In Search of Identity Leadership: An ethnographic study of emergent influence in an interorganizational R&D team

Abstract

Recent trends in the leadership literature have advanced a relational and processual perspective that sheds light on the way leadership emerges and evolves in dynamic and flexible organizations. However, very few empirical studies have explored these processes over an extended period. To address this lacuna, we report findings from a three-year ethnographic study that explored the emergence and development of leadership in a selfmanaged interorganizational R&D team. Findings show that in the context of various events that impacted on the team, leadership emerged through interactions, processes, and practices that were perceived by team members to develop and advance shared goals and shared identity. Leadership responses to uncertainty surrounding the project were generally legitimated by team members' background and expertise in relation to this shared identity, while a lack of perceived legitimacy also compromised leadership. These observations are consistent with arguments that leadership revolves around the creation and enactment of shared social identity. However, they also suggest that the form and nature of leadership is hard to predict because it is heavily structured by specific identity-relevant practices and perceptions that arise in the context of unforeseeable events.

Nursing teamwork in the care of older people: A mixed methods study

“…shared (Han et al, 2018), transformational (Eisenberg et al, 2019) or identity (Smith et al, 2018) leadership approaches may be useful).…”

The power of positioning: How leadership work unfolds in team interactions

“…Hirvonen (2016) draws on positioning to analyse decision making in team meetings; he highlights the link between leadership and positioning, especially referring to the preassigned role of chair. Choi and Schnurr (2014) and Smith et al (2017) do not focus on positioning, yet their contributions are interesting because they study teams that do not present a clear line of authority. Choi and Schnurr (2014) concentrate on disagreements during meetings: they show that leadership is a conjoint process, where different individuals can take on a leadership role at different points; also, they demonstrate how the wider institutional framework impacts on the local negotiation of leadership.…”

“…Mainstream approaches also tend to ignore the context of interaction, particularly the broader (political) effects of individuals' interpretations and their connection to social structures (Alvesson and Sveningsson, 2003b;Collinson, 2005) and impose categories which are foreign to research participants (Clifton, 2006;Huxham and Vangen, 2000). These problems are reflected in the paucity of studies that use data based on observations of daily organisational activities (Smith et al, 2017;Vine et al, 2008). Thus, there is a limited understanding of how leadership is accomplished, independently of formal roles and attributes.…”

Emergent Methodologies: New Approaches for Integrating Theory and Practice: Priority 9 of the National Leadership Education Research Agenda 2020–2025

“…To enhance this more systemic, constructionist, interactional understanding of leadership, new approaches using unique, less prevalent methodologies is needed. For example, ethnographic studies, such as those conducted by Jenlink (2014) and Smith, Haslam, and Nielsen (2018) provide greater understanding about the interactive contexts in which leadership is practiced. Similarly, coconstructed autoethnographic studies used in fields such as coaching (Kempster & Iszatt-White, 2012) and management (Kempster & Gregory, 2017) can help examine the rich narratives leaders construct about their specific context and experiences.…”