
films was grounded in existing leadership theory. The comprehensive categorization of
leadership theories in the HRD domain, as presented by Turner and Baker (2018),
identified 20 unique leadership theories used in published research in the four Academy
of Human Resource Development journals (2007–2017). Traditional leadership theories,
including trait-based, behavioural, situational/contingency, and leader-follower, were con­
trasted to newer approaches such as charismatic, inspirational, transformational, and
collective models that reflect team, shared, and culturally endorsed leadership. An addi­
tional category identified by Turner and Baker (2018) were global leadership theories
which address challenges of adaption and adoption of leadership to fit local circumstances
(Steers, Sanchez-Runde, and Nardon 2012).
Existing studies of textual and visual analysis of leadership have utilized a variety of
theories and framework. For example, Boulais (2002) used the Kouzes and Posner (1995)
Leadership Framework for a qualitative analysis of leadership representation in children’s
literature. Gray and Callahan (2008) used two theories of skills-based leadership – Katz’s
(1955) Three Skills Approach and Mumford et al.’s (2000) Skills Model to assess leadership
portrayed in the film ‘300ʹ. More recently, Rajendran and Andrew (2014) used Robbins’s
(1997) leadership-effectiveness model in their research on the use of film to elucidate
leadership effectiveness models. Rather than selecting a single leadership theory by which
to assess film representations of the actions of Robin Hood, we sought a theoretically
rigorous and cross-culturally relevant framework of leadership behaviours. We determined
 HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL 5

the most appropriate framework was the Global Leadership and Organizational Behaviour
Effectiveness (GLOBE).

Global leadership and organizational behaviour effectiveness (GLOBE)

The Global Leadership and Organizational Behaviour Effectiveness (GLOBE) project
resulted in a framework to examine the effects of culture on leadership. As detailed by
Dorfman et al. (2012), the GLOBE project was first launched in 1990 s, with the
purpose of identifying the relationships among societal cultures and organizational
behaviours. More than 200 researchers across the world were involved in the project
with multiple findings published, regarding the effects of culture on leadership styles
and organizational effectiveness (Dorfman et al. 2012). One major outcome from the
GLOBE study was the identification and increased acceptance of culturally endorsed
theory of leadership (CLT), which consists of six global leadership dimensions and
associated 21 primary leadership behaviours (Dorfman et al. 2012). Furthermore,
results from comparing superior to inferior leaders showed that in general, charis­
matic/value-based leadership and team-oriented leadership were the most important
attributes of distinguished leaders (Dorfman et al. 2012). Moreover, it was found that
superior leaders had much higher scores on humane-oriented leadership and partici­
pative leadership, than that of inferior leaders. However, in contrast to charismatic/
value-based leadership, team-oriented leadership, humane-oriented leadership and
participative leadership had limited effects on organizational effectiveness (Dorfman
et al. 2012). The findings thus revealed a universal approach in that national culture
alone had no predictive explanatory power over leadership behaviours, whereas, CLT
predicted specific leadership behaviours (House et al. 2014). The six CLT leadership
style dimensions and their 21 key behaviours adopted in this study are presented in
Table 1. The GLOBE study dimensions and key behaviours were used to conduct the
analysis of acted leadership behaviours by the title character in the Robin Hood films
reviewed in this research.

Robin Hood
International interest in the character and stories associated with Robin Hood has
continued to expand with an increasing number of productions and products associated
with the legend (Coote and Johnson 2017; Holt 1989; Knight 2015). Robin Hood has been
called many things by scholars including: ‘the most potent of all Anglo-Saxon folk heroes’
(Richards 1999, 429); ‘the most memorable figure in the whole history of medieval
England’ (Bellamy 1985, i); and ‘the familiar archetype of the ‘social bandit’ found in
most pre-industrial peasant societies’ (Hobsbawm 1969, 26). Specific identification of the
exact Robin Hood at the centre of the legend is now accepted as impossible, although
a number of potential candidates have been suggested (Holt 1989). It is widely believed,
but not universally accepted, that before 1377, and perhaps as early as the first decades of
the thirteenth century, a man named Robin Hood (alternatively Robyn Hood, Robyn
Hode, Robin Hoode, Robert Hood among several other spellings) lived and became
either the model or catalyst for the legend. As Holt (1989) noted, ‘the identity of the man
matters less than the persistence of the legend’ (7). Alternatively, as stated by Potter
6 K. R. BARTLETT ET AL.

Table 1. GLOBE leadership dimensions and key behaviours.

Leadership
Style Description Key Behaviours
Charismatic/ Reflects the ability to inspire, motivate, and expect high performance Visionary
Value- outcomes from others based on firmly held core values. Inspirational
based Self-sacrifice
Integrity
Decisive
Performance-oriented
Team- Emphasizes effective team building and implementation of a common Collaborative team
oriented purpose or goal among team members. orientation
Team integrator
Diplomatic
Malevolent (R)
Administratively
competent
Self- Focuses on ensuring the safety and security of the individual and group Self-centred
protective through status enhancement and face saving. Status conscious
Conflict inducer
Face saver
Procedural (Bureaucratic)
Participative Reflects the degree to which managers involve others in making and Non-participative (R)
implementing decisions Autocratic (R)
Humane- Reflects supportive and considerate leadership and includes Modesty
oriented compassion and generosity. Humane orientation
Autonomous Refers to independent and individualistic leadership attributes. Autonomous
Note: Adapted from Dorfman et al. 2012, letter “(R)” in the Key Behaviours denotes reversed questions in the original
questionnaire.

(1998), it is now a more common assumption that ‘Robin Hood is a role rather than
a historical character’ (13).
The legend of Robin Hood generated a long history of oral story-telling transmission
prior to the establishment of written records in song, book, and poem. Robin Hood has
been portrayed in theatre, opera, film, television, and more recently, video games. Robin
Hood tourism has continued to attract increased visitor interest (Scott 2012; Shackley
2001) with specialized tour guidebooks (Davis 2013; Evans and Evans 1996), theme parks
(Abbott 2000; Lyth 2006) and an annual five-day Robin Hood Festival in Nottingham
(Everett and Parakoottathil 2016). Furthermore, the International Association for Robin
Hood Studies was founded in 1996 and publishes The Bulletin of the International
Association for Robin Hood Studies, a peer-reviewed, scholarly journal on a wide variety
of topics related to the Robin Hood tradition.
Analysis of cinematic presentations of leadership behaviours of Robin Hood must also
acknowledge the characteristics and historical development of folklore. Folklore as an
expressive form of culture represents traditions of value to that culture or group of
people. Robin Hood, as an example of folklore in medieval England, played a role
through oral transmission of tales, stories, songs, poems, and other mediums to reflect
shared experience, wisdom, or fundamental belief (Fee 2011). As Knight (2015) detailed
in his chronology of the literary and cultural tradition of Robin Hood, the legend was
initially shared in oral stories, songs, and place-names. It was then transmitted in writing,
with the first references in a poem titled, Piers Ploughman written by William Langland
between 1370 and 1390. The stories of Robin Hood became more popular as printing
provided greater access to the written word with several early poems, some quite lengthy,
 HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL 7

written between 1465 and 1560 (Ohlgren 2007). Theatrical adaptions of the legend
became popular followed by embrace with an emerging medieval literary tradition of
the novel during the 1700 s. As Troost’s (2000) historical study recounts, Robin Hood
musicals were popular in eighteenth-century London. The arrival of the nineteenth
century saw Robin Hood as the feature of a series of new poems and ‘a range of
unpretentious novels, often with garish illustrations, and by the twentieth century the
legend was located primarily in children’s fiction’ (Knight 2015, 2). The 1900 s opened
a new chapter in the communication of the legend to ever-wider audiences as Robin
Hood first appeared on film (Harty 2000). This trend continues with new film releases
and production of television series. Some Robin Hood scholars have suggested that the
legend is now attaining ‘greater heights of popularity than ever before’ (Dobson
2000, 61).

Robin Hood in film

Since inception, cinema has been noted as a powerful and potent form of communication
for entertainment and education (Monaco 2000). Nowell-Smith (1996) observed that
cinema ‘was the first, and is arguably still the greatest, of the industrialized art forms
which have dominated the cultural life of the twentieth century’ (xix). As Monaco (2000)
noted, film is a communication medium and art, with a very complex technological
application of image and sound. The evolution of significant technological developments
from silent black and white films of 100 years ago are now starkly contrasted to advanced
digital, multimedia productions.
The first film (or moving picture as then known) on the Robin Hood legend was
a silent film made in 1908. In 1922 the film Robin Hood, staring Douglas Fairbanks
Senior, who also helped write the screenplay, was released to critical acclaim. This silent
black and white film is noted in the history of cinema for a massive cast of 3000 actors
and one of the largest sets ever built (Harty 2000). This epic film showed ‘how new Robin
could be, but it also indicated that Robin Hood pictures could make real money’ (Knight
2003, 225), with a reported profit of over 1 USD million which was considered a vast
amount in the early history of cinema. Furthermore, the characterization of the lead role,
as played by Fairbanks, greatly shaped the public persona of Robin Hood for future films
(Anderson 2017).
Warner Brothers Studio incorporated not just sound but also the new technological
advancement of the Technicolour process for the 1938 release of The Adventures of
Robin Hood, starring Errol Flynn (Coote and Johnson 2017). Still regarded by cinema
historians as ‘one of the classic films of Hollywood’s greatest period’ (Knight 1999a, 36),
the film won three Oscar Awards and was considered by Robin Hood scholars as perhaps
the greatest re-telling of the legend (Clouet 22001-2; Knight 1999b). The 1940 s, 1950 s,
and 1960 s saw a proliferation of Robin Hood films released with a wide range of success
as judged by critics, audience review, and revenue. This time period is also notable for the
first adoption of Robin Hood to television and Disney cartoon. The next critically
acclaimed addition to the Robin Hood film genre starred Sean Connery and Audrey
Hepburn in the 1976 Robin and Marian. Fifteen years later, after significant cinema
technological advances, greatly expanded global audiences, and massive marketing
budgets, the 1991 Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves staring Kevin Costner, was released
8 K. R. BARTLETT ET AL.

with a record-breaking gross revenue of over 390 USD million. However, critical review
was harsh with the film called as an ‘unfocused, violent, and depressing version of the
classic story’ (Ebert 1991).
Over the last 20 years, film and media interest in Robin Hood has continued with
selected examples including a historical drama blockbuster (Robin Hood, 2010), an
action-adventure film widely critiqued by reviewers and audiences (Robin Hood,
2018), and a comedy spoof now regarded as a cult classic (Robin Hood: Men in Tights,
1922). In addition, Robin Hood has featured in TV shows from multi-episode mini-
series, full animation series, to short cartoon productions made in the United States,
several countries across Europe, and many more including India and the Philippines. The
expanded global appeal of an English folk hero noted as a leader and fighter for social
rights highlights the enduring international appeal of the legend. This led Jones (2010) to
comment that ‘Robin Hood, whose medieval origins are still a matter of debate . . ..
continues to be revived to roam new borders’ (4).

Visual representation of leadership

Film has proven to be an excellent pedagogical tool for presenting topics and concepts, as
well as for demonstrating the application of theory through deployment of source
material more stimulating, motivating, and able to promote reflection at higher levels
than traditional instructional methods (Huczynski and Buchanan 2004; Smith 2009; Tan
2006). Bluestone (2000) advocated that films may facilitate critical thinking by reflecting
a more compelling psychological reality and placing concepts in a broader socio-
historical context than that in a textbook. Empirical studies have suggested using films
can increase learners’ interests and enjoyment towards the courses and their under­
standing and interaction with the concepts (e.g. Butler et al. 2009; Comer 2001; Edwards
et al. 2015; Pandey 2012; Pandey and Ardichvili 2015; Rajendran and Andrew 2014). As
Smith (2009) noted: Film is a powerful vehicle for teaching students’ conceptual flex­
ibility and the ability to shift perspectives and can be used as a case study for problem
solving, to give substance to abstract concepts, to provide vicarious experience, and to
illustrate historical events (465).
Scholars of HRD have also explored the use of popular cultural artefacts such as films
as a way to understand and develop the field of HRD. For instance, Callahan, Whitener,
and Sandlin (2007) advocated the use of popular cultural artefacts to develop leaders by
making connections and understanding phenomena from simulations of human inter­
actions. Other HRD scholars argued that ‘the popular cultural products consumed by
students and trainees help shape who they are and how they view work, leisure, educa­
tion, and politics’ (Wright 2013, 6) and the study of cultural artefacts is ‘one of the many
lenses available to help understand and interpret issues of workplace learning’ (Carter
and Howell 1998, 85). Certainly, films as popular cultural products ‘offer many oppor­
tunities to create powerful metaphorical images of abstract theories and concepts’
(Champoux 1999, 210).
Leadership development is considered as one of the most important research and
practice areas undertaken by HRD professionals, and there is continued exploration of
alternative and innovative approaches to understanding and developing leadership
(Callahan, Whitener, and Sandlin 2007). Within this literature, a growing number of
 HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL 9

studies have explored leadership through the analysis of film. Recent examples of such
work include assessment of visual representations of leadership in Disney’s 1994 ani­
mated The Lion King (Comer 2001), Batman: The Dark Knight (Edwards et al. 2015) and
Remember the Titans (Cranmer and Harris 2015). Feinberg (1996) listed over 70 films
considered useful for teaching core elements and aspects of leadership.
The construction of knowledge on complex phenomena, such as leadership, is
increasingly reliant on visual images rather than written text. The representation of
leaders and acts of leadership by artists is noted throughout history with greater attention
now directed towards analysis of imagery from leadership scholars (Acevedo 2011).
Particularly, there is a trend that film is considered as a valuable source of ‘data’ to
interpret various facets of organizational life (Foreman and Thatchenkery 1996) and now
become ‘legitimate objects of enquiry, rather than an adjunct to linguistic meaning-
making activities’ (Bell, Warren, and Schroeder 2013, 2) to understand visual aspects of
contemporary organizational experience. As such, film narratives are credible ‘when they
conform to a story about leadership we already know, when they support our collective
understanding of what it means to be a leader and to lead’ (Long 2017, 76).
To date, existing studies have focused on the use of film and multiple media as
pedagogical tools to facilitate effective learning environments, enhance critical thinking,
and connect theoretical concepts to application. In recent years, scholars have realized
the importance of critical examination of concepts communicated in film and other
visual art forms. However, it has been observed that more critical analysis and provoca­
tion of discussion from film analysis is needed to demonstrate how leadership is com­
municated, evolved, and cinematically presented (Cranmer and Harris 2015; Buchanan
and Huczynski 2004; Callahan, Whitener, and Sandlin 2007). Furthermore, most existing
studies are limited to a single film and very few studies have examined movies on the
same subject or character produced at different time periods, and how this may present
consistent or divergent themes related to leadership and leadership development.

Methods
Adopting the perspective of Potter (1998) that Robin Hood is more appropriately
considered a role rather than a historical figure, our perspective draws on dramatism
theory and grounded theory to examine how the title actors portrayed leadership
behaviours in six well-known films focused on the legend of Robin Hood. The applica­
tion of the grounded theory building approach (Gioia, Corley, and Hamilton 2012;
Glaser and Strauss 1967; Strauss and Corbin 1998) appeared well suited to examine
socially constructed presentations and interpretations of leadership behaviour. The film
provides both rich visual and audio descriptions of the context within which leadership
behaviours occur for inductive consideration of existing leadership theories and models.
The six films were chosen for their cinematic reputation (Clouet 2001-2; Hark 1976) as
we introduced above and respected treatment of core aspects of the legend as noted by
Robin Hood scholars (Holt 1989; King 2010; Knight 1999a, 2015). Further, the selection
of films spanned a time period to include the first noted ‘classic’ in the Robin Hood genre
through to the most recently released, to provide almost a 100-year span of cinematic
treatment of the legend. The earliest film in the sample was from 1922 and the most
10 K. R. BARTLETT ET AL.

Table 2. Selection of Robin Hood films included in this study.

Year Film Title Director(s) Actor Starring as Robin Hood
1922 Robin Hood Allan Dwan Douglas Fairbanks
1938 The Adventures of Robin Hood Hal Wallis and Henry Blanke Errol Flynn
1976 Robin and Marian Richard Lester Sean Connery
1991 Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves Liebman Kevin Roberts Kevin Costner
2010 Robin Hood Ridley Scott Russell Crowe
2018 Robin Hood Otto Bathurst Taron Egerton

recent was from 2018 – with films produced in both the United Kingdom and the United
States selected (see Table 2).

Data collection and analysis

Corbin and Strauss (1990) suggested that grounded theory makes data collection and
analysis an ‘interrelated process’ with analysis starting as the data is collected (6). Data
analysis and coding involved multiple iterative steps to follow established procedures
appropriate for this research design (Corbin and Strauss 1990; Locke 2001). More
specifically, we adopted the process of analysis and interpretation of visual materials
presented by Rose (2007). The visual text and narrative dialogue of each film were
examined by four independent coders to identify and analyse acted (visual and voiced)
leadership behaviours. Two coders were faculty in areas of HRD and management, and
two were advanced HRD PhD students. All four coders represented different national
cultural backgrounds. A team approach to coding was adopted to bring diverse perspec­
tives and multiple ways of interpreting the data (Saldana 2016). Such a collaborative
coding approach has been noted for high potential to generate provocative questions and
insights often resulting in richer data analysis insights than solo coding (Olesen et al.
1994).
Each of the six films was watched individually and then watched collectively and
discussed as a group. Prior to viewing the films and analysing data, a coding protocol was
developed from the GLOBE study with the 21 key behaviours grouped into their six
leadership styles. The research literature on GLOBE studies was reviewed by the four
coders to select descriptions of each of the six styles and comprehensive definitions of
each of the 21 key behaviours. This helped ensure that each coder used the same criteria
for evaluating leadership behaviour as presented in each film. As Weston et al. (2001)
noticed, ‘a research team builds codes and coding builds a team through the creation of
shared interpretation and understanding of the phenomenon being studied’ (382). Based
on the list of behaviours, a pilot study was first conducted, in which a random film with
a strong leader in the title role was collectively watched, with leadership behaviours in
each scene noted, compared, and discussed for assessment of the level of agreement
between coders. This served as a training exercise to ensure consistency and reliability of
the coding protocol.
Following the pilot study, we individually watched and coded each scene in each of the
selected film. Each film was viewed, and key behaviours, incidents, events, and happen­
ings were analysed in each scene that featured the title character in the role of Robin
Hood. More specifically, each instance of leadership behaviour(s) was described to
provide a summary of the context, in terms of position in the plot, characters involved,
 HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL 11

and explicit reference to leadership (in visual action or dialogue). Then each movie was
watched again as a group, scene by scene, with discussion of individual coding of
observed leadership behaviours to explore areas of agreement and disagreement
(Saldana 2016). Further, to ensure higher levels of trustworthiness in the data, all codes
as well as notes from group discussion were shared among the researchers. We also
followed the advice from MacQueen et al. (2008) to assign one of the coders as ‘codebook
editor’ to create, update, revise, and maintain data and justification for decision making
on assigning observed GLOBE dimensions and behaviours. The inter-rater agreement
estimation used the formula advocated by Miles and Huberman (1994), referred to as
‘check-coding’. This method divides the ‘total number of agreements’ by the ‘total
number of agreements and disagreements’ (coding instances) to estimate inter-rater
reliability. Inter-rater agreement was measured (IRR = 88%) which is within an accep­
table range (80–90%) (Saldana 2016). Summary tables were created to identify the top
three dominant leadership style for each of the six films. These tables were then combined
to create an overall summary table of dominant themes and leadership behaviour
categories to examine trends in acted leadership behaviours in the six selected Robin
Hood films released between 1922 and 2018.

Findings
Overall, a diverse set of leadership behaviours and styles emerged from our analysis of the
six selected Robin Hood films. A mix of convergent and divergent themes were found
within each film and across films (see Table 3). The most dominant type of leadership
style portrayed was charismatic/value-based leadership. Across all six films, Robin Hood
was consistently depicted as a charismatic leader who led and inspired others, by making
timely decisions, setting high-performance standards, and making self-sacrifices in
achieving common goals. Further, he was often shown as a value-based leader who
upheld strong values and beliefs and showed high integrity and trustworthiness.
A trend was identified in the category of somewhat dominant leadership style, in that
there was increasing emphasis on team-oriented leadership across time. In other words,
over the near 100 years of Robin Hood films analysed, a portrait emerged of behaviours
shifting from a more self-protective leader to a more team-oriented leader. More
specifically, the shift was more readily observed in films released since the 1990 s with
both an increasing number of scenes and specific performance demonstrations related to
teamwork, collaboration, and diplomatic leadership behaviours. In these more recent
films released after 1990, Robin Hood was seen to not only effectively plan and coordi­
nate large groups of followers but also work jointly and collaboratively with others, in
contrast with leadership behaviours in 1922 and 1938 films that could be described as
more individualistic, self-protective, dominant, and assertive. Autonomous leadership,
while less dominant, was also found consistently across all films. Despite a reduction in
the frequency and range of autonomous leadership behaviours displayed, Robin Hood
was consistently portrayed as an individualistic leader, who often acted and made
decisions independently rather than in consensus with others.
Other common leadership styles portrayed in the films were self-protective and
humane-oriented leadership. Across all six films, Robin Hood clearly showed self-
protective leadership behaviours, in terms of protecting the collective interests of the
 12
K. R. BARTLETT ET AL.

Table 3. The trend of dominant leadership styles by film.

Film by Year 1922 1938 1976 1991 2010 2018
Most Charismatic/Value- Charismatic/Value- Charismatic/Value-based Charismatic/Value-based Charismatic/Value- Charismatic/Value-
dominant based based based based
Somewhat Self-protective & Self-protective & Self-protective & Autonomous Team- oriented Team- oriented & Team- oriented & Self-
dominant Autonomous Autonomous Humane-oriented protective
Less Team-oriented & Team-oriented & Team- oriented, Humane- Self-protective, Humane-oriented Self-protective & Humane-oriented &
dominant Humane-oriented Humane-oriented oriented, & Autonomous & Autonomous Autonomous Autonomous
 HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL 13

poor and his own best interests. Despite his highly autonomous and individualistic
behaviours, Robin Hood was shown to be consistently status conscious and aware of
his own and others’ social status. Meanwhile, he was also depicted as a humane-oriented
leader across time that was compassionate and empathetic towards others.

Representative scenes and/or quotes

In this section, we present and discuss selective representative scenes from the six movies
analysed to provide illustrative examples of behaviours that fit the dominant leadership
styles.
As noted above, the most dominant leadership style to emerge in the selected movies
were behaviours described by GLOBE as charismatic/value-based leadership. Six key
behaviours (i.e. visionary, inspirational, self-sacrifice, integrity, deceive, and performance
oriented) were associated with this leadership style (Dorfman et al. 2012). One repre­
sentative scene of charismatic/value-based leadership was observed in the 1922 film. The
scene showed Robin Hood participating in the Crusades under the watchful eye of King
Richard. As the soldiers began to tire on a long march, Robin Hood encouraged people to
think of the larger goal and used this as motivation for their continued effort. Eventually,
this behaviour by Robin Hood was noticed by King Richard, who seemed at first
surprised at this form of leadership, rather than motivation by threat which was his
dominate approach to lead his men. Observation of the reaction from the soldiers to
Robin Hood’s charismatic and values-based leadership style resulted in the King mod­
ifying his behaviour to align with the inspirational leadership behaviours demonstrated
by Robin. Similar inspirational leadership behaviours directed to his followers and even
the general public (i.e. villagers) were also found in the other movies.
Team-oriented leadership style was depicted in several different ways across the six
films. For example, in the 1991 film, Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, Robin is shown in
a village providing aid to a citizen in medical need, Robin confronted racist attitudes and
behaviour towards his comrade and with a team-oriented approach that encouraged
villages to think of all members of their community as valuable and therefore, to accept
the help from someone viewed as foreign. The resulting successful return to health for the
villager provided additional support for the team-oriented and humane leadership style.
In this scene, Robin Hood showed GLOBE leadership behaviours associated with appli­
cation of diplomatic skills and demonstrated a team integrator leadership style to
confront discrimination to benefit to the collective. Another attribute of team-oriented
leadership style is administrative competence, which refers to the ability to plan and
control work of large numbers of people (Dorfman et al. 2012). As an example, the
climactic scene of the 2010 movie had Robin Hood fulfiling the role of commander in
chief, rather than the somewhat timid and inept John, King of England. Robin led the
whole English army in a successful battle victory over the enemy army. The scene showed
Robin as he performed leadership behaviours that ranged from setting strategy, directing
troops, to engagement in front-line hand-to-hand fighting while confidently coordinat­
ing the order of battle.
Humane-oriented leadership was increasingly portrayed over time in the films. For
instance, from the 1976 Robin and Marian film, Robin Hood proposed a one-on-one
fight with the Sheriff of Nottingham rather than engaging a large number of belligerents
14 K. R. BARTLETT ET AL.

in a battle that would have resulted in many fatalities. Similarly, in the 2018 film, Robin
Hood expressed his strong disagreement and empathy towards killing a captive showing
a level of humane behaviour seemingly out of the ordinary for the time period and
against the prevailing ruthless leadership style.
Autonomous leadership remained one of the most important characteristics of Robin
Hood’s leadership as portrayed in each of the six films. One representative scene was in
the 1938 film The Adventures of Robin Hood, where Robin vowed to rescue a young man
arrested for poaching deer. Robin arrived alone, seemingly overwhelmed by a far larger
and superior force, and engaged in a long sword fight until he was able to escape with the
young offender.
A final theme to emerge from the data analysis, and not reflective of our coding
scheme, was the expression of leadership behaviours towards women – more specifically
focused on the relationship of Robin Hood to the main female character, Maid Marian.
No doubt reflective of the time and prevailing social norms of when the films were
produced, a range of gender discriminatory behaviours from Robin Hood were more
prominent and frequent in the earlier films. These included direct physical assault (i.e.
Marian knocked unconscious with punch in the face) in Robin and Marian (1976), to
more subtle forms of unequal treatment of women by Robin including a range of
behaviours considered dismissive and sexist.

Discussion and implications

The continued evolution of HRD as a field of professional practice has generated
discussion and encouragement for research analysis of cultural artefacts in popular
culture to consider new approaches to understanding issues related to the development
of human resources (Callahan and Rosser 2007; Wright 2013). The core HRD topics of
leadership and leadership development have seen renewed calls for theory expansion and
broadened application of models (Park et al. 2018; Turner and Baker 2018; Wallo 2017).
Further, the study of leadership now considers the role of film and other visual media for
producing and maintaining imagined and idealized portraits of behaviours associated
with being a leader (Warner 2007; Yost 2017).
This study focused on film representation of Robin Hood and adds to research on
ways in which depiction of leaders in film can shape thinking and interpretation about
leadership. The film has been the focus of increased research attention to examine HRD
theory and practice (Gray and Callahan 2008) as well as the application to classroom and
informal learning of core concepts related to HRD (Smith 2009). Yet, few studies have
critically examined film for idealized representations of hero leaders – especially the same
leader who is the feature of multiple unique films produced and released across a long
period of time. In an extension to current research in which the majority of film analysis
studies in management and HRD have been based on a single film, the findings from this
research span six major motion pictures, all related to the legend of Robin Hood
produced over a 96-year period.
The findings of analysis of acted leadership behaviours in six classic examples in the
genre of Robin Hood film showed both continuity and change. Performance of inter­
preted representation of this heroic folk-story leader in film over an almost 100-year
time period may reflect changing public perception of idealized leadership. When film
 HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL 15

is considered a cultural artefact, the focus on attributes of heroes can help explore
leader traits and attributes (Zaccaro, Kemp, and Bader 2004). Robin Hood remains
a popular focus of narrative for cinema, with continued interest in consideration of his
leadership from the general public and scholars (Bellamy 1985). Yet, it must be
recognized that all films of Robin Hood, including the six in this study, are media-
informed historical fiction rather than historically accurate analysis and assessment of
the leadership of Robin Hood. However, as numerous scholars have noted (Knight
2015; Parker 2012) the Robin Hood of modern film was inspired by folk-mythology
and is built up and developed by each successive generation to meet the needs and
desires of audiences across time. Each script writer, producer, and actor in a Robin
Hood film must determine just what kind of leader he was and how that fits within the
plot. As Buchanan and Huczynski (2004) noted, ‘to be commercially successful, film
has to exaggerate, sensationalize, and glamorize characters and events’ (314).
Consequently, films struggle to adequately address the complexities of leadership in
the real world yet, still select to a portrait of leadership behaviour to connect with the
audience.
The findings of this study must also acknowledge, as Woolf (1988) noted, the role of
folklore in shaping the continued sharing, and especially the importance of the perfor­
mative elements of Robin Hood. For centuries of oral folklore transmission, the char­
acters in roles of heroes, glorified thieves, and people rebellious to authority helped
shaped community values. In this case, admirable aspects of Robin Hood also shaped
understanding of the desirable aspects of leadership, as these were seen as essential
aspects of stories to be shared to the next generation. The more modern role of film as
a vehicle for dissemination of core social beliefs in many respects continues the tradition
of promoting prioritized aspects of legend and mythic narrative. The study of leadership
in film has been considered for representation of ‘mythic or archetypal leadership
categories that persist in contemporary society’ (Islam 2009, 828). The findings in this
study may reflect the continued transmission through centuries of oral folklore and now
into cinematic presentation of idealized and valued leadership characteristics of
a fictional character.
The study of film as a self-contained cultural artefact is an additional issue for considera­
tion in light of our findings. Film theorists have observed that individual analysis of films
around a common character or genre ‘overlooks the ideological nature of cultural messages
produced by a ‘culture industry’ (Horkheimer and Adorno 2006), viewing media as
a reflection of society when it should be viewed as a reflection of the dominant classes’
attempts to impost a narrative on society’ (Islam 2009, 834). Films based on folk-myth, as
Callenbach (1969) directed towards analysis of Robin Hood, perpetuate narrative for the
audience to ‘approve wholeheartedly of Robin’s exploits’ (42). The extent to which all films of
Robin Hood adopt leadership behaviours that are common and borrowed from the earliest
cinematic interpretations is not clearly supporting the point made by Islam (2009) that in
film, myths ‘do not transform: they repeat’ (834). However, the ongoing characterization of
leadership behaviours across time when film reflects society attitudes are worthy of examina­
tion. More so, given that ‘like all cultural artifacts with embody leadership stories, these films
may affect people’s views on leadership or they may not’ (Islam 2009, 835). Despite this, the
possibility remains that we have overlooked important counterevidence or alternative
16 K. R. BARTLETT ET AL.

interpretations of the acted performance of leadership of Robin Hood that would lead to
different conclusions.
In this study, we observed the patterns of imagined or idealized leadership styles of
a well-known good leader who robbed the rich to give to the poor. Our analysis of six
well-known Robin Hood films showed there is a trend of an idealized leader with a strong
charismatic/values-based leadership style. The fact that this leadership style remained to
dominate across the 98-year span of the selected films perhaps suggests that the narrative
in legend, and more recent cinema representations, agree on the key behaviours of Robin
Hood. This finding seems to support the GLOBE studies that charismatic and team-
oriented leadership were particularly important in separating superior performance of
top-level organization leaders (Dorfman et al. 2012). Despite the lack of firm historical
evidence, there is a coalescence across the six films reviewed that Robin Hood was
a visionary, inspirational, self-sacrificing, trustful, decisive, and performance-oriented
leader. Findings also showed a shift across time with Robin Hood moving from the
earlier films as an autonomous leader who acted independently without relying on others
to a more team-oriented and collaborative leader. These findings may suggest that the
widespread communication of this pattern of leadership behaviours across a variety of
films on the same character may help inform general perceptions of being a leader.
The behaviour of Robin Hood towards female characters in the film was not always
reflective of accepted notions of leadership in today’s context. The historian Lux (2000)
noted that ‘women remain largely on the periphery of the earliest Robin Hood ballads
and tales’ (151). The advent of cinema did increase the visible presence of women
although they are shown as ‘hedged in, circumscribed by social conventions, representing
women’s lack of agency within particular social structures’ (Lux 2000, 158). The need to
disrupt the patriarchal order and re-envisage leadership through feminine imaginary in
the film was advocated by management education scholars (Bell and Sinclair 2016), and
specifically related to Robin Hood in both literature and cinematic text by Cohoon
(2007). A fuller examination of leader behaviour of Robin Hood towards women is
perhaps an area for future research. Film as communication medium has the power to
not only reflect reality, but also raise public awareness, alter perceptions, and change
social norms including adoption of new laws (Hickam and Meixner 2008).
The representation of Robin Hood in various text and visual mediums has been subjected
to a diverse range of academic studies – although to date the legend has not been considered
by HRD scholars. Existing studies have included: examination of the religious content of the
tales men and women told about Robin Hood in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth
centuries (Field 2002), ideals of political justice in the later Middle Ages as reflected in
early ballad and songs about Robin Hood (Cengel 2011), and evidence of class struggle
between commoners and aristocracy (Almond and Pollard 2001). Yet, a specific focus on the
leadership of Robin Hood, as shown in popular film is a new area of inquiry. The lasting
interest in the Robin Hood legend suggests that public perception of leader behaviours and
the extent to which these shape the experience of leadership is worthy of investigation. An
important aspect of the legend, as noted by Beach (2000), is that ‘over the centuries, Robin
Hood has passed through the hands of many storytellers and each has tweaked and pushed
and moulded the mythos’ (21). Indeed, as Seal (2009) noted, ‘Wherever and whenever
significant numbers of people believe that they are victims of inequality, injustice and
 HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL 17

oppression, historical and/or fictional outlaw heroes will appear and continue to be celebrated
after their death’ (83).
Whether in song, book, poem, film, or television, the various re-telling of the Robin
Hood legend, as noted by Knight and Ohlgren (2000) ‘always presents, in many varied
forms, resistance to authority’ (1). Yet, Robin Hood is also known as a kind person,
attentive to the needs of the downtrodden, willing to fight, and a great leader (Knight
2003). Hilton (1958) said of those who joined Robin Hood in Sherwood Forest enjoyed ‘a
life spent among friends and equals, under the direction of a leader chosen for his
bravery, not imposed because of his wealth and power’ (44). Our findings from the
analysis of leadership behaviours in the selected movie representations of Robin Hood
show a continued narrative agreement on the characterization of being a ‘good leader’.
The implications of this research have application for HRD theory and practice. As
film is an important reflection of culture, the representation of leadership behaviours is
worthy of additional theorizing and research for changes shown across time. Future
research on how leadership is portrayed in film is an important area of study. So too,
the under researched area of HRD practices as shown in film. Additional research is
also needed to extend current knowledge on the process and outcomes of using movies
in teaching (Pandey 2012). Further, despite some initial studies focused on the use of
film to teach HRD (Gray and Callahan 2008; Malloch and Callahan 2009), future
research is needed on the application of movie to the formal and informal learning
related to HRD.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID
Kenneth R. Bartlett http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2216-1177
Soebin Jang http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9480-4629
Ying Feng http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4007-8884

References
Abbott, F. 2000. “Theme Park Tales from Nottingham.” In Robin Hood in Popular Culture:
Violence, Transgression, and Justice, edited by T. Hahn, 13–20. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer.
Acevedo, B. 2011. “The Screaming Pope: Imagery and Leadership in Two Paintings of the Pope
Innocent X.” Leadership 7 (1): 27–50. doi:10.1177/1742715010386859.
Almond, R., and A. J. Pollard. 2001. “The Yeomanry of Robin Hood and Social Terminology in
Fifteenth-Century England.” The past and Present Society 170 (1): 52–77. doi:10.1093/past/
170.1.52.
Anderson, G. B. 2017. “Douglas Fairbanks in Robin Hood and Its Music.” In Robin Hood in
Outlaw/ed Spaces: Media, Performance, and Other New Directions, edited by L. Coote and
V. B. Johnson, 169–180. New York: Routledge.
Aronstein, S. 2005. Hollywood Knights: Arthurian Cinema and the Politics of Nostalgia. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
18 K. R. BARTLETT ET AL.

Beach, S. 2000. “Robin Hood and Green Arrow: Outlaw Bowmen in the Modern.” In Robin Hood
in Popular Culture: Violence, Transgression, and Justice, edited by T. Hahn, 21–28. Cambridge:
D. S. Brewer.
Bell, E. 2008. Reading Management and Organization in Film. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bell, E., S. Warren, and J. Schroeder. 2013. “Introduction: The Visual Organization.” In The
Routledge Companion to Visual Organization, edited by E. Bell, S. Warren, and J. Schroeder,
1–16. London: Routledge.
Bell, E., and A. Sinclair. 2016. “Re-envisaging Leadership through the Feminine Imaginary in Film
and Television.” In The Routledge Companion to Reinventing Management Education, edited by
C. Steyaert, T. Beyes, and M. Parker, 273–286. New York: Routledge.
Bellamy, J. G. 1985. Robin Hood: An Historical Enquiry. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Billsberry, J., J. Charlesworth, and P. Leonard, eds. 2012. Moving Images: Effective Teaching with
Film and Television in Management. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.
Blakesley, D. 2002. The Elements of Dramatism. New York: Longman.
Bluestone, C. 2000. “Feature Films as a Teaching Tool.” College Teaching 48 (4): 141–146.
doi:10.1080/87567550009595832.
Boulais, N. 2002. “Leadership in Children’s Literature: Qualitative Analysis from a Study Based on
the Kouzes and Posner Leadership Framework.” The Journal of Leadership Studies 8 (4): 54–65.
doi:10.1177/107179190200800405.
Braudy, L., and C. Marshall, eds. 2016. Film Theory and Criticism: Introductory Readings. 8th ed.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Buchanan, D., and A. Huczynski. 2004. “Images of Influence: 12 Angry Men and Thirteen Days.”
Journal of Management Inquiry 13 (4): 312–323. doi:10.1177/1056492604270796.
Burke, K. 1985. “Dramatism and Logology.” Communication Quarterly 33 (2): 89–93. doi:10.1080/
01463378509369584.
Butler, A. C., F. M. Zaromb, K. B. Lyle, and H. L. Roediger. 2009. “Using Popular Films to Enhance
Classroom Learning: The Good, the Bad, and the Interesting.” Psychological Science 20 (9):
1161–1168. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02410.x.
Callahan, J. L., J. K. Whitener, and J. A. Sandlin. 2007. “The Art of Creating Leaders: Popular
Culture Artifacts as Pathways for Development.” Advances in Developing Human Resources 9
(2): 146–165. doi:10.1177/1523422306298856.
Callahan, J. L., and M. H. Rosser. 2007. “Pop Goes the Program: Using Popular Culture Artifacts to
Educate Leaders.” Advances in Developing Human Resources 9 (2): 269–287. doi:10.1177/
1523422306298902.
Callenbach, E. 1969. “Comparative Anatomy of Folk-Myth Films: Robin Hood and Antonio Das
Mortes.” Film Quarterly 23 (2): 42–47. doi:10.2307/1210521.
Carter, V. K., and S. L. Howell. 1998. “Circuit of Culture: A Critical Look at Dilbert and Workplace
Learning.” Proceedings of the 39th Adult Education Research Conference, edited by
J. C. Kimmel, 85–90. San Antonio, Texas.
Cengel, A. 2011. “To What Extent Do the Ballads of Robin Hood Reflect the Ideals of Political
Justice in the Later Middle Ages?” The Wittenberg History Journal XXXL: 8–11.
Champoux, J. E. 1999. “Film as a Teaching Resource.” Journal of Management Inquiry 8 (2):
206–217. doi:10.1177/105649269982016.
Chapman, J. 2011. “The Adventures of Robin Hood and the Origins of the Television
Swashbuckler.” Media History 17 (3): 273–287. doi:10.1080/13688804.2011.591753.
Clouet, R. 2001-2. “The Robin Hood Legend and Its Cultural Adaptation for the Film Industry:
Comparing Literary Sources with Filmic Representations.” Journal of English Studies 3: 37–46.
doi:10.18172/jes.68.
Cohoon, L. B. 2007. “Transgressive Transformations: Representations of Maid Marian in Robin
Hood Retellings.” The Lion and the Unicorn 31 (3): 209–231. doi:10.1353/uni.2007.0028.
Comer, D. R. 2001. “Not Just a Mickey Mouse Exercise: Using Disney’s the Lion King to Teach
Leadership.” Journal of Management Education 25 (4): 430–436. doi:10.1177/
105256290102500407.
 HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL 19

Coote, L., and V. B. Johnson, eds. 2017. Robin Hood in Outlaw/ed Spaces: Media, Performance, and
Other New Directions. London: Routledge.
Corbin, J. M., and A. Strauss. 1990. “Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, Canons, and
Evaluative Criteria.” Qualitative Sociology 13 (1): 3–21. doi:10.1007/BF00988593.
Cranmer, G. A., and T. M. Harris. 2015. “White-side, Strong-side”: A Critical Examination of Race
and Leadership in Remember the Titans.” Howard Journal of Communications 26 (2): 153–171.
doi:10.1080/10646175.2014.985807.
Davis, S. M. 2013. Robin Hood’s England. 2nd ed. McLean Virginia: Miniver Press.
Dobson, R. B. 2000. “Robin Hood: The Genesis of a Popular Hero.” In Robin Hood in Popular
Culture: Violence, Transgression, and Justice, edited by T. Hahn, 61–77. Cambridge:
D. S. Brewer.
Dorfman, P., M. Javidan, P. Hanges, A. Dastmalchian, and R. House. 2012. “GLOBE: A
Twenty-year Journey into the Intriguing World of Culture and Leadership.” Journal of World
Business 47 (4): 504–518. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2012.01.004.
Ebert, R. 1991. “Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves.” Chicago Sun Times, June 14. https://www.
rogerebert.com/reviews/robin-hood-prince-of-thieves-1991
Edwards, G., D. Schedlitzki, J. Ward, and M. Wood. 2015. “Exploring Critical Perspectives of Toxic
and Bad Leadership through Film.” Advances in Developing Human Resources 17 (3): 363–375.
doi:10.1177/1523422315587903.
Engert, S., and A. Spencer. 2009. “International Relations at the Movies: Teaching and Learning
about International Politics through Film.” Perspectives: Central European Review of
International Affairs 17 (1): 83–103.
Evans, S. E., and M. M. Evans. 1996. Robin Hood Country. London: Pitkin Publishing.
Everett, S., and J. D. Parakoottathil. 2016. “Transformation, Meaning-making and Identity
Creation through Folklore Tourism: The Case of the Robin Hood Festival.” Journal of
Heritage Tourism 13 (1): 30–45. doi:10.1080/1743873X.2016.1251443.
Fee, C. R. 2011. Mythology in the Middle Ages: Heroic Tales of Monsters, Magic, and Might. Santa
Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
Feinberg, R. A. 1996. “Leadership Education and the Cinematic Experience: Using Film to Teach
Leadership.” The Journal of Leadership Studies 3 (4): 148–157. doi:10.1177/
107179199600300414.
Felton, S., T. Dimnik, and D. Bay. 2008. “‘Perceptions of Accountants’ Ethics: Evidence from Their
Portrayal in Cinema.” Journal of Business Ethics 83 (2): 217–232. doi:10.1007/s10551-007-9613-z.
Field, S. 2002. “Devotion, Discontent, and the Henrician Reformation: The Evidence of the Robin
Hood Stories.” Journal of British Studies 41 (1): 6–22. doi:10.1086/386252.
Foreman, J., and T. J. Thatchenkery. 1996. “Filmic Representations for Organizational Analysis:
The Characterization of a Transplant Organization in the Film Rising Sun.” Journal of
Organizational Change Management 9 (3): 44–61. doi:10.1108/09534819610116628.
Gioia, D. A., K. G. Corley, and A. L. Hamilton. 2012. “Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive
Research: Notes on the Gioia Methodology.” Organizational Research Methods 16 (1): 15–31.
doi:10.1177/1094428112452151.
Glaser, B., and A. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative
Research. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Gray, T. D., and J. Callahan. 2008. “Skills of the Spartans: Exploring Leadership in ‘300ʹ.” Journal of
Leadership Education 7 (2): 79–98. doi:10.12806/V7/I2/AB6.
Hark, I. R. 1976. “The Visual Politics of the Adventures of Robin Hood.” Journal of Popular Film 5
(1): 3–17. doi:10.1080/00472719.1976.10661790.
Harty, K. J. 2000. “Robin Hood on Film: Moving beyond a Swashbuckling Stereotype.” In Robin
Hood in Popular Culture: Violence, Transgression, and Justice, edited by T. Hahn, 87–100.
Cambridge: D. S. Brewer.
Hickam, B., and C. Meixner. 2008. “Transforming Leadership: Film as a Vehicle for Social
Change.” Journal of Leadership Education 7 (2): 41–46. doi:10.12806/V7/I2/AB3.
Hilton, R. H. 1958. “The Origins of Robin Hood.” The past and Present Society 14 (1): 30–44.
doi:10.1093/past/14.1.30.
20 K. R. BARTLETT ET AL.

Hobsbawm, E. 1969. Bandits. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.

Holt, J. C. 1989. Robin Hood: Revised and Enlarged Edition. London: Thames and Hudson.
hooks, b. 2009. Reel to Real: Race, Class, and Sex at the Movies. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.
Horkheimer, M., and T. W. Adorno. 2006. “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass
Deception.” In The Dialectic of Enlightenment, edited by T. Adorno, 120–167. New York:
Herder and Herder.
House, R. J., P. W. Dorfman, M. Javidan, P. J. Hanges, and M. S. de Luque. 2014. Strategic
Leadership across Cultures: The GLOBE Study of CEO Leadership Behavior and Effectiveness in
24 Countries. Los Angeles: Sage.
Huczynski, A., and D. Buchanan. 2004. “Theory from Fiction: A Narrative Process Perspective on
the Pedagogical Use of Feature Film.” Journal of Management Education 28 (6): 707–726.
doi:10.1177/1052562903262163.
Hutchins, H. M., and L. Bierema. 2013. “Media Analysis as Critical Reflexology in Exploring Adult
Learning Theories.” New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development 25
(1): 56–69. doi:10.1002/nha.20008.
Islam, G. 2009. “Animating Leadership: Crisis and Renewal of Governance in 4 Mythic
Narratives.” The Leadership Quarterly 20 (5): 828–836. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.06.013.
Jauss, H. R. 1982. Toward an Aesthetic of Reception. Translated by Timothy Bahti. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Jones, T. S. 2010. “The Literature of Borders.” In Outlawry in Medieval Literature, edited by
T. S. Jones, 51–87. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Katz, R. L. 1955. “Skills of an Effective Administrator.” Harvard Business Review 33 (1): 33–42.
https://hbr.org/1974/09/skills-of-an-effective-administrator
Kidd, D. 2007. “Harry Potter and the Functions of Popular Culture.” The Journal of Popular
Culture 40 (1): 69–89. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5931.2007.00354.x.
King, S. 2010. “Classic Hollywood: 100 Years of Robin Hood Movies.” The Los Angeles Times,
May 12. http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/12/entertainment/la-et-classic-hollywood
-20100512
Knight, S. 1999a. “A Garland of Robin Hood Films.” Film and History: An Interdisciplinary Journal
of Film and Television Studies 29 (3): 34–44. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/396066/summary
Knight, S. 1999b. Robin Hood: An Anthology of Scholarship and Criticism. Woodbridge: Boydell
and Brewer.
Knight, S. 2003. Robin Hood: A Mythic Biography. New York: Cornell University Press.
Knight, S. 2015. Reading Robin Hood: Content, Form and Reception in the Outlaw Myth.
Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Knight, S., and T. Ohlgren. 2000. Robin Hood and Other Outlaw Tales. 2nd ed. Kalamazoo:
Medieval Institute Publications.
Kouzes, J. M., and B. Z. Posner. 1995. The Leadership Challenge: How to Keep Getting
Extraordinary Things Done in Organizations. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Locke, K. 2001. Grounded Theory in Management Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Long, B. S. 2017. “Film Narratives and Lessons in Leadership: Insights from the Film & Leadership
Case Study (Flics) Club.” Journal of Leadership Studies 10 (4): 75–89. doi:10.1002/jls.21498.
Lux, S. 2000. “And the ‘Reel’ Maid Marian?” In Robin Hood in Popular Culture: Violence,
Transgression, and Justice, edited by T. Hahn, 151–160. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer.
Lyth, P. 2006. “Selling History in an Age of Industrial Decline: Heritage Tourism in Robin Hood
County.” Paper presented at the XIV International Economic History Congress, Helsinki,
August 21th −25th.
MacQueen, K. M., E. McLellan-Lemal, K. Bartholow, and B. Milstein. 2008. “Team-based
Codebook Development: Structure, Process, and Agreement.” In Handbook for Team-based
Qualitative Research, edited by G. Guest and K. M. MacQueen, 119–133. Lanham, MD:
Altamira Press.
Malloch, H., and J. Callahan. 2009. “The Use of Film and TV in Teaching HRD Concepts:
A Primer.” Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on HRD Research and Practice
across Europe, 1–10. Newcastle: Northumbria University.
 HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL 21

Marcus, A. S., ed. 2007. Celluloid Blackboard: Teaching History with Film. Charlotte: Information
Age Publishing.
Marcus, A. S., and T. H. Levine. 2007. “Exploring the past with Feature Film.” In Celluloid
Blackboard: Teaching History with Film, edited by A. S. Marcus, 1–13. Charlotte: Information
Age Publishing.
Miles, M. B., and A. M. Huberman. 1994. An Expanded Sourcebook: Qualitative Data Analysis. 2nd
ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Monaco, J. 2000. How to Read a Film: The World of Movies, Media, and Multimedia. 3rd ed.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Mumford, M. D., S. J. Zaccaro, E. D. Harding, T. O. Jacobs, and E. A. Fleishman. 2000. “Leadership
Skills for a Changing World: Solving Complex Social Problems.” The Leadership Quarterly 11
(1): 11–35. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00041-7.
Murphy, M. K., and T. M. Harris. 2018. “White Innocence and Black Subservience: The Rhetoric
of White Heroism in ‘The Help’.” Howard Journal of Communications 29 (1): 49–62.
doi:10.1080/10646175.2017.1327378.
Nowell-Smith, G. 1996. The Oxford History of World Cinema. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ohlgren, T. H. 2007. Robin Hood: The Early Poems, 14651560: Texts, Contexts, and Ideology.
Newark: University of Delaware Press.
Olesen, V., N. Droes, D. Hatton, N. Chico, and L. Schatzman. 1994. “Analyzing Together:
Recollections of a Team Approach.” In Analyzing Qualitative Data, edited by A. Bryman and
R. G. Burgess, 111–128. London: Routledge.
Pandey, S. 2012. “Using Popular Movies in Teaching Cross-cultural Management.” European
Journal of Training and Development 36 (2): 329–350. doi:10.1108/03090591211204779.
Pandey, S., and A. Ardichvili. 2015. “Using Films in Teaching Intercultural Concepts: An Action
Research Project at Two Universities in India and the United States.” New Horizons in Adult
Education and Human Resource Development 27 (4): 36–50. doi:10.1002/nha3.20121.
Park, S., S. Jeong, S. Jang, S. W. Yoon, and D. H. Lim. 2018. “Critical Review of Global Leadership
Literature: Toward an Integrative Global Leadership Framework.” Human Resource
Development Review 17 (1): 95–120. doi:10.1177/1534484317749030.
Parker, M. 2012. Alternative Business: Outlaws, Crime and Culture. Oxford: Routledge.
Potter, L. 1998. Playing Robin Hood: The Legend as Performance in Five Centuries. Newark:
University of Delaware Press.
Rajendran, D., and M. Andrew. 2014. “Using Film to Elucidate Leadership Effectiveness Models:
Reflection on Authentic Learning Experiences.” Journal of University Teaching and Learning
Practice 11 (1): 1–8. http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol11/iss1/8
Richards, J. 1999. “Robin Hood on the Screen.” In Robin Hood: An Anthology of Scholarship and
Criticism, edited by S. Knight, 429–440. Cambridge: Brewer.
Robbins, S. P. 1997. Managing Today. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Robin and Marian. 1976. Directed by Richard Shepherd. CA: Columbia Pictures, DVD.
Robin Hood. 2010. Directed by Ridley Scott. CA: Universal Pictures, DVD.
Robin Hood. 2018. Directed by Otto Bathurst. CA: Lionsgate Home Entertainment, DVD.
Robin Hood. 1922. Directed by Allan Dwan. CA: Douglas Fairbanks Pictures, DVD.
Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. 1991. Directed by Kevin Reynolds. CA: Warner Bros, DVD.
Rose, G. 2007. Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to the Interpretation of Visual Materials. 2nd
ed. London: Sage Publication.
Rosser, M. H. 2007. “The Magic of Leadership: An Exploration of Harry Potter and the Goblet of
Fire.” Advances in Developing Human Resources 9 (2): 236–250. doi:10.1177/
1523422306298869.
Roth, L. 2001. “Introducing Students to ‘The Big Picture’.” Journal of Management Education 25
(1): 21–31. doi:10.1177/105256290102500104.
Saldana, J. 2016. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. 3rd ed. London: Sage.
Scott, A. 2012. “Publics versus Professionals: Agency and Engagement with ‘Robin Hood’ and the
‘Pilgrim Fathers’ in Nottinghamshire.” In The Cultural Moment in Tourism, edited by L. Smith,
E. Waterton, and S. Watson, 131–158. Oxon: Routledge.
22 K. R. BARTLETT ET AL.

Seal, G. 2009. “The Robin Hood Principle: Folklore, History, and the Social Bandit.” Journal of
Folklore Research 46 (1): 67–89. doi:10.2979/JFR.2009.46.1.67.
Shackley, M. 2001. “The Legend of Robin Hood: Myth, Inauthenticity, and Tourism Development in
Nottingham, England.” In Hosts and Guests Revisited: Tourism Issues of the 21st Century, edited by
V. L. Smith and M. Brent, 315–322. Elmsford: Cognizant Communication Corporation.
Smith, G. W. 2009. “Using Feature Films as the Primary Instructional Medium to Teach
Organizational Behaviour.” Journal of Management Education 33 (4): 462–489. doi:10.1177/
1052562909335861.
Steers, R. M., C. Sanchez-Runde, and L. Nardon. 2012. “Leadership in a Global Context: New
Directions in Research and Theory Development.” Journal of World Business 47 (4): 479–482.
doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2012.01.001.
Strauss, A., and J. Corbin. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for
Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Tan, C. 2006. “Philosophical Reflections from the Silver Screen: Using Films to Promote Reflection
in Pre-service Teachers.” Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives 7
(4): 483–497. doi:10.1080/14623940600987080.
The Adventures of Robin Hood. 1938. Directed by Michael Curtiz andWilliam Keighley. CA:
Warner Bros, DVD.
Troost, L. V. 2000. “Robin Hood Musicals in Eighteenth-century London.” In Robin Hood in Popular
Culture: Violence, Transgression, and Justice, edited by T. Hahn, 251–264. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer.
Turner, J. R., and R. Baker. 2018. “A Review of Leadership Theories: Identifying A Lack of Growth
in the HRD Leadership Domain.” European Journal of Training and Development 42 (7/8):
470–498. doi:10.1108/EJTD-06-2018-0054.
Tyler, C. L., M. H. Anderson, and J. M. Tyler. 2009. “Giving Students New Eyes: The Benefits of
Having Students Find Media Clips to Illustrate Management Concepts.” Journal of Management
Education 33 (4): 444–461. doi:10.1177/1052562907310558.
Wallo, A. 2017. “Learning-oriented Leadership: Managers as Facilitators of Human Resource
Development in Daily Work.” International Journal of HRD Practice Policy and Research 2
(1): 21–34. doi:10.22324/ijhrdppr.2.103.
Warner, N. 2007. “Screening Leadership through Shakespeare: Paradoxes of Leader–follower
Relations in Henry V on Film.” The Leadership Quarterly 18 (1): 1–15. doi:10.1016/j.
leaqua.2006.11.005.
Weston, C., T. Gandell, J. Beauchamp, L. McAlpine, C. Wiseman, and C. Beauchamp. 2001.
“Analyzing Interview Data: The Development and Evolution of a Coding System.” Qualitative
Sociology 24 (3): 381–400. doi:10.1023/A:1010690908200.
Wise, H. 1939. Motion Pictures as an Aid in Teaching American History. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Woolf, D. R. 1988. “The ‘Common Voice’: History, Folklore and Oral Tradition in Early Modern
England.” Past & Present 120 (1): 26–52. doi:10.1093/past/120.1.26.
Wright, R. R. 2013. “Zombies, Cyborgs, and Other Labor Organizers: An Introduction to
Representation of Adult Learning Theories and HRD in Popular Culture.” New Horizons in
Adult Education and Human Resource Development 25 (1): 5–17. doi:10.1002/nha.20003.
Wright, R. R., and J. A. Sandlin. 2009. “Popular Culture, Public Pedagogy and Perspective
Transformation: The Avengers and Adult Learning in Living Rooms.” International Journal
of Lifelong Education 28 (4): 533–551. doi:10.1080/02601370903031389.
Yost, K. 2017. “Imagining Leadership in Science Fiction Narratives.” In The Routledge Companion
to Leadership, edited by J. Storey, J. Hartley, J.-L. Denis, P. T. Hart, and D. Ulrich, 437–449.
New York: Routledge.
Zaccaro, S. J., S. Kemp, and M. Bader. 2004. “Leader Traits and Attributes.” In The Nature of
Leadership, edited by J. Antonakis, A. T. Cianciolo, and R. J. Sternberg, 101–124. Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications.
Zoller, H. M., and G. T. Fairhurst. 2007. “Resistance Leadership: The Overlooked Potential in
Critical Organization and Leadership Studies.” Human Relations 60 (9): 1331–1360.
doi:10.1177/0018726707082850.