The Dramatistic Genre in Leadership Studies: Implications for Research and Practice

Abstract

Since the late 1980s, leadership theorists and researchers have appreciated the significance of leaders as makers of meaning. While this understanding has stimulated a greater need to link leadership to organizational symbolism and organizational sense-making issues, the focus on these issues has resulted in not insignificant dissatisfaction with conventional approaches to the study of leadership. In response, this article proposes a complementary alternative focus for research and practice in the leadership area. It advances the use of the symbolic and relational aspects of leadership as highlighted in the three subgenres of dramatism namely: Kenneth Burke’s dramatism (life is drama ), Erving Goffman’s dramaturgy (life is like drama ) and Victor Turner’s social drama (life and drama are interdependent ). There-after the article explores the key distinctions between the three sub-genres so as to identify their analytical as well as explanatory focus. Implications for leadership research and practice using the three subgenres are presented. The article closes with a discussion on the opportunities an integrated dramatistic approach might offer the general field of leadership.

Credibility Enacted: Understanding the Meaning of Credible Political Leadership in the Dutch Parliamentary Election Campaign of 2010

“…de Landtsheer et al 2008;Leary and Kowalski 1990;McGraw 2003). In line with the contribution of the dramaturgical perspective in other domains (Gardner and Avolio 1998;Sinha 2010;Peck and Dickinson 2009), adding a dramaturgical perspective also renders a greater appreciation of the role both leaders and audiences play in their relationship in the field of political marketing. While leaders can steer and control the impression they make to some or even considerable extent, credibility is constructed in the interaction between leaders and audiences.…”

“…While Goffman was a sociologist, his dramaturgical approach has also entered the domain of leadership and management studies, where it is mainly used to integrate theorizing on leader and follower interactions -especially in the context of charismatic leadership -and when studying leaders as meaning makers (Gardner and Avolio 1998;Sinha 2010;Peck and Dickinson 2009). This has resulted in a greater appreciation of the role both leaders and followers play in their relationship.…”

“…After all, central to dramaturgy is 'how people express themselves to, and in conjunction with, others to create meaning and influence' (Gardner and Avolio 1998, 33). Goffman -one of the prime contributors to developing this dramatistic genre in research -studied human behavior with the use of concepts borrowed from theater (Brissett and Edgley 1975;Goffman 1956;Sinha 2010). Key is that in contact with others, individuals try to control the impression they make on themperform facework -whereas at the same time the others are trying to acquire information about the individual or 'they bring into play information about him already possessed' (Goffman 1956, 1).…”

Conceptualizing the body and the logics of performing

“…Hawhee's (2004) analysis on how the practices of ancient athletics were intertwined with those of rhetoric, highlight not only the physicality behind the performance of language but also how sport has a substantial history with dramatic ideas. A benefit to this approach involves Sinha's (2010) concern that leaders would resist the idea that they are playing roles in a drama, but, as these leaders are fascinated with coaches of sport (Wolfe et al, 2005;Stec, 2012a), there is a potential to develop a better understanding of leading in a fashion that also influences practice.…”

Can the subaltern eat? Anthropophagic culture as a Brazilian lens on post-colonial theory

“…(Rolnick, 1998: 10) The problematic of authenticity Recent work has critiqued notions of organizational authenticity and highlighted performativity at the heart of organizations (e.g. Sinha, 2010). Anthropophagic discourse is poised to add to such critiques, since the history of cannibalism discourse has centered on power and colonial representation and the question of realism (Lindenbaum, 2004).…”