Leadership in Organizations
Summary of the articles
Article 1 – Managers doing leadership: The extra-ordinarization of the
mundane
- Leadership is about the manager/leader being active and powerful. The leader acts, the follower
responds
- There often is made a distinction between leadership and management. Where management is
understood as something closer to bureaucracy and stability.
- Barker claims: ‘’The function of leadership is to create change while the function of management
is to create stability’’ and ‘’leadership creates new patterns of action and new belief systems’’
- Researchers claim a great divide between management/managers and leadership/leaders,
between bureaucrats and people of true grit capable of offering strong ideas and a sense of
direction with which people choose to comply.
- However, little attention is paid to the more mundane (wereldse) aspects of managerial work
and leadership. It makes sense to consider the possibility that what managers and leaders do is
not always that remarkable or different from what other people do in work organizations
(listening, administration, chatting, etc.)
- In many cases, the meaning and significance of leadership may be more closely related to the
mundane than to the carrying out of great acts or the colorful development and implementation
of strategies and changes
- Three points are made in this article:
o Illuminating the question of the distinctiveness and significance of leadership. Is
leadership really as extraordinary and special compared to general organizational work?
This article suggests that at least in one important respect leadership might not be as
heroic and special as indicated in most literature.
o Concerning how leadership is still ascribed some special and symbolic meaning, making it
more significant than the fairly trivial behavior noted that the study would suggest. The
article argues that managers (‘’leaders’’) do may not be that special, but because they
are managers doing ‘’leadership’’, fairly mundane acts may be given an extra ordinary
meaning
o Questioning the validity of the management/leadership distinction. Based on this study,
they argue that there are significant activities ‘’outside’’ the seemingly all-embracing, but
on closer inspection the dichotomy (gelijkheid) of management and leadership is not
fully convincing.
A note on leadership research
- Management: controlling, coordinating and directing. While it is more formal and scientific than
leadership. Often also related to the creation of stability, structure, systems, and bureaucracy.
o Fagiano: ‘’Describes managers as those multiplying effectiveness of superiority by getting
others to carry out instructions’’
- Leadership: knowledge workers as ‘inspirational’ and ‘supportive’. The formulation of vision is
central. Often involves vision, cooperation, networking, teamwork, creativity and inspiration
, o Fagiano: ‘’Leaders help others to do the things they know need to be done in order to
achieve the common vision.’’
- Dubrin lists a variety of characteristics of being a leader versus being a manager
Being a leader Being a manager
Visionary Rational
Passionate Consulting
Creative Persistent
Inspiring Though-minded
Innovative Analytical
Courageous Structured
- However, it is important to not take any of these aspects to the extreme.
- The person doing leadership is typically viewed as active and masculine. (S)he is in control, has
superior insights and enacts a strong impact on subordinates. Have to disorient people so new
relationships can develop
- There is a strong assumption of asymmetry in the leader-others relationship
- Even though there is a strong understanding of what leadership/management contains, little
attention is given to the less controlling ingredients of the manager’s/leader’s work. Observation
indicate that a lot of managerial behavior is reactive – responding to initiatives and requests of
others.
- The non-directive side of leadership, like listening, is barely mentioned in literature. However,
this side is particularly relevant to consider in the context of knowledge-intensive companies and
knowledge work in which the facilitating and inspiring aspects of leadership are said to be
central. Authoritarianism and asymmetry in social relations are fairly low
- Listening is barely mentioned in research, and in research where it is mentioned, the empirical
evidence on it is quite low.
- And to the extent where they are treated empirically, they are usually viewed as marginal, in
contrast to other tasks like planning, decision-making, staffing etc. who are seen as more
significant
The study
- This study is based on the study of listening in a variety of situations.
- This study looks first at whether listening might be important, and if so, why. Second it looks at
the meaning given by those talking about it.
- The study isn’t claiming that listening in itself is important in leadership, but they see the
significance and meaning ascribed to this activity by the managers, that they studied, as an
interesting clue to understanding the construction of leadership.
- It has similarities with the attribution theory (emphasizes the perception of leadership and the
tendency to see leadership as the cause of various outcomes)
- They are interested in how managers themselves – rather than their subordinates or other
people – perceive leadership. They explore meaning rather than investigate reasoning in causal
terms
- The study took place in one large knowledge-intensive company, Byoteck, with the main focus
on one R&D unit.
, - The people under ‘’investigation’’ are mainly middle- or senior middle-managers. While being
studied during both formal and informal meetings.
- The organizational culture of Byoteck includes values and meanings such as autonomy, network
building, interest in knowledge, and fairly symmetrical relations across formal hierarchies.
- People in this company may, to some extent, be considered as being highly intrinsically
motivated as to a large extent they do what interests them
- All these conditions mentioned above shape issues of leadership significantly in a knowledge-
intensive setting, to the extent that they might all substitute for leadership (or at least strongly
downplay the necessity of it)
- The complexity of the work and the difficulties managers have in understanding and intervening
in the work processes also contributes to the production of a particular situation in which it is
difficult for managers to exercise much behavioral or output control.
- There are no guiding research questions, just the wish to understand organizations from an
interpretive and constructionist point of view
- The study then follows a form of skeptical interpretivist line, in which pre-understanding and the
use of alternative frames of thinking are central
- The leadership interviews conducted were non-directive
- When managers in interviews, in other research from the authors, were asked about leadership
they talked about conveying and formulating a visions, strategies and overall guidelines. When
the authors asked them to specify the practice of leadership, they constantly failed to specify in
practice notions of visions and strategies. Instead, they elaborated on other aspects, some of
which could be described as rather mundane and petty activities
o Not the main argument of the study, but the authors believe that managers may have
problems in coming up with convincing talk about visions, strategies and overall
guidelines when asked to specify leadership
- The authors suggest that talk of visions and strategies seems more connected to the promotion
of managers of their own significance and consequently more linked to their identity work, than
being a description of what they do as managers
Managers doing leadership
- When managers are asked to elaborate upon and specify what they possibly mean by leadership
and how they exercise leadership, listening, chatting and being cheerful have been put forward
and elevated as important
- The authors interest is to understand the ideas and orientations of those being studied, of how
leadership is being constructed
- A rationale for their focus is that the authors wee this upgrading of listening as an indication and
example of how managers (and presumable others) understand ‘’leadership’’
Listening
- Summing it up, listening is described as an important activity in leadership. Mostly used to:
o Getting people to get along in teams and make them feel included and respected
o Find the right emotional tone in interactions
o Make people feel reassured
o Understand and gather and structure information
o Get people to feel confirmed and less anonymous
o Facilitate decision-making
o See it as a general sign of being a good boss
, Chat and listen
- Some managers mentioned small talk, in which they are on equal footing with co-workers and
where they listen as much as talk
- One manager explained that being available for informal chats is central for many subordinates
and thus central in leadership
- Another manager mentioned he keeps himself informed on projects by talking to scientists,
instead of reading protocols and talking to management
- A few managers maintained the importance of listening of a way of creating equal relationships,
where a subordinate could say ‘’everything’’ when thought the manager was doing good/bad.
- Managerial presence in general, is very important for chatting/small talk
- Some forms of chatting could be seen as a value itself, improving the workplace.
- A few interviewees pointed towards managers’ leadership as creating a feeling of enjoyment
The extra-ordinarization of the mundane
Outside the dichotomy of management and leadership
- The managers interviewed in this article suggest that the ability to listen, chat, and to some
extent being cheerful, are far from being ordinary, insignificant and mundane. In contrast, they
are discussed as being key aspects of their presumed leadership.
- However, these activities are not the activities that are related to the idea of leadership. The
ideas related are those of grand ideas, visions, and engaging people in speeches
- The facilitative, social, and communicative dimensions put forward in our case seemingly fall
outside mainstream management. Hence, managers’ talk of leadership does, in some respect,
point towards themes beyond ideas of both leadership and management as commonly
understood
Listening as an extraordinary activity
- Some of the managers’ quotes fit into an information-processing approach which may be part of
the manager as a decision-maker or as a provider of direction. In this context, few would doubt
the importance of listening, it’s an element in social interaction. However, it won’t be viewed as
vital or interesting
- Leading through listening, or the good manager as a good listener appear as important aspects
of what leadership in this company is about
- One important meaning of listening is that it conveys a feeling of inclusion, participation and
social significance. It makes people feel engaged and interested
- Another important meaning of listening is the reduction of anxiety. Managers can listen to create
reassurance, a feeling of security among subordinates. It displays interest and caring about
opinions and feelings, before embarking upon changes.
- Listening can also be used as identity confirmation. It can make people feel less commodified,
and more recognized. Alienation can be reduced through this listening. It shows respect.
- Listening and chatting are also very much a matter of having positive relations, it’s positive and
important to interact informally and talk about everything
- Being able to chat informally with a superior can give subordinates some kind of confirmation on
their being
- Subordinates play an important role in this all. The knowledge, will, and ideas mostly emerge
from subordinates. Whereas managers should act as a knowledge manager, being receptive to
and process further viewpoints and information from below.
