A tale of three approaches: Leveraging organizational discourse analysis, relational event modeling, and dynamic network analysis for collective leadership

Abstract

How can we enhance theory-method alignment when studying collective leadership? We propose that leveraging methodological approaches that are powerful enough to address three primary challenges of collective leadership—the incorporation of time, context, and multiple levels—will promote a more robust body of collective leadership research and practice. In particular, we review and integrate three complementary methodological approaches—organizational discourse analysis, relational event modeling, and dynamic network analysis—which have the flexibility to address these challenges. The purpose of this article is to demonstrate the utility of these methodological approaches for addressing major methodological challenges within the field of collective leadership. Through this effort, we aim to facilitate conversation across disparate streams of research and encourage researchers to explore how novel research questions and perspectives might be advanced through leveraging these methods, either in isolation or in combination.

Studying collective leadership: The road ahead

“…This point reinforces our third guideline, which is for CL research to adopt strong process models (Langley and Tsoukas, 2017;Maupin et al, 2020;Uhl-Bien and Arena, 2017). This is because: (a) the experience of action and its consequences is important to interpret evolving CL configurations, especially with hierarchy; (b) the heterogeneity and multiplicity of experience is necessary to understand the organizing effects of multiple and varied attributions of leadership in a collective setting; and (c) understanding the consequentiality and performativity of temporality broadens or truncates our views of CL and the discernment of its overall workings and effects.…”

“…For example, they may permit experiments or fluctuations (Lichtenstein and Plowman, 2009), boost it through collective visioning processes (Ensley et al, 2006; Houghton et al, 2003), or actively impede it with autocratic or aversive management styles (Pearce and Sims, 2002). In this special issue, Maupin et al (2020) also caution analysts to consider multiple levels of analysis beyond the individual and the collective to consider the system dynamics that may further contribute to the ambiguity of the leadership space.…”

“…However, as the article by Maupin et al (2020) make very clear, there are many ways to document configurations, such as through discourse analysis, relational event modeling, and dynamic network analysis, to which we would add ethnographic observation, interaction process analysis, and other related methodological approaches. The power-imbued question, ‘Who, or what unit, has established the right to say what to whom and when?’ must be answered, and Maupin et al’s (2020) strong argument to combine methods to arrive at a more in-depth analysis that captures nuances and broad patterns to answer this question appears increasingly warranted in complex organizational environments.…”

Collective dimensions of leadership: Connecting theory and method

“…The final article, ‘A tale of three approaches: Leveraging organizational discourse analysis, relational event modeling, and dynamic network analysis for collective leadership,’ is co-authored by Cynthia Maupin, Maureen McCusker, Andrew Slaughter, and Gregory Ruark. This article stands out in the Special Issue in two main ways.…”

Team Communication Patterns in Critical Situations

“…An adaptation of SNA—dynamic network analysis (DNA)—can study communication over time by creating metamatrices for multiple points in time. However, this is still cross-sectional data collected at multiple time points (Maupin et al, 2020), which is insensitive to more fine-grained patterns of communication such as who initiates more interactions or to what degree team members are prone to address recently contacted team members. Other methods are sensitive to time but give limited insight into patterns: recurrence analysis (Gorman et al, 2012; Grimm et al, 2017) only measures determinism, and flow analysis of utterance events in teams (FAUCET) does not characterize specific patterns (Weil et al, 2008).…”