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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

are Caldwell and Dixon (2010), Fletcher and Kaufer (2003), Hammond et al. (2003), Lichtenstein et al. (2006) and Slotte (2006). It is interesting to note that all are theoretical rather than empirical studies. Taken together these six papers present a number of implications regarding the feasibility of realising I-Thou dialogue between leader and follower. I have summarised these into two areas shown in Figure 4 for clarity. The first set of issues relating to the perception of leader and follower and the communication between them represent hindrances to I-Thou encounters. They are based very much on an entitative perspective of leadership and acknowledge the predominant view of the difference in power between leader and follower. In contrast the second set of ideas relating to the possibilities opened by different definitions of leadership indicate how I-Thou might be encountered in the leader- follower relationship. Figure 4: Buber's ideas related to leadership 20
i. Inhibitions to leader-follower dialogue In relation to the first area, traditionally, leader and follower are seen to possess differing status and along with that power. Leadership is therefore often regarded as a synonym for positional hierarchical authority, (see Ashman and Lawler, 2008; Hammond et al., 2003). This in turn leads to followers, at least implicitly, being regarded as passive and needing a leader in order to motivate or empower them to do something. Caldwell and Dixon (2010:97-98) state the consequence; “traditional thinking…suggests that leaders ought to be distant and aloof from employees and avoid connecting with employees at the emotional level. Leaders who put employees at arms-length and who view employees as commodities, means, or as “its” still exist in many organisations today”. Additionally the leader is often expected to live up to heroic expectations and any possibility of the leader exhibiting vulnerability or humility is disregarded (Ashman and Lawler 2008). Coupled with this the level of trust in business leaders by followers is relatively low (Caldwell and Dixon 2010) and given Buber wrote about the importance of openness and authenticity this can be regarded as a challenge to leaders and followers wishing to encounter each other in dialogue. The stage is clearly set for a very imbalanced relationship between leader and follower which has further significant implications for the way in which they are traditionally perceived to interact and communicate, as the second area in Figure 4 illustrates. Communication is assumed to be essentially one-directional and Slotte (2006:797) refers to this as the ‘conduit metaphor’ which portrays communication as a pipeline flowing in one direction. In Buberian terms, it is also characterised as primarily technical dialogue; i.e. the communication has a specific purpose to transmit information rather than any overriding purpose to build relationship. In this form of communication followers risk being commoditised or objectified and regarded as a unified homogenous group of people. Any potential that communication might have beyond these purposes is stifled. Even when ‘open communication’ and ‘dialogue’ are espoused by the leader, the reality is that the forums provided for these ‘open’ discussions are often designed by the leader, with the leader’s agenda in mind, (Hammond et al., 2003). The one-sided nature of the communication is thus still present. 21
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 and 14: accessible to a pragmatic individua
Page 15 and 16: and Uhl-Bien, 1995) and charismatic
Page 17 and 18: many of their propositions are cert
Page 19: to leadership theory” (2008:253).
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?