![]()
LEADERSHIP
The Key Concepts
![]()
ADVICE AND DISSENT
Ruth H. Axelrod
In this complex world, no single leader has the knowledge and ability to effectively envision, plan and achieve social, political or organizational goals entirely on his or her own. Modern leadership demands collaboration with many people, each of whom has special knowledge, skills and expertise that generate unique insights and perspectives. One of the crucial aspects of a leaderâs job, therefore, is to foster open communication among her collaborators and involve them in decision-making at all levels. To function effectively, collaborators must feel free to participate fully in the process, providing information, giving advice and expressing dissent.
All too often, however, people do not feel free to speak their minds, particularly in situations where there is an asymmetry of social power. The problem is widespread not only in organizations but also in public dialogues. In his observations on early nineteenth-century democracy in America, de Tocqueville (1835/1956) warned of the tyranny of the majority, a phenomenon which continues to threaten freedom of speech in favour of political correctness. In the 1950s, a booklet issued by the American Society of Friends challenged prevailing societal attitudes in a report entitled Speak Truth to Power (Cary 1955). This directive has since become a rallying cry for the disenfranchised who seek to voice their aspirations for social change.
How often do we avoid speaking truth to power, especially when it is truth that we believe those in power do not want to hear? We invoke endless reasons for not speaking out, asserting that the issue is not important enough to bring to the notice of the leader or arguing that if the leader does not want to hear it, she wonât, so why bother.
We rarely admit to ourselves that it is anxiety that keeps us silent, but most of our rationalizations are grounded in fear of reprisal if we speak out â at best, of being disregarded or ostracized and, at worst, of being fired. History, as couched in legend, tells us that the recipient of unwelcome news often strikes out brutally at the messenger. Our fears teach us to believe it.
Surveys of what leaders and followers want from each other in hierarchical organizations inevitably place loyalty high on the list (see, for example, Kouzes and Posner 2003). The wise subordinate carefully considers what his manager might mean by loyalty and may err on the side of risk-aversion. Some seek safety in acquiescence, but that selfprotection may be purchased at high cost to the organization. For it is only when organizations, like societies, welcome dissent and promote openness that they are likely to prosper. Yet dissenters are often derided for being selfish and disloyal even though they adhere to their beliefs and values at their own expense (Sunstein 2003).
Much has been written about radical, public forms of dissent, such as whistle-blowing, but many studies of dissent in every-day decisionmaking have focused on decisions that were poorly conceived because of the failure of those involved to fully evaluate all relevant information, including contrarian views. The powerful social forces that produce the Abilene Paradox (Harvey 1988a, b) and groupthink (Janis 1982) â the desire to be accepted as part of an in-group and the fear of ostracism for expressing dissenting views â are salient in all interpersonal relationships.
Some leaders signal their subordinates, whether intentionally or not, that they are uncomfortable with dissent and may even consider it to be an expression of insubordination. But it is essential that they discriminate clearly between constructive dissent and insubordination. To dissent is to express a difference of opinion, to disagree. To be insubordinate is to be disobedient. The former is part of an effective decision-making process; the latter is a rejection of its outcome. The former supports legitimate authority; the latter contests it.
There are, of course, limits to constructive dissent. At some point, if a consensus is not reached, the prudent dissenter must either accept the decision of those in authority or continue to voice his dissent in another arena. Certainly, some circumstances warrant bypassing the normal chain of command in a hierarchy or even going outside of the organization to major stakeholders, the courts or the press. Each dissenter must make that decision for himself. However, it is far less likely that matters will progress to such a pyrrhic struggle if the dissenter believes that he has been heard and engaged in an open dialogue.
What can be done by leaders of organizations and societies to encourage constructive dissent? First, leaders must demonstrate that they welcome viewpoints that challenge their own. This requires that they treat others as collaborators, rather than reflexive or reactive followers, and be willing to share thought leadership, admitting that their associates may have better ideas then they do. Second, they must encourage open dialogue, ensuring that there are no undiscussables that compel a collusion of silence (Ryan and Oestreich 1998). This requires that they be willing to bear a close examination of all aspects of their organization and their own leadership. Third, they must suppress ideacide by rewarding innovative thinking and discouraging habitual conformity (Hornstein 1986). This requires that they be willing to consider radically new ways of thinking and accept failure as a cost of experimentation. This is not an easy approach to take. It requires personal courage, psychological hardiness and a strong sense of purpose.
A key part of a leaderâs job is to establish an effective organizational culture that supports the values that she espouses (Schein 1985). People learn to trust that the leader means what she says only when there is evidence of it in practice, when the values are operationalized in policies, procedures and reward systems that are verified by collective experience. For it is through the stories that exemplify âthe way we do things around hereâ, the rituals and legends, that culture is transmitted in any social group. Through these mechanisms, the organization and its leaders cultivate, or deplete, the interpersonal trust that is at the heart of all effective social relationships (Jaques 2002). Trust, in turn, enriches the organizational decision-making processes by allowing employees to communicate even bad news, with confidence, upward through the hierarchy (Roberts and OâReilly 1976) and work groups to abandon self-censorship (Friedlander 1970; Gibb 1978). When people trust each other, they feel free to speak their minds.
Thus, the challenge for leaders who wish to make the most of the knowledge and talent that is available in their organizations is to build trust throughout their constituencies by clearly and consistently conceptualizing their associates as collaborators rather than followers and welcoming both advice and dissent.
See also: authority, leaderâfollower relations, cross-cultural leadership, ethics, hierarchy
Further reading: Chaleff 1995; Hornstein 1986; Rosenbach and Taylor 1998; Ryan and Oestreich 1998; Sunstein 2003
![]()
AESTHETIC LEADERSHIP
Jonathan E. Schroeder
Aesthetic leadership concerns the manner in which artists, and other aesthetic workers, perform leadership functions within groups, communities and culture, often outside established positions of authority. Aesthetics has generally been concerned with questions of beauty and the notion of universal tastes. Kant argued that human response to art is disinterested, which led to an ongoing debate about the relationship with visual culture. Others have argued that there is a distinct aesthetic realm, which allows people to respond to beauty in terms of colour and form. Recently, artists have been called upon for aesthetic leadership in management â as leaders, practitioners, visionaries and inspirers (e.g. Austin and Devin 2003; Hatch et al. 2004; Schroeder 2005). Thus, aesthetic leadership need not refer merely to creativity or vision, rather aesthetic leadership may emerge from insight into cultural, political or interpersonal issues; aesthetic statements on social injustice or crucial cultural concerns; or, at a more general level, provide alternative ways of seeing problems, history or received wisdom. In this way, aesthetic leadership may either complement or contradict more traditional leadership forms, such as politics, religion or management. It may be that aesthetic leadership draws some of its power from the position of the aesthetic producer outside conventional leadership positions.
Well-known examples include Jacques-Louis David, whose famous painting The Death of Marat (1793) catalysed support for the French revolution by shrewdly mixing fine art with propaganda. During the bloody eighteenth-century uprising, David reorganized the AcadĂ©mie, an important national institution â critical for authenticating and disseminating cultural and political opinions and trends â and he produced many spectacular propagandistic events, eventually being imprisoned for his political views. Another iconic aesthetic leader, Nobel Prize-winning poet Czeslaw Milosz, drew attention to repression in Poland, and helped spark the Solidarity movementâs success. A final example concerns the Asian-American sculptor and architect Maya Lin, whose haunting Vietnam Veteranâs memorial in Washington DC helped a nation â especially Vietnam veterans and their families â begin to come to terms with a tremendously debilitating and divisive epoch in American history. Lin, who, an undergraduate university student at the time, steadfastly refused to compromise her aesthetic principles during a bitter battle over her minimalist design, held to her strong, clear vision, as described in the Academy Award winning documentary of the rancorous debates about how the war should be memorialized (Mock 1995).
Research and thinking about aesthetic leadership spans several disciplines, and often encompasses management studies, art history and sociology â aesthetic leadership represents one strand within the growing field of aesthetics and management. In the field of organization studies, RafaĂ«l Ramirezâs Beauty of Social Organization (1991) inspired many scholars in an aesthetic turn. Organization and Aesthetics by Antonio Strati (1999) has become well respected, its contribution resting on applying aesthetics to understanding organizations from a psychologically informed organizational theory point of view. Heather Höpfl and Stephen Linsteadâs edited volume, The Aesthetics of Organization (2000), offers a useful, well-conceived introduction to the issue of aesthetic leadership. Pierre Guillet de Monthouxâs The Art Firm: Aesthetic Management and Metaphysical Marketing from Wagner to Wilson (2004) provides several case studies of aesthetic leadership, providing a useful genealogy of aesthetics within the economy. Stephen Taylor and Hans Hansen (2005) provide a useful review of this emergent field, focused on aesthetic inquiry.
Aesthetic leadership may rest in leadership qualities of charisma, interpersonal skill or vision, yet remains elusive, and difficult to categorize or contain. Often, aesthetic leaders have trained in areas somewhat distant from typical leadership or management disciplines â literature, art or theatre, for example â and this training may offer a capacity for innovative insight. However, insight or vision alone remains insufficient; aesthetic leadership requires a rare combination of desire, determination and drive, along with a prodigious aesthetic gift.
See also: charisma, creativity, cross-cultural leadership, ethics, wisdom
Further reading: Austin and Devin 2003; Guillet de Monthoux 2004; Hatch et al. 2004; Lin 2000
![]()
AUTHORITY
Chris Miller
Few attempts have been made to analyse the concept of authority since Max Weberâs (1947) classical study (see Sennett 1980; Raz 1979, 1990). Weber identified legitimate authority as resting on one of three systems of social control: tradition, charisma and legal-rational authority underpinned by expertise and formal rules. Those with power are accorded authority by virtue of the legitimacy of the principles by which they hold power. Subsequent political science literature has explored authority in relation to the state and problems of social coordination. Lukes (1987) notes that the focus has either been analytical, concerned with identifying the elements of authority, or normative and directed on the legitimacy of authority. For some these are distinctly separate with legitimacy understood as context-related and therefore subject to change. Others argue that any study of authority must be that of legitimate authority and thus the key question is the basis on which authoritative pronouncements should be recognized as such.
Carter suggests that authority is the antithesis of force (1979: 17) and implies the capacity to command respect and elicit a variety of forms of voluntary compliance or âfollowershipâ. For Raz (1979) authority is normative power, consisting of the ability to change behaviour by providing other overriding reasons for action legitimized by a sufficient number of people.
A key assumption is that authority belongs primarily to a sanctioned and mutually recognized role (Friedman 1990). Such positional authority depends on the recognition of those subject to it and the capacity and desire of the occupant to take up the role (Lukes 1987: 209). Yet mutual recognition is not always necessary to sustain authority, its exercise may not always be apparent, the criteria by which the credentials of authority are chosen may be unclear and the nature of the recognition accorded can result in the surrender of judgement (Lukes 1987). The relational nature of authority by which legitimacy is established, maintained or lost and new voices of authority emerge continues to be a fruitful area of enquiry, as is the capacity for multiple sources of authority to co-exist (Lovell 2003).
Raz (1979, 1985) argues that authority and reason are bound together. Compliance is ceded on the grounds that what is proposed offers âa more reliable and successful guide to right reasonâ (Raz 1985: 25). Lukes insists that the objectives an authority wishes to pursue cannot be determined a priori and are often contested. Consequently, the identification of relations of authority is complex, involves a process of interpretation, and is perspective related. Authority is here inherently unstable, subject to conflict, negotiation and change.
Within the âgroup relationsâ tradition, authority is given a specific meaning within an organizational context where it is understood as a function of self-management in relation to role and task performance (Miller 1993: 310). It does not imply a âcommitment to the prevailing power structure or to the established way of doing thingsâ (p. 311) and its exercise can involve personal risk to the individual concerned. Authority is derived from personal competence and commitment to the task that is constantly prone to corruption from collusive patterns of behaviour involving both those in authority and their subordinates (Chapman 2003). However, the task cannot always be straightforwardly deduced (Silverman 1968), although when contested the stress on âpersonal authorityâ resonates precisely because there are no fixed and durable definitions.
Within civil society, where informal roles predominate within horizontal relationships, the part played by the individual, both in establishing and maintaining authority, or âreputationâ, is critical. Here it remains useful to distinguish between someone who has an inner authority that appears to be embodied in the individual personality, someone who is an authority, and commands a respectful hearing, and someone who is in authority. These three forms of authority refer to the self, to reputation and to position respectively and while each is distinct there is likely to be some relationship between them. Although such relations take place within a social context marked by structural inequalities, relations of authority cannot simply be reduced to these, nor is the impact of underlying power structures so evident in specific contexts.
Analyses that focus on the dynamically unfolding relations of authority can better account for those in which authority is transitional, when those with authority no longer command it nor have the need to do so. Here the exercise of authority is itself an authorizing process, enabling the other to become autonomous, sensing and acting upon his/her own authority. To invest in a sustainable relationship of authority, albeit one that contains the seeds of its own dissolution, the relationship must be available for challenge and the transactions and the rationale for these transparent. To the extent that the boundaries of authority are ambiguous, these need to be negotiated and re-negotiated. Such relationships can neither assume a compliant subject nor succeed through the use of sanctions, but are inherently fragile and require repeated demonstrations of authority reliability.
Responses to authority or the use of oneâs own authority will be applied inconsistently dependent on time and context. Such relationships are a shifting terrain fluctuating from resistance to compliance and are difficult to transfer from one context to another. Further, while in a role of relative dependency we may be simultaneously in âauthorityâ in relation to someone else. What we seek in the other we may hope for in ourselves. We remain cautious about authorizing a role, institution or person anticipating disappointment or worse. Good authority is hard to find and disappointments are all too frequent. The need for authority, and the sense of dependency that results, conflicts with individual freedom, another powerful need, and can generate a strong anti...
