Leadership Perspectives: Knowledge into Action

Leadership Perspectives

This page intentionally left blank

Leadership Perspectives Knowledge into Action Edited by Kim Turnbull James Professor of Executive Learning, Director of the Centre for Executive Learning and Leadership, Cranfield School of Management, UK

and James Collins Research Fellow, Centre for Executive Learning and Leadership, Cranfield School of Management, UK

© Kim Turnbull James and James Collins Individual chapters © contributors 2008 All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication may be made without written permission. No paragraph of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted save with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London W1T 4LP. Any person who does any unauthorised act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages. The authors have asserted their rights to be identified as the authors of this work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. First published 2008 by PALGRAVE MACMILLAN Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS and 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10010 Companies and representatives throughout the world PALGRAVE MACMILLAN is the global academic imprint of the Palgrave Macmillan division of St. Martin’s Press, LLC and of Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. Macmillan® is a registered trademark in the United States, United Kingdom and other countries. Palgrave is a registered trademark in the European Union and other countries. ISBN 13: 978–0–230–51604–5 hardback ISBN 13: 0–230–51604–1 hardback This book is printed on paper suitable for recycling and made from fully managed and sustained forest sources. Logging, pulping and manufacturing processes are expected to conform to the environmental regulations of the country of origin. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Leadership perspectives : knowledge into action / edited by Kim Turnbull James and James Collins. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0–230–51604–1 (alk. paper) 1. Leadership. I. James, Kim. II. Collins, James, 1957– HD57.7.L43444 2008 658.4′092–dc22 10 17

9 16

8 15

7 14

6 13

2008015931 5 12

4 11

3 10

2 09

1 08

Printed and bound in Great Britain by CPI Antony Rowe, Chippenham and Eastbourne

Contents List of Tables

vii

List of Figures

viii

Notes on the Contributors

ix

Thanks and Acknowledgements

xv

1

New Perspectives on Leadership: How Practical is a Good Theory?

1

Kim Turnbull James and James Collins

Part I 2

New Constructions of Leadership

The Event’s the Thing: Brief Encounters With the Leaderful Moment

13 15

Martin Wood and Donna Ladkin

3

Leadership, Spirituality and Complexity: Wilberforce and the Abolition of the Slave Trade

29

Peter Simpson and Clifford Hill

4

Sharing Thoughts on Leadership and Friendship

43

Robert French

5

How to Become a Globally Responsible Leader: Rites of Passage and Transitional Space

58

Maryse Dubouloy

6

Strategic Leadership

72

Kim Turnbull James, Cliff Bowman and Richard Kwiatkowski

7

Voluntarism, Representative Leadership and Organisational Democracy

86

Martin Clarke and David Butcher

Part II 8

The Importance of Context

Public Sector Leader Change Strategies: A Focus on Technical or Collaborative Solutions

103 105

Su Maddock

9

Leadership in the British Army – A Gendered Construct? Mike Dunn v

114

vi Contents

10

Leadership in Higher Education

130

Alan Bryman

11

Departmental Affiliation, Leadership and Leadership Development

144

Gareth Edwards and Doris Jepson

Part III 12

Leadership and Relationships

Leading with Political Awareness: Leadership Across Diverse Interests Inside and Outside the Organisation

161 163

Jean Hartley and Clive Fletcher

13

Political-Management Leadership

177

Simon Baddeley

14

Leaders and Their Self-Efficacy Beliefs: Why Working Relationships Matter

193

Joe Jaina

15

The Importance of Role Models in the Development of Leaders’ Professional Identities

208

Ruth Sealy and Val Singh

16

Distributed Leadership in Project Teams

223

Jitse D.J. van Ameijde, Patrick C. Nelson, Jon Billsberry and Nathalie van Meurs Index

238

List of Tables 7.1 7.2 8.1 9.1 9.2

11.1 11.2

11.3

Comparison of theories addressing organisational plurality Leadership behaviours Planning and control – Business model Comparison of female and male views on congeniality of the army for women Comparison of relative importance of MLF factors by women reporting on female leaders compared to men reporting on male leaders Definitions of the dimensions of the full range leadership model Correlations between dimensions of transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership and effectiveness for self-ratings by department Correlations between dimensions of transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership and effectiveness for subordinate-ratings by department

vii

88 95 111 122 126

147 153

154

List of Figures 1.1 9.1 13.1 16.1

‘Leadership Studies: Truth, Lies and Wishful Thinking’ Dialectical Analysis Model Governmental spaces Model of Distributed Leadership in Project Teams

viii

3 121 183 228

Notes on the Contributors Simon Baddeley works, as a perpetual student, from the Institute of Local Government Studies at Birmingham University. With an anthropological background, he has, when filming conversations between politicians and managers, striven to earn the trust of practitioners. With Kim James and Tanya Arroba he developed the ‘Owl, fox, donkey, sheep’ model of political skills for managers. He was a member of the 2005 SOLACE Commission, whose report ‘Leadership United’, examined how chief executives managed in political environments. Dr Jon Billsberry is Director of Research and a Senior Lecturer in Organisational Behaviour at the Open University in the UK. He received his PhD in Applied Psychology from the University of Nottingham. Jon is interested in the fit between workers and their employing organisation. In particular, he is studying what factors affect workers’ fit and whether organisations attract and select people that share their values. His other research interests are in recruitment, selection, leadership and the representation of management in visual media. Professor Cliff Bowman is Director of Research at Ashridge. Cliff is interested in the role of strategic leaders and the strategy process. He has been involved in executive development for over 20 years, and has consulted to top teams from many organisations. Professor Alan Bryman is Professor of Organisational and Social Research in the School of Management, University of Leicester. His main research interests lie in research methodology, leadership studies, and organisational analysis. He has written and co-authored many books and articles on the subjects of leadership and research methods in the social sciences. After a hiatus of several years during which he was only marginally involved in leadership studies, he has returned to the field in the context of studying leadership in higher education. Dr David Butcher has been in management education for over 20 years and is Director of Open Executive Programmes at Cranfield. He acts as a consultant in a wide range of contexts on an international basis, including investment banking, telecommunications and FMCG ix

x Notes on the Contributors

multinationals. His research interests lie in developing business strategy and leadership capability at senior executive levels, and the constructive use of managerial politics. Dr Martin Clarke has worked extensively in manufacturing and logistics and before joining Cranfield was a director of a European business information company. His experience lies in the area of leadership and organisational development, and his main interests and writing are in the role of management development and organisational politics in personal and organisational change. He is co-author of ‘Smart Management, Using Politics in Organisations’, written with David Butcher. Dr James Collins is a Research Fellow at Cranfield School of Management’s Centre for Executive Learning and Leadership. Before taking up academic study and research he spent over 20 years in the shipping industry, as a mariner, shipbroker, and marine insurance underwriter. His research interests include; leadership in the public sector, the politics of leadership, global leadership, leadership and learning across organisation boundaries, the evaluation of management learning, and research methodology. Dr Maryse Dubouloy is an Associate Professor in the Management Department at ESSEC Business School, Paris. Her research interests include individual, organisational and social transitional situations (such as careers, mourning, rites of passage, and change), and the consequences of change for individuals and teams. She is a social psychologist and psychoanalyst and acts as a consultant in these fields and the author of several articles and book chapters on these topics. Dr Mike Dunn is at the Department of Defence Management and Security Analysis – Cranfield University. He has two principal areas of research interest. The first is the relevance of New Public Management (NPM) thinking to the UK Ministry of Defence. The second is the study of modern military leadership. His broad focus here is the utility of contemporary leadership theory such as gendered leadership and the transformational/transactional model to the UK’s Armed Forces. Dr Gareth Edwards is Senior Researcher in the Centre for Applied Leadership Research at the Leadership Trust Foundation and is a Visiting Research Fellow at the University of Portsmouth Business School. Gareth

Notes on the Contributors xi

also serves as a Course Director and tutor on leadership development programmes run by The Leadership Trust and works on programme design, diagnosis and evaluation. His research interests are transformational leadership, experiential learning and leadership, leadership and culture, and organisational, dispersed and distributed leadership. Dr Robert French is Reader in Organisation Studies at Bristol Business School, UWE, and also works as an independent organisational consultant. His interests include: issues of teaching and learning, leadership, friendship in organisations, and the application of psychoanalysis in groups and organisations. He has edited the papers of David Armstrong (Organisation in the Mind, Karnac, 2005), and co-edited, Rethinking Management Education (Sage, 1996, with Chris Grey), and Group Relations, Management, and Organisation (Oxford University Press, 1999, with Russ Vince). Professor Clive Fletcher is Honorary Professor at Warwick Business School, Professor Emeritus at Goldsmiths’ College, University of London, and Managing Director of Personnel Assessment Ltd. Prior to going into academia, he spent nearly seven years in Whitehall. Clive is a Fellow of the British Psychological Society and has published around 200 books, chapters, journal articles and conference papers. His current research interests centre on political skills in leadership, self-awareness and multi-source feedback. Professor Jean Hartley is Professor of Organizational Analysis at the Institute of Governance and Public Management (IGPM) at Warwick Business School, University of Warwick. She has particular interests in leadership with political awareness for managers in the private, public and voluntary sectors and also undertakes research and development work with formal political leaders and with public managers. Rev. Dr Clifford Hill is the founder of the Thornton Institute for Leadership and Business Ethics and Research Director of the Family Matters Institute. He was at one time a lecturer in sociology at the London School of Economics and Founder/President of the Newham Community Renewal Programme. Author of over 40 books, he has published on the Sociology of Religion and is a leading authority on William Wilberforce and author of The Wilberforce Connection (2004). Dr Joe Jaina is a Senior Lecturer in Organisational Behaviour at Cranfield School of Management. He commenced his career as an engineer in the

xii Notes on the Contributors

defence industry and subsequently undertook a variety of design, development and line management roles. Joe is a Chartered Psychologist. He has directed numerous organisational development projects principally in the area of organisational change following acquisition or restructuring in many commercial settings, across the globe. His research interests are primarily in the field of working relationships and self-efficacy beliefs. Dr Doris Jepson is a Senior Lecturer in Human Resource Management and Organisational Behaviour at Oxford Brookes University. Her main research interests focus on leadership discourse, leadership identities and leadership construction in private-sector organisations. Within her current research, Doris is particularly interested in investigating the importance of different national discourses and the diffusion of academic and intermediary leadership ideas on the development of leadership understanding and emergence. Richard Kwiatkowski is a Senior Lecturer in Organisational Psychology at Cranfield School of Management. He has worked as a psychologist and manager, in a variety of organisations including BT, the NHS, and more recently as a consultant to many PLCs and consultancies. His research interests centre on the application of psychology to organisations and individuals. He is a former Chair of the British Psychological Society’s Division of Occupational Psychology, and currently Chairs the BPS Ethics Committee. Dr Donna Ladkin is a Senior Lecturer in Organisational Learning and Leadership at Cranfield School of Management. Her research interests include exploring insights which might be gained through considering leadership from philosophical perspectives, such as ethics, moral philosophy and phenomenology as well as process thinking. Additionally she is involved in researching the role leadership plays in organising for environmental sustainability. Dr Su Maddock is currently Advisor on Innovation to National School of Government and Senior Fellow at Manchester Business School. Her book Challenging Women: Gender, Culture and Innovation (Sage, 1999) broke new ground illustrating the choices and tactics that women adopt when confronted by male work cultures. As Director of the MBS Change Centre she brokered dialogue between service users, practitioners, policy-makers and researchers. She is particularly committed in breaking down institutional barriers to public sector innovation.

Notes on the Contributors xiii

Patrick C. Nelson is a doctoral student in Organisational Psychology and a part-time Project Officer at the Open University. He received his MSc in Occupational Health Psychology from Utrecht University, the Netherlands. Patrick’s research interests include Person-Organisation Fit, leadership, and cross-cultural values. Before pursuing his PhD in Person Organisation Fit, Patrick was a Project Officer in the HR Division of the Open University. Ruth Sealy is a doctoral researcher at the International Centre for Women Leaders, Cranfield School of Management. She has spoken at many academic and practitioner conferences, and was nominated, with Val Singh, for a Best Paper Award at the American Academy of Management Conference, 2006. A qualified Business Psychologist, she is also a Management Development Consultant. In a previous career she set up, ran, and sold a small company in the travel industry with offices in London and the French Alps. Dr Peter Simpson is Director of Business Development and lecturer in Organisation Studies at Bristol Business School, University of the West of England. He consults to organisations in the public, private and voluntary sectors and has published widely on issues of strategic leadership and organisational change. At the present time he is particularly interested in issues of spirituality and complexity in leadership theory and practice. Dr Val Singh is Reader in Corporate Diversity Management, and Deputy Director of the International Centre for Women Leaders at Cranfield School of Management. Her research includes the Female FTSE Index of companies with women directors (presented at Downing Street), ethnicity of directors, gendered cultures in science and engineering boardrooms, diversity management, and women’s careers. She was Gender Editor of Journal of Business Ethics, and is Associate Editor of Gender Work & Organization. She was a judge of UK National Business Awards 2003–06. Professor Kim Turnbull James is Professor of Executive Learning at Cranfield School of Management and Director of the Centre for Executive Learning and Leadership. She is interested in how management learning and leadership development link to organisational goals, aligning leadership theories to appropriate learning designs. Her particular areas of interest include strategic and distributed leadership, leadership development in a global context, collaborative learning for

xiv Notes on the Contributors

leadership, organisation politics and the impact of group and organisation dynamics on organisation leadership. Jitse D.J. van Ameijde is a part-time Project Officer within the Human Resources Division of the Open University in the UK, where he conducts organisational research and evaluations of learning and development programmes. He is also presently a full-time doctorate student in Systems. He received his MSc in Organisational Psychology at Utrecht University in The Netherlands. His research interests include leadership, organisational learning and systems theory. Dr Nathalie van Meurs is a Senior Lecturer in Cross-Cultural Management at Middlesex University Business School, London. She worked as a Research Fellow at the Open University, exploring culture and Person-Organisation Fit. Before this, she lectured at the University of Oxford Brookes. She gained her PhD from the University of Sussex studying cross-cultural differences in conflict styles between Dutch and British managers. She is interested in both research and applied aspects of intercultural interaction and identity. Dr Martin Wood is Senior Lecturer in Social Theory and Organisation at York Management School, University of York, UK. Previously he was a member of faculty at Exeter and Warwick Universities. As an educator, researcher and consultant, Martin has worked his way deeper into the ideas and problems of management and organisation studies, as they relate to process-oriented social theory. Current research explores leadership in relation to philosophical issues of identity and difference.

Thanks and Acknowledgements Kim Turnbull James and James Collins

The editors are very aware that any book derived from a conference owes a debt of gratitude to everyone who was involved in that enterprise. Without presenters willing to share their latest insights, attendees willing to engage with those ideas and colleagues happy to chair these sessions, then the authors represented in this book would not have had an opportunity to fine tune and revise their work. This book is therefore a product of many people’s thinking and collective endeavour. Every conference requires good organisation for it to be successful. We are immensely grateful to Alison Cain who worked tirelessly for many weeks before the conference to ensure it went smoothly. Having, as she thought, said goodbye to the conference participants she was then given the ‘opportunity’ of helping to get many of their manuscripts ready for publication here! The conference plenary was an important impetus for the book and our thanks go to Jonathan Gosling who proposed the idea – new to this conference – and prodded us as organisers to make it happen and was happy to hold and co-chair the event. The speakers, Keith Grint, Jean Hartley and Robin Wensley spurred us to a good debate. We are particularly grateful to two conference presenters who have offered their papers for publication in this book; Alan Bryman who was our keynote opening speaker and Donna Ladkin, who with Martin Wood, won the best paper in conference award.

xv

This page intentionally left blank

1 New Perspectives on Leadership: How Practical is a Good Theory? Kim Turnbull James and James Collins

This book emerges from a conference held at Cranfield School of Management in December 2006. This was the Fifth International Studying Leadership conference held in the UK: this series of conferences initiated by Keith Grint whilst he was at Said Business School and subsequently held at Lancaster, Exeter, Cranfield and Warwick, has from its inception been an important annual meeting both for leadership scholars and practitioners concerned to keep abreast of the latest academic research. From its inception the conference attracted people in sufficient numbers to indicate the perceived importance of leadership studies and the desire amid this community to refresh our thinking in a field abundant with leadership theory and leadership development solutions. The aim of this book, and its companion, Leadership Learning – Knowledge into Action, is to capture some of the exciting new thinking discussed at the conference. More than 50 papers were presented and in this book we try to capture some of the themes emerging and indicate new departures in leadership thinking. The conference theme was Knowledge into Action – how new ideas about leadership would lead to new approaches to leadership practice, leadership learning and development. Taken together these two books will enable readers to refresh their thinking about leadership in a way which will inform their practice whether as researchers or as practitioners and consultants. Even two books cannot cover, nor do justice to, all that was available to conference attendees, but we have aimed to pull together the best papers to represent new trends, creative points of view and insights from research. We do not aim to cover the wide field of leadership studies but to provide new perspectives on this important field of theory and practice. This first book concentrates on new perspectives in leadership. The second focuses on leadership learning and development. The conference 1

2 Leadership Perspectives

theme of Knowledge into Action implies that there can be a clear link between research and practice. Research can be conducted which informs theoretical understanding of the phenomenon of leadership and which also speaks to the task organisations undertake in constructing leadership concepts and developing people to rise to leadership challenges in their organisation. Knowledge of practice can influence how we ask our research questions and what kind of research we conduct. Of course, there are a variety of opinions about how and whether research can be relevant and rigorous. From an organisation’s perspective the relevance of any theoretical study of leadership can be puzzling too. The potential split between studying leadership and practice can be demonstrated by an example: a large international organisation contacted a university business school to run a leadership programme. They explained they had recently re-thought their leadership model. What process had they gone through? They had worked with the new CEO as the primary source and then with the top team. They had then benchmarked their model against three other organisations – one quite different from them but very successful in turning around a struggling business, another in the same industry sector and a third, similar sized business with origins in their home country. Had they looked at the literature on leadership or talked with any university faculty? The response was curious – what might they have gained of practical interest by doing that? So – organisations do not always value academics’ work on theorising leadership. Whilst some research is hard to turn immediately into product or practical advice, none the less leadership scholarship, as witnessed at the conference and in this book, can provide new understanding which might prove vital for organisations seeking new leadership concepts to meet their current organisation challenges. This implies a willingness to challenge accepted wisdom. The conference hosted a debate held in full plenary: the plenary was co-chaired by Jonathan Gosling and Kim Turnbull James, with speakers Keith Grint, Jean Hartley and Robin Wensley. Conference had received a short paper from the co-chairs (‘Leadership studies: Truth, lies and wishful thinking’) and had an opportunity to debate some key issues for leadership research. An extract from this paper can be found in Figure 1.1. The plenary was asked to think about the relationship between research and practice – from an academic perspective are we too driven to find prescriptions, for example – and about the nature of leadership theory – is there really need to continue to theorise about leadership – surely it is already well enough understood? Our speakers briefly offered their ideas to plenary before it was opened up for discussion. The debate ranged

New Perspectives on Leadership: How Practical is a Good Theory? 3 Figure 1.1

‘Leadership Studies: Truth, Lies and Wishful Thinking’

(Extract from the ‘Studying Leadership: Knowledge into Action’ plenary debate proposal, chaired by Jonathan Gosling and Kim Turnbull James) Perhaps more than any other field, leadership studies appears to be caught between studying and advising. Many studies do not restrict themselves to describing and analysing leadership phenomena, but instead draw implications from their research about who should be appointed to leadership roles, how organisations should distribute authority and the behaviours that should be rewarded. The question for this conference is whether the pressures to advise practitioners on leadership and leadership development issues add up to a significant problem for leadership studies as a domain of academic endeavour. Does an enthusiasm for ‘ought’ produce unacceptable compromises in the attempt to describe, analyse and interpret ‘what is or has been’? … We propose a debate on this issue; the implications have wider significance for business and management studies in the light of the growing emphasis amongst research councils on clear policy and practice outcomes from state-funded research… Do we see leadership studies – such as those published in Leadership – contributing to new knowledge in sociology, politics, or psychology? Or is it contributing to newly colonised domains between and independent of traditional canons? Can there be a theory of leadership rather than contributions from various disciplines to understanding leadership phenomena? Are we, as leadership researchers, ahead of the game, or more compromised than our academic colleagues engaged in research that explicitly contributes to disciplinary knowledge? Or are we contributing to a better managed and more sanely led society, more effective services and more efficient businesses? Explanatory sciences aim to make generalisable claims about the nature of the phenomenon studied. John Adair, in an unpublished manifesto (personal communication) claims that we already know the universal principles governing leadership and its development, and so the proper contribution of leadership studies is to focus on the application of these principles to diagnose particular organisational woes and to prescribe the appropriate remedies. Adair’s claim may seem ridiculously optimistic. However, we note the confidence with which published studies expound their prescriptions, the didactic style of leadership studies classrooms, and the more or less explicitly normative content of many leadership development programmes. These seldom embody collaborative discussions of ‘what really matters’: are our truth-claims coherent with our methods? The THES (20 October 2006) reviewed the first years of Leadership, the journal with which this conference is most closely associated. Winston Fletcher describes leadership as ‘will-o’-the-wisp, impossible to pin down’. He sees no new theoretical developments in many years and argues that instead of more theorising, the journal should focus on case histories of leaders and leadership situations and ‘minimise the quasi-philosophical stuff’. Is it possible to make generalisable truth claims in a field which is impossible to pin down perhaps depending on the socially constructed meanings of participants in a specific leadership event? If we cannot, what is our real capacity to provide prescriptive solutions to organisations’ problems with their leadership capability?

4 Leadership Perspectives

widely over a number of issues; in particular several people spoke from the floor for managers’ desire for a quick fix and simplicity. Many simply do not have the time or energy to think their way through the implications of proposed changes to their behaviour, structure, etc. However, others in the audience spoke to their experience of managers who are thoughtful, prepared to work things through and make good use of the possibility to interact for an extended period of time with academic colleagues. But what of academic research – can it speak directly to problems managers are interested in? How does the debate about research/practice divisions relate to the studying of leadership and in particular what is new and exciting in leadership theory? This book has a number of emergent themes which confront many traditional perspectives on leadership and the divergence between traditional and new concepts may go some way to explaining how practitioners and researchers find it hard to engage with each other’s work and how we need new approaches to leadership development and learning to bridge the two. As the fascination with leadership has continued to grow in both the academic and popular press it seemed pertinent to ask why we still need to study leadership. Surely after the extensive research, theorising and publication on the topic in the previous century, it might be considered a theme which either has a theoretical basis to which little can be added or contrarily, since there are so many definitions of leadership with conflicting points of view, it is not even a researchable topic. A starting point for this is to reflect on what is most visible in writing about leadership: in the popular and business press there appears to be an endless fascination with famous leaders. Whether in HBR (Tichy and Bennis, 2007) or the news media, we are offered a parade of leaders who have made a difference – and are either lauded for their heroism with their life histories, the subject of celebrity scrutiny in a search for the ‘answer’ to the nature of good leadership – or subjected to ferocious vilification when they are perceived to fail. The idea of heroic leader must be deep in our collective psyche for the concept to hold such sway – or be a convenient untruth which enables individuals to be held accountable for collective failures. These two opposites both serve a similar purpose – they support a belief that if only an organisation can find the right leader (and perhaps only if it can find the right leader), it can succeed, turning around any downturn in their fortunes. Alternatively collective problems can be scapegoated by the expulsion of a failed hero and in a complex world of dilemmas and unsolvable problems, hard to identify systemic problems can be located at a dispensable individual’s door. This is not to say that great leadership has no

New Perspectives on Leadership: How Practical is a Good Theory? 5

place – but that the idealised notion of great leadership supplies an alternative purpose. One might have thought that great man (sic) theories of leadership were left behind in the 1960s but there is a whiff of this in the notion of visionary, charismatic and transformational leadership theories (e.g. Bass, 1985; House and Shamir, 1993; Conger and Kanungo, 1998). In contrast there is a growing interest in the leadership literature about other ways of conceiving leadership. For example, much is now written about shared, collective and distributed leadership (e.g. Locke, 2003; Pearce and Conger, 2003). Organisations too call for ‘leadership at all levels’ and ‘front line leadership’ and this surely points to a new requirement in leadership theory – it does not mean that we can throw out the need for competences or development of people who will take up senior leader roles in our organisations – but is does call for theorising about leadership which does not take the old world as a given. Post-heroic leadership (Fletcher, 2004) suggests rethinking our perspective on leadership away from the endeavour of identifiable individual leaders and focusing on the teams and the invisible actions of many in organisation achievements. The implication of all these new ways of constructing our ideas of organisation leadership means that we need to understand much more about how people relate to each other in order to engage in leadership behaviour and even rethink what we mean by leadership behaviour and practice. It also suggests that context is very important – if leadership is about a plethora of networks and relationships, and about ways of meeting organisation challenges we may need to know more about the differences in the meaning of leadership in different organisation contexts. Whether we add to the leader competence and capability lexicon or revise the relevance of thinking of leadership as a characteristic of an individual, this move to understanding leadership as embedded in a system and not just as a transferable skill enabling an organisation ‘under new leadership’ to turn things around or drive through change, could have profound impact on leadership learning events. Thus we have a paradox that whilst the leadership literature addresses questions about the kind of leadership that is needed in organisations for the 21st century, development programmes are often rooted in individual leader development separate from organisation context. Another perspective might be that the leadership literature is necessarily fragmented because it aims to address many different organisational challenges under the umbrella of leadership. Many organisations are developing their own leadership models. The idea of leaders having a ‘teachable point of view’ (Tichy, 1999) has led to the legitimisation of basing corporate

6 Leadership Perspectives

leadership frameworks on the current CEOs or top team’s view of leadership. These are almost all focused on leader behaviours, competences and capabilities. They reify leadership and locate it in the individual. The notion of leadership as organisational practices and routines, embedded in relationships in which leadership is exercised in many places is lost. A ubiquitous story in management development circles is that when programme participants are asked if they are followers, no one owns up to such a role. This fallacious question points to the poverty of our conception of leadership, as if there were a category of leaders and another of followers rather than highlighting our understanding of the complex roles and relationships involved. The dynamics of power, authority and differences in task that connect people, systems and organising principles that form the organisation, are all part of the idea of leadership – understanding leadership requires a theory of organisation as well as a theory of individual ability. In a highly complex field it is easy to find comfort in an endless debate about leadership vs. management, transformational vs. transactional leadership and definitions of leadership. We could perhaps instead consider the concept of leadership as a solution to organisation problems, located in time, place and task. When an organisation suggests that they need more or better leadership we might want to know more about the challenges they face and for which they believe the idea of ‘leadership’ is a solution. Because our implicit idea of leadership often equates to hero – or even the more prosaic transformational concept – many leadership models for development are couched in positive or even idealistic terms. This leads to some interesting observations in practice – for example, organisations who develop people against a competence framework which includes emotional intelligence and focus on people but promote to the most senior levels people who do not represent these competences. It also leads to dilemmas in intent – for example an organisation struggling to maintain staff belief in the value of their leadership framework when they were going through financial turmoil. The HR director explained they had to put their leadership model ‘on hold’ for a few years until they had got through the crisis. In other words they actually needed a different leadership solution to the one centred on leaders developing staff, showing genuine concern and paying attention to people’s motivation, that they had developed. Good leadership is not the same at all times – at this point they needed tough leaders whose job was to deal ruthlessly with the task of slimming down and taking the business back to its core. This led to the in-authenticity of, for example ‘letting people go’ – because the realities of leaders’ roles had been

New Perspectives on Leadership: How Practical is a Good Theory? 7

made undiscussable and even if they did this task fairly and compassionately it did not fit with the way the leadership model was couched. Leadership at the apex of the organisation may look different from front-line leadership – whilst a set of leadership competences may be useful top to toe in the organisation, these do not describe the roles and relationship all these people engage in. These can only be adequately described by understanding leadership tasks derived from organisation demands – if you need to respond to customers rather than regulators, or to a changing world than a stable world you need a different leadership response. If you need leaders to meet global challenges and work internationally you may need a different leadership point of view than if you are a small locally-based start up – if you need to lead through a period of turmoil and crisis of existence you have a different problem than leading through expansion and hope. Leadership theory derived from any empirical study is also a description of the economic, social and political system in which it was observed. The idea of post-heroic leadership is of its time just as the managerial grid was of its – both may stand the test of time but only insofar as they relate to similar contexts. The wider context of leadership theorising needs to be considered. From this perspective leadership theory may never be finally established – it needs to evolve as contexts change. It requires a narrative rather than definition, it needs locating in the organisation as a whole, not disembodied from it. If we move away from leadership as a property of the individual’s ability to exercise a reified thing called leadership wherever they find themselves, we can move away from a personal deficiency model which is the impetus for much leadership development. We are more likely to be able to support those taking up leadership roles in exploring their context, understand the culture and history of the system in which they are expected to be a leader, and understand the organisational relationships and networks in which they are both leader and demand leadership from others.

Chapter presentations The themes we have outlined above are reflected in a variety of ways in the chapters that follow: the need to develop new constructions of leadership; the importance of context; leadership and relationships.

Part one: new constructions of leadership Describing leadership is ways that shift away from approaches that primarily focus on individual leaders or the dyadic relationship between

8 Leadership Perspectives

leaders and followers, Martin Wood and Donna Ladkin frame leadership as an unfolding process where contextual concerns such as culture and history play a crucial role in this emergent process. They describe this process as ‘a continuous coming into being’. Presenting the results of empirical research in which participants employed photography to capture what they describe as ‘the leaderful moment’, Wood and Ladkin, draw on theoretical ideas described in process philosophy. In a chapter that examines leadership and spirituality, Peter Simpson and Clifford Hill also describe the complexity of leadership as an emergent process. Examining leadership from a historical perspective – and then relating this to a modern context – they examine William Wilberforce [and the Clapham Group’s] involvement in the abolition of the slave trade. Of particular interest in Simpson and Hill’s analysis is the notion of ‘narrative themes’, – although describing Wilberforce’s prominent position within the abolition movement, rather than the character and behaviour of the individual leader, it is conversation and narrative themes that is the prime agent of emergent change. In his chapter Robert French comments on the pressures faced by leaders to focus principally on their organisation’s results and he discusses how this is frequently at the expense of concerns for people or for business ethics. Discussing leadership from a very different perspective, French examines classical and modern notions of friendship, and by reframing assumptions of friendship and linking these to leadership, suggests how new attitudes to leadership may be adopted and developed into new models of leadership action. Also challenging the notion of leadership as primarily a concern for the bottom-line, and the idea effective leaders simply need to acquire the necessary competences and knowledge, Maryse Dubouloy discusses responsible leadership. Relating to ideas from psychodynamic approaches, she describes the need for globally responsible leaders to rediscover their true self and reject conformism and false self. Dubouloy suggests that responsible leadership necessitates that the leader develops virtues such as autonomy, reflexivity, and compassion, and this requires that, as an individual, they embark on a tough journey down new paths. A psychodynamic perspective is also adopted by Kim Turnbull James, Cliff Bowman and Richard Kwiatkowski. Observing that much leadership theory is a concern for appropriate behaviours and competences, whereas the notion of direction is central to the strategy literature, the authors lament that leadership models often omit the integration of strategy into leadership theory. Turnbull James, Bowman and Kwiatkowski contend that this is particularly important as new conceptions

New Perspectives on Leadership: How Practical is a Good Theory? 9

of leadership which capture ideas of shared, distributed and dispersed leadership challenge the accepted perceptions of where leadership in the organisation is exercised. They develop the notion of the ‘Main Idea’ – the clear direction which grounds, centres, inspires and gives a clear message about the intent of the organisation. Given that the ‘Main Idea’ integrates psychological and strategic action a psychodynamic perspective is adopted to explore the role of the strategic leader. In the chapter presented by Martin Clarke and David Butcher the theme that leadership takes place in a complex environment where multiple stakeholders hold diverse interests is continued. The authors describe how in such a complex environment organisations are faced by the difficulty of standardisation on the one hand while striving to build democratic practices that contribute to commitment and improve motivation on the other. In addressing their concerns Clark and Butcher introduce the concept of organisational voluntarism, and suggest that this can facilitate progress towards more democratic forms of managerial action.

Part two: the importance of context Placing importance on context and drawing on her experience of working directly with senior managers in the public services, Su Maddock reflects on a central paradox found in leadership of this sector. Although the collaborative practice found in transformational leadership is considered more congenial to innovation than transactional activity, most public sector managers continue to have a preference for the planning and control action that epitomises the transactional approach. Maddock suggests that this practice is perpetuated by a system that tends to reward and promote safe leaders – those who are more comfortable with planning and control – whereas there is a ‘graveyard full’ of innovative and collaborative leaders who tend to be more people centred. Examining how collaborative practice is taking place – albeit to a limited extent – at some local levels, Maddock discusses how central government need to properly embrace this practice to ensure it thrives at regional level and beyond. Also giving particular attention to context, Mike Dunn examines leadership in the British Army. The principal focus of the chapter considers the question of whether female Army officers lead in different ways to their male counterparts. Reviewing current research on leadership and gender, Dunn presents findings which reveal that women Army officers feel a tension about the lack of congeniality that they experience in the military environment. He presents a six factor

10 Leadership Perspectives

Military Leadership Factor model (MLF) which includes a construct that describes strategies for females in the military to manage and negotiate gender related issues in their workplace. The focus of Alan Bryman’s chapter is effective leadership in higher education in the United Kingdom. Although his empirical study principally focuses on leadership behaviour and he argues it is possible to establish from a literature review the kinds of leader behaviour that are conducive to leadership effectiveness, he finds that the translation of such findings into advice or programmes for practitioners is by no means straightforward. There is always the probability that contextual factors will inhibit the leader’s ability and possibly inclination to attend to the kinds of issues that he or she would prefer to focus upon. Context matters and as such places limits on the practical utility of isolating universal statements about the effectiveness of different kinds of leadership style. Macro influences influence leadership and as such leaders are as much prisoners as enablers of context. The need to consider leadership beyond the leader-subordinate dyad and to give a greater emphasis on context is also examined by Gareth Edwards and Doris Jepson. Examining leadership in groups the authors present the findings from two case studies – the first drawing on the notion of leader prototypicality taken from social identity theory, the second examining transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership. The findings show that leadership requirements and behaviour are not necessarily perceived to be common in different departments of an organisation and that departmental affiliation leads to shared prototypical perceptions of leadership needs – perceptions strengthened by daily social interaction with members of the same department. The authors argue that an awareness of the influence of departmental affinity should be considered when leaders are appointed from one group that may have to operate in another and other aspects or organisational activity such as cross-departmental communication.

Part three: leadership and relationships Examining leadership across the private, public and voluntary sector Jean Hartley and Clive Fletcher are critical of leadership approaches that fail to recognise that leaders engage diverse interests both inside and outside of the organisation. The authors outline a perspective of leadership which places focus on leadership of the organisation rather than in the organisation. The focus of the chapter is that relationships are important and Hartley and Fletcher argue for a perspective of leadership in which political awareness is crucial and present their framework

New Perspectives on Leadership: How Practical is a Good Theory? 11

of political skills which they believe offers a new ways of thinking about leadership and leadership research. Examining leadership in government and making reference to the challenges of reform in the public sector Simon Baddeley describes the tensions and confusion that arise in the shared relationship that represent the overlap of political and managerial spheres of action. As the theme is leadership in local government the chapter could easily fit in the part of the book that examines the importance of context, but the focus of Baddeley’s work is that of the relationship between senior officers in local government. Drawing on his extensive data source of films he has made over more than 20 years of elected politicians and public service managers in conversation, the chapter explores the relationships between these individuals to describe how in local government, top leadership is socially constructed and jointly created between politicians and public service managers. Also examining the importance of relationships – in this case workbased relationships – Joe Jaina discusses the formation, maintenance and development of self-efficacy beliefs and how this links to successful leadership outcomes. Central to Jaina’s argument is the notion that leaders’ motivation and action can be based more upon subjective efficacy beliefs rather than on objectively verifiable facts. Thus even if leaders have the necessary skills to overcome problems within their organisations, it is the leaders with a greater sense of self-efficacy who are likely to exert greater effort to overcome these difficulties. Presenting the findings of case studies, in the profit and not-for-profit sectors, he describes how psychological similarity, attained through the construction of shared meaning supports leaders’ perceptions about self-efficacy. Examining leadership from a gendered perspective Ruth Sealy and Val Singh consider how role models are crucial to the formation of social identities and to social and cultural constructions of leadership. Commenting on the scarcity of female role models in leadership positions the authors argue that such a situation plays a major part in the persistence of the gender stereotypical construction of leadership – the view that this is primarily a domain populated by heroic heterosexual and powerful males. By way of illustration Sealy and Singh describe research that has examined the gendered nature of management education, with particular reference to the MBA. Here the lack of female role models, the masculine culture of MBA programmes and that of course content all serve to reinforce masculine constructions of leadership. The authors argue for a better understanding of how role models are crucial to the formation of

12 Leadership Perspectives

professional identity and how by doing so will enable leaders to develop their full potential. In the final chapter Jitse van Ameijde, Patrick Nelson, Jon Billsberry and Nathalie van Meurs examine leadership in teams. The authors critique leadership approaches in which the dyadic relationship between leader and subordinate is the principal focus, and discuss the emerging interest in distributed and shared leadership. Reporting research which examined successful and unsuccessful project teams in their own academic institution, van Ameijde and his colleagues present a model of distributed leadership – relevant to project teams – in which internal factors (for example behaviour within the group) and external factors (such as interaction with the wider environment) represent activities and processes at team and organisational levels respectively. Organisations are constantly faced with rapid change and new challenges. Leadership studies need to be abreast of the changing nature of organisations and contribute to understanding leadership as the demands on leaders change. This book is one contribution to the field of leadership studies and aims to provide the reader with an opportunity to reflect on what leadership means in this evolving context.

References B.M. Bass, Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations (New York: The Free Press, 1985). J.A. Conger and R.A. Kanungo, Charismatic Leadership in Organisations (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1998). J.K. Fletcher, ‘The Paradox of Postheroic Leadership: An Essay on Gender, Power and Transformational Change’, Leadership Quarterly, 14 (2004) 647–61. R.J. House and B. Shamir, ‘Towards the Integration of Transformational, Charismatic and Visionary Theories’, in M.M. Chemers and R. Ayman (eds) Leadership Theory and Research (San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1993), pp. 81–107. E.A. Locke, ‘Leadership: Starting at The Top’, in C.L. Pearce and J.A. Conger (eds) Shared Leadership (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2003), pp. 271–81. C.L. Pearce and J.A. Conger, Shared Leadership (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2003). N.M. Tichy, ‘The Teachable Point of View: A Primer’, Harvard Business Review, 77(2) (1999) 82–3. N.M. Tichy and W. Bennis, ‘Making Judgment Calls: The Ultimate Act of Leadership’, Harvard Business Review, 85(10) (2007) 94–102.

Part I New Constructions of Leadership

This page intentionally left blank

2 The Event’s the Thing: Brief Encounters With the Leaderful Moment Martin Wood and Donna Ladkin

This chapter is grounded in a radical reconceptualisation of leadership based on the process philosophy particularly of Alfred Whitehead and Gilles Deleuze. Rather than focusing primarily on the individual leader, or even the dyadic relationship between leaders and followers, the lens of process philosophy frames leadership as an unfolding, emergent process; a continuous coming into being. Conceptualising leadership from this perspective, we suggest, stretches the field of potential contributors to its realisation, particularly encouraging a richer appreciation of the role played by contextual aspects, such as history, culture or geographic situatedness. In promoting this view, it joins recent work by Collinson (2005), Grint (2005), Shotter (2005), Wood (2005) and Koivunen (2007), as well as supplementing and extending the work of others in organisation and communication theory (Graen and Scandura, 1987; Hosking, 1988; Dansereau, 1995; Barker, 2001; Gronn, 2002; Pearce and Conger, 2003; Fairhurst, 2005) who are forging theoretical in-roads into how a less individualistic and more process-oriented approach might offer distinctive insights into what is the paradigmatically limited and limiting field of ‘positive’ leadership approaches (Bryman, 1986; Dansereau, 1995). This chapter moves beyond the theoretical domain, however, by offering some first steps into exploring these ideas from an empirical perspective. We invited five organisational consultants, managers and leaders to take photographs of those usually hidden elements, which they perceived as contributing to the experience of leadership in their workplaces. Here we present the results of that experiment, paying particular attention to the unexpected insights our co-researchers gleaned through undertaking the project. 15

16 Leadership Perspectives

We begin by outlining key informing ideas from Whitehead’s and Deleuze’s philosophies before describing our empirical explorations.

Leadership as an event: insights from process philosophy Process philosophy, or process thought, is a distinctive sector of philosophical tradition. Drawing particularly on the pre-Socratic cosmology of Heraclitus, whose basic principle was that ‘everything flows’, the process approach puts processes (becoming) before distinct things or substances (being). Process thinkers actually characterise the concrete reality of ‘things’ by the Humean idea of perpetual change, movement and transformation. In more contemporary times, the process-inspired worldview has become most closely identified with the British mathematical physicist turned philosopher Alfred North Whitehead, whose treatise Process and Reality, first published in 1929, explains the fundamental tenets of process philosophy. Other 20th-century philosophers including Gregory Bateson, Henri Bergson and Gilles Deleuze joined Whitehead in the description of the various elements of human experience as being in consistent relation with every other item of the universe. According to Whitehead, ‘how an actual entity becomes constitutes what that actual entity is. … Its “being” is constituted by its “becoming”’ (Whitehead, 1978, p. 23). The actual entities of reality thus are never static, but are rather a stream of momentary occasions in a process of becoming and ‘perpetually perishing’, one moment following another. Perception involves an appreciation of both the up-close appreciation of a particular moment, AND a larger awareness of the maelstrom from which it momentarily emerges. A way into understanding this concept is by considering the activity of observing. If you look at a great painting through a magnifying glass you would only see the texture of its paint. Similarly, if you look at a newspaper photograph close-up, you would only see disconnected dots (Wilson, 2006). In both cases you are bringing to bear the inhibition of simple occurrences on your perception. In order to appreciate the totality of the painting, you have to stand back and take a more long-range view of it, one that works on quite different principles from the closeup view (Whitehead, 1978). By closely attending to the experience of perception, we come to realise that our most aboriginal experience of it is as a continuous advance of ‘actual entities’ arising, satisfying and perishing. Extending from Whitehead’s perspective this continuous advance, or universal becoming, should be at the heart of a process-oriented

The Event’s the Thing: Brief Encounters With the Leaderful Moment 17

approach to leadership. Accordingly we must refrain from a functionally driven concern with the psychology of an individual ‘leader’ or simply occurring ‘leaders’ and ‘followers’. To do so only reveals a clumsy imitation of leadership. Furthermore, we argue that there is a significant difference between the inhibiting presumption of locating leadership solely in leaders and followers and our actual experience of it. The former focuses on immediate function, the later on wider meaning and value. Grasping the full effect of leadership always involves both processes. The long-range appreciation requires at each moment perception of the immediate present. Correspondingly, the close-up view of the present requires a symbolic sense making of the past from which it has emerged and for the future towards which it advances. When the two modes blend together perfectly a wonderful sense of meaning and value emerges. On such occasions the two are not merely intersected they are ‘fused into one’ (Whitehead, 1978, p. 18). This fusion is what we are describing as the ‘leaderful moment’. Thus, the leaderful moment is a relational element that ‘gives itself’, or ‘comes to us’ as part of the continuity of our everyday engagement with the surrounding world. Its ‘actuality’ is always the participation with – not merely the gazing upon – of one occasion in another. In other words, a process view recognises that leadership is not the thing; rather the playing out of leadership is the thing. The idea of the leaderful moment constituting itself as an event always anew, evidences clear links between Whitehead’s and Deleuze’s philosophies. In Deleuze’s metaphysics the event is neither something that simply occurs, such as an organised social occasion or a concert, nor something that simply reveals familiar definitions (Williams, 2003). An event does not mean that ‘a man has been run over’ or ‘a storm is coming’. ‘The event is … always missed if it is thought of in terms of essential characteristics’ (Williams, 2003, p. 154). Instead, the event is precisely about the re-arrangement of familiar identities, characteristics and relations (Deleuze, 1994). In this way, the event refers to a discontinuity, a break, split or fracture. It is an unexpected, anomalous, phenomenon. It sticks out from the mundane and takes us by surprise. It appears impossible or unlikely from within established forms of knowledge or ways of thinking and expresses change, an opening of the future and the possibility of something new (Williams, 2003). 9/11 and the 2004 tsunami were events, not because they expressed some essential internal truths about clearly identifiable actual things, but because they both were ‘the first sign of mutation or the first sensation that something anomalous is significant’

18 Leadership Perspectives

(Williams, 2003, p. 154). So, it is the incarnation of a wider system of (virtual) connections between emerging radical groups, commercial airliners and New York City on the (actual) occasion of 9/11 that is the event. As too is the apparently familiar and natural occurrence of winds, currents, air and sea temperatures and tectonic shifts, which developed the unexpected intensity and destructive force that accompanied the actual event of the tsunami. Both were ‘hard to digest occurrences requiring shifts in our established forms of knowledge or ways of thinking’ (Williams, 2003, p. 154). In a way the actual sensation of an event is accompanied by a change in the relation between familiar standpoints, elements or groups. It is made up of the happenings ‘in-between’ the identifiable properties of things. Returning to the example of leadership, process philosophy suggests that our focus should likewise turn to the constitutive relations between varying and temporary occasions and our own sense making of them in order to perceive more of the totality of the leadership experience. We propose that doing so can provide a richer account of leadership and foster possibilities for more diverse and novel choices which otherwise remain hidden. That claim can only be tested from an empirical basis, and our attempt to begin that work is presented below.

Exploring leadership as process from an empirical perspective Over the last several years we have introduced ideas about leadership as process to students undertaking a Masters in Leadership Studies in a UK-based business school. Through their prompts, and our own curiosity, we began to wonder how these ideas might be explored empirically. In particular, we wondered how attentiveness to aspects of context which contribute to the ‘leaderful moment’ might be developed. Five practicing managers/organisational consultants who either had completed the Masters, or were undertaking it worked with us on the project. They agreed to carry cameras with them and photograph things, people, or moments they perceived as being inextricably linked with the experience of leadership, but which might usually go unnoticed. We hoped this activity would enable them to ‘catch’ the constitutive elements of the ‘leaderful moment’, thus heightening their awareness of these habitually ignored aspects. Using photography as a method to explore the perceptual worlds of individuals follows the work of Buchanan (2001), Warren (2002), Belova (2006) and Pink (2007) who are moving on from more traditional anthropologic settings to use cameras to inquire into organisational

The Event’s the Thing: Brief Encounters With the Leaderful Moment 19

contexts. In our study, photographic data collection took place over six months, after which we interviewed each person over the telephone, asking how he or she decided what constituted the background to leadership, and also, how undertaking this project affected his or her awareness of leadership processes. Interview transcripts were analysed and themes common to all five co-researchers identified. In the following section two mini ‘case studies’ are presented, before additional themes, which arose from the research, are discussed.

Gerry’s story (Gerry is a senior manager in an NHS Trust) Having been sent cameras and the course director’s best wishes, I felt obliged to clutch these, alongside the mobile phone and Blackberry, wherever I went on the work circuit. However, it was not long before my feelings of obligation turned into a fascinating exploration into the ‘world of the workers’. Knowing the task that I was to fulfill, it almost became an obsession. I found myself peering round corners into meeting rooms whilst preparations were occurring, and asking for permission to take photos. Three things immediately hit me: how willing people were for this to happen, how flattered they were that somebody was actually bothering to take the time to find out what they were doing, and how interested they were in the study that I was undertaking. Why did this surprise me? Because, on further discussion, I learned how rare it was for many of these people to have any human contact at all in relation to those tasks – they were briefed by e-mail, or telephone, if they were briefed at all. I heard stories of the completely unrealistic expectations that management had of these ‘backroom boys and girls’ as they called themselves. Somehow they were meant to telepathically understand how many teas/coffees/lunches would be required for a meeting, or to know that projector bulbs were just about to ‘blow’. Why couldn’t they be at the reception desk to welcome people, when they were also meant to be preparing those refreshments, and setting up the projector as well? After a while I realised I was not just taking photos, I was listening and learning and, I will admit, feeling acutely embarrassed at the behaviours I heard about. … Photographing people was one experience, but photographing scenes took me to another level. I had never actually taken the time

20 Leadership Perspectives

to just ‘be’ in a room that was prepared and waiting for a Board meeting. It was actually the last Board meeting of that particular organisation before the NHS restructures began in July 2006. All of the nameplates were set up, the gavel and the chairs arranged for their owners to take their places for the last time as that group. I took the photos and then just looked. How would the Chair feel today, at the last meeting? What would happen to those nameplates, and the gavel, all engraved and having absorbed the atmosphere of many such high level meetings in many different places? How many decisions had been made, eventually affecting millions of people, by those people whose names were on the plates in this Boardroom? Suddenly, I wasn’t just taking photos I was recording history. Sounds arrogant, I know, but it actually felt a very humbling experience. I wasn’t just working for the NHS, I, and my colleagues, were a part of a huge, valued, and much-loved institution and everything that we did on a daily basis, from the cleaning of the toilets to the decision about the preferred treatment, was made by people who were totally committed, and highly conscientious, about what they were doing.

Sandra’s story (Sandra is a senior civil servant in a Government department) Almost immediately, my camera became a conduit to pick up previously unnoticed ‘happenings’. Not so much the actual scenes presented for capture, but more the underlying connectedness and relations between people, the environment and the ‘moment’. I became drawn strongly to ‘disjoints’, where somehow the people/ actions/situations did not ‘fit’. These seemed increasingly to present themselves to me, whether this was because they were happening more or just that I was noticing them more (the latter I came to believe) was fascinating to me. It was like I’d discovered an alternative world at times. One disjoint I noticed particularly I termed the ‘closed’ team and the ‘open team’. I had just moved teams into a new section. A ‘cubicle’ set-up defines each desk within this section. When I asked why the desks had such barriers (I can hardly see my co-workers, maybe just the tops of their heads when sat down), the classic Civil Service response: ‘oh, we don’t know, it’s just always been like that’, was given. Later I attended a team meeting where people moaned that the atmosphere was ‘dry and not very creative …’ I suggested

The Event’s the Thing: Brief Encounters With the Leaderful Moment 21

that it might be a good idea to remove the cubicles as this could be one of the causes of this perception. I was told though ‘they are handy for displaying things like calendars’. I have instructed facilities to take down my cubicle! Another small but meaningful event I felt compelled to capture was of another physical extension of leadership behaviour, that of our micro-managing director. Opposite my desk is the ‘pigeon-hole’ for all incoming and outgoing post for the directorate. … I had noticed that each time our director passes the pigeon-hole he stops, picks up the pile of post and sorts what he can into each pigeon-hole. It’s fascinating that this man never stops to speak to people or do any other relational activity (as an example he says in the front cover of our business plan that he has an ‘open door’ policy but in reality you need to book an appointment via his PA if you want to see him) but he stops what he is doing to spend a few minutes sorting through the post each day. I have not managed to capture this covertly on film yet (and have wondered why I feel I cannot ask to take a picture … or ask him why he does this task). There is one example though where the not-taking-a-photo became more interesting than if I had taken a photo. Each time I have been to the ‘top floor’ where the Secretary of State and Minister’s offices are, I have always been struck by the comparison between the ‘chaos’ and hive of activity in the outer offices (where all the assistants, press office and researchers live) and the ‘leaders’ offices themselves – a veritable ‘oasis of calm’, with not a piece of paper to ruin the eye-line between the potted plant and the picture on the wall. I was interested in this juxtaposition of power and wondered where the real ‘leadership’ takes place i.e. does leadership get decided, prioritised and presented in some prior way before it even reaches the minister? I asked whether it would be possible to take contrasting photos of both the outer office then the ‘inner sanctum’ and initially was told yes ‘but not when the Minister was in’. I was told that I would be telephoned when it was convenient to go up to take the photos. About three days later I was told that I would not now be able to take the photos as it was considered a ‘security risk should the photos get out’. … This in itself was more fascinating than ‘being allowed’ to take the photo and I have enjoyed pondering on this since in terms of leaderful expression. Reflecting back on this exercise, I found that although the photos only captured, literally, a ‘snapshot’ of an event or person, I could

22 Leadership Perspectives

use these to access memory and feelings from the more ‘scenariobased’, cultural undercurrent events I was drawn to (events that could not usually be defined in a photographic sense). By using the ‘eyes of a photographer’ I believe I started to see things in a different way, perhaps in a different focus (excuse the pun) than I had previously. It certainly helped me re-access the moment in a more meaningful way at a later date than if I had recorded it in a more traditional manner i.e. field notes.

‘The leaderful moment’: an empirical view Three key themes arose from Gerry’s and Sandra’s full accounts and were echoed in interviews with their colleagues: 1. How photographing de-centered a preoccupation with ‘the leader’; 2. How limitations of the photographic method highlighted further process aspects of leadership; 3. How engaging in the project affected collaborators’ perception of leadership.

1. How photographing de-centered the preoccupation with the leader Most of our research collaborators reported that by paying attention to the ‘surrounds’ of leadership, the actions of the leader no longer held central position in their appreciation of how leadership happens. They spoke of being able to recognise how relationships, symbolic elements of culture, and even inanimate entities such as rooms, chairs or tables, contribute to the actual experience of leadership. This enabled a wider field of vision from which to draw data and make judgements about what was going on. JR, for example, spoke of how the experience encouraged him to look backwards from the final ‘event’ of leadership in order to discover what contributed to it from a broader perspective. Sandra spoke of how she noticed the ‘disconnects’ and ‘disjoints’ in a more pronounced way. For instance, she noticed how the head of her department regularly ‘sorted the mail’, not the kind of thing she would normally expect to see her boss doing. Similarly, Gerry took a picture of a highly paid consultant doing her own photocopying. Gerry noted the irony of this organisational leader undertaking such a relatively menial task (and apparently, as she took the photo both she and the consultant remarked on how that particular photocopying was the most expensive the Trust would have done that day). That these disconnects

The Event’s the Thing: Brief Encounters With the Leaderful Moment 23

and disjoints were noticed demonstrates clearly the importance both of Deleuze’s (1994) rendering of the event as something that takes us by surprise and of Whitehead’s (1978) two-way process of perception: the close up view of experience, which is straightforwardly what is in front of us and the more difficult, long-range view, which displays a sense of the past from which these events have emerged and for the future towards which they travel. As we have argued already, Whitehead (1978) criticises the simple occurrence of ‘things’ as they appear to be at any given moment as, for example, with someone sorting the mail or doing their own photocopying. These moments are also imbued with meaning: our vivid apprehension of the relevance of the immediate present to the past and to the future. In the current example, these moments are events precisely because they do not show the simple occurrence of a familiar continuity. By contrast, they refer to an anomalous occurrence, in other words to a discontinuity. The fact that it is the head of the department sorting the mail, or a highly paid consultant doing her own photocopying makes these occurrences stick out from the mundane and the regular. They express an opening of established ways of thinking and offer the possibility of something new, for example: perhaps heads of departments can/should do ‘relational activity’ and highly paid consultants can/should appreciate ‘backroom’ work. These ‘disconnects’ and ‘discontinuities’ draw our attention to the wonderful sense of (in this case ironic) meaning when the two modes of experience – the immediate perception and its longer-term conception – don’t blend together perfectly. Collaborators also spoke of how taking photographs made them aware of ‘absences’, as well as ‘presences within the camera frame’. For instance, in the extract from her story, Gerry writes, ‘I took the photograph and then just looked’. She then writes about how her imagination took her to the future meeting, as well as to past meetings – somehow making her aware of the bigger process of organisational interactions of which the present moment was one part. In this way, her participation in the absent presence of what was (not) there enabled understanding of leadership as a transitive moment in the movement of the world whose ongoing processes are often imperceptible. In other words, the leaderful moment is done and undone with our apprehension of leadership as the process itself: it is grasped as a continuous creative process of becoming, movement, flows, stimulation and connections, rather than from a series of stable instances. As discussed below, this is not our accustomed way of looking.

24 Leadership Perspectives

2. How limitations of the photographic method highlighted further process aspects of leadership In the interviews, our collaborators each spoke of how the pictures could not ‘tell the whole story’ they were trying to depict. Rather, each photograph needed interpretation in order for its significance to be conveyed. Much of this was on account of the relational, or the symbolic aspects of photographs which could not be deciphered by someone outside of the represented context. For instance, GF took photos of his driver and his personal assistant, two people who enable him to carry out his role in the Royal Air Force. He reported how doing this project made him notice more fully the impact these people had on what he was able to achieve. For instance, he reflected that his PA’s ability to put visitors at ease facilitated his chances of conducting business with them in a generative manner. The fact that interpretation is needed highlights the process reality of leaderful activity. It cannot be captured in a ‘still’ moment, because it is always part of a larger context. JR expressed this when he reported, ‘a drawback (of taking photos) is that you cannot capture the actual image – that is to say, you cannot capture the processes before/after the image.’ He went on to note how the impossibility of capturing the ‘actual image’ made apparent the nature of the leaderful moment as a culmination of a myriad of both visible and invisible factors. Sandra similarly spoke of the difficulties of ‘catching the moment’ inherent in using photography, but went on to suggest that even so, the photographs served as a way of prompting a memory of something, and thereby making it discussable. A third limitation of using photographs to convey the process of leadership was offered by Gerry, who noted ‘although the photos are good, they don’t capture “the buzz”, the sounds and the tension that were part of the ‘pre-meeting atmosphere’. These sensual aspects of aural and kinaesthetic impact also, she felt, contributed to the overall leadership process. For instance, one particular photograph she took depicts two men in suits standing and speaking with one another. At close inspection, one might be able to discern that one man is rather tense, and the other is more coolly responsive. In fact, as Gerry explained, the ‘cooler’ man is assuring the more fraught ‘leader’ that indeed everything needed for his presentation is in place. Key to understanding the significance of their exchange, Gerry explained, is all the noise and seeming confusion that was occurring in the background. What she wanted to convey through the photo, was that although a few minutes later, the ‘fraught’ leader would be making a

The Event’s the Thing: Brief Encounters With the Leaderful Moment 25

clear, calm and polished presentation, his performance was only possible because of the previous minutes’ frenetic activity. The role that activity played in creating that particular leaderful moment would otherwise have gone unnoticed, were it not for her attempt to capture at least its visual manifestation.

3. How engaging in the project affected collaborators’ perception of leadership One of our key purposes in undertaking this research was to discover the impact of noticing these habitually unseen process elements on those who did so. A limitation of this research for making claims about the impact of this kind of noticing is that our collaborators were already ‘sensitised’, through their involvement in a Masters in Leadership Studies, to considering leadership as a processual phenomenon. However, their comments of how undertaking this work affected them are still worthy of review. In her story, Gerry writes of how the project fostered an appreciation of the wider network of relationships, structures and history that come together to enable her to perform her job within the NHS. She writes that she had the experience of ‘recording history’, implying her recognition of the temporal context that helps shape and define perceptions and interpretations. GJ similarly spoke about how the experience affected his experience of time itself, commenting: Like Paul McKenna working with F1 drivers using hypnosis to slow time down – (doing this gave me the) time to notice the background, more time to see ‘connections’. Sandra also mentioned this affect, suggesting that taking the photos had enabled her to be more ‘sensitised and open to connections and relationships’ and further, that it had ‘switched on a way of looking more questioningly at things she’d previously taken for granted.’ She continues: Reflecting back on this exercise, I found that although the photos only captured, literally, a ‘snapshot’ of an event or person, I could use these to access memory and feelings from the more ‘scenariobased’, cultural undercurrent events I was drawn to. Using photography as a research method enabled our co-researchers literally to be aware of their framing of reality, as well as forcefully bringing

26 Leadership Perspectives

home the fact that: ‘we never look just at one thing; we are always looking at the relation between things and ourselves’ (Berger, 1972 cited in Belova, 2006, p. 93, original emphasis). Hence, according to Warren (2002, p. 235), the potential role and utility of photographs taken by respondents as a method of collecting data about their own framing of leadership behaviour lies in ‘stimulating social interaction’. Photography may reveal as much about the life-world of the photographer as it does about what is photographed. In other words the relation between photographer and photographed comes to the front. This new perspective was not entirely comfortable, however, as GJ noted. He spoke of how he couldn’t continually notice all of the interrelations and connections in order to be able to perform his work as a consultant. He commented: The difficulty is you need to put the ‘blur’ of connections back in the background. You need to get back to things, but things are products of connections. Also not everything goes back the same way, once you have seen them as a product of connections. Things just don’t ‘snap back’ to the way they were before you perceived them in this way.

Whither the ‘leaderful moment?’ One of the apparent contradictions within the project undertaken here is between proposing the view of leadership as a continuous, ‘perpetual arising and perishing’ and exploring this notion by inviting coresearchers to ‘capture’ constitutive elements of that process by taking a series of snapshots, each representing a fixed attitude. Doing so, it would seem could serve to emphasise the ‘cinematographical character’ of our intellect (Bergson, 1983), which, although useful for the apprehension of life, is a ‘counterfeit of real movement’ and a ‘distortion’ of the actual world (Bergson, 1999, p. 44). Using photographs to portray a living picture might persuade us that leadership can be captured by a series of instantaneous views, rather than help make the point that leadership is ‘uncatchable’ when seen, statically or centred in an individual person, from without. In response to this contrivance our follow-up interviews suggested the cameras served as a mechanism whereby the photographers became more aware of the peripheral, often neglected aspects of leadership. The photographs themselves do not purport to be capturing leadership, in fact, without their informing stories they are rather mundane

The Event’s the Thing: Brief Encounters With the Leaderful Moment 27

and unremarkable. However, being invited to attend to and take photos of normally ignored aspects of leadership encouraged our co-researchers to place themselves within the actual moment and to notice their worlds in different ways. This allows a grasp of the inner becoming of leadership, and seems to have heightened their awareness of the larger canvas of potentials from which the leaderful moment arises. A question following on from this observation concerns the extent to which this attentiveness might enable individuals to exercise more effective choices within their roles as organisational managers and leaders. In the last quote of the preceding section GJ speaks of the difficulties associated with seeing the world ‘differently’ as a result of undertaking the project, and how the pieces ‘don’t fit so easily back in the same place anymore’. Does this reconfiguration lead to greater effectiveness, or could it result in paralysing confusion? How might theorising leadership as process, as well as empirically experimenting with it as process, contribute to leadership development? Is photography particularly helpful in encouraging reflexivity on the part of practitioners? Are there other modes of representation, such as video or journaling, which might yield further insights? These questions provide rich areas for further study. With this project, however, we have begun a process of trying to gain leverage on how to explore the idea of ‘the leaderful moment’ empirically. In doing so, we hope to foster a greater appreciation of those often faceless others, as well as the bundle or collection of different stories, symbols and circumstances without which the leaderful moment could not come into distinct, if only fleeting view.

References R. Barker, ‘The nature of leadership’, Human Relations, 54(4) (2001) 469–94. O. Belova, ‘The event of seeing: A phenomenological perspective on visual sense-making’, Culture and Organization, 12(2) (2006) 93–107. H. Bergson, Creative Evolution, Trans. A. Mitchell (New York: Henry Holt, 1983). H. Bergson, An Introduction to Metaphysics (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing, 1999). A. Bryman, Leadership in Organisations (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1986). D. Buchanan, ‘The role of photography in organization research: A re-engineering case illustration’, Journal of Management Inquiry, 10(2) (2001) 151–64. D.L. Collinson, ‘Dialectics of leadership’, Human Relations, 58(11) (2005) 1419–42. F. Dansereau, ‘A dyadic approach to leadership: creating and nurturing this approach under fire’, Leadership Quarterly, 6(4) (1995) 479–90. G. Deleuze, Difference and Repetition (London: Athlone Press, 1994).

28 Leadership Perspectives G.T. Fairhurst, ‘Reframing the art of framing: problems and prospects for leadership’, Leadership, 1(2) (2005) 165–85. G.B. Graen and T.A Scandura, ‘Toward a psychology of dyadic organising’, Research in Organisational Behaviour, 9 (1987) 175–205. K. Grint, Leadership: Limits and Possibilities (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005). P. Gronn, ‘Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis’, Leadership Quarterly, 13 (2002) 423–51. D.M. Hosking, ‘Organizing, leadership and skilful process’, Journal of Management Studies, 25(2) (1988) 147–66. N. Koivunen, ‘The processual nature of leadership discourses’, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 23(3) (2007) in press. C.L. Pearce and J.A. Conger, ‘A landscape of opportunities: future research on shared leadership’, in C.L. Pearce and J.A. Conger (eds) Shared Leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership (Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2003). S. Pink, Doing Visual Ethnography (London: Sage, 2007). J. Shotter, ‘“Inside the moment of managing”: Wittgenstein and the everyday dynamics of our expressive-responsive activities’, Organization Studies, 26(1) (2005) 113–35. S. Warren, ‘“Show me how it feels to work here”: Using photography to research organisational aesthetics’, Ephemera, 2(3) (2002) 224–45. A. Whitehead, Process and Reality, D.R. Griffiths and D.W. Sherburne (eds) (New York: Free Press, 1978). J. Williams, Gilles Deleuze’s Difference and Repetition: A Critical Introduction and Guide (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2003). C. Wilson, ‘Phenomenology as a mystical discipline’, Philosophy Now, 56, July/ August (2006) 15–19. M. Wood, ‘The fallacy of misplaced leadership’, Journal of Management Studies, 42(6) (2005) 1101–21.

3 Leadership, Spirituality and Complexity: Wilberforce and the Abolition of the Slave Trade Peter Simpson and Clifford Hill

Spirituality in the workplace and theories of complexity are two emerging fields of research that are making an important contribution to the study of leadership practice. In this chapter we take the opportunity of the bicentenary of the abolition of the slave trade in the former British Empire to reflect on related ideas from these fields and apply them to a study of leadership in this movement. Our focus is the influence in Georgian society of William Wilberforce and the ‘Clapham Group’ from 1789 until the passing of the Slave Trade Act in 1807. This case study is chosen because of the extensive literature that details both the overt role of spirituality in the practice of this group and the issues of complexity in this social and political campaign. In contrast to studies of Wilberforce that focus on his character as a leader (Guinness, 1999), this study of leadership and spirituality suggests an interpretation of transformational change as a complex process that is best understood as emergent rather than led (Stacey, 2003). From this perspective leadership is just one form of participation that is an important, but not determining, component of change as a process of self-organisation. This perspective has some links with the post-heroic models of leadership (Heifetz and Laurie, 1997; Badaracco, 2002), with an emphasis upon leadership as a shared, relational practice. However, because of the centrality of power relating in Stacey’s theory of complex responsive processes, the analysis is less benign than much of this literature (see Fletcher, 2004, for a helpful critique). We begin by describing the involvement of Wilberforce and the Clapham Group in the abolition movement. This is followed by a brief outline of Stacey’s theory of complex responsive processes, and 29

30 Leadership Perspectives

key themes from the growing body of literature on spirituality and leadership. Stacey’s theory draws our attention to narrative themes and a focus on conversation rather than on the character and behaviour of particular individuals. Two sets of narrative theme are identified that are common to the leadership and spirituality literatures: (i) values and beliefs, and (ii) community, connection and integration. Whilst a fundamental implication of Stacey’s theory is that the emergence of change cannot be understood as arising from the planned intentions of individuals, the theory does suggest that attention to certain factors by leaders may contribute to the potential for change to emerge. We will discuss three of these, the quality of conversation, participation, and diversity, in relation to leadership and spirituality in the practice of Wilberforce and the Clapham Group. We conclude with a review of the implications for the practice of modern day leaders.

Wilberforce and the Clapham group Wilberforce was born in 1759 to a wealthy family at a time when Great Britain was plagued by significant social problems. Friends with the rich and powerful, he entered parliament in 1780. However, a major transformation occurred in his life in the mid-1780s when he converted to evangelical Christianity. This led directly to his involvement in the abolition movement (Hill, 2004). Wilberforce came from the same privileged ruling classes who later in parliament opposed his arguments for abolition, many of whom had gained their wealth from the slave trade. Furneaux suggests that he had ‘lived a life of pleasure for which his wealth, gaiety and charm made him perfectly equipped’ (1974, p. 11). After graduating he spent £8,000, a small fortune, purchasing his seat as MP for Hull – a common practice of that period. At this time the evangelical movement was having a growing impact in the upper middle classes, as well as in wider society through preachers like Wesley and White. In October 1784 Wilberforce travelled by carriage around Europe with the clergyman Isaac Milner, an old friend. On this trip, just before they left Nice on the 5th February 1785 they decided to read and adopt as a theme for their conversation Doddridge’s Rise and Progress of Religion. Wilberforce later recorded in his diaries that these conversations with Milner had an unsettling effect upon him until: On October 25 [1785] he wrote: ‘[I] began three or four days ago to get up very early. In the solitude and self-conversation of the

Leadership, Spirituality and Complexity 31

morning [I] had thoughts, which I trust will come to something.’ In these times of serious reflection, ‘the deep guilt and black ingratitude of my past life forced itself upon me in the strongest colours, and I condemned myself for having wasted my precious time, and opportunities, and talents’ (Belmonte, 2002, p. 83). His popularity as a witty and engaging guest at the ‘best’ parties was replaced by a concern at his increasing melancholia. He met with John Newton, the ex-slave trader and writer of the hymn, Amazing Grace, who had converted to Christianity and became a clergyman. Under Newton’s influence Wilberforce committed to ‘real Christianity’. Newton encouraged him to foster his relationships with the Thornton family, evangelical Christians whom Wilberforce had known for many years. Following his conversion, through participation in a number of evangelical networks, Wilberforce was drawn in to the abolitionist campaign. One network of social-minded evangelicals would meet at Barham Court in Teston, the home of Sir Charles and Lady Margaret Middleton. The Middleton’s asked Wilberforce to lead the movement for abolition in Parliament. It was a year later, in 1787, at dinner with Thomas Clarkson and some other friends, that Wilberforce first went public with his intention to accept the Middleton’s proposition. He subsequently spoke with Prime Minister Pitt, who was supportive. Taking a public lead in the House clearly played to Wilberforce’s strength as an orator as well as his ability to mobilise support from his powerful friends. In the preceding years Thomas Clarkson had been busy amassing evidence of the slave trade so that any motion in Parliament might carry the weight of the brutal facts of the trade, as well as an accurate assessment of its economic significance. He had visited the ports, spoken to slave traders and gained detailed information on the conditions in which slaves were transported and the manner of their treatment. Travelling throughout the country he befriended the editors of local newspapers, converted them to the Abolitionist cause, and founded new branches of the Abolitionist society. Eventually he had acquired a mass of evidence, including the names and histories of 20,000 seamen (Clarkson, 1808). Clarkson worked with Wilberforce to prepare his first parliamentary speech on abolition in 1789. Belmonte (2002) suggests Wilberforce’s speech had a powerful impact on the House. Burke stated that the speech ‘equalled anything he had heard in modern

32 Leadership Perspectives

times…’ Pitt later said, ‘Of all the men I knew Wilberforce has the greatest natural eloquence’ (p. 112). Wilberforce’s leadership role as a hub for conversation was clear to his close friend and MP for Southwark, Henry Thornton, who encouraged a number of influential professionals to form ‘a colony of Saints at Clapham’. Furneaux (1974) argues that Thornton had a deliberate strategy for promoting the influence of evangelical Christianity in society through this group, and Wilberforce had a particular role: On the whole I am in hopes some good may come out of our Clapham system, Mr Wilberforce is a candle that should not be hid under a bushel. The influence of his conversation is great and striking (p. 117). Throughout the abolitionist campaign Wilberforce was the parliamentary figurehead for a large and organised movement. Whilst a number of early parliamentary motions for abolition were to be defeated, the work of the Clapham Group finally culminated in the abolition of the trade in 1807. The participation of James Stephen, a maritime lawyer and member of the Clapham Group, proved decisive when he developed a brilliant legislative strategy that successfully outflanked the parliamentary opponents of abolition.

Leadership and complex responsive processes The previous section outlined how Wilberforce came to occupy a position of leadership in the abolitionist movement. It also sought to locate his role and activity within a wider network of relationships, most notably through his conversion to evangelical Christianity. Stacey’s (2003) theory of complex responsive processes offers an explanation of the emergence of social transformation in the ‘micro processes’ of such relationships: Instead of macro processes (systems) of participation and reification, the theory of complex responsive processes is one micro process (one social act) of gesture-response in which meaning emerges. This micro process is at one and the same time communicative interaction and power relating (p. 355). It will be argued that the leadership of Wilberforce and others within the Clapham Group may be understood as aspects of a complex, emer-

Leadership, Spirituality and Complexity 33

gent social process. Our focus here will be on the role of evangelical spirituality in fostering a number of significant conversational themes, contributing to the emergence of an influential social movement. However, it should be noted that this focus does not suggest that the success of the abolitionist movement was achieved solely through those with an evangelical spirituality; in fact, quite the contrary. Different political groupings within parliament were compelled to cooperate in order to achieve the abolition of the slave trade. Stacey emphasises the importance of such diversity. Unlike approaches to complexity that employ systems thinking (Styhre, 2002; Fairholm, 2004), the individual is not the prime agent of emergent change in the theory of complex responsive processes. Narrative themes, not individuals, are the basis of emergent self-organisation, for it is not people but … themes organising conversations, communication and power relations. What is organising itself, therefore, is not individuals but the pattern of their relationships in communicational and power terms … (2003, p. 332). Stacey continues: … conversational processes are organising the experience of the group of people conversing and from them, there is continually emerging the very minds of the individual participants at the same time as group phenomena of culture and ideology are emerging (2003, p. 350). In seeking to understand the leadership of Wilberforce and the other members of the Clapham Group, Stacey’s theory draws our attention away from the individuals and puts our focus upon the conversational processes, the culture and, in this situation, the ideology of evangelical spirituality. However, more than this, the conversational processes of parliament, professional business, and wider social movements need also to be considered. It is in the interplay of all of these that we see a challenge to accepted values and beliefs emerging, and as a consequence a fresh and contemporary ideology coming to have an influence at all levels in society. Stacey suggests that it is necessary to give attention to the process of conversation, to its free flowing or repetitive character, and to the identification of themes. In the interplay of responsive processes, in

34 Leadership Perspectives

which themes become significant, interact with other themes, and change form, it is possible to understand organisation as a pattern of interdependence, in which power relations form and develop. These self-organising processes of communicating enact webs of power relations, which, depending upon the quality of various factors such as the quality of participation and the presence of diversity, will lead either to novel forms of organising, in free flowing conversation, or to stability, in stuck or repetitive conversation. The theory of complex responsive processes suggests an understanding of leadership as a theme in an emerging pattern of relating. The significance of positional leaders does not necessarily diminish, but power relations are understood differently. In particular, this view recognises that these individuals are not ‘in control’ and cannot present a blueprint for an innovative future (Stacey, 2003, p. 334). A process understanding of the role of positional leaders in conversations, and the importance of listening, is beautifully summarised by Chester Barnard in his now classic treatise on the Functions of the Executive: Many things a leader tells others to do were suggested to him by the very people he leads … this sometimes gives the impression that he is a rather stupid fellow … In a measure this is correct. He has to be stupid enough to listen a great deal … and he has at times to be a mere centre of communication (1948, p. 93).

Leadership and spirituality It has been suggested that our understanding of leadership in the abolition movement can be enhanced through an appreciation of the theory of complex responsive processes. It has also been argued that evangelical spirituality played a role in this movement, involving Wilberforce and the Clapham Group. We now turn our attention to the growing body of literature that is shedding light on our understanding of leadership and spirituality. This literature identifies a number of the narrative themes that help us to understand the complex responsive processes at play in the emergence of the abolition movement. Mirvis (1997), in his classic paper on ‘Soul Work’ in organisations, touches on many of the themes that are of importance in our discussion, not least with his emphasis on issues of conversation within communities. In making connections between leadership and spirituality he also draws attention to the importance of ‘leading from within’

Leadership, Spirituality and Complexity 35

(p. 198), which arises from finding a sense of meaning that has a mobilising effect upon the individual. We see an example of this in Wilberforce’s conversion experience, with his diary account recording the ‘inner conversations’ and the personal transformation that took place over the period 1784–86. A number of authors have suggested possible links between spirituality and organisational leadership (Fairholm, 1996; Strack et al., 2002). In one form or another, the link between spirituality and leadership is to be found in the experience of a deeper meaning in life. This is referred to in many different ways, but appears to have the common characteristic of something important engaging the self, which constitutes a spiritual transformation, and this in turn engaging others, which is the basis of leadership. Values are at the centre of Vaill’s (1998) conception of spirituality and form the basis of the connectedness between organisational members, including between leaders and followers. He argues that where others experience the leader’s values as able to stand up to scrutiny, then there is the potential for a deeper level of connection. These ideas are further developed in the literature on values-based leadership (Shamir et al., 1993; Bass and Avolio, 1994; Fry, 2003). Bennis and Nanus (1997) suggest that the ability to engage others is a function of ‘trust, integrity and positioning’ (p. 174), which combines core themes in the values-based leadership literature with Barnard’s notion of leaders as occupying a position at the ‘centre of communication’. In relation to issues of participation and diversity that will be discussed in more detail in the following section, there is an important debate in the current literature on spirituality and leadership concerning the relationship between religion and spirituality (Bell and Taylor, 2004). Some seek to distinguish between, indeed to separate, the two. Steingard (2005) argues for focusing on spirituality rather than religion in organisations ‘because we are far from realising any consensual religion in the so-called everyday life of the workplace’ (p. 228). In the Clapham Group we see religion and spirituality as strongly interdependent. This was sometimes overt in the way Wilberforce took up his leadership role in Parliament. For example, in his first major speech on the slave trade, on May 12, 1789, he spoke for three hours calling for the abolition, making his Christian beliefs and values a strong element in his argument that the trade was murderous and inhumane (Belmonte, 2002, p. 112). From the perspective of complex responsive processes, this interplay of religion and spirituality in leadership is both significant and

36 Leadership Perspectives

problematic. It is significant in the sense that the values and beliefs embodied in evangelical Christianity form the substance of the ‘deeper meaning’ for Wilberforce and for the wider conversations that the spread of this religion was having throughout Georgian society at this time. These are the conversational themes that, through complex responsive processes, contributed to the social transformation that has been described. Wilberforce was able to ‘lead from within’ because of his religious and spiritual conversion. These conversational themes engaged others for whom the expressed values also resonated, not only within parliament but throughout the country and beyond. This combination of religion and spirituality is problematic to the extent that religious language can be excluding and even offensive. It has the capacity to inhibit conversation as much as to facilitate it. Stacey argues that high quality conversation is essential for emergent change. This negative consequence of religion that Steingard identifies led directly to the fact that Wilberforce was unpopular with many in parliament. However, whilst clearly a source of some conflict, this case study of the abolition movement suggests that it is not always possible to separate religion and spirituality, even if some might prefer to. It is our contention that it is more important to give attention to high quality conversation and participation in the presence of a diversity of values and beliefs, including religious ideology. This is addressed in detail below where we discuss how the abolition movement ultimately managed to transcend religious rivalries.

Quality of conversation and participation The theory of complex responses processes suggests that the spiritual transformation in Wilberforce was essentially the same as the social transformation that was occurring within Georgian society. However, when considering transformation in an individual mind, the pattern of inner conversations must be considered. This is significant for our consideration of spirituality and leadership, because most forms of spirituality have developed some very specific forms of ‘inner conversation’, such as prayer, meditation and study. Stacey suggests that Mind is silent conversation, that action of a body directed to itself, which is private meaning, or consciousness. The silent conversation

Leadership, Spirituality and Complexity 37

is the same process as the conversation of gestures between bodies and in this sense mind is always a social phenomenon (p. 322). This is in keeping with Driver’s (2005, p. 1096) psychoanalytically informed view of the self: ‘that we construct our selves and our identities in discourse …’ Stacey elaborates: … power, ideology and emotion [are] at the centre of social relationships and therefore at the centre of conversation. All of these factors will, thus, characterise the silent conversations individuals have with themselves. Minds too will be taken up with power relationships, ideological and emotional interchanges of a body with itself, some of which will be the voices of group opinion (p. 326). Wilberforce’s two year struggle as he converted to evangelical Christianity may be better understood with an appreciation of this emotional mix of evolving power relations and shifting ideology. This was not an idle assent to a new set of values and beliefs, but a more profound re-orientation of his understanding of himself. This was the basis of Wilberforce’s leadership, ‘leading from within’ (Mirvis, 1997) with the capacity to connect deeply with others through being in touch with the deeper parts of himself (Vaill, 1998, p. 219). However, Wilberforce’s leadership, like the followership of those he led, is understood from the perspective of the theory of complex responsive processes as merely a part of a larger process. For our purposes, Wilberforce’s leadership is merely an expression, not the source, of an ongoing and emergent conversation. Wilberforce’s leadership as participation in a wider process is made clear by tracing the genesis of the abolitionist movement. Wilberforce took up the challenge in 1787, more than 100 years after the twin issues of the slave trade and slavery were raised at a meeting of German Quakers across the Atlantic in Germantown, Pennsylvania. Quaker friends were persistently advised to avoid the trade, until in 1774 a ‘decree of expulsion from the Society was passed on any Friend who should persist in concerning himself with the Trade. At the same time, manumission of existing slaves was recommended to all Friends and in 1776 it was made compulsory’ (Coupland, 1923, p. 76). This graphically describes for the Quaker community the ‘pattern of their relationships in communicational and power terms …’ (Stacey, 2003, p. 332). In Great Britain there were a number of lone voices speaking out in the late 17th century, including an Anglican clergyman named Godwyn,

38 Leadership Perspectives

and Baxter, a well-known non-conformist. However, it was again the Quakers who mobilised an organised movement against the trade in 1724. In 1761, like their Pennsylvanian counterparts, they passed a resolution to disown all friends who continued to participate in the trade. Over this period the Wesleyans followed the Quakers’ lead, with first Whitefield hinting that the slave trade was anti-Christian (1739); then John Wesley, in 1774, published Thoughts Upon Slavery (Coupland, 1923, p. 79). The values and beliefs of Quaker and evangelical Christian spirituality were increasingly mobilised to support the abolition movement, and the extent to which one was able or not to remain a part of these communities became an increasingly prevalent theme. Over this period the same theme is evident in the popular literature of the time. Basker (2002) collected 400 poems from more than 250 different poets, arguing that ‘poets were the most outspoken and persistent critics of slavery, and fostered massive changes in public perception and attitude.’ (p. xlvii). This is not a view merely promoted some two centuries later: both Thomas Clarkson (1808), a leader of the abolitionists, friend of Wilberforce and member of the Clapham Group, and Henri Grégoire (1808/1996) argued that writers played a central role in the demise of the slave trade and slavery.

Quality of diversity An understanding of the wide range of participation in the abolitionist movement also allows us to appreciate the diversity that existed in this movement. Stacey argues that diversity is essential for the emergence of novelty and change. We will consider the quality of diversity in two areas: firstly in the range of individuals, from differing professions, who shared Wilberforce’s evangelical spirituality, and worked actively within him against the slave trade; and, secondly, those other groupings who shared the ambition to abolish the trade, but held radically different, sometimes even opposing, beliefs and practices. Firstly, those who worked closely with Wilberforce in the fight against the slave trade included a large number of evangelical Christians. Some of those closest to him lived on Clapham Common, and are referred to as the Clapham Community. The ‘Clapham Group’ was a wider network spread throughout the country. They possessed a wide range of skills, professions and abilities, including lawyers, academics, educators, writers, clergy, merchant bankers, researchers and politicians. As we have seen the participation of this diverse range of individuals provided the basis for extensive and creative engagement with the

Leadership, Spirituality and Complexity 39

abolitionist cause. There was a third grouping in parliament, known a little disparagingly as ‘the Saints’, comprising 29 evangelical MPs who voted with Wilberforce on a number of key issues. These three groupings participated in a range of political, religious, and social movements, with connections to hubs of influence throughout the country and the wider empire. Secondly, ‘the Saints’ in parliament collaborated with parliamentary groups who had philosophies very different to their own, including the Whigs and Dissenters. This tolerance of diversity made them possibly the first in British parliamentary history to identify and use ‘cobelligerents’ to achieve their objectives. In the period of nearly two decades in which Wilberforce and the Clapham Group worked to bring about legislative change to abolish the slave trade there was extreme diversity of opinion and argument. The extreme positions represented both within parliament and within society as a whole were held by the abolitionists on the one hand and significant sections of the ruling classes on the other. The wealth of the latter had been and continued to be generated directly or indirectly through the slave trade. Importantly, the participation and support of those who were at neither extreme was of critical importance in the success of either side. Perhaps more than most organisations, this battle for change would come down, ultimately, to a vote. In this context it is interesting to observe the creativity that emerged in the actions of both sides as they sought to shift opinion in their favour. For example, in 1796 Wilberforce proposed the motion for abolition again. The first and second readings were both passed. On its third reading, however, it was defeated by 74 to 70. Wilberforce recorded in his diary: Ten or 12 of those who had supported me were absent in the country, or on pleasure. Enough [were] at the Opera to have carried it … His opponents, never ones to miss an opportunity, had given free opera tickets to some whom they knew would support his abolition bill (Belmonte, 2002, p. 134). It is a telling example of the nature of complex responsive processes that, ultimately, the abolition of the slave trade may have been delayed for over ten years by the micro process of the giving and receiving of a few opera tickets. Finally, after Pitt’s untimely death in 1806, at the age of 47, Wilberforce found himself working with Grenville, for whom he had some

40 Leadership Perspectives

dislike, and Fox, leader of the opposition. Perversely, it was a motion set before parliament by Grenville that was ultimately passed and in working with an old enemy Wilberforce finally saw the fruit of nearly 20 years work: The night of February 23, 1807 was unforgettable… The evening reached its climax when Solicitor-Captain Sir Samuel Romilly came to the closing remarks of his deeply moving speech. Romilly [stated that Wilberforce would be] … able to lie down in peace because he had ‘preserved so many millions of his fellow creatures.’ The House of Commons rose to its feet, turned to Wilberforce and began to cheer. They gave three rousing hurrahs whilst Wilberforce sat with his head bowed and wept. Then at four a.m., the Commons voted to abolish the slave trade by an overwhelming majority, 283 to 16 (Belmonte, 2002, p. 148). Whilst Wilberforce and the Clapham Group were overt about the religion that underpinned their own spirituality, they also worked actively with those of other beliefs (religious and secular) who shared a commitment to act, as Vaill suggests, ‘on values that transcend the sheer material conditions and events of the world’ (1998, p. 219).

Implications for leaders today This paper has explored the contribution that can be made to understanding leadership in an emerging social and political movement through the lenses of complex responsive processes and spirituality. Many of the insights derived from this study, from two centuries ago, are as relevant now as they were at the time. Implicit in Stacey’s theory is the importance of conversational processes that comprise a high quality of listening. We see this not only in a preparedness to listen to others and the themes that emerge in public conversation, but also in a preparedness to listen in the private conversations of the leader’s mind. Wilberforce was transformed by his inner conversations, and this transformation was important in his ability to play a role in an emerging social movement. This highlights the developmental potential for leaders of forms of meditative or reflective practice (see, for example, Jaworski, 1998) and the development of greater levels of self-awareness. Stacey refers to this development of self-awareness as ‘paying more attention to the quality of your own experience of relating and managing in relationship with others’ (2003, p. 422).

Leadership, Spirituality and Complexity 41

This is not necessarily a simple or pleasant process. There is a challenge to leaders to be prepared to serve (Greenleaf, 1977) and to pay a price in the struggle required to engage in the complex power relations that emerge and unfold. The two years of struggle in Wilberforce’s spiritual conversion were followed by participation in two decades of struggle in the cause of abolition. Similar modern day leadership exemplars include Ghandi and Mandela (Mandela, 1994; Nair, 1997). Underpinning the theory of complex responsive processes is an awareness of the essential connectedness of human beings. The literature on workplace spirituality identifies this as the basis of a value set that challenges self-centred behaviours, particularly in the exercise of power. Wilberforce and the Clapham Group sought to acknowledge their connectedness with others – whether slave or free – and to work from a values base that recognised equality as a basic human right. This form of principled leadership stands in contrast to the unethical behaviour that characterises the way some choose to participate in their organisations, illustrated by studies of Enron, WorldCom and Andersen. This connectedness is also significant at a time when many social and global conflicts are characterised by fundamentalism and exclusivity. The ability to engage in a high quality of conversation and participation and with increasing levels of diversity seem more essential than ever. This does not need to be at the expense of one’s own values and beliefs, but it does require a belief in the value of finding ways to talk and listen to one another.

References J. Badaracco, Leading Quietly (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 2002). C. Barnard, ‘The Nature of Leadership’, in K. Grint (ed.) (1997) Leadership (New York: Oxford University Press, 1948). J.G. Basker (ed.) Amazing Grace. An Anthology of Poems about Slavery 1660–1810 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002). B.M. Bass and B.J. Avolio, Improving Organisational Leadership Through Transformational Leadership (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994). E. Bell and S. Taylor, ‘“From outward bound to inward bound”: The prophetic voices and discursive practices of spiritual management development’, Human Relations, 57 (2004) 439–66. K. Belmonte, Here for Humanity. A Biography of William Wilberforce (Colorado Springs: NavPress Publishing Group, 2002). W.G. Bennis and B. Nanus, Leaders. Strategies for Taking Charge (New York: HarperBusiness, 1997). T. Clarkson, History of the Rise, Progress, and Accomplishment of the Abolition of the African Slave Trade, (1808), Available from http://oll.libertyfund.org/Home3/ Set.php?recordID=0591 [Accessed 1 December 2006].

42 Leadership Perspectives R. Coupland, Wilberforce. A Narrative (Oxford: OUP, 1923). M. Driver, ‘From empty speech to full speech? Reconceptualizing spirituality in organisations based on a psychoanalytically-grounded understanding of the self’, Human Relations, 58 (2005) 1091–110. M.R. Fairholm, ‘Spiritual leadership: Fulfilling the whole self needs at work’, Leadership and Organisation Development Journal, 17 (1996) 11–17. M.R. Fairholm, ‘A new sciences outline for leadership development’, Leadership and Organisation Development Journal, 25 (2004) 369–83. J.K. Flectcher, ‘The paradox of post-heroic leadership. An essay on gender, power and transformational change’, Leadership Quarterly, 15 (2004) 647–61. L. Fry, ‘Towards a theory of spiritual leadership’, Leadership Quarterly, 14 (2003) 693–727. R. Furneaux, William Wilberforce (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1974). R.K. Greenleaf, Servant Leadership. A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness (New York: Paulist Press, 1977). H. Grégoire, On the Cultural Achievements of Negroes. First published Paris. New Edition and Translation by Thomas Cassirer and Jean-François Brière. (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1808/1996). O. Guinness, Character Counts: Leadership Qualities in Washington, Wilberforce, Lincoln, Solzhenitsyn (Grand Rapids: Baker Publishing Group, 1999). R.A. Heifetz and D.L. Laurie, ‘The work of leadership’, Harvard Business Review, January–February (1997) 124–34. C. Hill, The Wilberforce Connection (Oxford: Monarch Books, 2004). J. Jaworski, Synchronicity. The Inner Path of Leadership (San Francisco: BerrettKoehler, 1998). N. Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom (London: Abacus, 1994). P.H. Mirvis, ‘“Soul work” in organisations’, Organisation Science, 8 (1997) 193–206. K. Nair, A Higher Standard of Leadership. Lessons from the Life of Ghandi (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 1997). B. Shamir, R.J. House and M.B. Arthur, ‘The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory’, Organisation Science, 4 (1993) 577–94. R.D. Stacey, Strategic Management and Organisational Dynamics. The Challenge of Complexity (London: Prentice Hall, 2003). D. Steingard, ‘Spiritually-informed management theory. Toward profound possibilities for inquiry and transformation’, Journal of Management Inquiry, 14 (2005) 227–41. G. Strack, M. Fottler, M. Wheatley and P. Sodomka, ‘Spirituality and effective leadership in healthcare: Is there a connection?’, Frontiers of Health Services Management, 18 (2002) 3–45. A. Styhre, ‘Non-linear change in organisations: Organisation change management informed by complexity theory’, Leadership and Organisation Development Journal, 23 (2002) 343–51. P.B. Vaill, Spirited Leading and Learning: Process Wisdom for a New Age (San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1998).

4 Sharing Thoughts on Leadership and Friendship Robert French

Preliminary thoughts It is not my custom to write academic papers for my friends, but just to share thoughts with them. Today, in your case, Dear Reader, I shall, therefore, just share thoughts with you, for I wish our friendship to be made perfect as soon as it begins. This greeting is adapted from the opening words of a letter by Marsilio Ficino (Letter 69), the great Renaissance master of friendship and leadership, and the chapter sets out to explore some perspectives on leadership and friendship from the classical, Western friendship tradition, which lies behind his words. The aim is to see aspects of leadership in a different way, by relaxing and reframing some of our more or less taken-for-granted assumptions about friendship. There is a constant pressure on leaders today to produce results – often without consideration for people or for ethical issues. These issues are central to the friendship tradition, and the hope, therefore, is that by reconsidering what we know about friendship, we may be able to adopt new attitudes to leadership and to develop new models of action. The chapter looks at what we might learn from the classical friendship tradition in terms of three questions: (i) What is friendship? – the key theoretical concept here is of friendship as a hexis, that is, a state of mind or disposition, rather than a feeling state or even primarily a relationship; (ii) What motivates friendship? – here Aristotle’s model of ‘levels’ of friendship suggests ways in which the basic concept of friendship as a state of mind comes to be enacted; 43

44 Leadership Perspectives

(iii) How to do friendship? – finally, some of the specific practices or actions of friendship will be discussed. Modern ways of thinking place friendship firmly in the private sphere and view a leader’s friendship networks with suspicion – even setting up legal frameworks to discourage such alliances or interest groups. From the perspective of the classical friendship tradition, however, the friendship-leadership pairing would not be viewed with suspicion. Rather the opposite: the leader to mistrust and to fear, as unpredictable and unreliable, would be the one who did not have, and work with and through, friends. At such times, leaders without a supportive friendship network might have been viewed with just the suspicion that we project onto leaders who appear to rely on – and to do favours for? – their ‘cronies’ (17th-century slang for ‘old friends’).

(i) Thoughts on the question: what is friendship? – basic conceptual frameworks I often write in public spaces, such as cafés, and people sometimes ask what I am writing. The answer – ‘I’m writing about friendship in the workplace’ – always prompts a response, generally one that suggests the issue really does matter to them, but that they have never heard it acknowledged as a theme that might be written about. In one case, for example, a plumber taking a tea break said, instantly and emphatically, ‘Important’, and added, ‘Don’t get on, you’re not ‘appy. You don’t do yourself no good.’ His themes – getting on and the link between happiness and the good – are, of course, central to classical philosophy generally (Hadot, 2002), and also specific to the friendship tradition. On further thought, he also raised a basic question about the relationship of friendship to leadership: ‘Not sure about the boss though. I’m not sure you can be friends with the boss.’ He knew that ‘having a drink with the boss’ could be problematic for relations with peers, who might see one as taking sides or trying to curry favour and hence as not trustworthy. However, he also reflected on what a different atmosphere there is, when a leader listens to and knows the workforce, takes an interest in them, understands them, and acts on that understanding. He concluded with a thought-provoking phrase: ‘I suppose that’s a kind of friendship …’ – and left. This turn of phrase suggests the most basic question, what is friendship? This must be explored, in order to establish what kinds of friendship we can allow, enjoy, use, or seek out and encourage, in relation to leadership.

Sharing Thoughts on Leadership and Friendship 45

Writers in the classical tradition1 were in no doubt about the personal and interpersonal pleasures (delectio) and pains of friendship. However – and strangely to modern sensibilities – friendship was not understood primarily in terms of the relationship between two people, nor even primarily as a particular form of affectionate bond, but rather as what Aristotle called a hexis, that is, a ‘disposition’ or ‘state of mind’, also sometimes translated as ‘habit’: ‘love is a feeling, friendship a state of mind’ (Nicomachean Ethics, Book 8, 1157b29). Rather than a more or less intimate relationship, therefore, it was seen as the state of mind in which the relationship was located, and out of which a friendship – in our sense – might grow. Remarkably, it was a view of friendship which did not necessarily even demand personal acquaintance, ‘for … we love, in a certain fashion, even those whom we have never seen’ (Cicero, Laelius: de Amicitia, 8.28, in Haseldine, 1994, p. 240). The predominant view of friendship in the modern world, by contrast, locates it firmly in the world of private relations, not role relations, a private not a public affair: ‘Friendship has been relegated to private life and thereby weakened in comparison to what it once was. … “Friendship” has become for the most part the name of a type of emotional state rather than a type of social and political relationship’ (MacIntyre, 1985, p. 1562). Allan Silver similarly describes the ‘historically unprecedented emphasis on personal intimacy’ in modern friendship (1989, p. 293), which tends, as a result, to be seen as personal, private, voluntary, unspecialised, informal, and non-contractual: Such friendships are grounded in the uniquely irreplaceable qualities of partners – their ‘true’ or ‘real’ selves, defined and valued independently of their place in public systems of power, utility and esteem. Friendships so conceived turn on intimacy, the confident revelation of the self to a trusted other, the sharing of expressive and consummatory activities. The behavior of friends to each other is appropriately interpreted through knowledge of the other’s inner nature, not the content or consequences of actions (Silver, 1989, pp. 274–5). Thus, the modern phrase ‘intimate relations’ emphasises inwardness to the exclusion of others, whereas friendship in the classical tradition demonstrates a psychic and emotional depth that is actually inclusive of others (see French and Moore, 2004). However, despite this modern emphasis on emotional, interpersonal intimacy and on the exclusion of friendship from ‘public systems of power’ and ‘political relationships’,

46 Leadership Perspectives

there are organisational contexts, which do still use the language of friendship, definitely extending even to ‘those whom we have never seen’. For example, many organisations, such as ‘Friends of the Earth’, include the word ‘friend’ in their names, although this ‘friendship’ has no personal basis. Members of such organisations call themselves ‘friends’, because, as with a ‘real’ friend, they wish to take supportive action for a cause or an idea, or to support those actually engaged in the work. Their commitment is not to an intimate other, but their loyalty might suggest that another person is indeed the object of the ‘friendship’; self-sacrifice for the sake of this ‘other’ may take the form of time, energy, ideas, creativity, organising skill or money. As an example, the Aims of the ‘Friends of East Surrey Hospital’ are: ‘To supplement the service provided by East Surrey Hospital for the comfort and welfare of the patients, staff and visitors by the provision of equipment and amenities, by running the hospital coffee shops, and generally supporting the voluntary work of the hospital.’ These echo the actions of friends towards each other – comfort and support, welcome and hospitality, all based on voluntary effort, not financial reward – but do not involve the emotional intimacy we generally associate with friendship. The only material reward for members of the Friends of East Surrey Hospital is to receive annual reports and accounts, and to be invited to the AGM. So organisations of ‘friends’ may be born out of interpersonal friendships – real friends, who share not only a passion for the cause, but also a passion for each other (Raymond, 1986) – but their actions engender something quite new. This new creation, in its turn, makes it possible for others – including, of course, complete strangers and many who, presumably would not even like each other, were they to meet outside the ‘friends-ship’ – to share in both the passion for the cause and, one might say therefore, indirectly in the friendship itself: ‘Since a man’s friend is another self, so to speak, the friend’s actions will be his own in a sense’ (St Thomas Aquinas in Schwartz, 2007, p. 4, n. 103). Thus, ‘friends-of’ organisations provide a clear example of the way in which friendship as a state of mind can underpin, or may, in some instances, even be inseparable from, leadership. It is a phenomenon which is also evident in other, less specialised, contexts. Historically, it was clearly fundamental to the formation of the Quakers – the ‘Society of Friends’ – and may help to account for their success, despite violent persecution. Similarly, in the story of the anti-slavery movement, the theme of friendship and the emotional and practical support it offers,

Sharing Thoughts on Leadership and Friendship 47

runs as a golden thread through the fabric of the relations between leaders: And it was by no means a one-sided friendship. Pitt wanted Wilberforce in those days to talk to, to confide in, just as much as he wanted Dundas later on. ‘Pray come to Wimbledon as soon as possible,’ he writes in the early days of his premiership to hasten him back from the Midlands: ‘I want to talk with you about your navy bills … and about ten thousand other things.’ (Coupland, 1923, p. 26). Once the matrix of friendship has been spotted in cases such as this, it becomes obvious in many others (see, for example, French and Thomas, 1999; Farrell, 2001). However, we tend to overlook the significance of such references to the leadership-friendship pairing. In part, this may be because of the familiarity of the language used – Pitt wanted Wilberforce ‘to talk to, to confide in’ – and in part as a result of the vacuum around friendship in the literature on organisations generally (though see Grey and Sturdy, 2007). A parallel context in which the link between leadership and the disposition of friendship is apparent is that of ‘start-up’ organisations, perhaps because they are all likely to face some form of resistance, if not direct persecution. Here friendship often provides the generative vision for the creation of a new enterprise, and then sustains them through difficult times and situations, internally and externally. Highly successful companies, such as Aardman Animations and Innocent Drinks, for example, were started and grew within the matrix of friendship. It is a phenomenon that seems to be particularly common among small businesses with a creative focus, such as design companies, and also voluntary or third sector organisations, as well as – more obviously, perhaps – co-operatives. Cases such as these demonstrate knowledge-into-action in two important ways. Firstly, the answer from the classical tradition to the question, ‘what is friendship?’ – namely that it is a state of mind – offers a lens with which to identify specific leadership phenomena and a framework for understanding them; it points to the creativity and innovation that this disposition towards self and other can generate. The leadership of any organisation in its early days almost certainly demands some of the themes noted above in relation to ‘friends’ organisations: selfsacrifice in the form of time, energy, ideas, creativity, organising skill, or financial support. Greiner’s model of organisational lifecycles suggests

48 Leadership Perspectives

that entrepreneurs ‘are usually idea people or technical experts rather than organisers’ (Hatch and Cunliffe, 2006, p. 119). What the dynamic and disposition of friendship may do is to buy some time, as it were; the new organisation can be ‘held’ by the friendship for long enough to develop the ‘organisers’ necessary for longer-term success, or to bring them in from outside, in particular administrative leaders (Simpson, 2007). The second point from these cases is, perhaps, less obvious and has two aspects. As a state of mind, friendship appears to be inseparable from action. For instance, all the ‘types’ of friend identified in Spencer and Pahl’s research, from simple to complex, imply action of some kind: associate, useful contact, favour friend, fun friend, helpmate, comforter, confidant, soulmate (2006, pp. 60–71). Action flows from friendship: we not only wish the best for our friends, but seek to do things that will benefit them – Aquinas’s benevolentia and beneficentia (Schwartz, 2007). However, there is, in addition, something not only containing but also challenging about the context created by the disposition of friendship: ‘Let [your friend] be to thee forever a sort of beautiful enemy, untamable, devoutly revered’ (Emerson, 1992, p. 104); or, as Blake so pithily put it: ‘Opposition is true friendship’ (Blake, 1972, p. 157). Because the atmosphere or culture created by friendship combines both support and challenge, it has the capacity to stimulate new thoughts, new knowledge, new plans, new ideas. Friendship can be the fulcrum for both the identification of new ideas and their realisation in action. To the extent that leadership is concerned precisely with innovation and action, this shared feature seems worthy of further consideration. This brings us to the second question – what motivates friendship? The primary theoretical notion of friendship as a ‘state of mind’ is the basis for the model of friendship developed by Aristotle to explain the different levels of commitment that can motivate different kinds of friendship.

(ii) Thoughts on the question: what motivates friendship? – Aristotle’s model of three ‘levels’: utility, pleasure, the pursuit of virtue One of the longest lasting foundations of the classical tradition is the idea that friendship can have different levels of motivation. Aristotle’s model is fundamental. It describes three different ‘levels’ of friendship, from ‘base’ to ‘ideal’, representing respectively the search for utility, for pleasure, and for virtue or the good – or ‘advantage, pleasure, or the

Sharing Thoughts on Leadership and Friendship 49

desire for mental communion’ (Stern-Gillet 1995, p. 37; for a fuller description, see French, 2007). Aristotle identified utility as the basis for the lowest of the three levels. This is because ‘those who love each other because of the useful do not love them for themselves, but in so far as some good accrues to each of them from the other’ (Nicomachean Ethics, Book 8, 1156a10). Thus the usefulness of friends has always been acknowledged as the underlying motivation for one type of friendship, fundamental in some respects, but traditionally seen as the most limited or underdeveloped: ‘the useful is not something that lasts, but varies with the moment; so, when what made them be friends has been removed, the friendship is dissolved as well, in so far as it existed in relation to what brought it about’ (ibid., 1156a21–2). The second level describes friendships based on pleasure or congeniality. This level does indeed involve affection, and was seen as superior to, and potentially more lasting than, mere utility. However, pleasure-based friendships still have as their true object not a person but the mutual enjoyment of similar likes: ‘Similarly, too, with those who love each other because of pleasure: people do not feel affection for the witty for their being of a certain character, but for the pleasure they themselves get from them’ (ibid., 1156a13). Although both of these types of friendship clearly value the friend, they value more what can be gained from the relationship for oneself: ‘In fact these friendships are friendships incidentally; for the one loved is not loved by reference to the person he is but to the fact that in the one case he provides some good and in the other some pleasure. Such friendships, then, are easily dissolved, if the parties become different …’ (ibid., 1156a17–18). With true friendship, vera amicitia or amicitia perfecta, a different level is reached: However, it is the friendship between good people, those resembling each other in excellence, that is complete; for each alike of these wishes good things for the other in so far as he is good, and he is good in himself. And those who wish good things for their friends, for their friends’ sake, are friends most of all; for they do so because of the friends themselves, and not incidentally (ibid., 1156b7). It would, however, be too easy simply to dismiss the lower levels. They were not thought of as mutually exclusive. The ‘higher’ form of true friendship was not opposed to self-interest, but was understood to

50 Leadership Perspectives

include the characteristics of the lower forms and to encompass both utility and pleasure – the higher the level, the greater can be the friends’ mutual pleasure and their usefulness to each other. The case of St Anselm – ‘the man of his century most gifted for friendship’ (Fiske, 1961, p. 259) – exemplifies all aspects of Aristotle’s model. First of all, Anselm was, by any measure, an outstanding leader. In terms of spirituality, his influence is still acknowledged: ‘the dialectic he fathered and the affective devotion he developed changed the whole atmosphere of Western spirituality for the rest of the Middle Ages and beyond’ (Ward, 1973, p. 81; see also Moss, 1999). In organisational terms, his success as a leader was not only marked at the ‘local’ level, as Abbot of the Northern French monastery of Bec, but also at the national and international level in his role as Archbishop of Canterbury. In this role, he had to deal with fraught relations between Church and State in England and with wider church relations between Canterbury and Rome (Southern, 1963, 1990; Vaughn, 1987). In all of this, friendship was his guiding principle. Fundamental to everything was amicitia perfecta, with the friend conceived of as another self: ‘Anselm loves his friend because of God, and because of the friend, not for Anselm’s own sake.’ (Fiske, 1961, p. 56). However, his understanding of the disposition of friendship also clearly extended to an awareness of how to use friendship politically. On his departure for England in 1093, for example, he wrote a final letter – a ‘blueprint for action’ (Vaughn, 1987, p. 12) – to his successors at Bec, in which he advised them above all to keep friendship as the central ideal in the management of their affairs and to devote time, energy and resources into cultivating friendships for the sake of the monastery: … you should hasten to acquire faithful friends from every side, striving after the good work of hospitality, extending kindness to all, and when this is not feasible, reaching out to please with affable words. Nor believe yourself ever to have enough friends, but gather all to you in friendship, whether rich or poor; so that this can both bring profit for the utility of your church and increase the safety of those you love (in Vaughn, 1987, p. 12). In modern jargon, one could say that Anselm is here proposing friendship to other leaders as the key to strategic leadership, to the management of internal and external relationships, and as the lynch-pin of a new policy agenda. Today, however, in an age that claims to view ‘people’ as an organisation’s ‘most important asset’ and stresses the

Sharing Thoughts on Leadership and Friendship 51

importance of ‘networking’, of ‘partnerships’ and of ‘stakeholder management’, it is hard to imagine present-day leaders openly recommending friendship, in this way. Has a senior management agenda ever included ‘an account of friendship’ alongside the ‘financial accounts’? And yet it is clear that friendship, based explicitly on the classical tradition, was a driving force in the extraordinary success of monastic culture in the 11th and 12th centuries – under St Bernard and St Aelred of Rievaulx, for example, as well as St Anselm – with all the advances that accompanied it, social, political, organisational, and technological (White, 1978), as well as spiritual and liturgical. The classical view of friendship has one striking implication for leadership: if the other – whether colleague, employee, partner, stakeholder, client, customer, maybe even competitor – is seen as a ‘friend’, that is, as ‘another self’, then ethical considerations become central to leadership. To see all of these as friends – in however utilitarian a sense – places demands on a leader that are in stark contrast to the demands of the market and to a culture of targets. When the ‘bottom line’ is the welfare of the other, the implications for action are immense. The lie is given, for example, to the fantasy that ‘downsizing’ and ‘employee welfare’ can coexist in the same ethical framework. So it is the combination of the ethical with the practical, which gives friendship its fundamentally social or systemic weight in the classical tradition. Aristotle’s recognition of the link between leadership and friendship in his ethical scheme is clear from his assertion that it is more important for leaders to strive for friendship than for justice, because ‘there is no need for rules of justice between people who are friends, whereas if they are just they still need friendship.’ (Nicomachean Ethics, Book 8, 1155a27). This brings us to the third and final question.

(iii) Thoughts on the question: how to do friendship? – the art of friendship The art – or practices – of friendship are not, by any means, only to be found in ‘projects for action’ that have a ‘certain magnitude’. Friendship is often, maybe even generally, expressed in the detail. Traditionally, such actions have included: letter-writing (now email?); mutual help of all kinds; ethical instruction; sharing advice; what today is sometimes called ‘critical friendship’, in which, as an alter ego, the friend can act as a mirror to one’s self; the offer of contacts in new cities or as an entrée into social or business circles, where a letter of recommendation can be the key

52 Leadership Perspectives

to acceptance; or simply a listening ear, offering a particular kind of confidentiality. All of these and more have, over the centuries, demonstrated the practical working out of the hexis of friendship in a variety of contexts. Alongside such general activities, however, two practices from the friendship tradition stand out as of particular relevance to leadership: hospitality and frankness of speech.

Hospitality Hospitality is one traditional art of friendship that still appears in the language of modern organisations: the ‘hospitality suite’ and the ‘hospitality budget’ might be taken as examples of the friendship-utility link in action – combined, perhaps, with pleasure. However, the performative culture of organisational life today means that hospitality is in danger of being subsumed as just another form of emotional labour (Hochschild, 1983): ‘And the traditional warm-hearted hospitality?’ ‘That too can be learned,’ replied Sir Jack. ‘And by being learned, it will be the more authentic. Or is that too cynical a notion for you, Martha?’ (Barnes, 1998, p. 108). At a most basic level, the presence – or absence – of the disposition of friendship is often demonstrated simply in the ways in which people are received into an organisation, a department, a group, or a room. Workshop leaders, for example, who greet participants with a handshake, a smile and refreshments could be thought of as motivated by friendship towards them; food and drink being archetypal symbols of friendship or ‘companionship’ (cum and panis, indicating someone with whom I am prepared to share my bread). The value of such simple, human gestures is not to be underestimated. Seen through the lens of friendship, anything that makes the other feel welcome may be seen as creating a context for conversation, ‘the practice and consummation of friendship’ (Emerson, 1841/1992, p. 102). There is a deeper level to hospitality. Illich and Sanders’ definition of friendship is in terms of the depth of relatedness that can be achieved through hospitality. They take their definition from a letter by the 12th-century mystic and theologian Hugh of St Victor: I was a foreigner and met you in a strange land. But the land was not really strange for I found friends there. I don’t know whether

Sharing Thoughts on Leadership and Friendship 53

I first made friends or was made one. But I found charity there and I loved it; and could not tire of it … (Illich, 1993, p. 27, his translation of the epigraph to Illich and Sanders, 1988, pp. v, 127). The direct opposite of this experience is described in his autobiography by the poet and novelist Jack Clemo. He attributes the moment of his father’s breakdown precisely to a lack of hospitality, using a phrase that is a remarkable inversion of Hugh’s experience: ‘the collapse came when he was friendless in a strange country’ (Clemo, 1988, p. 4, italics added). In our own day, these insights are reflected in the field of depth psychology. Psychoanalysis has demonstrated that our relationship to significant others is central to the creation of our most basic sense of self and of identity; as Gerhardt (2004) has so neatly put it: ‘love matters’ (See also Alvarez, 1992; Holmes, 1993; Fonagy, 2001). Illich’s exploration of the friendship tradition shows that ‘hospitality matters’ (See essays in Hoinacki and Mitcham, 2002; especially those by Garrigós, by Prakash, and by Illich himself). In addition to seeing it as central to friendship, he related it explicitly to this volume’s key theme of knowledge into action: Learned and leisurely hospitality is the only antidote to the stance of deadly cleverness that is acquired in the professional pursuit of objectively secured knowledge. I remain certain that the quest for truth cannot thrive outside the nourishment of mutual trust flowering into a commitment to friendship. Therefore I have tried to identify the climate that fosters and the ‘conditioned’ air that hinders the growth of friendship (Illich, 2002, p. 235).

Parrhesia, or frankness of speech The second ‘art’ of friendship, of particular relevance to leadership, is that of parrhesia or frankness of speech – what Foucault (2001) called ‘fearless speech’. In our age, where leadership is in constant danger of ‘infection’ from the culture of celebrity and ‘spin’, this straight talking may be one of the most immediately useful, although also challenging, aspects of the friendship tradition for modern leaders. Here the theory meets practice in a way that can be adopted without any reference to the word ‘friendship’. The ability to challenge and the capacity to be challenged were captured in this term parrhesia. Frankness of speech was seen as essential

54 Leadership Perspectives

to the disposition of friendship. Foucault gives a vivid summary of both concept and practice: [Parrhesia is] verbal activity in which a speaker expresses his personal relationship to truth, and risks his life because he recognises truth-telling as a duty to help improve or help other people (as well as himself). In parrhesia, the speaker uses his freedom and chooses frankness instead of persuasion, truth instead of falsehood or silence, the risk of death instead of life and security, criticism instead of flattery, and moral duty instead of self-interest and moral apathy (2001, pp. 19–20). This is an idea of friendship that is robust not fragile, and one which appears once again with the Quakers, or ‘friends’, in their idea of ‘speaking truth to power’. Far from being afraid of losing the friend as a result of saying what one thinks, the friendship tradition argues that – when such friendships are real – ‘they are not glass threads or frostwork, but the solidest thing we know’ (Emerson, 1992, p. 99). The problem for leaders, that has always been associated with frankness of speech, is its parody, flattery. For example, it was recognised that the most skilled flatterer would put on an act of frankness, appearing to tell a leader uncomfortable truths while really telling them just what they thought they wanted to hear: A friend is nowhere near a flatterer, and is furthest removed in this, that the one praises everything, while the other would not go along with you when you are erring; … the former … is not impressed with you, but with your money or your power (Themistius, 4th century C.E., quoted in Konstan, 1997, p. 153; see also Fitzgerald, 1996; Glad, 1996; Konstan, 2001).

Conclusion: thoughts into questions None of these thoughts is intended to be prescriptive, but only suggestive. They probably raise more questions than they do answers. For example, does it even help to use the word ‘friendship’ in relation to leadership? Maybe as a provocation, yes – but the word has so many everyday associations, that it may be more helpful to use some of the frameworks and ideas without using the term itself, in order to probe into the real ‘state of mind’ being displayed in such common cousins of friendship as ‘networks’, ‘stakeholders’, ‘partnerships’, ‘colleagues’.

Sharing Thoughts on Leadership and Friendship 55

The classical tradition suggests that friendship can be both the method and indeed the purpose of meeting, and hence both the texture and the aim of organising and of leadership. This is a hypothesis that each of us might test against our own experience: To what extent has friendship been for us the motivation or context for the creation of learning, for the translation of that learning into action, and then, to complete the cycle, also for the depth of reflection necessary to translate back from action into new knowledge?

Notes 1 Although I write here as though there was a unified and agreed friendship tradition in the classical world, it was, in fact, made up of different, sometimes contrasting, strands of thinking and practice. For a fuller discussion, see French, 2007. 2 For an in-depth analysis of current attitudes to, and experiences of, friendship in the UK, see Spencer and Pahl, 2006. 3 For the original description of the friend as ‘another self’, see Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book 9, 1166a31–2; 1170b6–7.

References A. Alvarez, Live Company: Psychoanalytic Pschotherapy with Autistic, Borderline, Deprived and Abused Children (London: Routledge, 1992). Aristotle, [350 BCE]. Nicomachean Ethics. Tr. S. Broadie and C. Rowe (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002). J. Barnes, England, England (London: Jonathan Cape: 1998). W. Blake, 1972 [c. 1790–93]. ‘The marriage of heaven and hell’, in G. Keynes (ed.) Blake: Complete Writings (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972), pp. 148–60. J. Clemo, Confession of a Rebel (London: Spire, 1988). R. Coupland, Wilberforce: A Narrative (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1923). R.W. Emerson, ‘Friendship’, in T. Tanner (ed.) Essays and Poems (London: J.M. Dent, 1992 [1841]), pp. 94–107. M.P. Farrell, Collaborative Circles: Friendship Dynamics and Creative Work (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2001). M. Ficino, The Letters of Marsilio Ficino, Vol. 1. Translated from the Latin by members of the Language Department of the School of Economic Science, London. (London: Shepheard-Walwyn, 1975 [1495]). A. Fiske, ‘Saint Anselm’, Studia Monastica, 3(2) (1961) 259–90. J.T. Fitzgerald (ed.) Friendship, Flattery, and Frankness of Speech: Studies on Friendship in the New Testament World (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996). P. Fonagy, Attachment Theory and Psychoanalysis (New York: Other Press, 2001). M. Foucault, Fearless Speech (Los Angeles, CA: Semiotext(e), 2001 [1983]). R. French, ‘Friendship and organisation: Learning from the western friendship tradition’, Management & Organisational History, 2(3) (2007) 255–72. R. French and P. Moore, ‘Divided neither in life, nor in death: Friendship and leadership in the story of David and Jonathan’, in Y. Gabriel (ed.) Myths, Stories and

56 Leadership Perspectives Organisations: Pre-Modern Narratives for Our Times (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), pp. 101–15. R. French and J.J.R. Thomas, ‘Maturity, education and enlightenment – An introduction to Theodor Adorno and Hellmut Becker: “Education for maturity and responsibility”’, History of the Human Sciences 12 (1999) 1–19. A. Garrigós, ‘Hospitality cannot be a challenge’, in L. Hoinacki and C. Mitcham (eds) The Challenges of Ivan Illich: A Collective Reflection (New York: State University of New York, 2002), pp. 113–25. S. Gerhardt, Why Love Matters (London: Routledge, 2004). C.E. Glad, ‘Frank speech, flattery, and friendship in Philodemus’, in J.T. Fitzgerald (ed.) Friendship, Flattery, and Frankness of Speech: Studies on Friendship in the New Testament World (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996), pp. 21–59. C. Grey and A. Sturdy, ‘Friendship and organisational analysis: Towards a research agenda’, Journal of Management Inquiry, 16 (2007) 157–72. P. Hadot, What is Ancient Philosophy?, Tr. Michael Chase (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2002). J. Haseldine, ‘Understanding the language of amicita: The friendship circle of Peter of Celle (c. 1115–1183)’, Journal of Medieval History, 20 (1994) 237–60. M.J. Hatch and A.L. Cunliffe, Organisation Theory: Modern, Symbolic, and Postmodern Perspectives (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006). A. Hochschild, The Managed Heart (Berkeley: University of California, 1983). L. Hoinacki and C. Mitcham (eds) The Challenges of Ivan Illich: A Collective Reflection (New York: State University of New York, 2002). J. Holmes, John Bowlby and Attachment Theory (London: Routledge, 1993). I. Illich, In the Vineyard of the Text: A Commentary to Hugh’s ‘Didascalicon’ (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1993). I. Illich, ‘The cultivation of conspiracy’, in L. Hoinacki and C. Mitcham (eds) The Challenges of Ivan Illich: A Collective Reflection (New York: State University of New York, 2002), pp. 233–42. I. Illich and B. Sanders, ABC: The Alphabetization of the Popular Mind (London: Marion Boyars, 1988). D. Konstan, Friendship in the Classical World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997). D. Konstan, Parrhesia: Ancient Philosophy in Opposition, paper presented at the Fourth World Conference of the International Society for Universal Dialogue (Cracow, Poland: Jagiellonian University, July 12–16, 2001). A. MacIntyre, After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory, 2nd edn (London: Duckworth, 1985). D. Moss, ‘Friendship: St Anselm, theoria and the convolution of sense’, in J. Milbank, C. Pickstock and G. Ward (eds) Radical Orthodoxy: A New Theology (London: Pitman, 1999), pp. 127–42. M.S. Prakash, ‘A Letter on Studying with Master Illich’, in L. Hoinacki and C. Mitcham (eds) The Challenges of Ivan Illich: A Collective Reflection (New York: State University of New York, 2002), pp. 141–52. J. Raymond, A Passion for Friends (London: The Women’s Press, 1986). D. Schwartz, Aquinas on Friendship (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007). A. Silver, ‘Friendship and trust as moral ideals: an historical approach’, European Journal of Sociology, 30 (1989) 274–97.

Sharing Thoughts on Leadership and Friendship 57 P. Simpson, ‘Developing Rowe’s model of strategic leadership’, working paper (2007). R.W. Southern, Saint Anselm and His Biographer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963). R.W. Southern, Saint Anselm: A Portrait in a Landscape (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990). L. Spencer and R. Pahl, Rethinking Friendship: Hidden Solidarities Today (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006). S. Stern-Gillet, Aristotle’s Philosophy of Friendship (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1995). S. Vaughn, Anselm of Bec and Robert of Meulan: The Innocence of the Dove and the Wisdom of the Serpent (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1987). B. Ward, The Prayers and Meditations of St Anselm (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1973). Jr. L. White, Medieval Religion and Technology: Collected Essays (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1978).

5 How to Become a Globally Responsible Leader: Rites of Passage and Transitional Space Maryse Dubouloy

This chapter treats the idea that to become a globally responsible leader (EFMD, 2006), it is not enough for the future CEO to acquire traditional skills and knowledge, or even to gain in open-mindedness, relational abilities, self-awareness and intuition, in the successive steps of his boundaryless career. He or she must develop ‘virtues’ such as autonomy, reflexivity, compassion, and attain wisdom. Simultaneously, a leader’s real need is to rediscover themselves, their own desires and creative potential, when they are heading for conformism and false-self. They can achieve this by turning their progress into a true initiatory itinerary. The individual is the only one who can find into themselves the required resources for this transformation. However it could not be a utopia to imagine that companies can also contribute to this fundamental change, implementing, for each stage of this tough journey, rites of passage (Von Gennep, 1981) and transitional space (Winnicott, 1971) which help people to go through and work out renunciation and ordeals. I shall illustrate this with the example of expatriation. First I shall give some characteristics of these new ‘paths’ and of the people who travel all over them.

From top executive managers to globally responsible leaders Boundaryless careers: the Royal Path for false-self Most careers of executives have become Protean (Hall, 1996). Each stage brings its share of changes affecting not only the individuals’ working and personal life, but also their identity. These changes often take the form of crises, trials and challenges to be overcome by the apprentice executives. Because of the blurred boundaries, nothing any longer plays a role of reassuring, containing structure (Kaës, 1987). 58

How to Become a Globally Responsible Leader 59

For some high-potential managers, the beginning of their career is simply an extension of that journey which the French call the Royal Path, that brought them to the top business schools to the most prestigious posts … until that path comes to an abrupt end before they have reached the heights they were aiming for. The ‘managinary’1 system provides offthe-peg responses to people who do not dare or want to raise the fundamental question of their deepest desires (Aubert and de Gaulejac, 1991). They thus become prisoners of a lazy conformism encouraged by corporate methods of socialisation and evaluation (Schein, 1988). The official discourse may ask managers to be more autonomous, responsible, and permanently reinventing themselves, but they reproduce, consciously or otherwise, the thing they are supposed to be helping to change. Most are simply reinforcing an unconscious false-self instigated in childhood in response to an environment they already found threatening (Winnicott, 1965; Enriquez, 1998; Dubouloy, 2004). Most of them do not succeed in escaping from this ‘destiny’. Some rush headlong into an idealised future that only exists in their fantasies. Yet others let life and other people make their decisions for them. Others, in contrast, fail to move, becoming stuck in a mire of endless questioning, prisoners of their own conflicts and paradoxes. Some carry on repeating in the present the formulas that brought them success in the past, neglecting the reality of the world in which they find themselves; while others blindly conform to the norms of the group they must become part of, considering the price to pay for autonomy too high. In an ever-more unstable, unstructured world, it is up to the individual to find their way, build their own locus of stability. Career transitions carry considerable risks of breaks, regression, becoming inward-looking and maybe even self-destructing, not to mention the associated suffering and distress. While these times remain conflictual and difficult, for some they are opportunities to gain greater autonomy and maturity, giving their illusions up and accepting to face the complexity of reality. This is all the more likely when they are experienced as transitional spaces, structured with a dynamic of rites of passage.

From technocratic skills to global responsibility While a few decades ago, the main requirement made of a manager was to be good at managing material resources, gradually dealing with human resources, interpersonal and communicational skills moved to the fore. Intuition, hitherto rejected, came to be highly valued: leaders had to be visionary. Self-awareness became fundamental skills for the new dynasty

60 Leadership Perspectives

of managers (Boyatzis and Van Oosten, 2003). Previously, manages were required to be able to anticipate and adapt to a future that could be unpredictable; now, they were being asked to take risks, control uncertainty, and guarantee security for all – employees, equity providers and a whole range of business partners. In fact, the managers of today have to be ‘globally responsible’. A company can no longer be content simply with making profit. It cannot remain on the sidelines of society, if that society is in collapse. The stake became caring human beings instead of managing human resources. Simultaneously, while these new managers are being asked to take into consideration changes in the state of the planet over the next halfcentury and invest accordingly, equity providers are requiring them to turn in ever-increasing profits in ever-shortening timescales. While the limits of responsibility and liability are pushed well beyond the walls, those who desire to be CEO have to remember that their personality and innermost self are concerned (Hirschhorn, 1988; Dubouloy, 2002), noone could help them acquire these new skills. However, they must not mistake the role, the status or the function for the person. Skills are not enough to do with such paradoxes and dilemmas. For a successful career, it is no longer enough to develop more skills or even improve performance; it is necessary to be a self-fulfilled human being, whose dreams have been achieved, because dreams are more than plans for people’s actions (Turnbull James and Arroba, 2005). Managers must attain wisdom and greatness. Unsurprisingly, the word ‘virtue’ appears, sometimes acting as a substitute for the term ‘skill’ (Trevino et al., 2003).

The new old virtues An etymological approach to the word reminds us that ‘virtue’ derives from the Latin ‘virtus’ meaning ‘courage’, ‘moral energy’. Globally responsible leaders must develop those new virtues: self-knowledge, critical thinking, reflexivity, courage, compassion, strong ethical principles, a visible commitment to become a real force for common good (EFMD and The Global Compact, 2006) and wisdom.

Critical thinking and reflexivity: to be part of the world Critical thinking is an individual and rational approach of the world. The philosopher Pascal bequeathed us a guide for behaviour: ‘Let us work on thinking well, such is the principle of morality’. Critical thinking enables us to fight against ‘la pensée unique’, i.e. readymade, fixed ‘politically correct’ thought, instead of thought that is perpetually

How to Become a Globally Responsible Leader 61

searching and under construction. For managers, caught up in urgent tasks and the diktat of immediate responses, rapid results, high performance, it is particularly difficult to develop critical thinking. Often their knowledge and past experiences soon turn into certainties. While critical thinking questions assertions, reflexivity consists of questioning oneself and one’s own representations, practices and interactions within a contextualised environment. But reflexivity is not only introspection. Reflexivity is ‘anti-narcissistic’, to borrow Bourdieu’s expression (2001). It encourages a subjectivation/objectivation movement. It is the ability to turn attention outwards (obvious and visible events, but also « beneath-the-surface ») but also to tune into the internal world and to be aware of what thoughts and feelings are present (Turnbull James and Arroba, 2005). Reflexivity retroactively enables the individual focused on action to take a step back from one’s acts and the situation and to perceive the complexity of the world, the leeway, the areas of autonomy and creativity that urgent action has left in the shade. Reflexivity is often a brave, painful process whereby the comfort of what is known is distanced and relinquished.

Compassion and caring: working on iniquity and suffering ‘Compassion is about allowing one’s feelings to guide one’s actions in response to pain experienced by others’ (Frost et al., 2000). The decisions taken (or not) by the managers because of the turbulences of the outside world often provoke change, crisis and rupture which oblige personnel to leave their comfort zones. Feelings such as rivalry, jealousy, ambition, fear, or being underappreciated also contribute their share of suffering and anxiety on a daily basis. It is up to the leaders to anticipate and intervene in the system to reduce the harmful effects of this environment and to provide the necessary impetus to make the company a less anxiety-provoking and more containing place (Kaës, 1979). The virtue of compassion is more necessary than ever, for it fights rationalism, individualism, withdrawal into oneself and indifference. Compassion which has its roots in the love of one’s fellow men and in interpersonal trust can become an extraordinary reserve of creativity, and potentially of efficiency. This virtue, which recreates the link between men, is essential for global responsibility.

Wisdom: the prize virtue Referring to Aristotle or to Confucius, managerial literature defines wisdom as a mix of knowledge and action (Beck, 1999). According to Socrates, the first step towards wisdom is self-knowledge; ‘Know

62 Leadership Perspectives

yourself, you will know the gods’ … and your limits. Real virtue is first and foremost responsibility of oneself bearing the consequences of our actions, without making others bear the burden of our thoughtlessness. However his real concern is the world and the ‘Common Good’: ‘wisdom is not merely a result of inquiring and reflecting on the relationship between self and society, but it is also the embodiment of action taken to transform self and society towards a better whole’ (Bierly et al., 2000, p. 603). Wisdom is the capacity of integrating the opposites in a perspective of mutual complementarity and solidarity between rationality and affectivity, self and the others, between past, present and future, here and there. It is an ideal of the balance and serenity to be achieved after the trials along the road. It allows the individual to explore tensions, contradictions and paradoxes. Certain stages in careers can be more conducive to acquisition of such virtues, because they can be an opportunity to unsettle people from their habits and certitudes and weaken their mechanisms of defence. After a short presentation of my research methodology in the next section, I shall show how some designs of career support measures encourage progress towards wisdom through one stage of their stage of their trajectory: expatriation.

Methodology This research is the result of several different research projects. The first one was a research on high potential managers’ false-self (Dubouloy, 2004). Then I continued with a research project about expatriation as a transitional space (Cerdin and Dubouloy, 2004). I also interviewed a CEO for a research project on creativity (Dubouloy and AlexandreBailly, 2003) and six others for an exploratory research project on psychoanalysis and global responsibility. In all, I interviewed 45 high potential managers and 12 CEOs. Meanwhile, as a professor in charge of pedagogy, I conducted unpublished research on student ‘education in a French business school and the lack of rites of passage’, interviewing 11 students and organising three panels. After this last research, working with a group of people on the theme of ‘Globally Responsible Leaders’ (EFMD, 2006), the idea emerged that the concept of rites of passage could be meaningful to speak about the professional trajectory of some ‘high flyers’ and leaders. Then I reworked the data. In all the cases, a psycho-sociological clinical research methodology was used. The aim was not so much to validate hypotheses as to uncover,

How to Become a Globally Responsible Leader 63

from listening to individuals’ narratives, the meaning of the situations experienced in the individual, collective and organisational complexity. After listening to the story-telling instigated by an introductory phrase ‘Can you tell me …’, I continued my interviews with a dialogue, where I asked questions to deepen some themes and finished them discussing the ‘hypothesis’, and general interpretation. The narratives can discover or (re)discover meaning of situations experienced totally subjectively in the hurried present (Ricœur, 1984; Boje, 1991). Narratives are one of the fundamental tools of reflexivity. They help to establish intersubjectivity and openness to others. They ‘limit a representation of the self as a coherent whole, and open up to alteration as well as otherness’ (Giust-Desprairies, 2000). The interviews were then fully transcribed and submitted to the interviewees, who could make any modifications they wished. Finally, I met with some of them individually or in groups for further discussion, after drafting an initial write-up of my research.

Expatriation and rites of passage In this section I intend to show how the dynamics of rites of passage can help the future executive to become a globally responsible leader. Although each stage in a career involves its own rites of passage, here I will focus on expatriation as an illustration.

Rites of passage All societies use coded, repetitive and structured activities – rites – to develop and maintain their own structures. Rites thus have a major socialisation, even normalisation, role (Goffmann, 1974; Segalen, 1998). All companies develop practices and procedures which, while they are not defined as rites, structure interpersonal relationships, punctuate time, participate in individuals’ identity dynamics, and are part of the corporate culture. However, most of the time, if they are useful, they are no longer meaningful; they have lost their symbolic dimension. In the early 20th century Van Gennep (1981) identified a very specific category of rites: rites of passage that ‘punctuate the progress of human life from the cradle to the grave’ (Belmont, 1986, p. 10). In the abundant literature on career transitions, the question of rites of passage is beginning to carve itself a place (Trice and Morand, 1989; Altman and Holmes, 2005). All rites of passage are structured around three successive, separate stages: preliminaries, liminaries and post-liminaries

64 Leadership Perspectives

(Turner, 1969; Von Gennep, 1981), each of these stages marking the crossing of a threshold.2 – Preliminaries mark the time of separation and renouncement that enables the individual to abandon the prerogatives and behaviours of the universe he is about to leave. One of the raisons d’être of rites of passage is to take charge of and make bearable the suffering that goes with any separation, containing emotions, and anxiety in facing uncertainty (Turner, 1969; Belmont, 1986; Segalen, 1998; Fellous, 2001; Goguel d’Allondans, 2002). – Then come the liminaries. These represent the intermediate stage, the margin. It is a period of wandering, a state of being on the edge. Often, the period is inaugurated by all sorts of tests and trials. It is also the place of all doubts, and therefore of all potential. The individuals are no longer what they were before, but no-one yet knows what they will become. They will have to determine themselves. As these tough periods are lived through in a peer group, this passage creates collective identity and undoubtedly solidarity, among individuals who before could be rivals. – The post-liminaries represent the final stage. They involve integration rites where the persons are initiated into the new codes defining the new social group they are joining. Rites of passage play an essential role in these transition periods, allowing people to leave one social group to join another, creating new relations among the individuals in transitions. More generally, rites of passage participate in the long journey towards wisdom, as they mobilise critical thinking, reflexivity and compassion.

When expatriation loses much of its meaning Even if expatriation no longer occupies the same place in the career of future executives, expatriation is an opportunity for true metamorphosis (Osland, 1995; McCall and Hollenbeck, 2002). It tests the vital abilities of adjustability, autonomy and open-mindedness in those who live and work in another country, and the courage to pass through losses (Weiss, 1990; Cerdin and Dubouloy, 2004), all virtues found along the path to wisdom. However, companies do not consider social, cultural and psychological support and accompaniment for expatriates as a priority. They help people to anticipate difficulties and bring a touch of reality to their fantasies. Generally, future expatriates are offered

How to Become a Globally Responsible Leader 65

readymade answers on the matters of a foreigner’s place, difference. Nobody help them to question the nature of their attachments, and the ‘real’ reasons for going. Worse still, in reassuring them, administrative procedures, those rites devoid of meaning, reinforce their favourite defense mechanisms: rationalisation and the false-self.

Transforming preparations into preliminaries Most interviewees see the preparations for expatriation as nothing other than administrative problems (dealing with issues of pensions, taxes, insurance, etc.), practical concerns (accommodation and school for the children). However, beyond the future managers’ assertions that expatriation is a ‘career requirement’ or attributable to ‘curiosity about other countries’, it is possible to hear the much more complex unconscious issues and dynamics these assertions conceal (Cerdin and Dubouloy, 2004). It could be an opportunity to add a chapter to the family saga, to take over the dreams a parent was unable to achieve. For many, expatriation is a solution to the unconscious conflict between their Ideal Ego and their Ego or to break away from an over-strict Superego by seeking elsewhere spaces of freedom they cannot find in their own country. Future expatriates are often in situations of avoidance of intrapsychic conflict, rejection of ambivalence, repression and denial of the pain of separation. Leaving, ‘cutting ties’ relates to illusion, acting out, rather than to awareness and construction of experience. Without any framework or mirror to provide a reflection of their discourse, reflexivity is beyond the grasp of most.

Liminaries of the sojourn in a foreign country The theoretical model of international adaptation developed by Black et al., (1991), cannot explain the internal maelstrom that the encounter with difference can be for a new expatriate. Foreign countries can be effective revealers of deeply buried selves. All the interviewees spoke with emotion about the sensation of liberation, the people they met, friendships made, the responsibilities they had, the risks they took, but also about periods of loneliness, missing their family, loss of certain illusions and anxiety over their return. For lack of psychological elaboration, the majority of these experiences are anecdotal and superficial. In a way, they continue being ‘foreign to themselves’ (Kristeva, 1988), unable to discover their true self. For some others it is a real opportunity of maturation and discovering themselves and the world and their place in it: ‘When you come back, you’re yourself, not just the name on your passport. And the face in the mirror is you, not the dominant model’.

66 Leadership Perspectives

The disappointing return can not be post-liminary Practically all expatriates find the return disappointing. The stage of integration into a new community, with its rituals marking access to a new status, is rarely immediate. The period of wandering extends into a new ‘terra incognita’: the head office, the destination for almost all returning expatriates. Where they were expecting promotion and recognition, they embark on a trial of patience and persistence. … Instead of promotion they find regression.

Reintroducing rituals to restore meaning If expatriation is considered as a rite of passage, it would be interesting to offer, for those who wish, places and spaces in the form of seminars providing a suitable environment where meaningful rituals, rich in questioning and symbolism would be offered. It is important that these designs should be collective, for others with their own experiences and questions can act as mirrors for each person’s reflection, and in order they can build collective representation, identity and solidarity. The place, structure, name, organisation, rituals and if possible the trainers of such seminars should not change, because the rite provides structure and a container for the emotional outpourings and a framework through the constancy of its basic elements. Rituals provide a home for the imaginary and the symbolic. At that occasion, working on life stories and socio-professional trajectories is an approach rich in discovery and understanding of each story: the family, professional, social, economic and cultural determinants that contributed to construction of the individual’s identity. Through revisiting their past, participants are better prepared to face a future period in a foreign country and all the possibles available to them. Why, during the sojourn abroad, do the companies not provide more help for developing their reflexivity? Reports of surprise can encourage the ‘self-reflexivity that fosters alternative perspectives of self’ (Brown and Starkey, 2000, p. 110). The period of expatriation may be punctuated by other reports in a form to be defined, which would help to put experiences into perspective. Agenda could be synchronised during school holidays, when expatriates visit their home country, in order to organise collective workshops, based around narratives of events and situations experienced during their time abroad. When the time comes to return, the company could once again support the expatriate in a process of ‘working through’ (Bridger, 2001) and

How to Become a Globally Responsible Leader 67

mourning, necessary prerequisites for integration into a new social and professional group. Elaboration of disappointment and frustration could perhaps reduce the conflicts, ruptures and resignations that are often nothing more than acting out. If liminality is the period of all the renunciations and pains, if rituals may help people to pass through them is not possible to conceive them in order people feel secure?

Liminality as a transitional space: matrix of all renunciation Winnicott proposes a model for analysis of separations that can be used as a model for the separations that punctuate the career of future executives (Winnicott, 1971; Carr and Downs, 2004). In the first few weeks of life, the infant in an intensely close, ‘fusional’ relationship with his mother, makes no distinction between himself and his mother and the surrounding world, between the ‘Me’ and the ‘Not Me’. Totally dependent on an attentive ‘caring and holding’ mother who responds to his every need however small, he is in the omnipotent illusion that every situation is produced and created by him. This illusion of omnipotence is counterbalanced by feelings of absolute impotence when his mother is no longer there to satisfy his needs. It is the deep security due to the care given by the ‘good enough mother’ that will enable the infant to bear the frustration and disillusionment that his mother will inflict on him when she does not respond to his needs immediately. Winnicott uses the term ‘transitional space’ to name this experience of giving up the intense mother-and-child relationship and the all-powerfulness it engenders. It is a place where the infant develops his creativity, inventing his own solution to face the reality which is neither good nor bad. It is vital to introduce a design relevant to each individual. I do not refer to ‘orthopaedic’ coaching to set people back on the straight and narrow path of conformism and performance. The type of coaching I mean is based on reviewing and working through (Dubouloy et al., 2004). The purpose of this approach is to grasp the psychological, interpersonal, organisational and environmental complexity of situations, and the interconnection of these different levels of their conflictuality. The aim is to face up to the dilemmas and responsibilities of decision. It should be noted that the coach adopts the posture of the ‘good enough mother’, meaning that he/she: – Obliges the person to analyse situations in all their complexity: systematically takes into consideration the fourfold psychological, psychosociological, organisational, and environmental dimension;

68 Leadership Perspectives

– Encourages reflexivity, sense-making of situations rather than sensegiving; is never in a position of knowing, but of questioning; – Frustrates when he/she refuses to give advice; – Encourages the person to invent his/her own answer; – Helps the person to develop compassion and personal engagement. Finally, the coach, above all people, takes care that this space is not a space of normalisation (Amado and Ambrose, 2001).

Conclusion: from critical thinking to compassion The past decades have given us a host of visionary leaders with great strategic skills. For the coming decades, we will need globally responsible leaders. To become outstanding leaders full of wisdom, managers must travel a road full of trials and pitfalls. It is essential that the difficulties and suffering encountered, instead of making them harden and withdraw into themselves, offer them opportunities to develop their reflexivity and creativity, making them receptive to the suffering of others and the compassion the world so much needs. To achieve this, designs need to be introduced at every stage of this career path to manage those times without being merely administrative procedures to manage ‘potential’. What is required is proper accompaniment for the persons in what they are in their innermost self, without setting them apart from the world. This means many administrative procedures or rituals devoid of meaning, which generally do nothing more than reinforce the individual’s falseself and conformity, must be transformed into genuine rites of passage, transitional spaces, opportunities for the person to advance in wisdom and develop his self-knowledge and reflexivity, as well as compassion. The conditions for a successful transformation are as follows: – These designs must be organised and structured in a strictly-defined, fixed setting which will form a locus of stability for individuals in a state of wandering, and act as ‘containers’ for strong emotions that can make the person and his environment fragile; – They must be the most collective possible, so that individuals are confronted with others, become receptive to the dialectics of similarity and difference and open up access to each person’s ‘true-self’; – They must allow relationships to be formed with others where the instrumentation and competition that destroy the weakest and

How to Become a Globally Responsible Leader 69

disperse the strongest give way to the solidarity that enables everyone to progress – some more than others; – All these transitions need ‘passeurs’, mentors, coaches, tutors, trainers who can take up the position of the ‘good-enough-mother’, respectful of the person, their intelligence, their emotions and their future. A Utopia? Maybe! But it is time to think of limiting the enormous wastefulness, for individuals and the community, that many highpotential managers’ careers become.

Notes 1 A contracted combination of ‘management and imaginary’. 2 The Latin ‘limen’ means threshold.

References Y. Altman and L. Holmes, ‘The rites of passage of cross-disciplinary concepts reflections on “rites, right? The value of rites de passage for dealing with today’s career transitions”’, Career Development International, 15 (2005) 67–70. G. Amado and A. Ambrose, The Transitional Approach to Change (London and New York: Karnac Books, 2001). N. Aubert and V. de Gaulejac, Le coût de l’excellence (Paris: Seuil, 1991). U. Beck, ‘Confucius and Socrates: The teaching of wisdom’ (1999). N. Belmont, ‘La notion de rite de passage’, in P.C.J. Hainard (ed.) Les rites de passage aujourd’hui. actes du colloque de Neuchâtel 1981 (Paris: L’Âge d’Homme, 1986), pp. 9–19. P.E. Bierly, E.H. Kessler and E.W. Christensen, ‘Organisational learning, knowledge and wisdom’, Journal of Organisational Change Management, 13(6) (2000) 595–618. J.S. Black, M. Mendenhall and G. Oddou, ‘Toward a comprehensive model of international adjustment: An integration of multiple theoretical perspectives’, Academy of Management Review (1991). D.M. Boje, ‘The storytelling organisation: A study of story performance in an office-supply firm’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(1) (1991) 106–26. P. Bourdieu, ‘Science de la science et réflexivité’, Cours du Collège de France 2000–2001 (Paris: Edition Raison d’Agir, 2001). R. Boyatzis and E. Van Oosten, ‘A leadership imperative: Building the emotionally intelligent organisation’, Ivey Business Journal, 67(3) (2003) 1–5. H. Bridger, ‘The Working Conference Design’, in The Transitional Approach to Change (London and New York: Karnac Books, 2001), pp. 161–72. A.D. Brown and K. Starkey, ‘Organizational identity and learning: A psychodynamic perspective’, Academy of Management Review, 25(1) (2000) 102–20. A. Carr and A. Downs, ‘Transitional and quasi-objects in organisation studies: Viewing Enron from the object relations world of Winnicott and Serres’, Journal of Organisational Change Management, 17(4) (2004) 352–64.

70 Leadership Perspectives J.-L. Cerdin and M. Dubouloy, ‘Expatriation as a maturation opportunity: A psychoanalytical approach based on “copy and paste”’, Human Relations, 57(8) (2004). M. Dubouloy, ‘From the high potential’s loneliness to the capacity “to be alone”’, (Melbourne, Australia: ISPSO annual colloquium: Negotiating Difference: Psychoanalytic explorations of working with the ‘other’ in organisations, 20–22 June, 2002). M. Dubouloy, ‘The transitional space and self recovery: A psychoanalytical approach of high-potential managers’ training’, Human Relations, 57(4) (2004). M. Dubouloy and F. Alexandre-Bailly, ‘Approche psychanalytique de la créativité des dirigeants’ (Grenoble: ‘GRH: Innovons!’, XIV Congrès de l’AGRH, 20– 22 November, 2003). M. Dubouloy, G. Arnaud and H. Zannad, ‘Quand la recherche se fait intervention: les apports de la psychosociologie clinique et de l’analyse des récits’ (Bologne: AIPTLF, 26–29 August, 2004). EFMD and The Global Compact, ‘Globally responsible leadership a call for engagement’ (2006). E. Enriquez, ‘De la solitude imposée à une solitude solidaire’, Topique, l’Esprit du temps, 64 (1998) 5–24. M. Fellous, A la recherche des nouveaux rites; rites de passage et modernité avancée (Paris: L’Harmattan, 2001). P. Frost, J. Dutton, M. Worline and A. Wilson, ‘Narratives of compassion in organisations’, in Fineman (ed.) Emotions in Organisations (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 2000), pp. 25–45. F. Giust-Desprairies, ‘Raconter sa vie: la quête ontologique du sujet’, Revue Internationale de Psychosociologie, VI, 14 (2000) 89–101. E. Goffmann, Les rites d’interaction (Paris: Les Editions de Minuit, 1974). T. Goguel d’Allondans, Rites de passage, rites d’initiation (Laval: Les Presses de l’Université de Laval, 2002). D.T. Hall, ‘Protean careers of the 21st century’, The Academy of Management Executive, 10(4) (1996) 8–16. L. Hirschhorn, The workplace within: Psychodynamics of organisational life (Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 1988). D. Kaës, ‘Introduction à l’analyse transitionnelle’, in Crise, rupture et dépassement (Paris: Dunod, 1979), pp. 1–81. R. Kaës, ‘Réalité psychique et souffrance dans les institutions’, in J.B. c. R. Kaës (ed.) L’institution et les institutions, études Psychanalytiques (Paris: Dunod, 1987). J. Kristeva, Etrangers à nous-mêmes (Paris: Fayard, 1988). M.W. McCall and G.P. Hollenbeck, Developing Global Executives (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2002). J. Osland, Adventure of Living Abroad: Hero Tales from the Global Frontier (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1995). P. Ricœur, Temps et récits (Paris: Seuil, 1984). E.H. Schein, ‘Organisational socialisation and the profession of management’, Sloan Management Review, 30(1) (1988) 53–65. M. Segalen, Rites et rituels contemporains (Paris: Nathan, 1998). L.K. Trevino, M. Brown and L. Pincus, ‘A qualitative investigation of perceived executive ethical leadership: Peceptions from inside and outside the executive suite’, Human Relations, 56(1) (2003) 5–37.

How to Become a Globally Responsible Leader 71 H.M. Trice and D.A. Morand, ‘Rites of passage in work careers’, in M.B. Arthur, D.T. Hall and B.S. Lawrence (ed.) Handbook of Career Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp. 397–416. K. Turnbull James and T. Arroba, ‘Reading and carrying: A framework for learning about emotions and emotionality in organisational system as a core aspect of leadership development’, Management Learning, 36(3) (2005) 299–316. R.H. Turner, The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure (Chicago: Aldine, 1969). A. Van Gennep, Les rites de passage, étude systématique des rites (Paris: Picard, 1981). R.S. Weiss, ‘Losses associated with mobility’, in S. Fisher and C. Cooper (ed.) On the Move: the Psychology of Change and Transition (West Sussex: Wiley & Sons 1990), pp. 3–12. D.W. Winnicott, ‘Ego distortion in terms of true and false self’, in The Maturational Processes and the Facilitating Environment (London: Hogarth, 1965), pp. 56–63. D.W. Winnicott, Playing and Reality (London: Tavistock, 1971).

6 Strategic Leadership Kim Turnbull James, Cliff Bowman and Richard Kwiatkowski

A re-conceptualisation of leadership at the top is necessary, in part because of the increasing understanding of the prevalence of shared and distributed leadership in organisations. Many leadership concepts (transformational, authentic, responsible, global), in contrast to the idea of distributed leadership, do not explicitly address where leadership is exercised. Once distributed leadership is engaged, the role of top leaders changes. Leadership may be dispersed but some aspects of leadership cannot be distributed or delegated. This chapter considers how strategic leaders such as CEOs may think about their role by bringing together the often separated fields of strategy and leadership. In this chapter we develop the concept of the ‘Main Idea’, the intent around which the strategy coalesces – it grounds, centres, inspires and gives a clear message. Moreover, it has psychological significance, containing anxiety arising from the risks associated with changing direction or having a new strategic imperative. Strategic leaders must embody the ‘Main Idea’: they must be personally credible and must demonstrate understanding of the organisation context. Strategic leadership is not a set of leader behaviours or competences but is conceptualised in terms of the role of a top leader – both psychological and strategic. A psychodynamic perspective is adopted to explore the strategic leader’s role.

Where is the ‘strategy’ in leadership? Leadership is about taking people and organisations on a journey and towards a goal. However, how an organisation’s destination is to be determined is hardly addressed in the leadership literature. This is odd because as Grint (2007) points out, the origins of our word leadership 72

Strategic Leadership 73

lie in the Norse word ‘laed’ – to set a direction for a ship. In contrast, direction, is central to the strategy literature. These two literatures represent deep differences in our view of organisations; strategy from a rational perspective with roots in economics: leadership constructed around competences, behaviours and relationships, acknowledged to have an emotional component and with roots in psychology. Whilst the Viking crew would have mutinied against a captain who could not ‘laed’, our leadership models and development activity often omit the integration of strategy and leadership, with few guides as to how this might be done. Whilst this separation may have been less important when leadership was considered the domain of the top levels of an organisation, it is important to (re)connect these in the context of distributed leadership in organisations: leadership may be exercised at all levels, but it is not the same at all levels. We use the term ‘strategic leadership’ to bring together the ideas of leading people and creating direction at the top of an organisation, not as simply another new leadership style for all leaders to adopt.

Developments in the concept of leadership Much of the leadership literature is concerned with leaders’ characteristics and behaviours, for example, the idea of transformational leadership (Bass and Avolio, 1994; Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe, 2001). The notion of charismatic, visionary or heroic leader still has a vivid hold on our imagination (see for example Kets de Vries, 1998, and indeed many articles in the popular media). Newer terms such as shared and distributed leadership are widely used to describe a concept of leadership exercised by a group of people collaborating together (shared leadership) and by individuals at many levels in an organisation (distributed leadership), and is central to ‘post traditional’ leadership models (e.g. Pearce and Sims, 2000; Kouzes and Posner, 2003; Pearce and Conger, 2003; Raelin, 2003). Whilst leaders at the top are often cited in organisational success, Fletcher (2004) argues that in practice these ‘visible heroes’ are in fact underpinned by leadership shared across the organisation. This collaborative aspect is frequently not recognised and is often mistaken for individual achievement. Fletcher calls for ‘post heroic’ models of leadership, involving distributed leadership practices such as collaboration between those identified as leaders with those who enact leadership but may not be labelled leaders.

74 Leadership Perspectives

However, the emergence of the concept of distributed leadership corresponds to the emergence of interest in strategic leadership. Indeed it is becoming clearer that you cannot have the one without the other (Denis et al., 2001). Sosik et al. (2005) argue that outstanding strategic leadership creates a culture of shared leadership, in which the organisation as a whole shares and participates in the leadership tasks of the organisation. This contributes to an organisation’s ability to adapt. Strategic leadership requires an element of distributed leadership and strategic leaders are thought to be more effective when they are willing to learn along with others (Ireland and Hitt, 2005). The top leader paradoxically needs to strengthen and revise their role, not simply delegate but rather really involve others in sharing that leadership (Huffington et al., 2004; Turnbull James et al. 2007). Without good strategic leadership, distributed leadership cannot achieve the aim of responsiveness and adaptability. Locke (2003) identifies the difference between top-down, bottom-up, shared egalitarian and integrated models of leadership. He argues for the integrated form in which a top leader works with staff, and staff with each other, to lead an organisation, but the top leader’s role remains distinct. Locke’s integrated model is valuable as it draws attention to two aspects of this new approach to leadership. First, collaboration is essential if the organisation is not to be fragmented, and second, the top leader’s role is different from others’ and is not eroded but made more complex. This is an important development in leadership theory and helps to differentiate the leadership roles needed in the organisation rather than focusing on leadership styles. CEOs, Presidents and Managing Directors have a very different role from leaders at other levels in the organisation. The strategic leadership role is not simply transformational leadership practised at the top of the organisation. The strategic leader role needs to be understood in relation to leadership throughout the organisation.

A psychodynamic perspective on top leader roles Strategic leadership is not solely concerned with the rational side of organisation life but also with the emotions that drive group and organisation dynamics. Obholzer and Miller (2004) identify the leader’s role as including reviewing the organisation’s primary task – keeping this from being corrupted by the emotionality present in the organisation, having a boundary-keeping function, avoiding the enactment of unconscious personal dynamics which interfere with institutional functioning and paying attention to organisational dynamics. The idea of the primary task

Strategic Leadership 75

was explored by Miller and Rice (1967) and has a number of important aspects. Groups need to know the primary purpose/task that brings them together. Applying psychoanalytic concepts to the organisational systems allows us to understand just how difficult it is to work with others and in groups whilst actually sticking to the primary task – underlying emotionality about working in a group can easily take a group off task. A group can easily and inappropriately redefine the task (displacement activity, such as concern with internal bureaucratic procedures is a well-known example) and so a leader’s job includes making sure the group can both tolerate working closely – the relations are manageable as well as making sure that the group works at the real task, not some interpretation that is more comfortable. Huffington et al. (2004) discuss the new organisational dynamics arising from distributed leadership and suggest that, whilst there are considerable potential benefits to be gained, simultaneously there are anxieties and conflicts that need to be contained. Distributed leadership changes the leadership dynamics and where the individual leader may have been felt to hold the organisation together, once leadership is distributed among many the top leadership team must also integrate across the organisation. Where distributed leadership is expected top leaders must contain potential fragmentation in which people may go in a comfortable direction of their own choosing to avoid conflict and evade responsibility. As Kets de Vries argues (1999, p. 75), however participatory one might like to be as a top leader there is always a need from the top for clear direction and priorities in a (reassuringly) authoritative rather than authoritarian manner. So is strategic leadership simply about understanding the figurehead role and its psychological components? Leaders at the top must define the primary task for the organisation. In the case of Apple, a company built on the notion of making computers more user friendly than their competitors, John Scully, as CEO, changed the nature of the business to compete in the low cost market against DELL and IBM. Under this new strategy the company did not prosper. When Steve Jobs returned to the post he reconfigured the business around the idea of innovation. Did Scully simply mis-read the market? We need to bring in the ‘strategy’ piece of strategic leadership.

Where is the ‘leadership’ in strategy? Perhaps the first point we should make is that the strategy literature typically refers to strategic management as a subject or domain of interest.

76 Leadership Perspectives

Certainly, the overwhelming majority of textbooks use this term. This seems to imply that strategy can and should in someway be a managed activity, and this managerial orientation is reflected in the content of these texts. Most place a good deal of stress on rational analysis, and ‘planning’ processes; there is little coverage of intuition and emotion. The field does helpfully distinguish between the content of strategy i.e. the intent, strategy or plan itself, and the processes of strategy, which would include both the formulation process and the processes involved in implementing any required changes to the organisation. In terms of the leadership requirement to set a direction the field proffers prescriptions with respect to both strategy content and strategy process. Content prescriptions may in some ways pre-empt the requirement to engage in any elaborate strategy formulation process, other than to undertake some form of diagnosis of the organisation’s extant situation. These prescriptions tend to be overly simplistic e.g. ‘become the lowest cost producer’ (Porter, 1980), develop ‘customer intimacy’ (Treacy and Wiersema, 1993), ‘stick to the knitting’ (Peters and Waterman, 1982) and some border on the banal e.g. ‘get the right people on the bus’ (Collins, 2001). One wonders quite what strategic leaders are to make of these nostrums. They seem to offer a substitute for thinking, but because the guidance is so abstract there would seem to be little here to help the strategic leader to provide clarity of direction. Process prescriptions tend to advocate extensive phases of analysis that require the gathering of data about the organisation and its environment. Through the application of analytical devices e.g. Porter’s ‘five forces’ model, alternative strategies can be derived, evaluated and the ‘right’ one selected. There are more sophisticated process prescriptions which recognise the ambiguities and uncertainties involved in strategising e.g. Quinn’s (1980) ‘logical incrementalism’. But we have to conclude that overwhelmingly strategy is approached from a rational positivist perspective, and as the primary concern of strategy writers is the profit seeking firm, both content and process prescriptions reflect the strong economics underpinnings of the field. The field also distinguishes between intended strategy and ‘realised’ strategy (see e.g. Mintzberg and Waters, 1985). Intended strategies tend to be the outcome of deliberate attempts to set direction e.g. ‘planning’ processes, but they may reflect the personal vision of the chief executive. In contrast realised strategies are essentially a description of the extant disposition of the organisation, whether this position was the result of deliberate ‘planning’ or more emergent processes. Thus the realised strategy is in some sense embedded in the organisation,

Strategic Leadership 77

whereas intended strategies can exist in either an ‘embodied’ form or a ‘disembodied’ form. What we mean here is that a ‘strategy’ may exist as an organisational artefact e.g. in the form of a document, the ‘five year plan’, in which case it is certainly separate from the individuals involved in drawing it up. Alternatively, a strategy may be ‘embodied’ insofar as an individual or a group not only derive the strategy, they espouse it, ‘live it’: the embodied strategy is enacted. So where we encounter embodied strategies we may be moving closer towards strategic leader behaviour. We would argue that embodied strategies that are enacted by the leader are most likely to be derived from essentially intuitive processes that involve conscious or unconscious processing of past experiences, rather than being the outcome of rational analytical processes. Moreover, we would expect embodied strategies to exhibit emotional commitment from the leader. True belief must involve some emotions as the leader has to consciously reject alternative strategies that may on some criteria be ‘superior’. Thus there is a personal relationship between the strategy and the leader. The leader who can inspire an organisation to recover or grow is offering more than a cogent argument. Martin Luther King famously did not say ‘I have strategic plan’.

The ‘Main Idea’ A concept that pulls these themes together is the ‘Main Idea’. What is interesting to us is the fact that the concepts related to the ‘Main Idea’ appear to be emerging from a number of sources; Hirschhorn (1998) refers to something related called the Basic Idea whilst Purcell et al. (2003) refer to the Big Idea. It has links to Hirschhorn’s (1999) notion of primary risk in which the task of the leader is to choose the task. The organisation must define itself in terms of its task and therefore what it does not do (‘we focus on upmarket food and are not pursuing household items anymore’; ‘we are a niche player and we don’t go after high volume’, ‘we stop just manufacturing “kit” and offer product life service’). This means that the team is committing itself to a strategy that may well lose some business or goodwill and certainly upset some stakeholders in order to pursue the ‘right strategy’ which they believe will lead to future higher gains. The top team, in committing to the new strategy is deciding not only what direction to follow, but also involves an implicit decision taken not to follow another direction – and this choice inevitably creates a high level of anxiety.

78 Leadership Perspectives

Atkins PLC When Keith Clarke took up his role as the new CEO at Atkins in October 2003 he began, as many other leaders have, by setting out to gain an in-depth understanding of the company. He discovered that the organisation operated across many business sectors, with a very broad spectrum of projects being undertaken in both UK and non-UK locations. He discovered that the business was described in numerous ways internally and externally ranging from ‘the largest engineering consultancy in the UK’, through listing a very long list of clients, to ‘that’s very difficult’. Over the next year or so as Keith went about getting more intimate with the business he began to reflect more and more on what he had discovered in those relatively early days. He had already been able to provide greater clarity of direction however, increasingly he realised that the strategic leadership from him needed to be built and embedded around the fundamentals of what Atkins is and needs to be. He found a relatively simple way of describing what Atkins does. In very broad terms – Plans, Designs and Enables the delivery of complex capital programmes for clients in the public and private sectors across the globe. This insightful description now enables the company, its staff and all stakeholders to understand the organisation’s ‘reason for being’. Clarke then went about enhancing and embedding this clarity by explaining through the idea of a formula why and how this concept informs business practice: Identity + Excellence = Growth. His view was that whilst the strategic choice for Atkins would be growth this cannot be ad hoc, or scattergun, in fact quite the contrary. His ‘formula’ means that a clearer understanding of identity – what Atkins does and doesn’t do – and then striving for excellence in that identity, produces growth. So in recent times the organisation has increasingly challenged what it does, moving away from what it’s not good at, striving continuously to build on its strength capabilities seeking excellence in its core activities. Thus the CEO has been able to provide clarity, direction and real leadership by articulating a Main Idea that resonates with organizational traditions. In a world characterised by increasing global competition and rapid change in patterns of market, demand and customer preference, it is imperative for Atkins to understand their core business (Identity). The organization can continually challenge and innovate around that core to provide excellence that beats the competition, but the continuity given by the Main Idea of Plans, Designs and Enables, offers a sense of relative security to staff and stakeholders.

Strategic Leadership 79

It is important that the ‘Main Idea’ is not confused either with strategy – a rational conception of the organisational trajectory – or with vision, which has a dream-like or messianic potential. For us one of the key additional aspects is that it is firmly rooted in sense making in the organisation as a key aspect of initiating change (Gioia and Chittipedi, 1991) and the ‘Main Idea’ runs through all of the organisation’s activity and decision-making informing the grounded choices that are made. Creating the ‘Main Idea’ is one of the leadership tasks that cannot be distributed or shared, and it is not a mission statement. The ‘Main Idea’ is the intent around which the strategy coalesces – it grounds, centres, inspires and gives a clear message; ‘this is the direction, it’s what we are about and it’s what we’re going to do’, and by implication ‘what we are not going to do’. It is articulate and elegant, and needs to be first articulated by the leader and then repeated by others. It must be congruent with how the leader is perceived by staff, and, more than convincing, it needs to be persuasive. The leader must be seen as being the right person to take the organisation into this future as incarnated in the ‘Main Idea’. In short the leader must embody the ‘Main Idea’ and the ‘Main Idea’ encapsulates the leader’s confidence that the risk is worthwhile and has been created by someone in touch with reality, rather than leadership centred on an essentially narcissistic personality (Maccoby, 2000). The ‘Main Idea’ is associated with the leader and in turn with the top team whom the leader has gathered together to deliver on it. The ‘Main Idea’ and leader are synonymous in the early adoption of the ‘Main Idea’. Thus the ‘Main Idea/leader’ offers a temporary sense of relief and protection from the anxieties created by an ambiguous and uncertain future. The leader takes the risk of deciding which path to follow on behalf of the organisation and must do so in such a way that people can feel that success and survival are possible and even probable. They can get on with the job and redefine their work as necessary whilst acting in synchrony with the ‘Main Idea’. Eventually the ‘Main Idea’ becomes embedded and part of the organisation milieu (unlike top-down company culture statements which tend, in our experience, to be ignored). The ‘Main Idea’ as embodied by the leader operates both at the level of inspirational instruction (that is it has a concrete or real quality) and as a transitional object (something that can represent a feeling of security and safety and which can be carried from a safe to an unsafe place; a teddy bear for grown ups!) (see Winnicott, 1965). The leader is able to provide the secure feelings that enable the organisation to move purposefully from the known present to an unknown/unknowable, but, now, enticing future. It can allow thinking and development, progress and

80 Leadership Perspectives

excitement rather than uncertainty and doubt that can paralyse progress. For the ‘Main Idea/leader’ to be effective a number of criteria need to be met: • The concept embodied in the ‘Main Idea’ must reflect the organisation’s identity sufficiently for people to be able to recognise and then identify with it and own it; • The direction is at the edge of what people already do or understand – it is not a complete change or entirely new but a shift; • The leader is credible in making that choice because they have had to make choices which are perceived to be similar/parallel in their past; • The leader takes on the risk – thus reducing the anxiety levels in the organisation as a whole – the leader’s behaviour must convince people that their self-confidence is well founded; • The articulation of the ‘Main Idea’ enables others to begin to take up leadership roles – their roles in the enterprise (what’s in/out) and areas of responsibility can be defined in terms of the ‘Main Idea’ – the potential chaos and anarchy that the idea of distributed leadership potentially engenders can be avoided; • In taking up their leadership roles people can feel motivated and inspired – the leader is a reference point (almost an internal mentor) and a figurehead (which engenders positive emotions such as reassurance or excitement). Thus in this concept of strategic leadership the notions of psychological aspects of leadership roles, anxiety containment and distributed leadership are brought together with strategic choice. The ‘Main Idea’ articulates the choice the leader has made; it resonates with the organisation membership (‘yes – that’s what I joined to do’). We could suggest that the content of the ‘Main Idea’ needs to deal with the critical strategic parameters facing the organisation. We would suggest that for a business the critical parameters would be about how the firm makes money in a competitive environment. So the idea needs to articulate answers to key questions like: what markets are we trying to compete in? How do we think we can effectively compete in those markets? Those in corporate leadership roles need to have a clearly articulated view about the value adding logic of the corporation i.e. they must have thought through the reasons why the corporation contains this particular mix of businesses. So the ‘Main Idea’ at corporate level would articulate a view about what synergies are being sought and how these might be realised.

Strategic Leadership 81

For those leading not-for-profit (NFP) organisations like schools, charities, defence organisations, etc., the strategic challenges are typically greater than those leading in the for-profit sector. This stems from the absence in most NFPs of an agreed purpose for the organisation. Typically there are many and often conflicting views about purpose that reflect the differing agenda of stakeholders in the organisation. So whereas in a firm the end is a ‘given’, (making profits for its owners), and the ‘Main Idea’ merely has to articulate how this goal might be achieved, life is not so straightforward for those leading NFPs. We would argue that NFP strategic leadership must perforce include the setting of both ends and means. However, some clarity can be achieved if the leader can at least identify the primary beneficiaries of the organisation e.g. children, in the case of the school, rather than other ‘stakeholders’ like potential employers, organised parent groups, national government, teachers, governors, etc. Then alternative strategies, resourcing and other decisions can be guided by the leader’s articulation of this basic mission. It may be that the governors of the school may disagree with the head’s ‘Main Idea’ centred on the interests of the students, and this may lead to conflicts. However, this clearly illustrates the benefits and challenges of strategic leadership and the importance of the ‘Main Idea’ in providing purpose and direction to the staff of the school. The role of the strategic leader is to absorb uncertainty and ambiguity and to set direction for others.

Bringing strategy into leadership (or leadership into strategy) – the top team contribution The notion of strategic leadership as opposed to the two separate concepts of leadership and strategic competence, suggests that the leader and the strategy are closely entwined. People need to identify with a credible leader who understands the organisation, the sector or the challenges, who can deliver on an agenda which is inspiring yet in tune with people’s perceptions of their own and the organisations capabilities and aspirations, and which is carefully timed at a point when the organisation is ready to take a risk, learn and change. The articulated strategy is, at least in the beginning, ‘of the leader’. It is embodied and alive. The leader must have a capacity to make sense of both the emotionality of the organisation and the realities of the organisation and its context. They must manage the emotions of followers that are projected towards them and manage their own anxieties as they reflect realistic confidence back (Huy, 1999). They must be able to have the personal resources to contain anxiety (Frost and Robinson, 1999). To have a realistic sense of confidence they must have insight to discern what their own

82 Leadership Perspectives

capabilities are and to understand the origins of their aspirations and dreams: are they driven out of a personal agenda – and is that in tune with the realities the organisation finds itself in – or is their ‘Main Idea’ delusional and even dangerous. A key aspect for development is sense making. Sense making in this context means personal insight; reading the organisational dynamics that impact on the leaders; understanding the capacity of the organisation to change and the strengths and weaknesses that can be built on; being in tune with the organisation members – their experiences and their tacit knowledge about the organisation. For the leader to be able to do this ‘sense making’ activity, they must develop very special relationships with their top team. For example, top team members must be able to tell the leader what they know about the organisation and to manage their competitiveness with each other for influence over the CEO. Development of top teams often focuses on executive coaching for individual members and too often focuses on competences rather than how members conjointly take up their team roles. Strategy away days often focus on the rational aspects of strategic analysis. Teams in trouble are willing to look at their relationships but they often leave this examination well beyond the point of repair. Unfortunately, some team development activity with a new CEO can be too superficial in terms of building relationships because they are one offs rather than a commitment to ongoing review of working practice. Top teams need to be able to work with leadership as shared and collaborative activity and, simultaneously, as the top leader within their own business units. The specific dynamics of top teams are rarely discussed and team members often talk ‘as if’ they share assumptions and agenda whilst needing to individually shape the CEOs thinking and support the CEOs agenda. Competition for resources and influence may result in a top team resembling the sibling dynamics of the family – where fear of being replaced by the ‘younger’ child or hatred of the older sibling is un-discussible. Whilst much will have been learned in a career leading to a position in a top team little elsewhere prepares people for these complex unconscious political dynamics.

Conclusions The concept of strategic leadership is different from extant models of leadership personified by strong traditional heroic leaders (who also have great strategies). Instead it must address the complex role of the top leader particularly when distributed and collaborative leadership

Strategic Leadership 83

are necessary. Many frameworks of leadership focus on leader behaviour or competences and there is a popular fascination with charismatic leaders, for instance in the popular press. Perhaps in a world which is globalising and devolving power and leadership responsibilities to more and more people it is crucial to feel that the ‘centre will hold’. We think it is more important that those at the centre have the capacity to contain others’ anxieties, to work and ground their ideas for the organisation in the everyday experiences and realities of the organisation than to have specific characteristics or traits. Charisma, though attractive, is not necessarily an indication of containment ability, or strategic leadership capacity. There is a paradox; strategic leadership and distributed leadership are both simultaneously needed, and that strong strategic leadership allows (or perhaps creates) the possibility of healthy and effective distributed leadership. Strategic leadership is contextual. It focuses on organisation dynamics and the leader’s role, both practical and symbolic, rather than a checklist of desired individual characteristics. The ‘Main Idea’ supports the psychological needs of containing anxiety and providing a safe psychological space for others to exercise their leadership: it is a crucial aspect of strategic leadership and is not simply a strap line for marketing the organisation or a strategic plan. The ‘Main Idea’ should be deeply rooted in sense making and the organisation’s history and context. To embody the ‘Main Idea’ the leader needs to be credible and radiate self-belief based, crucially, on a secure contact with reality. It may not be enough for managers to attend strategy courses, where the rational, cognitive, model-based aspects of strategy are covered, or attend leadership development that emphasises personality, insight relationships and self-awareness. Similarly, it may not be enough for top teams to separate out these two aspects of strategic leadership – it is magical thinking to hope that some form of integration will take place after such events. Working with the top team, and coaching for the CEO must take this complexity into account. Finally, any planned integrated intervention must be tempered by the realisation that the individual CEO, able to dovetail these very different intellectual and psychological requirements, gain acceptance of their ‘Main Idea’ and create a top team which can deliver this agenda is actually a rare individual indeed.

References B. Alimo-Metcalfe and R. Alban-Metcalfe, ‘The development of a new TLQ’, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74 (2001) 1–27.

84 Leadership Perspectives B.M. Bass and B.J. Avolio, Improving Organisational Effectiveness through Transformational Leadership (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994). J. Collins, Good to Great (Random House, 2001). J.L. Denis, L. Lamothe and A. Langley, ‘The dynamics of collective leadership and strategic change in pluralistic organizations’, Academy of Management Journal, 44(4) (2001) 809–37. J.K. Fletcher, ‘The paradox of postheroic leadership: An essay on gender, power, and transformational change’, Leadership Quarterly, 15 (2004) 647–61. P. Frost and S. Robinson, ‘The toxic handler; organisational hero-and casualty’, HBR, July (1999). D. Gioia and K. Chittipeddi, ‘Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation’, Strategic Management Journal, 12(6) (1991) 433–48. K. Grint, ‘Learning to lead: Can Aristotle help us find the road to wisdom?’, Leadership, 3(2) (2007) 231–46. L. Hirschhorn, ‘The psychology of vision’, in E.B. Klein, F. Gabelnick and P. Herr (eds) The Psychodynamics of Leadership (Madison, Connecticut: Psychosocial Press, 1998) pp. 109–25. L. Hirschhorn, ‘The primary risk’, Human Relations, 53(1) (1999) 5–23. C. Huffington, K. James and D. Armstrong, ‘What is the emotional cost of distributed leadership?’, in C. Huffington, D. Armstrong, W. Halton, L. Hoyle and J. Pooley (eds) Working Below the Surface: The Emotional Life of Contemporary Organizations (London: Karnac, 2004). Q.N. Huy, ‘Emotional capability, emotional intelligence, and radical change’, Academy of Management Review, 24(2) (1999) 325–45. R.D. Ireland and M.A. Hitt, ‘Achieving and maintaining strategic competitiveness in the 21st century: The role of strategic leadership’, Academy of Management Executive, 19(4) (2005) 63–77. M.F.R. Kets de Vries, ‘Charisma in action: The transformational abilities of Virgin’s Richard Branson and AAB’s Percy Barnevik’, Organizational Dynamics, 26(3) (1998) 6–21. M.F.R. Kets de Vries, ‘High performance teams; Lessons from the pygmies’, Organizational Dynamics, 27(3) (1999) 66–77. J. Kouzes and B. Posner, The Leadership Challenge (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2003). E. Locke, ‘Leadership: Starting at the top’, in C. Pearce and J. Conger (eds) Shared Leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2003), pp. 271–84. M. Maccoby, ‘Narcissistic leaders’, Harvard Business Review, 78(1) (2000) 68–77. E.J. Miller and A.K. Rice, Systems of Organisation (London: Tavistock Publications, 1967). H. Mintzberg and J.A. Waters, ‘Of strategies, deliberate, and emergent’, Strategic Management Journal, 6 (1985) 257–72. A. Obholzer and S. Miller, ‘Leadership, followership, and facilitating the creative workplace’, in C. Huffington, D. Armstrong, W. Halton, L. Hoyle and J. Pooley (eds) Working Below the Surface: The Emotional Life of Contemporary Organizations (London: Karnac, 2004), pp. 33–48. C.L. Pearce and J. Conger, Shared Leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2003).

Strategic Leadership 85 C.L. Pearce and H. Sims, ‘Shared leadership: Toward a multi-level theory of leadership’, in M. Beyerlein, D. Johnson and S. Beyerlein, Advances in the Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams (New York: JAI, 2000), vol. 7, pp. 115–39. T.J. Peters, and R.H. Waterman, In Search of Excellence (New York: Harper and Row, 1982). M.E. Porter, Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analysing Industries and Competitors (New York: Free Press, 1980). J. Purcell, N. Kinnie, S. Hutchinson, B. Rayton and J. Swart, Understanding the People and Performance Link; Unlocking the Black Box (London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, 2003). J.B. Quinn, Strategies for Change: Logical Incrementalism (Homewood, IL: Irwin, 1980). J.A. Raelin, Creating Leaderful Organizations: How to Bring Out Leadership in Everyone (San Francisco, CA: Berrett- Koehler, 2003). J.J. Sosik, D.I. Jung, Y. Berson, S.D. Dionne and K.S. Jaussi, ‘Making all the right connections: The strategic leadership of top executives in high-tech organizations’, Organizational Dynamics, 34(1) (2005) 47–61. M. Treacy and F. Wiersema, ‘Customer intimacy and other value disciplines’, Harvard Business Review, 71 (1993) 84–94. K. Turnbull James, J. Mann and J. Creasy, ‘Leaders as lead learners; a case example of facilitating collaborative leadership learning for school leaders’, Management Learning, 38(1) (2007) 79–94. D.W. Winnicott, The Maturational Processes and the Facilitating Environment (New York: International Universities Press, 1965).

7 Voluntarism, Representative Leadership and Organisational Democracy Martin Clarke and David Butcher

There seems little doubt as to the plurality of interests at work in contemporary organisation forms. Such is the rate of change, complexity and interdependence in the business environment that organisations have to be responsive to a plethora of stakeholder interests in order to survive. In such pluralist settings, ‘harnessing the capabilities and commitment of knowledge workers is, it might be argued, the central managerial challenge of our time. Unfortunately, it is a challenge that has not been met’ (Manville and Ober, 2003, p. 48). For at the same time as organisations strive to build the commitment of their employees, they are engaged in a second objective tugging in the opposite direction, one of coherence, standardising procedures, integrating systems and creating consistent corporate cultures. The rational bureaucratic model of organising, implicit in this objective, runs deep in managerial mindsets. How can business leaders improve on such a well-developed concept of the way in which human beings collectively best accomplish their objectives? In recent years there have been a number of discourses that have illuminated the problem of managing this tension, of reshaping hierarchy to take account of a plurality of competing interests. Each makes a helpful contribution to the debate. However, Clarke and Butcher (2006) argue that such theories deal inadequately with four key requirements which are central for the development of theory in this area. That is, they fail to address one or more of the following needs to (i) reflect a genuinely pluralistic perspective on organisation form; (ii) acknowledge the centrality of power relationships in organisational working; (iii) address the individual motivations of leaders to work with alternative models of organising and, (iv) provide clear outcomes for improved organisational performance. This chapter will provide an 86

Voluntarism, Representative Leadership and Organisational Democracy 87

overview of an approach that seeks to make good these shortfalls, firstly by drawing on political philosophy to provide an alternative conception of hierarchy and secondly, of particular interest for this volume, by considering its operationalisation as a form of ‘representative’ leadership. Evidence of this approach in practice will be provided and the theory assessed against the four criteria above. Effective organisational governance is ever more concerned with finding the synergy between, ‘unity, solidarity, community, rules, integration and efficiency … and diversity, differentiation, individual autonomy, individual liberty, disintegration and experimentation’ (March and Olsen, 1995, p. 168). How these tensions are managed reflect core values about organisational democracy. This chapter is concerned ultimately with how this ideal may be furthered in practice by more voluntaristic approaches to leadership and governance.

A changing organisation context There is substantive evidence to support the notion that we are experiencing substantial shifts in the nature of the social institutions around us. Gratton and Ghoshal (2003) describe this ‘revolution’ in terms of a desire for individuals to express their potential, the need for protection from the arbitrary use of power, and involvement of people determining the conditions of their association (2003, p. 1). These types of change are consequently transforming individual relationships with institutions at all levels, but at their core reflect the primacy of individuals and their capacity to act with autonomy. For an increasing number of commentators, the need to respond positively to this plurality of legitimate employee interests substantially changes the role and function of organisational hierarchy to a degree that executives cannot ignore (Cloke and Goldsmith, 2002). The question as to what will characterise this organisational form has stimulated rich research and conceptual speculation but four perspectives in particular have shaped this debate: stakeholder theory, organisation citizenship behaviour (OCB), communities of practice (COP) and co-evolution/complexity theory. Whilst each provides a useful contribution to understanding the interplay between coherence and plurality, Clarke and Butcher (2006) argue there is as yet no approach that satisfactorily accounts for all four of the criteria described above. This position is explicated in Table 7.1 but in brief, stakeholder theory has given insufficient focus to the requirements of employees and other stakeholders, whilst OCB has neglected the issue of power and politics in the conceptualisation of citizenship. The latter has

88 Leadership Perspectives Table 7.1

Comparison of theories addressing organisational plurality Stakeholder Theory

OCB Theory

Increasing plurality and need for individual autonomy

Plurality and success central but tended to underemphasise range and nature of certain stakeholders (Friedman and Miles, 2002)

Plurality Organisations as implicit, but community of greater communities of emphasis on interdependent subordinating learners critical individual for competitive interests to advantage corporate good (Brown and (Graham, Duguid, 2001) 2000)

Embeddedness of social relationships and power

More emphasis UnderLearning as a needed on emphasises socially situated organisation issue of process but role as a dynamic challenge and of power system of political action underdeveloped social central to (Fox, 2000) relationships citizenship (Hendry, 2001) (Graham, and on the 2000) relative power of different stakeholders (Friedman and Miles, 2002)

Social connectivity central to co-evolution (Ashmos et al., 2002) but role of power and politics underexplored

Links to organisation performance

Inconsistent results (Jawahar and McLaughlin, 2001)

Includes links between participation, goal plurality and performance (Ashmos et al., 2002), semi structures and product innovation (Brown and Eisenhardt, 1997)

Correlation between some dimensions of OCB and organisation success but what is direction of causality? (Podaskoff and MacKenzie, 1997)

COP Theory

Strong links to innovation (Brown and Duguid, 2001)

Complexity and Coevolutionary Theories Plurality of interests central to multidirectional causality of action (Lewin and Volberda, 1999)

Voluntarism, Representative Leadership and Organisational Democracy 89 Table 7.1 continued

Comparison of theories addressing organisational plurality –

Stakeholder Theory

Practical implications for managers and motivators for action

OCB Theory

More research Varied and required inconclusive (Hendry, explanations – 2001), e.g. impression managers not management yet grasped (Bolino, 1999) practical implications of collaborative stakeholder relationships

COP Theory

Complexity and Coevolutionary Theories

Learning communities are a forum in which individuals create and sustain identity (Brown and Duguid, 2001)

Action guided by desire for autonomy, choice, freedom to improvise (Brown and Eisenhardt, 1997) but little detailed research on individual cognitions

also largely been an omission in COP theory, albeit that more recent treatments are seeking to redress this position. Co-evolutionary theory reflects well the issues of social connectivity but provides insufficient insight into the motivations of individual actors to work with or encourage greater levels of participation, and how these cognitions are influenced by dominant power relationships. Nor do any of these approaches provide senior leaders with practical principles about reconfiguring the role of hierarchy, without resorting to unitary values that implicitly undermine the value of the plurality the approaches seek to establish.

Organisational voluntarism In attempting to address this issue, the arena of political philosophy provides an instructive parallel debate. In the political discourse surrounding the basis for a ‘good’ democratic society, the same polarised tension between coherence and plurality can be identified. Should society rely on the state to shape good citizens, as social conservatives would have it, or should good citizens be the product of a liberal moral pluralism? Writers such as Etzioni (1995) and Putnam (2000) promote a third, communitarian approach, to tackling this issue that has many parallels for the debate about the role of organisational hierarchy. From

90 Leadership Perspectives

a communitarian perspective, in the good society the moral voice that determines the nature of good citizenship is the product of a diversity of voluntary associations. These associations range from membership of local community action groups to political parties, and serve to mediate between the private world of individuals and the institutions of society. The opportunity to participate selectively in associations, free from state influence, is fundamental to the creation and preservation of liberty. Most importantly, a good society is determined by such voluntary associations implicitly inculcating a level of self-control in their members by introducing them to particular values that reinforce individuals’ normative commitments to that society. The application of this model in an organisation setting is, as yet, in embryonic form. Nonetheless, it is evident in a growing body of theoretical discussion. It is premised on the idea that unofficially constituted groups in organisational settings are able to provide the level of self-control necessary for the maintenance of organisational congruence; a multiplicity of stakeholder agendas does not necessarily create organisational incoherence (Ashmos et al., 2002). Furthermore, these groups are more likely to exhibit self-control when they can express voice and contest views about which organisation values are important to them without the intervention of formal authority. As with voluntary associations, such arrangements bring people together to pursue interests through collective action, serve to distribute power, and mediate between individuals and the organisation, thereby creating a sense of involvement. Some groups may be focused on issues of critical organisational concern; others may be more parochial in outlook. Crucially however, they collectively and voluntarily facilitate the flow of information between different groups and the organisational connectivity required to stimulate innovation (Ashmos et al., 2002). Thus, organisational voluntarism redefines hierarchy as a process to encourage voluntary groups and individuals to deliberate and decide upon their own identity, minimising regulation through institutional control. This may still take the form of praise, reward or support, but avoids coercion towards unitary priorities in order that these groups themselves in turn influence the establishment of organisational core values. Extending the parallel with democratic governance, the role of hierarchy would also be to mediate between deserving causes, challenging constituents to justify the significance of their agendas and their demands for resource. The role of top management would remain to provide fundamental organisational framing, but this would take into consideration different voices, and require the justification of any

Voluntarism, Representative Leadership and Organisational Democracy 91

conclusions and actions to relevant organisational constituents. In this way, voluntarism can be viewed as a synthesis of both a ‘managed’ and a non-coercive process of participation. Although in the early stages of development in the field of organisations, the concepts of voluntarism and communitarianism are not without their detractors. For example, communitarianism has often been seen as taking insufficient account of institutionalised power relationships (Reynolds, 2000). Critical theorists have been keen to highlight the dark side of communities that tend to imply or assume consensus at the expense of individual difference. Thus, it is important to stress that the conception of voluntarism discussed here is very much concerned with the ‘politics of difference’ (Reynolds, 2000, p. 71), where individual conflicts and differences are accepted as being inevitable and not always resolvable. This orientation is similar to the notion of an ‘arena’ described by Burgoyne and Jackson (1997) in the context of management learning, in which ‘differences “meet”, are fought over and reconciled and reconfigured into new groupings, factions and alliances’ (1997, p. 61).

Voluntaristic leadership What then does this voluntaristic approach mean for business leaders faced with the task of mediating the need for strategic coherence and the need to be responsive to organisational plurality? In conceptualising voluntaristic leadership in an organisational context, this research field has been further informed by seeking parallels between institutional and organisational governance. In other words, the leadership of political institutions provides an obvious yet surprisingly underexplored starting point for understanding the orientation required for working with a plurality of interests. The focus on the role of leadership per se, as opposed to the structures and mechanisms of democracy, is premised on the view that governance is legitimate when it allows people to exercise degrees of influence over their collective destiny. Leadership is implicit in this endeavour. As Ruscio confirms from a liberal political institutional standpoint, ‘it is impossible to imagine a strong healthy democracy without leaders’ (2004, p. ix). Yet at face value, the validity of political institutional leadership as a basis for considering organisational leadership appears dubious: there are significant distinctions between both contexts. Organisations do not reflect the structural characteristics of modern democracies; representation, accountability and participation are not intrinsic to

92 Leadership Perspectives

the governance of work organisations. Despite the increasing interest in stakeholder theory, the idea of business leaders representing the interests of a constituency, other than that of shareholder, seems as yet embryonic. Most fundamentally, whilst protecting the rights of democratic participation is central to political leadership, this is not reflected in a business context. The stewardship role of business leaders has become institutionalised as a concern for organisational wealth and shareholder return, rather than democratic principles of governance. However, these are arguably differences of degree rather than substance. Thus, on the one hand, political leaders within the institutions of democracy make considerable use of formal authority in their role as party officials or committee members. Political parties and the executive institutions of government are organisations with hierarchies, and formal authority has a role in enabling political leaders to create coherence. On the other hand, from a stakeholder theory perspective, the formal authority of business leaders co-exists with their role as de facto representatives of constituent interests. As organisations become more complex and fragmented, the role of informal power derived from relationships and networks across the organisation increases in importance and leadership thus becomes evermore the product of an informal social process (Barker, 1997). The appointment of leaders to senior positions is therefore dependent upon representing the interests of a whole range of relationships, which if not recognised can lead to political turnover. Business leaders are therefore required to become representative in their approach, a process further reinforced by increasing public scrutiny of corporate affairs. As it is for political leaders in democratic institutions, the requirement both to coalesce and distribute power can only be achieved on the assumption that the leadership of organisations is intrinsically a political process. Since there is ample evidence that this is the case (Buchanan and Badham, 1999), it follows that business leaders need to and, indeed, appear to embrace behaviours that not only include debate, lobbying and coalition building, but also more contentious activities such as information management and covert action. In other words, if some level of cohesion around core organisational values is to be achieved, these behaviours need to become as integral to business leadership as open dialogue and debate about differences. As has increasingly been recognised, political behaviour in organisations, far from being dysfunctional, is central to the achievement of managerial goals. Moreover, it can constitute a vehicle to strengthen the social

Voluntarism, Representative Leadership and Organisational Democracy 93

responsibility of managers. And as with the leadership of political institutions, responsible political behaviour can only be predicated on the assumption that business leaders possess civic virtue, that is, the ability to forego personal interests in the pursuit of collective outcomes (Starrat, 2001). There is no evidence to suggest that managers are any less motivated by just causes, any less willing to forego self-serving ends, or any less prepared to distinguish between ethical and unethical means, than elected politicians (Michalos, 2001). Thus, whilst political institutional leadership does not mirror all aspects of its business counterpart, it arguably offers a basis from which to consider how managers might work more effectively with complex and varied competing interests. If businesses are increasingly characterised by similar tensions, an appreciation of how to manage the conflicts between cohesion and productive differences, and between self-interest and ‘civic virtue,’ offers a useful parallel to consider. Indeed, Hendry views the traditions of responsible political leadership and governance as ideal for enabling managers to develop an identity that ‘empowers them to exercise judgement, to reconcile interests, and to build and lead communities of trust’ (2006, p. 278). In summary, political institutional leadership is commensurate with a voluntaristic mindset in which managers recognise the need to engage in debate and action to represent matters of individual and organisation concern, irrespective of hierarchical position or explicit authority. The term ‘representative’ leadership (RL) is suggested to emphasise the micro-political dimension of this behaviour. It does not refer to a formal process of representation. In practice, RL behaviour is more akin to principles of participative democracy, that is, encouraging difference, voice, self-organisation and decision-making. As in civic affairs, these discursive practices are predicated on the basis that they help to form local identities and influence organisational values.

Representative leadership in organisations At this stage, this view of voluntarism and RL represents an exploratory contribution to theory, but one that reflects emerging organisational practice in pluralist organisational settings. For example, a recent coevolutionary study by Galunic and Eisenhardt (2001) reveals how senior managers have crafted an organisational form where diversity and autonomy of action are greatly encouraged, but an appropriate degree of alignment is still achieved. This culture is the result of decentralised and self-organised behaviour. Business units are free to shape their own

94 Leadership Perspectives

portfolios, including the warrant to contest other divisions for control of different products and markets. In response, senior managers reward winners and good ‘corporate citizenship’ but also help losers to improve. Most importantly, such decisions are guided by social considerations about fairness as well as economic imperatives for profit and growth. However, in this study, as with much of the discourse on co-evolution, the role of power remains under-explored. In contrast, Denis et al. (2001), in their study of leadership and strategic change in the pluralistic setting of hospital administration, note, how leadership is necessarily a political process. In a situation where power is diffuse and objectives divergent, levels of coherence are achieved by constellations of leaders who are sensitive to the needs of different constituencies in order to gain credibility and support. Constructive political activity, in terms of compromise, lobbying, alliances and collaborative solutions are central to how support is mobilised. In particular, Denis et al. note the role of ‘creative individuals and committed unified groups in proactively moving to make change happen’ (2001, p. 834) in situations where the legitimacy of change initiatives cannot be taken for granted. Further evidence of the way in which such communities can stimulate change and innovation is provided by Swan et al. (2002) who demonstrate how radical innovation in the health care sector was achieved against a backdrop of diverse professional interests and uneven power relations. Coherence in approach was achieved through a discursive strategy, which sought to align competing agendas in the innovation process through the rhetoric of community, and engagement with the diverse interests that constituted that community. Also, much as with the Galunic and Eisenhardt case, the management team were able to balance commercial interests with the broader values of other groups by sublimating purely economic considerations in the cause of community building. Research by Ashmos et al. (2002) suggests that this type of engagement helps to generate multiple perspectives of the environment. In turn, this alters an organisation’s predisposition to new challenges and opportunities, thus stimulating innovation and continual adaptation. Similar conclusions are reached by Ravasi and Verona (2001) in their analysis of the Danish company Oticon. In Oticon, innovation is sustained by structural ambiguity and voluntary project initiatives, and strategic coherence is the product of continual negotiation amongst a plurality of coordinating groups and roles. Clarke’s (2006) case analysis of senior executives attempted to identify how managers cope with such competing demands. The research

Voluntarism, Representative Leadership and Organisational Democracy 95 Table 7.2

Leadership behaviours

From (Rational Leadership)

To (Representative Leadership)

Preference for formal meetings and processes

Extensive use of informal processes, e.g. covert activity, corridor meetings

Focus on senior management approval/buy-in

Focus on working with personal agendas

Relationship building focused at senior levels

Relationship building and networking at all levels

Debating and challenging amongst small coterie

Encouraging debate and challenge at all levels

Carefully prescribed delegation and empowerment

Providing others with space and autonomy to experiment, stimulating bottom-up change

Tendency to influence through operational control

Influencing by focusing on broad direction

Working on formally agreed priorities/issues

Working outside of agreed responsibilities, often on unofficial initiatives

Challenging through established processes

Challenging the status quo, irreverent and subversive

Exclusive and involving of few

Inclusive and involving of many

Representing legitimate organisation interests e.g. own department, customers

Representing the interests of quasi legitimate constituencies, often external to own responsibilities, e.g. other functions, unofficial issues

identified a range of individual approaches to working with plurality of interests. These behaviours are represented on a continuum ranging from ‘rational’ to ‘representative’ (see Table 7.2). At one end, leadership behaviour reflects the use of formal processes, such as meetings and management presentations, to position causes and influence colleagues. This was also characterised by a tendency to limit debate and challenge to a small coterie of senior managers and to prescribe delegation and empowerment within well controlled guidelines. At the other end of the range, managers employed behaviours broadly consistent with the conceptualisation of voluntarism and RL. These included working with individual agendas, the use of covert activity, representing the interests of quasi-legitimate constituencies, sometimes working within their organisations goals/values, sometimes against them.

96 Leadership Perspectives

Organisational voluntarism as emerging theory However, notwithstanding these examples, central to the focus for this chapter is the desire to stimulate broader debate and theory building about the reconfiguration of organisational plurality and coherence. So to what extent might the concept of voluntarism make good the shortfalls in existing theory building by meeting the four criteria identified by Clarke and Butcher (2006)?

(i) The centrality of organisational plurality At a time when organisation plurality is only likely to increase, the concept of voluntarism clearly assumes the inevitability and value of plurality, greater autonomy and choice as being central to organisational success. Diversity of interest and autonomy of individual action are prerequisites for voluntarism. Reflecting as they do, broader changes in society, these factors may ultimately be the most significant drivers for the adoption of voluntaristic principles. In this way, voluntarism can be viewed as a natural stage in the evolution of organisational form.

(ii) The embeddedness of social relations and power in organisational working Voluntarism directly reflects the centrality of social relationships, community and power in the structuration of action, and thus provides a basis for understanding how institutional power distributions both influence and are influenced by the enactment of these voluntaristic principles. The centrality of power reflected in the dualism of hierarchy and participation, embodies the structuration of resources, and cognitive and moral rules upon which managers draw that both constrain and enable what they do (Giddens, 1984). With organisational voluntarism, power and its negotiation through political discourse is positioned as an explicit leadership activity. For example, Denis et al. (2001) highlight how leaders in pluralistic settings mobilise a range of symbolic and material resources to create influence and ‘strategic couplings’ which include aligning with widely held perceptions about organisational issues and environmental constraints, the use of positional authority, secrecy, leveraging the credibility of acknowledged performance, and maintaining appropriateness of behaviour in the eyes of significant support groups. Through such practices, over time, managers are able to constitute and reconstitute what they do and who they are as contextual forces evolve (Denis et al. 2001).

Voluntarism, Representative Leadership and Organisational Democracy 97

(iii) Accounting for the motivations of managers to pursue actions in contravention of traditional approaches Of particular significance to the concept of voluntarism is the question of why individuals might engage with ideas that, at least in the short term, are at odds with the dominant bureaucratic approach to organising. What are the interpretive schemata that manager’s draw upon to make their work meaningful in pluralistic settings? Clarke’s (2006) study suggests that in the absence of any formally agreed model of working, RLs largely ‘made it up for themselves’. That is, in seeking to work with the tensions of plurality, they arrived at their own conclusions irrespective of organisational circumstance. In consequence, they tended to see themselves as independent of the goals of the organisation, whilst also working within them. This cluster of managers was delineated from the rest of Clarke’s sample by a combination of factors. Firstly, they each viewed diversity of interest as a critical organising principle to be encouraged in order to enhance organisational effectiveness. Secondly, this orientation encouraged a mindset in which individuals felt able to make a personal difference, to pursue their own goals legitimately. However, this perspective was balanced by an orientation in which personal success was inextricably interwoven with the success of others’ agendas, suggesting that these managers attached real value to the achievement of others’ goals. This approach brought them into conflict with their colleagues. Thirdly, therefore, in order to ameliorate accusations of self-interest, individuals attached importance to building legitimacy of action through transparency of motive. The resulting actions were nevertheless highly political and reflected an implicit acceptance of the centrality of power and politics in their activities.

(iv) The need for clear organisational benefits This final criterion requires providing strong linkages to improved organisational performance, for without which there is little incentive for senior management to adopt voluntaristic principles. In this regard, the idea of voluntarism fits well within co-evolutionary discourse, in which the need for organisational flexibility and the continual reconfiguration of strategic capabilities is viewed as critical to sustainable competitive advantage. The concept of voluntarism and its themes of local autonomy and diversity reflect well emerging views as to the importance of self-organisation in allowing for a dynamic feedback between the organisation and its environment in order to co-evolve

98 Leadership Perspectives

(Ashmos et al., 2002). The self-organisation inherent within the voluntaristic form clearly facilitates the process of rapid reconfiguration to respond to different market circumstances (Child and McGrath, 2001). Perhaps, most acutely for senior managers, the concept of voluntarism also provides a framework for capitalising on diversity in the pursuit of innovation. Local communities, being at the interface of the organisation and its environment are seen to be a rich source of innovation (Brown and Duguid, 2001). However, above all else, the concept of voluntarism potentially provides senior managers with a model for merging hierarchical structure with greater egalitarian practice. Whilst co-operation declines as organisation size increases, voluntary group discussion in value setting leads to increased commitment and contribution. Such communication also enhances group identity and personal responsibility, which are powerful mechanisms of self-control. By acknowledging the tension between, for example, the seemingly contradictory relationships of hierarchy and participation, or local autonomy and strategic coherence, the resulting ‘organised dissonance’; the ‘strategic union of forms presumed to be hostile’, can produce critical levels of organisational resonance (Ashcraft, 2001, p. 1304). Indeed, voluntarism may come to be considered as one of the few simple but often contradictory rules that are believed to guide the development of successful co-evolution (Galunic and Eisenhardt, 2001).

Conclusion There has been a growing concern amongst some commentators about the disconnection between the apparent increase in organisational plurality, and the relatively limited facets of democracy practised in the workplace (Rousseau and Rivero, 2003). Despite a range of forces promoting greater democratic practice, most western organisations still rely on traditional top-down hierarchy for most of their strategic decisions. This disconnection underscores the question posed by Rousseau and Rivero (2003) as to what sort of behaviours and organising principles are required to enable leaders to become more responsive to a plurality of stakeholder interests. Whilst it is not the intention here to develop yet another theory of leadership, the purpose is to consider the value of a voluntaristic and institutional leadership lens in answering this question. Clarke’s empirical study suggests three particular considerations for managers and researchers. Firstly, the study suggests that some managers appear able to negotiate the dissonance between plurality and coherence in a way that

Voluntarism, Representative Leadership and Organisational Democracy 99

encourages a democratic orientation to leading. Central to this disposition is the notion that some managers conceive their role as an activity to further the interests of others, as well as themselves. Contrary to the views of authors such as Cloke and Goldsmith (2002) who emphasise the importance of a similarity between individual and organisational values, democratic behaviour in Clarke’s study was facilitated by a disposition in which individuals often saw themselves as being independent of the goals and values of their organisation, sometimes working within them but equally at times undermining them. Secondly, in keeping with the growing accumulation of theory in this field, Clarke’s findings provide further insight as to the role of organisational politics in democratic activity, and lie in contrast to the idea of politics undermining workplace democracy. The orientation of RLs towards politics is supportive of Novicevic and Harvey’s (2004) view of organisational politics as a ‘democratic asset’ which represents the varying capacity of employees to influence the way they are governed. From this perspective the use of political negotiation serves as a check and balance against the undue influence of self-serving interests rather than reinforce them. In the empirical study, this was achieved by behaviours that included transparency of motive, searching for win-win solutions, and openness to dialogue. Thirdly, the research also provides insight as to how this disposition may serve to facilitate progress towards more democratic forms in circumstances where such ambitions are far from being perceived as legitimate. For some authors, such as Coopey and Burgoyne (2000) this goal is seen as being accelerated through the establishment of formal systems of political, social and civil rights. Clarke’s findings suggest that progress towards democratised forms may also be made through voluntaristic and informal private projects; actions that can create pockets of participation, which in turn may act as role models for further action. Specifically, this approach emphasises how progress can be made by encouraging voluntary processes of group formation and identity that do not create untenable chaos. Levels of control are still achievable through behaviour that seeks to balance individual and organisational agendas. What significance, then, does the concept of voluntarism hold for managers and students of organisation? Whilst rational organisation has guided managerial values for at least two centuries, if not much longer, in the last 20 years there has undeniably been serious debate and experimentation with new organising principles. As with any large scale social change, the evolution discussed in this chapter must be

100 Leadership Perspectives

seen as but the beginning of a process with the potential to accelerate. In the context of one organisation, individual and isolated group agendas appear insignificant, yet they provide a point of departure in legitimising alternatives. They can initiate change precisely because they are real and relevant to the challenges of everyday work. But whilst progress towards voluntarism as an organising principle can be made by exploiting the contradictions of the rational mindset from within, in terms of creating a wholesale shift in organisational form, the process is a gradual one. Put another way, if voluntarism has efficacy as a guiding principle of contemporary organisation form, this will be determined only as an emergent empirical reality.

References K. Ashcraft, ‘Organised dissonance: Feminist bureaucracy as hybrid form’, Academy of Management Journal, 44(6) (2001) 1301–22. D. Ashmos, R. Duchon, R. McDaniel and J. Huonker, ‘What a mess! Participation as a simple managerial rule to “complexify” organisations’, Journal of Management Studies, 39(2) (2002) 189–206. R. Barker, ‘How can we train leaders if we do not know what leadership is?’, Human Relations, 50(4) (1997) 343–63. M. Bolino, ‘Citizenship and impression management: Good soldiers or good actors?’ Academy of Management Review, 24(1) (1999) 82–98. J. Brown and P. Duguid, ‘Knowledge and organisation: A social practice perspective’, Organisation Science, 12(2) (2001) 198–213. S. Brown and K. Eisenhardt, ‘The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organisations’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1) (1997) 1–34. D. Buchanan and R. Badham, Change, Power and Politics, Winning the Turf Game (London: Sage, 1999). M. Burgoyne and B. Jackson, ‘The arena thesis: Management development as a pluralistic meeting point’, in M. Burgoyne and M. Reynolds (eds) Management Learning (London: Sage, 1997) pp. 54–70. J. Child and R. McGrath, ‘Organisations unfettered; organisational form in an information-intensive economy’, Academy of Management Journal, 44(6) (2001) 1135–48. M. Clarke, ‘A study of the role of “representative” leadership in stimulating organisational democracy’, Leadership, 2(4) (2006) 427–50. M. Clarke and D. Butcher ‘Voluntarism as an organising principle for “responsible” organisations’, Corporate Governance, 6(4) (2006) 527–44. K. Cloke and J. Goldsmith, The End of Management and the Rise of Organisational Democracy (San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 2002). J. Coopey and J. Burgoyne, ‘Politics and organisational learning’, Journal of Management Studies, 37(6) (2000) 869–85. J. Denis, L. Lamothe and A. Langley, ‘The dynamics of collective leadership and strategic change in pluralistic organisations’, Academy of Management Journal, 44(4) (2001) 809–37.

Voluntarism, Representative Leadership and Organisational Democracy 101 A. Etzioni, New Communitarian Thinking, Persons, Virtues and Communities, (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1995). S. Fox, ‘Communities of practice, Foucault and actor network theory’, Journal of Management Studies, 37(6) (2000) 853–67. A. Friedman and S. Miles, ‘Developing stakeholder theory’, Journal of Management Studies, 39(1) (2002) 1–21. D. Galunic and K. Eisenhardt, ‘Architectural innovation and modular corporate forms’, Academy of Management Journal, 44(6) (2001) 1229–49. A. Giddens, The Constitution of Society (California: University of California Press, 1984). J. Graham, ‘Promoting civil virtue organisational citizenship behaviour: Contemporary questions rooted in classical quandaries from political philosophy’, Human Resources Management Review, 10(1) (2000) 61–79. L. Gratton and S. Ghoshal, ‘Managing personal human capital: New ethos for the “volunteer” employee’, European Management Journal, 21(1) (2003) 1–10. J. Hendry, ‘Economic contracts versus social relationships as a foundation for normative stakeholder theory’, Business Ethics: A European Review, 10(3) (2001) 223–32. J. Hendry, ‘Educating managers for post bureaucracy, the role of the humanities’, Management Learning, 37(3) (2006) 267–81. I. Jawahar and G McLaughlin, ‘Toward a descriptive stakeholder theory: An organisational life cycle approach’, Academy of Management Review, 26(3) (2001) 397–414. A. Lewin and H. Volberda, ‘Prolegomena on coevolution: A framework for research on strategy and new organizational forms’, Organization Science, 10(5) (1999) 519–34. J. March and J. Olsen, Democratic Governance (New York: Free Press, 1995). B. Manville and J. Ober, ‘Beyond empowerment: Building a company of citizens’, Harvard Business Review, January (2003) 48–53. A. Michalos, ‘Ethics counsellors as a wew priesthood’, Journal of Business Ethics, 29(1–2) (2001) 3–17. M. Novicevic and M. Harvey, ‘The political role of corporate human resource management in strategic global leadership development’, The Leadership Quarterly, 15(4) (2004) 569–88. P. Podaskoff and S. MacKenzie, ‘Impact of organisational citizenship behaviour on organisational performance: A review and suggestions for future research’, Human Performance, 10(2) (1997) 133–51. R. Putnam, Bowling Alone (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2000). D. Ravasi and G. Verona, ‘Organising the process of knowledge integration: The benefits of structural ambiguity’, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 17(1) (2001) 41–66. M. Reynolds, ‘Bright lights and Pastoral idyll’, Management Learning, 31(1) (2000) 67–81. D. Rousseau and A. Rivero, ‘Democracy, a way of organising in a knowledge economy’, Journal of Management Inquiry, 12(2) (2003) 115–34. K. Ruscio, The Leadership Dilemma in Modern Democracy (Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2004).

102 Leadership Perspectives R. Starrat, ‘Democratic leadership theory in late modernity: An oxymoron or ironic possibility?’, Leadership in Education, 4(4) (2001) 333–52. J. Swan, H. Scarborough and M. Robertson, ‘The construction of “communities of practice” in the management of innovation’, Management Learning, 33(4) (2002) 477–96.

Part II The Importance of Context

This page intentionally left blank

8 Public Sector Leader Change Strategies: A Focus on Technical or Collaborative Solutions Su Maddock

The quality of leadership in the public sector has long been an issue for politicians, being critical to service improvement and to new strategic arrangements within localities. Local authorities have improved as chief officers have adapted to partnership and matured in their collaborations with other agencies. New collaborative models of leadership are emerging in local government in particular – however, how to embrace innovation remains a challenge across the public sector especially in central government. Critical barriers to change include a lack of alignment between local leaders and national performance frameworks and the tension between chief executives with very different approaches to change and service innovation. The tension between leaders who seek control and resort to system’s change and those engaging with staff and communities can be seen in most organisations. Although attitudes to engagement with staff and communities are changing; those with a preference for ‘planning and control’ are more in line with government’s own performance management regime – which means that the collaborative leaders are at a disadvantage. In addition, as it is women who seek out collaborators but are thwarted by conventional male gender cultures, collaborative models in the mainstream are even slower to develop. While the majority of public sector managers and leaders adopt both transactional and transformational ways of working, most continue to have a preference for ‘planning and control’ rather than for ‘collaborative practice’, which is a problem for government when the latter is the more congenial to innovation (Bentley, 2007). Research shows that innovation rarely catches on if it is driven purely from the top or through a system’s approach to change (Mulgan, 2007); it depends on a spread through networking and active relationships, 105

106 Leadership Perspectives

that take time and are less predictable, but provide a much stronger anchor from which to improve institutional systems. In earlier stages of reform the divide was between those leaders who are actively driving change and those who were more passive in their leadership role. Most public sector executives are now actively concerned with transforming their organisations; it is the way they do it that distinguishes them. They either have faith in people or technical management systems. The ‘management system enthusiast’ prefers ‘planning and order’ to ‘doing and collaboration’. In this chapter I suggest that the lack of alignment between collaborative leaders with government management frameworks is a problem for the next stage of reform which surely demands a more innovative public sector. The question for policy-makers is which leadership approach is more likely to support public innovation and address the growing concerns in communities?

Context There is little critique making sense of public leadership in practice and even less evidence about the impact of leadership development and whether it is effective (Blacker and Kennedy, 2004). What is an appropriate approach in one organisation is highly debatable in another. Leadership is a contested arena, although some would like to wrap it up in generic competences, leadership in action is very context specific and there are significant differences between innovative executives in their thinking and behaviour. The views presented here are based on the author’s research and experience in the public sector, especially in local government. Working closely with local authorities over the past 15 years generates sensitivity to cultural shifts. In the 1980s managers who wanted to collaborate were seen as weak, merely wanting a discussion was a sign of incompetence. Such days have gone. Partnerships are now commonplace and collaborative leadership is becoming fashionable, if not always in evidence. However, there remains much more talk than action, more ‘planning than doing’ and a preference for a form of transactional leadership that accepts existing management and practices systems within the public sector and government. A positive sign is that most public sector chief executives gave-up believing in one management guru’s message some time ago, they have become more confident in their own judgement knowing that leadership is contextual and about appropriate actions, not magic

Public Sector Leader Change Strategies 107

recipes for instant success. Benington (2004) talks of the need for ‘adaptive leadership’, others of distributive or transforming leaders. What is emerging is an acceptance of the need for more leaders who listen and collaborate rather than for charismatic, heroes; unfortunately public managers work within organisations governed by an overarching public administration framework that mitigates against a critical mass of collaborative leaders emerging. A problem for some practitioners is that it is not clear what leading internal change or working in partnership means, and many directors remain uncertain of their role and find changing their habits and behaviours difficult. What is emerging is a difference between how corporate directors and policy leads envisage change and the strategies they adopt to achieve their objective of reform. While the media searches for heroes and scapegoats, public sector chief executives seek conversations with others in public organisations, business and charities; whilst being aware of the distinctiveness of the public work environment, constantly juggling priorities from government, communities and staff. Local authority executives also have to manage their relationships with local politicians, who are themselves struggling to understand the wider context in which they are working. The differences between chief executive change strategies within local government and in health organisations are elaborated below.

Public leader’s change strategies Leadership is not only about style it also about what leaders do and their approaches to change. Different approaches to change and improvement are underpinned by philosophical assumptions about ‘what is possible’ and ‘what is not’. Fox and Broussine (2004) have noticed two quite distinct approaches to organisational change and service improvement among local authority chief executives. Walshe (2006) also observed that the reason why so many chief executives in the NHS were transactional leaders with a preference for ‘planning and control’ over engagement and development was because their approach was in tune with central government’s own performance management framework. This is unsurprising given that executives in health and local government have to cope with a high degree of turbulence and many find comfort in the certainty of neat frameworks which reinforce a model of control rather than one of creativity. The British government’s targets, financial incentives and short-termism have had a negative impact on the way

108 Leadership Perspectives

public sector leaders and policy-makers behave. Experienced managers who want to keep their jobs ‘go with the flow’ and align their behaviour to government performance management demands. The tension between ‘system enthusiasts’ and more ‘adaptive’ and collaborative leaders can be observed in almost all public bodies (Maddock, 2006). At the extreme end of the spectrum, are those with a faith in people and confidence in their capacity while at the other are those who prefer formal and controlled work environments and specified transactions. The micro-environment within traditional public organisations reveals a small scale power struggle between these two types of leaders. In the past, similar tensions were described between those who focused on their own careers or on service outcomes, or were more inward or outward looking. These are not the same but reflect the same sort of tensions about how to achieve change. This struggle doesn’t concern finance and resources; it concerns the tension between the individual manager’s focus on personal achievement and the more outward relational focus of those committed to shared practice and changing practice (Fletcher, 1998). ‘Planners and controllers’ tend to be enthusiastic about performance management systems and strong believers in the role of performance management in change. They tend to be: • • • • •

Planners rather than ‘doers’; Seek efficiency and system perfection; Are uncomfortable with uncertainty, risk and emergent networks; Prefer formalities and protocols; Have a tendency to ‘tell’ rather than inquire.

They tend to approach ‘change’ as a logical and linear process, in spite of evidence to the contrary. They are often irritated and frustrated by poor staff morale and uninterested in the fact that human resources issues are not on the corporate agenda. Policy regimes have nurtured this approach and the view that public administrations are machines that can be understood as closed and static systems. Most of government’s reform initiatives have been introduced to tackle the problems caused by this structural and functional model; restructuring, marketisation, new agencies, internal change were all attempts to release staff from hierarchical control in order to make public bodies more responsive. Those most successful leaders are more open and responsive than

Public Sector Leader Change Strategies 109

in previous eras and have become less dominated by formal protocol and adaptive developing more interactive styles of leadership (Hartley, 2006). More responsive leaders are adaptive and interpret their role in transformation as demanding a need to: • Involve staff and communities in the changes they want to make; • Aspire to involving service users much more in service design and delivery; • Relate to place and other partners in their localities; • Are aware of local and historical dynamics in their organisation and in the locality; • Handle ambiguity and change and not assume control; • Be open to criticism and new ideas; • Able to integrate people issues with financial, performance and operational management; • Accept the role of diversity in innovation. Those closest to the dynamics of organisations and local problems appreciate the need to involve people in transformation and are less convinced by precise planning and top-down structural change. They adapt to circumstance and learn through conversations with staff and by ‘walking about’; they also rely less on paper plans until they are certain what is a realistic plan would look like given the context. They are aware of the connection between front-line staff and service innovation; they also try to be transparent, and cope with ambiguity; encourage team-building and value diversity. More radical leaders recognise that transformation cannot be squeezed through conventional cultures and practices and requires new practices and forms of organisation. There are, however, examples of leaders who have successfully adopted non-conventional approaches. Women chief executives, for example, who are now recognised as transforming leaders, report that in the past they had been perceived as mavericks by their colleagues; many had struggled with male gender cultures and were aware of their own tactical choices between being challenging or compliant earlier in their careers (Maddock, 1999). The environment is now much more comfortable for you to be yourself, it you are a woman; women were previously seen as mavericks if they wanted change. Now they are cultivated for wanting change. There is a greater degree of openness and directness about the

110 Leadership Perspectives

organisation and women are not so frightened to ask for what they want. (District Council leader in Fox and Broussine) In local government it is noticeable that many of the most innovative chief executives are women and that a significant number run the most challenging authorities, either failing, vulnerable or having uncertain political control (Fox and Broussine, 2004). Many of these women have a particular commitment to disadvantaged communities which shapes their strategies; they also (in contrast to senior women in the past) are encouraging of other innovative leaders and demonstrate a small shift towards a more deliberative style of leadership. Innovative women are aware that the key to sustained improvement is through front-line staff in particular working much more closely with communities, and that new practices emerge from real connection, not the other way around (Lucas, 2006). It will help us to become a more organic organisation, and we want to develop a less ‘laddish’ organisation, which is flatter, more open, more responsive and innovative. This will take several yeas and we have only been on the journey for two (Fox and Broussine, 2004). The tension between those who assume change will follow from mergers, restructuring and efficiency-based business models and those who conceptualise change as a dynamic process of building relationships has become an ‘elephant in the room’; a barrier to change when denied as a reality. These differences reveal deep emotional and philosophical differences that influence executive beliefs about ‘what will and will not’ lead to positive change. If an executive does not believe that in people’s potential to organise but do believe that restructuring and performance management systems will drive cultural change, then, he or she will follow the latter strategy. Staff will follow the lead of the chief executive’s style and adjust their own behaviour. These two leadership approaches are not just a matter of different personal styles they also influence practice and are replicated in business models. ‘Planning and control’ enthusiasts tend to approach service modernisation with an efficiency business model, which in principle calls for staff involvement, in reality, leaves little space for emergent practice. The business model adopted by more adaptive leaders tends to be a strategic process rather a plan, more a map-based business strategic cycles, which focuses on outcomes and impact.

Public Sector Leader Change Strategies 111 Table 8.1

Planning and control – Business model

Planning and Control Model

Adaptive Model

Directive top-down

Negotiated

Focus on efficiency

Focus on outcomes

Assume compliance

Assumes participation

Change through existing practices/ structures

Outcomes drive new practices

Seeks solutions too quickly

Listens for solutions to emerge

Tells and informs

Inquires and collaborates

Many in government now recognise that merely making operations and systems more efficient does not necessarily produce more responsive or radical services (NSG Prime Minister’s Conference 2006) and that responsive services demand new approaches to change across the public services. Planning and control regimes and efficiency business models tend to gain dominance too quickly because they appear to offer easy solutions to difficult issues, which most often involve tensions between people working within dysfunctional systems. Quick and easy solutions are usually those that fit in with existing government funding and performance management systems and can be easily measured. In the early 1990s public employers were in the thrall of total reengineering programmes, and yet even then it was obvious that these transformation programmes only succeeded when accompanied by commensurate staff engagement. Since this time, government and local government have become convinced of the need to work much more closely with communities and through a closeness to customers staff, become more responsive. There is in 2007 a much greater willingness among public service staff to be more flexible in their relationships appreciating why responsiveness to users is necessary. However, corporate management systems have not caught up with the changes and do not register and reward those staff who have become more responsive. This is especially true in central government.

Implications A cultural shift in leadership practice is already evident within the public services, particularly within local government – but the development

112 Leadership Perspectives

of a critical mass of more collaborative leaders is hampered, not by local incompetence but by the government’s own public management framework and practices. Politicians recognise the need for radical change in Whitehall but the pace of the change is slow (IPPR, 2006). Whitehall departments are since 2006 subject to scrutiny through the Capability Reviews, and these reveal the continuing commitment to departmental fiefdoms and insular thinking in central government and the lack of joint working across government. The question for policymakers is how to incentivise forms of collaborative public leadership that are more adaptive, less controlling and risk averse? Chief executives in local government have matured in their partnership relationships; but they report that government is still inadvertently rewarding and promoting, not collaborative leaders, but safe pairs of hands, more comfortable with planning and control than with people. There is a graveyard full of more innovative chief executives in the public sector who spent time working with people and not guarding their backs. Greg Dyke, former chief executive of the BBC would fall into this category. Some local authority chief executives are becoming much more strategic at the sub-regional level and in some places explicitly developing collaborative leadership models, such as in Greater Manchester, Yorkshire and Humberside. The more innovative amongst them are gaining control over local agendas, working with communities in a more open way and relying less on long-term planning and more on strategic partnerships. However such horizontal alignment is less visible in central government which makes the task of local leaders all the more difficult. There is a clearly a need for both politicians and civil servants to reflect on the impact of ring-fenced funding and performance management regimes. The message to Whitehall is to learn to listen and ‘let go’ and to embrace collaborative leadership where it exists in the regions. Those leading local partnerships and forging collaborative practices are often women or those from the black and minority ethnic communities (BME) communities who are experienced in networking, communicating with diverse communities and in making connections; skills desperately required in institutions struggling to transform their formal practices. Transforming the public sector is no longer a matter of individual agency improvement it requires an alignment between central and local government strategies and business models, and an alignment of collaborative rather than competitive leadership practice. Public inno-

Public Sector Leader Change Strategies 113

vation is more likely to emerge when those at the centre of government embrace the wider public sector and a whole system perspective – and start to reward collaborative and adaptive leadership.

References F. Blacker and A. Kennedy, ‘The design and evaluation of leadership programmes for chief executives from the public sector’, Management Learning, 35(2) (2004) 181–20. J. Benington, ‘Adaptive leadership’, Green Futures (May, 2004) http://www. greenfutures.org.uk/supplements.aspx T. Bentley, ‘Evolving the future, in the collaborative state’, S. Parker and N. Gallagher (eds) (London: Demos, 2007) http://www.demos.co.uk/files/ Collaborative%20State%20-%20web.pdf J. Fletcher, ‘Relational practice: A feminist reconstruction of work’, Journal of Management Inquiry, 7(2) (1998) 163–86. P. Fox and M. Broussine, Women at the Top: A Study of Women Chief Officers in Local Government (UWE, 2004). J. Hartley, Innovation and Improvement in Local Government, www.ipeg.org.uk (2006). IPPR (2006) Whitehalls’ Black Box: Accountability and performance in the senior civil service. I. Lucas, Personal Communication (2006). S. Maddock, Challenging Women, Gender, Innovation and Change (London: Sage, 1999). S. Maddock, ‘Women leaders in local government’, British Journal of Public Sector Management (2006). G. Mulgan, Ready or Not, Taking Innovation in the Public Sector Seriously NESTA 03 (2007). K. Walshe, ‘Leadership in the NHS’, ESRC Seminar Presentation, October 22nd (2006).

9 Leadership in the British Army – A Gendered Construct? Mike Dunn

This chapter examines the question of whether female Army officers lead in different ways to male Army officers. In seeking to answer that question, the chapter examines the situation in which female Army officers operate and the level of congeniality they enjoy. This is because the leadership situation has been identified by writers such as Fiedler (1967) and Hersey et al. (2001) as a key variable in leadership outcomes. On congeniality, Eagly and Carli (1995) concluded that there is some evidence that leadership roles, defined in relatively masculine terms, favoured males, and that roles defined in female terms, favoured female leaders. The chapter will examine firstly the context for women Army officers, then move to review some current research strands on leadership and leadership and gender. The chapter then describes research the author has undertaken and, finally, summarises the results which include the development of a model of military leadership (MLF) and draws conclusions. On the theme of knowledge into action the MLF model may, subject to more research, have considerable utility in terms of leadership development processes in the British Army and the other Armed Services.

British Army leadership context The British Army, excluding the Territorial Army element, had a total strength of 106,200 personnel as at March 2007 (DASA, 2007a). Of these, 8,230 or 7.7 per cent, were female. Female officers numbered 1,640 out of a total officer cadre of 14,680 – or 11.2 per cent. In the most senior ranks: Brigadier and above, as at January 2007 there was only one female out of a total of 240 (DASA, 2007b). This is a lower representation than industry where one in seven directors (14.4 per cent) is female (EOC, 2006). Furthermore, women are currently excluded by Ministry of Defence policy 114

Leadership in the British Army – A Gendered Construct? 115

(MOD, 2002) from what are termed ‘close combat roles’ in the Infantry and Royal Armoured Corps (RAC). Similar policies apply in the US military where there is an independent body, the Defence Advisory Service on Women in the Services (DACOWITS), established in 1951 by then Secretary of State for Defense George C. Marshall, to provide advice and recommendations on matters and policies relating to the recruitment and retention, treatment, employment, integration and well-being of women in the Armed Forces (Mitchell, 1998). MOD’s stated rationale for this policy is that women are, typically, less physically strong than men and therefore unable to cope with the physical demands of close combat roles. However the Secretary of State also acknowledged as an issue (MOD, 2002) the potential adverse response of society to the concept of women killing enemy combatants at close quarters, or being killed. In career terms, both in the UK and US military, close combat roles are rated most highly in the Army’s value system and are crucial for career advancement to the highest levels. As Field and Nagl (2001) comment they are: ‘traditionally the most critical routes to high command. In addition they are culturally and functionally considered to be positions of greatest significance to the defence mission’. Female Army officers are therefore confronted by an ‘armoured glass ceiling’ (Dunn, 2005). Kennedy-Pipe and Welch comment that: Women’s partial exclusion from the military and in particular from combat roles is held to exclude them from an important sphere of value and thus to derogate them (2002, p. 51). In addition, the military combat paradigm has developed away from the linear battlefield where Infantry, supported by the RAC, would directly engage the enemy, with other force elements in the rear. Combat is now ‘war amongst the people’ (Smith, 2005, p. 3) where there is no linear battlefield, or front line compared to the Cold War scenarios. Instead we have what is termed 360 degree warfare. Kate Adie (2003) commenting on operations in Bosnia says: Fighting took place up to the very barbed wire of one British camp in Vitez … Peace keeping it may be, but front line work, bringing considerable numbers of women into battle areas and nearer to arguments about combat capability (p. 233). The current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan are further examples. They are also examples of where the military, rather than being ‘stove-piped’ or

116 Leadership Perspectives

operating as three separate Armed Services: Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, are now required to conduct tri-service operations, usually as part of a coalition or alliance with other national forces. Again, Iraq (with US Armed Services) and Afghanistan (NATO) are examples. The Defence White Paper Delivering Security in a Changing World makes reference to the challenges in this new operating environment (MOD, 2003). These military operations, complex and relationship-based with ambiguous objectives, have a close parallel with what Cascio (1995, p. 930) has termed: ‘today’s networked, interdependent and culturally diverse organisation’. There are other factors in the military context that present difficulties for women. A recent survey (MOD, 2006) found extensive evidence of women in the Armed Forces having faced some form of sexual harassment. The report said that some 99 per cent of servicewomen had been exposed to situations over the previous 12 months involving sexualised behaviour such as jokes, stories, language and material. Although there was a high tolerance for these behaviours, over half the respondents sometimes found them offensive. Qualitative data from men suggested there was a lack of awareness that women may be offended or upset by their language and behaviour. This survey was part of an Action Plan agreed between the Ministry of Defence (MOD) and the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) on 23 June 2005 on preventing and dealing effectively with sexual harassment in the Armed Forces.

Leadership and gender literature The literature on leadership is extensive. Dubrin (2001, p. 3) says that 35,000 research articles, magazine articles and books have been written about leadership. Kotter (1990) makes a strong argument to differentiate leadership from management and, in doing this, conflates the role of the leader with managing change. One leadership model has gained prominence in the leadership landscape. This is the concept of transformational and transactional leadership, which originated with the work of Burns (1978). His text concerned itself with political leadership and he noted that politicians exhibited two broad styles. The first, which he termed transactional, motivated followers by appealing to their self-interest. As examples a politician might hold out the prospect of jobs or other benefits to voters, or key opinion formers. In other words it was based on exchange theory. However, transformational leadership appealed to the moral values of followers in an attempt to raise their level of consciousness about ethical issues and get buy in to reform institutions.

Leadership in the British Army – A Gendered Construct? 117

His work has been taken up and developed in an organisational context, particularly by Bass (1985, 1998) and Bass and Avolio (1998). They have conceptualised the behaviours involved in transformational and transactional leadership. A key component of their transformational model is individualised consideration or giving special attention to neglected members, treating each of their subordinates individually, and expressing consideration for work well done (Bass, 1985). Although they view transformational and transactional leadership as distinct, Bass and Avolio (1998) consider they are not mutually exclusive processes. Transformational leadership increases follower motivation and performance more than transactional leadership, but effective leaders use a combination of both types. The importance of transformational leadership pivots on agreement that the world of work is changing. Cascio (1995, p. 930) concluded that ‘more often today’s networked, interdependent, culturally diverse organisation requires transformational leadership’ (my emphasis). It could be argued from this that contemporary military operations of the type conducted by the UK Armed Forces require a transformational leadership style to be successful. Turning now to gender and leadership, this draws from the gender difference debate, also termed the female advantage argument. Rosenor (1990) wrote her iconoclastic article Ways Women Lead at a time when, as she termed it, ‘a second wave of women is making its way into top management not by adopting the style and habits that have proved successful for men but by drawing on the skills and attitudes that developed from their shared experience as women’. This prompted the academic debate currently underway about whether gender has any significant relationship with leadership style. Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe (2003) argue that leadership has traditionally been viewed as a gendered construct. They state: Leadership research, like most, if not all, of research in management, has been gendered. Studies from the days of ‘The Great Man’/Trait Theories to the emergence of the ‘new paradigm’ charismatic and transformational models have been the studies of men, by men, and the findings have been extrapolated to humanity in general (p. 1). Eagly and Carli (1995) conducted a meta-analysis on research into similarities and differences between female and male leaders. They concluded that while female leaders and male did not differ in effectiveness,

118 Leadership Perspectives

when summarised, there was evidence of what they termed gender congeniality i.e. that some leadership roles were defined in relatively masculine terms and thus favoured males, and roles defined in female terms favoured female leaders. Of relevance to this chapter is they identified that military organisations yielded findings that significantly favoured male leaders. Several types of organisation produced weak tendencies for women to be more effective than men: business, education, and government and social services. Earlier, Eagly and Johnson (1990) reported that, where there was male domination in a hierarchy, then the approach of men and women managers tended to homogenise around the male style. Eagly and Carli (2003), in an updated meta-analysis, argued that, although historically leadership has been positioned as a masculine enterprise, there is a probability in a contemporary context that stereotypically feminine qualities of co-operation, mentoring and collaboration are important to leadership. They suggest that reduction in hierarchy and increased collaboration between leader and follower are important contributory factors. They confirmed that male dominated environments can be difficult for women and identified further evidence for their incongruity hypothesis that women are relatively less effective in leadership roles defined in especially masculine terms e.g. military organisations. Eagly and Carli’s important conclusion is that: Transformational leadership may be especially advantageous for women because it encompasses some behaviours that are consistent with the female gender role’s demand for supportive considerate behaviours. This positive, encouraging, inspiring style appears to have generalised advantages for contemporary organisations (p. 825). Bass (1998, p. 77) confirmed that, in four separate investigations between 1986 and 1992, women displayed more transformational and less transactional behaviour than men. He also posits the idea that contemporary, less hierarchical, organisations require a more feminised management style. However, there is a noticeable lack of agreement amongst academics on the impact of gender on leadership behaviour. Vecchio (2003) states, in response to Eagly and Carli’s analysis, that such claims ‘ignore the overlap of the sexes in terms of their behavioural repertoire and individual adaptability’. He suggests that the concept of gender advantage should be replaced by gender in context advantage to remove the adversarial nature of the debate. He concludes (Vecchio,

Leadership in the British Army – A Gendered Construct? 119

2003, p. 847), rather pessimistically, that ‘seemingly insurmountable methodological issues prohibit researchers from providing a conclusive answer to the question of sex/gender advantage’. By contrast Stelter (2002), in her review and discussion of recent literature on gender differences in leadership behaviour and effectiveness, concludes that gender differences do exist, and men and women do lead differently. She makes the additional and important point that men and women are also followed differently. Authentic leadership has also been identified as a distinct phenomenon. Goffee and Jones (2006, p. 15) talk about how followers ‘above all … look for leaders who are authentic’ and they define this, in part, as leaders who display a consistency between words and deeds and who communicate a consistent sense of self. Eagly (2005) examines the concept of authentic leadership in a gender context. She ascribes heightened interest in this to a post 9/11 change where people seek leaders who aim to achieve a more secure world. She critiques the theorists of authentic leadership because they appear to assume that followers ordinarily accept that the values revealed and promoted by their leaders advance the interests of the group/ organisation/nation that they lead. She points out that in many communities, values are contested ground and that female leaders, more than male leaders, face challenges in achieving legitimacy as spokespersons for values that advance a community’s interests. Of interest to this research is her conclusion that where the leadership role requires highly authoritative or competitive behaviour that is perceived as masculine, for example female leaders in military settings, the mere fact that a woman occupies the role can yield disapproval. There is also the complex issue of how women can be authentic in a masculine environment. This is a key aspect of the feminisation of the military phenomenon. Herbert (1998), in a military context, talks about the stress that women suffer in trying to arrive at a middle position between appearing too feminine or too masculine. If a woman is too feminine, this may lead to accusations of not being soldier like and using her sexuality to secure favours. On the other hand an overtly masculine approach e.g. swearing or drinking heavily may lack authenticity by trying to be one of the lads, and so cast doubts about her sexuality. Interestingly, she comments that the range of sanctions applied when women were perceived to be too feminine included being ostracised or disapproved of by other women (Herbert, 1998, p. 65). Sheppard (1989), in an earlier study of Canadian women managers,

120 Leadership Perspectives

had identified a similar issue. She describes how women had responded by developing a blending strategy: The blending depends on a very careful management of being ‘feminine’ enough (i.e. in terms of appearance, self-presentation etc) so that conventional rules and expectations of gender behaviour can be maintained by the men in the situation while simultaneously being ‘business like enough’ (i.e. rational, competent, instrumental’ impersonal – in other words stereo typically masculine) so that the issues of gender and sexuality are apparently minimised in the workplace (p. 146). From this review of current literature on gender there is emerging research that demonstrates how women, in contemporary management situations, have a propensity for a transformational leadership style. However in situations that lack congeniality, women feel obliged to adopt the embedded masculine approach, or consciously adopt a blending strategy that balances their sexuality with perceived operational effectiveness.

Research method The question examined in this chapter is whether female Army officers lead in different ways to male Army officers. The author’s research design takes the Defence Academy of the UK as the research population. Twenty four Army officers, split 50:50 between men and women, and covering the full range of Army roles from combat arms, combat support and combat service support were identified using convenience sampling techniques. Their ranks ranged between junior officers at Captain level, and middle ranking officers from Major to Lt Colonel. Interviewees were identified partly through personal knowledge e.g. they were current or past students and partly by referral from senior officers. The interviewees were asked to reflect on whether the Army was a congenial context for women. They were also asked to pre identify two excellent and two poor leaders of both sexes i.e. eight leaders in all, and also a ‘critical incident’ of excellent/poor leadership they had personally experienced. Using Repertory Grid, a series of leadership constructs from the interviewees against which they rated the elements, or leaders, on a scale of one to five were elicited. Data from the critical incident was then analysed and compared to the constructs as a form of triangulation. Interviewees were also asked whether they

Leadership in the British Army – A Gendered Construct? 121 Gap 2 Women as leaders How Women construct

Gap 5

Gap 1

Gap 3 Gap 6

Men as leaders

Figure 9.1

Women as leaders

Gap 4

How Men construct

Men as leaders

Dialectical Analysis Model

considered the situation of female British Army officers to be congenial. Using content analysis, a Military Leadership Factor model (MLF) was developed and, using the variation derived from the Repertory Grid constructs, relative importance to the factors identified was assigned. The research design enabled the construction of a dialectical analysis model as shown in Figure 9.1.

Findings In the context of this chapter, the research findings split into two areas: The first area concerns interviewees’ perception of the congeniality for women, of the British Army. The congeniality aspect is important because, as the literature reviewed earlier in this chapter identified, a perceived lack of congeniality for women can possibly mask or distort their intuitive leadership styles. The second area concerns the construction of a Military Leadership Factor Model (MLF) from the interview data, and an analysis on whether the composition of MLF models differed according to gender. The chapter focuses for this purpose on gap five in the dialectical model – how women construct leadership for women as leaders, compared to how men construct leadership for men as leaders. This was considered to be the key gap in terms of the research question: do female Army officers lead in different ways to male Army officers? On congeniality there was a clear difference between how women perceived congeniality compared to men as shown in Table 9.1. As an example of responses to the question, Interviewee 11 (Female – Major) said: No – I say no because in my experience, the first regiment I went to I was the only female officer, the other girls were clerks, and so I

122 Leadership Perspectives Table 9.1 Comparison of female and male views on congeniality of the army for women Women and Men’s views on congeniality of Army for women (n=12) Not congenial Congenial Dependent on circumstances

Women’s 8 2 2

Men’s 4 5 3

have never experienced a situation where there has been equal men and women. Interviewee 4 (Male – Lt Col) took a very positive view to the question and identified that attitudes were evolving in this area: I think the answer to that is yes. I have been in the army for 23 years and I have seen a complete scene change. I mean it was a completely male dominated environment when I entered it, there was the Women’s Royal Army Corps and Queen Alexander’s Royal Army Nursing Corps and so forth doing very specific adminy type or medical things and I have seen a sea change in the time I have been in and I think it’s particularly in the last, certainly ten years, just changed beyond all recognition. … My own view, … is that I think it’s extremely congenial, because as, its like all these things, you reach a critical mass as the novelty value wore off, shall we say, of increasing numbers of female officers and soldiers, filling appointments and proving as they invariably do that they can do them extremely well and for certain things, for me anyway and I think lots of my colleagues, growing recognition that there are certain things that they are actually naturally much better at. A conclusion from the data is that, for women, the Army does lack congeniality although there is some evidence of progressive change. However, the male perspective is that the context for women is either congenial or certainly not as hostile as the women see it. This is a dangerous perception gap that could lead to increasing frustrations and misunderstandings on the part of both women and men. On the basis of the literature, we should expect to find that, in these circumstances, women may feel obliged either to replicate the dominant masculine leadership style, or adopt the type of blending strategies that were identified by Sheppard (1989).

Leadership in the British Army – A Gendered Construct? 123

Turning now to the second area of research findings, this will summarise the Military Leadership Factor model (MLF) developed from the research data. A point worth making is that, in seeking to establish whether leadership was constructed differently by men and women, an MLF needed to be constructed and, although this was a consequence of the research design rather than a stated aim, it may have significant utility in its own right. As stated previously in the methodology section the interviewees were asked to identify a selection of eight leaders both good and bad, male and female and also from data generated by the Critical Incidents reported. In all, six factors were identified by content analysis from the totality of the Repertory Grid data; to restate, this data described both how men constructed male and female leadership and how women constructed male and female leadership. This then provided a basis for analysing whether there was a common perception of leadership by both the men and women interviewed. These factors were also supported by the data produced from the Critical Incident section of the interviews. The six factors, together with some typical key words elicited from the Rep Grid constructs, are given below together with a commentary. Professional competence; experienced, depth of knowledge, hardworking, confident, consistent, decisive, robust This factor appears at odds with the literature. In industry, and key public sector organisations like the NHS, competence would be assumed as a given. However its importance here is explained by the nature of the military task. Knowing what to do, how to apply military doctrine, in one off operational or training situations is vital to the success of the enterprise. In addition the lives and health of subordinates are at risk from incompetence. Relationship management; self-aware, involves and respects others, calm and considered This does have a resonance with theory. Indeed as Goffee and Jones (2006, p. 10) commented leadership must always be viewed as ‘a relationship between the leader and the led’. However, it surfaces here for different reasons. The military officer has of course discretionary power to consult with subordinates. However, in the military culture, this can be perceived as a sign of weakness; a balance must be struck because, if the leader does not consult, poor decisions that put the team at risk, or expose officers to ridicule from their subordinates, are almost inevitable.

124 Leadership Perspectives

Authenticity; moral courage, trustworthy, earns respect, no personal agenda, displays real self What is of particular interest is the subtle issue of altruism where respondents resented individuals who were perceived to have a private agenda and did not put organisational interests first. Again the importance of this lies in the nature of the military enterprise. Success follows from a joined up approach; weak leaders or underperforming leaders can compromise operations and place individuals in positions of danger or stress. A specific phrase moral courage was often used by respondents. It has a particular connotation in the Army being described as: ‘taking decisions which, though known to be right will probably prove unpopular … every time we turn a blind eye to action, or behaviour we know to be wrong, … we are in fact showing a lack of moral courage’ (RMAS, undated). Career profile; ambitious and successful, avoids ‘change for change sake’ on new appointment Respondents valued individuals with a successful career path. The explanation for this lies in the nature of the organisation. The military concept of tours of duty, a new posting every few years, would not be appropriate in industry. However in the military, an incoming commander can have a number of effects. If he or she is ‘career flatlining’ then there may be no impetus to change if the unit has problems. This will lead to a lessening of the reputation of that unit. Reputation is important in the military. Alternatively an officer on a successful career path can invigorate and improve the standing of a unit to everyone’s advantage. However because a new commander has only limited time to make an impact, there is a danger that he or she will implement local change in a coercive fashion, and motivated by self-aggrandisement. Unfortunately, this forced change can have devastating effects on a unit’s morale. Another, gendered issue, identified was the willingness, or not, of women to go on operational tours. This was seen as an acid test of commitment and some women officers were criticised in this area because they avoided postings in favour of looking to work where they lived. Gender management; uses appropriate personal gender strategy to avoid adverse consequences both for self and operations This factor supports closely Sheppard (1989) and Herbert’s work (1998) that identified how women managers, and females in the military had to develop a strategy for managing their gender in the workplace. Some of the sample constructs elicited were comparisons of being ‘laddish’

Leadership in the British Army – A Gendered Construct? 125

compared to ‘ladylike’ and ‘new woman’ with ‘girly girl’. The overall finding is that women have to negotiate a tightrope. On the one hand, being too feminine risks losing respect whilst being too masculine undermines their credibility. Physical fitness; personal pride in own level of physical fitness This would be an unusual factor to figure in leadership studies but again its inclusion here is rooted in the nature of the military task. Physical prowess is important in the military operation. Each year, officers and other ranks have to complete a basic fitness test. A high capacity for physical endurance is important to succeed in certain military operations. The classic example is the British Army ‘yomping’ across the hostile Falklands terrain in 1982 to defeat the Argentineans. The significance of these factors lies as much in what they exclude. The level of correlation with the Bass transformational leadership model is low. A further difference with contemporary theory is the exclusion of reference to change management, a factor closely associated with Kotter’s (1990) leadership model. The conundrum here is that MOD considers that it is experiencing transformational change (MOD, 2003). The explanation may lie in the structural nature of the Armed Forces and their high degree of interdependency. In effect it is a ‘system of systems’. Thus change programmes are pan Army or pan Armed Forces, and driven by the centre either directly or facilitated by a change agent such as McKinseys. By their nature then they will be conceived at top level and be relatively long term. Officers at the ranks interviewed will have limited amounts of autonomy in major change processes. However there is an important issue of change deriving from local change initiated by newly appointed commanders. This is captured in the MLF model under the career profile factor. The data in Table 9.2 summarises the gap (Gap five) between how women construct female leadership and how men construct male leadership. The percentage of variation is obtained by the relative importance placed by interviewees on the constructs elicited by Repertory Grid. The table shows that there is a broad level of consistency apart from the issue of gender management, which was a significant issue for women but is non-existent for men. This supports the work of Herbert (1998) and Sheppard (1989). There is also a slightly higher emphasis for women on relationship management than for men that may be indicative of a more transformational style. This is important, given the earlier argument that contemporary military operations require a

126 Leadership Perspectives Table 9.2 Comparison of relative importance of MLF factors by women reporting on female leaders compared to men reporting on male leaders Women: Women (n=27)*

% of variation

% of Men: Men (n=44)* variation

Professional Competence Relationship Management Career Orientation Authenticity Gender Management Physical Fitness

22 35 2 25 12 4

30 33 3 32 0 2

Professional Competence Relationship Management Career Orientation Authenticity Gender Management Physical Fitness

Note: n=the number of leaders analysed in the Repertory Grid. Because of the relatively low number of women officers, some interviewees had difficulty in identifying the quota called for.

transformational leadership style to be successful. In this sense it is claimed that men and women, in the sample interviewed, do lead in different ways. The findings also support the work of Eagly and Johnson (1990) and their view that, in a masculine environment, women will favour the prevailing leadership style. This raises an important issue: whether the androcentric nature of the Army context and its lack of congeniality is a constraint that suppresses an intuitive transformational leadership style in female Army officers. Several of the female interviewees did reveal an aspect of individualised consideration in their leadership style, as the example below demonstrates: I’m interested in this idea about taking an interest in people as individuals, you say that this is unusual for officers to do that? Interviewer Yes, absolutely, I mean I had a couple of soldiers who had some quite major family problems and one of them who had two autistic children had said that in his whole career, nobody had shown any compassion about his family situation and actually, all it meant was that he was marked down in his reports that he had a welfare problem, and he said that coming to the unit and actually having somebody who appreciated him for who he was and what work he did as opposed to his family commitments made all the difference to him and … a whole burden had been lifted, and he had been treated for depression everything else, he said that all that had gone because somebody had taken the time to find out about various things…. Interviewee (Lt Col – Female)

Leadership in the British Army – A Gendered Construct? 127

This is an important piece of primary data because it reveals something of the masculine culture of the Army but also the beneficial effects for the organisation that can flow from such interventions.

Summary In summary, the findings presented in this chapter have demonstrated a perception that men and women Army officers lead in different ways. It has also revealed an underlying tension amongst those women interviewed on the lack of congeniality that they experience in the workplace. This lack of congeniality may, in turn, be masking or suppressing a more transformational leadership style, particularly in the area of individualised consideration. This unrealised transformational leadership potential could make a positive contribution to the Army’s military capability. This is because the contemporary military paradigm has some correlation with the complex nature of contemporary business models, which are deemed to require transformational leadership. It is ironic therefore that previous research (Dunn, 2005) also identified that women officers experience an ‘armoured glass’ ceiling in terms of career progression, because key appointments in the combat arms are denied to them by current MOD policy. The research has also developed a conceptual model of military leadership, the MLF, that differs from the transformational leadership model articulated by Bass and Avolio (1998) and also suggests that military leadership differs from the contemporary leadership theory that conflates leadership and change management. The MLF model may, subject to more research, have considerable utility in terms of leadership development processes in the British Army and the other Armed Services.

References K. Adie, Corsets to Camouflage – Women and War (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 2003). B. Alimo-Metcalfe and J. Alban-Metcalfe, ‘Leadership: A masculine past but a feminine future?’, BPS Occupational Psychology Conference (UK: Bournemouth, Jan 8–10, 2003). B.M. Bass, Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations (New York: Free Press, 1985). B.M. Bass, Transformational Leadership Industrial, Military and Educational Impact (New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 1998). B.M. Bass and B.J. Avolio, Full Range Leadership Development Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Redwood CA: Mind Garden Inc, 1998). J. Burns, Leadership (New York: Harper & Row, 1978). W.F. Cascio, ‘Whither industrial and organisational psychology in a changing world of work’, American Psychologist, 50 (1995) 928–34.

128 Leadership Perspectives DASA (Defence Agency for Statistical Analysis), ‘Table TSP 01 Strength Intake and outflow of UK Regular Forces’ (2007a). DASA (Defence Agency for Statistical Analysis), ‘Table TSP 09 Rank structure of UK Regular Forces’ (2007b). A.J. Dubrin, Leadership Research Findings, Practice and Skills, 3rd edn (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2001). M.D. Dunn, ‘The armoured glass ceiling’, 4th International Annual Conference on Leadership Research (UK: University of Lancaster, December 12–13, 2005). A.H. Eagly, ‘Achieving relational authenticity in leadership: Does gender matter?’, The Leadership Quarterly, 16 (2005) 459–74. A.H. Eagly and L.L. Carli, ‘Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: A meta analysis’, Psychological Bulletin, 117(1) (1995) 125–45. A.H. Eagly and L.L. Carli, ‘The female leadership advantage: An evaluation of the evidence’, Leadership Quarterly, 14 (2003) 807–34. A.H. Eagly and B.T. Johnson, ‘Gender and leadership style a meta analysis’, Psychological Bulletin, 108 (1990) 233–56. EOC (Equal Opportunities Commission), ‘Sex and power. Who runs Britain?, Equal Opportunities Commission Report’ (2006). F.E. Fiedler, A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness (New York: McGraw Hill, 1967). K. Field and J. Nagl, ‘Combat roles for women; a modest proposal’, Parameters, US Army War College, Quarterly, Summer (2001) 74–88. R. Goffee and G. Jones, Why Should Anyone be Led by You? What It Takes to be an Authentic Leader (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2006). M.S. Herbert, Camouflage Isn’t Only for Combat (New York: New York University Press, 1998). P. Hersey, K.H. Blanchard and D.E. Johnson, Management of Organisational Behaviour, 8th edn (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2001). C. Kennedy-Pipe and S. Welch, ‘Women in the military: Future prospects and ways ahead’, in A. Alexandrou, R. Bartle and R. Holmes (eds) New People Strategies for the British Armed Forces (London: Cass, 2002). J. Kotter, ‘What leaders really do’, Harvard Business Review, May/June, 68(1833) (1990) 103–11. B. Mitchell, Women in the Military – Flirting with Disaster (Washington DC: Regnery Publishing Inc, 1998). MOD (Ministry of Defence), ‘Women in the armed forces – A report by the Employment of Women in the Armed Forces Steering Group’, (May 2002). MOD (Ministry of Defence), ‘Delivering security in a changing world, Defence White Paper, Cm 60421-I’, (MOD, 2003). MOD (Ministry of Defence), ‘Ministry of Defence/Equal Opportunities Commission: Agreement on preventing & dealing effectively with sexual harassment’. Dr S. Rutherford, R. Schneider and A. Walmsley (Schneider-Ross Ltd, 22 March, 2006). RMAS (Royal Military Academy Sandhurst), The Queen’s Commission A Junior Officer’s Guide (RMAS, undated). J.B. Rosenor, ‘Ways women lead’, Harvard Business Review, Nov–Dec (1990) 119–25. D.L. Sheppard, ‘The image and self image of women managers’, in J. Hearn, D.L. Sheppard, P. Tancred and G. Burrell (eds) The Sexuality of Organisation (London: Sage, 1989).

Leadership in the British Army – A Gendered Construct? 129 General Sir R. Smith, The Utility of Force – The Art of War in the Modern World (London: Penguin Allen, 2005). N.Z. Stelter, ‘Gender differences in leadership: Current social issues and future organisational implications’, Journal of Leadership and Organisational Studies, 8(4) (2002) 88–100. R.P. Vecchio, ‘In search of gender advantage’, Leadership Quarterly, 14 (2003) 835–50.

10 Leadership in Higher Education Alan Bryman

Since first getting interested in leadership in the early 1980s, I have researched leadership in several different settings: the construction industry; bus companies; community transport organisations; and the police – to name the main ones. I always had a hunch I would end up looking at leadership in higher education, especially since doing research on the introduction of appraisal in universities 15 or so years ago in an investigation funded by the old Department of Education and Science in the UK. Leadership issues sometimes surfaced during the course of that research and it always struck me as something I would return to. I think I was rather cautious about conducting research on leadership in higher education, because I had always had a hunch that it would be difficult to do because of the inevitable background assumptions you bring with you when you’ve been involved in university life for many years. These background assumptions can act as both an advantage – eliminating the need for familiarisation – but also a problem – possibly, if not probably, being too immersed and familiar with the area. Also, it is a topic on which everyone in higher education is likely to have a view, so you risk ending up with the familiar scenario of being condemned either for finding the obvious or for a lack of realism by those who see you as going against the grain of their experiences. However, the opportunity arose to do precisely this when I applied successfully to the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education (www.lfhe.ac.uk) for a research grant. Purely by chance, this coincided with a move out of a social science department into a management school, so there was a kind of fit between my new location and the topic of my research. It is this project that I will use as the springboard for this chapter. 130

Leadership in Higher Education 131

Researching leadership in higher education My guiding research question was ‘what are the factors associated with effective leadership in higher education?’ In focusing on this research question, I was concerned with the leadership styles or leader behaviour associated with effectiveness. The main element of the research was a literature review in which I sought to extract the main leadership styles that were found across the studies I reviewed to be associated with effectiveness. This was by far the main component of the project, but in addition I conducted interviews with leadership researchers in the UK in order to explore their distinctive perspectives on leadership in their own organisational context. I will touch on some of the main messages gleaned from these interviews.

Literature review Searching the literature In conducting the literature review, I was concerned to employ explicit procedures for searching the literature and explicit quality criteria for deciding which studies should be included within the purview of the review. In so doing, I aimed for a reasonable degree of transparency in the literature search and in deciding which research should be included. The guiding research question was: ‘What styles of or approaches to leadership are associated with effective leadership in higher education?’. The literature search focused primarily on refereed journal articles for the years 1985 to 2005. The reason for emphasising refereed journal articles was simply that these act as an initial quality criterion or indicator and as such filter out much research of dubious quality. The reason for this 21 year span was that it was felt that research published prior to this period was likely to be relevant to a very different higher education world than exists at present and would therefore be of limited use to the funders of the research. The research examined was concerned exclusively with findings relating to the UK, USA and Australia. This restriction was largely to do with the constraints of language. The primary search approach was the searching of online databases. The main ones searched were: Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI); Educational Resources Information Centre (ERIC); British Education Index; Educational Research Abstracts. Keyword searches were supplemented by hand searching of journals and bibliographies of articles.

132 Leadership Perspectives

The quality criteria employed were guided by the following principles: – the aims of the research were clearly stated; – it was clear how the data were collected (sampling, research instruments, how data were analysed); – the data were collected systematically; – there was an indication of how the research methods relate to the aims of the investigation; – there were enough data provided to support the author’s or authors’ interpretations; and – the method of analysis was appropriate to the kinds of data collected. These are fairly minimal criteria in that they are fundamentally concerned with the degree to which this provides explicit information about how the research was conducted and how the methods employed relate to the goals of the investigation. Together, these criteria emphasise a degree of transparency in the reporting of the conduct of the research and being systematic in the way the research was implemented. It might be asked whether these criteria discriminate slightly against qualitative research. The criteria were devised by the National Health Service (NHS) National Electronic Library for Health (now the National Library for Health) for the evaluation of qualitative research but are equally relevant to quantitative studies too. Therefore, there is no reason for qualitative studies to be unduly disadvantaged by the imposition of these criteria. In fact, most qualitative research could be included unless it was largely anecdotal or based on very sloppy methods. The application of these criteria meant that articles were excluded if they were merely reflections on experiences of being a university leader, if they were largely theoretical or if they lacked transparency and a systematic approach to data collection. Possibly one of the most surprising initial findings was that relatively little research directly investigating research question was uncovered. Only around 40 articles, just under half of which were to do with middle leaders like heads of department/department chairs, were found; the rest were on top leaders, such as vice-chancellors, principals, and presidents (sometimes this latter stream of research included the leader’s top management team in its purview). Quite a lot of research was uncovered on what leaders do but there was far less on what is effective about what

Leadership in Higher Education 133

leaders do. This is not to say that research that examines the roles and activities of university leaders is not useful but that it does not relate to the research question. I am by no means alone in having uncovered a limited amount of research on this issue. Fifteen years ago, Barge and Musambira (1992) wrote: Do chair-faculty relationships within academic institutions really make a difference for the department and the university? While much of the leadership literature answers in the affirmative for nonacademic organisations, this question has not been empirically tested in colleges and universities (p. 75). Writers since then have confirmed this relatively early assessment of the field. Dyer and Miller suggest that the investigation of department chairs in the US has tended to focus upon their ‘roles and responsibilities, needed skills, and challenges and coping strategies’ (1999, p. 20). Harris et al. write that: ‘While a few research studies have focused on leadership practices in higher education, little research has focused on effectiveness or on the means for increasing effectiveness, particularly at the departmental level’ (2004, p. 4). Thus, several writers have suggested that remarkably little research directly investigates leadership effectiveness in universities.

Main research designs The main research designs encountered were: – Variations in leadership style related to variations in effectiveness. This kind of design is one that is familiar to leadership researchers. It entails taking a sample of leaders, establishing how their leadership styles vary, and then relating variations in those styles to variations in their effectiveness (e.g. Brown and Moshavi, 2002). – Behaviour of effective leaders. This research design was mainly conducted in relation to heads of department. It entails taking especially successful or effective leaders, usually on the basis of nominations, and then exploring the nature of their behaviour as leaders (e.g. Creswell and Brown, 1992). – Desirable or effective leader behaviour as viewed by leaders and/or others. This research design involves finding out what leaders or others view as leader behaviour that is effective (Ambrose et al., 2005). – Case studies of organisational change. These typically relate to case studies of successful change (Gomes and Knowles, 1999).

134 Leadership Perspectives

Summarising the findings In order to decide whether an aspect of leader behaviour could be regarded as contributing to effectiveness as defined by the researcher(s) concerned, I looked for aspects of leadership effectiveness in higher education that were found in at least two peer-reviewed articles. Most appeared in more than two articles. Also, I looked at non-peer-reviewed items but only used these when an aspect of effective leader behaviour had been discerned in at least two peer-reviewed articles. The findings relating to departmental leadership are reported in Bryman (2007). This discussion is concerned just with aspects of effective leader behaviour that were found to be common to both institutional and departmental levels. At a later date, I hope to write about the research on top leaders alone. Interestingly, similar kinds of leader behaviour are associated with effectiveness at both levels. However, there were some differences. For example there was a greater emphasis on being flexible in leadership approach at institutional level than at departmental level. There was a greater emphasis on consideration and fostering collegiality at departmental level. However, the common features were more striking than differences.

Main findings Ten factors emerged as clear indicators of an effective leader at both departmental and institutional levels: 1. Providing direction. Effective leaders provide a clear sense of where the department or institution is and should be going; 2. Creating a structure. Effective leaders provide a structure to support the direction they set. This means that they set in motion a team and procedures that will sustain the direction; 3. Fostering a supportive and collaborative environment. University staff appear to thrive on co-operative relationships and the more leaders can promote an environment based on such relationships, the more effective they are likely to be; 4. Establishing trustworthiness as a leader and having personal integrity. Effective leaders are trusted. They are perceived as consistent and even-handed; 5. Having credibility to act as a role model. This issue occurs particularly in relation to research-oriented departments and universities and indicates that leaders are more likely to stimulate a research orientation in others when they have been highly regarded scholars

Leadership in Higher Education 135

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

themselves. Goodall’s (2007) research which falls outside the period covered by my review strongly confirms this for top leaders. There is a paradox or irony with this aspect of effective leader behaviour because the pressures of university leadership typically detract from research-active academics being able to continue their work once they assume management roles; Facilitating participation in decision-making; consultation. Effective leaders in higher education tend to involve their constituents in making decisions, especially ones relating to strategic direction. They adopt a consultative approach in their dealings with their staff; Providing communication about developments. In tune with the last point, effective leaders communicate to others about important changes that are taking place and about initiatives that are likely to have an impact on them; Representing the department/institution to advance its cause(s) and networking on its behalf. Effective leaders promote their department or institution whenever possible. In the case of departmental leaders, this may entail promoting the department to constituencies both within and beyond the department; Respecting existing culture. Leaders in higher education may want to inaugurate change but they are more likely to be effective if they do not ride roughshod over the existing culture of an institution or department; Protecting staff autonomy. Effective leaders allow academic staff to retain an element of independence in their work.

There are some noteworthy aspects of this list of aspects of leader behaviour that have been identified as conducive to effectiveness. First, it is primarily concerned with the impact of leaders on staff, especially academic staff. Students rarely figure in terms of how leadership effectiveness is gauged or in terms of what its impacts should be. To the extent they do figure, it is largely in terms of their impact on such things as curriculum development (e.g. Stark et al., 2002). The relative neglect of the impact of leaders on students contrasts sharply with the school leadership literature where considerations of leaders, in particular head teachers, in relation to effectiveness are deeply concerned with their impact on students (e.g. Day, 2005). It is difficult to know why this might be the case. One reason may be that as organisations, universities tend to be larger than schools so that the impacts of leaders on students is mediated if not attenuated. Another reason may be to

136 Leadership Perspectives

do with what leadership researchers concerned with higher education typically view as important outcomes of leadership because they are, after all, conducting research on their own rather than others’ worlds. Second, there is little sense of the significance of context for leadership effectiveness. In other words, although leadership researchers have long been aware that what works well in one environment may not work well in another or that context has profound implications for what a leader can or cannot do (e.g. Fiedler, 1967; Vroom and Jago, 2007), the implications of context for leadership effectiveness do not figure strongly in the studies covered in the course of the literature review. Third, the research covered in the review focuses more or less exclusively on leaders in formal leadership positions. There is little if any sense of the impacts and effectiveness of informal leaders or of leaders who are located within a distributed leadership milieu. A sense of distributed leadership sometimes surfaced in studies that were concerned with leadership in higher education but not with leadership effectiveness. In Smith’s (2005) UK study of departmental leadership in engineering departments in both a statutory and a chartered university, he reports that in the latter research was central to the department’s operation and according to one of the professors ‘[m]ost of the day-to-day leadership is dispersed to … leaders of the research groups’ (2005, p. 454). However, how pervasive such a structure or approach to leadership is in research-oriented departments and whether it is an effective way of organising research cannot be inferred from the investigation. A form of dispersed leadership was evident in the study of UK vice-chancellors by Bargh et al. (2000). What comes across from this study is that at this level ‘leadership, if it is to be successfully accomplished, can rarely be a solitary activity and involves the constant interaction with colleagues in the pursuit of a “shared” vision of reality consistent with broader institutional goals’ (Bargh et al., 2000, p. 92). The suggestion from this investigation is that setting strategic direction is not a simple case of free-wheeling transformational leaders acting alone but of working with senior managers and others in the pursuit of a course for their universities. The impression that comes across from the research is that it was these senior managers that vicechancellors needed to influence in order to change thought and action because they acted as the vice-chancellors’ emissaries and foot soldiers in persuading the wider constituency of the institutions of the significance and importance of new directions. At this level, then, there was a sense of collective, if not dispersed leadership, with vice-chancellors

Leadership in Higher Education 137

providing the impetus for direction. However, as with Smith’s (2005) departmental leadership study, it is not possible to glean what the impacts of different leadership arrangements are for effectiveness. Fourth, so far as departmental leadership is concerned, it has to be borne in mind that many if not most leaders are temporary leaders. Two issues seem significant here. First, it is not entirely clear what the implications of the temporary nature of the headship position are for leadership effectiveness. For example, does the length of tenure have implications for the setting of strategic direction and its impact? Second, finding that there is a relationship between a head of department’s leadership style and measures of effectiveness may be misleading if the length of tenure is quite short, e.g. three years. It may be that we cannot be sure whether it is the incumbent’s leadership that is crucial to effectiveness or that of his/her predecessor.

Interviewing leadership researchers As previously noted, in addition to the literature review I conducted semi-structured interviews with 24 UK leadership researchers. They came from three kinds of background, although in a few cases there was some overlap between them. The three backgrounds were: 1. School leadership researchers; 2. Management/business school researchers; and 3. Leadership researchers concerned with higher education leadership. I saw these as three of the main groups of leadership researchers in the UK. I felt that their views on leadership in the kind of sector in which they worked would be very illuminating. I asked two main kinds of question: general questions about leadership theory and research and questions about leadership in higher education. In order to tap the kinds of leader behaviour that my interviewees felt were associated with effectiveness in higher education, I asked general questions about effective and ineffective leadership in the sector and specific questions about particularly effective and ineffective leaders in universities. Overall, a very considerable number of characteristics of effective higher education leadership were identified and no single aspect was pre-eminent. No aspect of leader behaviour was mentioned by more than half and only one was mentioned by more than one-third. The one component of leadership that was mentioned by more than onethird of interviewees was the notion of the leader as someone who is

138 Leadership Perspectives

trusted and perceived to have personal integrity. Other aspects of effective leader behaviour that were mentioned by several interviewees included: the importance of consulting others; having a clear sense of direction; having firm principles supporting the direction set by the leader; and the protection of staff. Interviewees were also asked about the components of ineffective leadership. The main ones mentioned were: lack of trust and integrity; failure to consult; and a tendency towards ignoring problems. Lack of trust and integrity was most commonly mentioned. In general terms, the characteristics of effective leadership mentioned by the interviewees were very similar to the findings that emerged from the literature review. In both the latter and the interviews, issues of trust and integrity, having a clear sense of direction and ensuring consultation figured especially strongly. The issue of ignoring problems that emerged in the interviews did not figure in the literature review, however, suggesting that this may be an area that is worth giving greater attention to in the future. What is perhaps also striking about the findings from the literature review and the interviews is that the characteristics of effective leaders appear rather unsurprising, perhaps even obvious. Indeed, there is a noticeable similarity between this list and other formulations of leadership effectiveness. For example, in Kouzes and Posner’s (2003) leadership challenge model, several leadership characteristics, which derive from research, based on thousands of best practice leadership case studies over more than 20 years of the effective leader, are highlighted as effective. They highlight the importance of ‘modeling the way’ and ‘inspiring a shared vision’ which have strong affinities with the emphasis in my literature review on providing direction, creating a structure to support that direction, and having credibility to act as a role model. Also, the leadership challenge model draws attention to the importance of ‘enabling others to act’ which includes promoting collaborative working and building trust. There is again an affinity with fostering a supportive and collaborative environment and establishing trustworthiness as a leader and having personal integrity.

Reflections on the findings Although the components of leadership effectiveness may appear obvious, there is considerable evidence of dissatisfaction with leaders in higher education and elsewhere in the public sector. For example, the report Leading Change: Making the Difference found that only 33 per cent of public sector workers rate the leadership of their top manage-

Leadership in Higher Education 139

ment team highly and only 44 per cent rated the leadership of their line manager highly. Similar findings have been uncovered for universities. An international study in the early 1990s asked respondents how far they agreed with the statement ‘top-level administrators are providing competent leadership’ (Boyer et al., 1994). In the UK, only 26 per cent agreed, which was below the comparable percentages for the USA and Australia (39 per cent and 29 per cent respectively). Kinman and Jones (2004) report the findings of a study of university staff in the UK and found that 49 per cent were satisfied with the level of support obtained from line managers and 21 per cent were satisfied with the level of support received from managers above immediate line managers. In January 2007, the Times Higher published an article prompted by a report produced by a human relations consultant for the Department of Health Sciences at the University of Birmingham. Apparently, the university refused to acknowledge the report’s existence when asked to see it under the Freedom of Information Act (Baty, 2007). The author of the article writes that ‘leadership and management style is at the heart of much of the unhappiness that was expressed in this report’. It was found that ‘leadership’ and ‘management’ were two areas where 75–90 per cent of comments were negative and which were ‘highly significant to address’. The article indicates that staff reported an ‘unrewarding social climate’ and that they suffered ‘low autonomy, insufficient participation and a sense of lack of control’. Similarly, several of the interviewees remarked that they found it easier to think of ineffective leaders than effective ones! One interviewee was particularly explicit on this point in response to a question on ineffective leaders. He said: ‘I guess we’ve all encountered a whole raft of those [ineffective leaders]. I mean, effective leaders we could probably count on one hand, I think the ineffective leaders, we see examples of continually’. But this creates the question, if the leadership behaviours I identified in the literature review and the interviews are so obvious, why is there so much dissatisfaction with leaders in higher education and elsewhere in the public sector? There are several possible explanations that might be proffered. First, although these characteristics of effective leadership seem obvious, it may be that they are not in fact well-known and that in spite of leaders in universities frequently going on training and development programmes, many of them are not introduced to course participants. To a certain extent, this may be because a major component of these programmes is providing insights into managerial (and therefore not specifically leadership) roles and responsibilities, such as budgeting and time

140 Leadership Perspectives

management. Second, it may be difficult for many leaders, perhaps because of their personal skills or inclinations, to enact all of them. In other words, for many leaders, there may be personal limits on the ability or capacity to be proficient at all or perhaps even a majority of them. Neither the literature review nor the interviews should be taken to imply that leaders have been identified who exhibit all of the characteristics of the effective leader. Instead, the characteristics operate like an ‘identikit’ or ideal type exemplification of what the highly effective leader looks like, based on a combination of behaviours known to be associated with leadership effectiveness, but who does not (and perhaps who is very unlikely to) exist in reality. Third, there is the possibility that there is a variation of the knowing-doing gap in putting leadership principles into practice (Pfeffer and Sutton, 2000). It may be that even when the practitioner is aware of the leadership principles, translating them into action may be difficult. In part, this may be due to the fact that they do not provide sufficient guidance regarding behaviour. For example, how should a head of department go about preparing departmental arrangements to facilitate the direction he or she has set? What kinds of structures and cultural arrangements might this entail? Fourth, as several of the interviewees argued, context matters. Context matters in a variety of ways. Several of the interviewees commented that academics were difficult to lead because of their proclivity towards independent thinking and strong preference for autonomy. The phrase ‘like herding cats’ was sometimes used and was in fact included in the title of one of the articles included in the literature review (Brown and Moshavi, 2002). However, context in a different sense has a bearing on the leader’s capacity to be a leader. This is the notion that leaders in universities are tightly constrained and hemmed in by organisational arrangements and procedures to a degree that inhibits their ability to be leaders. This is an issue that is likely to be common among leaders in public sector organisations. Denis et al. have observed that while some writers on leadership in public sector organisations have proposed an entrepreneurial view of leaders, emphasising innovation, creativity and transformational leadership, others have identified a ‘stewardship model’ that emphasises leaders acting as ‘guardians of public goods and values’ (2005, p. 451). The stewardship model depicts leaders as limited in the degree to which they can set new directions and therefore as to a significant extent constrained by the organisational ethos and arrangements of the public sector. As Denis et al. note: ‘a realistic picture of leadership in public organisations probably falls somewhere between these two poles’ (2005, p. 451). However, the fundamental point, that leaders in public sector organisations are

Leadership in Higher Education 141

to a significant extent hemmed in and limited in what they can be expected to achieve, remains. Further light can be shed on this issue by Paul Hare in a rather personal account comparing his time as a head of department at HeriotWatt University in the late 1980s and then again in the late 1990s (Hare and Hare, 2002). Hare depicts a change from being an academic leader in the first period to being more of a manager in the second. As such he portrays a shift from exercising ‘influence over the academic priorities, productivity and profile of a department or school’ towards being a line manager ‘within the established institutional structures and hierarchies’ (2002, p. 36). Hare also notes that he had a much bigger role in the formulation of his department’s strategy. Relatedly, Middlehurst (1993) has suggested that in many cases, the role of head of department is so circumscribed that the degree to which leadership, as against being a manager running a department, is at all possible should be questioned. Similarly, Bryson’s (2004) research on UK academics strongly indicates that heads of department are so constrained by developments external and internal to their departments, they are limited in the degree to which they can exhibit leadership. One of his informants, the head of a social science department is quoted as saying: Administrative workloads for Heads of Department, driven by bureaucratic procedures like the Research Assessment Exercise and Teaching Quality Assessment, have become totally unrealistic, out of all proportion to the financial reward. They severely damage the possibility of doing some strategic thinking and providing some academic leadership, and so have become self-defeating (quoted in Bryson, 2004, p. 46). In a similar way, Henkel (2000) identified the conflicting demands of responding to a tide of external demands and crises competing with the need to engage in a strategic approach as one of the three main tensions in the head of department’s role (the other two were academic versus administrative work and nurturing individuals versus changing departments).

Conclusion While it is possible to establish from a literature review the kinds of leader behaviour that are conducive to leadership effectiveness, the translation of such findings into advice or programmes for practitioners is by

142 Leadership Perspectives

no means straightforward. In this discussion I have drawn attention to some factors that constrain the implementation of some of the implications of these findings. I have mentioned the likelihood that there is often a knowing-doing gap and the probability that contextual factors will inhibit the leader’s ability and possibly inclination to attend to the kinds of issues that he or she would prefer to focus upon and to do so in a manner that the leader would prefer. Context matters and as such places limits on the practical utility of isolating universal statements about the effectiveness of different kinds of leadership style. Of course, the contingency theories of leadership sensitised leadership researchers many years ago to the role and significance of situational factors but the kinds of contextual factors that I have been addressing in this chapter are less to do with mediating variables, like position power (Fielder, 1967), and much more to do with the role of macro influences. The latter affect the degree to which it is possible for the leader to implement a particular kind of leadership rather than affecting whether a certain aspect of leader behaviour is effective or not. As such leaders are as much prisoners as enablers of context.

Acknowledgments The essence of this chapter was presented as a keynote lecture at the Fifth Studying Leadership Conference, Cranfield University, December 2006. I am grateful to the organisers for the invitation and for the participants in the subsequent discussion who prompted some of the themes in this chapter. I also wish to thank the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education for awarding me a grant which allowed me to conduct the research on which this chapter is based.

References S. Ambrose, T. Huston and M. Norman, ‘A qualitative method for assessing faculty satisfaction’, Research in Higher Education, 46 (2005) 803–30. J.K. Barge and G.W. Musambira, ‘Turning points in chair-faculty relationships’, Journal of Applied Communication, 20 (1992) 54–77. C. Bargh, J. Bocock, P. Scott and D. Smith, University Leadership: The Role of the Chief Executive (Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press, 2000). P. Baty, ‘“Punishing” style puts staff on the critical list’, The Times Higher, January 19 (2007) 4–5. E.L. Boyer, P.G. Altbach and M.J. Whitelaw, The Academic Profession: An International Perspective (1994). F.W. Brown and D. Moshavi, ‘Herding academic cats: Faculty reactions to transformational and contingent reward leadership by department chairs’, The Journal of Leadership Studies, 8(3) (2002) 79–92.

Leadership in Higher Education 143 A. Bryman, ‘Effective leadership in higher education: a literature review’, Studies in Higher Education (In press, 2007). C. Bryson, ‘What about the workers? The expansion of higher education and the transformation of academic work’, Industrial Relations Journal, 35 (2004) 38–57. J.W. Creswell and M.L. Brown, ‘How chairpersons enhance faculty research: A grounded theory study’, The Review of Higher Education, 16(1) (1992) 41–62. C. Day, ‘Principals who sustain success: Making a difference in schools in challenging circumstances’, International Journal of Leadership in Education, 8 (2005) 273–90. J.-L. Denis, A. Langley and L. Rouleau, ‘Rethinking leadership in public organisations’, in E. Ferlie, L.E. Lynn and C. Pollitt (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Public Management (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), pp. 446–67. B.G. Dyer and M. Miller, ‘A critical review of literature related to the department chair position’ (1999) http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/ content_storage_01/0000019b/80/17/a4/ef.pdf F.E. Fiedler, A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967). A.H. Goodall, Does it Take an Expert to Lead Experts? Professionals Versus Managers in Universities, Doctor of Philosophy thesis (UK: University of Warwick, 2007). R. Gomes and P.A. Knowles, ‘Marketing department leadership: An analysis of a team transformation’, Journal of Marketing Education, 21 (1999) 164–74. P. Hare and L. Hare, ‘The evolving role of head of department in UK universities’, Perspectives, 6 (2002) 33–7. J. Harris, B.N. Martin and W. Agnew, ‘The characteristics, behaviors, and training of effective educational/leadership chairs’, in D.C. Thompson and F.E. Crampton (eds) The Changing Face(s) of Educational Leadership: UCEA at the Crossroads (Proceedings from the 2004 UCEA Convention, 2004) http://coe.ksu.edu/ ucea/2004/04ucea11.pdf M. Henkel, Academic Identities and Policy Change in Higher Education (London: Jessica Kingsley, 2000). G. Kinman and F. Jones, ‘Working to the limit: Stress and work-life balance in academic and academic-related employees in the UK’ (London: Association of University Teachers, 2004) http://www.aut.org.uk/media/pdf/4/7/workingtothelimit.pdf J.M. Kouzes and B.Z. Posner, The Leadership Challenge (New York: Jossey Bass Wiley, 2003). R. Middlehurst, Leading Academics (Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press, 1993). J. Pfeffer and R. Sutton, The Knowing Doing Gap: How Smart Companies Turn Knowledge into Action (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 2000). R. Smith, ‘Departmental leadership and management in chartered and statutory universities’, Educational Management, Administration and Leadership, 33 (2005) 449–64. J.S. Stark, C.L. Briggs and J. Rowland-Poplawski, ‘Curriculum leadership roles of chairpersons in continuously planning departments’, Research in Higher Education, 43 (2002) 329–56. V.H. Vroom and A.J. Jago, ‘The role of the situation in leadership’, American Psychologist, 62 (2007) 17–24.

11 Departmental Affiliation, Leadership and Leadership Development Gareth Edwards and Doris Jepson

In line with some of the general themes of this book, that is, theorising and researching leadership in context and the development of more sophisticated constructs of leadership, this chapter will discuss how the department to which a leader is affiliated impacts upon their leadership behaviour and effectiveness. Initially, the chapter explores leader prototypicality as a central concept for considering departmental affiliation and leadership. The chapter then discusses the relevance of implicit leadership theories to leader prototypicality and departmental affiliation and also introduces the concept of transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership as providing a useful behavioural perspective when considering leadership in a departmental context. The findings from two separate studies are discussed. These studies have been chosen, firstly owing to the relevance of the data to the topic in discussion but also because they are both distinct in their epistemological origins that provide a useful comparative basis. Study One is an inductive investigation of leadership from a crosscountry perspective in the German and UK Chemical Industry (Jepson, 2007). Study Two, however, is a deductive investigation of perceptions of transformational leadership behaviour and effectiveness of managers across various sectors of the UK manufacturing industry (Edwards, 2005). Study One, with a qualitative focus will highlight key themes that can then be investigated more generally from the discussion of Study Two which has a quantitative approach. The chapter will, therefore, discuss the findings of these studies in relation to leader prototypicality and social identity and highlight relevant findings regarding leadership and departmental affiliation and thirdly, in line with the book theme – ‘Knowledge into Action’, the chapter will conclude by giving guidance to practitioner managers on 144

Departmental Affiliation, Leadership and Leadership Development 145

what implications these findings have on their day-to-day roles and provide recommendations for leadership development initiatives.

Introduction: leader prototypicality Recently, the importance of the interactional nature of leadership and its position within a group has increasingly been pointed out and theoretically elaborated on by researchers such as Ellemers et al. (2004), Haslam (2004) and Hogg (2005). These researchers have developed their arguments by looking at the connection between social identity theory and the construction of leadership identities and behaviour (Ellemers et al., 2004), assuming that leadership emerges through processes associated with psychologically belonging to a group. Other areas of leadership theory and research, such as the arguments around distributed leadership (Gronn, 2002) further support this call for a focus on leadership interaction at group-level. For example, Hogg (2005, p. 73) suggests: Scholars have become concerned that current leadership theories are inadequately grounded in an analysis of the role of group membership. Hogg goes on to suggest that most research now acknowledges that leadership is a relational property within groups (i.e. leaders exist because of followers, and followers exist because of leaders). He also points out, however, that the idea that leadership may emerge through processes associated with psychologically belonging to a group, has not been elaborated. Goethals (2005), based on his review of the work of Freud (1921), has suggested that individuals who represent the group’s members in an ideal and strong way gain prestige, and prestige commands obedience. Goethals goes on to elaborate on Freud’s idea (borrowed heavily from LeBon, 1969 [originally published in 1895]) that leaders match the needs and expectations of the group through their ideas as well as their personal qualities. Being ‘prototypical’ (Ellemers et al., 2004, p. 488), that is, endorsing the shared identity, representing it clearly and promoting the distinguishing of the group towards other groups is further proposed to have a positive impact on the existence and acceptance of leadership. Haslam (2004) points out that prototypicality may be seen as a constant process of influencing the social identity – acting as entrepreneurs of identity – and

146 Leadership Perspectives

being influenced by it. Reicher et al., (2005) have also suggested that people who are influential are those who are in a position to supply information about a common social category. This idea of effective leadership being dependent on matching the prototypical behaviour within a social group can also be explored through the lens of implicit leadership theories. Implicit leadership theories argue that to be successful, a leader’s expectations on and perceptions of ideal leader behaviour have to match his/her followers expectations and perceptions (Kenney et al., 1994). Prototypicality is here seen as a role schema that the leader has to fit to meet the normative expectations of the group (Brodbeck et al., 2000). What those normative expectations are and consequently what defines ideal leadership then depends on the characteristics and attributes of the specific social group. The findings from Study One represent an implicit leadership perspective in understanding leader prototypicality from the context of departmental affiliation. The findings from Study Two, on the other hand, provide a behavioural perspective of leader prototypicality in the context of departmental affiliation. If effective leadership is dependent on matching prototypical behaviours then a theory of leadership behaviour was deemed a useful perspective to investigate. The theory of transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership (Bass, 1985, 1998) provides a number of dimensions that represent leadership behaviour (see Table 11.1 for definitions of the behavioural dimensions). Furthermore, research concerning the transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership paradigm appears to lack consideration at the group-level analysis. Indeed, there has been criticism of the transformational leadership literature overemphasising dyadic processes: most theory and research concentrate on leader influence on individuals and not leader influence on group or organisational processes (Yukl, 1999). In the most recent review of transformational leadership theory (Bass and Riggio, 2006) there appears no evidence that this criticism has been resolved. The most relevant research appears to discuss more generic areas that may enable theoretical consideration of group level effects on leadership behaviour and effectiveness. For example, Howell (1992) offers a list of organisational and task conditions likely to affect the emergence of transformational and transactional leadership. One area that she highlights is task characteristics; if a task is standardised, routine and well defined the likelihood is that transactional leadership will emerge. On the other hand, if a task is complex, changing and poorly defined then the likelihood is that transformational leadership will emerge.

Departmental Affiliation, Leadership and Leadership Development 147 Table 11.1

Definitions of the dimensions of the full range leadership model

Transformational leadership (TFL) • Attributed Charisma (AC) / Idealised Influence (II) – Leaders behave or are attributed with characteristics that result in their being role models for their followers. Leaders are admired, respected and trusted. Followers identify with the leaders and want to emulate them. Leaders are perceived by their followers as having extraordinary capabilities, persistence and determination. Leaders are willing to take risks and are consistent rather than arbitrary. They can be counted on to do the right thing, demonstrating high standards of ethical and moral conduct. • Inspirational Motivation (IM) – Leaders behave in ways that motivate and inspire those around them by providing meaning and challenge to their followers’ work. Team spirit is aroused. Enthusiasm and optimism are displayed. Leaders involve followers in envisioning attractive future states. Leaders clearly communicate expectations that followers want to meet. And they demonstrate commitment to goals and the shared vision. • Intellectual Stimulation (IS) – Leaders stimulate their followers’ efforts to be innovative and creative by questioning assumptions, reframing problems, and approaching old situations in new ways. They encourage creativity. There is no public criticism of individual members’ mistakes. New ideas and creative problem solutions are solicited from followers, who are included in the process of addressing problems and finding solutions. Followers are encouraged to try new approaches, and their ideas are not criticised even if they differ from the leaders’ ideas. • Individualised Consideration (IC) – Leaders pay special attention to each follower’s needs for achievement and growth by acting as coach or mentor. Followers and colleagues are developed to successively higher levels of potential. Individualised consideration is practised when new learning opportunities are created, along with a supportive climate. Individual differences in needs and desires are recognised and accepted by the leader. A two-way exchange in communication is encouraged, and ‘management by walking around’ is practised. Interactions with followers are personalised. The leader listens effectively and delegates tasks as a means of developing followers. Delegated tasks are monitored to discover whether followers need additional direction or support and to assess progress, but followers do not feel they are being checked on. Transactional leadership (TAL) • Contingent Reward (CR) – The leader assigns or gets agreement on what needs to be done and promises rewards or actually rewards others in exchange for satisfactorily carrying out the assignment. • Management-by-Exception (Active and Passive) (MBEA and MBEP) – The leader actively monitors deviations from performance standards, mistakes and errors in followers’ assignments and takes corrective action as necessary or waits passively for deviations, mistakes and errors to occur and then takes corrective action. Laissez-faire leadership (LF) – The leader avoids taking a stand, ignores problems, does not follow up, and refrains from intervening. Source: B.M. Bass (1998), Transformational Leadership: Industry, Military, and Educational Impact. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 5–7.

148 Leadership Perspectives

There is, however, little consideration here for the effectiveness of each form of leadership behaviour. This paper, therefore, investigates the extent to which departmental affiliation has an impact on leadership behaviour and effectiveness and discusses repercussions for leadership development.

Leadership and departmental affiliation Within today’s organisations, the department is still most often the most immediate, formal group-level context of an individual and may therefore have a high impact on a person assuming a leadership position. Organisational departments further tend to differ fundamentally with a view to knowledge, jargon, tasks, role distribution, use of technology and daily routines within a given organisation but tend to be similar to equivalent departments within other organisations and possibly other countries. This chapter, through the lens of two studies, seeks to add to the already growing body of research on leader prototypicality (see van Knippenberg and van Knippenberg, 2005 for a review) with a particular focus on departmental affiliation and investigate particular antecedents with regards to the emergence of leader prototypicality in departmental groupings. Assuming that identity shapes behaviour and that the social context shapes our identity, it could further be assumed that social interaction and therefore behaviour shapes identity. If this was true, we could use displayed behaviour in organisations – and more specifically in immediate social groups such as departments – to try to understand underlying personal and social identities. This process would then enable us to understand what behaviour is deemed prototypical and consequently essential for successful leadership at group level. In this chapter, we will apply this line of thought to the data of Study One and Two, to illustrate that certain leadership behaviours (using transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership as a framework) may be indicative of a social identity that has been influenced and shaped through daily interaction and a shared educational background within a department. We propose that within a specific department, such as an research and development lab, the lab manager most often faces subordinate technicians with an equal education or training background and the nature of the job requires the technicians to use their knowledge for product innovation and development. Within this specific environ-

Departmental Affiliation, Leadership and Leadership Development 149

ment, we may then expect a shared identity that is shaped by creativity, respect for knowledge and similar thinking/analytical patterns stemming from similar education backgrounds. According to social identity theory, a leader in a lab environment will be expected to be very prototypical (Hogg, 2001) and therefore to embrace the principles of creativity and respect for knowledge. Occupation could therefore be the key driver of prototypicality within this social group and reinforced by the daily context of social interaction with superiors, colleagues and subordinates; it is the common social category (Reicher et al., 2005). This line of thought can be easily applied to more commerciallyoriented departments such as sales and marketing departments or accounting departments, where training or education within the occupational area is most likely equally important and a prerequisite for most jobs. The elements defining prototypicality of this social group are the differentiating factors based upon the occupational affiliation and represents social identity in context (see Reicher et al., 2005 for a review). Production settings may be a slightly more complicated environment, as training may sometimes be less formal and occur rather onthe-job. However, production plants are often divided into shifts and within these shifts you can again find social identities that are then shaped by the individual members and their experience together and/or common expertise. Acceptance of a leader within this environment would then be based on his/her similarities with the members of the group and may ultimately be driven by emotional, experience or relationship-oriented issues rather than educational issues. In essence if leadership is seen as the process of being perceived as a leader through implicit leadership theories (Lord and Maher, 1991) then department affiliation and occupational identity could play a substantial role in attaining leadership status. The studies outlined earlier are now discussed in detail to investigate this proposition.

Study one Leadership in the German and UK chemical industries This interpretivist, cross-country study of leadership (Jepson, 2007) has generated a total data set of 105 semi-structured interviews that have asked the participants – 63 managers and 42 employees without managerial status – to elaborate on their own opinion on what constitutes leadership in the organisation, what impacts on the behaviour of a leader and what kind of leadership is displayed by their superiors and

150 Leadership Perspectives

generally within their company. Seventy eight of the 105 interviews were conducted in a total of nine chemical companies located in Germany and the other 27 interviews took place in three chemical companies located in the UK. The companies in each country varied in firm size, industry segment, firm age and are located in different regions within each country. Looking at the wording and content of definitions of ideal leadership behaviour and descriptions of existing leadership behaviour within the national and micro-level sub-samples revealed that it is departmental affiliation that seems to matter most to the individuals in this data set. This importance of affiliation of a leader with their department further transcended other organisational and national (German and UK) boundaries. Comparing the descriptions of leadership behaviour within the same departments revealed that there is a strong consistency in leadership behaviour amongst, for example, lab managers, plant managers and sales/marketing managers both across organisations and nations. Managers of labs generally described their own behaviour as quite ‘laissez-faire’ and ‘hands-off’ so as to utilise the selfmotivation and creativity of their subordinates. One of the lab technicians at a UK firm explained that lab managers do not need to be hands-on or directive as most of the lab technicians find their motivation in the very work they are doing: If you do, and this sounds terribly sad, but if you go to university and you do chemistry and you want to do it for living that is your motivation. So most of your motivation or lets say my motivation comes from actually wanting to do it. And I wouldn’t want to do anything else. So, but that is half of it, so most of your motivation comes from that really. Wanting to do a good job, being a professional, using the knowledge you’ve got in another application… Interaction with subordinates therefore tends to be described as relaxed and a few of the lab managers identified their main responsibility to be the co-ordination of tasks/projects and the provision of theoretical advice if at all needed. On the other hand production or plant managers were perceived to be more hands-on and controlling due to the sensitivity of chemical processes that are dealt with on the shop floor. The sensitivity of chemical processes and the need for a clear structure of responsibility and control has been mentioned by several production workers and managers in this sample. Furthermore, interviewees working in a plant

Departmental Affiliation, Leadership and Leadership Development 151

environment have identified supportiveness as one of the crucial roles of a leader, which ties in with the need to be more hands-on. Finally, sales and marketing managers were perceived to exhibit both approaches. They are generally dealing with professionals as subordinates who tend to need little control or supervision, yet cannot be too hands-off due to the close exposure to financial matters and clients. We have a type of teamwork here and I don’t see myself as the superior, as the big guy in this department. I see myself as the team leader in the American sense. I say, ok I am leading you, but please … all of you have to cover your own area of responsibility and have to make the decisions in that area. … some (need to) ensure being backed up by their superior. After all I always carry the responsibility with them when I give them the leeway to decide on their own. I don’t always have to stand next to you but I stand in front of you. … Of course, if somebody misbehaves completely, what has hardly happened until now, then you have to approach it differently. Sales Manager, Germany Both within the German and the UK sample, almost all managers fitted into these departmental categories. This study further showed that some participants were quite aware of departmental differences in leadership behaviour. When participants were asked whether they or their boss’s leadership behaviour is similar to everyone else in the company, some participants started to reflect upon these departmental differences themselves. One sales/marketing project manager in one of the German firms described it this way: Well I would say that in production, for example, there is a very harsh tone. You can say they are all trained workers but maybe not with a university degree. They are coming lets say from lower social classes, without putting value on it, where maybe already the father shouted at the son … ‘you do it this way…’. … I think specific people need specific leadership styles. It should be pointed out however, that the chemical industry is quite unique in the sense that technology, organisational structures and practices are very similar across countries and the importance of highly trained staff is a characteristic of both the UK and German chemical industry. The comparatively less significant similarities in leadership behaviour within national sub-sets compared to departmental sub-sets

152 Leadership Perspectives

may therefore be partly attributable to the dominant industry-specific organisational structures and demands.

Study two Departmental affiliation and transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership This study gained self-rating perceptions on leadership behaviour and effectiveness from 343 managers and subordinate-rating perceptions of leadership behaviour and effectiveness of 300 managers from manufacturing organisations in the UK (Edwards, 2005).1 The study used the Multifactor Leadership questionnaire to collect data on transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership (definitions of transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership behaviours are taken from Bass, 1998). In this study managers were classified into eight departmental groupings, which were: • • • • • • • •

Head (CEO/MD); Operations; Work, Site, Facilities and Systems; HR, Health and Safety and Quality; Production; Sales, Marketing and Business Development; Finance and Administration; Engineering and Product Development.

The dimensions of transformational (attributed charisma, idealised influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualised consideration), transactional (contingent reward, active management-byexception and passive management-by-exception) and laissez-faire leadership were analysed to identify any relationship with effectiveness criteria (extra effort, leader effectiveness and follower satisfaction). A summary of the results are given in Tables 11.2 and 11.3. There appears to be evidence in the findings of this study that support the assumption that groups or departments appear to have unique mixes of leadership behaviours based on basic assumptions around task characteristics. Overall evidence is lacking for the clear-cut distinction between departments based on a transactional and transformational leadership basis (c.f. Howell, 1992). There is, however, evidence to suggest that there is a distinction between commercially

0.32

0.33**

0.48**

0.33

HR, Health & Safety and Quality (Eff) (n=27)

Production (Eff) (n=88)

Sales, Marketing and Business Development (Eff) (n=47)

Finance and Administration (Eff) (n=20)

0.43**

0.63**

0.35*

0.31**

0.10

0.45**

0.58***

0.04

II

N.B. * = P<0.05, ** = P<0.01, *** = P<0.001.

Engineering and 0.62*** Product Development (Eff) (n=36)

0.48**

0.63***

Operations (Eff) (n=44)

Work/Site, Facilities, Systems (Eff) (n=37)

0.26

Head (Eff) (n=45)

AC 0.32*

IS

0.46**

0.27

0.45**

0.30**

0.31

0.32*

0.40*

0.28

0.34*

0.36***

0.40*

0.48**

0.59*** 0.57***

–0.02

IM

0.48**

0.60**

0.45**

0.49***

0.31

0.47**

0.58***

0.53***

IC

0.61***

0.56**

0.53***

0.49***

0.32

0.56***

0.71***

0.35*

TFL

0.38*

0.05

0.40**

0.44***

0.28

0.75***

0.53***

0.15

CR

0.13

–0.16

0.10

0.22*

0.16

0.04

0.50**

0.16

MBEA

–0.15

–0.28

–0.20

–0.19

–0.03

0.01

–0.02

–0.04

MBEP

–0.38*

LF

0.18

–0.25

0.14

0.27*

0.28

0.36*

–0.27

–0.48*

–0.14

–0.34**

–0.20

–0.14

0.58*** –0.22

0.14

TAL

Table 11.2 Correlations between dimensions of transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership and effectiveness for self-ratings by department

153

0.62**

0.65***

0.66***

0.24

0.86***

0.71***

0.84***

Work/Site, Facilities, Systems (Eff) (n=32)

HR, Health & Safety and Quality (Eff) (n=18)

Production (Eff) (n=83)

Sales, Marketing and Business Development (Eff) (n=37)

Finance and Administration (Eff) (n=18)

Engineering and 0.76*** Product Development (Eff) (n=29)

N.B. * = P<0.05, ** = P<0.01, *** = P<0.001.

0.60***

0.70***

–0.16

0.65***

0.72***

0.85***

Operations (Eff) (n=36)

0.43**

0.60***

II

Head (Eff) (n=48)

AC

0.57**

0.77***

0.58***

0.74***

0.38

0.58***

0.74***

0.31*

IM

0.67***

0.57*

0.56***

0.77***

0.47*

0.48**

0.72***

0.41**

IS

0.62***

0.77***

0.68***

0.73***

0.42

0.45*

0.76***

0.57***

IC

0.76***

0.80***

0.73***

0.88***

0.45

0.69***

0.84***

0.65***

TFL

0.72***

0.70**

0.73***

0.77***

0.53*

0.69***

0.67***

0.71***

CR

0.38*

0.44

0.13

0.21

0.28

0.40*

0.35*

0.14

MBEA

–0.50**

–0.74***

–0.40*

–0.66***

–0.49*

–0.17

–0.43**

–0.48***

MBEP

–0.62***

–0.50***

LF

0.41*

0.31

0.36*

0.17

0.07

–0.58**

–0.84***

–0.71***

–0.62***

–0.51*

0.58*** –0.54**

0.31

0.22

TAL

Table 11.3 Correlations between dimensions of transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership and effectiveness for subordinate-ratings by department

154

Departmental Affiliation, Leadership and Leadership Development 155

oriented departments (sales, finance etc.) and more production oriented departments (operations, work/site, production and engineering) based on the dimension active management-by-exception. This dimension appears effective for production orientated departments and not for commercially orientated departments. This appears to support suggestions from Study One, where it suggests that ‘production and plant managers seem to be more hands-on and controlling’. There is also evidence from Study Two to suggest this phenomenon appears across a number of manufacturing companies and not just in the chemical industry.

Implications for theory and research Based upon the findings of Study One and Two and the link to social identity theory, shared education and experience appear to be the main drivers of prototypicality within departments, which are strengthened by daily social interaction of the members of the department. By sharing common knowledge and occupation-specific jargon, prototypicality of the department as a social group is secured and a leader is expected to behave prototypically, i.e. in line with the rules and values of this social group. Consequently, prototypical behaviour on the part of the leader then reinforces the social identity of the department. In addition, the findings of these studies, in particular Study Two, suggest that there is a general distinction between commercially oriented departments and production oriented departments with the latter focusing more on the active management-by-exception dimension of Bass’s (1985; 1998) model of transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership. This finding that different departments need different aspects of transactional and transformational leadership is highly related to the descriptions of leadership behaviour within the different departments in Study One. With respect to Study One it seems that production managers would need to exhibit more active management-by-exception than laboratory managers in their approach to leading their departments. These findings appear to reflect those suggested by Howell (1992) where transactional leadership behaviours would be more evident in standardised and routine tasks. The findings of Study One in particular, but also compared with the findings of Study Two suggest that these departmental social identities hold across organisations and countries, suggesting similar influences of education and on-the-job experiences across national borders. The overall dataset of these two studies is unique as it combines qualitative and quantitative data that has not only been gathered across different

156 Leadership Perspectives

sectors but also across different countries. The findings from these studies provide support for the general argument that leadership is a group phenomenon and that the effectiveness of a leader’s behaviour, and subsequently leadership development, is highly dependent on the group context and group expectations on acceptable and desirable leadership behaviour. There is evidence therefore, that if leadership is seen as the process of being perceived as a leader (Lord and Maher, 1991) then department affiliation and occupational identity play a substantial role in attaining leadership status.

Implications for practice: ‘knowledge into action’ This type of research on the importance of departmental identities on the behaviour of leaders and hence the expectations of followers is valuable to practitioners and the content of leadership development programmes. It points out the need to develop leaders at a social group level and with specific focus to their immediate context. Practising leaders, and indeed the development of leaders, at all levels need to be aware of their departmental prototypicality. This chapter has highlighted two antecedents of a leader’s prototypicality based on departmental groupings: 1. The level of education required to work in a department, which appears to increase the need to be ‘hands-off’; 2. The tension regarding commerciality and production, which also appears to moderate the level of ‘hands-on’ activity or the extent to which one exhibits active management-by-exception behaviours (i.e. the more one is production oriented, the more active management-by-exception is needed). An awareness of these departmental influences on successful leadership and subsequently the incorporation of these influences into leadership development efforts are important for all kinds of contemporary organisations. An understanding of social identities within an organisation may help not only to identify future leaders within different departments but to enhance a shared understanding of each others leadership ideas and demands. Such a common understanding of the various forms of leadership within the different departments – and especially between commercially-oriented and production departments – may then aid intra-organisational communication and the shaping of leadership as an organisation-wide phenomenon.

Departmental Affiliation, Leadership and Leadership Development 157

These findings around departmental identities should especially be treated with great care by organisations with a matrix structure and/or international teams. Communication in cross-functional teams may be distorted more significantly due to departmental identities and jargon rather than as previously assumed due to regional or national differences. Likewise, it may be important to stress and build upon the common experiences within similar departments across countries to enable communication and successful co-operation across organisations and countries. Furthermore, the incorporation of departmental issues into a leadership development programme seems to be of utmost importance with regard to leadership as a daily process and interaction between a leader and followers. Leaders may not always be aware of the existing social identity of their department and therefore not actively aware of the demands and needs of his/her followers. Critical reflection on this would be an important and highly beneficial feature of any leadership development programme. Finally, career-oriented leadership development training needs to take into account the social identity of the department/group that a given leader is coming from. This needs to be changed/adapted depending on where the leader is supposed to work and whom he/she is supposed to work with in the future. For example, if promoted into board level, the former departmental leader may need awareness training in understanding his/her own and other departments’ social identities in order to be able to develop a leadership behaviour that is suitable across all departments.

Limitations and further research Despite its uniqueness, the combined data set of these studies still provides limitations regarding our ability to generalise about the influence of departmental affiliation on leadership. Many questions remain unanswered around the nature and direction of this influence. Further, each study remains limited in itself and there are fundamental problems in the comparability of the findings across the studies. Any findings from Study One, for example, need to be seen in context of the very specific characteristics of the chemical industry that may have positively influenced the similarities in departments across organisations and countries. Care also needs to be taken when deriving conclusions from findings in Study Two as some categorisations of departments have low sample sizes (HR, Health and Safety and Quality

158 Leadership Perspectives

and Finance and Administration) in some instances dropping below the required minimum of 30 respondents per category (Roscoe, 1975; Sekaran, 2003). The findings herein may be moderated by hierarchical level. For example, when a leader reaches director-level in an organisation, then it would appear that they need to reduce the amount of active management-by-exception behaviour they exhibit (Edwards, 2005). The interaction between departmental affiliation and hierarchical level, therefore, merits further research.

Conclusions To conclude, the analyses of these two studies support the arguments for a group-level focus on leadership as they show that it is indeed the department a leader works in and therefore the very specific tasks and technologies associated with this specific department that tend to influence individuals’ perceptions of what would be acceptable and more importantly effective leadership behaviour. For example, in relation to Bass’s theory on Transformational Leadership, some departments have a higher regard for certain leadership behaviours than others. This research however, also highlights a mutual dependency on perception (self versus subordinate ratings). In addition, the research shows that the importance of affiliation of a leader with their department appears to transcend organisational and national (German and UK) boundaries. The findings outlined in this paper therefore call for a change in focus of contemporary leadership theories and development programmes from individual to group-level. The message from these studies around group-level and departmental influences on leadership is compelling and deserves further attention. More empirical research is especially needed to explore the finding of the potential significance of departmental affiliation on leadership behaviour. First of all, we need to explore whether this finding is applicable beyond the boundaries of these studies and beyond the boundaries of the UK and Germany. We then need to explore in depth why departmental affiliation is so important. Is it the nature of work, class, education, occupation, technology or structure of a department? What is the link between departmental and personal identities and their influences on the construction of leadership? Could this finding suggest that leadership cannot exist outside the group context and is therefore fundamentally dependent in its construction on the group context? Also, what happens when a person

Departmental Affiliation, Leadership and Leadership Development 159

becomes a board director where they are part of two separate groups (the board and the division for which they are responsible)? Or in a matrix structure where they have responsibility over two groups/departments? Further empirical research in this area is needed to help us understand what drives the construction of effective and ineffective leadership in the context of a specific social group, to be better able to advise practitioners on how to develop effective leadership throughout the organisation.

Note 1 Boss and peer-ratings were also collected as part of the original research. Subordinate and self-ratings only are reported herein to enable comparison to Study One.

References B.M. Bass, Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations (New York: The Free Press, 1985). B.M. Bass, Transformational Leadership: Industry, Military, and Educational Impact (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1998). B.M. Bass and R.E. Riggio, Transformational Leadership, 2nd edn (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2006). F.C. Brodbeck, M. Frese, S. Akerblom, G. Audia, G. Bakacsi, H. Bendova, D. Bodega, M. Bodur, S. Booth, K. Brenk, P. Castel, D. Hartog, G. Donnelly-Cox, M.V. Gratchev, I. Holmberg, S. Jarmuz, J.C. Jesuino, R. Jorbenadse, H.E. Kabasakal and M. Keating, ‘Cultural variation of leadership prototypes across 22 European countries’, Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 73 (2000) 1–29. G.P. Edwards, An Investigation of Transformational, Transactional and Laissez-faire Leadership at Different Hierarchical Levels in UK Manufacturing Companies Using Multiple Ratings (PhD Dissertation, UK: Strathclyde Graduate School of Business, Strathclyde University, 2005). N. Ellemers, D. De Gilder and S.A. Haslam, ‘Motivating individuals and groups at work: A social identity perspective on leadership and group performance’, Academy of Management Review, 29 (2004) 459–78. S. Freud, ‘Group psychology and the analysis of ego’, in J. Strachey (ed.) The Standard Edition of the Complete Works of Sigmund Freud, XXVIII: Beyond the Pleasure Principle, Group Psychology and Other Works (London: Hogarth Press, 1921), pp. 65–143. M.A. Goethals, ‘The psychodynamics of leadership’, in D.M. Messick and R.M. Kramer (eds) The Psychology of Leadership: New Perspectives and Research (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2005), pp. 97–112. P. Gronn, ‘Leadership: Who needs it?’, School Leadership and Management, 23 (2002) 267–90. S.A. Haslam (ed.) Psychology in Organisations: The Social Identity Approach, 2nd edn (London: Sage Publications, 2004). M.A. Hogg, ‘A social identity theory of leadership’, Personality and Social Psychological Review, 5 (2001) 184–200. M.A. Hogg, ‘Social identity and leadership’, in D.M. Messick and R.M. Kramer (eds) The Psychology of Leadership: New Perspectives and Research (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2005), pp. 53–80.

160 Leadership Perspectives J.W. Howell, ‘Organisational contexts, charismatic and exchange leadership’, in H.L. Tosi (ed.) The Environment, Organisation, Person Contingency Model: A Meso Approach to the Study of Organisations (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1992). D. Jepson, Studying Leadership at Cross-Country Level – Perceptions of Managers and their Subordinates in the German and UK Chemical Industry (DPhil Thesis, UK: Said Business School, University of Oxford, 2007). R.A. Kenney, J. Blascovich and P.R. Shaver, ‘Implicit leadership theories: Prototypes for new leaders’, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 15 (1994) 409–37. G. LeBon, The Crowd (New York: Ballantine, 1969). [Original work published 1895]. R.G. Lord, and K.J. Maher, Leadership and Information Processing: Linking Perceptions and Performance (London: Unwin Hyman, 1991). S. Reicher, S.A. Haslam and N. Hopkins, ‘Social identity and the dynamics of leadership: Leaders and followers as collaborative agents in the transformation of social reality’, Leadership Quarterly, 16 (2005) 547–68. J.T. Roscoe, Fundamental Research Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edn (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1975). U. Sekaran, Research Methods for Business: A Skill-building Approach, 4th edn (New York: John Wiley, 2003). B. van Knippenberg and D. van Knippenberg, ‘Leader self-sacrifice and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of leader prototypicality’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 90 (2005) 25–37. G.A. Yukl, ‘An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories, Leadership Quarterly, 10 (1999) 285–307.

Part III Leadership and Relationships

This page intentionally left blank

12 Leading with Political Awareness: Leadership Across Diverse Interests Inside and Outside the Organisation Jean Hartley and Clive Fletcher

This chapter examines some current limitations of leadership theory which focuses on leadership in rather than of the organisation and which underplays the skills of leading across diverse and sometimes competing interests both inside and outside the organisation. We propose an alternative view of leadership which we call leading with political awareness but political astuteness, or political savvy are also expressions of this capability. The chapter is based on a large UK research project with middle and senior private, public and voluntary sector managers, which involved a literature review, focus groups with 41 managers; a survey of 1,475 managers and 12 interviews (details in Hartley et al., 2007). The chapter does not report on the empirical findings, but rather sets out some themes concerned with why leadership increasingly needs to take into account political awareness skills; the contexts where such skills are needed; how politics and therefore political awareness is conceptualised; and crucially, a framework of political skills. The chapter argues that political awareness skills raise new questions for leadership theory because the research takes into account the leadership of difference leadership outside as well as, inside the organisation, and the strategic context of leadership.

Where is leadership happening? Organisational leadership theory and research has tended to focus on leadership in the organisation rather than leadership of the organisation (i.e. both inside and outside) and this is a limitation. Increasingly leadership activities and meaning-making take place not only inside the organisation but in the networks of stakeholders and other organisations that organisational leaders have to, or choose to, interact with. 163

164 Leadership Perspectives

The limited focus inside the organisation is evident in a number of ways, of which three are highlighted here. First, recent reviews of the field (e.g. Storey, 2004; Burke, 2006; Parry and Bryman, 2006) cover the key themes and issues in past and present leadership research but continue to focus on personal qualities and particular behaviours of leaders, set in their organisational context in terms of structures, cultures and internal processes. Yukl (2006), in his wide-ranging exposition of leadership studies, has a chapter which examines ‘strategic leadership by executives’ but this focuses on the organisational choices and decisions by senior managers such as chief executives, working in a context of external constraints (which takes up half a page of text) and there is little sense of exercising influence outside as well as inside the organisation. Kotter (1999) analysed the work of a set of American business leaders and found that they were engaged in many relationships outside as well as inside the company, but the external context is not clearly theorised. Second, there is, of course, interest in the context of leadership, both from a contingency and situational perspective (i.e. how different situations call forth or require different leadership talents and styles and in terms of how leaders shape context or constitute their context (e.g. Storey, 2004; Grint, 2005). Yet Parry and Bryman (2006) note that there ‘has been little situational analysis’ (p. 453) of the ‘new leadership’ (Bryman, 1992) approaches. Context, with some exceptions, has been analysed in terms of industry or organisational differences (e.g. Pawar and Eastman, 1997) and there has been little interest in analysing features of the environment which create the challenges for leadership (though see Grint, 2005; Leach et al., 2005). There has been some discussion of the challenges for leaders operating in conditions of uncertainty and instability (e.g. Storey, 2004) but this is not examined in detail. Third, the primary focus on the internal affairs of the organisation is also captured in research about ‘followership’ and ‘distributed leadership’. Followership studies are less in evidence than leadership studies (though see Collinson, 2006) but followers are generally assumed to be the subordinates of the leader, or other groups and teams within the organisation. But followership is a rather passive term which includes within it an implied sense of hierarchy. What if the people to be influenced work outside the organisation and hence beyond formal authority relationships, and can only be influenced through persuasion and not through formal line management? Distributed leadership is currently of considerable interest to leadership researchers, but the concept is largely about leaders developing capacity in their subordinates (e.g.

Leading with Political Awareness 165

Kouzes and Posner, 2007) or about leaders creating climates which empower others within the organisation to act in a leadership capacity. There is less writing about leadership distributed across rather than solely within organisations (though see Hartley and Allison, 2000). Overall, then, leadership themes, by and large, concentrate on leadership inside the organisation, yet this chapter will argue that organisations are increasingly interdependent and therefore many of the challenges of leadership lie outside as well as inside the organisation.

Leadership outside as well as inside the organisation Analysis of organisational conditions shows that many forces act on organisations to make them more interdependent, both with other organisations and with a wide range of stakeholders in increasingly public arenas. For example, globalisation has increased global competition for private sector organisations and has raised awareness amongst consumer groups and citizens about the activities, standards and outcomes of business and government. In addition, information and communication technologies enable news to pass round the world rapidly and widely and have rendered organisations naked in that emails, mobile phone photographs and blogs can broadcast information out from the organisation rapidly, to be picked up and amplified by a hungry, volatile, 24-hour news media. Furthermore, the decline of deference has led to more people questioning the activities of business and government. Individuals, and advocacy and campaigning groups, take actions which can build or destroy the reputation of a company very rapidly. And more companies are developing joint ventures, strategic alliances and partnerships to share the risks of large projects (for example, in biotechnology, in the auto industry, in civil construction) which require leadership and influence beyond the boundaries of the organisation. Networks and partnerships are also increasingly mandated for the public sector, both to create ‘joined-up government’ and also to spread the risk, with the private and voluntary sectors, for major initiatives. The handling of risk has also led to a massive increase in regulation by the state of private sector activities, not only post-Enron, but also to try to ensure safety and standards in the market sector.

The contexts of external and internal leadership The research commenced with an initial scoping of contexts which may be relevant to contemporary organisations whether they are in the

166 Leadership Perspectives

private, public and voluntary sectors (though possibly with different emphases and preoccupations in each broad sector). The following framework therefore captures four interrelated levels, or contexts, in which political skills may be required: 1. An understanding of the external policy context of the organisation (including aspects of competition, regulation and trade agreements, media interest and public opinion); 2. An understanding of the formal political context: how politicians (whether EU, national, devolved or local) may interact with the organisation in order to achieve outcomes of public interest and/or commercial purpose; 3. An understanding of the strategic context as expressed in interactions with partners and alliances; 4. An understanding of how power blocs and interests within the organisation may operate to achieve outcomes through mechanisms of power rather than solely through apparently rational plans and purposes.

Leading across diverse and sometimes competing interests Leadership outside as well as inside the organisation requires the effective use of political skills. This is because a leader needs to be able to understand and work with a range of stakeholders, who may have diverse interests, values and goals and who may sometimes collaborate but at other times compete. This is likely to happen inside the organisation as well as outside its formal boundaries. There is a need to anticipate and shape challenges arising from diverse interests not just respond to them. So, there is a pressing need for managers to be able to work not only with the formal institutions and representatives of the state, but also across and with a diverse range of organisations. Many managers have to work with stakeholders who advocate or lobby on behalf of consumer, pressure and political groups. Other managers may have to understand and work in a complex and dynamic environment of legislation, regulation and policy advice. A globalising world creates a range of uncertainties about world governance, national stability or local priorities which managers need to understand and take account of, and which may have unexpected or substantial repercussions which have to be addressed. The impact of politics (both formal and informal) may vary according to the sector the organisation is in, the degree to which it has a high and visible public profile, the sensitivity of some of its acti-

Leading with Political Awareness 167

vities and its accountability and governance structures. However, all organisations must take account of politics, and senior and strategic managers in particular must be sensitive to the interplay of politics with organisational purpose. A range of skills for leading in these environments is important for private sector managers as much as public or voluntary sector managers, given the complex and increasingly media-visible world in which they are located. The rising interest in corporate social responsibility, for example, means that many private firms are under increasing scrutiny from politicians and the public alike. It would be misleading to see key context-related leadership skills as solely responsive in nature, because there are circumstances in which leaders can anticipate shifts in context and can change or at least shape elements of context. Thus, context is crucial for understanding leading with political awareness.

What are the politics in political awareness? Political awareness skills are starting to be recognised in the management academic literature as elements of effective management. However, there is still too little conceptual understanding of political skills and also sometimes a tendency to view political skills narrowly as self-interest rather than as a power-based approach to influence in the context of varied interests and motives. The literature review was undertaken to examine contemporary management approaches to understanding politics and political awareness (Hartley and Branicki, 2006). Here, we draw on that analysis to tease out some varied threads in the concept of politics. Within the management field, politics is generally thought to have no place within rational or fair systems of management. Most studies of organisational behaviour or leadership development make little or no reference to politics or political behaviour. Where it is mentioned, the focus is largely on self-interested behaviour by individual managers, often with the sole objective of advancing their own power, career interests, or that of their clique. A Machiavellian perspective prevails in this perspective with motives and interests concealed, and ‘spin’ substituting for substance. Politics is frequently conflated with politicking (Mintzberg, 1985) and is seen as dysfunctional for employees and for the whole organisation, with blaming, attacking, scapegoating, manipulation and exploitation seen as the main manifestations (e.g. Allen et al., 1979; Eiring, 1999). Some managers are seen to be

168 Leadership Perspectives

more skilled at playing the ‘organisational game’ of politics than others (Baddeley and James, 1987). This view of politics can be seen as underpinned by a ‘rational choice’ model of behaviour (Leftwich, 2004) whereby society, or the organisation, is seen in terms of the metaphor of the marketplace. Individuals pursue their interests in order to maximise their own benefits and minimise their own costs. Politics is viewed as a pervasive reality of organisational life which is either managed or suppressed. Negotiation, influence and persuasion may be acceptable as rational activities, but politics is seen as seedy and disreputable; advice about how best to pursue one’s interests is often covert. Politics is seen as being about winning ‘turf wars’ (e.g. Bacharach and Lawler, 1980; Buchanan and Badham, 1999) with the focus on the internal politics of the firm or organisation. There have been attempts in the management literature to ‘rehabilitate’ politics (e.g Butcher and Clarke, 1999) or at least to accept that organisational politics are a fact of life (Coopey and Burgoyne, 2000; Ferris et al., 2005) and to recognise that political astuteness can be valuable in achieving organisational as well as personal goals (e.g. Baddeley and James, 1987; Ammeter et al., 2002). These writings have helped to elucidate aspects of political skill (taking skill to be a broad word to cover behaviours and competencies) but have two drawbacks. They focus on the internal affairs of the organisation, and they do not cast these skills in leadership terms. The skills are largely about how to influence colleagues, bosses and subordinates for a range of purposes. Other definitions offer a broader view of politics, both formal and informal, within and outside the organisation. In this view, politics is seen as a set of pluralistic interactions within and between individuals, groups and institutions, covering both formal and informal activities and concerned with contestation, negotiation or co-operation over the use and distribution of resources (Leftwich, 2004). Bernard Crick’s (1993) influential definition also takes a more positive view. Politics is defined as the mobilisation of support for a position, decision or action whereby ‘people act together through institutionalised procedures to resolve differences, to conciliate different interests and values, and to make public policies in the pursuit of common purposes’ (2004, p. 67). While his conceptualisation was concerned with the means to resolve differences in society, this analysis can be applied to organisations and networks. The underlying purpose of politics is thus identified as being about mobilising support for particular actions by reconciling different interests and values. This approach is conceptually different from the ‘politics solely as self-interest’ perspective.

Leading with Political Awareness 169

Overall, this brief snapshot of some of the academic literature indicates that many different definitions of politics abound. Therefore, the notion of leading with political awareness is related to how politics is viewed. This research takes the view that while some researchers see politics as self-interest, this is an unnecessarily limited view of politics, given that organisations operate in a pluralistic society, with a wide range of stakeholders and interest groups. Leading with political awareness is about leadership skills for working with stakeholders. Political skill has been described as the ‘missing discipline’ in management selection, training and development (Butcher and Clarke, 1999, p. 12) and some studies have presented it as a key factor in successful teams (e.g. Peled, 2000). Reflecting the different understandings of politics, views in the literature vary from managing the dysfunctional consequences of politics to realising the potential benefits of political behaviours. Politics may or may not result in positive outcomes – it can be seen as an ‘important social influence process with the potential of being functional or dysfunctional to organisations and individuals’ (Allen et al., 1979, p. 82). Either way, sensitivity to political behaviours is important. The view taken in this chapter is that the skills are value-neutral in that they may be used for individual, organisational or collective objectives. How and why such skills are used may be a matter of moral and other judgements, but our purpose in this chapter is to identify both the skills of political awareness and the contexts within which they are exercised.

Developing the political skills framework The political skills framework was a key development arising from the research and a brief explanation of its provenance is appropriate. It was developed by the authors, with contributions from other research team members. A tentative framework was proposed, based on the initial research i.e. literature review, focus groups and discussions with the research steering board. Items for the instrument were generated from analysis of the focus group transcripts and from analysis of relevant items from the Warwick Political Leadership Questionnaire (which has been developed for those in formal political leadership roles, Hartley et al., 2005). Over 100 items were initially generated across the five dimensions of the framework. Items were reduced to 50 items by reducing overlapping items and ambiguous items. The initial version of the framework was then trialled among relevant academics and practitioners and some adjustments made to item wording.

170 Leadership Perspectives

The questionnaire was piloted at the Chartered Management Institute’s Annual Convention in October 2006, when the draft survey was available online and a research assistant was on hand to deal with any problems and record any comments. The political skills framework used an identical six point scale for rating of self and others, so that comparisons could be made. The data from the self-rating scale was subjected to a principal components factor analysis with a varimax rotation in order to validate the hypothesised model. The actual extracted components agreed very well with the proposed factors.

The framework’s five dimensions Personal skills: an essential foundation for being able to be effective in managing with political awareness is to have self-awareness of one’s own motives and behaviours, and the ability to exercise self-control. It is also about being open to the views of others so that it is possible to listen and reflect on the views of others. It is also about having a proactive disposition, initiating rather than waiting for things to happen. To some extent, these are skills which are valuable in any effective leader and are not distinctively about political awareness. Yet understanding motives, interests and influence is central to leading with political awareness, and the personal skills are the bedrock on which other skills are built. Interpersonal skills: political awareness seems to require strong interpersonal skills. These concern having the interpersonal capacity to influence the thinking and behaviour of others, and getting buy-in from people over whom the person has no direct authority, and making people feel valued. These are ‘tough’ as well as ‘soft’ skills because the ability to negotiate, to stand up to pressures from other people, and to handle conflict in ways to achieve constructive outcomes are important. Again, these skills may be viewed as core management and certainly core leadership skills, but they also constitute foundational skills for political awareness. There are some elements which go beyond direct leadership skills such as cultivating relationships which have potential rather than immediate value, and on knowing when to rely on position and authority and when to rely on less direct methods of exerting influence. Reading people and situations: this dimension has a strong analytical aspect to it, and is based on thinking and intuition about the dynamics

Leading with Political Awareness 171

which can or might occur when stakeholders and agendas come together. There is a recognition of different interests and agendas of a variety of people and their organisations, and an interest in discerning what may be the underlying as opposed to the espoused agendas which people bring to situations. It includes thinking through the likely standpoints of varying interest groups in advance of dealing with them, and using a wider knowledge of institutions, political processes and social systems to understand what is or might happen. It also includes recognising where you may be seen as a threat to others and their interests (rightly or wrongly, because this is about the ability to view situations from other people’s perspectives). This dimension concerns the power, influence and interests of different groups. This dimension is primarily concerned with analytical rather than influencing skills (influence is particularly salient in the following dimension of building alignment and alliances). Building alignment and alliances: this dimension is a crucial skill of action, which requires the previous elements of skill in order to be effective. Building alignment out of different interests, goals and motives requires a detailed understanding and appreciation of the context, the players and the objectives of each stakeholder, as far as these can be ascertained. Building alignment and alliances is about recognising difference and plurality of interest but being able to forge these into collaborative actions even where the differences in outlook or emphasis are substantial. This dimension goes beyond much of the literature on partnerships where finding consensus and commonality is the key skill. This dimension recognises but works with difference and with conflicts of interest in order to forge new opportunities. It builds on the proactivity of the first dimension (personal skill) in actively seeking out alliances and partnerships rather than relying on those which are already in existence or which are expected to contribute. It includes being able to bring out into the open and deal with differences between stakeholders, not conceal them or hope that if they are ignored they will somehow go away. Tough negotiation skills (from interpersonal skills) may underpin the capacity to build a realistic and useful consensus without ending up with the lowest common denominator. Strategic direction and scanning: this dimension brings in the important question of purpose – what these political awareness skills are being used for. This includes two major elements. The first is a sense of strategic

172 Leadership Perspectives

thinking and action in relation to organisational purpose, so that the understanding of power, interests and influence is set within a strategic aim. This includes thinking long-term and having a road map of where the leader wants to go so that he or she is not diverted by short-term pressures. But the second element is about not just a focused sense of strategy but also a skill in strategic scanning – about thinking about longer-term issues which may have the potential to have an impact on the organisation. This is about not just looking at what is on the horizon but what may be over the horizon. It requires analytical capacity to think through scenarios of possible futures, to think about small changes which may herald bigger shifts in society and the economy, and being able to find ways to analyse and manage (as far as possible) the uncertainty which lies outside the organisation. This last point includes being about to keep options open rather than reaching for a decision prematurely.

The inter-connectedness of the five dimensions This research suggests that an effective leader in a complex set of interrelationships across organisations will require skills in each of these dimensions in order to show astuteness, ‘nous’ or political awareness. While personal and interpersonal skills are the foundation of building trust and understanding the needs and interests of other people and organisations, there is also a need for the skills of building alliances across those differences and being able to sense or interpret wider changes in the external environment which may have an impact on plans and objectives. Thus, the five dimensions of the framework outlined above are those which the research suggests are needed by individuals to achieve outcomes in complex and dynamic settings inside and outside the organisation where diverse interests are in play. We use the language of skill as a shorthand for a wide set of abilities that enable the non-specific, non-routine, discretionary and unstructured parts of the job or role to be achieved. Hirsh and Strebler (1995) describe ‘the skills, knowledge, experience, attributes and behaviours that an individual needs to perform a job [or role] effectively’ in their definition of competency. Boyatzis (1982) argues that skills need to be set in the context both of role demands and the environment. This reinforces the conceptual approach presented here, which is that skills cannot be seen in isolation, but must be set in the context of the environment in which they are exercised.

Leading with Political Awareness 173

Leadership with political awareness To what extent is this framework for the skills of political awareness just another take on leadership? Is it radically different or does it just clutter up the leadership scene with yet another framework? There are three arguments to suggest that thinking about the leadership skills of political awareness are both distinctive and important for contemporary organisations and for research and theory. First, the skills identified through the management literature, the political leadership literature and the focus groups and interviews are based on leadership concerned with managing differences. These may be differences in interests, goals, values and priorities across a range of stakeholders. Crick’s (2004) view of politics as a means to achieve outcomes in situations where there are differences is critical to this view of politics. It means that effective leadership needs to be able to identify, reflect on and address differences in viewpoints and interests. Yet, this view of leadership as being concerned with variety and difference is not well articulated in current leadership frameworks. A number emphasise the importance of leaders creating and sustaining ‘vision’ (e.g. Kotter, 1999). The great interest in transformational leadership includes the capacity to enthuse others, and even the capacity to get ‘followers’ to identify with the leader (e.g. Avolio, 1999). The interest in emotional intelligence and leadership (e.g. Goleman et al., 2002) has emphasised skills of engaging with others, with authenticity, credibility and genuineness but with relatively little said about some harder skills of managing conflict, dealing with pressure and on occasions the need to bang heads together. Huxham and Vangen (2005) have noted that working across boundaries is not about simple consensus-building but can sometimes include the need for ‘collaborative thuggery’. Summarising this point, there is a question to be raised as to whether the leadership literature has been too influenced by American-style win-win soft and positive human relations. Leadership which takes account of variety and diversity may have, on occasions, a harder edge, and be based in more pluralist perspectives. The framework presented here for leading with political awareness is one attempt to create a leadership theory which is predicated on difference and the achievement of outcomes in spite of, or alongside of, difference. Another way of differentiating between traditional leadership skills and the skills of political awareness is that, while there are likely to be overlaps between them (because both require an understanding of the context, the people involved or potentially involved and task to be

174 Leadership Perspectives

achieved), the political skills framework focuses on analysing and working with stakeholders and other groups through influence rather than through direct control. Working with a range of stakeholders and building alliances and coalitions means that astuteness in understanding the interests and motives of other groups and institutions is critical. Managing with political awareness is also linked to the four principal contexts identified in the research – so that skills are related to the context and the challenges of that situation. Second, this framework is concerned with leadership of the organisation not solely leadership inside the organisation. Leadership frameworks, by and large, as noted earlier, have not yet really caught up with the major changes which are taking place in the way that organisations work – the greater interrelationships both through networking, joint ventures and strategic alliances and through the greater impacts that a range of stakeholders such as lobby and campaigning groups may have on the organisation. Selznick (1957) argued that ‘the theory of leadership is dependent on the theory of organisation’ (p. 23, quoted in Storey, 2004), so that as organisations change our theories of leadership need to change as well. Leadership which is able to influence not only colleagues and subordinates, but stakeholders in the private, public and voluntary sectors is becoming increasingly important. There are too many stories and evidence of organisations which failed to understand, let alone try to influence the external perceptions and decisions which have an impact on their organisation. This means that, as Sir David Varney (senior manager and chair of the research Steering Board) has noted: Political skills cannot be viewed as the domain of the specialist, but as a mainstream element of leadership needed across all sectors. Effective political leaders are like the Roman god Janus. They wear two faces – one looking outward and the other inward. They have a strong vision and sense of direction for their organisation, know what’s happening in the marketplace and anticipating what’s ahead, and can balance this against the internal capabilities required to operate in a competitive environment (quoted in Hartley et al., 2007, p. 4). Third, the political skills framework presented here has a strategic focus. It shares a number of elements found in other leadership approaches, such as aspects of personal skills and interpersonal skills. It is interesting to note that the great attraction to and take-up of the concept of

Leading with Political Awareness 175

emotional intelligence (e.g. Goleman et al., 2002) may reflect in part an awareness by managers and trainers of the need to address some of the personal and interpersonal skills outlined here, but that the emotional intelligence approach has been taken up within a limited leadership perspective and without any strategic or political context, which is addressed here. This chapter, describing the conceptual thinking about leadership with political awareness, opens up a new avenue for theory-building and empirical research. The aim here has been to present the changing contexts within which leadership skills requiring political awareness are exercised, and to use that context to think about and develop a framework which aims to capture key elements of the capabilities required for effective skilled leadership with political awareness. Empirical findings are presented elsewhere (Hartley et al., 2007) but here the focus is on how this framework provides new thinking and will perhaps stimulate a re-orientation of some strands of leadership research.

References R.W. Allen, D.L. Madison, L.W. Porter, P.A. Renwick and B.T. Mayes, ‘Organisational politics. Tactics and characteristics of its actors’, California Management Review, 22(1) (1979) 77–83. A.P. Ammeter, C. Douglas, W.L. Gardner, W.A. Hochwater and G.R. Ferris, ‘Toward a political theory of leadership’, The Leadership Quarterly, 13 (2002) 751–96. B.J. Avolio, Full Leadership Development: Building Vital Forces in Organisations (Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1999). S. Bacharach and E. Lawler, Power and Politics in Organisations: The Social Psychology of Conflict, Coalitions and Bargaining (San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1980). S. Baddeley and K. James, ‘Owl, fox, donkey or sheep: Political skills for managers’, Management Education and Development, 18(1) (1987) 3–19. R. Boyatzis, The Competent Manager: A Model of Effective Performance (New York: Wiley, 1982). A. Bryman, Charisma and Leadership in Organisations (London: Sage, 1992). D. Buchanan and R. Badham, Power, Politics and Organisational Change: Winning the Turf Game (London: Sage, 1999). R. Burke ‘Inspiring leaders: An introduction’, in R. Burke and C. Cooper (eds) Inspiring Leaders (London: Routledge, 2006). D. Butcher and M. Clarke, ‘Organisational politics: The missing discipline of management?’, Industrial and Commercial Training, 31(1) (1999) 9–12. D. Collinson, ‘Rethinking followership: A post-structuralist analysis of follower identities’, The Leadership Quarterly 17 (2006) 179–89. J. Coopey and J. Burgoyne, ‘Politics and organisational learning’, Journal of Management Studies, 37(6) (2000) 869–85.

176 Leadership Perspectives B. Crick, In Defence of Politics, 4th edn (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1993). B. Crick, ‘Politics as a form of rule: Politics, citizenship and democracy’, in A. Leftwich, What is Politics? (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2004). H.L. Eiring, ‘Dynamic office politics: Powering up for program success!’, The Information Management Journal, 33(1) (1999) 17–25. G. Ferris, S. Davidson and P. Perrewe, Political Skill at Work (Mountain View, CA: Davies-Black, 2005). D. Goleman, R. Boyatzis and A. McKee, Primal Leadership: Learning to Lead with Emotional Intelligence (Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 2002). K. Grint, ‘Problems, problems, problems: The social construction of leadership’, Human Relations, 58 (2005) 1467–94. J. Hartley and M. Allison, ‘The role of leadership in modernisation and improvement of public services’, Public Money and Management, April (2000) 35–40. J. Hartley and L. Branicki, Managing with Political Awareness: A Summary Review of the Literature (London: Chartered Management Institute, 2006). J. Hartley, C. Fletcher and K. Morrell, ‘Look at it from my angle: The development and use of a 360 degree feedback instrument for political leaders’, Working Paper (University of Warwick, 2005). J. Hartley, C. Fletcher, P. Wilton, P. Woodman and C. Ungemach, Leading with Political Awareness (London: Chartered Management Institute, 2007). W. Hirsch and M. Strebler, ‘Defining managerial skills and competences’, in A. Mumford (ed.) Gower Handbook of Management Development, 4th edn (Aldershot: Gower Publishing, 1995). C. Huxham and S. Vangen, Managing to Collaborate: The Theory and Practice of Collaborative Advantage (2005). J. Kotter, What Leaders Really Do (Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1999). J. Kouzes and B. Posner, Leadership Challenge, 4th edn (San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 2007). S. Leach, J. Hartley, V. Lowndes, D. Wilson and J. Downe, Local Political Leadership in England and Wales (York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2005). A. Leftwich, What is Politics? (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2004). H. Mintzberg, ‘The organisation as political arena’, Journal of Management Studies, 22(2) (1985) 133–54. K.W. Parry and A. Bryman, ‘Leadership in organisations’, in S. Clegg, C. Hardy and W. Nord (eds) Handbook of Organisation Studies, 2nd edn (London: Sage, 2006). B. Pawar and K. Eastman, ‘The nature and implications of contextual influences on transformational leadership: A conceptual examination’, Academy of Management Review, 22 (1997) 80–109. A. Peled, ‘Politicking for success: The missing skill’, Leadership and Organisation Development Journal, 21(1/2) (2000) 20–9. P. Selznick, Leadership in Administration (Evanston, IL: Row Peterson, 1957). J. Storey, Leadership in Organisations: Current Issues and Key Trends (London: Routledge, 2004). G. Yukl, Leadership in Organisations, 6th edn (Upper Saddle River NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2006).

13 Political-Management Leadership Simon Baddeley

Any student of public sector leadership who does not recognise and endeavour to unwrap the confusions and tensions that arise from the overlap of political and managerial spheres of action, and their shared relationship to the professional core of government, is pointing their torch in the wrong place. They are focusing, separately, on managerial or political leadership but not on their combined dynamic. Politicians and managers have described their working relationship as a bridge, an exchange, a source of tension, a blend of political and administrative contributions, a trading space divided by a line that should not be crossed, but, now and then, is. For over 20 years I have been studying relationships between elected politicians and managers by filming them talking to each other. In this chapter I will use extracts from a small sample of these conversations to explain how politicians and managers jointly create government – a perennial puzzle of increasing consequence for local government.

The current challenge If local government is to exercise greater autonomy, political-management leadership must spread beyond the top. At an international conference on ‘Leading the future of the public sector’ a colleague observed that ‘leadership development is replacing management as the focus of training’ (Coulson, 2007). In 1999 the government paper ‘Modernising government’ (Cabinet Office, 1999) announced ‘a long-term project which will transform the face of public services’. The Local Government Act 2000 made dramatic changes in the executive structures of local authorities. The Deputy Prime Minister declared ‘effective local leadership is at the heart of our vision for sustainable communities’ (ODPM, 2005). The 177

178 Leadership Perspectives

white paper, ‘Strong and prosperous communities’ (CLG, 2006), assumes leadership of a kind not conceived at local level since municipalisation brought public health and civic pride to the industrialising populations of Victorian Britain. The challenges to local leadership are, even more than in the 19th century, the product of global trends. Cultural heterogeneity, confusion about identity and increasing individuation add to the challenge of negotiating social contracts between citizens and government (Baddeley, 1995, 1997). Representative democracy seems sluggish. Success creates ever more expectation. Wealth disparities explode – sometimes literally – across national borders (Baddeley, 1995, 1997). ‘Localism’, matching the European term ‘subsidiarity’, and the environmentalist axiom ‘think globally, act locally’, pervades thinking about where government can best meet these challenges. Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels launched the US Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement on 16 February 2005 and on 17 February 2003, on the initiative of Mayor Ken Livingstone, London became the largest city in the world to ration road space. Private, public and voluntary partners have been steered by local authorities through the slow burn reinvention of post-industrial wealth creation.

Combining politics and management The 2005 SOLACE commission’s report – ‘Leadership United’ – concluded that good government is where ‘the best of politics and management combine to be greater than the sum of the parts’ (SOLACE, 2005). One does not have to be a constitutional puritan to recognise that achieving this admirable combination is tricky. The sense that in government, politics and management should be separated can be traced back to the Maud-Trevelyan reforms of the British civil service in the 1850s when exams for civil service recruits limited nepotism as a route to jobs, and successive governments, seeking mandates from an expanding electorate, aimed to distance themselves from patronage. The local government lawyer Tim Harrison displays a cautionary skull and crossbones below the red lettered title ‘Danger zones’ on the cover of his book for politicians and managers (Harrison, 2001), drawing attention to the importance of political-management separation. Yet Churchill remarked, ‘the English never draw a line without blurring it.’ Norton’s interviews with chief executives concluded that ‘the most intimate responsibility of a chief executive in decision formation

Political-Management Leadership 179

is that to the council leader’ (Norton, 1991). Newton reported a senior politician in Birmingham saying ‘a good officer should be like a good politician and a good politician should be like a good officer’ (Newton, 1976). Such opinions are echoed in research I have conducted over 20 years (Baddeley and James, 1987a, 1987b; Baddeley, 1989, 1998; Baddeley and Wall, 1998). For ten of these I was making films which relied on asking individual leaders to tell me about their understanding of leadership. I progressed to asking elected leaders and CEOs to tell me how they worked together. After a workshop on methods of ‘intersubjective enquiry’ (Reason and Rowan, 1981; Chamberlayne and King, 1996), I shifted from filming people telling me about their working relationships to filming them having those relationships. This is not ‘fly-on-the-wall’ documentary. I want people engaged in a living aspect of their working lives to know that as they speak with one another, they speak to other practitioners. David Blunkett, after becoming Leader of Sheffield in 1980, denied ‘any clear-cut idea that there are two separate groups, the politicians who get on with formulation and direction of policy and officers who are aloof from this, who have nothing to do with the political arena and actually get on with implementation … both officers and members know that isn’t true and that officers are inherently involved in the formulation of policy because of the nature of information giving …’ (Blunkett, 1980) [In this and other transcripts, dots mark an editorial cut; dashes mark a pause]. Jim Brooks, CEO of Poole, told me ‘the relationship between policy and administration is as nebulous … as the distinction between officer and member at that level. Brian (leader) is a politician and I am an officer – we inhabit each other’s worlds. Brian helps me to make the administrative systems work better … I can help the political wheels to go more smoothly’ (Clements and Brooks, 1995). In 1996 the lead politician and manager of the largest local authority in the country spoke of politicians who manage a process, and managers who give shape to policy: Michael Lyons (CEO, Birmingham City Council): … it’s very difficult to actually map out where the boundaries lie and that is particularly the case when you talk about the rela-tionship between chief executive and leader, and I’m quite clear that the process for making decisions on behalf of the council lies with the elected members and the leader manages that process. I’m equally clear that officers who are worth their salt do try to help the controlling group of the day – to give shape to their policy aspirations and to

180 Leadership Perspectives

deliver … so there is a dialogue not only at an early stage but continuing … at all stages in the policy process. I do think there is some challenge there as well, which – Theresa Stewart (Leader of the Council): Very important. Michael: Is a bit of a tension in the relationship. Perhaps in a minute we might come on to talk about the party politics of this because I do see that as being a delicate matter, but actually an area in which we have some fairly clear idea of where officers stop and members – and that’s wholly the territory of members, but again it’s not easy to define the boundaries. Theresa: … sometimes I talk to the chief executive about management – a bit apologetically sometimes … it isn’t straightforward … it isn’t that I have this pile of policies that are at my side of the table and he’s at his side, either receiving them or saying ‘well, we’ll take this this way or that way’. Because it is an exchange … (Lyons and Stewart, 1995) For a time I mistook the contradiction in these observations for a widely accepted form of shared leadership. David Blunkett claimed officers and members ‘know’ that separation between their activities ‘isn’t true’. But if that was the case at his level, it was not further down the system, nor did most managers in Birmingham think they should be ‘like a good politician’. Indeed separation between political and managerial spheres was assiduously maintained, to protect the political neutrality of managers and their loyalty to the whole council, not just its elected majority. Lyons said ‘mapping’ the boundaries of the relationship was particularly difficult at the top. Brooks said the relationship between policy and administration and between manager and politician was indistinct ‘at that level’. Why are rules about separation relaxed at the top? Why, if Brooks could claim that the roles of managers and politicians were different, the relationship between policy and administration was undifferentiated ‘at that level’? Blunkett, Brook, Stewart and Lyons made these contradictions plausible. Because their relationships were evidently working, I was curious as to why what they were doing could not work further down. How far is living with fuzzy boundaries between politics and administration an element of the leadership needed to drive the government of ‘strong and prosperous communities’?

Political-Management Leadership 181

My conclusion is that most politicians and most managers are excluded from an area where politics and management coalesce, because it is a hazardous terrain, demanding skills that take time to refine and which need constant honing. Self suggested the political-management relationship could be viewed as a ‘bridge’ (Self, 1972) suggesting a structure made stable by opposed forces on a keystone, with a potential for catastrophic collapse if their equilibrium is compromised. Stewart saw tension as a condition of the political-management relationship, with ‘problems … built into the system because councillors and officers are cast for different roles and … drawn from different backgrounds’ (Stewart, 1994). Weber suggested relations between democracy and bureaucracy create ‘the most profound source of tensionin the modern social order’ (Giddens, 1972) – a discordance made hilarious in the TV comedy ‘Yes Minister’, and the focus of intense public interest when interactions between the Prime Minister and the Joint Intelligence Committee prior to war in Iraq were submitted to forensic investigation by Lords Butler and Hutton (Butler, 2004; Hutton, 2004).

Modelling political-management relations Agneta Blom asked chief executives how they related to politicians (Blom, 1990). Her classical neutral executor observed the rules in an impartial way, with politicians deciding policy and managers carrying it out with detached neutrality. Her expert civil servant put loyalty to profession above loyalty to politicians, helping confirm the view that government is too complex for politicians by maintaining their ignorance. A third type – the political servant – emphasises ‘taking initiatives … making policy for the activities inside her area of responsibility’. Blom described a politically skilled manager who is not party-political, ready to negotiate with politicians about her role in government. Mouritzen’s and Svara’s massive study of leadership found it exercised via four political-management constructs (Mouritzen and Svara, 2002). Their first involved politicians and managers in separate roles, with separate norms, and subordination of managers to politicians. Their second involved an autonomous manager, with politicians distanced from management. Their third sees a responsive manager, subordinate to politicians. A fourth relationship involves reciprocal influence between politicians and managers. They concluded that leadership at the apex is evolving towards overlapping roles, where something is made that is neither management nor politics alone.

182 Leadership Perspectives

Data is scanty on how this happens. Political biography describes political leadership, but narratives of political-management leadership go untold. This is partly because reification focuses on leadership as a property of individuals. It is also because we are still inventing ways of looking at shared leadership in the conversations of people rooted in separate spaces. Indeed, spatial metaphors are useful. Taylor suggests ‘spatial orientation lies very deep in the human psyche’, part of Western self-understanding (Taylor, 1994). Harrison warns of ‘danger zones’. When people say ‘I see where you’re going’, and ‘I know where I stand’ they refer to a moral or psychological position. Ray Morgan (CEO, Woking Borough Council): … what I would call the dinosaur regime – officers in this box and members in that box. The reality is – Sue Smith (Leader of the Council): It doesn’t actually work like that. Ray: – the leadership is in this trading zone. I won’t call it grey zone. I call it ‘trading zone’ because that’s exactly what we’re doing. We’re trading off what’s possible administratively. Sue: Yes. Ray: What’s desired polit – Sue: – ically Ray: – and how are we going to get a balance where we’re both going to survive? Sue: That’s right. And sell – Ray: Sorry to describe it that way. Sue: – selling it back down the line both ways as well. (Smith and Morgan, 2007) Figure 13.1 refers to spaces within which manager and politician experience their work and act on the world, conversing in a politicalmanagement zone – ‘selling’ what they have negotiated ‘back down the line both ways’.

Political-Management Leadership 183

Core expertise exists in professional space surrounded by politics. A boundary protects professional activity from politics, yet without the resources obtained from political space, professional space could not exist. Political space is where people decide what gets done and who gets what, when and where; where power is mobilised and force made legitimate; where who is ‘them’ and who is ‘us’ is determined and where public discourse takes its character; where ends are invented, pursued and agreed; where values are set; where the role of luck in human affairs is acknowledged along with the paradox of unintended consequences. Professional space supports practice based on scientific enquiry and persistent attention to detail, producing and circulating evidence over large areas at great speed to support policy. Professionalism values ‘professional’ demeanour; is friendly to grass-roots innovation; maintains values regardless of the resources needed to pursue them. From political space come aspirations untested by the prioritising emphasis of management; from professional space comes the confidence and reliability of accredited practitioners committed to empirically-based understandings of their expertise. Politics makes values; professionals profess them. These spaces are straddled by political-management space – a hybrid zone where values created in political space encounter the legal, technical and financial parameters of government, and where professional values encounter the rationing of management working to an agenda forged in negotiation between politicians and managers. Managers connect with politicians while building alliances in professional space, and politicians while maintaining their political support, work with

POLITICAL MANAGEMENT SPACE I

T

L

I

PROFESSIONAL C

SPACE

S

P

Figure 13.1

Governmental spaces

184 Leadership Perspectives

managers to monitor implementation. Between them, they create government.

Negotiating leadership A frequent conversation in political-management space is about where policy is made. Imagine ‘policy’ as something prepared and eaten in a restaurant. Decisions by a guest presented with a menu are constrained by decisions in the kitchen about its content. Choice may be widened if there is prior discussion between chef and guest about what might be on the menu. Choice-making becomes sophisticated if the guest learns how the kitchen works and the chef learns more about customers’ taste. Guest’s palate and chef’s cuisine may – through conversation, tasting and observation – ratchet up the quality of decisions on what’s cooked and what’s eaten, making it impossible to tell where decisions are made about what gets served. This negotiation between a politician and a manager reflects their mutual understanding of the tensions involved, including several circumspect ‘erms’ and ‘ahs’. I have underlined relevant phrases: Chris Mole (Leader of the Council, Suffolk County Council): We (a ‘group’ of leading members) get together roughly fortnightly … to hear from you where you think the major issues are coming up … we listen to you more than bringing things to you … we tend not to walk into those meetings with a kind of list of things … Lin Homer (CEO): … That’s perhaps something we should think about … there’s the other side to that which we are working on, but it doesn’t feel to me that we’ve cracked yet, is the issue of how I do get messages from group, particularly if group are going to be concerned about whose agenda we’re rolling forward. There’s been less of a culture in Suffolk than I’m used to of messages going between senior officers and senior members – erm – and so to some degree – Chris: Are you sure that’s the case? Education’s got a fairly well established M4 process (innovation where lead members work with lead managers of each service) where the senior four members meet with the education management team (EMT) to look at what the management team are taking forward on behalf of the members, and to varying degrees, then, the other thematic areas –

Political-Management Leadership 185

Lin: I still think it’s mostly about officers telling members what they’re up to, as opposed to acting as an opportunity for the group to give priority about the stuff it’s talking about … and I think there’s something within the group about – erm – the democracy of the decisionmaking within group which means that pre-briefing is seen to – to partly undermine the freedom of the group to reach a decision – Lin draws attention to one of the trickiest features of what should be a joint process. ‘Pre-briefing’ is a way of sketching out a detailed menu – a management device to signal the main issues in a way that will allow variations on the more detailed agenda that follows. She suggests that even this, though welcomed by some politicians, is perceived by others as pre-empting their contribution to policy. Chris: Hm. Lin: – but where post-briefing is then sometimes already too late for us to be as fast as you want us to be in the uptake. If Lin and her colleagues leave agenda-preparation to politicians who then send out their list as ‘post-briefing’, unpredicted requests will arise to which managers cannot respond in time to meet politicians’ expectations. The purpose of a menu, even a rough one, is to bring predictability to pace of decision-making. Chris: I think this is where – Lin: That’s a bit of a frustration. Chris: – where the politicians struggle is to have enough of a view of the forward agenda to know what to take into group at the right time in order to get views rather than being – reacted to the things once they’re on a formal agenda … There is a question about how many politicians, other than Chris, are participating in political-management conversation. Lin: … the thumbnail sketch it would leave me with is that – erm – I end up feeling that we can kind of draw up a forward agenda for group based on the officer view of what we think is emerging to share with group but if we do that, we get a little bit of the

186 Leadership Perspectives

‘well who’s agenda is it anyway?’ and ‘who told you to order it like that?’ Chris: Yeah. Lin: But if we don’t put an agenda in we’re not getting the … dialogue with group that would turn that around and say ‘the agenda from our perspective is the following, now as a management team bloody well deliver that!’ so it’s kind of damned if you do and damned if you don’t, and if you go all the way back to the appointment, one of the key criticisms from members of this organisation … is we move too slowly. Chris: Yeah. Lin: But I think some of the reason we move slowly is that very dichotomy of how you get the clear agreement on what the important things are to move forward (Mole and Homer, 2000). By sharing her understanding of what is blocking more confident political-management leadership, Lin, acting as a political servant, negotiates with her leader to set the conditions that will draw his colleagues into political-management space and participation in government.

Making government Political-management leadership is not confined to the apex. It occurs, in this conversation, at street level in an area blighted by economic degeneration – ill-health, unemployment, dearth of skills and poverty of aspiration. A gang has stoned a bus. The bus company, to protect staff, has withdrawn service – compounding local problems. Andy Salmon (Langworthy Ward Councillor, Salford City Council): I saw a clear need to do something about this, so my first thought was to ring you … other councillors contacted their … fellow councillors on the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority (GMPTA) to say that’s something that needs dealing with in that environment … but … to my mind it was a local issue.

Political-Management Leadership 187

Julie McKinnon (Neighbourhood Co-ordinator): Yes. Andy: It has wider repercussions clearly, but in terms of the actual sorting out of Churchill Road, that is a local issue. You’re the local – Julie: Yeah Andy: – neighbourhood co-ordinator so therefore let’s see if we can do something about this and although I was talking in the political realm as well, talking about Labour group, and we, as ward councillors, had been involved in collecting a petition … Political action came with Andy deciding the issue was ‘local’. Normal procedure is to report to the GMPTA. To handle the matter differently requires Andy to ensure he has cleared the way with his political party, especially fellow ward politicians. He approaches his manager to ‘see if we can do something’. The council’s support for devolution encourages Julie to exercise discretion, but her job description says nothing about buses nor is there a budget for addressing an event like this. Julie: Yeah. Well … I think that was the Wednesday you phoned me, and they’d withdrawn the buses on Monday … I was just really really unclear as to what I could do. So when you phoned and said the cameras could be a solution to this problem – Andy: Hm. Julie: – and I think that, you know, if you could get a meeting together with some of the key players and could you follow it up – erm – I could see where you were going and think, yeah, that – that is the way that this problem – Andy: Yeah. Julie: – will be resolved – Ignorance of buses is not a problem once a politician for whom – and with whom – she works has given her a steer.

188 Leadership Perspectives

Andy: Yeah. Julie: – and I just – I just did that. I just phoned – phoned people up –

Andy: Mm. Julie: – and said that it was your suggestion and having you there gave it legitimacy. Councillor Salmon has said. Andy: Right. Julie: Councillor Salmon is not me, as a – as an officer trying to set the agenda. It’s – Andy: No. Julie: Councillor Salmon has said – and this is – erm – is it – can you do this, can you do that, will you come to a meeting? Andy: Yes. Julie: – and it was all ‘yes’ ‘yes’ ‘yes’, so – Andy: Hm. Julie: – and I think that would have been a lot more difficult, if – if it hadn’t – Andy: Yeah. Julie: – had that, that backing (Salmon and McKinnon, 1999). Instead of pointing out normal procedure, the limited scope of her job or the costs associated with Andy’s suggestion, Julie relies on his will as a politician to mobilise interested parties to create a partnership with the clout to get the money to install cameras. Most significantly, through their joint leadership, politician and manager have created a precedent for devolved government.

Political-Management Leadership 189

Conclusions Central government strives to increase competency across the public sector (Stewart, 2003; Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe, 2004; Barber, 2007). Calls for local leadership echo across the local government landscape. To the disappointment of some, the Lyons’ report on the future of local government argues that ‘powerfulness is more important than powers’; that what local government leaders most need, if they are to succeed in ‘placeshaping’, is confidence to discard habits instilled by centrally audited performance measurement (Lyons, 2007) ‘… most of the things we need to change are not about legislation but about behaviours, confidence and capability’, and leadership that ‘creates leaders not followers’ (Lyons, 2006). The modernisation agenda has given impetus to a great deal of research, consultancy and training directed at improving both the political and managerial dimensions of public sector leadership (Hartley and Gulati, 2000; Silvester, 2004; IDeA, 2006; Morrell and Hartley, 2006) but there remains a paucity of guidance on how to ensure the best of politics and the best of management combine to be greater than the sum of the parts. Leach and colleagues’ study of local political leadership noted ‘two different leadership agendas’ – the leader’s and the chief executive’s. ‘The relationship between these two office holders is … of crucial importance’ (Leach et al., 2005). Baddeley and Wall argued, in two papers on leadership, that the conversations they filmed demonstrated an elaborate ‘construction’ of trust between politicians and managers (Baddeley, 1998; Baddeley and Wall, 1998). Noting, with Norton (1991), the intimacy of these relationships as well as their location at Weber’s ‘profound source of tension’, we described relations between those in political and those in managerial roles that demanded the same interpersonal skills as a marriage, noting parallels between ‘courting’ and being a ‘courtier’, between ‘flirting’ and ‘flattering’. It is increasingly recognised that leadership is not only transformational charisma but a distribution of wisdom across a network. Many management trainers and organisational theorists immersed in the apolitical spirit of managerialism recognise the need for this dispersion but fail to grasp the need, at the same time, to disperse skills in negotiating political-management dilemmas. The capacity building to be worked on, if government is to be diffused as widely as those who drive the modernisation agenda desire, is that which

190 Leadership Perspectives

mediates the inevitable and continuing tension between two enduringly separate forms of action. This is the defining characteristic of political-management leadership and the key driver for continuous improvement and public credibility. A postscript to Norbert Elias’ magisterial work on the links between interpersonal behaviour and the making of government, compares relations between people to ‘the mobile figurations of interdependent people on a dance floor …’ (Elias, 2000, p. 482). ‘In the tango’, as one chief executive said, ‘who is leading and who is led is only clear in the most formal sense, and to get it right you have first of all to learn the dance’.

References B. Alimo-Metcalfe and J. Alban-Metcalfe, ‘Leadership in public sector organisations’, in J. Storey (ed.) Leadership in Organisations (London: Routledge, 2004). S. Baddeley, ‘Political sensitivity in public managers’, Local Government Studies, 15(2) (1989) 47–66. S. Baddeley, ‘Internal polity’, Human Relations, 48(9) (1995) 1073–103. S. Baddeley, ‘Governmentality’, in B.D. Loader (ed.) The Governance of Cyberspace (London: Routledge, 1997). S. Baddeley, ‘Constructing trust at the top of local government’, in A. Coulson (ed.) Trust and Contracts: Relationships in Local Government, Health and Public Services (Bristol: Policy Press, 1998), pp. 55–78. S. Baddeley and K. James, ‘Owl, fox, donkey, sheep: political skills for managers’, Management Education and Development, 18(1) (1987a) 3–19. S. Baddeley and K. James, ‘From political neutrality to political wisdom’, Politics, 7(2) (1987b) 35–40. S. Baddeley and A. Wall, ‘Chair-chief executive relations in the NHS’, in A. Coulson (ed.) Trust and Contracts (Bristol: Policy Press, 1998), pp. 79–93. M. Barber, Instructions to Deliver: Tony Blair, Public Services and the Challenge of Achieving Targets (London: Politico, 2007). A. Blom, ‘Roles and situation of chief officers in Swedish municipalities’, Local Government Studies, 16 (1990) 39–56. Lord Butler, Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction, HCP 898, July (London: TSO, 2004). Cabinet Office, Modernising Government, Cm 4310 (London: TSO, 1999). P. Chamberlayne and A. King, ‘Method as genre: Case reconstruction of carer accounts’, Draft from the authors, sociology department, University of East London (1996). CLG (Communities and Local Government), Strong and Prosperous Communities: The Local Government White Paper, Cm 6939 (London: TSO, 2006). A. Coulson, ‘Local government leadership, the new public management, and politics in the UK and USA’, Leading the Future of the Public Sector, conference paper, 31 May (Delaware, USA, 2007). N. Elias, The Civilizing Process (Oxford: Blackwell, 2000).

Political-Management Leadership 191 A. Giddens, Politics and Sociology in the Thought of Max Weber (London: Macmillan, 1972). T. Harrison, Danger Zones for Councillors and Officers (London: LGC, 2001). J. Hartley and A. Gulati, Developing Effective Political Leadership in Local Government: Research with the Leadership Academy of the IDeA (Report to IDeA, 2000). Lord Hutton, Report of the Inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the Death of Dr David Kelly CMG, HCP 247, 28 Jan (London: TSO, 2004). IDeA, Inside Top Teams – The Research Report (London: IDeA, 2006). S. Leach, J. Hartley, V. Lowndes, D. Wilson and J. Downe, Local Political Leadership in England and Wales (York: Rowntree Foundation, 2005). M. Lyons, Birmingham Forward Annual Lecture, 8 November (NEC Group, 2006). M. Lyons, Lyons Enquiry into Local Government: Place-shaping – A Shared Ambition for the Future of Local Government, March (London: TSO, 2007). K. Morrell and J. Hartley, ‘A model of political leadership’, Human Relations, 59(4) (2006) 483–504. P.E. Mouritzen and J.H. Svara, Leadership at the Apex: Politicians and Administrators in Western Local Governments (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2002). K. Newton, ‘The dictatorship of the official?’, Second City Politics (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976), pp. 145–64. A. Norton, The Role of the Chief Executive in British Local Government (Birmingham: ILGS, 1991). ODPM, Vibrant Local Leadership: Creating Sustainable Communities (London: TSO, 2005). P. Reason and J. Rowan (eds) Human Inquiry: A Sourcebook of New Paradigm Research (Chichester: Wiley, 1981). P. Self, Administrative Theories and Politics (London: Allen and Unwin, 1972). J. Silvester, ‘What makes a good councillor?’, LGA Annual Conference, Bournemouth (2004). SOLACE (Society of Local Authority Chief Executives), Leadership United: Managing in a Political Environment, SOLACE Commission (London: SOLACE, 2005). J. Stewart, ‘Councillor-officer relations’, working paper T254 (Luton: LGTB, 1994). J. Stewart, Modernising British Local Government (London: Macmillan, 2003). C. Taylor, Sources of the Self: The Making of Modern Identity (Cambridge: University Press, 1994).

Film transcripts David Blunkett, Leader of Sheffield City Council and Simon Baddeley, Inlogov (Birmingham University TV and Film Unit, 1980). Brian Clements, Leader of Poole Borough Council and Jim Brooks, Chief Executive 1995. Chris Mole, Leader of the Council and Lin Homer, Chief Executive, Suffolk County Council, 15 May 2000.

192 Leadership Perspectives Andy Salmon, Langworthy Ward Councillor and Julie McKinnon, Neighbourhood Co-ordinator, Salford City Council, 21 May 1999. Sue Smith, Leader of the Council and Ray Morgan, Chief Executive, Woking Borough Council, 29 March 2007. Theresa Stewart, Leader of the Council and Michael Lyons, Chief Executive, Birmingham City Council, 12 December 1995.

14 Leaders and Their Self-Efficacy Beliefs: Why Working Relationships Matter Joe Jaina

This chapter will explore the concept of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997), and the link to leadership outcomes. A key focus will be the interpersonal relationship sources of these beliefs and a review of how levels of psychological similarity through shared meaning in work-based relationships may influence self-efficacy beliefs for leaders. The chapter provides consideration of empirical case studies that are concerned with leadership and self-efficacy implications of work relationships in the profit and not-for-profit sector. Overall, work relationships that involve higher levels of psychological similarity through shared meaning are more likely to support leaders’ self-efficacy beliefs.

Self-efficacy Self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997) or beliefs in one’s capabilities to organise and execute the courses of action required to manage prospective situations, is seen as an important element in the determination of how capable an individual leader is in a given situation, how much effort they will deploy (Stajkovic, 2006), and how tenacious they are (Bandura and Locke, 2003). Individual leaders often fail to perform successfully, even though they know what they have to do and have the required skills; however leaders with a strong sense of efficacy exert greater effort to overcome difficulties (Choi et al., 2003). Self-efficacy beliefs are seen not as an overall single trait but as a set of self-beliefs that are closely linked to specific functional domains, for example, leadership in a particular area, such as aspects of sales, finance or human resources. Particularised efficacy beliefs are the most predictive because these are the beliefs that guide which leadership activities are undertaken and how well they are performed (Bandura, 1997). 193

194 Leadership Perspectives

The self-efficacy theory developed by Bandura gives centrality to the issue of control in people’s lives and their capacity to exercise personal agency. Bandura argues that among the mechanisms of agency none is more central or pervasive than people’s beliefs about self-efficacy. One key aspect of self-efficacy theory is that levels of leadership motivation and action are based more upon subjective efficacy beliefs than on objectively verifiable facts.

The importance of self-efficacy in a leadership context The importance of self-efficacy beliefs for leaders in a range of different working leadership contexts is emphasised by a clear link between the level of individual leadership efficacy beliefs and performance outcomes (Yeo and Neal, 2006). Entrepreneurial leadership self-efficacy was shown to have a direct impact on performance outcomes in studies by Markman and colleagues (Markman and Baron, 2003; Markman et al., 2005) and Luthans and Ibrayeva (2006). Self-efficacy theory helps provide greater understanding about why sub-optimal leadership performance occurs, as self-limiting expectancies are likely to hamper successful outcomes and directly inhibit learning from the activity. Sadri and Robertson (1993), writing about the link between self-efficacy and behavioural outcomes, indicate that studies consistently show findings in a positive direction, although the size of the effect may be moderated by the situational context. Other evidence about the importance of the self-efficacy concept for leadership emerges from Lent and Hackett (1987) who show that individuals with higher self-efficacy receive higher performance ratings and achieve greater job tenure. The researchers argue that if performance skills are adequate then self-efficacy beliefs may determine whether individual leaders meet, exceed or undershoot theirs goals. Niles and Sowa (1992) argue that individuals with extensive histories of success in varied situations may be expected to have a more generalised sense of positive self-efficacy expectancies than individuals without such experiences. The central theme in these studies is that a strong belief in selfefficacy helps an individual in a leadership role to successfully deal with the vicissitudes and challenges of managerial life. Links between the potential to lead and self-efficacy beliefs are made by Amit et al. (2006) who found significant differences between leaders and non-leaders in their self-efficacy beliefs. Self-efficacy beliefs influence leadership performance both directly and indirectly by influencing intentions.

Leaders and Their Self-Efficacy Beliefs: Why Working Relationships Matter 195

The sources of self-efficacy beliefs Bandura (1997) identified four elements that principally contribute to the formation and maintenance of self-efficacy beliefs. The first of these concerns previous successes or achievements, whereby if someone has been very successful at a particular leadership task, then this will positively influence future self-efficacy expectations for similar or slightly more difficult tasks. The reciprocal of this also applies insofar as direct experience of leadership task failure will effectively lower self-efficacy expectations, especially if the task failure occurs at an early stage in the project. The second and third elements that are a potential work relationship-based source of self-efficacy beliefs for leaders are called: Verbal Persuasion and Vicarious Experience respectively. In consideration of verbal persuasion Bandura (1997) argues that provided the work-based persuasion is perceived as realistic and received from a credible and valued source, such as respected peers, the boss or even subordinates and takes the form of an expression of faith in the individual leader’s capabilities, then it can allow the mobilisation of much greater effort than if they focus on their own self-doubts. This idea of verbal persuasion is very closely linked with the concept of the ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’ or Pygmalion effect which was the subject of landmark research by Rosenthall and Jacobson (1968). This phrase is used to refer to the idea that frequently things turn out just as expected because one behaved in a manner that optimised these outcomes. In a leadership context, in order to produce a Pygmalion effect, one must get a leader to expect more of someone on the basis of some characteristic of the subordinate. Credible high expectations communicated by an authority figure lead people to expect more of themselves and often perform better. This idea found expression in a managerial and leadership context through work by Livingstone (1969) who wrote that subordinates’ job performance and careers are determined largely by their manager’s expectations. The best managers create high performance expectations that subordinates fulfill. Livingstone also wrote that counterproductive self-fulfilling prophesy engendered by low manager expectations was much more widespread in industry than positive effects. A connection between self-efficacy and self-fulfilling prophesy has been proposed by Eden (1993) suggesting that self-efficacy may be the crux of self-fulfilling prophecy at work and that the quality and type of relationship may play a role in the maintenance of self-efficacy.

196 Leadership Perspectives

In common with other trait-based personal characteristics, Jerusalem and Mittag (1995) report that weak self-efficacy expectancies have numerous causes: A history of failures, lack of supportive feedback and an unfavourable attributional style by parents, leaders and peers may lead to the development of a tendency to scan the environment for potential dangers, to appraise demands as threatening and to cope with problems in dysfunctional ways (p. 179). The third source of self-efficacy beliefs identified by Bandura (1997) is called Vicarious Experience. This involves the selection and observation of others who again are respected, credible and are seen to perform successfully as leadership role models. Being aware of individuals who are perceived as similar and are performing successfully in a leadership arena that is seen as relevant to the individual can result in raised leadership self-efficacy expectations. Of course the reciprocal can also occur, Brown and Inouye (1978), that is observing others of apparently similar capability failing, can reduce self-efficacy expectations. The fourth source of self-efficacy beliefs was described by Bandura as physiological and emotional states. These are important in activities involving physical skill and strength. The physiological and emotive states whereby individuals review their stress reactions and tension as signs of actual or future poor performance. The relationship implications of this source of self-efficacy beliefs may be less than the other three sources but a persistent mood or physiological state may impact upon a particular relationship which in turn may have self-efficacy implications.

The link between self-efficacy beliefs and relationships at work The importance of work-based relationships as an emergent theme linked to performance has been identified by numerous authors: Lent and Hackett (1987); Eden (1993); Gersick et al. (2000) Ray (2000); Ryff and Singer (2001); Lent and Brown (2006); Sluss and Ashforth (2007). Vangelisti and Perlman (2006) report that individuals who establish and develop positive work-based relationships gain support and career advantage over those who do not have such relationships. The major issue which arises is do differences exist between different types of work-based relationships? If differences exist, to what extent do they influence self-efficacy beliefs?

Leaders and Their Self-Efficacy Beliefs: Why Working Relationships Matter 197

McCall and Simmons (1966) define an interpersonal relationship as necessarily involving each participant as a personal entity. That is, each of the parties must recognise the other as a distinctive individual of whom each has some prior knowledge. The parties do not see each other as strangers. Argyle (1992) proposes that the key aspect of relationships is that they are good for us and contribute to our mental and physical health. The idea of continuity of association in a relationship or regular encounters is linked with expectations amongst participants that the relationship will continue for at least some time in the future (Argyle and Henderson, 1985). In drawing a distinction between social interaction and a relationship, Hinde (1997) suggests that a series of totally independent interactions would not constitute a relationship and that an essential character of a relationship is that each interaction is influenced by other interactions in that relationship. According to Hinde, a relationship exists only when the probable course of future interactions between the participants differs from that between strangers. A relationship may have many meanings, whereas an interaction will be characterised by one meaning or focus.

Empirical aspects of work-based relationships Relationships are infinitely diverse and behaviour in a relationship can vary according to whom you are with. As Dutton and Ragins (2007) observe, relationships are ‘front and centre’ in most organisational life and as Duck (2007) suggests: … relationships represent not only the essence of meaning in people’s lives, but they also reside deep in the core of organisational life, they are the means by which work is done and meaning is found in organisations (p. 250). Extending this idea of meaning as a context for work-based relationships, Duck (2007) proposes that relationships are formulated by the extent that each party to the relationship can construe the meaning system of the other person. As two people get to know each other, each person tries to explain the behaviour and subsequently construe the other person’s system of meaning. Relationships and related meanings are processes that are created by the interaction of minds through communication based upon talk. Each partner in a relationship has his/her own personal system of meanings, which Duck describes as personality,

198 Leadership Perspectives

values, opinions, attitudes and past knowledge of which the other partner is largely unaware. He says that relationships are based upon the extent to which both parties to the relationship deal with that fact. The construing of the other person’s meaning system is a significant modifier of relationships, not because the degree of understanding affects the amount of information about the other person but because the very act of construing has an influence upon the organisation of knowledge and hence the ability to relate to the other person (Duck, 1994). A possible link between work-based relationships and self-efficacy beliefs emerges from the literature about the sources of self-efficacy beliefs, particularly social persuasion and vicarious experience and the work by Duck (2007) on the concept of shared meaning or ‘psychological similarity’ in a relationship. Psychological similarity refers to how two people in a work-based relationship similarly understand and have a meaningful interpretation of the same issue or event. In consideration of whether psychological similarity in work-based relationships is a potential source of self-efficacy beliefs, two exploratory case studies are reported in this chapter. These studies gave active consideration to the potential relationship-based sources of self-efficacy in two senior management contexts. Both studies utilised the Repertory Grid technique developed by Kelly (1955) as an elaborate ‘listening device’ and this is now adopted as a methodology for examining the relationships between the elements which are the objects of our thoughts. In the case studies presented, each ‘element’ is a person in a work-based relationship with the primary participant in the research. Repertory Grid is a method that has two main features. Firstly, elements or objects of thought and secondly, constructs or the qualities which are used to describe the elements and the way they are perceived. Repertory Grid is a way of obtaining an individual’s elements and constructs and, following analysis, obtaining a quantifiable map of a perceptual framework for a particular individual. Principal Components Analysis (PCA) was the technique used for identifying the underlying factors that appeared to be contributing most to the formation and maintenance of self-efficacy beliefs.

Case study one This first case was exploratory research (Jaina and Kakabadse, 2006) that examined the relationship-based sources of self-efficacy beliefs of six Chief Executive Officers (CEOs). The research used Personal Construct

Leaders and Their Self-Efficacy Beliefs: Why Working Relationships Matter 199

theory (Kelly, 1955) and the Repertory Grid technique to investigate how CEOs construe relationships with work-based ‘significant others’ and explore any relationship influence upon their self-efficacy beliefs. The methodology consisted of opportunistic sampling of six CEOs, three from the profit sector and three from the not-for-profit sector. Participants had held their posts for at least a year and participation in the research was voluntary. The participant age range was from 45 to 65. One participant was female, the remaining five male. Each individual participant was treated as a ‘case’ which would include all their personally selected ‘significant others’ (Mead, 1934) whom they perceived to exercise an influence upon their self-efficacy beliefs. ‘Significant others’ may be defined as any person who is important and influential in affecting an individual’s development of social norms and personal self-image (Reber, 1985). Each participant was informed about the purpose of the research and provided with information about the concept of self-efficacy. The participants were then asked to identify three current ‘significant others’ who contributed positively through their work-based relationships to the participant’s self-efficacy beliefs. Similarly, participants were invited to consider three work-based ‘significant others’ whose relationship with the participant had a negative effect on his or her self-efficacy beliefs. Finally, participants were invited to name three ‘significant others’ who were largely neutral in their influence on self-efficacy beliefs. These nine people were then used as elements and formed the basis for a triadic elicitation of the constructs. This process was carried out for all of the participants in the research. In the multiple case study approach, Gerring (2007) suggests that we develop theory through a preliminary tentative hypothesis. The hypothesis is modified in order to take account of what was discussed in the first case. This process was continued for all cases. With each case the theoretical replication process is strengthened and the emerging theory can be said to be true for all the cases included in this iterative process. In this research the preliminary hypothesis was concerned with a proposed link between supportive work relationships and positive selfefficacy beliefs.

Key findings The key findings from this research concern firstly, the participants’ less cognitively complex discriminations about aspects of work-based relationships that support self-efficacy beliefs and secondly, a polarisation in the role relationships with significant others. Social persuasion is the

200 Leadership Perspectives

most important relationship element in the development and maintenance of self-efficacy beliefs. Imitation and role models do not appear to be a major relationship source of self-efficacy for all the participants. The analysis revealed that CEOs in this research prefer a clear and proactive level of encouragement and support throughout their relationships with their ‘significant others’ at work. It is perhaps surprising given the seniority and positional power and success of the participants that they are so unequivocal in their undifferentiated construal of this factor in their relationships. There are close ties here with one of the key sources of self-efficacy described by Bandura (1995) as social persuasion: People who are persuaded verbally that they possess the capabilities to master given activities are likely to mobilise greater effort and sustain it than if they harbor self-doubts or dwell on personal deficiencies when problems arise (p. 4). The encouragement factor was also closely related to the need for a willingness to transcend any competition issues in the relationship and create a climate of positive strokes and personal validation. This is closely related to the issue of trust during organisational change discussed by Lines et al. (2005). Their findings suggest close links between levels of trust, capacity for change and individual self-efficacy beliefs about the prospects for successful change. The form of the interaction in the relationships that supported selfefficacy beliefs was seen as important with a generally expressed preference for a direct, open, factual, objective and polemical, rather than adversarial or gratuitously challenging relationship. This is perhaps not surprising and may have links with the idea proposed by Duck (1994, p. 9) about shared meaning as the basis of a relationship, ‘a person’s ability to comprehend another person’s meaning is the basis, channeler and limiter of relationships with the person’. The analysis revealed less importance to what Bandura (1995, p. 3) would describe as Vicarious Experience, ‘Seeing people similar to themselves succeed by perserverant effort raises observers’ beliefs that they too possess the capabilities to master comparable activities’ and that ‘The impact of modeling on beliefs of personal efficacy is strongly influenced by perceived similarity to the models’. A possible explanation could be connected with already having attained the most senior position; other role models are less salient and important. Participants in the research appear to make less cognitively complex discriminations, particularly about work relationships that are supportive

Leaders and Their Self-Efficacy Beliefs: Why Working Relationships Matter 201

of self-efficacy beliefs, in other words more ‘black and white’ thinking and preference for strong role relationship-based polarisation with significant others. Sluss and Ashforth (2007) also identified the importance of role relationships for workplace identity and identification. However role model and vicarious experience appeared to be of lesser importance as a basis for self-efficacy beliefs to the CEOs in both the profit and not-forprofit organisations. This may suggest that the content and process of a work-relationship is a more important feature of identification than the formal aspects of a prescribed role relationship at the CEO level and therefore less attractive in terms of the imitative potential. Overall proactive rather than reactive behaviors from significant others who are a positive self-efficacy influence have been a recurrent feature of this research. Different strategies seem to exist for dealing with negative relationship influence upon self-efficacy beliefs, whereby some participants appear to draw these relationships in closer and others keep them at more of a distance. This aspect may be closely linked to the issue of trust. Brunard and Kleiner (1994) identified that a pattern of commonality develops between participants in a relationship as the level of trust increases. This is therefore more likely to encourage people to work cooperatively towards an established goal. The principal issues concern specific emphasis that the CEO appears to place on the presence or absence of trust in their work-based relationships that influence selfefficacy beliefs, particularly with their Chairman. The response to this relationship also merits further research, insofar as it takes the form of approach/avoidance, or as described by Kelley (2003, p. 162) as ‘conflicting mutual joint control’. It is the very polarity and intensity of response that is of interest here and, as we have seen earlier, contextual variation may be a strong factor. From an executive leadership development perspective the implications of enhanced self-efficacy beliefs through key work-based relationships are key to the achievement of business performance objectives given the importance and leverage of the CEO role. Secondly, the implications for board membership and corporate governance are substantial given the centrality and salience of the relationships between the CEO, board members, the Chairman and the non-executive directors.

Case study two This second case study considers the idea of psychological similarity discussed in the previous case as an important source of self-efficacy beliefs in senior managers’ work relationships with their bosses, peers

202 Leadership Perspectives

and subordinates, through the examination of ten comparative cases in a profit and not-for-profit environment (Jaina and Tyson, 2004). The methodology in this study was based upon an exploratory multiple case study. Participants in the research were selected on an opportunistic basis from a commercial enterprise and a not-for-profit organisation, on an equal basis. The participants had all held senior managerial positions within their respective organisations for at least one year and represented a wide range of functions and professional disciplines, as well as career/ life stages and gender mix. Following an initial briefing to the potential participants, involvement in the research was entirely voluntary. Overall, ten individual participants were given centrality in the research and each is regarded as an individual ‘case’ together with a cluster of ‘significant others’ (Sullivan, 1947). Each participant nominated work-based ‘significant others’ where they felt that the relationship between them had impacted on their self-efficacy beliefs. A total of 54 ‘significant others’ took part in the research. Each participant’s nominated significant other was represented as an element within each participant’s repertory grid. Data collection methods involved multiple approaches. These were: • • • • •

The Repertory Grid technique (Kelly, 1955); Structured interviews; Job context interviews; Critical incident questions; Exchange Repertory Grids.

These data collection sources were used to establish how participants in the research considered the relationship with their respective ‘significant other’, and the reciprocal of this: how the ‘significant other’ considered the relationship with the participant, and finally how the ‘significant other’ considered the participant’s view of the relationship with them. The three perspectives allowed differences in construal to be observed and inferences to be made about the extent of psychological similarity or shared meaning. The participants were questioned through structured interviews about what was the context, content, length, style, intensity, commitment and levels of disclosure in the relationship as well as questions to elicit the extent of the psychological similarity. Additionally, critical incident questions were used to elicit key episodes in work-based relationships that were perceived by the participant to help or hinder the formation and development of self-efficacy beliefs.

Leaders and Their Self-Efficacy Beliefs: Why Working Relationships Matter 203

Key findings Duck (1994) provides a theoretical framework with four elements of psychological similarity and each element has been applied to both the interview and repertory grid data. He posed four questions in order to establish the extent of psychological similarity in a work-based relationship. These concern a hierarchy of declaration and evaluation in a relationship and are called ‘commonality’, ‘mutuality’, ‘equivalence’ and ‘shared meaning’. The questions he raised are as follows: 1. Is there objectively assessable ‘similarity’ located in the two individuals’ objective characteristics (i.e. commonality)? 2. Do both individuals know that the common element exists in each other’s history? 3. Does each person know how the other person evaluates the phenomenon? 4. Does each person know the mental framework from which the commonality springs and in which it is organised (shared meaning)? In stressing the importance of question four, Duck says ‘The sharing of meaning about a relationship is an exquisite realisation with profound effects on the continual transformation of the relationship’ (1994, p. 120). The results obtained suggest a possible pattern, i.e. that there is a hierarchy of psychological similarity associated with self-efficacy beliefs. Psychological similarity was a feature of all the relationships but levels of equivalence and shared meaning were exclusively associated with relationships that were supportive of self-efficacy beliefs. Another discernable pattern concerned the significant other relationships that challenged self-efficacy beliefs. These were at the lower levels of commonality and mutuality of psychological similarity. The participant’s constructs about relationships that build self-efficacy were described as: close; shared confidence; knowledgeable; accountable; long term; interested in me as a person; trusting; broad perspective; know well; liked; different; capable of influence; talk about anything and established. The most important and overarching constructs were about trust in the relationship, centered upon ‘knowing’ the party in the relationship. By comparison those relationship constructs that reduced selfefficacy beliefs were described as: narrow; interested only in what I can do for them; specific; parochial; routinised; short term; parochial; unknown;

204 Leadership Perspectives

instrumental; technical; don’t know the person; disliked; less influence and trust. Differences appear to exist between boss/subordinate and peer relationships when comparisons are made about the extent to which parties to the work-relationship perceive that they are psychologically similar and share meaning about a range of work-related issues. Peer relationships were found more likely to be supportive of selfefficacy beliefs and from a psychological similarity perspective, usually characterised by higher levels of equivalence and shared meaning in the relationship. Work-based relationships that challenged self-efficacy beliefs, from a psychological similarity perspective, tended to be characterised by the lower levels of commonality and mutuality. These relationships were, more likely, but not exclusively, associated with the boss/subordinate relationships.

Conclusions Clearly any pointers towards new insights derived from these case studies can only be a tentative guide for future research as results where limited by only six and ten in-depth cases respectively as the basis for theoretical replication, also the choice and availability of participants was based upon opportunistic sampling and access limitations. The primary strength of these cases is that a combination of theoretical approaches have been adopted in an important area with potential applications for improvement in leadership performance. This chapter has considered the importance for leadership of workbased relationships as a source of self-efficacy beliefs through the medium of two case studies across two leadership contexts. Overall the results suggest that from a leadership perspective the relationships that help develop and maintain self-efficacy beliefs were characterised by the higher levels of psychological similarity, e.g. equivalence and shared meaning. By comparison those relationships that presented a challenge to the formation of self-efficacy beliefs only achieved the levels of mutuality and commonality. Essentially this means that leaders who are a catalyst for the development of a trusting, supportive relationship that provides subordinates and peers with considerable autonomy and where a broad range of issues are discussed, provide a sound relationship basis for their own and others self-efficacy beliefs. From a leadership development perspective the need for early interventions in supporting a newly formed work-relationship is paramount as is the promulgation of knowledge about the potential link between

Leaders and Their Self-Efficacy Beliefs: Why Working Relationships Matter 205

aspects of relationships at work and the establishment and development of self-efficacy beliefs in subordinates. This is especially useful if a leader’s true potential is to be realised in a variety of relationship-based management activities, particularly; mentoring, coaching, counseling, performance appraisal, talent management, and most importantly, the detailed interactions that are the basis of managerial life in most organisations. Many contemporary contexts for leadership and work relationships are providing strong evidence for the critical importance of work relationships in the determination of success or failure, contexts such as corporate governance, Huse (2007) strategic alliances, De Rond (2005) Mergers and Acquisitions, Fubini et al. (2007) In summary the idea of positive relationships at work is gaining considerable currency from both a research and a practitioner perspective, Dutton and Ragins (2007), as is the connection between leadership and work relationships, Fletcher (2007). This chapter seeks to develop and extend the emphasis upon the critical importance and centrality of work relationships by linking them directly to the formation maintenance and development of self-efficacy beliefs and thereby to allow leaders to work effectively through relationships. As Fletcher (2007) remarks, ‘Indeed popular … and scholarly approaches … increasingly define leadership itself as a relationship and leadership practices as occurring in the context of relational interactions’ (p. 348).

References K. Amit, M. Popper, R. Gal, M. Miskal-Sinai and A. Lissak, ‘The potential to lead: The difference between leaders and non leaders’, Megamot, 44 (2006) 277–96. M. Argyle, ‘Benefits produced by supportive social relationships’, in H. Veiel and U. Baumann (eds) The Meaning and Measurement of Social Support (New York: Hemisphere, 1992). M. Argyle and M. Henderson, The Anatomy of Relationships (London: Heineman, 1985). A. Bandura, Self-efficacy in Changing Societies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995). A. Bandura, Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control (New York: W.H. Freeman, 1997). A. Bandura and E.A. Locke, ‘Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (2003) 98–9. I. Brown and D.K. Inouye, ‘Learned helplessness through modelling’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36 (1978). V. Brunard and B.H. Kleiner, ‘Developing trustful and co-operative relationships’, Leadership and Organisational Development Journal, 15 (1994) 111–14. J.N. Choi, R.H. Price and A.D. Vinokur, ‘Self-efficacy changes in groups: Effects of diversity, leadership and climate’, Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 24 (2003) 357–72.

206 Leadership Perspectives M. De Rond, Strategic Alliances as Social Facts (Cambridge University Press, 2005). S. Duck, Meaningful Relationships (London: Sage Publications, 1994). S. Duck, Human Relationships, 4th edn (London: Sage, 2007). J. Dutton and B. Ragins (eds) Positive Relationships at Work (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2007). D. Eden, ‘Interpersonal expectations in organisations’, cited in P.D. Blanck (ed.) Interpersonal Expectations (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp. 155–78. J.K. Fletcher, ‘Leadership, power and positive relationships’, cited in J.E. Dutton and B.R. Ragins, Exploring Positive Relationships at Work (LEA, 2007), p. 348. D. Fubini, C. Price and M. Zollo, Mergers: Leadership Performance and Corporate Health (INSEAD Business Press, 2007). J. Gerring, Case Study Research (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007). C.J.G. Gersick, J.M. Bartunek and J.E. Dutton, ‘Learning from academia: The importance of relationships in professional life’, Academy of Management Journal, 43 (2000) 1026–44. R.A. Hinde, Relationships: A Dialectical Perspective (Hove: Psychology Press, 1997). M. Huse, Boards, Governance and Value Creation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007). J. Jaina and A. Kakabadse, ‘A small scale repertory grid study of six CEO’s and the relationship basis of their self efficacy beliefs about their leadership roles’. Paper presented at 5th International Studying Leadership Conference (Cranfield: Cranfield University, 2006). J. Jaina and S. Tyson, ‘Psychological similarity in work-based relationships and the development of self-efficacy beliefs’, Human Relations, 57 (2004) 275–96. M. Jerusalem and W. Mittag, ‘Self efficacy in stressful life transitions’. Chapter in A. Bandura, Self Efficacy in Changing Societies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995) p. 179. H.H. Kelley, ‘Entry 4 Conflicting Mutual Joint Control, match or mismatch’, in H.H. Kelley, J.G. Holmes, N.L. Kerr, H.T. Reis, C.E. Rusbult and P.A.M. Van Lange (eds) An Atlas of Interpersonal Situations (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003) pp. 162–76. G. Kelly, The Psychology of Personal Construct (New York: W.W. Norton, 1955). R. Lent and S.D. Brown, ‘Integrating person and situation perspectives on work satisfaction: a cognitive view’, Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 69 (2006) 236–47. R.W. Lent and G. Hackett, ‘Career self efficacy: Empirical status and future directions’, Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 30 (1987) 347–82. R. Lines, M. Selart, B. Espedal and S.T. Johansen, ‘The production of trust during organisational change’, Journal of Change Management, 5 (2005) 221–45. J.S. Livingstone, ‘Pygmalion in management’, Harvard Business Review, 47 (1969) 81–9. F. Luthans and E.S. Ibrayeva, ‘Entrepreneurial self-efficacy in Central Asian transition economies: Quantitative and qualitative analysis’, Journal of International Business Studies, 37 (2006) 92–110. G.D. Markman and R.A. Baron, ‘Person-entrepreneurship fit: Why some people are more successful than others’, Human Resource Management Review, 13 (2003) 281–301. G.D. Markman, R.A. Baron and D.B. Balkin, ‘Are perseverance and self-efficacy costless? Assessing entrepreneurial regretful thinking’, Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 26 (2005) 281–301.

Leaders and Their Self-Efficacy Beliefs: Why Working Relationships Matter 207 G.J. McCall and J.L. Simmons, Identities and Interactions (New York: Free Press, 1966). G.H. Mead, Mind, Self and Society (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1934). S.G. Niles and C.J. Sowa, ‘Mapping the nominological network of career self efficacy’, The Career Development Quarterly, 41 (1992). K.D.P. Ray, ‘The relationship between intimacy and satisfaction in personal and professional relationships among physicians and university faculty’, Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 60–10B (2000) 5251. A.S. Reber, The Dictionary of Psychology (London: Penguin, 1985). R. Rosenthall and L. Jacobson, Pygmalion in the Classroom (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1968). C.D. Ryff and B.H. Singer (eds) Emotion, Social Relationships and Health (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001). G. Sadri and I.T. Robertson, ‘Self-efficacy and work related behavioural applied psychology’, An International Review, 42 (1993) 139–52. D.M. Sluss and B.E. Ashforth, ‘Relational identity and identification: Defining ourselves through work relationships’, Academy of Management Review, 32 (2007) 9–32. A.D. Stajkovic, ‘Development of a core confidence higher order construct’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 91 (2006) 1208–24. H.S. Sullivan, Conceptions of Modern Psychiatry (London: W.W. Norton, 1947). A.L. Vangelisti and D. Perlman (eds) The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006). G.B. Yeo and A. Neal, ‘An examination of the dynamic relationship between selfefficacy performance across levels of analysis and levels of specificity’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 91 (2006) 1088–101.

15 The Importance of Role Models in the Development of Leaders’ Professional Identities Ruth Sealy and Val Singh

Our sense of what is possible in our careers is influenced by what has gone before, how we interpret that history, and how we draw inspiration and learning from leaders past and present in our own identity development. In Western societies, authority and power are bound with notions of leadership that are shaped by the almost exclusively male incumbents of leadership roles. Hence leadership is inherently gendered in style, reflecting characteristics of heroic heterosexual and powerful males. Indeed, preparation for leadership is so gendered that even at middle levels of management, ‘think manager, think male’ seems such a natural and normal process that we are unaware of it (Schein, 2007). Both men and women in general accept this, because it is the way things are in terms of sex roles in society and reinforced at work, and the way things have always been – unless they are females with ambition coming up against a ‘glass ceiling’. But it is not natural and normal – in other societies, different patterns are still to be found, and therefore it is clear that leadership is a social and cultural construction. Role models are an important part of the development of social identities, and we argue, the scarcity of female role models in leadership positions plays a major part in the persistence of the gender stereotypical construction of leadership (Sealy and Singh, 2006). Role models consciously and unconsciously inform and are influenced by these leadership constructions. Gibson defines role models as a ‘cognitive construction based on the attributes of people in social roles that an individual perceives to be similar to … to some extent and desires to increase perceived similarity by emulating those attributes’ (2004, p. 136). Drawing on recent research, in this chapter we will demonstrate the importance of role models for successful career progression, and the importance of the organisation’s demographic context in providing 208

The Importance of Role Models 209

appropriate role models. We will also suggest that leadership is usually taught in business schools, on MBA courses, with little reference to female or feminine role models, thus ignoring a substantial and increasingly important section of the demographic talent pool. A brief discussion of implications will follow and we will argue that a better understanding is needed of the importance of role models in the formation of professional identity so that more of tomorrow’s diverse aspiring leaders can develop to their full potential.

Identity and identification Organisational research shows that the successful development of professional identity is important for career success. Despite a growing interest in the topic of work identity, there is a paucity of literature explaining how senior professional identities are formed (Pratt et al., 2006). Many of the issues concerning the careers of senior women or people from ethnic minorities in the workplace today are often associated with the lack of a sense of authentic professional identity due to traditional white masculine cultures and conventional transactional or ‘heroic’ leadership styles. Increasingly this is also being recognised as an issue for younger male managers, the so-called ‘Generation Y’, who appear less inclined to identify with those above them. Previous research proposes that role models are important for the development of professional identity, personal growth and career success, as they provide a source of learning, motivation, self-definition and career guidance (Gibson, 2004). Role identification theories explain that people are attracted to and motivated by those similar to themselves (Kohlberg, 1963). Social learning theories highlight the importance of role models in learning new skills, norms and making sense of one’s environment (Bandura, 1977). Identification and the perceived availability and attractiveness of role models are key career challenges for today’s more diverse workforce and, we would argue, particularly for women approaching leadership positions. In the emerging field of work identity, there are a number of competing literature areas: the social identity literature, which focuses on the cognitive psychological aspects of identity formation; the literature on human assets and social capital; and the more sociological investigation of structures, demographics and institutional behaviour. Work on role models is beginning to combine these literatures and show how micro-level cognitive processes feed into larger systems and the underlying mechanisms of organisational structures.

210 Leadership Perspectives

Role models and ‘possible selves’ Traditional career theories suggest that as individuals get older, confidence in self-concept increases and the requirement for role models diminishes. However, recent studies by Gibson (2003, 2004) suggest that the tendency to observe and use role models does not diminish with age, but rather changes the importance placed on various dimensions used in the development of the individual’s professional identity. Gibson suggests that the effective use of role models represents a selection process from the people available to the individual, combined with an active cognitive interpretation of the role model attributes (Bandura, 1977). Hence three elements need to be considered: the issue of similarity; the desire to increase that similarity and the social context which creates a social role. Identity development is not just an individualistic concept but a socially constructed one, and the organisations in which individuals progress their careers are social contexts. Career transitions often involve changes in roles, requiring new skills both on the technical and interpersonal side. They are opportunities for renegotiating one’s professional identity through the mechanism of ‘possible selves’, defined as the person one would like to become. In a study of professionals making career transitions to more senior roles, Ibarra (1999, 2000) revealed that the adaptations required three basic tasks: observing role models to identify potential identities; experimenting with provisional selves and evaluating experiments against internal standards and external feedback. Participants selected role models based on their attractiveness and the extent to which they admired or shared the traits underlying the role model’s behaviour. The process of acquiring behavioural skills, such as a professional style, is different from learning knowledge in that it must be refined experientially, not just vicariously (Bandura, 1977). The most prevalent form of experimentation was imitation. This was either done on a total or partial basis (mimicking global or individual traits and behaviours). Though not intended as a gendered study, Ibarra’s work showed sex differences. The men generally constructed composite models, using several facets from various individuals, whilst the women more often searched for a global (single) model. Selective cherry-picking type imitation, from a ‘mosaic of different people’ was a more sophisticated form of mimicry, combining varied facets from multiple role models to create a more self-tailored persona. Those using the cherry-picking tactic suffered less concern regarding authenticity – the degree of congruence between what one

The Importance of Role Models 211

feels and communicates in public. Those who used true-to-self strategies in making the transition made references to being aware of their own limitations, avoiding exaggerated displays of confidence, and being more concerned with client credibility in the long term rather than creating a good first impression, focusing on substance over form. However, as they clung to their old identities, they struggled to transfer some of the new styles and skills required, experiencing longer-term dissonance between their current and ideal selves. Their actions also limited the growth of their repertoires, providing a restricted store of material from which to select and grow. The true-to-self subgroup who used this limiting tactic was almost entirely women. Identification with role models infuses behaviours with meaning and purpose, providing more motivation to change. By identifying with role models, people move from compliance to assimilating role requirements, growing successfully into their new role (O’Reilly and Chatman, 1986). If successful identity construction is essential to career success, then the availability and successful use of role models become key antecedents to this process. For those who are not in the white male majority, the context of organisational demographics will affect the likelihood of successful role modelling.

Role models and minority contexts For minority populations, it can be difficult to find leaders perceived as sufficiently similar or desirable to emulate, and hence those individuals will lose out on the potential benefits of having a role model. There has been a recent spate of surveys in Europe and the US (Catalyst/ Conference Board, 2003; Catalyst, 2007; DDI and CIPD, 2005; Catalyst and Opportunity Now, 2000) citing a lack of available female role models in corporate life as a major barrier to advancement. This suggests a lack of women perceived to be similar to the women seeking role models, or a lack of female role models to whom they would desire to be similar. Singh et al. (2006) found that young women had difficulty in identifying with most of the senior females in their organisations; either they were too scary, superwomen or did not appear to have combined family and career. Even when there are some senior women, the demographic context may affect how such women are perceived. Research has shown that what is valued in the boardroom is what is valued throughout the organisation (Myatt, 2004). Therefore, with very few women as leaders and role models holding directorships, women (and men) do not see

212 Leadership Perspectives

evidence that women’s managerial capital is sufficiently valued for boardroom and role model positions. The few senior women who do get to the top are often deemed (by women and men) to have become more like men. If women do not see themselves mirrored in leadership, the masculine stereotype is likely to remain as a significant barrier for women. Social role theory (Eagly, 1987) and gender role theory (Eagly and Karau, 2002) explain how both sexes are expected to behave in ways consistent with societal gender roles. Because leadership is still construed in masculine agentic terms, women aspiring to such positions are required to violate such prescribed roles, and this presents additional challenges. Without similar role models as exemplars of how this role violation can be successfully negotiated, the psychological challenges can often subconsciously be too great. If women in male dominated organisations have access only to senior male role models, then they have to do more work to transfer that learning to a style more acceptable for women, or face penalties for out of role behaviour. For women and ethnic minority groups, visible role models in authority positions could be associated with an increase in their ambitions (Gibson and Cordova, 1999). This was not because the exemplars prompted the individuals to increase their career aspirations, but because, by their presence, they started to change the old gender schematic vision of status and power held by both women and men (Ragins and Sundstrom, 1989). The importance of senior female role models to educate the men was demonstrated in a recent study by Sealy (2007) to allow both men and women of that organisation to believe that women could have successful careers.

Unpacking the value of role models Sealy (2007) proposes the importance of both the behavioural and symbolic aspects of role models, in terms of messages conveyed to the employees on a number of different levels, enabling individuals to learn about and aspire to leadership positions within the organisation. The behavioural importance of role models and the benefits of vicarious learning are well-documented (Bandura, 1977; Ibarra, 1999), and were also evident in Sealy’s research, both in terms of bigger-picture ‘visioning’ and also on a specific ‘how to’ level. However, what was new was the conceptual unpacking of the symbolic importance of role models on a variety of levels, which may hold more significance for those from minority groups (in this case women) aspiring to leadership positions.

The Importance of Role Models 213

Sealy’s study was conducted with diversity directors across 11 global financial institutions. The quotes below, from the directors, are illustrative of findings consistent across the organisations. It emerged that role models provide symbolic value on four levels. First, for the individuals with role models, there was symbolic value illustrating concepts such as hope, possibility and similarity to the individual, that it was possible to succeed whilst remaining true to oneself, that the role models had integrity. … it’s proof that those unique characteristics, unique strengths can get to the top of the tree … looking at a female means that hopefully those differences have been recognised, and that gives more hope for us to be true to our selves, rather than to try and emulate male characteristics, in order to climb the ladder. Work becomes meaningful when one’s preferred self can be expressed though one’s work and one’s membership in an organisation (Kahn, 1998). Pratt et al. (2006) argue that ‘achieving alignment between identity and work is a fundamental motivator in identity construction’ (p. 255). Second, Sealy’s study showed there was symbolic value from the role models for the individuals’ view of the organisation, illustrating concepts such as meritocracy, that minority groups could believe that as long as they were as good as those succeeding from the majority group, they too could succeed. It’s linked to the idea of meritocracy and it’s almost linked to an unconscious ideal. If you don’t see people who are similar to you in some way, and gender’s a very powerful form of identity, if you don’t see people similar to you in positions of power … I’d be thinking why … this is the place for females at the lower end, why are there no females on the senior end? That would influence my thinking, my identity in terms of my role within this company. So for me, the lack of role models, it’s a lack of meritocracy. Third, there was symbolic value at the organisational level in terms of messages given to external stakeholders, shareholders and future employees. I think [role models] are important to our external community … Our clients are very diverse … but when you talk about dealing with

214 Leadership Perspectives

CEOs, CFOs of companies who are our clients, their faces are changing and I think we need to change our faces too. Finally, there was symbolic value internally in terms of communicating messages about making changes and signalling to both men and women in the organisation that changes were being made. Individuals from minority groups such as women or those from ethnic minorities often have to do more than the majority members to establish their legitimacy (Murrell and Zagenczyk, 2006; Heilman and Okimoto, 2007), and therefore they may place more importance on the symbolic value of similar role models. I guess it’s the influence with the peer group at the role model level. So … it’s the woman in the room of 40 [men], she’s breaking the mould … changing the mind set of the male peers … who are potentially managing other women coming up through … so, it’s a bit like in the early days of us trying to progress life balance and flexible working, we just said, ‘look we just need some great examples of flexible working where it works, then we’ll celebrate those and gradually it will break the mould’. It’s not dissimilar, to, in my time, I’ve worked in environments where everybody smoked … and you just can’t imagine that now. However, Sealy’s study only looked at the importance of senior female role models for women in the organisation. Is the need for same-sex exemplars as strong for men? Lockwood (2006) examined whether or not women and men are more inspired by same-sex role models than by gender opposites. The study showed that women were inspired by outstanding women in their field, although not by outstanding men. Lockwood suggests that female role models are particularly inspiring in situations where they are in the minority and face typical barriers, as they provide evidence that the barriers can be overcome despite discrimination, and may be an important means of undermining negative gender stereotypes. However, from previous literature, the efficacy of the role models would presumably depend on how ‘similar’ the role models are perceived to be, and with some young male managers of ‘Generation Y’ placing importance on different aspects of work from their more senior predecessors, the organisational context needs to be taken into account. In this era of rapid organisational change and boundaryless careers, individuals need to establish their own portfolio of developmental

The Importance of Role Models 215

relationships (Higgins and Kram, 2001), and role models are a very important aspect of this. The ideal is availability of a constellation of heterogeneous role models, providing a wide repertoire of possible leadership behaviours. Relationships at work anchor the individual and provide confidence, essential for psychological growth (Kahn, 1998) and development of potential leaders. If an organisation does not have a mix of role models in their leadership, then more effort is needed to address this developmental need appropriately, or it runs the risk of losing or misdirecting talent.

Role modelling and organisational demographics Future leaders develop their identities in a variety of organisational demographic contexts, with different availability of senior female role models. The working environment therefore influences the processes of identity formation. In a ground-breaking study, Kanter (1977) observed how the majority group in an organisation dominated and marginalised the minority, and how structures emerged to preserve this situation. The concepts of ‘homophily’, and ‘tokenism’ were based on the idea that people prefer to work with similar others. Kanter showed how women were treated as ‘tokens’ when in a numerical minority of less than 15 per cent. Through processes including assimilation, where stereotypes are adopted, and polarisation and exaggeration, where stereotypes are used to create boundaries, the boundaries are heightened, leading to a strongly dominated male culture, where women are both highly visible and isolated. In Kanter’s view, only when the proportion of women (or other minority group) passes a threshold to become a ‘minority’ rather than token, could they begin to overcome these pressures. Gender and race are obvious external sources of social group identity and identification. Social identity theory holds that if an individual sees only one or two of their group in the leadership of their organisation, who are not attractive role models to that individual, or who are perceived as targets for criticism within the organisation, then there is a strong likelihood that the individual will try to disassociate themselves from the negative ‘out-group’ in order to assume a more positive selfimage. There is plenty of evidence, both scholarly and in the more popular literature, of women behaving like ‘one of the boys’ as a coping strategy in the absence of a broader repertoire of role model candidates. Women and ethnic minorities have a smaller pool of candidates similar to them from which to construct their role models, and role modelling therefore for them requires greater cognitive processing.

216 Leadership Perspectives

Whereas white men can take the attributes that the organisation has recognised and rewarded in the successful white male role models and add those behaviours to their own repertoire, minority groups have to make such images out of role models that come from more diverse and fragmented sources (Gibson and Cordova, 1999). This suggests a structuralist rather than developmental standpoint – that patterns of modelling are more dependent on the gender or ethnic context that individuals find themselves in, rather than on inherent differences in modelling tendencies between men and women, white and non-white individuals. This structuralist position contends that white males and other groups have equivalent abilities and similar desires for role models and organisational achievement. It suggests that a failure of equality of achievement is due to contextual factors and the differences of availability of role models for the various demographic groups. Those who take a ‘critical mass’ approach to demographics will emphasise the importance of tipping points, assuming that by hiring more minorities, the organisational environment will improve. But identity groups need to be equal in their access to power resources (Kanter, 1983) for an improvement of attitudes. This suggests organisations may need demographic earthquakes to take them to the tipping point of 35 per cent (Kanter, 1977) to prevent the perpetuation of stereotypical negative dynamics. Ely (1994) found that in firms with few senior women, women were ‘less likely to experience gender as a positive basis for identification … less likely to perceive senior women as role models with legitimate authority, more likely to perceive competition in relationships with women peers’ (p. 203). Ely’s work develops that of Kanter (1977), who suggested that balanced representation at peer level would reduce sexrole stereotyping. But Ely (1995) disagrees: unless there are women in positions of authority in that firm, ‘sex may persist as a salient category with negative consequences for women lower down in the organisation’. Ely shows how women’s presence in positions of power positively affects the social construction of gender definition and the processes that create gender identity at work. In more diverse work environments, minority groups are less likely to place importance on same-sex role models (Gibson and Cordova, 1999). For example, in Ely’s study, sex-integrated firms had greater latitude in gender roles, with the women consciously enacting masculine and feminine roles as they saw fit. Women had a greater sense of acceptance, higher satisfaction with firms and optimism about their careers. Theirs was a non-sexualised gender role.

The Importance of Role Models 217

Without a full range of possible leadership behaviours, due to lack of female role models, women often worry about projecting the right level of authority, constraining their more feminine repertoires to enhance their gravitas (Eagly, 2005). There are negative consequences of such behaviours. Firstly, women drawing on masculine ways of leading are censured for behaving out of their traditional gender role expectations (Heilman and Okimoto, 2007). Secondly, women often feel inauthentic as leaders, as if they have to wear a mask that might slip and give their true feelings away. Men do not have to deal with the first issue, and as there are many male leaders with a wide range of behaviours and styles to emulate, men have a wider choice to suit their own need for authenticity.

Influence of management education on role model availability and identity development Not only is there a very limited supply of female business leaders, but leadership today tends to be taught with little reference to female or feminine leaders who can provide a source of good leadership role models. As male and female students on today’s MBA programmes are a potential source of tomorrow’s leaders, this provides a good context in which to examine role models. As leadership goes against the social role prescribed for women, perhaps the need to be shown ‘how to do leadership’ on such programmes is more keenly felt by aspiring female managers. However, drawing on the extensive work of Sinclair (1995, 1997, 1998) and Simpson (2006), it would seem that the contexts of many MBA courses are themselves gendered in terms of course content, course delivery, course experience and demography of students and staff, with women on many courses forming less than a third or even less than a quarter of the students.

MBA course content Recognition is needed that female leaders – in all their diversity – can be role models just as male leaders currently are, but this needs to be endorsed in class discussions, in leadership course materials, case studies and speakers. Where women leaders are discussed in class, they are often dismissed on sexist grounds, just as they are so often treated by the business press. If both men and women leaders were dismissed in this way, it would not matter, but given that there are so few examples of women business leaders, it does reinforce the ‘strangers in a

218 Leadership Perspectives

man’s world’ position of such women, especially where their decisions and actions did not result in successful outcomes. Because of their high visibility/token status, their failure is extended to all women, satisfying the prejudiced males’ need for evidence that women cannot be successful leaders. Sinclair suggests that more case studies could be written about successful women, and draw on situations in industries where more women are employed, where women are a significant part of the management and leadership team. Getting more successful female speakers to mainstream sessions would build and reinforce the legitimacy of women leaders in business. Sinclair (1997, p. 325) highlights the lack of attention paid in business courses to women’s ways of knowing and learning, and women’s ignored preferences for experiential and connected learning, resulting in a sense of ‘learning in the margins, rather than the mainstream’. This is particularly important in the study of leadership, where it can be difficult for women and some men to feel connected through their experiences to the leadership issues under debate. As dwellers in the marginal zone of the MBA course, the women’s confidence is reportedly frequently undermined by the masculine learning experience, and that compounds the sense of lack of fit arising from the relative absence of women leaders, professors, speakers and role models.

Gendered behaviour on the MBA course MBA programmes take place in a very ‘macho’ course climate. Simpson (2006) describes how tomorrow’s leaders on MBA courses are socialised into skills based on modernist values of rationality, the assumption of the superiority of managerialism, individualistic and competitive instrumentality. Women on such courses are encouraged to mould themselves to more masculine ways of working in order to succeed on the course and progress their careers within traditional organisational environments. Women students complain that sexist language is used in class by professors as well as in case material, with ‘he’ typically used about leaders. Even after textual materials have been gender-proofed, professors often slip into using the masculine pronouns, particularly where the case studies have only men as leaders and high-ranking managers. The typical business school has few female professors, and authority and power belong therefore to the male academics, who reward and reinforce traditional masculine behaviours such as competitiveness, extroversion and aggressiveness in classroom debate. The scarcity of

The Importance of Role Models 219

female professors means that there is little opportunity for direct role modelling by senior and successful women for female business students. Sinclair suggests that male and female professors working in pairs for work on gender (including masculinities as well as feminine issues) and leadership can provide positive role model behaviours as well as facilitate discussion of alternative perspectives from both men and women. Sexist behaviour by male students in group work compounds the feelings of discomfort for women students.

Women only leadership courses Where women are in extreme minorities in leadership positions, there is an argument for women-only leadership courses (Vinnicombe and Singh, 2003) so that women have an opportunity to reflect on their own skills, styles, goals and experiences and share understanding with other women that gender issues are common across institutional and national boundaries, and not to be internalised as a personal lack of leadership qualities. On such programmes, women can openly express their femininity and authenticity in a learning environment designed for women’s ways of learning. But such courses should never replace the general leadership development for both sexes.

Implications for practice The research above may imply that by increasing the diversity of those in senior positions, the organisation will provide more varied role models for the whole of its population. However, it may not be sufficient simply to appoint more women leaders. What is additionally required is the acceptance of more feminine leadership styles (which can be enacted by either men or women). If role models are an important part of messages given to women about their career possibilities and symbolic messages of what success can look like, then the organisation needs to take responsibility for, and be cognisant of the messages and signals given, for example, celebrating the success of diverse individuals on intranet sites. ‘A firm’s socialisation and career development practices, which are the mechanism by which they inculcate display rules, may be expected to exacerbate or attenuate the dynamics described’ (Ibarra, 2007). Whilst many organisations today have diversity committees or departments charged with addressing these issues, it is important for them to be aware of the limited value of just taking a liberalist ‘fix the individual’

220 Leadership Perspectives

approach. Whilst initially this may appear to promote the individual’s development, it also places the burden of responsibility on their shoulders. In addition to individual development, organisations must recognise the need to ‘fix the culture’, addressing the underlying mechanisms and practices that are hindering potential leaders of all types from reaching the levels appropriate to their talent and commitment. Those responsible for management education need to recognise their role in providing a gendered and limited range of role models for those preparing for leadership. As Simpson (2006) recommends, MBA course material needs updating to include a diversity of leaders, followers and contexts, so that women’s position in the business world is given legitimacy and voice. Otherwise such education will simply reproduce the existing leadership talent pool that is no longer sufficiently qualified to lead in a rapidly globalising world of mergers, acquisitions and alliances where relationships and connectedness are so important. Much deeper levels of cultural, emotional and relational awareness are needed, and role models can play an important part in that process, helping women and men to develop behaviours and characteristics to build a variety of authentic leadership identities.

Conclusions Present research shows the importance for minority groups to have role models and role modelling opportunities, for the successful development of an authentic professional identity. For the white male majority, these processes occur unconsciously and the availability of similar and attractive role models is taken for granted, often reinforcing the stereotypes and the status quo. For those minorities that have made it to leadership positions, the social and emotional costs are often substantial and now act as a deterrent for similar others below. Organisations need to show their employees that there is another way and that they are willing to change their cultures to value more diverse styles of management and leadership, reflecting the authentic work identities of a more diverse population. Leadership education and executive development should take a more contextual approach to the understanding of successful leadership in today’s organisations. Organisations and those involved in preparing future leaders need to recognise the importance of role modelling as an integral process in the identity construction and development of both women and men leaders, and in the women and men who follow after them.

The Importance of Role Models 221

References A. Bandura, ‘Self efficacy: Towards a unifying theory of behavioural change’, Psychological Review, 84 (1977) 191–215. Catalyst, The Double-bind Dilemma for Women in Leadership: Damned If You Do, Doomed If You Don’t (New York, USA, 2007). Catalyst and Opportunity Now, Breaking the Barriers: Women in Senior Management in the UK (London: Business in the Community, 2000). Catalyst/Conference Board, Women in Leadership: Comparing European and US Women Executives (2003). DDI and CIPD, Leadership forecast survey (London, 2005). A.H. Eagly, Sex Differences in Social Behaviour: A Social-role Interpretation (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1987). A.H. Eagly, ‘Achieving relational authenticity in leadership: Does gender matter?’, Leadership Quarterly, 16 (2005) 459–74. A. Eagly and S.J. Karau, ‘Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders’, Psychological Bulletin, 109(3) (2002) 573–98. R.J. Ely, ‘The effects of organisational demographics and social identity on relationships among professional women’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 39 (1994) 203–38. R.J. Ely, ‘The power of demography: Women’s social constructions of gender identity at work’, Academy of Management Journal, 38(3) (1995) 589–634. D.E. Gibson, ‘Developing the professional self-concept: Role model construals in early, middle, and late career stages’, Organisation Science, 14(5) (2003) 591–610. D.E. Gibson, ‘Role models in career development: New directions for theory and research’, Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 65 (2004) 134–56. D.E. Gibson and D. Cordova, ‘Women’s and men’s role models: The importance of exemplars’, in A.J. Murrell, F.J. Crosby and R.J. Ely (eds) Mentoring Dilemmas: Developmental Relationships within Multicultural Organisations (Mahwah, NJ, USA: Erlbaum, 1999), pp. 121–42. M.E. Heilman and T.G. Okimoto, ‘Why are women penalized for success at male tasks?: The implied communality deficit’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1) (2007) 81. M.C. Higgins and K.E. Kram, ‘Reconceptualizing mentoring at work: A developmental network perspective’, Academy of Management Review, 26(2) (2001) 264–88. H. Ibarra, ‘Professional selves: Experimenting with image and identity in professional adaptation’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 44 (1999) 764–91. H. Ibarra, ‘Making partner: A mentor’s guide to the psychological journey’, Harvard Business Review, 78 (2000) 147–55. H. Ibarra, Impossible Selves: Image Strategies and Identity Threat in Professional Women’s Career Transitions (Unpublished article, INSEAD, 2007). W.A. Kahn, ‘Relational systems at work’, Research in Organisational Behaviour, 20 (1998) 39–76. R.M. Kanter, ‘Some effects of proportion on group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to token women’, American Journal of Sociology, 82 (1977) 965–90. R.M. Kanter, ‘The change masters how people and companies succeed in the new corporate era, national association of bank women’, NABW Journal 59(5) (1983) 4.

222 Leadership Perspectives L. Kohlberg, ‘Moral development and identification’, in H.W. Stevenson, Child Psychology: The Sixty-second Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part 1 (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1963). P. Lockwood, ‘Someone like me can be successful: Do college students need same-gender role models?’, Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30(1) (2006) 36–46. A.J. Murrell and T.J. Zagenczyk, ‘The gendered nature of role model status: An empirical study’, Career Development International, 11(6) (2006) 560. R. Myatt, Whose Turn on Top: Do Male and Female Managers do it Differently? (Bristol: Kaisen Consulting Ltd, 2004). C. O’Reilly and J. Chatman, ‘Organisational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behaviour’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 71 (1986) 492–9. M.G. Pratt, K.W. Rockmann and J.B. Kaufmann, ‘Constructing professional identity: The role of work and identity learning cycles in the customization of identity among medical residents’, Academy of Management Journal, 49(2) (2006) 235–62. B.R. Ragins and E. Sundstrom, ‘Gender and power in organisations: A longitudinal perspective’, Psychological Bulletin, 105(1) (1989) 51–88. V. Schein, ‘Women in management: Reflections and projections’, Women in Management Review, 22(1) (2007) 6–18. R. Sealy, ‘The importance of female role models for senior women in varying organisational demographic contexts the diversity directors’ views’, Gender, Work, Organisation 2007 Conference Proceedings (UK: Keele, 2007). R. Sealy and V. Singh, ‘Role models, work identity and senior women’s career progression – Why are role models important?’, Best Papers Proceedings of Academy of Management Annual Meeting (Atlanta GA, 2006). R. Simpson, ‘Masculinity and management education: Feminising the MBA’, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5(2) (2006) 182–93. A. Sinclair, ‘Sex and the MBA’, Organisation, 2(2) (1995) 295–317. A. Sinclair, ‘The MBA through women’s eyes’, Management Learning, 28(3) (1997) 313–30. A. Sinclair, Doing Leadership Differently (Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 1998). V. Singh, S. Vinnicombe and K. James, ‘Constructing a professional identity: How young female managers use role models’, Women in Management Review, 21(1) (2006) 67–81. S. Vinnicombe and V. Singh, ‘Women-only management training: An essential part of women’s leadership development’, Journal of Change Management, 3(4) (2003) 294–306.

16 Distributed Leadership in Project Teams Jitse D.J. van Ameijde, Patrick C. Nelson, Jon Billsberry and Nathalie van Meurs

Much of the existing leadership literature is underpinned by the view that leadership is a vertical process, whereby one leader exerts influence over a number of followers. Regardless of the particular perspective from which leadership is studied, the assumption that leadership divides leaders from followers and that it is the leader who shapes the process from which collective social action emerges is still very prevalent in the leadership literature (Rost, 1993; Yukl, 2002; Pearce and Conger, 2003). Even the literature on team working has still put considerable emphasis on the role of formal team leaders in shaping team effectiveness (Day et al., 2006), even though the role of formal leaders in shaping collective outcomes is often greatly overestimated (Meindl et al., 1985). Recently, several authors have argued that this leader-focused approach does not pay tribute to the complexities of leadership in real organisational settings, and that influence processes are often shared between different individuals (e.g. Gronn, 2003; Spillane et al., 2004). The emerging field of distributed leadership challenges the traditional leadercentric view of leadership and instead views leadership as a process which emerges from the interaction between different individuals. This emerging area of distributed leadership is particularly relevant in present day organisations which increasingly rely on cross-functional, self-managing project teams to deal with the growing complexities of an ever changing environment. Such teams are increasingly utilised in managing project work involving matters ranging from new product development to implementing organisational change (Thamhain, 2004). Additionally, knowledge work is becoming increasingly team-based and requires the co-ordination and integration of the expertise of diverse professionals from dispersed fields (Pearce, 2004). 223

224 Leadership Perspectives

The concept of distributed leadership As distributed leadership is an area of scientific inquiry which is still in its infancy, a common understanding of the concept has yet to be generally agreed (Bennett et al., 2003; Day et al., 2004). Different authors have adopted various conceptualisations of distributed leadership. Some limit the focus on a single team or group of people (e.g. Brown and Hosking, 1986; Locke, 2003; Pearce, 2004), while others have adopted a focus which includes the whole organisation and even constituencies beyond the organisational boundaries (e.g. Spillane et al., 2004). Despite these differences, two defining principles of distributed leadership are agreed by most authors: 1. Leadership is not just a top-down influence process, but a shared influence process in which several individuals take part; 2. Leadership emerges from the interactions of the different individuals within a group or network where essential skills and knowledge are dispersed qualities.

Empirical support for distributed leadership Much of the published work on distributed leadership has been conceptual in nature, sometimes supported by anecdotal evidence. However, there is a growing body of empirical studies supporting the notion of distributed leadership as a theoretical concept and a concept of practical value. In a longitudinal study of inter-organisational project groups, Feyerherm (1994) found that leadership behaviours were widely shared among the different members within groups as they were dealing with complex and interdependent issues and decision-making. Ensley et al. (2006) studied transformational, transactional, empowering, and directive dimensions of both vertical and shared leadership within the start-up of new ventures, where founding top management teams face an equally complex and interdependent challenge. Distributed leadership variables were found to predict firm success beyond the predictive power of vertical leadership. Additionally, distributed leadership within change management teams has been found to lead to higher performance than ‘leaderdominated’ leadership (Pearce and Sims, 2002). However, it has also been argued that distributed leadership does not necessarily form a substitute traditional vertical leadership, as vertical leadership is considered to play an important role in terms of team design, boundary management, or interventions in case of critical events which disrupt team functioning (Pearce 2004; Morgeson and DeRue, 2006).

Distributed Leadership in Project Teams 225

What is interesting is that much of the existing empirical evidence has taken the traditional notion of vertical leadership as the basis of studying leadership from a distributed perspective, for instance by looking to what extent leadership behaviours are shared among different individuals (i.e. Feyerherm, 1994; Ensley et al., 2006). These traditional conceptualisations have emerged by studying leadership from the individual (leader) or dyadic (leader-follower relationship) level. With this approach, it is assumed that distributed leadership is characterised by the same principles which underpin traditional notions of vertical leadership, with the exception that those notions are applied to the group level instead of the individual or dyadic level. It is questionable whether this translation from traditional notions of leadership at the individual or dyadic level can be applied to the group level. Recent publications have highlighted the importance of clarity around levels of analysis in the leadership literature, and the problems around applying conceptualisations of leadership which have been measured at one level of analysis to a different level (Yammarino et al., 2005). Additionally, important insights regarding distributed leadership can be overlooked if we assume that distributed leadership is basically a form of aggregated vertical leadership. As a consequence, the object of our study is to depart from these traditional notions of leadership and instead look at how collective behaviour is shaped in project teams and how this can be analysed in terms of distributed leadership. The reason we chose to study project teams is that projects have many characteristics which make them appropriate as a unit of study for distributed leadership. Often, projects are cross-functional in nature and thus require individuals from different backgrounds and with different knowledge and expertise to combine their collective inputs to reach a common goal (Pinto et al., 1993). This creates a high level of interdependency between the different members of a project team and places high demands on the leadership of the team to ensure co-ordination and the integration of this collective input (Thamhain, 2004). Also, the complex nature of projects requires extended information processing, complex decision-making, and a high level of creativity of the project team; conditions in which distributed or shared leadership is particularly useful (Pearce, 2004).

Method We used a qualitative research approach looking at project teams in order to gain an in-depth understanding of how distributed leadership manifests itself in a real organisational setting. We analysed ten different project teams; five of which were successful in achieving their

226 Leadership Perspectives

purpose and five of which were not. This provided us with the opportunity to compare and contrast these projects in terms of leadership. A combination of causal mapping and semi-structured interviews were used to collect data on the ten different projects.

Research context We conducted our study within the Open University (OU), based in the UK. As is the case with many other universities, the OU has been confronted with government pressures to increase efficiency and accountability, resulting in frictions between managerial practices and the traditional way of running the university. Staff members perceive an ongoing struggle between the traditionally pluralistic culture, academic freedom and the increase of managerial top-down practices. The present conditions of an increasingly complex environment and of a surge of projects within the university offered an ideal context to further explore distributed leadership.

Sampling We initially approached five individuals (two females and three males) who were selected from a list of ten individuals that the HR director of the university had identified as people who had significant expertise and experience in project work and who had been involved in a number of projects. Four of these were from administrative leadership positions, and one was from an academic leadership position. All five occupied middle and senior management positions and had an organisational tenure of at least two years. For each of the five individuals, a session was held in which they were asked to describe two projects they had been involved in; one project they regarded as successful, and one project they regarded as unsuccessful. Therefore, the measure of project success is a subjective measure that relied on the judgement of the five individuals initially interviewed. Two factors gave us confidence that these subjective measures were valid in the context of our study. First, the five individuals were all highly experienced in project work and had been involved in a number of projects. As such, we regard them as expert judges of project success. Secondly, there was a high degree of consistency in the judgement of project success with the additional people interviewed for each of the projects. During the sessions, we constructed causal maps together with the individual for both the successful and the unsuccessful projects, focusing on the factors which caused the projects to be successful or unsuccessful. At the end of the causal mapping sessions, the individual was

Distributed Leadership in Project Teams 227

asked to name up to five people who were involved in the projects they had described. These people were subsequently interviewed to provide more data on the leadership of these projects. A total of 20 additional participants were interviewed, making 25 in total.

Data collection The causal mapping sessions with the five individuals began with the questions ‘Please tell us about the successful project that you have been involved in’ or ‘Please tell us about the unsuccessful project that you have been involved in’. These questions were followed by ‘What factors were influencing the outcomes of the project?’ The emerging factors were further explored by probing questions. Examples for those are ‘What caused this factor to influence the project in this way?’, ‘Do you see any links between the various factors?’ and ‘Are there any other factors that influenced this project?’ During follow-up semistructured interviews, the participants were asked to provide additional information on the factors that inhibited or enhanced the success of the particular projects using several prompt questions eliciting more in-depth information. The open-ended character of the prompts allowed the researchers to initiate a conversation with the participants that made it possible to explore the arising factors more deeply and to react to unexpected emerging themes.

Data analysis All interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed verbatim. The transcripts were imported into NVivo for content analysis. Initially, factors which were reported to influence the projects were coded and added to a coding scheme, which was adjusted and refined over several stages. The final set of factors which emerged from the analysis was used to code each of the projects. A random transcript was chosen and independently coded by two of the researchers yielding an inter-coder reliability of 87 per cent.

Findings Through an iterative process of coding and analysing the transcripts, several factors emerged that appear to relate to distributed leadership in project teams. Some of the emerging factors influenced the way the team managed its internal processes, such as the design of the team and the nature of the atmosphere and behaviour within the team. Other factors related to the way the team interacted with its wider

228 Leadership Perspectives

environment, such as external decision-makers, people with particular expertise which was needed by the team, people holding important resources, or individuals or groups whose support was needed. We therefore divided the factors to internal team and external organisational levels. By comparing successful and unsuccessful projects, it became apparent that the factors we identified on the organisational and team level were important in shaping the extent to which the different project teams were successful or not. Based on our findings, we have constructed a model of distributed leadership in which the different factors and their relationships are shown. This model is depicted in Figure 16.1. It is important to note here that the model provides an overview of all factors that were found as influencing team success. In each case, different factors were mentioned as important influences on team processes and outcomes, and in none of the cases all aspects were mentioned. Additionally, people reported that the importance of factors changed over the lifetime of projects. For instance, in many projects people reported external activities as being especially important at the start-up of a project, where initial support and resources needed to be acquired. The arrows within the model depict influences. We have only included influences which emerged as most important from our

Organisational level Tailoring message to receiver Feedback of progress

External activities

Involving key people

External support Community

Decision-makers

n

Tr u

Resources

io

ct

re

Di

Information

st

Expertise

Team level

Autonomy

Sharing of information Mutual performance monitoring Trust

Clearly defined goal Team effectiveness mediators

Shared internal support for goal Internal processes

Team design

Adaptability Inclusiveness

Clearly defined responsibilities Key internal expertise Team size

Figure 16.1

Model of Distributed Leadership in Project Teams

Distributed Leadership in Project Teams 229

data in order not to make it overly complex. We provide a more in-depth explanation of the model below. In the discussion section we will link the results to previous research findings.

External activities As described above, external activities are concerned with the way the team relates to and interacts with constituencies outside of its boundaries. In our study, this was predominantly done through exchanging information with people and groups external to the team. The way a team engages in external activities was found to influence the success of the team strongly. Without conducting external activities effectively, project teams often failed to acquire important resources such as funding, time, or equipment. Also, acquiring timely and accurate information from outside the team through external activities was often found to be essential for effective decision-making within the team and for aligning team activities with wider organisational goals. External activities were often important for acquiring specific expertise which were not available within the team, but were essential for the team to function effectively. In most projects, external activities were performed by a variety of people, not just the designated team leader. Also, external activities did not only constitute formal mechanisms such as meetings or reports, but just as often consisted of highly informal activities in which people relied on informal contacts within the organisation. One factor that was found to be important in the way a project team related to external constituencies was the need to tailor specific information to the receiver. On one side, this constituted a political process in which information was moulded in a way that suited the needs of important decision-makers in order to get their support or acquire resources. However, it also constituted the provision of information which was relevant to the particular perspective of the receiver, or the expression of this information in language which was understandable to them (such as the translation of technical details into a form which does not require specific technical expertise). Project teams which specifically focused on tailoring information to the perspective of key people outside of the team were often more successful in getting support, information, and resources from decision-makers as well as the wider organisational community. Another important external activity was the feedback of progress. Such feedback was not only found to keep external people informed, it also served as a way of building trusting relationships with decisionmakers or the wider community, granting a degree of legitimacy to the

230 Leadership Perspectives

activities of the team and increasing the likeliness of decision-makers to trust the team to make autonomous decisions. The feedback of progress was also a way of acquiring continuing support and involvement of stakeholders outside of the team, and served as a mechanism to align the internal processes of the team with the wider organisational goals. The final aspect of external activities we found to be important was the involvement of key people. This did not only encompass the involvement of key decision-makers to acquire their support in terms of trust or resources, but was also a means of gaining specific knowledge, skills or information which was not available within the team. In these cases, a person from another department or function could temporarily be involved in team activities when specific skills or knowledge were required. In many of the projects, such external people belonged to the informal network of the team members and involving them helped building and maintaining quality high relationships between the team and people elsewhere in the organisation. The involvement of key people was especially important if these people had a stake in the work or outcomes of the team, or when those people could significantly influence on the success of the team.

Internal processes The second aspect important for distributed leadership concerned the way the team managed its internal processes. Several factors influencing distributed leadership at the team level were identified. They were subdivided into team design factors and team effectiveness mediators. Below, we will first describe the team design factors and then present the team effectiveness mediators.

Team design Several factors relating to team design were found to be important in shaping distributed leadership at the team level. These factors were often influenced by external decision-makers in the formation of the team, and concerned aspects such as team size, the particular expertise of the team members, the way responsibilities were defined, the extent to which the team was granted autonomy to make its own decisions, and the actual goal or purpose of the team as well as the extent to which the team members actually supported this goal. First of all, autonomy was found to be an important factor relating to successful distributed leadership. Teams which had a certain degree of autonomy to make their own decisions were found to be more flexible

Distributed Leadership in Project Teams 231

and effective as they did not have to wait for external decision-makers or committees for approval. A lack of autonomy was also reported to often lead to frustration of team members as progress was often slow. Teams that had a certain amount of autonomy could engage more effectively in decision-making and leadership. A clearly defined goal was another aspect which influenced the effectiveness of distributed patterns of leadership. Teams which reported a clearly defined goal were more effective in integrating and co-ordinating their efforts and reported less duplication of activities. Teams which reported the lack of a clearly defined goal were more likely to report stifled team progress as there were no clear measures of whether progress towards the goal was being made and what activities were still needed. Besides the clarity of the goal, internal support for achieving the goal was also found to be important for the emergence of successful distributed leadership. Projects in which team members believed in the goal and thought it was worthwhile were more likely to contribute actively to achieving it and aligned their individual inputs to the team as a whole. Project teams in which members lacked a shared support for the goal were more likely to exhibit counter-productive behaviours. Another factor was the clarity with which team member responsibilities were defined. Clearly defined responsibilities were found to be essential for the emergence of successful distributed leadership as such clarity was found to facilitate effective co-ordination and integration of contributions. Teams in which responsibilities were clearly defined were more likely to contribute to the team goal without infringing on what other members experienced as their role space. They were also less likely to overlook or repeat essential activities. Additionally, teams in which responsibilities were linked to important areas of expertise of the team members were found to be more effective in reaching team goals. Teams in which responsibilities were assigned for other reasons than being an area of expertise reported significant problems, both internally as well as in the interaction with the wider organisation. Key internal expertise was found to be another important factor for the emergence of successful distributed leadership. Expertise here does not only concern formal knowledge or skills in a particular discipline, but also the key skills and knowledge around internal politics, culture and procedures. Teams in which essential expertise was readily available were found to be more successful in integrating the necessary expertise in the process of leadership, thereby guiding collective team action. The final aspect of team design that influenced successful distributed leadership was team size. Teams which were reported to be too small

232 Leadership Perspectives

often lacked essential expertise which was needed in order to function effectively. In contrast, teams which were reported to be too large often had the essential expertise available within the team, but faced significant difficulties in integrating and co-ordinating the expertise in the process of leadership. This seems to indicate the importance of a certain balance between having the right amount of core task-related expertise internal to the team while keeping the team size manageable. Expertise which is more peripheral to team effectiveness can subsequently be integrated in the process of leadership through effective boundary management. In our study, teams between three and seven members reported most successful team outcomes.

Team effectiveness mediators Team effectiveness mediators consist of specific behaviours and attitudes within the team which were found to influence the success of distributed leadership in project teams. In contrast to team design factors, they could not be strongly influenced by external decisionmakers as is the case with team design factors. Team effectiveness mediators were found to influence the way in which members within teams worked together and they were reported to be causes as well as results of the way the team worked over time. Sharing of information within a team was found to be essential for all the team members to have a common understanding of the issues facing the team and for the team members to be able to participate in shared decision-making and leadership. In teams which reported a lack of information sharing, there was often a lack of transparency in the process of leadership and decision-making, sometimes resulting in reports of disengaged or frustrated team members, a lack of co-ordination of team effort, and a lack of trust. Mutual performance monitoring concerns team members keeping track of each other’s activities and giving feedback, help and suggestions where needed. We found that although formal team leaders were often involved in monitoring the performance of team members, in successful teams such performance monitoring was often conducted by a variety of different members. For some teams, this meant that outputs or ideas were checked by several team members and that feedback was integrated leading to higher quality outcomes. Teams that regularly engaged in mutual performance monitoring were found to be better at spotting difficulties or problems and subsequently being able to address them. This process made it possible for teams to build on each other’s strengths and balance out each other’s weaknesses. In

Distributed Leadership in Project Teams 233

some of the successful projects, performance monitoring would even include team members providing feedback and input regarding the activities of team leaders, especially in cases where the expertise of these members was particularly relevant for a specific phase of the project. Trust was another factor found to be important for effective distributed leadership in project teams. Project teams which reported high levels of trust were more likely to accept all members making contributions to team leadership and shared information more openly. Teams in which members reported a lack of trust often reported a lack of delegation of responsibilities to all team members and a lack of transparent decision-making. Adaptability concerns the capacity of a team to change its approach in reaching the goal in case of emerging problems or changes in the environment. For some teams a lack of adaptability resulted in the loss of clients, while other teams reported interventions from external decision-makers when the team failed to self-adapt to changing circumstances. Teams which reported issues of adaptability were also often characterised by lack of information sharing and mutual performance monitoring. Inclusiveness involves team members feeling that their input is being asked for, recognised and valued within the team and its decisionmaking. It was found to serve as an important input to the distribution of leadership as members can contribute their specific knowledge to the process. Teams which reported a lack of inclusiveness sometimes reported a more subversive and individualistic work approach of team members.

Discussion By taking a qualitative approach aimed at identifying the factors that influenced the success or failure of projects, we have avoided adopting a specific predefined conception of distributed leadership. From the study of project teams it became quite clear that team conduct was not shaped or ‘lead’ by one single person either internal or external to the team, but that leadership emerged from the interactions of diverse individuals each exerting their influence. The factors that emerged from this study seem to be important in shaping the extent to which such distributed patterns of leadership occur in project teams. Also, it became apparent that people external to the team had an influence in the leadership of the team, either by contributing their particular

234 Leadership Perspectives

expertise to team activities when needed, or by providing information, support, or resources. Several of the factors we found to be important contributors to distributed leadership have also been identified by other authors in relation to distributed, shared, and team leadership. Pearce (2004) argued for the importance of several factors relating to team design and team effectiveness mediators, such as the allocation of responsibilities, optimal team size, a clearly defined goal (vision), expertise, and trust. Also, Day et al. (2004) identified adaptability, mutual performance monitoring, and team orientation, which can be related to the inclusiveness factor in our model. Additionally, Burke et al. (2006) describe the importance of consideration and empowerment in relationship to effective teamwork. The inclusiveness factor in our model shows strong resemblance to consideration, and empowerment from decisionmakers within the organisation is an important determinant of delegated decision-making power to the team. Not only do our findings support these previous positions and ground them in empirical qualitative data, they also extend them into a model of distributed leadership. Although our study was aimed at gaining an understanding of how distributed leadership could be understood in the context of project teams, our findings clearly show links with other literatures. As Ancona and Caldwell (1992) state, the importance of the way in which a team interacts with external constituencies is of particular importance in shaping the performance of a team. Their topology of external activities includes moulding and informing, which are conceptually similar to what we have labelled ‘tailoring message to receiver’ and ‘feedback of progress.’ Other authors have reiterated the importance of boundary management or boundary spanning for internal team functioning (e.g. Ancona and Caldwell, 1992; Elkins and Keller, 2003; Pearce, 2004; Burke et al., 2006). However, much of this literature has highlighted the role of boundary management in acquiring resources and information for the team (e.g., Brown and Eisenhardt, 1995; Pearce, 2004). In the context of distributed leadership, such boundary management seems to be of additional importance in shaping distributed leadership through the acquisition of expertise residing externally to the team and integrating this expertise in the process of leadership. Our findings also show clear overlap with the literature on selfmanaging work teams. In particular, the factors relating to the management of internal team processes shows strong overlap with findings around aspects which have been found to foster team self-management. As Wageman (2001) found, well-designed teams are teams with a clear

Distributed Leadership in Project Teams 235

boundary and purpose, a clear and compelling direction, and an appropriate team size. These findings are supported by our findings that a clearly defined goal along with an internal support for this goal and an appropriate team size are important factors enabling the emergence of distributed leadership. Also, Wageman (2001) states that an enabling team structure is composed of an optimal skill diversity which balances heterogeneity with the need to integrate the efforts of the diverse members; this finding was replicated in our study. Additionally, she notes the importance of a supportive organisational context for fostering effective self-managing work teams. Our study enriches this finding by highlighting the role teams play in actively seeking support from the wider organisational context. Her findings indicate that well-designed teams are highly likely to take on management functions themselves, which is reflected in our findings that teams showing distributed patterns of leadership are likely to engage in mutual performance monitoring. When distributed leadership is compared with a more traditional notion of leadership in teams, a difference in behaviours becomes apparent. Distributed leadership places less emphasis on tasks being leader-specific than in traditional notions of team leadership. In the framework presented by Burke et al. (2006) the identified team leader behaviours include managing personnel resources (e.g. by providing compelling direction) and managing material resources (e.g. ensuring a supportive context). The notion of managing personnel resources shows overlap with internal processes in our model, whereas the concept of managing material resources is partly covered by our finding that teams have external activities to perform. However, a team engaged in successful distributed leadership is more inclined to pass these tasks down to the team member being most suited to perform such activities due to individual knowledge, skills and abilities.

Some suggestions for further research A logical next step for further research is to explore in what ways the factors that influence distributed leadership differ between project teams and more permanent structures, such as departments or units. Earlier work suggests that teams will develop routines for situations they encounter on a regular basis (Gersick and Hackman, 1990) and that intervention is only needed in the face of critical events (Morgeson and DeRue, 2006). As project teams are often temporary in nature, team members often have to adapt to new ways of working and new colleagues in the formation of such a team, thus posing additional challenges in terms of leadership. Also, in more permanent structures

236 Leadership Perspectives

boundary management is likely to be embedded in more formal existing structures and procedures, whereas such structures and procedures are more often missing in project teams. Such differences are likely to result in different manifestations of distributed leadership.

Conclusion We think the concept of distributed leadership is a useful perspective from which to study leadership, and in practice could play a major role in the future of our knowledge-based society as it combines the strengths of various individuals and balances their weaknesses. This study has focused on the importance of the mechanisms through which the dispersed expertise of various individuals can be integrated into the process of leadership. It could be argued that the idea of distributed leadership poses important implications as to how organisations approach the development of their workforce. Instead of investing in the development of the leadership capabilities of its designated leaders, attention could shift towards developing a climate in which the expertise of the entire workforce is incorporated in the process of leadership.

References D.G. Ancona and D.F. Caldwell, ‘Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organisational teams’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 37 (1992) 634–65. N. Bennett, J.A. Harvey, C. Wise and P.A. Woods, Desk Study Review of Distributed Leadership (Nottingham: National College for School Leadership, 2003). S.L. Brown and K.M. Eisenhardt, ‘Product development: Past research, present findings, and future directions’, Academy of Management Review, 20 (1995) 343–78. M.H. Brown and D.M. Hosking, ‘Distributed leadership and skilled performance as successful organisation in social movements’, Human Relations, 39 (1986) 65–79. C.S. Burke, K.C. Stagl, C. Klein, G.F. Goodwin, E. Salas and M. Halpin, ‘What type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis’, Leadership Quarterly, 17 (2006) 288–307. D.V. Day, P. Gronn and E. Salas, ‘Leadership capacity in teams’, Leadership Quarterly, 15 (2004) 857–80. D.V. Day, P. Gronn and E. Salas, ‘Leadership in team-based organisations: On the threshold of a new era’, Leadership Quarterly, 17 (2006) 211–16. T. Elkins and R.T. Keller, ‘Leadership in research and development organisations: A literature review and conceptual framework’, Leadership Quarterly, 14 (2003) 587–606. M.D. Ensley, K.M. Hmieleski and C.L. Pearce, ‘The importance of vertical and shared leadership within new venture top management teams: Implications for the performance of startups’, Leadership Quarterly, 17 (2006) 217–31.

Distributed Leadership in Project Teams 237 A.E. Feyerherm, ‘Leadership in collaboration: A longitudinal study of two interorganisational rule-making groups’, Leadership Quarterly, 5 (1994) 253–70. C.J.G. Gersick and J.R. Hackman, ‘Habitual routines in task-performing groups’, Organizational Behavior and Human Development Processes, 47 (1990) 65–97. P. Gronn, ‘Leadership: Who needs it?’, School Leadership and Management, 23 (2003) 267–90. E.A. Locke, ‘Leadership: Starting at the top’, in C.L. Pearce and J.A. Conger (eds) Shared Leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2003), pp. 271–84. J.R. Meindl, S.B. Ehrlich and J.M. Dukerich, ‘The romance of leadership’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 30 (1985) 78–102. F.P. Morgeson and D.S. DeRue, ‘Event criticality, urgency, and duration: Understanding how events disrupt teams and influence team leader intervention’, Leadership Quarterly, 17 (2006) 271–87. C.L. Pearce, ‘The future of leadership: Combining vertical and shared leadership to transform knowledge work’, Academy of Management Executive, 19 (2004) 47–57. C.L. Pearce and J.A. Conger, Shared Leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2003). C.L. Pearce and H.P. Jr. Sims, ‘Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of change management teams: An examination of aversive, directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors’, Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6 (2002) 172–97. M.B. Pinto, J.K. Pinto and J.E. Prescott, ‘Antecedents and consequences of project team cross-functional cooperation’, Management Science, 39 (1993) 1281–97. J.C. Rost, Leadership for the Twenty-first Century (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1993). J.P. Spillane, R. Halverson and J.B. Diamond, ‘Towards a theory of leadership practice: A distributed perspective’, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36 (2004) 3–34. H.J. Thamhain, ‘Linkages of project environment to performance: Lessons for team leadership’, International Journal of Project Management, 22 (2004) 533–44. R. Wageman, ‘How leaders foster self-managing team effectiveness: Design choices versus hands-on coaching’, Organisation Science, 12 (2001) 559–77. F.J. Yammarino, S.D. Dionne, J.U. Chun and F. Dansereau, ‘Leadership and levels of analysis: A state-of-the-science review’, The Leadership Quarterly, 16 (2005) 879–919. G. Yukl, Leadership in Organisations, 5th edn (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 2002).

Index action and friendship 48 Adair, J. 3 adaptability 65, 105, 113, 118, 235 and career transitions 210 distributed leadership 74 innovation and coherence 94 lack of 233 responsive leaders 109 and social identity 157 adaptive leadership 107, 109 Adie, K. 115 alignments and alliances, building 171 Amazing Grace 31 amicitia perfecta 49, 50 another self 50, 51 arena, in management learning context 91 Aristotle hexis 45 model of friendship 43, 48–51 and wisdom 61 armoured glass ceiling attitude 115, 127 articulated strategy 80, 81 attributed charisma 147 authenticity 52, 119, 124, 173, 210, 217, 219, 220 autonomous manager 181 autonomy 8, 58, 59, 87, 93, 96, 97, 135, 140, 177, 230–1 Basic Idea see Main Idea Big Idea see Main Idea Blunkett, D. 180 boundaryless careers 58–9 British Army, leadership in 9 context 114–16 findings 121–7 and gender literature 116–20 research method 120–1

career profile 124 career transitions 59, 210 causal mapping 226–7 celebrity scrutiny 4 CEO 2, 6, 60, 72, 82, 83, 199, 201 challenge model and effective leadership 138 shared and distributed leadership 73, 164–5 choice-making 184 and anxiety 77 and Main Idea 80 and men 217 and organizational choices 164 rational choice model of behaviour 168 and women chief executives 109 Churchill, W. 178 Clapham Group 29, 35, 38, 39, 40 and Wilberforce, in slave trade abolition 30–2 clarity 225 distributed leadership and responsibilities 231 of goal 231, 235 and not-for-profit (NFP) organisations 81 and organisational benefits 97–8 classical neutral executor 181 classical view of friendship 51, 55 clinical research methodology 62 Cloke, K. 99 close combat roles 115 co-evolutionary theory 87, 89 coherence 87 and formal authority 92 levels 94 and plurality 89, 98 strategic 94 collaborative practice 9, 112

238

Index 239 communication 32, 33, 147, 165, 195, 197 in cross functional teams 157 and effective leaders 135 self-organising processes 34 and voluntarism 98 communitarian approach 89–90, 91 communities of practice (COP) 87, 89 compassion 8, 58, 60, 61, 64, 68 complex responsive processes and leadership 32–4 and spirituality 34–6 and Wilberforce 36–8 conformism 58, 59, 67 Confucius and wisdom 61 congeniality and collaborative practice 105 see also gender congeniality; pleasure construction of leadership, new 7–9 containment 61 of anxiety 72, 80, 81, 83 and distributed leadership 75 and rites of passage 66, 68 content prescriptions 76 contingent reward 147 core expertise 183 corporate social responsibility 94, 167 courage and expatriation 64 moral courage 124 and virtue 60 credibility 80, 173 to act as role model 134–5, 138 and high expectations 195 strategic leaders 72, 81, 83, 94 and women 125 and work-based persuasion 195 critical friendship 51 Critical Incident 123 critical mass approach 216 critical thinking 60–1, 64, 68

Defence Advisory Service on Women in the Services (DACOWITS) 115 Delivering Security in a Changing World 116 departmental affiliation and leadership development 10, 144, 148–9 German and UK chemical industries, leadership in 149–52 knowledge into action 156–7 leader prototypicality 145–8 limitations and future research 157–8 theory and research, implications for 155–6 transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership 152–5 departmental identities 157 departmental leadership 136, 137 dialectical analysis model 121 discontinuity and event 17, 23 Dissenters 39 distributed leadership 73–4, 75, 136, 164, 223 discussion 233–6 empirical support for 224–5 findings 227–33 external activities 229–30 internal processes 230 team design 230–2 team effectiveness mediators 232–3 method 225–7 data analysis 227 data collection 227 research context 226 sampling 226–7 effective leadership 8, 10, 117, 194 components of 138 in higher education, in UK 10, 133, 134–41 and political awareness 173 and prototypicality 146 and skills 172 embodied strategy 77 emotional intelligence 175

240 Index empirical perspective 7, 8, 15, 98, 99, 100, 158, 175, 193 distributed leadership, support for 224–5 of exploring leadership 18–22 leaderful moment 22–6 work-based relationships, aspects of 197–8 ‘enabling others to act’ principle 138 Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) 116 evangelical Christianity 30, 32, 36, 37, 38 event 21 critical events 224, 235 cultural undercurrent 22, 25 leadership as 16–18 perception, two-way process of 23 expatriation and rites of passage 64–6 disappointing return 66 liminaries of sojourn in foreign country 65 transforming preparations into preliminaries 65 expert civil servant 181 false self 8, 58–9, 62, 65 fearless speech 53 feedback 97, 210, 229–30, 232, 233 female Army officers 115 feminisation, of military phenomenon 119–20 blending strategy 120 ‘five forces’ model 76 followership 162 frankness of speech see parrhesia friendship 8, 43 art of 51–4 hospitality 52–3 parrhesia 53–4 classical view of 51, 55 conceptual framework 44–8 as a state of mind 48 critical friendship 51 matrix of 47

motivation for, Aristotle’s model 48–51 and utility 52 front-line leadership 5, 7 Functions of the Executive 34 gender advantage 117–19 gender congeniality 9, 114, 118, 120, 121–2, 126, 127 gendered perspective 11 gender literature and leadership 116–20 gender management 124–5 Georgian society of William Wilberforce 29 The Global Compact 60 globalisation 83, 165, 166 globally responsible leader 58 compassion and caring 61 critical thinking and reflexivity 60–1, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68 liminality as transitional space 67–8 from technocratic skills to global responsibility 59–60 transforming preparations into preliminaries 65 wisdom 61–2 ‘good enough mother’ 67, 69 good society and organisational voluntarism 89–90 government, devolved and political-management leadership 186–90 governmental spaces 183 Greiner’s model of organisational lifecycles 47–8 Grenville 39, 40 hands-off behaviour 150, 151, 156 heroic leader 4 hexis 43, 45, 52 higher education, leadership in 10, 130 interviewing leadership researchers 137–8

Index 241 literature review findings, summarising 134 main findings 134–7 main research designs 133 searching 131–3 reflections on findings 138–41 researching 131 homophily 215 horizontal leadership 112 hospitality and art of friendship 52–3 identikit 140 identity and identification 209 implicit leadership theories 146, 149 importance of context 9–10 inclusiveness 233, 234 individualised consideration 147 ineffective leadership 138, 139 infantry 115 information sharing 232 inspirational motivation 147 ‘inspiring a shared vision’ principle 138 integrated model of leadership 74 intellectual stimulation 147 intended strategy 76, 77 internal expertise 231 interpersonal skills 170, 171, 172 intimate relations 45 Iraq 115, 116, 181 key people, in distributed leadership and project teams 230 King, Martin Luther 77 knowledge into action 1–2, 156–7 laissez-faire 147, 150, 152–5 leaderful moment 17, 18, 26–7 empirical perspective 22–6 leader prototypicality 144, 145–8 Leading Change: Making the Difference 138 liminality, as transitional space 67–8 liminaries 64 of sojourn in foreign country 65

Livingstone, K. 178 local communities 98 local government 11 Local Government Act (2000) logical incrementalism 76

177

Machiavellian perspective 167 Main Idea 9, 72, 77–82 content of 80 and leader 79–80 management-by-exception 147 manager motivations and organisational voluntarism 97 managinary system 59 matrix of friendship 47 Maud-Trevelyan reforms 178 MBA course content 217–18 gendered behaviour on 218–19 Middleton, Lady Margaret 31 military combat paradigm 115 Military Leadership Factor model (MLF) 10, 114, 121, 123 ‘modeling the way’ principle 138 moral courage 124 moral energy 60 motivation for friendship Aristotle’s model 48–51 Multifactor Leadership questionnaire 152 multiple case study approach 199 narrative themes 8, 33, 34, 63, 66 National Health Service (NHS) National Electronic Library for Health 132 normative expectations 146 not-for-profit (NFP) organisations 80 omnipotent illusion 67 organisational benefits 97–8 organisational demographics and role modelling 215–17 organisational effectiveness 87, 97 organisational plurality 87–9 centrality of 96 organisational politics, as democratic asset 99

242 Index organisational voluntarism 9, 89–91, 96–8 organisation citizenship behaviour (OCB) 87, 89 organised dissonance 98 parrhesia and art of friendship 53–4 particularised efficacy beliefs 193 peer relationships 204 perception of congeniality for women 121 experience of 16 gap 122 of immediate present 17 of individuals 158 of leadership 25–6 on leadership behaviour and effectiveness 152 and photography 18 about self-efficacy 11 shared prototypical perception 10 two-way process of 23 performance monitoring 232 personal skills 140, 170, 171, 172, 175 perspective behavioural 144, 146 of classical friendship tradition 44 communitarian 90 complex responsive processes 35, 37 distributed leadership 225, 236 empirical 7, 15, 18, 26, 98, 99, 100, 158, 175, 197–8, 224–5 executive leadership development 201, 204 gendered 11, 122 leadership theory 7 Machiavellian 167 political negotiation 99 ‘politics solely as self-interest’ 168 post-heroic models 29 psychodynamic 8, 9, 72, 74–5 stakeholder theory 92 wisdom 62 universal becoming 16

photography and leaderful moment 18–19 decentering preoccupation with leader 22–3 impact on leadership perception 25–6 limitations of, and leadership aspects 24–5 physical fitness 125–7 physiological and emotive states 196 Pitt 31, 39, 47 planning and control approach 108 business model 110–11 pleasure and art of friendship 49 political awareness 163 context of leadership 164 dimensions of framework 170–2 interconnectedness of 172 distributed leadership 164–5 external and internal leadership 165–6 followership 164 leadership 173–5 outside and inside organisation 165 political skills framework, developing 169–70 politics in 167–9 working across diverse interests 166–7 political biography 182 political correctness and critical thinking 60 political institutional leadership 91–3 political leadership 92, 93, 116 Political Leadership Questionnaire 169 political negotiation 99 political philosophy 87, 89 political servant 181 political space 183–4 political-management leadership 177 current challenge 177–8 government, making 186–8 leadership, negotiating 184–6

Index 243 political-management relations, modelling 181–4 politics and management, combining 178–81 political-management space 184 ‘politics solely as self-interest’ perspective 168 post-heroic leadership 5, 7 post-liminaries 64, 66 power 94, 123, 189, 218 centrality of 29, 97 dynamics of 6 informal 92 relations 34, 37, 41 and social relations in organisational working 96 in Western societies 208 power relation 37, 94 challenge to leaders 41 and communitarianism 91 and complex responsive processes 34 practice collaborative practice 9, 112 communities of practice (COP) 87, 89 of friendship 51–4 implications for 111–13, 156–7, 219–20 knowledge of 2 and leadership, potential split between 2 representative leadership 93 and research 2–3 and role models 219–20 pre-briefing 185 preliminaries 64 transforming preparations into 65 primary risk 77 Principal Components Analysis (PCA) technique 198 Process and Reality 16 process philosophy 15 exploring leadership, empirical perspective 18–22 insights from 16–18 process prescriptions 76 production settings 149 professional competence 123

professional space 183 prototypicality, of leader 10 psychoanalysis 53 psychodynamic perspective 8 psychological similarity 198, 201–4 public sector 9, 11, 138, 165, 189 public sector leadership 105, 177 change strategies 107–11 context 106–7 implications 111–13 public sector organisations 140–1 Pygmalion effect 195 Quakers

37, 38

rational choice 168 reading, of people and situation 170–1 realised strategy 76 reflexivity 8, 58, 60, 61, 64, 65, 66, 68 narratives 63 relationship and leadership 10–12 relationship management 123 Repertory Grid technique 120, 121, 123, 125, 198, 199 representative leadership 93–5 responsible leadership 8 responsive manager 181 responsiveness of leaders 108–9 of staff 111 Rise and Progress of Religion 30 rites of passage 63–6 expatriation 64–6 disappointing return 66 liminaries of sojourn in foreign country 65 transforming preparations into preliminaries 65 liminaries 64, 65 post-liminaries 64, 66 preliminaries 64, 65 rituals 64, 66 symbolism 66 rituals, reintroducing 66–7

244 Index role models importance, in leaders’ professional identities development identity and identification 209 implications for practice 219–20 management education influence and identity development 217 MBA course 217–19 minority contexts 211–12 organisational demographics 215–17 possible selves 210–11 unpacking the value 212–15 women only leadership courses 219 Royal Armoured Corps (RAC) 115 Royal Path 59 the Saints 39 self-awareness 40, 59, 123, 170 self-efficacy beliefs 193 importance in leadership context 194 and relationships at work, link between 196–7 sources of 195–6 work-based relationships, empirical aspects of 197–8 self-fulfilling prophecy 195 self-interest 116, 167, 169 self-sufficiency 11 sense making 82 sensitivity of chemical processes 150 sexual harassment 116 shared leadership 73 significant others 199, 202 Slave Trade Act (1807) 29 social identity 148, 149, 155, 156, 157, 215 social learning theories 209 social persuasion 199–200 SOLACE commission (2005) 178 spatial metaphors 182 spirituality and leadership 29, 34–6 complex responsive processes 32–6

implication for current leaders 40–1 quality of conversation and participation 36–8 quality of diversity 38–40 Wilberforce and Clapham Group, in slave trade abolition 30–2 St Aelred of Rievaulx 51 stakeholder theory 87, 92 St Anselm 50 St Bernard 51 stewardship model 140 strategic couplings 96 strategic direction and scanning 171–2 strategic leadership 72 developments in leadership concept 73–4 Main Idea 77–82 strategic management 75–7 top leader roles, psychodynamic perspective on 74–5 system enthusiasts 108 tension 108, 110 theme(s) abolition movement 38 conversational 33, 36 of friendship 46, 47 leadership as 34, 165 leadership in local government 11 in leaderful moment 22–6 and Main Idea 77–82 narrative themes 8, 30, 33 and voluntarism 97 work-based relationships and performance 196 THES 3 Thornton and evangelical Christianity 32 Thoughts Upon Slavery 38 Times Higher 139–40 tokenism 215 top leader roles 81–3 psychodynamic perspective on 74–5 transactional leadership 116, 117, 118, 146, 147, 152–5

Index 245 transformational leadership 116, 117, 118, 120, 125, 146, 147, 152–5, 173 transitional space 67–8 true-to-self strategies 211 trust 35, 53, 61, 134, 172, 189, 200, 201, 229–30, 233 lack of 138 UK Armed Forces 117 unconscious dynamics expatriation 64–6 internal maelstrom 65 mourning 67 regression 66 working through 66 United Kingdom 30, 37, 115, 130, 131, 137, 139, 141, 144, 149–52, 226 United States 115, 131, 133, 139, 211 universities, leaders in 140 utility 10, 142 and Aristotle’s model of friendship 49 and friendship 52 and Military Leadership Factor (MLF) model 114, 123, 127 of photographs 26 values 6, 17, 35, 36, 38, 40, 41, 49, 52, 87, 90, 93, 97, 115, 116, 119, 155, 168, 183, 211, 218, 224 of role models, unpacking 212–15 vera amicitia see amicitia perfecta verbal persuasion 195

vertical leadership 224–5 traditional notions of 225 vicarious experience 196, 200 virtue 8, 60 civic virtue 93 of compassion 61 and friendship 48, 49 and wisdom 58, 61–2, 64 voluntarism 86 leadership 91–3 organisational context, changing 87–9 organisational voluntarism 89–91 as emerging theory 96–8 representative leadership in organisations 93–5 Ways Women Lead 117 Whigs 39 Whitehall departments 112 Wilberforce, W. 8, 29, 39, 40, 47 and Clapham Group, in slave trade abolition 30–2 and complex responsive processes 36–8 wisdom 2, 58, 60, 61–2, 64, 68, 189 women 105, 211–12, 214, 216–18 Army officers 9, 114–16 chief executives 109 female advantage argument 117 innovative women 110 women only leadership courses 219 see also British Army, leadership in women only leadership courses 219 work-based relationships 204 empirical aspects of 197–8