“Dialogue – possible between leader and follower?” - Ashridge

More documents

Recommendations

Info

his ideas are lived in practice in the minds of leaders; whether, even though they may not be familiar with Buber himself, they experientially understand and appreciate what he was saying. Below I now examine the literature on relational leadership. I am interested in whether this burgeoning field mentions Buber’s work or alternatively, explores more generally the experience of dialogue between leader and follower. Surely if any part of the huge domain of leadership literature would explore this it would be relational leadership given the essentially relational nature of dialogue and Buber’s focus on the ‘in between’. c. Relational leadership Relational leadership shares with dialogue the difficulty in confining itself to a definition which accomplishes wide agreement. Uhl-Bien (2006:654) paves the way for clarification in her Leadership Quarterly article which outlines two main perspectives of relational leadership: an entity approach “that focuses on identifying attributes of individuals as they engage in interpersonal relationships”, and a relational perspective “that views leadership as a process of social construction through which certain understandings of leadership come about and are given privileged ontology”. Relational Leadership Theory (RLT) is then offered by Uhl-Bien as “an overarching framework for the study of leadership as a social influence process through which emergent coordination….and change…are constructed and produced” (2006:654). In other words, according to Uhl-Bien, who builds on the work of Dachler and Hosking (Dachler and Hosking, 1995; Hosking, 1988, 2007), the leadership literature domain can be divided into two. Firstly, there are those views that perceive leaders as possessing certain qualities with relationship as an exchange between such a person and an other, i.e. a follower. These views focus on the attributes of the leader, the follower and the relationship as ‘things’ that can be studied and to a certain extent objectified. Well known examples of this perspective are the leader-member exchange (LMX) theory, (for example Graen 14
and Uhl-Bien, 1995) and charismatic leadership theory, (for example Shamir et al., 1993). This is in contrast to a more recent focus in the leadership literature on the process of leadership; examining how, when people are in relationship, the phenomenon of leadership arises and how each person in that relationship is changed as a result of that meeting. Additionally, in such a process orientated view, the spotlight falls on how individuals make meaning from the interaction; how they understand leadership and how this understanding forms as a result of socio-historical factors. In this sense leadership and indeed followership are clearly phenomena of interpretation and subjective assessment. Barrett et al. (1995), Bligh et al. (2007) and Ladkin (2010) are examples of authors writing from this point of view. Relational leadership initiates possibilities for leaders and leadership which are fundamentally different from previous views: • It “recognises leadership wherever it occurs”, (Hunt and Dodge, cited in Uhl-Bien, 2006:654). In other words it does not restrict leadership to those in hierarchical positions; leadership does not only happen in a manager-subordinate situation, where leadership is equated to ‘headship’. • It shifts focus onto the processes rather than the persons, “Relational perspectives”, therefore, “identify the basic unit of analysis in leadership research as relationships, not individuals” (Uhl-Bien, 2006:662) and as such “processes such as dialogue and multilogue become the focus” (Uhl- Bien, 2006:663). • Knowledge in relational leadership is viewed as socially constructed, i.e. our meaning making is influenced by our socio-historical position and the opinions, thinking and actions of those around us. Uhl-Bien (2006:655) reminds us that “meaning can never be finalized…it is always in the process of making”; our predominant understanding of the term ‘leader’ appears to be undergoing a change in its meaning, away from ‘special and superior’ and perhaps towards something which allows more space for equal sharing of views and influence from followers. 15
Page 1 and 2: “Dialogue - possible between lead
Page 3 and 4: 2. Background It is difficult for m
Page 5 and 6: 3. Literature Review a. Dialogue Th
Page 7 and 8: Figure 1: the historical developmen
Page 9 and 10: Both sets of authors have in common
Page 11 and 12: academic work linking the two areas
Page 13: accessible to a pragmatic individua
Page 17 and 18: many of their propositions are cert
Page 19 and 20: to leadership theory” (2008:253).
Page 21 and 22: i. Inhibitions to leader-follower d
Page 23 and 24: can easily grow into a feeling that
Page 25 and 26: Research questions, methodology and
Page 27 and 28: A methodology which has grown in us
Page 29 and 30: My experiences of co-operative inqu
Page 31 and 32: • The very ambiguous and uncertai
Page 33 and 34: • As the above points indicate, i
Page 35 and 36: Where next? The process of co-opera
Page 37 and 38: References Anderson, R., Baxter, L.
Page 39 and 40: Habermas, J. (1984), The theory of
Page 41: Stewart, J. and Zediker, K. (2000),

“Dialogue – possible between leader and follower?” - Ashridge

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?