Theories of Leadership

Journal of Leadership and Management 13 (2018) 185-199 ISSN: 2391-6087 Cabell’s Listed Theories of Leadership Betina Wolfgang Rennison Center for Research in Leadership and Organizational Development, VIA University College, Rennison Research, Denmark ABSTRACT The theoretical field of leadership is enormous – there is a need for an overview. This article maps out a selection of the more fundamental perspectives on leadership found in the management literature. It presents six perspectives: personal, functional, institutional, situational, relational and positional perspectives. By mapping out these perspectives and thus creating a theoretical cartography, the article sheds light on the complex contours of the leadership terrain. That is essential, not least because one of the most important leadership skills today is not merely to master a particular management theory or method but to be able to step in and out of various perspectives and competently juggle the many possible interpretations through which leadership is formed and transformed. Keywords: leadership, management, review, roles, relations, institutions, contingency, power Correspondence address: Article info: Betina Wolfgang Rennison, Ph.D. Available online: 28 September Owner of Rennison Research 2018 Docent, Center for Research Editor: Adam Szpaderski in Leadership and Organizational Development, VIA University College, Hedeager 2, 8200 Aarhus N, Denmark e-mail: [email protected], [email protected] 1. Introduction Leadership is a “slippery phenomenon”(Selznick, 1957: 22). It is not possible to capture it or plot leadership into fixed formulas, as it is a fluid and ambiguous phenomenon. Never the less, both theory and practice are strongly occupied with the leadership concept: “[t]he leader has become one of the dominant heroes of our time … Almost regardless of the problem, leadership is presented as the solution…irony is that although almost everybody studying and practicing leadership emphasizes its importance, people define it in varied, vague and often contradictory ways” (Alvesson and Willmott, 2012: 122). Researchers, managers, consultants, management gurus and many others are regularly claiming that they have discovered the proverbial goose that lays the golden eggs; the essence of leadership and the key to good management – only to be confronted shortly thereafter by new, competing attempts at capturing the concept. The article in hand is based on this apparently endless discussion of the leadership concept – it maps out a selection of the more fundamental perspectives on leadership found in the 2018 Published by Institute of Management and Leadership Inc. Journal information: 2018 Published by Institute of Management and Leadership Inc. Journal homepage: www.leadership.net.pl management literature. This review is limited to leadership theory of an academic nature and focuses on how leadership in and of organizations is described by selected researchers and a few select practitioners. The aim is a sort of cartography of the leadership theory terrain such that we arrive at an overview of the complex contours of the leadership field. The article builds on the assumption that it is possible to create an overview of leadership theory; however, this assumption raises a number of problems. First and foremost, it is difficult to characterize leadership as an independent theoretical field, as research in leadership and management involves a rather eclectic mix of diverse scientific disciplines. Moreover, the discussion addressing the concept of leadership is closely linked to its concrete practice and to the experiences and theories emerging from this practice; leadership theory concepts are therefore often of a more heuristic character, which can help arm practitioners in the exercise of the art of leadership. Leadership research typically has a strong, prescriptive orientation and it attempts to develop standards for correct, good or effective 186 Betina Wolfgang Rennison / Journal of Leadership and Management 13 (2018) 185-199 leadership. Finally, we arrive at the ambition of the article, which is to create an overview of a world characterized by an ever-increasing and comprehensive production of new leadership concepts, which promptly challenge any attempt at delimitation and summary. Despite these challenges, six different perspectives on organization leadership are presented here: personal, functional, institutional, situational, relational and positional perspectives. These perspectives have been derived on the background of a categorization of a number of the most common themes in the leadership literature while at the same time representing different analytical levels: an individual level (the personal perspective), an interpersonal or interactional level (the relational perspective), an intra-organizational level (the functional and situational perspectives), an inter-organizational level (the institutional and situational perspectives) and a societal level (the positional or power perspective). The following analytical points guide the description of the perspectives: Object: What sets the perspective as the object for its definition of leadership? Issue: What is the basic problem being addressed? Purpose of leadership: What is the leadership aiming for? Leader figure: Which kind of ideal leader does the perspective present? And finally, the focus on leadership development: What does leadership development become? The review of each of the six perspectives is concluded with some key analytical questions of relevance when analyzing leadership within this particular framework. 2. The Personal Perspective The crucial aspect in the personal perspective is who the leader is. Here, the focus is on the leader’s person and which personality traits a leader has/should have. “Traits” are defined as individual characteristics that: • are observable and measurable; • vary between individuals; • demonstrate stability in temporal and situational terms, and, • predict attitudes, decisions and behavior (Antonakis, 2011: 270). Over the course of the history of the study of leadership, numerous suggestions have been made as to which “traits” or individual characteristics a successful leader should ideally possess. These are first and foremost personal characteristics, such as high cognitive intelligence, ambitions, energy, initiative, emotional maturity and strength, high self-confidence and self-esteem, seductive charisma, confidence, credibility, honesty, responsibility, the ability to stand alone, self-reflexivity, self-irony and humor. Next, interpersonal characteristics, such as high social and emotional intelligence, empathy, diplomacy, responsiveness, being open to cooperation, conflict resolution, communicative abilities and the ability to instill commitment, develop team spirit and mature relationships. And finally, managerial characteristics such as the ability to make decisions and act on them, being result-oriented, analytical ability, organizational flair, being visionary, being open to change, willing to take risks, together with a subtle understanding of the enterprise and the world around it. A rather extensive portfolio of competences. In an attempt at reducing the rich repertoire of leadership attributes in the field, reference is made internationally to “The Big Five” or “5-factor model” for a manager’s personality, such that a good manager is typically: 1) outgoing and energetic, 2) conscientious and well-organized, 3) curious and innovative, 4) sociable and welcoming, 5) emotionally mature and enriched with high self-esteem – a so-called healthy narcissism (Yukl 2002: 192). To this one might add the necessity of a well-developed self-awareness and recognition of one’s strengths and weaknesses. A leader’s self-understanding is directly proportional to the results he or she produce. Regardless of whether one settles on five or more traits and whether they are presented as being absolute and universal or not, it is possible to observe how they change in relation to time and space. Firstly, the ideals have changed over time (Rennison, 2011, 2007). Over the years, the number of leadership characteristics has increased, and their relative importance is constantly disputed (Antonakis, 2011). Secondly, the relevance of the characteristics depends on the organizational context, personnel group, level of leadership, the surroundings and so forth. A leader with special traits can be a success in one situation and yet an utter failure in another. Thirdly, it is important to also consider the ongoing discussion of what personality is to begin with: a) an individual’s internal, solid essence, their innate traits, preferences and past experiences (authentic self) or b) a stable pattern of interactions that varies in different situations and are shaped depending on the interaction with others (relational self) – or perhaps c) a constructed narrative, a narrative about the individual that is found in multiple versions and continuously revised by the “authors” and/or “audience” (narrative self). In short – is personality something with which we are born or can it be Betina Wolfgang Rennison / Journal of Leadership and Management 13 (2018) 185-199 changed and shaped? Is leadership an innate characteristic or a learned competence: nature or nurture? When considering the recent debate on leadership, we observe a pendular motion between two extremes (Rennison, 2011, 2007). Attention was first primarily focused on leadership skills as fixed personality traits – which in turn led to a focus on leadership recruitment rather than leadership development. With the increasing professionalization of management as an independent profession however, the focus on leadership shifts from something one just “is” to something one develops to become: One can be educated to become a leader. Leadership is no longer the reserve of a kind of “biological aristocracy” with innate abilities but rather, in principle, democratically opened up for everyone with certain qualifications. From a historical perspective, the education of leaders first takes form with the development of subject-specific qualifications pertaining to the individual’s leadership qualifications. This is later supplemented with a broader development of skills and the unfolding of the individual’s overall portfolio of competences – not least their social and personal skills – and then more recently assuming the form of individual talent development and cultivating the particular flair for leadership. The focus is again on those with a natural flair for leadership or those who have the potential for leadership within themselves. Management is no longer only a profession for the many with relevant, upgraded qualifications and competencies but now a person-borne function for the chosen few in the talent program. Unlike a qualification or competence, a talent cannot be learned via education or experience; it is a kind of personal x-factor, which is an innate, ingrained potential that must be spotted, awakened and cultivated. Talent-spotting becomes the new trait-spotting. The historical pendulum swings back. As background for the notion of talent, the following is pointed out: “[f] or quite some time, it has been universally accepted that management is a profession and that it can be learned. And this is not wrong. But ... not all of the requirements for successful leadership can be learned readily. There are some skills that are rooted in the manager’s personal characteristics that they preferably have with them in their ‘personal luggage’ – from their background – as developing these skills requires too many resources to develop. Leadership is a profession, but it is also about a specific way of ‘being’ – and thus a matter of personal sophistication” (Væksthus for Ledelse, 2009: 24 – own translation). The slogan would appear to be “human first – leader next”. As Helth and Kirkeby write, “the leader must look within their own being in order to be a proper leader. The 187 good leader is first and foremost a human who leads humans” (Helth and Kirkeby, 2007: 16 – own translation). The human dimension is basically about three kinds of attention: 1) value-based attention directed towards that which one thinks and feels; 2) intentional attention directed towards that which one does and how one does it; and 3) relational attention directed towards other people and one’s “authentic empathy” (Helth and Kirkeby, 2007:49). The basic point in the personal or authentic leadership is that leadership is not merely a professional role that the leader can put on and take off (the functional perspective), but rather an integrated part of the leader’s personality. As Henry Ford and his colleagues wrote ages ago, “where leadership used to be a series of tasks or characteristics, it is now an identity” (Sinclair, 2011: 509). Who the leader is as a person becomes crucial for the practice of leadership. And what does that then entail? In the modern international context, authentic leadership is typically associated with having clear knowledge and acceptance of one’s so-called true self – and acting accordingly – to deal with transparency and credibility in relations, to increase the psychological capital among one’s followers and to create a positive ethical climate and serve as a positive role model worthy of imitation (Jackson and Parry, 2011: 117). The personal perspective is traditionally associated with so-called “heroic leadership”, where the leader as role model – the great personality or “great man”– leads the way, takes responsibility and sets the course for the organization and personnel, making the necessary decisions and boldly predicting the course of events. This is a “leader–follower” strategy whereby the leader as figurehead and role model reduces the complexity for the employees, who are then able to follow confidently in their leader’s footsteps. As an ideal, heroic leadership is not despotic but rather demagogical in an ethically defensible manner – the leader is to be accountable for the ethics of that which they do and thereby make others do. An ethical leader is ”someone who does the right thing, the right way, and for the right reasons”, as it is written (Jackson and Parry, 2011: 114). This also means that a leader is often expected to possess higher ethical standards than their followers. A leader is and shall be a role model. All told, the leader – their personality, authentic appearance and ethical responsibility – forms the organization and its employees. Consequently, the leader gets the organization and personnel that they deserve. A leadership analysis inspired by the personal perspective is primarily concerned with basic issues such as: Which emotional, cognitive and behavior patterns has a (specific) leader? Which values, motives, characteristics Betina Wolfgang Rennison / Journal of Leadership and Management 13 (2018) 185-199 188 and abilities should leaders possess? How do the leader’s individual characteristics affect the exercise of concrete leadership activities and with which consequences? How does one ensure that personal authenticity and originality in leadership are at the same time universally accepted and socially recognizable as legitimate leadership? How to they deal with the transparency resulting from personal leadership when the leader, as a “whole person”, not only displays their strengths but also their limitations and uncertainties? Where are the distinctions between person and function, between private and professional life? 3. The Functional Perspective What is decisive in the functional or behavioristic perspective is not who the leader is as a person but rather what the leader does – or rather, the function of leadership. In order to classify the leadership functions, it is common practice in the literature on leadership to refer to two basic functions: management versus leadership (e.g., Zaleznik,1992; Kotter, 1999) or transaction management versus transformation management (as coined by James MacGregor Burns in 1978 and Bernard Bass in 1985 and further developed by, among others, BennisandNanus1997 and Daft and Lengel 1998). The basic points are presented in the table below (own creation). Table 1. Management versus leadership CATEGORY MANAGEMENT The main point in the functional perspective is that the leadership role consists of multiple roles. To begin with, the aforementioned basic roles, management and leadership – but these two roles multiply. Henry Mintzberg’s three-pronged typology of roles includes all of ten roles: interpersonal roles, including the figurehead, captain, liaison; information roles, including being the information monitor, disseminator and spokesperson; and decision-making roles, such as the initiator, problem-solver, distributor of resources and negotiator (Mintzberg, 1989; Jacobsen and Thorsvik, 2008: 372; Bakka and Fivelsdal, 2010: 219). Management is a versatile function – Chester Barnard, one of the other absolute classics in the field, identifies three main functions: 1) ensure good communication, 2) ensure individual motivation and create a good framework for the work to be carried out, and 3) define objectives and direction, displaying moral commitment (Barnard, 1938; Gabor and Mahoney 2010).1 LEADERSHIP Human nature Rational man Social man Rationale Instrumental-regulative Relational-communicative Organisation Hard – mechanical – structural Design and systems Soft – organic – procedural Desire and symbols Type of problem “Tame problems”; complicated but recognizable and solvable “Wicked problems”; complex, no clear solutions Purpose Efficiency via cost–benefit calculation. Doing things right; how and when? Legitimacy via socially appropriate behavior. Doing the right things; what and why? Method Control of specific behavior; raise, rule, dictate Trust and common values; develop, empathize, facilitate Relations Individual exchange relations between principal/agent Collective interaction between equal parties Motivation Reference to reason and material interest Appeal to emotions and sense of belonging As the table illustrates, the two leadership functions stand in opposition to one another: “Leadership works through people and culture. It’s soft and hot. Management 1 works through hierarchy and systems. It’s harder and cooler”, as John P. Kotter polemically writes (Kotter, 1999: 11). Instead of understanding the two forms of leadership as separate worlds requiring a choice between alternatives, it is often considered more appropriate to see them as integrated and connected(e.g., Mintzberg, 2010). As Levy has written so eloquently: “in each individual you need to have the mind of a manager and the soul of a leader” (Jackson and Parry, 2011: 19). In actual management practice, it is customary to divide leadership in four general functional or activity areas, the intensity of which vary according to which managerial level the manager is on: firstly, administrative management, which includes personnel and the planning of operations, the budget and accounting, payroll, reporting, evaluation and so on. Secondly, professions-oriented management, which includes the objectives and framework for the work, feedback on assignments, the delegation of responsibility, the creation and sharing of knowledge, quality development, job development and the identification of customer/user needs. Thirdly, personnel management (HRM), which covers the management of human relations and resources, including recruiting, retention, dismissals, wages and salaries, the development of skills, talent and career development, conflict mediation, job satisfaction, recognition, equality/diversity, care and support. Fourthly, In addition to Barnard and Mintzberg, the following classical functional typologies is worth mentioning: Ichak Adizes’ PAEI-model, with its four leader roles: producer, administrator, entrepreneur and integrator (Adizes, 1981; Larsen, 2002: 47; Moeslund, 2011: 128). Meredith Belbin’s nine manager/team roles: sharper, implementer, completer, coordinator, team-worker, resource investigator, plant, monitor evaluator and specialist (Belbin, 1981; Larsen, 2002: 64; Moeslund, 2011: 127). Robert Quinn’s eight managerial roles: mentor, innovator, mediator, producer, manager, coordinator, supervisor, stimulater (Quinn, Faerman, Thompson and McGrath, 1996). Betina Wolfgang Rennison / Journal of Leadership and Management 13 (2018) 185-199 strategic management, which refers to development of values, visions, missions, objectives as well as forecasting, secure and monitoring the organizational performance and achievements. Within the respective functional areas, management is typically expected to work with activities such as decision-making, organization, coordination, monitoring, controlling, involvement, delegation, motivation, networking, communications, supervision and innovation. In these activities we recognize the heritage of Henri Fayol’s (18411925) five managerial functions from 1916: planning, organization, coordination, command and control – and his successor, Luther Gulick’s (1882-1993) classic POSDCORB model for a manager’s most important tasks and activities: planning, organizing, staffing, directing, coordinating, reporting and budgeting (Gulick, 1996: 94). Gary Yukl offers a more contemporary typology of specific managerial activity or behavior and distinguishes between three different types of behavior (Yukl, 2002: 65): 1) Task-oriented behavior (planning, clarifying, monitoring), focused on specific task performance and the organization of work; 2) Relation-oriented behavior (supporting, developing, recognizing, coaching), that is directed at developing relations, increasing cooperation, the organization of teams and networks, motivating the development of competences and careers, ensuring commitment, displaying trust and recognition, promoting job satisfaction; 3) Change-oriented behavior (create enthusiasm for change and its progress), centered around making visionary/strategic decisions, adapting the organization to changes in the surroundings, increasing flexibility, experimenting with alternative approaches, structures and cultures and encouraging innovation, “creative destruction” and thereby significant changes in relation to products, processes and personnel. The three behaviors interact when a manager is determining which behavior is appropriate in a given situation – and in which combinations. As Yukl(Yukl,2002: 74) notes, however, it is important to keep in mind that all of the taxonomies of behaviors and roles are more or less arbitrary – and it is therefore essential that specific managerial practices as well as the exploration of them maintain some measure of flexibility with respect to what correct and efficient managerial behavior is and can be. This also touches upon the continued need to further develop management and continuously upgrade the managerial skills and technical and methodological knowledge required by the respective functional areas. The functional perspective puts a premium on management development: Management can be learned – it is a question of training; more a matter 189 of nurture than about nature. A management analysis inspired by the functional perspective addresses basic issues such as: Which activities do the managers carry out, where, how often, and together with whom? Which roles do the managers play when processing information, making decisions and are in contact with others? Which task-oriented, relation-oriented and change-oriented behavior do the managers display? What is of particular interest about the methods that the managers make use of, the activities they participate in, the stream of these activities in the course of an ordinary working day, their way of spending their time and so forth? What are the consequences of different types of behavior for how work is carried out? In short: How does management unfold in practice, in relation to which specific tasks and with what effects? What do managers do when they manage – and how does this take place? 4. The Institutional Perspective The key factor in the institutional perspective is to shift the focus from management in organizations – and thus the manager’s direct impact on organization performance (via their person and/or function) – to the management of organizations via culture- and value-based management. The focus shifts from what management does in the organization to why the organization is doing what it does on the basis of its institutional foundations, internal and external sets of values and socio-cultural mindset. The essence in institutional leadership is “the promotion and protection of values”, as Philip Selznick proclaimed towards the end of the 1960s (Washington, Boal and Davis, 2007: 2). A point that Gareth Morgan and others repeated 30 years later by emphasizing that leadership increasingly will become a question of the ability to mobilize people’s efforts and loyalty by creating common values and shared understandings (Morgan, 1989: 22);or as noted in a more contemporary source: “[i]t is the role of leadership to turn an organization into an institution by infusing the organization with values and creating a distinct organizational identity and sense of purpose that is in fact internalized by organizational members as meaningful” (Podolny, Khurana and Besharov, 2010: 73). The institutional perspective is concerned with how to create cohesion and social order in a differentiated, complex and occasionally chaotic society and company. What is it that makes an organization function as a relatively smooth, collective entity despite of all? The answer is institutions; that is, meaning-bearing and pattern-forming 190 Betina Wolfgang Rennison / Journal of Leadership and Management 13 (2018) 185-199 structures (formal as well as informal, material as well as linguistic) – be they rules, roles and routines, symbols, values and cultures that create cognitive schemas, normative guidance and regulative directions that inhibit and enabling social behavior (Scott, 2008: 429). Institutions provide a relatively fixed repertoire of opinions and actions, which reduce complexity and state in advance, what to think, do and tell. Institutions set an ethical compass and codes for appropriate behavior, thereby enabling a shared sense of direction, collective identity and internal consistency. As management researcher Rosabeth Moss Kanter has written: “… leaders can compensate for uncertainty by institutional grounding – identifying something larger than transactions or today’s portfolio that provide purpose and meaning. Institutional frameworks permit diverse, self-organizing people to gain coherence” (Kanter, 2010: 577). By linking to the institutional set-up in and around the organization, by demonstrating the value of the values and activating them as something more than merely being for show and empty rhetoric, the institution management is responsible for creating a meaningful whole that the employees and other stakeholders can commit to and identify with. This is about initiating identity formation through identification, where the individuals see themselves as being part of something bigger. With the institutions as the frame of reference, an imagined community and a voluntary following are created by the desire to realize common projects and values based on a collective “we”. Institutions thus create consensus, conformity and continuity, which is regarded as crucial in an age marked by volatility and an express-rate mentality. Mats Alvesson puts it this way: “[a] key challenge for organizations is to maintain stability… working with the reproduction of basic values, assumptions, meanings and symbolism is a key aspect of organizations. Change happens all the time, but a lot of the changes going on need to be channeled in ways so that they are in alignment with basic cultural orientations… this is probably a major part of what managers do. They can be seen as cultural maintenance workers” (Alvesson, 2011: 158). In addition to maintaining cultures and creating internal integration via internalized institutions, an institutional leadership also aims at adapting externally by making ties to prevailing values and expectation structures in the outside world. From an institutional perspective, the viability of an organization depends on the support, recognition and acceptance of its surroundings. Concern for social legitimacy is at least as crucial as more business-oriented efficacy concerns. Institutional leadership is therefore also about caring for image and branding. The right values must be signaled, which are able to strike a balance between deviant originality and recognizable normality. As we know, there is more identity to be found in deviation than in adaptation, but the gap cannot become too wide, as seen in the fact that most corporations have almost identical sets of values, typically revolving around openness, quality, responsibility, commitment and respect (Morsing, 2001). This relates to how values are at one and the same time local and universal – but also that the institutional set-up of the organization is not merely an expression of its unique profile but also a sign of its organic nesting in the world around it. Institutional management must deliver on the border between the organization and the outside world; in the gap between isolation and isomorphism – and must thus master simultaneously being open and closed in a manner that accepts the desired institutionalized standards while rejecting inappropriate elements. Here, institutional leadership is able to draw on multiple strategies regarding the surroundings (e.g. Brunsson, 2002; Czarniawska-Joerges and Sevón, 1996; DiMaggio and Powell, 1991; Røvik, 1998): • an immunization strategy, whereby the organization defends its integrity and makes it immune to “hostile” influence. As such, we do not only use values to mark agreement but also to mark disagreement – to separate and make a difference; • an imitation strategy whereby the organization, through coercive, normative and mimetic isomorphic processes, adapts to their environment; • a decoupling strategy whereby hypocrisy and ceremonial symbolic politics at one and the same time ensure external conformity and internal protection; loose couplings are made and boundaries set between the outer shell and inner core; • an infection strategy, where “the new” slowly becomes a part of the organization, like a virus after an incubation period; • a translation strategy, which involves a local translation of the external measures; a filtering, editing and refining in the light of the given organizational context. As far as the manager’s role in the selection of the respective strategies and in relation to the institutional leadership more generally, the quote below makes the point clear: “[t]he argument is not that leaders are fully rational (or even boundedly rational) and make strategic decisions. The argument is that leaders do things, they make sense of the environment, and they are involved in the politics Betina Wolfgang Rennison / Journal of Leadership and Management 13 (2018) 185-199 of organizational decisions and would represent a key part of the puzzle to understanding institutional phenomena (Washington, Boal and Davis, 2007: 26). In order to master this, the institutional leaders must develop their knowledge of and interest in the broader institutional and social context. Leadership development therefore revolves around promoting this context-sensitivity and focus on the development of the managers’ communicative and analytical competencies with respect to translating and initiating values and cultures in and around the organization. Analyzing leadership based on an institutional perspective, the key issues become: How is the institution affected by its institutional surroundings? Which strategies are pursued with respect to these surroundings? Which institutional norms and conceptions are established, maintained, discarded and/or re-activated? Which values are included and excluded – how, when and why? Which consequences do given institutions/values have for the organizational life, the work it carries out and for the actors involved? How does the institutional management strike a balance between predictability and change, stability and flexibility, identity and difference? 5. The Situational Perspective Important to the situational leadership perspective is the question of where and when leadership is practiced. The focus shifts from what the manager does (and why) to when the manager does what. The basic point is that a given situation conditions a certain form of management. Attention is devoted to the context – on internal as well as external situational factors that have an impact on the organization and its management. There are different versions of situational management theory, but there is always a common core: The focus is on how different leadership styles can be applied, all of which can prove to be effective. It depends on how well the leadership style matches the specific situation. Management is relative. We have to move from a generic, “one best way” to a situational “many best ways”. It is decisive to find “the best fit” – to assess and choose between the repertoire of management styles and 2 191 their appropriateness in relation to the actual conditions. As Yukl writes: “[t]he managerial job is too complex and unpredictable to rely on a set of standardized responses to events. Effective leaders are continuously reading the situation and evaluating how to adapt their behavior to it. They are flexible and innovative in adapting to fluid situations and rapidly changing events” (Yukl, 2002: 234). Situational management takes form according to different situational variables: • the surroundings variable: conjuncture, degree of stability, external degree of regulation, image/brand, competitors, partners, suppliers, users/customers and the classic PEST-variables: “Political”, “Economic”, “Socio-cultural” and “Technological” surroundings; • the organizational variable: history, sector, industry, conditions of ownership, size, financial resources, objective/purpose, culture and organizational structure; • the positional variable: the manager’s degree of power and authority up, down, out and to the side – together with the position on the management level; top, mid-level and operational level; • the task variable: the content, structure, process, technology, degree of complexity and delivery time of the task; • the physicality variable: geographical location, physical environment, architecture, design; • the personnel variable: the character and norms of the professional group, the competences and performance capacity of the teams and individual employees, the degree of motivation in the personnel group, the diversity of the employees in terms of factors such as gender, age, ethnicity and personality, together with their expectations of management.2 The manager must consider all of these situational variables when choosing their leadership style, thereby continuously and flexibly adapting to the situation. For example an organization in turbulent surroundings requires more strategic and innovative leadership in order to survive than an organization that is already functioning efficiently in more stable surroundings. And a politically driven public organization requires a different kind of management than a private company. A multi-national corporation operates Theoretical classics relating to the personnel variable worth mentioning include: Douglas McGregor’s The Human Side of Enterprise (1957); the tripartite division between autocratic, democratic and laissez faire management styles with which writers such as Kurt Lewin (18901947), Rensis Likert (1903-1981) and Philip Selznick (1919-2010) operate; Victor H. Vroom’s autocratic versus consultative ways of making decisions (Vroom and Jago, 1988); Fred E. Fiedler’s (1971) LPC model; Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard’s four styles of management and decision-making: delegating, supporting, coaching and directing (Hersey and Blanchard, 1997) and Daniel Goleman’s coercive, authoritative, affiliative, democratic, pacesetting and coaching leadership styles (Goleman, 2010). In all these theories the point is that situations and persons are different – and must therefore be managed differently. This view also resonates in various modern HR concepts, such as incentive management, diversity management and recognition management, which encourage appreciation and reward employee diversity. 192 Betina Wolfgang Rennison / Journal of Leadership and Management 13 (2018) 185-199 with a different kind of balance between proximity and distance than a national corporation. New, less experienced managers must position themselves differently than experienced and powerful managers. Complex responsibilities call for more specialized and/or interdisciplinary understandings of management than less complex tasks. A confused or unmotivated personnel group requires more involved management than a well-organized and highly committed group. Some employees thrive with greater freedom and responsibility – with self- and co-management – while others prefer something completely different. “It all depends” is the situational perspective catchphrase. What makes the difference between a good manager and a great one is their ability to tell the difference and make a difference in a specific situation. In the situational perspective, the most important managerial competences are as follows: • diagnosing and analyzing the situation (analytical resources); • finding the most appropriate way to manage a given situation (solution preparedness); • being flexible and adaptable (readiness for change) and, • being aware of oneself and one’s own managerial performance in the specific case (self-reflexive response). The manager must operate in a reflexive manner, which involves observing the situation (the surroundings, tasks, personnel, etc.) and then use this observation on oneself – so that on this basis one is able to make decisions about the right way to lead in the given situation (Rennison, 2015). The reasons for justifying a specific kind of management are not to be found in either management theories, a priori notions or fixed functional role descriptions. Rather, the leaders themselves make such justifications according to the specific individual and situation at hand. To lead is to create the very act of leading. In the classic variations of situational management, we find a repertoire of management styles to choose between in this self-creation. This is even more open in modern variations: we must develop our own situationally adapted management theory. Paradoxically enough, while the bookshelves are filled with writings on managerial concepts, management is not something you can merely choose from the shelf. It is an individual and situational self-creation, where the manager continuously selects and reflects on their own leadership, depending on the situation. Here, the development of leadership is about strengthening the leaders’ capacity of observation and reflection and offering organizational theory tools that make it possible for the individual leader to analyze their organization and their own role therein. A management analysis inspired by the situational perspective is concerned with basic issues such as: Which internal/external situational variables have an impact on the understanding of management and practice thereof? How has the management been adapted to changes in the respective variables? Which managerial types/styles are crystallized in relation to which conditions, which organizational conditions, which managerial position, which responsibilities, which physical locations, which personnel and which individuals? In short: When is which type of management most appropriate for what? And how do managers reflect and transform themselves in light of the context? 6. The Relational Perspective Crucial to the relational perspective are the questions: “With whom is management practiced,” and “What does management become in the relational process?” The criticism of the personal and situational perspectives is massive: Focusing on a specific person and their individual characteristics and behavior is to assign excessive importance to the individual. Viewing the contextual conditions as independent of the manager is to draw an all-too-sharp distinction between the self and the outside world, subject and object. And the belief that self-reflexivity creates knowledge about others/something else and ensures power over them/it is indicative of instrumental thinking (Hosking, 2011: 456). That which is instead required is a paradigmatic shift to a post-heroic leadership, which can be succinctly defined as: “… a paradigm shift in what it means to be a leader. It re-envisions the who of leadership by challenging the primacy of individual achievement, the what of leadership by focusing on collective learning and mutual influence, and the how of leadership by noting the more egalitarian relational skills and emotional intelligence needed to practice it (Fletcher, 2003: 205). The post-heroic leadership paradigm makes reference to: “…managing as a continually emerging, embodied practice, a way of being and relating, rather than the conventional view of management as a series of disembodied activities or roles within an already existing reality (Cunliffe, 2009: 43). Leadership is not something that has always already been there – a fixed entity – but rather something that becomes, is created and recreated in the encounter with Betina Wolfgang Rennison / Journal of Leadership and Management 13 (2018) 185-199 others via dynamic processes in everyday interactions. Leadership is understood as “continuous processes for the construction of social realities in relations” (Møller, 2012: 261). Leadership is a social practice, a process oriented co-creation of reality. In order to clarify the relational point, one can connect to a typology describing how the relationship between leaders and followers is typically presented in the management field (Jackson and Parry, 2011: 47). Thus, followers might appear as: • recipients of leader influence: linear, one-way relationship from leader to follower (cf. the personal-, functional- and institutional perspectives); • moderators of leader impact: the manager adapts their leadership depending on the uniqueness of their followers (cf. the situational perspective); • substitutes for leadership: the followers avoid or neutralize the leader, and create damage-control in situations of mismanagement; • constructors of leadership: the followers create a need for leadership; leadership depends on the followers romantically, psychologically or socially created convictions regarding the importance of leadership in relation to the performance of the individual/group/organization and their need for clarity, security and meaning; • participants in leadership: via various forms of shared, joint or distributed leadership, the followers formally participate in management; • co-producers of leadership, which effectively means the elimination of the leader–follower distinction. The relational perspective subscribes to the latter, co-producing figure. Here, the focus is on neither the one side of the distinction nor the other; either leadership: how good leaders create good followers – or “followship”: how good followers create good leaders – nor how management is best carried out across the divide in the leader–follower dyads (partnership).Instead, what is key is eradicating the distinction entirely: “If leadership is what the relationship is, then both collaborators and leaders are all doing leadership. There is no such thing as followership” (Uhl-Bien 2006: 661). Leadership is not associations across a divide, but rather movements in networks of relations: Leadership is processual relationships. The relational perspective focuses on the process aspect in organization and leadership – and thereby on the continuous chain or flow of complex events with diverse, often unpredictable outcomes (e.g. Hernes, 2008; Larsen and 193 Rasmussen, 2013). This casts light on the need to create meaning of and within this chaos – to make sense of the mess. And here, language and communication represent key, meaning-making media: “[…] relating is a constructive, ongoing process of meaning making – an actively relational process of creating (common) understandings on the basis of language” (Uhl-Bien 2006: 655). Here, leadership becomes “a dialogic (multi-voiced) relationship of creating meaning and action with others in relationally responsive interaction” (Cunliffe, 2009: 43). Leadership is not a question of showing the way, but rather sharing the way. The relational perspective is in line with that which Linda Smircich and Gareth Morgan (Morgan,1982) refer to as “management of meaning”, or what Karl Weick calls “sensemaking” – a term that is summarized in the management literature in the following: “[s]ensemaking is when people understand the vision and are not just following a plan; it comes from face-to-face personal contact, not from distant impersonal contact; it comes from delegation, not control. Sensemaking enables people to act and not just react; it also enables them to take risks and not just to avoid risk; to initiate change and not just to accommodate it. Yes, sensemaking is the essence of leadership” (Jackson and Parry, 2011: 126). While viewing leadership as an emerging phenomenon (the process will reveal what leadership is), it still has an essence: Leadership is a communicative activity that creates meaning. Not in the form of steering communication, because nobody has/should have power over the opinions, thoughts or interpretations of others. It is not about causal sender-receiver transmissions – about the already-given meaning and exchange of the words – but rather manifold interpretations of meaning that emerge in conversations or dialogues between people. We must recognize and pay tribute to “the inherently polyphonic and heteroglossic nature of life” (Cunliffe and Eriksen 2011: 1441). This requires that we carry out mutual exchanges of arguments between opposing views and sincerely listen to the ever-present alternative – the present relational other: “Listening is heartfelt, engaged relating” – it is “being in the now rather than the know”, as Hosking emphasizes (Hosking 2011: 463). All told: leadership is a relational practice characterized by multiplicity, acknowledging dialogues, emerging processes and relational responsiveness (Hosking 2011: 462). Management is a creative and interactive process of becoming that constructs and is constructed by the social, with language as the communicative medium. Objects, subjectivities, structures and situations are shaped and reshaped through discourses, narratives and verbal 194 Betina Wolfgang Rennison / Journal of Leadership and Management 13 (2018) 185-199 interactions. Relational management is, thus, about acknowledging and attempting to facilitate “the constitutive, dialogical, intersubjective and inherently moral nature of our conversations and relationships”, as Cunliffe and Eriksen point out (Cunliffe and Eriksen, 2011: 1441). From this perspective, development of leadership is about training activities in process facilitation as well as coaching, mentoring and similar instruments that focus on relational aspects; on the collaborative, communicative and compassionate aspects of interpersonal interaction. A leadership analysis inspired by the relational perspective is concerned with basic issues such as: How can we understand leadership as a non-personified entity? How does leadership develop as a part of everyday relationships? Which relational dynamics create leadership and are created by leadership? How does leadership emerge and operate through social and linguistic processes, interactions and conversations? How is leadership negotiated and interpreted in the network of relations within and between groups? How are decisions and actions embedded in collective processes of meaning? How is the socially created reality framed and re-framed via which narratives and dialogical methods? How do diverging interpretations of reality get access? And how is a communicative community ensured? 7. The Positional Perspective Crucial for the positional or power perspective is the position from which the leader is exercising influence over relations, persons, processes, situations, products, structures, cultures and so forth. The focus is on leadership as a particular power position from which the individual manager can exercise power and influence. As the organization’s representatives internally and externally, managers are “sentenced to power” – obligated to receive, exercise, negotiate and maintain power. Power is an inevitable part of leadership. According to the positional perspective, the sympathetic faith of the relational perspective in horizontal relations, the integrative process in dialogue and domination-free communication are a naive utopia. Interpersonal relationships are inconceivable without power – they often imply varying degrees of domination, seduction, manipulation, coercion and authority: “Power is; power always will be, and can never not be” (Clegg, Courpasson and Phillips, 2006: 400). In its immediate form, managerial power is about authority, responsibility and accountability. Leaders are assigned authority over others; they have the right to hire and fire, to give orders, impose rules, set values, create clarity and draw boundaries. They also have a binding responsibility in relation to achieving goals, making decisions and ensuring a specific execution of operations for which they are ultimately responsible. Regardless of the degree of delegation and self- and co-management, everything ultimately falls back on the person who bears the managerial title. A leader’s power base consists of various sources of authority: legal authority (formal position), traditional authority (custom, familiarity), epistemic authority (professional competence), authority to distribute (resources, rewards and punishment), procedural authority (methods and techniques, reflection), moral-expressive authority (charisma, personal values) and personal authority (the leader’s belief in their own power and the production thereof). All of these forms of authority provide the leader with a specific power base and a particular position in the organizational and social infrastructure. With reference to Talcott Parsons, authority can be understood as “an institutionally recognized right to influence the actions of others” (Parsons 1949: 171). Authority means that the leader is given a legitimate right to make decisions that are binding for the member of the organization and which guide its behavior in a specific direction. Using terms from power theory, this approach is referred to as a “power-over” position (Kraft and Raben, 2005), an “eco-logical process” (Hosking, 2011: 459) or command and control power with the “ability to change what others do” (Nye, 2010: 308). Power is seen as an activity that is tied to an individual’s intentions, interests and behavior in concrete (decision-making) situations – characterized by the classic terminology about A being able to get B to do something that B otherwise would not have done (via direct-visible power, indirect-hidden power or through consciousness-manipulating power). In this approach, power can also be seen as a set of structural-institutional capacities and relevant resources that give the actor a particular disposition to the exercise of power, to the implementation of collectively binding decisions, and/or change the actors’ relations. That is to say: A’s capacity and social/ professional/economic/political position gives A a predisposition to act so that A will have more power than B. In this kind of a power-over understanding, power is regarded as a resource for the few; as a repressive phenomenon that dominates, suppresses and comes at the cost of liberties – and must therefore be distributed through a legitimate distribution of power – à la a management position. At stake here is a mono-centered understanding of power, a top–down perspective on the distribution of power. And an instrumental perspective on power centered around the Betina Wolfgang Rennison / Journal of Leadership and Management 13 (2018) 185-199 structure of power – about who possesses it and on which basis, what it is directed towards and where it can be identified. We are focused on revealing it and putting a concrete face on it (Christensen and Daugaard, 2002; Kraft and Raben, 1995; Thomsen, 2005). In its more leadership-oriented form, managerial power is about ensuring a commitment, creating connections, building relations and sharing and passing on power. As leadership researcher Mary Parker Follett already wrote in 1924: “Leadership is not defined by the exercise of power but by the capacity to increase the sense of power among those led. The most essential work of the leader is to create more leaders” (Avolio, 2010: 741). Here, in terms of power theory, there is talk of “power-with”, an “ecological process” (Hosking, 2011: 459), a persuade-and-influence power, or a “co-optive power” with “the ability to shape what others want” (Nye, 2010: 308). In a power-with position, power is used as a mutually stimulating win-win relationship without immediate winners and losers, rulers and suppressed, powerful and powerless. This power is neither hierarchically, vertically nor individually assigned; rather, it is democratic, horizontal and relationally distributed. Power is collective property, an opportunity for everyone to unite respective preferences and values in order to minimize conflict and promote compromise and consensus. A third approach to power to which management theory subscribes (especially Critical Management Studies, e.g. Alvesson and Deetz 2000; Grey and Willmott, 2005), is the “power-to” position, or empower and facilitate-approach (e.g. Borchand Larsen, 2003; Mik-Meyer and Villadsen, 2007; Kraft and Raben, 1995; Rennison,2005; Thomsen, 2005). Here, power is also seen as a productive potential for the many – it is a poly-centered understanding of power according to which power comes from everywhere – “cutting the head off the king”, as French philosopher, Michel Foucault has expressed it (Foucault, 2000a: 122). But as opposed to the power-with position, power is not determined by the relations between diverse actors – power itself is a relational entity. Power emerges from volumes of overlapping and changing power relations and strength relations (Taylor, 2011: 22). The focus is on “the strictly relational character of power relationships” (Foucault, 1998: 95) – and on the process of power; on how power appears, is branched, moves and is transformed in networks or chains. Power is the name for a circular and productive process that creates new identities (preferences/values), such that both A and B change as a result of their 195 encounter whereby a power-strategic situation emerges on the background of a new situation – a temporary reversal of the relative strength. Power is understood as “strategic games between liberties” (Foucault, 2000d: 299): Power depends on the freedom of the other to act and communicate differently – via the always-potential alternative. Indeed, leaders are powerful when they allow numerous alternatives and/or possible interpretations, and those who are affected by power nevertheless choose the path preferred by their leader. Without alternative paths, there would be talk of pure coercion and dictatorial leadership; about power-over (and possibly power-with, if the collective insists on unity and consensus). The functionality of power lies in embracing the alternatives and thus the freedom and the ever-present option to resist; no power without counter-power, no authority without autonomy. In a power-to perspective, power is thus toned in terms of “strategic games”; that is, “a set of rules by which truth is produced” (Foucault, 2000d: 297), which sets the focus on the constructive character of power. Power is also productive, not just restrictive: “[w]e must cease once and for all to describe the effects of power in negative terms: it ‘excludes’, it ‘represses’, it ‘censors’, it ‘abstracts’, it ‘masks’, it ‘conceals’. In fact, power produces; it produces reality; it produces domains of objects and rituals of truth. The individual and the knowledge that may be gained of him belong to this production” (Foucault, in: Taylor 2011: 63). Power and leadership is performative; it thus creates the conditions for particular forms of rationality, sociality and identity. As Foucault’s historical-empirical studies have documented, this occurs differently through: • sovereign power: restrictions, laws and courts; à la the managerial power to hire and fire; • disciplinary power: normalizing injunctions, examination and panoptic surveillance; à la employee performance reviews; • bio power: the disciplining of bodies; à la the contemporary focus on health in the workplace; • pastoral power: missionary work, pastoral care and confession; à la values-based management; • and power as governmentality: empowerment and responsible management of freedom; à la the employees’ self-management or user/customer “help to self-help”. Regardless of the form, the function of power is to structure the freedom of others to think and act; structure their mental, behavioral and physical opportunities. As a power Betina Wolfgang Rennison / Journal of Leadership and Management 13 (2018) 185-199 196 issue, management is “realized in the process whereby one or more individuals succeed in attempting to frame and define the reality of others”, as Smircich and Morgan have put it (Smircich and Morgan,1982: 258). Leadership is not merely a technical-analytical discipline but rather a power-political phenomenon that forms objects and subjects. As Grint summarizes: “[t]he constitutive approach, therefore, is very much a pro-active affair for leaders. It is they who actively shape our interpretation of the environment, the challenges, the goals, the competition, the strategy, and the tactics” (Grint, 2001: 4). Ergo: management constructs the social. Management is powerful – for better or for worse. The development of leaders must therefore not only teach them to expand their legitimate power bases, to pro-actively test their power mandate or learn how to democratically delegate it. Managerial development is also about the ability to set the power in perspective and raise critical questions regarding its constitutive consequences. Leadership is not innocent. There must be training in the political analysis of organizations, intervention trials and organizational contexts as well as involvement in ethical discussions about inclusion and exclusion, diversity and social responsibility. A management analysis inspired by the positional perspective – whether it is in a hierarchical power-over, collective power-with or constitutive power-to perspective – is concerned with basic issues such as: Which power is assigned to a specific leader? Where does the basis for legitimacy originate? How is the power expressed; which instruments are used? Which power-strategic alliances are established? Which complex net of power relations and processes involving influence are found in and around a given organization? Which coalitions and confrontations are developed? Which forms of counter-power emerge? How does power move people and between them? How are thoughts and actions formed and regulated; which truth regimes do they try to create? Which constitutive consequences does the exercised managerial power have for the work, the employee, the team, the organization and the society? What is made possible and impossible? Who is included and excluded in the power-strategy games? 8. Conclusion This article has developed an overview over the theoretical complexity of leadership. Or rather: some of it. As such, there has not been room for perspectives such as network management, knowledge management, change management, psycho-dynamic management, spiritual management or affective management. The leadership field is enormous, seemingly without end. Mapping out the six perspectives on management has hopefully made it possible to get a sense of the extensive and still rapidly growing management theory landscape – by focusing on a number of cross-cutting dimensions in management theory and localizing the thoughts on leadership in relation to the respective levels of analysis. The table below summarizes the main features of these perspectives: As seen here, each of these perspectives has a different managerial object, they focus on different issues, they touch upon different purposes of leadership, each outlines its own ideal image of a manager and they each operate with their own focus on managerial development. Each of these perspectives stands as an alternative and valid way to conceptualize management. They can be regarded as historically successive or competing paradigms, each with its own golden age and dedicated agitators. Or they can be seen as contiguous and co-existing conceptions of Table 2. Fundamental perspectives on leadership PERSPECTIVE Object PERSON FUNCTION Managerial identity Managerial behavior Who is the leader? INSTITUTION Managerial values SITUATION Leader figure Leadership development focus POSITION Managerial interaction Managerial power What does the leader Why does the leader do? do as he/she does? When does the leader lead, how? With whom does one lead and what does leadership become in the process? From where is leadership taking place and with which constitutive consequences? Authenticity and ethical responsibility Multidimensional function performance Internal integration and external adaptation Situational flexibility Relational dynamic and negotiation of common meaning Structuring of others’ space for speech and action Personal talent and heroic person Functional role-maker Values watchdog Context chameleon Communicative facilitator and co-author Strategic game master and constitutive identity constructor Subjective: talent-spotting and personal development Professional: upgrading professional qualifications and tool-boxes Integrational: normative value-orientation and holistic focus Reflexive: situationResponsive: pro-diagnostics and self- cess-facilitation and -reflexive capability practical wisdom about relational mechanisms Issue Purpose of leadership RELATION Managerial context Performative: development of political capabilities and ethical discussion of the consequences of power Betina Wolfgang Rennison / Journal of Leadership and Management 13 (2018) 185-199 197 management, offering various definitions for contemporary leadership – with both contradictory complexity and a wealth of potential perspectives as a result. Please note: one of the most important leadership skills today is not merely to master a particular management theory or method but to be able to step in and out of various perspectives on leadership and competently juggle the many possible interpretations through which leadership can be grasped and dealt with; can be fixed and shifted. As both observers and practitioners of management, we must maintain that management is fluid and ambiguous. In order to understand management as a whole, it must be grasped in its plurality. Thus, let us end with this quote: “[m]anagement… as multiple and shifting meaning, is nomadic as it wanders in and out of fad and fashion, science and art, war and peace, power and resistance, and all other great dichotomies of humankind… That is what management is like… partial, plural and sufficiently multi-faceted that one can never see it in its entirety” (Clegg, 1996: 8). References Biswas, S. N., and U. N. Biswas. (2001). “Legitimising Leadership: A Framework for Institutional Leadership.” The Journal of Business Perspective, 5(2), pp. 33–42. Borch, C., and L. T. Larsen. (2003). Magtenudenårsag: Om Foucaults og Luhmanns magtopfattelser [Power Without Reason: On Foucault’s and Luhmann’s Views on Power], in: C. Borch, and L. T. Larsen, (eds.). (2003). Perspektiv, magtogstyring: Luhmann & Foucault tildiskussion [Perspective, Power and Steering: Discussing Luhmann& Foucault]. Copenhagen: Hans Reitzels. Brandi, S., and S. Hildebrandt. (2007). Ledelse [Management]. Copenhagen: Børsen. Brunsson, N. (2002). The Organization of Hypocrisy: Talk, Decisions and Actions in Organizations. Frederiksberg: Copenhagen Business School Press. Bryman, A., D. Collinson, K. Grint, B. Jackson and M. Uhl-Bien. (2011). The Sage Handbook of Leadership. Los Angeles: Sage. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Burns, T., and G. M. Stalker. (1996). Mechanistic and Organic Systems, in: J. M. Shafritz, and J. S. Ott, (eds.). (1996). Classics of Organization Theory. Fort Worth: Harcourt College. Calás, M. B., and L. Smircich, (eds.). (1997). Postmodern Management Theory. Aldershot: Ashgate. Chatman, J. A., and J. A. Kennedy. (2010). Psychological Perspectives on Leadership, in: N. Nohria, and R. Khurana, (eds.). (2010). Handbook of Leadership Theory and Practice. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Christensen, S., and P. E. D. Jensen. (2001). Kontrol i det stille: Om magt og deltagelse[Quietcontrol: On Power and Participation]. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur. Christensen, S., and P. E. Daugaard. (2002). Kontrol i det stille [Quiet Contol]. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur. Clegg, S. R. (1996). Constituting Management, in: G. Palmer, and S. Clegg, (eds.). (1996). Constituting Management, Markets, Meanings and Identities. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Clegg, S. R., D. Courpasson and N. Phillips. (2006). Power and Organizations. London: Sage. Cunliffe, A. L. (2009). A Very Short, Fairly Interesting and Reasonably Cheap Book about Management. London: Sage. Cunliffe, A. L., and M. Eriksen. (2011). “Relational Leadership.” Human Relations, 64(11), pp. 1425–1449. Czarniawska-Joerges, B., and G. Sevón. (1996). Translating Organizational Change. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Daft, R. L., and R. H. Lengel. (1998). Fusion Leadership. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Dean, M. (1999). Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society. London: Sage. DiMaggio, P. J., and W. W. Powell, (eds.). (1991). The New Institutionalism, in: Organizational Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Adizes, I. (1981). Lederensfaldgruber [The Manager’s Pitfalls]. Copenhagen: Børsens Forlag. Adler, P. S., L. C. Forbes, and H. Willmott. (2007). “Critical Management Studies.”The Academy of Management Annals, 1(1), pp. 119–179. Alsted, J., and D. Haslund. (2008). Ledelse og medarbejdere: Samarbejdets psykologi[Management and Employees: The Psychology of Cooperation]. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur. Alvesson, M. (2011). Leadership and Organizational Culture, in: A. Bryman, (ed.). (2011).The Sage Handbook of Leadership. Los Angeles: Sage. Alvesson, M., and A. Spicer. (2012). “Critical Leadership Studies: The Case for Critical Performativity.” Human Relations, 65(3), pp. 367–390. Alvesson, M., and H. Willmott. (2012). Making Sense of Management: A Critical Introduction. London: Sage. Alvesson, M., and S. Deetz. (2000). Doing Critical Management Research. London: Sage. Alvesson, M., and H. Willmott, (eds.). (1992). Critical Management Studies. London: Sage. Antonakis, J. (2011). Predictors of Leadership: The Usual Suspects and the Suspect Traits, in: A. Bryman, (ed.). The Sage Handbook of Leadership. Los Angeles: Sage. Avolio, B. (2010). Pursuing Authentic Leadership Development, in: N. Nohria, and R. Khurana, (eds.). (2010). Handbook of Leadership Theory and Practice. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Bakka, J., and E. Fivelsdal. (2002). Kurt Lewin, in: J. Bakka, and E. Fivelsdal, (eds.). (2002). Organisationsteoriensklassikere: Fra Taylor og Weber til Simon og Drucker [The Classics From Organization Theory: From Taylor and Weber to Simon And Drucker]. Copenhagen: Handelshøjskolens Forlag. Bakka, J., and E. Fivelsdal. (2010). Ledelse og lederroller [Management and ManagerialRoles], in: J. Bakka, and E. Fivelsdal, (eds.). Organisations teori: Struktur, kultur, processer [Organization Theory: Structure, Culture, Processes]. Copenhagen: Handelshøjskolens Forlag. Barnard, C. I. (1938). The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Bass, B. M. (1990). “From Transactional to Transformational Leadership: Learning to Share the Vision.” Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), pp. 19–31. Belbin, R. M. (1981). Management Teams: Why They Succeed or Fail. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann. Bennis, W. (1989). Enlederskabes [A Leader is Created]. Copenhagen: Børsens Forlag. Bennis, W., and B. Nanus. (1997). Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge. New York: Harper Business. Bennis, W., and J. Goldsmith. (1997). Learning to Lead: A Workbook on Becoming a Leader. London: Nicolas Brealey. 198 Betina Wolfgang Rennison / Journal of Leadership and Management 13 (2018) 185-199 Fairhurst, G. T., and D. Grant. (2010). “The Social Construction of Leadership: A Sailing Guide.” Management Communication Quarterly, 24(2), pp. 171–210. Fiedler, F. E. (1971). Leadership. New York: General Learning Press. Fletcher, J. (2003). The Paradox of Post Heroic Leadership: Gender Matters. Boston: Center for Gender in Organizations, Simmons School of Management. Foucault, M. (1998). The Will to Knowledge: The History of Sexuality, vol. 1. London: Penguin Books. Foucault, M. (2000a). The Subject and Power, in: J. D. Faubion, (ed.). (2000). Michel Foucault: Essential Works of Foucault 1954-1984, vol. 3: Power. London: Penguin Books. Foucault, M. (2000b). Question of Method, in: J. D. Faubion, (ed.). (2000). Michel Foucault: Essential Works of Foucault 1954-1984, vol. 3: Power. London: Penguin Books. Foucault, M. (2000c). Truth and Power, in: J. D. Faubion, (ed.). (2000). Michel Foucault: Essential Works of Foucault 1954-1984, vol. 3: Power. London: Penguin Books. Foucault, M. (2000d). The Ethics of the Concern of the Self as a Practice of Freedom, in: P. Rabinow, (ed.). (2000). Michel Foucault: Essential Works of Foucault 1954-1984, vol. 1: Ethics. London: Penguin Books. Gabor, A., and J. T. Mahoney. (2010). Chester Barnard and the Systems Approach to Nurturing Organizations, in: M. Witzel, and M. Warner, (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Management Theorists. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Glynn, M. A., and R. DeJordy. (2010). Leadership Through an Organization Behavior Lens, in: N. Nohria, and R. Khurana, (eds.). (2010). Handbook of Leadership Theory and Practice. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Goleman, D. (2010). “Leadership that Gets Results.” Harvard Business Review, 78(2), pp. 78–90. Grey, C., and H. Willmott. (2005). Critical Management Studies: A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Grint, K. (2001). The Arts of Leadership. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gulick, L. (1996). Notes on the Theory of Organization, in: J. M. Shafritz, and J. S. Ott, (eds.). (1996). Classics of Organization Theory. Fort Worth: Harcourt College Publishers. Helth, P. (2009). Lederskabelse: Detpersonligelederskab [CreatingLeadership: The Personal Leadership]. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur. Helth, P., and O. F. Kirkeby. (2007). Menneske og leder: Bliv den du er [People and Leaders: Become the Person You Are]. Copenhagen: Børsen. Hernes, T. (2008). Understanding Organization as Process: Theory for a Tangled World. London: Routledge. Hersey, P., and K. Blanchard. (1997). Management of Organizational Behavior: Utilizing Human Resources. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Hosking, D. M. (2011). Moving Relationality: Meditations on a Relational Approach to Leadership, in: A. Bryman, (ed.). (2011). The Sage Handbook of Leadership. Los Angeles: Sage. House, R. J., P. J. Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A. Dorfman, P. W. Javidan, and M. Dickson. (1999). Cultural Influences on Leadership and Organizations, in: W. H. Mobley, M. J. Gessner, and V. Arnold, (eds.). (1999). Advances in Global Leadership. Stamford: JAI Press. Hurst, D. K. (1992). “Thoroughly Modern: Mary Parker Follett.” Business Quarterly, 56(4), pp. 55–58. Jackson, B., and K. Parry. (2011). A Very Short, Fairly Interesting and Reasonably Cheap Book about Studying Leadership. London: Sage. Jacobsen, D. I., and J. Thorsvik. (2008). Hvordanorganisationerfungerer: Indføringiorganization ogledelse [How Organizations Function: Introduction to Organization and Management]. Copenhagen: Hans Reitzels. Jensen, S. A. (2004). “En organisationfuldafledere: Anmeldelseaf Joseph A. Ralins bog ‘CreatingLeaderful Organizations.” [An Organi- zation Full of Leaders: Review of Joseph A. Ralin’s book, ’Creating Leaderful Organizations’] Ledelsei Dag, 59. Johnsen, E. (1989). Introduktion til ledelseslære[Introduction to Teachings on Management]. Copenhagen: Erhvervsøkonomisk Forlag. Juelskjær, M., and D. Staunæs. (2010). “Kreativitet og ledelse: En læsning af fænomenet gennem potentialitetsledelse.”[Creativity and Management: A Reading of the Phenomenon Through Potentiality Management]. CHARA – Journal of Creativity, Spontaneity and Learning, 1(4). Kanter, R. M. (2010). Leadership in a Globalizing World, in: N. Nohria, and R. Khurana, (eds.). (2010). Handbook of Leadership Theory and Practice. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Kirkeby, O. F. (1998). Ledelsesfilosofi: Et radikaltnormativtperspektiv[Management Philosophy: A Radically Normative Perspective]. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur. Kirkeby, O. F. (2004). Det nye lederskab[The New Management]. Copenhagen: Børsen. Kotter, J. P. (1999). What Leaders Really Do. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Kraft, M. B., and V. L. Raben (1995). “Magtbegrebetskarakteristika.” [A Characterization of the Concept of Power]. Grus, 45(95). Larsen, B. (2002). Meningigalskaben: Introduktiontilledelsesteorierne [Meaning in the Madness: Introduction to Management Theories]. Copenhagen: DJØF Publishing. Larsen, M. & J.G. Rasmussen (2013). Strategisk ledelse som meningsskabende processer[Strategic Management as Meaning-Creating Processes]. Copenhagen: DJØF Publishing. McGregor, D. M. (1996). The Human Side of Enterprise, in: J. M. Shafritz, and J. S. Ott, (eds.). (1996). Classics of Organization Theory. Fort Worth: Harcourt College Publishers. Menges, J. I., F. Walter, B. Vogel and H. Bruch. (2011). “Transformational Leadership Climate: Performance Linkages, Mechanisms, and Boundary Conditions at the Organizational Level.” The Leadership Quarterly, 22, pp. 893–909. Mik-Meyer, N., and K. Villadsen. (2007). Magtens former: Sociologiske perspektiverpåstatensmøde med borgerne [The Forms of Power: Sociological Perspectives on the Meeting Between the State And Citizens]. Copenhagen: Hans Reitzels. Mintzberg, H. (1976). Lederen og hans job[The Manager and His Job]. Copenhagen: Nyt fra samfundsvidenskaberne. Mintzberg, H. (1989). Mintzberg on Management: Inside Our Strange World of Organizations. New York: Free Press. Mintzberg, H. (1993). Structure in Fives: Designing Effective Organizations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Mintzberg, H. (1996). “Musings on Management: Ten Ideas to Rile Everyone Who Cares about Management.” Harvard Business Review, 74(4), pp. 61–67. Mintzberg, H. (2010). Mintzbergomledelse [Mintzberg on Management]. Copenhagen: Lindhardt & Ringhof. Moeslund, P. (2011). Ledelse i perspektiv mellem tradition og refleksion[Management in Perspectivebetween Tradition and Reflection]. Copenhagen: Hans Reitzels. Morgan, G. (1989). Images of Organization. Thousand Oak, London & New Delhi: Sage. Morsing, M. (2001). Værdieridanskevirksomheder: Skitseaf et fænomen med mange ansigter [Values in Danish Companies: Outline of a Phenomenon with Many Faces]. CCC Working Paper, no. 8. Copenhagen: Handelshøjskolen. Møller, S. F. (2012). From Disinterestedness to Engagement: Towards Relational Leadership in the Cultural Sector. [Ph.D. dissertation]. Frederiksberg: Copenhagen Business School. N. Nohria, and R. Khurana, (eds.). (2010). Handbook of Leadership Theory and Practice. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Olsen, T. (2011). Systemiskmetode [Systematic Method]. Copenhagen: Væksthus for ledelse. Betina Wolfgang Rennison / Journal of Leadership and Management 13 (2018) 185-199 Parsons, T. (1949). Essays in Sociological Theory Pure and Applied. Glencoe: Free Press. Podolny, J. M, R. Khurana, and M. L. Besharov. (2010). Revisiting the Meaning of Leadership, in: N. Nohria, and R. Khurana, (eds.). (2010). Handbook of Leadership Theory and Practice. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Quinn, R. E, S. R. Faerman, M. P. Thompson and M. R. McGrath. (1996). Becoming a Master Manager: A Competency Framework. New York: John Wiley. Rasmussen, J. G. (2012). Relationelledelse: Enskitse [Relational Management: An outline]. Paper for the Danish Leadership Academy Conference 3–4 Dec. 2012, Aalborg University. Rennison, B. W. (2005). Magtensblik: Enrevitaliseringaf Luhmann og Foucaultsmagtanalytik [The Perspective of Power: A Revitalization of Luhmann and Foucault’s Analysis of Power]. Working-paper nr. 18/2005. Copenhagen: LPF, Handelshøjskolen i København. Rennison, B. W. (2007). “Historical Discourses of Public Management in Denmark: Past Emergence and Present Challenge.” Management & Organizational History, 2(1), pp. 5–26. Rennison, B. W. (2011). Ledelsensgenealogi: Offentligledelsefratabutil trend [The Genealogy of Leadership: Public Management from Taboo to Trend]. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur. Rennison, B. W. (2015). “Reflexive Management: System-Theoretical Reflection on Reflection.” Journal of Leadership and Management, 1(3), pp. 27–36. Richards, D., and S. Engle. (1986). After the Vision: Suggestions to Corporate Visionaries and Vision Champions, in: J. D. Adams, (ed.). (1986). Transforming Leadership. Alexandria: Miles River Press. Røvik, K. A. (1998). Moderne Organisasjoner: Trenderi organisasjonstenkningenvedtusindårsskiftet [Modern Organizations: Trends in Organizational thought in the New Millenium]. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget. Scott, W. R. (2008). “Approaching Adulthood: The Maturing of Institutional Theory.” Theory & Society, 37(5), pp. 427–442. 199 Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in Administration. New York: Harper and Row. Sinclair, A. (2011). Being Leaders: Identities and Identity Work in Leadership, in: A. Bryman, (ed.). (2011). The Sage Handbook of Leadership. Los Angeles: Sage. Smircich, L., and G. Morgan (1982). “Leadership: The Management of Meaning.” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 18(3), pp. 257– 273. Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of the Literature. New York: Free Press. Taylor, D. (2011). Michael Foucault Key Concepts. Durham: Acumen. Thomsen, J. P. F. (2005). Magt: En introduktion [Power: An Introduction]. Copenhagen: Hans Reitzels. Thyssen, O. (1997). Værdiledelse om organisationer og etik [Value Management on Organizations and Ethics]. Copenhagen: Gyldendal. Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). “Relational Leadership Theory: Exploring the Social Processes of Leadership and Organizing.” The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), pp. 654–676. Vroom, V. H., and A. G. Jago. (1988). The New Leadership: Managing Participation in Organizations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Væksthus for Ledelse. (2009). Ledelsesrum: Udnytogudvid dine handlemulighedersomoffentligleder [Managerial Space: Exploit and Expand Your Opportunities for Action as Public Manager]. Copenhagen: KTO/KL/Danske Regioner. Washington, M., K. Boal, and J. Davis. (2007). Institutional Leadership: Past, Present, and Future, in: R. Greenwood, (ed.). (2007). The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism. London: Sage. Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in Organizations. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall. Zaleznik, A. (1992). “Managers and Leaders: Are They Different?” Harvard Business Review, 55(3), pp. 67–78.