The practice of leadership: in search of a new theorising

Citation

Berry, T. (2000), "The practice of leadership: in search of a new theorising", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 21 No. 7. https://doi.org/10.1108/lodj.2000.02221gaa.001

The practice of leadership: in search of a new theorising

The practice of leadership: in search of a new theorising

When participating in a workshop on leadership in early 2000 the matrix shown in Table I, was sketched. It related modes of working to the change orientation of the "Leadership" group producing four ideal outcomes; accidental, preservative, enabling and strategic.

Most managerial literature is written on the assumption that leadership, in a world of quasi, is actively seeking strategic change. But as soon as the question was raised it became clear that leadership across a range of organisations can consciously and/or unconsciously seek any or all of these four outcomes, but in relation to different issues in their domains. So leadership is not only about deciding upon change and making it happen, but is enacting aspects of the organisational, societal or cultural context in which it occurs. (And of course any given organisation may centre itself on any one of these and construct appropriate leadership.)

Leaders: active in complexity?

But it also true that leadership action takes place in very complex systems in relation to other sets of complex systems. This might be "construed" as simple but it can not be made simple. It is not clear how any leaders can manage entry into these very complex systems. We do not know much about the kinds of interventions leaders do and can make into these sets of complex systems. Are there patterns of prophetic insight and demands, of challenge, of teaching and learning, of being a guide or fellow traveller on the journey?

Complex organisations?

Given the problem of complexity we have discovered (again?) that leadership on its own will not succeed; which is why collaboration and teams are given so much attention; whether varieties of consultation or participation. This is not only because organisations, having had long periods of hierarchy and managerialism, have turned to assumptions of egalitarianism, as more suited to the age of individuality. It is more because the knowledge explosion has exposed the limitations and capabilities of leaders and enhanced the need for many contributions.

Social institutions?

While we can conceptualise leaders as holding and giving expression to values and beliefs, both inspiring, providing and articulating visions, such persons are enacting values and beliefs in a social field and are rarely as independent as they might wish to think; they can be accidental, strategic, preservative and enabling at the same time. Hence for leaders of organisations there is/was an imperative to work at the systemic and inter-systemic levels and there is much current effort in theorising from the familiar intra organisational focus to both inter and extra organisational foci. This requires an engagement with culture and its patterns and changes. We have little information on how leaders work at understanding the market for beliefs and values.

Geoffrey Vickers' commendation of the art of judgement requires forming a multi-faceted appreciation of ambiguous and uncertain situations with discernment, a search for wisdom and the significance of systemic wisdom, a need for flexibility.

The societal

There are, in almost all of the leadership literature, unstated assumptions of perfection as the goal. This idealisation serves us, it seems, by taking away the gaze upon imperfections, of corruptions, leads us away from the realities of transforming injustice, of being aware of the consequences of action in a real world, of, as it were, being grown up. Where is humanity here?

And there is a tameness or taming of leadership in the literature; there is little of the wildness of creativity, of unpleasantness, of human destructiveness or incompetence. Where has the literature located the ferment of the interfaces, of the edges; of the presences and absences, the places of creativity, of experiment, failure, survival and success, the insecurity of experience? There is writing about risk and entrepreneurial leadership, but is this making safe and understood that which really is risky, uncertain, ambiguous or downright dangerous?

The birth of what some are calling the Chaordic age addresses the paradox of intertwined chaos (within bounds) and order, perhaps at the boundary but not outside it. Leaders do not control because they cannot. This gives new life to the themes of emergence; not so much controlled but arising out of interactions. In this notion of change, there is intent and design but there is no dominance of one actor, rather there is pluralism of persons, organisations, contexts which shape events. In this sense institutions and organisations have designed and emergent properties; so how does any organisation in a field choose to run, let alone lead, itself. And are there systems of survival in the emerging shifting field? Or is the task of leadership here to reformulate, deconstruct and reconstruct?

Are we really seeking or should we search for an "Art of leadership in post modernity"; rooted in emerging individuality, no longer seeking an public or egalitarian outcomes, and with little care for the stable hierarchy of modernist forms? The kaleidoscopic leader perhaps?

The formation and reformation processes?

There is little known about the process of formation of leaders. Natural learning, structured learning in a variety of ways; much is on offer, and why not? Rather as an invitation to essay critical reflexiveness on the hoof in a busy world.

If the social field is shifting so quickly and fundamentally to late modernity or in part to post modernity, how is structured leadership development possible? Are there choices, and if there are, who can make them in the context of organisational development and institutional and societal change?

Does all significant change come from the "edge" rather than the middle. What is it that attracts, sustains, retains membership or adherence? And who and what can be given voice? And where lies voice in relation to the boundaries of entry or exit?

Studying leadership

If it be accepted that the social field within which organisations are embedded is undergoing radical change then leadership studies face some very critical challenges. First, how can we enter a dialogue about these matters. For it means that we will have to reconsider the functionalist and realist assumptions that underpin much research and extend the epistemology and ontology of leadership studies. This is not merely an academic exercise, for the academic community needs to understand where leaders are travelling. Second, we need studies rooted in phenomenology, ethnomethodology, etc. addressing individual, group and organisational stories and how leadership is being (re)constructed. There is a need to be attentive to a critical reading of the experience of persons in roles in systems and of working with them on making senses.

Tony Berry