Shared Leadership Meets Transformational Leadership
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Co-Leadership of Transformational Leadership: A Discourse Analysis Prof. Brad Jackson Auckland University Business School [email protected] Dale Pfeifer Research Fellow Center for the Study of Leadership Victoria University of Wellington [email protected] Bernadette Vine Corpus Manager for the Archive of New Zealand English Victoria University of Wellington [email protected] 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