Is there leadership in a fluid world? Exploring the ongoing production of direction in organizing

Abstract

Although the idea of leadership being a process is clearly stated in leadership definitions, most researchers focus on individuals rather than observing and studying processes. This contradiction has been highlighted by a number of scholars turning to leadership processes and practices, thereby drawing attention to the interactional and social aspects of the phenomenon. Such contributions mostly take process perspectives in which entities still play an important role. In this article, I therefore aim at contributing to leadership studies based on a process ontology by exploring one central aspect of leadership work, the production of direction, processually. I do so by building on geographer Massey's (2005) conception of space, thus adding a spatial dimension that enables me to conceptualize direction as the development of an evolving relational configuration. In order to empirically explore such a conceptualization, two constructs are proposed: the construction of positions and the construction of issues. The reading of leadership work thus produced leads me to suggest 'clearing for action' as a means of conveying the spatio-temporal and constructive (reality constructing) character of leadership work. 2Claiming that leadership is a process may not be controversial and the word 'process' may in fact be found in several definitions of leadership (cf Parry and Bryman, 2006, Schedlitzki andEdwards, 2014). More controversial is defining in what way leadership is a process and how, then, to study such a phenomenon.The result has often been a focus on single individuals, their characteristics and their behaviors (cf Parry and Bryman, 2006). Even when drawing on theories viewing leadership as a relationship, scholars often assess such a relationship individualistically, basing their conclusions on followers' or managers' ratings (Fairhurst and Uhl-Bien, 2012). Such contradictions have been highlighted by an increasing number of scholars (ibid, for example) and are connected with the methodological question of how to study leadership and what kind of (limited) knowledge researchers can develop by using different methods (Alvesson, 1996). Hence, an increasing number of scholars criticize leadership studies for essentializing leadership by locating it in a person and/or situation, thus not researching the process itself (Dachler and Hosking, 1995, Carroll and Richmond, 2008, Crevani et al., 2010, Raelin, forthcoming, to mention a few).Such essentializing approaches may be criticized not only for reducing a social phenomenon to an individual's qualities, but also for not recognizing that 'persons', 'situations', what is considered 'leadership' and what is considered 'proper behavior' are ongoing social constructions, not stable and evident facts (Fairhurst, 2009, Endrissat andvon Arx, 2013). Leadership could instead be considered a phenomenon produced and sustained in interactions, a situated and relational phenomenon (Uhl-Bien and Ospina, 2012;Crevani et al., 2010). More attention should be paid to how lea...

Accomplishing leadership-in-interaction by mobilizing available information and communication technology objects in a virtual context

“…Smircich and Morgan (1982) argue that "(l)eadership lies in large part in generating a point of reference, against which a feeling of organizing and direction can emerge" (p. 258). Similarly, Crevani (2018) argues that the production of direction is a central aspect of leadership work and that this offers a narrower definition of leadership than "influence process" (Crevani, 2018: 88). Denis et al (2012) specifically point to the conceptual article on direction, alignment, and commitment (DAC) by Drath et al (2008), which centers their model around outcomes.…”

Practicing Legitimate Leadership in Territories of Interactions in Greenland

“…The definition of leadership applied in this chapter is somehow different. The definition applied here turns to processes of everyday leadership practices, wanting to know about how activities of leadership engage with complexity and uncertainty that characterize the organizational setting (Crevani 2018). By this definition the Photo 3 Viewing the industrial harbor from Qinngorput focus of leadership moves away from objectivity, realism, cognitivism, and systems thinking (Stacey 2016).…”

“…The leadership perspective, grounded in process thinking, seems to be valuable when researching leadership in organizations as it unfolds in everyday organizational life. The process perspective of leadership recognizes the organizational context as a pluralistic setting where actors, leaders, managers, and employees engage in dynamic and collective interactions (Crevani 2018;Hernes 2014;Weick 1979). This is in opposition to the traditional perspective where leaders are positioned as patriarchal figures, looking at the system objectively from the outside and then designing and implementing strategies that ensure a desired outcome.…”

Learning leading technologies in the epoch of digitalization on the example of CLIL

“…In the framework of the new paradigm of educational process aimed at the competent specialist formation, and subsequently a professional who is able to effective activity at the level of world standards, education should have a special, innovative development. In another words, it aims at creating leaders (Gunter 2004;Danielson 2007;Razik et al 2010;Crevani 2018). One of the ways to modernize education is the application of modern pedagogical technologies in learning process.…”