The Co-Leadership of Transformational Leadership: A Discourse Analysis
Prof. Brad Jackson
Auckland University Business School
Dale Pfeifer
Research Fellow
Center for the Study of Leadership
Victoria University of Wellington
Bernadette Vine
Corpus Manager for the Archive of New Zealand English
Victoria University of Wellington
ABSTRACT
This paper brings the co-leadership and transformational leadership theories together. Co-leadership is described as two (or more) leaders in vertically contiguous positions who share the responsibilities of leadership (Heenan & Bennis, 1999). Here we conduct a small preliminary analysis to explore this phenomenon, focusing on four leaders in one New Zealand company who are regarded by other members of their organisation as transformational. With the use of discourse analysis, we explore an interaction with their followers guided by Berson and Avolio’s (2004) analysis of the communication behaviour associated with transformational leadership - careful listener, careful transmitter, and open communicator.
Keywords: Co-leadership, transformational leadership, leadership enactment, discourse analysis
INTRODUCTION
This paper brings the co-leadership and transformational leadership theories together in a case study of a
New Zealand organisation. Co-leadership, a concept first coined by Henan and Bennis (1999) in their book Co-leaders: The power of great partnerships, is described as two (or more) leaders in vertically contiguous positions who share the responsibilities of leadership. Here we provide a small case study to explore this phenomenon, focusing on four leaders in one organisation who are regarded by others as transformational. With the use of discourse analysis, we explore an interaction with their followers for evidence of both co-leadership and of the communication behaviour Berson and Avolio (2004) associate
1 with transformational leadership, i.e., careful listening, careful transmitting, and open communication1.
The use of discourse analysis allows us to explore a real workplace interaction rather than just relying on what people report occurs. As Cuno (2005) states, “leaders lead through their words, as acts of speech, as it were” (p. 205), so studying the words of these leaders enables us to examine how these leaders “do being a leader” (Holmes, Stubbe & Vine 1999).
We believe that co-leadership makes an important contribution to the leadership literature, although it currently lacks empirical analysis. Transformational leadership, on the other hand, has gained widespread attention and significant validation (Dumdum, Lowe, & Avolio 2002; Bennis & Nanus 1985; Tichy &
Devanna 1986). However, it has not escaped criticism. Of major concern is most studies’ focus on a pair of individuals (a leader and a follower), otherwise known as a dyad (Yukl 1999; Yammarino et al. 2005).
In response, Yukl (1999) suggests examining a leader’s influence over a group of multiple followers/organisational processes. However, as signalled by the currently popular shared leadership paradigm, focusing on multiple leaders may also be important. Also of concern is that leadership studies define a generic set of leader behaviours and their effect on followers, but fall short of clearly identifying exactly what those behaviours are. As Alvarez and Svejenova (2005) suggest when referring to the wider field, leadership studies “mostly focuses on the personal characteristics and psychology of executives rather than on their actual behaviour and their activities in performing the tasks prescribed by their roles”
(p. 3). They go onto suggest “Studies of leadership are too often lacking in context” (p. 3). This call is echoed by numerous scholars advocating that we need to determine a better understanding of precisely how leadership manifests in specific contexts, to give a deeper understanding of how leaders’ behaviour impacts the leadership process (Den Hartog et al. 1999; House 1995; Dorfman 1996; Bass 1990).
TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP
Since the late 1980s, theories of transformational leadership have gained widespread scholarly attention.
First conceptualised by Burns (1978), versions of transformational leadership have been proposed by
1 Careful listener and careful transmitter are not terms or constructs we would normally use, especially where they imply a sender-receiver or transmission model of communication (which we challenge). Instead our aim is to explore
2 several theorists, including Bass (1985, 1996), Bennis and Nanus (1985), Sashkin (1988), and Tichy and
Devanna (1986, 1990). It has made an important contribution, acknowledging the importance of emotions, values, symbolic behaviour, and the role of the leader in making events meaningful for followers. It helps to explain how some leaders cultivate group or organisational performance beyond expectation by developing emotional attachment with followers and other leaders, that is tied to a common cause and contributes to the greater good (Avolio & Yammarino 2002).
Transformational leadership’s most prolific research stream has derived from the endeavours of Bass and colleagues (Avolio & Bass 1991; Avolio, Waldman, & Yammarino 1991; Bass 1985, Bass 1998; Bass &
Avolio 1994; Hater & Bass 1988). Bass’s original theory included four transformational leadership factors
(leadership behaviour that influences followers to perform beyond expectation) and two transactional leadership factors (an exchange process to motivate follower compliance with leader requests and organisation rules). The current expanded form of this theory, the Full Range Leadership Theory (FRLT), includes nine single-order factors comprised of five transformational leadership factors (idealise influence
(attributed and behaviour), inspirational motivation, individual consideration, intellectual stimulation) three transactional leadership factors (contingent reward, management by exception (active and passive), and one non-transactional laissez-faire leadership.
There is a significant body of research that suggests that transformational leadership is an effective form of leadership behaviour (Bass 1998; Dumdum, Lowe & Avolio 2002; Berson & Avolio 2004; Kan &
Parry 2004; Tichy & Divanna 1986). However, a number of empirical studies have failed to support this model and several theoretical concerns have been identified as a result of these. One is that the majority of transformational leadership research has a narrow focus, concentrating on dyads or individual pairs of leaders and followers (see figure one) (Yammarino et al. 2005; Kark & Shamir 2002; Yukl 1999).
Consequently, transformational leadership scholars have come to understand this phenomenon as a series of dyadic interactions occurring within a group, over time (Yammarino, Spangler & Dubinsky 1998). How a leader influences group-level processes is not explained well (Yukl 1999). Additionally, and of
these communication styles, as proposed by Berson and Avolio (2004), in the authentic communication of
3 paramount concern in this paper, how multiple leaders influence groups of followers has not yet been explored.
transformational leaders.
4 Figure 1: Transformational leadership: Three levels of analysis
Leadership at the Dyadic-level Leadership at the group-level Co-leadership at the group level
FOLLOWER FOLLOWER
LEADER FOLLOWER FOLLOWER (FOLLOWER)
FOLLOWER FOLLOWER
LEADER LEADER FOLLOWER FOLLOWER (FOLLOWER)
FOLLOWER FOLLOWER
LEADER FOLLOWER FOLLOWER (FOLLOWER)
FOLLOWER FOLLOWER
There is a growing debate within leadership studies over whether or not leadership should be regarded
either as an individual or a shared activity. Some scholars suggest leadership is a shared or group-level
activity, an individual might step forward to lead or step back to follow depending on the moment and the
skills and knowledge required (Pearce & Conger 2003). As noted by Fletcher and Käufer (2003) “shared
approaches to leadership question this individual level perspective, arguing that it focuses excessively on
top leaders and says little about informal leadership or larger situational factors” (p. 22).
Several influential leadership scholars have made references to transformational leadership as a shared
process. Burns (1998), widely regarded as the father of transformational leadership, describes “the
existence of webs of potential collective leadership” (p. 2). He suggests that individual leaders are likely to
“…merge with others in a series of participant interactions that will constitute collective leadership”
(1998) (p. 3). In his work on transformational leadership in teams, Bass (1998) notes that transformational
leadership could be shared among the team members. However, substitutes for leadership may evolve that
help support the team’s higher levels of achievement. Additionally, Avolio and Bass (1995) argue that
5 transformational leadership theory can be considered as a multi-level construct and the type of individualised relationship that a leader builds with each follower can also emerge among team members.
Kellerman and Webster (2001) have cautioned however that “The prevailing scholarly winds have now shifted so much in favour of collaboration—in contrast to hierarchical decision-making and organizational structures—that the challenge for researchers has become one of guarding against excess” (p. 493). We must be careful not to overestimate the degree that transformational leadership is shared between members of a team. What we argue here is a special case of shared leadership that acknowledges the importance of both hierarchical authority and collaboration. This is important because, as Kellerman and Webster suggest, collaborative leadership between team members is not necessary—and does not necessarily work—in all circumstances. However, to counter this, evidence suggests that groups make better decisions than individuals (Elkin, Jackson & Inkson 2004). What we have noted is that leaders often do collaborate, but not with all organisational members. Instead they collaborate with their closet allies, who also usually hold leadership positions within the organisation.
CO-LEADERSHIP
First coined by Heenan and Bennis (1999), co-leadership is defined as two leaders in vertically contiguous positions who share the responsibilities of leadership. They describe co-leaders as ‘‘truly exceptional deputies—extremely talented men and women, often more capable than their more highly acclaimed superiors’’ (Heenan & Bennis 1999, p. 6). CEO – COO – CFO, president – vice-president, chancellor – vice-chancellor, prime minister – deputy prime minister, and managing director – artist director are among the leadership partnerships or top management teams featured by many organisations, explicitly dividing leadership roles between more than one leader at the top of the organisation. These structures, in executive suites, political organisations and public institutions, give the argument that leadership is often engaged in by more than one leader some traction.
Hennan and Bennis suggest that “we continue to be mesmirized by celebrity and preoccupied with being
No. 1”. However this overvalues the contribution of the general or CEO or president and depreciates the
6 contributions of subordinates. ‘‘The genius of our age is truly collaborative,’’ they write. ‘‘The shrewd leaders of the future are those who recognize the significance of creating alliances with others whose fates are correlated with their own’’ (Heenan & Bennis 1999, p. viii). When it comes to leadership an old cliche may well ring true, “two heads are better than one”.
Although co-leadership has yet to undergo rigorous testing, several scholars suggest that it improves leadership effectiveness (Heenan & Bennis 1999; O’Toole, Galbraith & Lawler 2002; Sally 2002; Alvaez
& Svejenova 2005). Upper Echelons Theory, conceived by Hambrick and Manson (1984) give us some insight into why this might be. This theory suggests that leadership is an importance ingredient of organisational performance; however, the complexity of organisations makes it improbable that one leader alone will be able to exert great influence over all members of the organisation. A co-leadership structure makes this more likely, helping to fill the gap between the top-tier leader and the rest of the organisation.
Additionally, Hambrick (1989) argues that strategic leadership occurs in an environment embedded in ambiguity, complexity, and informational overload. An important responsibility of top-level organisational leaders is enabling the organisation to adapt to this complex environment (Boal &
Hooijberg 2000). The skills required to successfully negotiate this increasingly complex environment are extensive and may be too broad to be possessed by one leader (Story 2005; Alvaez & Svejenova 2005).
Collaboration at the senior leadership level improves the success of the strategic organisational partnership
(Huxham & Vangen 2000), allowing top corporate managers adequate attention for different aspects of the leadership task including day-to-day operational activities and long-term strategy (Bass 1990).
As this paper’s title suggests, we believe that further scholarly exploration of co-leadership is important for gaining a deeper understanding of the transformational leadership phenomenon. Here, we conduct a small exploratory analysis that will allow us to take a close look at precisely what leadership looks like in one organisation.
7 THE ENACTMENT OF TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP
While the behaviour resulting in transformational leadership is widely described in the literature (Bass
1985; 1996; Avolio & Bass 1995), it usually focuses on leadership outcomes or achievements, falling short of clearly identifying exactly what those leaders do. As Alvarez and Svejenova (2005) suggest, leadership studies “mostly focuses on the personal characteristics and psychology of executives rather than on their actual behaviour and their activities in performing the tasks prescribed by their roles” (p. 3).
To gain a deeper understanding of transformational leadership we need to move past solely identifying leader behaviours to examine how leadership itself is manifested in different contexts. For example, the way a leader goes about enacting individual consideration may be different in a high power distance culture where a leader and followers are not likely to have close interpersonal contact, from a low power distance culture where more interpersonal contact is likely (House et al. 2004). This inattention to leadership practises is common but surprising given the ways in which leaders enact these behaviours may be what is most important when it comes to influencing what followers do and think (Blasé & Kirby 1993;
Lambert et al. 1995; Smylie & Hart 1999). However, there is a growing call from leadership scholars to develop a better understanding of the different ways that leadership is enacted in specific contexts (House
1995; Bass 1990; Boyacigiller & Adler 1991; Dorfman 1996; House et al. 2004).
Investigating the enactment of transformational leadership involves understanding how leaders define, present, and carry out micro tasks while they are interacting with followers. This type of in depth analysis requires moving beyond the highly prevalent use of surveys to interpretive tools. One way of doing this is to explore interactions between leaders and followers. Few studies have examined how transformational leaders communicate. And yet effective communication is widely regarded as a critical component of effective leadership. As Hackman and Johnson (2004) state “extraordinary leadership is the product of extraordinary communication” (p. 98).
One study that has begun to explore this issue is Berson and Avolio’s (2004) investigation into transformational leadership and the dissemination of organisational goals in a telecommunications firm.
They conducted an exploratory analysis using a survey and in-depth interviews to examine how the
8 leadership style of top and middle-level managers was related to their effectiveness in conveying strategic organisational goals. Their study was guided by Klauss and Bass’s (1982) survey of how managers’ communication patterns relate to their leadership styles, showing that effective leaders were perceived as being highly delegative, consultative and participative, as well as being effective listeners, careful transmitters of information, and promoters of open two-way communication. Berson and Avolio (2004) employed three of these communication behaviours (see table 1 below). They showed that transformational leaders were rated as more effective communicators by their direct reports and transformational leadership is associated with careful listening, careful transmitting, and an open communication style. Berson and Avolio (2004) believe that “these findings provide some initial insights into how transformational leaders convey messages to followers” (p. 642). However, they require further testing and validation to ensure they are components of transformational leadership communication.
Table 1: Transformational Leadership Communication Styles
Communication Style Description Careful listeners Transformational leaders listen carefully to their followers. For example they focus attention on what direct reports are saying and let direct reports finish a point before interrupting Open Transformational leaders promote open and two-way communication with their followers to achieve objectives. For example they ask for their direct reports’ views on problems and issues Careful transmitters Transformational leaders communicate carefully with their followers. For example they choose their words carefully and organise their thoughts before speaking
EXPLORING THE CO-LEADERSHIP OF TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERS
In the current study we take this a step further by examining data from a management meeting involving four leaders and a group of seven followers in order to see if there is evidence of these transformational leadership communication styles. We will also refer to an interview conducted with the managing director of the company. This is a small exploratory analysis, testing both Heenan and Bennis’s (1999) concept of co-leadership and the transformational communication behaviour as described by Berson and Avolio
(2004).
9
The data that we analyse in this study was collected by the Wellington Language in the Workplace Project
(LWP) (Holmes 2000; Holmes & Stubbe 2003). The Project’s aim is to analyse features of effective interpersonal communication in a variety of New Zealand workplaces, and it uses a methodology that allows real interactions to be recorded by volunteers within a workplace (Stubbe 1998). An outside observer visits the workplace to get an idea of where the best places to record are, but they are not present during the recordings. With larger meetings, recording equipment is put in place (including video cameras) and turned on, but then the technicians leave so that there are no outsiders present at the meetings. At the time of writing, the LWP database includes more than 1500 workplace interactions collected in many different types of workplaces, ranging from government departments through commercial organisations to small businesses and factories. The data for the current study were collected from a small business. One-to-one interactions, large meetings and interviews were gathered from this workplace, which was undergoing a lot of change at the time we were recording. They were expanding and introducing new technology and processes to enable them to grow and offer a wider range of products and services.
In an interview focussing on leadership, the managing director of the business identified five other leaders within the organisation that he relies on. He notes that they are outstanding leaders and acknowledges the vital contribution each of these people makes to the organisation. Similar comments are made about him by his subordinates.
Of relevance to the interaction examined below, are the managing director’s comments about the general manager, the business development manager and the sales manager. He says that he and the general manager run the business together; the general manager making decisions that the managing director does not have the knowledge to make himself. In relation to the business development manager, the managing director notes that he has brought a raft of experience and knowledge to the company which has proved invaluable. The managing director sees the co-leadership between himself and each of these leaders as crucial to the success of the company. Although not individually identified, the examples below involve
10 the managing director, the general manager and the business development manager, providing an opportunity to explore this co-leadership in action.
A fourth leader mentioned by the managing director as an outstanding leader and who is present in the interaction we examine is the sales manager. Unlike the general manager and the business development manager, the sales manager does not report directly to the managing director. Rather, he reports to the general manager. He is at a lower level, although with all the changes taking place in the company he is about to move into a higher position. The managing director speaks very highly of the sales manager.
Because he is also present in the meeting, we thought it would be interesting to see what part he plays.
In examining the way the leaders communicate when interacting with their followers we use discourse analysis, a research method that is relatively novel to the field of leadership studies but which has proven highly beneficial in many other disciplines. Following a linguistic approach to discourse, we analyse real workplace talk for evidence of the social relationships between speakers both in what they say and how they say it. The way one person’s contribution relates to the contributions of others is also of relevance
(Schiffrin 1994).
The data we examine is from a meeting which is 140 minutes long. The first 75 minutes deals with a number of agenda items, such as the current financial report and health and safety issues. In the last sixty minutes of the meeting two of the leaders talk to the group of followers about the change that is occurring at the company. The first thirty minutes of this discussion is led by one of the leaders (leader L below), another taking the lead in the second thirty minutes (leader E). The process of co-leadership is evident here already in the way the discussion is organised. The third leader is chairing the meeting (leader A). His main role throughout is to control the flow of talk in the meeting, although as will become apparent below he steps up to take a more active leadership role at times.
The first excerpt below comes from the first thirty minutes of the discussion on changes, which has been led by leader L. At this point the other two leaders come in to support and expand on leader L’s points.
11 Leader L then adds to this as well, as one after the other the leaders come in and reinforce the message to their followers. The speakers are excited about the changes and this is evident, for example, in the tempo and pitch of their discourse, as well as in their use of strong adjectives such as ‘exciting’ and ‘great’. They could be said to be demonstrating transformational leadership in that they are inspiring and motivating their followers to embrace the changes.
Example one:2
1 Leader A: … but what’s exciting about this model 2 and it’s something that [leader E] and I have been talking about 3 is actually having a model that you can invent [product area] 4 and people have always said that you can’t actually invent [product area] 5 you’re just basically filling a need 6 but we want to go out there and sell as hard as we can 7 and have people walking into the store intending to buy [product] 8 in actual fact buying some [product] that they never would have bought 9 so er that’s another exciting prospect
[four second pause – someone clears his throat - leader L makes notes on the whiteboard]
10 Leader E: cos the other thing the guy said that I picked up on is um 11 I said about who he’d sold this new technology to (that) 12 he said what happens is er is you don’t actually sell it into people doing 13 looking at what we’re doing many times over 14 cos not that many people in any given market can do it 15 because he said but by the time somebody else has got up to speed 16 tried to emulate it you’re on- offering a great range in developed products 17 and you’re taking the next steps and so so they never get a good comparison 18 you know if you’re looking at well I can have it on this that and this 19 and I can get this product or that product and well these guys do that you don’t er
20 Leader L: some of the empirical evidence suggests that when new business models 21 when new businesses are created the first mover in that business assuming all 22 assuming that it’s run well and does what it should do 23 and continues to develop and so on 24 the first mover should make at least half of all of the profit 25 that will ever be made in that business sector 26 so it doesn’t matter who comes afterwards the first mover will will always have 27 cos they gain a hundred percent of the profits in the first two years 28 and eighty percent of the profits in this next three 29 and seventy percent and so by the time you get to the end of the product life cycle 30 the first mover has had at least half of all the profits 31 that’ll ever be made in that area so
This excerpt exemplifies well the co-leadership of transformational leadership in this organisation. We can also see in this excerpt evidence of two of the communication behaviours as identified by Berson and
2 Note: [..] editorial comment or deleted names … indicates that some of the transcription has been left out (..) unclear parts of the transcript
12 Avolio’s (2004) as resulting in transformational leadership (see Table 1). The way all three leaders carefully communicate with their followers is evident here. The sections of talk from each of the three leaders are fluent. There are not many hesitations and they speak clearly as they forcefully make their points. The only significant pause is after leader A’s turn. During this time leader L makes notes on the whiteboard. Leader E then takes the floor.
Each leader carefully listens to the others as they outline their points. There is no overlapping talk as each speaker takes their turn, not even any ‘mm’s and ‘yeah’s. Typically a discourse analysis of a large meeting like this will show overlapping. In leader L’s turn he takes up the point of leader E and reinforces it by backing it up with what he knows about research on business development. The way all four leaders listen carefully is evident here, as it is throughout the meeting. As people talk to their agenda items others listen.
In the video of this meeting we can see that everyone is looking at the speakers at this point and several people are leaning forward as they listen.
There are often times in this meeting when one person holds the floor, although there are of course other times where several speakers discuss an issue, the floor passing between them. Leader L has been responsible for the current agenda item and does most of the talking with occasional supportive contributions from leaders E and A (as in example one) and the odd question and comment from followers. Leaders E, A and D can be seen to be followers throughout this section of the meeting, as leader
L draws on his experience, although in example one leader’s E and A’s roles as co-leaders come to the fore. Leader E is responsible for the next agenda item and does most of the talking in the next section of the meeting. Leaders L, A and D at this time listen carefully and take their roles as followers.
The way that the four leaders listen carefully to each other and to their followers, promotes open, two-way communication. Berson and Avolio (2004) cite the asking of direct reports’ views on problems and issues as an example of how transformational leaders promote open and two-way communication. Example two shows leader E actively encouraging two-way communication with his followers in this way. Leader L has
Transcripts have been edited to remove names and identifying features and to make them easier to read
13 just finished speaking to his agenda item and leader A has thanked him. Leader E comes in at this point and explicitly asks the followers if they have any questions.
Example two:
1 Leader E: has anyone got any questions for [name]? [pause] [quietly]: no:
2 Leader A: just one thing I (wanted to note) is that he’s prepared quite a few 3 um er papers now [lists papers] 4 and if anyone wants a copy of one of those er to have a look through 5 they’re quite interesting 6 just see er [name] if you want to have a look at those
The co-leadership relationship is evident here again in that it is Leader E who asks for questions in relation to leader L’s agenda item, and it is leader A who responds to this question by making a comment. No questions are forthcoming from the followers and so leader E pushes this further, in another attempt – this time successful – to find out the followers’ views (see example three).
Example three:
1 Leader E: … I was just interested to see any questions is no questions 2 does that mean everyone understands …
[overlapping talk and laughter through next section – not marked in transcript]
3 Follower S: it probably means just time to absorb
4 Leader E: does it make sense?
5 Leader D: I think he’s been pretty comprehensive in in what he’s sort of 6 um outlined to everyone so er yeah 7 er Evan had quite a few questions there and er 8 and probably questions that are running in our minds as well … 9 it’s going to be exciting and I think the people here ( ) 10 on the excitement …
10 Leader E: … if I was you Ivo I’d be freaking out a bit 11 and same with you and same with you Marshall
12 [laughter]
13 Follower I: because you’ve explained it so well we we kind of each know 14 that it affects us in a big deal and we’re waiting for um 15 we’re not waiting for it to hit the fan 16 but we’re trying to make our and 17 we’re gearing our products to make it work 18 and so I am freaking out but you know there’s there’s 19 there’s a lot of third party people that I’m freaking out to 20 to make things work because if they get it to work I’m a lot happier ...
14 After follower S responds to leader E’s question he asks a further question and this time he gets an answer from leader D. Leader D does not say much in this meeting – preferring to sit back and let others do the talking. Here, however, we can see him stepping up. Although he responds as a follower, what he says highlights his role as a leader to others. The other followers seem reluctant to respond, and so leader D can be seen to respond on their behalf. His role as part of the team leading the change - as a transformational leader and a co-leader – is also evident, however. In lines 9 and 10 he talks about the changes as being
‘exciting’ and refers to ‘the excitement’, echoing the way leader A talked about the changes in example one (lines 1 and 9).
Leader E then probes further, explicitly addressing three other followers that he wants feedback from. One of these then takes up his question and provides an extended assessment of things from his point of view.
Looking at what leader D and follower I say in example three, provides further support for our assessment of leader L as a careful communicator. They both explicitly acknowledge the clear and comprehensive way he has explained things.
Another factor that is evident here is that these followers are also leaders. The examples are drawn from a management meeting. All the followers are therefore leaders in their own areas. They have expertise and skills in different areas, all of these areas contributing to the successful running of the company. At different points in the meeting an individual’s expertise in an area may come to the fore as they draw on that experience to provide information or advice.
DISCUSSION
The first goal of this study was to determine whether the transformational leadership process was engaged in by multiple leaders in the context of a New Zealand organisation. The examples in this article are taken from one management meeting from an organisation, and involve three leaders in executive level positions and one at a slightly lower level. Readers may have noticed that we used a variety of strategies to avoid indicating the position of the higher level leaders. In example one, the transformational leadership was being undertaken by all three leaders - the managing director, the general manager and the business
15 development manager. Our analysis demonstrates that within this context transformational leadership is the prerogative of all three of these leaders. The sales manager was also seen to take on this type of role.
What we believe is occurring here is a co-leadership process. Each leader engages in transformational leadership communication to fulfil different leadership functions. Each leader has distinct skills, responsibilities, spheres of influence and leadership styles, which they contribute to the leadership partnership. This provides a greater arsenal of tools, knowledge and experiences to deal with both organisational and environmental complexity, as they collaboratively steer this organisation through a process of change and down the path to success. The organisation’s flexible power structure, emphasising power sharing rather than asserting control, accommodates this process.
This study conceptualises leadership as a process shared by three top-tier leaders from one organisation.
Although not assessed in this study, it is possible that all organisational members exhibit transformational leadership communication from time to time. But how important is this? Influence is the key factor that underpins most leadership definition. Although a person at the bottom tier of the organisation may exhibit transformational leadership communication, in most cases, they are not likely to have a great capacity to influence the organisation’s strategic direction. In light of this, we believe that when studying organisational leadership it is important to focus on those who are likely to have significant influence within the organisation - those at the top of the organisational hierarchy. This is not to underplay the importance of collaboration, which we believe is important for understanding the phenomena. What we argue here is a special case of shared leadership, acknowledging the importance of both hierarchy and collaboration. We suggest that leaders often do collaborate, but not with all organisational members. They collaborate mainly with their closet allies, usually those who also hold leadership positions within the organisation.
Another goal of this paper was to explore how leaders actually enact transformational behaviours as they go about their day-to-day activities, and how this is manifested in interactions with their followers.
Examining how leadership manifests itself has the advantage of more precise measurement and lets us
16 relate specific behavioural descriptors to generic leadership functions. This approach allows us to describe leadership as it is uniquely manifested in each culture, organisation, or organisational unit studied.
As one important way that leaders go about enacted leadership is through the use of language (Berson &
Avolio 2004; Hackman & Johnson 2004), discourse analysis is an effective way to explore how leadership is manifested. This paper examines leaders’ verbal interaction with their followers in a large meeting, showing how transformational leadership manifested within this context. The examples show precisely how the communication behaviour associated with transformational leadership - careful listening, open
(two-way) communication, and careful transmitting – were evident in this specific context. Although only a few examples were reported here, this organisation’s transcripts were rich with instances of transformational leadership communication. This paper demonstrates how discourse analysis offers new possibilities to study leaders’ communicative acts. The research needs to be expanded considerably and tested in a variety of other contexts, but we hope that it will prove a useful exemplar and invite others to participate in further exploring these concepts.
This is not to detract from the importance of identifying and understanding transformational leadership behaviour. We believe that this is very important for theoretical understanding of this phenomenon. An understanding and description of the manifestation of these behaviours is useful for gaining a more precise understanding of cultural and organization specific leadership phenomena. Its greatest benefit is likely to be for applied purposes such as teaching leadership or organizational development efforts, giving facilitators more precise tools to demonstrate exactly what this process looks like in an organisational context. We believe that use of more fine grained analysis, such as discourse analysis will prove invaluable in advancing our understanding of leadership’s nuances.
17 REFERENCES
Alvarez, J.L., & Svejenova, S. (2005). Sharing executive power: Roles and relationships at the top. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Avolio, B.J., & Bass, B.M. (1991). The full range leadership development programs: Basic and advanced manuals. Binghamton, NY: Bass, Avolio & Associates.
Avolio, B.J., & Bass, B.M. (1995). Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of analysis: a multi-level framework for examining the diffusion of transformational leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 199-218.
Avolio, B.J., Waldman, D.W., & Yammarino, F.L. (1991). Leading in the 1990’s: Towards understanding the four l’s of transformational leadership. Journal of European Industrial Training, 15(4), 9–16.
Avolio, B.J., & Yammarino, F.J. (2002). Introduction to, and overview of, transformational and charismatic leadership. In B. J. Avolio and F. J. Yammarino (Eds.). Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead (pp. 231–254). Oxford: JAI.
Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B.M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research and managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press.
Bass, B.M. (1996). A new paradigm of leadership: An inquiry into transformational leadership. Alexandria, VA: U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
Bass, B.M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military and educational impact. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. (Eds.). (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Bennis, W.G., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York: Harper & Row.
18 Berson, Y., & Avolio, B.J. (2004). Transformational leadership and the dissemination of organizational goals: A case study of a telecommunication firm. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(5), 625- 646.
Blasé, J.J., & Kirby, P.C. (1993). Bringing out the best in teachers: What effective principals do. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Boal, K.B. & Hooijberg R. (2000). Strategic leadership research: Moving on. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), 515-549.
Boyacigiller, N., & Adler, N. (1991). The parochial dinosaur: Organizational science in a global context. Academy of Management Review, 16, 262–290.
Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper Row.
Burns, J.M. (1998). Empowerment for Change. Unpublished manuscript, Kellog Leadership Studies Project, University of Maryland.
Cuno, J. (1995) Telling Stories: Rhetoric and Leadership, a Case Study, Leadership 1, 2, 205-213.
Den Hartog, D.N., House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Ruiz - Quintanilla, S.A., & Dorfman, P.W. (1999). Culture specific and cross-culturally generalizable implicit leadership theories: Are attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed? The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 219–256.
Dorfman, P.W. (1996). International and cross-cultural leadership research. In B. J. Punnett & O. Shenkar (Eds.), Handbook for international management research (pp. 267–349). Oxford: Blackwell.
Dumdum, U.R., Lowe, K.B., & Avolio, B.J. (2002). A meta-analysis of transformational and transactional leadership correlates of effectiveness and satisfaction: An update and extension. In B. Avolio and F.J. Yammarino, (Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead (pp. 35-66). Oxford: Elsevier Science ltd.
Elkin, G., Jackson, B., and Inkson, K. (2004). Organisational Behaviour in New Zealand: Theory and Practice (2nd ed.). Auckland: Pearson Education New Zealand.
Fletcher, J.K., & Käufer, K. (2003). Shared leadership: Paradox and possibility. In C.L. Pearce & J.A. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership (pp. 21–47). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
19
Hackman, M.Z., & Johnson, C.E. (2004). Leadership: A communication perspective (4th ed.) Long Grove, Ill: Waveland Press, Inc.
Hambrick, D.C. (1989). Guest editor’s introduction: Putting top managers back in the strategy picture. Strategic Management Journal, 10, 5–15.
Hambrick, D., & Mason, P. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9, 193-206.
Hater, J. J., & Bass, B.M. (1988). Superiors’ evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 695–702.
Heenan, D.A., & Bennis, W.B. (1999). Co-leaders: The power of great partnerships. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Holmes, J. (2000). Victoria University of Wellington’s Language in the Workplace project: An overview. Language in the Workplace Occasional Papers 1.
Holmes, J., & Stubbe, M. (2003). Power and politeness in the workplace: A sociolinguistic analysis of talk at work. London: Pearson.
Holmes, J., Stubbe, M. & Vine, B. (1999). Constructing professional identity: "Doing power" in policy units. In Sarangi Srikant and Celia Roberts (eds.) Talk, work and institutional order. Discourse in medical, mediation and management settings (pp. 351-385). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
House, R.J. (1995). Leadership in the 21st century: A speculative enquiry. In A. Howard, (Ed.), The changing nature of work. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.), (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, C.A.: Sage Publications, Inc.
Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2000). Leadership in the shaping and implementation of collaboration agendas: How things happen in a (not quite) joined up world. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1159-1175
20 Kan, M.M., & Parry, K. (2004). Identifying paradox: A grounded theory of leadership in overcoming resistance to change. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(4), 467-491.
Kark, R., & Shamir, B. (2002). The dual effect of transformational leadership: Priming relational and collective selves and further effects on followers. In B. Avolio and F. J. Yammarino, (Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead (pp. 67-91). Oxford: Elsevier Science ltd.
Kellerman, B., & Webster, S.W. (2001). The recent literature on public leadership: Reviewed and considered. The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 485-514.
Klauss, R. & Bass, B.M. (1982) Interpersonal communication in organizations. New York: Academic Press.
Lambert, L., Walker, D.Z., Zimmerman, D.P., Cooper, J.E., Lambert, M.D., Gardner, M., & Slack, P. (1995). The constructivist leader. New York: Teachers College Press.
O’Toole, J., Galbraith, J., & Lawler, E.E. (2002). When two (or more) heads are better than one: The promises and the pitfalls of shared leadership. California Management Review, 44, 65-83.
Pearce, C.L., & Conger. J.A. (Eds.) (2003). Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Sally, D. (2002). Co-leadership: Lessons from the republican Rome. California Management Review, 44, 65-83.
Sashkin, M. (1988). The visionary leader. In J. A. Conger & R. A. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness (pp. 122–160). San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass.
Schiffrin, D. (1994) Approaches to Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.
Smylie, M.A., and Hart, A.W. (1999). School leadership for teacher learning and change: a human and social capital development perspective. In J. Murphy and K.S. Louis (eds), Handbook of educational administration: A project of the American Educational Research Association (pp. 421–442, (2nd ed.): San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Story, J. (2005). What next for strategic-level leadership? Leadership, 1(1), 98-104.
21 Stubbe, M. (1998). Researching language in the workplace: A participatory model. Proceedings of the Australian Linguistics Society Conference. University of Queensland, Brisbane July.
Tichy, N.M., & Devanna, M.A. (1986). The transformational leader. New York: Wiley.
Tichy, N.M., & Devanna, M.A. (1990). The transformational leader (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Yammarino, F.J., Spangler, W.D., & Dubinsky, A.J. (1998). Transformational and contingent reward leadership: Individual, dyad, and group level of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 9(1), 27-54.
Yammarino, F., Dionne, S., Chun, J., & Dansereau, F. (2005). Leadership and levels of analysis: A state-of-the-science review. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 879-919.
Yukl, G.A. (1999). An evaluation of the weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 285-305.
22