Leadership between decks

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to understand the role of interaction in the process of leadership. Interaction has been claimed to be a leadership competence in earlier research into leadership in the Royal Navy. The aim of this research is to define how interaction works within naval teams. Design/methodology/approach – The research uses Grounded Theory. Following a series of leadership discussions in separate focus groups, discussion topics were coded and subjected to recursive qualitative analysis. The grounded approach is used to synthesise and develop existing leadership theory strands as well as to extend the trait-process approach to leadership. Findings – The research discovers the key interaction behaviours of engagement, disengagement and levelling. Our findings support recent developments in follower-centric perceptions of leadership and in interaction specifically. The authors develop engagement theory by combining it with the less well researched area of leadership resistance. The authors then re-frame resistance as social levelling, a more comprehensive interaction mechanism. Research limitations/implications – The research is highly contextual because of its qualitative approach. Some of the detailed reactions to leadership behaviours may not found in other naval or military teams and are unlikely to be generalisable to non-military environments. However, the mechanism described, that of engagement, disengagement and levelling is considered highly generalisable if not universal. Rather than develop new theory fragments in an already confusing research environment, the authors fuse engagement and resistance theory to extend trait-process theories of leadership. The result is a coherent and integrative model of leadership dynamics which frames leadership in the mundane interaction of leaders and followers. Practical implications – Interaction as a competence is strongly supported as is the encouragement of cultures which promote interaction. Selection procedures for future leaders should include interaction skills. The use of subtle methods of resistance are highlighted. Such methods may indicate poor interaction long before more overt forms of resistance are apparent. Social implications – The continual monitoring of leaders and implied ambivalence towards leadership could be critical to our understanding of leadership. A dynamic feedback circle between leaders and followers may be a more useful paradigm for the characterising of leadership throughout society. A better understanding of the power of followers to frame and re-frame leadership would help to manage the expectations of leaders. Originality/value – This research uniquely uses Grounded Theory to extend current theories (competence based leadership and trait-process theories of leadership), explaining the complexity of leadership interaction. The research also synthesises and develops engagement and levelling (resistance to leadership) theories for the first time. As such the project suggests a full range model of follower response to leadership including subtle forms of resistance to power. The value of group-level analysis using focus groups is recommended, especially for other collective leader-follower approaches to leadership. The research is of interest to those studying leadership process theories, competencies, leader-follower traditions, engagement and power/resistance research.

Individual differences as antecedents of leader behavior: Towards an understanding of multi-level outcomes

“…First, this model was published as a part of the Leadership Quarterly special issue on individual differences in 2012, and therefore, most researchers in our field are now familiar with this model. Second, because the special issue attracted considerable scholarly attention, a number of papers have already been based on or made use of ideas from this model (e.g., Offord, Gill, & Kendal, 2016;Samnani & Singh, 2013;Tuncdogan et al, 2015). For instance, Offord, Gill and Kendal (2016) applied a grounded theory approach to generate a better understanding of the leadership process model.…”

“…Second, because the special issue attracted considerable scholarly attention, a number of papers have already been based on or made use of ideas from this model (e.g., Offord, Gill, & Kendal, 2016;Samnani & Singh, 2013;Tuncdogan et al, 2015). For instance, Offord, Gill and Kendal (2016) applied a grounded theory approach to generate a better understanding of the leadership process model. Third, like the theory of reasoned action/theory of planned behavior, this model is simple, straightforward, and commonsensical.…”

The Impact of Team Conflict, Leadership and Job Demands on Employees Work Stress: Empirical Evidence from Public Organization

“…Influential LS models, such as charismatic and transformative LS, emerged in the 1980s and have been researched ever since. The LS style and employees' perceptions of stress have been linked [28] where transformative LS can help overcome WS [29]. Excellent LS is critical to organizational success [30] while transactional LS emphasizes idea exchange among leaders, peers, and members, which entails the leader debating the tasks to be completed with others and rewarding results [31].…”

Effective Strategies Small Retail Leaders Use to Engage Employees

“…The reference to employee disengagement produces an uncoupling of selves from work roles (George & Joseph, 2014). Disengaged employees struggle in work responsibilities and performance, morale, and in employees not taking advantage of available work resources (Offord, Gill, & Kendal, 2016). The disengagement plight of employees reduces creativity and participation in the workplace and hinders innovation (Martinez, 2015).…”

“…Communicating with people is a means to the manager figuring out the best method to respond to certain situations with employees (Kahn, 1990). Technology offers managers an effective way to communicate and engage with their employees (Men & Hung-Baesecke, 2015) Leadership traits include the manager's motives, values, social and cognitive ability, and knowledge; which they share with their employees (Offord et al, 2016). Researchers have found knowledge sharing and innovation encourage creativity and participation among employees (Martinez, 2015).…”