Relational Perspectives on Leading

Mette Vinther Larsen, J. Rasmussen

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2015
• Print ISBN: 9781349701865, 9781137509390
• eBook ISBN: 9781137509413
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Business Strategy
• Index: Business

Relational Perspectives on Leading discusses leadership from a relational and social constructionism perspective as practiced on an everyday basis between people. The book pursues a fast growing, practice-based approach - particularly within the Anglo-Saxon parts of the world - to organization studies and organizational phenomena.

1

Relational Leading

Mette Vinther Larsen and Jørgen Gulddahl Rasmussen

In this chapter we present one way in which relational leading can be understood. There are many approaches to and understandings of what relational leading includes (see Denis et al. 2012; Fairhurst & Grant 2010 Hersted & Gergen 2013; Ospina & Uhl-Bien 2012; Uhl-Bien 2006). We have chosen to base our examination on the researchers and the ideas we believe have grasped some interesting and relevant aspects of the way leading unfolds in everyday settings. Over the course of several years, we have observed how strategic leading is practised in public and private organisations and we have been struck by the connection between how an organisation functions in an everyday setting and the desire for strategic change (Gjerding et al. 2013; Larsen 2014; Larsen & Rasmussen 2012).

What has especially caught our attention is people’s daily task of understanding the situations they find themselves in, and the circumstances under which they take meaningful action that supports a company’s or an institution’s strategy. Such processes are particularly emergent and unpredictable, and it is a co-constructive effort of the people involved to develop appropriate solutions to the challenges they suddenly find themselves in. What they in situ perceive as appropriate solutions plays a role in shaping how an organisation realises its strategic initiatives.

We use the term leading instead of leadership to emphasise the relational and social constructionism understanding that emerges from working with leading from this perspective. The term leadership is, however, maintained whenever we refer to researchers who use ‘leadership’ and not ‘leading’. A common interest among all the authors who have contributed to this book is how an organisation’s members interact when leaders wish to initiate change. The relational leading perspective that we provide in the book allows us to explore and discuss on various levels how leading can be understood in a situation where the anchor point is people’s shared efforts in understanding what goes on around them and finding meaningful ways of taking action. In this book ‘leading’ will therefore always mean leading in relation to someone or something, and it will be through the way relations develop that organisational phenomena such as strategy, change, culture and power gain meaning, content and relevance for the situation in which the organisation – and therefore also its members – finds itself.

The interpretation of relational leading presented in this book by no means covers the entire relational area, with all of the interpretations, renditions and nuances the perspective accommodates. Neither should this chapter be read as a long summary of theories by researchers who have dealt with or who are interested in the concept of relational leading. Rather, it should be read as a presentation of researchers’ ideas that brings together a perspective on leading that is dealt with in this book. Our primary aim is to gain a general understanding of human interaction in the context of leading as it occurs in relations between people in organisations.

The intention of this chapter and of the ideas it investigates is to contribute to the understanding of the concept of relational leading. This will be done by presenting a perspective and by focusing on the areas of leading that occur daily in the relations in which leaders and co-workers are engaged. The path through this chapter is chosen based on the concepts, dialectics and researchers that we find best represent central aspects of what a relational approach to leading is all about.

Each of the researchers or groups of researchers who appear in this chapter will, to a great extent, inspire the direction of the book. It is the intention of this approach to present the reader with an understanding of relational leading that is characteristic for this book. There will be concepts, interactions and dialectics that reappear through the chapter, but the points of focus will be different and the complexity of the concepts and interactions will increase. Many of the concepts will also be elaborated upon further in the following chapters.

Before the interpretation of relational leading that this book deals with is presented, we will briefly introduce some basic aspects upon which the book’s arguments are based, with the intention of presenting the book’s conceptual foundation to the reader. We attempt to do this in such a way that it becomes clear to the reader why the discussions begin where they do and why they develop the way they do.

The relational: A path through the forest

In recent years, the concept of ‘relational leading’ has gained significantly more attention than it had previously, and more works have been published with the words ‘relational leadership’ and/or ‘leading’ in the title (see e.g. Hersted & Gergen 2013; Ospina & Uhl-Bien 2012). In a review of articles that discuss leadership research as something that is shaped by several people, four perspectives on leadership are presented: ‘team leadership’, ‘leadership in dyads or triads’, ‘distributed leadership’ and ‘interaction-based leadership’ (Denis et al. 2012).

In the interaction-based perspective, leadership is considered a process involving several people. In this perspective, Denis et al. associate researchers such as Dian Marie Hosking, Mary Uhl-Bien and Ann Cunliffe; on a few occasions, the article by Denis et al. uses the term ‘relational’ to describe this interpretation of leadership: ‘Leadership is an emergent property of relations’ (Denis et al. 2012: 215). Some of the aspects of leadership that this article touches on briefly in more general terminology are similar to what we consider to be the defining characteristics of relational leadership, which is something we will expand on.

Despite the fact that the concept of relational leading is relatively new, the philosophical impetus behind it is as old as Heraclitus, if not older. The inspiration for this perspective comes from several different sources, some of the most important being phenomenology, George Herbert Mead’s ideas on symbolic interactionism, William James and Richard Rorty’s ideas on pragmatism, and Berger and Luckmann’s ideas on social constructivism.

One of the sources of inspiration we find particularly significant to this perspective is Kenneth Gergen’s interpretation and continuation of social constructionism. He is a pioneer in introducing social constructionism in organisation theory and he is among the first to have dealt with leading from a relational perspective. His work is built on the idea that all understanding, knowledge and meaningful actions are socially constructed by people (Gergen 2009). Even when people are alone, they apply their relations to how they think, understand and act. In this perspective, all knowledge is considered socially constructed, and is continuously changed and developed through people’s communication with each other.

Some relational conditions for leading

One of the interesting aspects of the relational perspective on leading is that it creates an understanding of and an approach to leading in which continuous and unpredictable processes, small everyday changes, everyday communication, incremental and often unnoticed experiments and relational sense-making receive more attention. When we speak of leading and approaches to leading with this perspective – for example, when we discuss topics relating to long-term planning, devising organisational structures or innovation strategies, organising communication plans, designing planned and major changes and implementing projects – it is done from a relational and social constructionist stance.

Taking this view, we see that our knowledge of what will happen, how the optimal structures of design look, what a strategy should include, how a change occurs and what is meaningful to an organisation’s members is knowledge that is created over time among the people who attempt to make sense of and realise the strategy in what they believe to be reasonable and sensible ways (Chia & Holt 2009; Larsen & Rasmussen 2013). It is not possible to use calculation or analysis to predict how strategic processes will develop and how people will react. On the other hand, there is much to be learnt from experience and knowledge of how similar processes have developed in the past and how people have handled similar situations. People share a number of assumptions and certain patterns of culture and meaning that they have created together, which they lean on in everyday practice when they need to understand what is going on around them and how they can initiate meaningful action (Schütz 1967b).

Such assumptions and patterns are developed over time and will eventually acquire an objectified status. They acquire this status if over time they seem to have been able to solve some of the problems that an organisation’s members deal with in ways that are appropriate for the members (Berger & Luckmann 1966). These scholars would say that these patterns are reified over time and thereby are seen as assumptions, interpretations and actions that are generally natural, logical and obvious, in spite of the fact that they are created by people in their efforts to handle current challenges. They are subsequently accepted within a given group and appear within that group as valid and legitimate ways of understanding and acting.

For the group, these assumptions and patterns of culture and meaning that are generally taken for granted constitute central knowledge that its members can apply in their efforts to understand themselves, each other and the contexts in which they find themselves (Cunliffe 2011; Gergen 2009; Mead 1974; Uhl-Bien 2006; Vološinov 1973). The knowledge that people embody, apply and continuously develop is thereby relationally created and relationally accepted. The knowledge at hand is used to initiate actions and simultaneously makes up the initial framework for constructing meaning and understanding of the very same actions (Balogun 2006; Gergen & Thatchenkery 2004; Weick et al. 2005).

This co-constructed and continually emerging knowledge also works to give retrospective meaning to incidents and is an appropriate basis for assessing how it would be wise and constructive to act in different situations because it is socially constructed and accepted (Berger & Luckmann 1996; Gergen 2009; Schütz 1967b; Shotter 2006). It is, however, important to note that from a social constructionism perspective it is not possible to use existing knowledge alone to analyse or predict exactly what will happen in situations to come.

Furthermore, it is in no way a given that what is considered meaningful within one group is also considered meaningful in other groups. It is far from certain that there will be one common and shared understanding within a given organisation of what is appropriate and relevant. It is more likely that there will be different or even contradicting understandings (Alvesson & Sveningsson 2008; Larsen 2014; Ospina & Uhl-Bien 2012; Uhl-Bien 2006).

Since the knowledge that members of an organisation use, both in their efforts to understand what goes on around them and as a basis for initiating meaningful actions, is a relational creation of people within a given group, there will be several different and taken-for-granted assumptions by various members of the group and several different patterns of culture and meaning present simultaneously. Which understanding is created and which actions are considered appropriate and meaningful will therefore depend on the actual people taking part and the concrete context. Knowledge of what is appropriate, relevant and realistic is constructed through people’s communication with each other and their shared efforts in handling daily challenges in meaningful ways (Cunliffe 2011; Gergen 2009; Ingold 2008; Larsen & Rasmussen 2013; Weick 1988). Usually there are many good yet different suggestions as to what this should be (Alvesson & Sveningsson 2008; Larsen 2011; Ospina & Uhl-Bien 2012; Uhl-Bien 2006).

Leading as participation in relational processes

The continuously emerging understanding of other people and people’s relational connection between actions and sense-making is significant when leaders make long-term strategic plans, design new structures and conceive communication and implementation plans. Leaders can give many good suggestions about and have a good gut feeling for how processes will develop and how the organisation’s employees and environment will react. These suggestions and gut feelings can work well as a basis for what is considered relevant and appropriate. However, they are only local suggestions and it is only through the leader’s presence and participation in the processes through which he is constantly attempting to co-construct understanding, along with other people, about the situations they find themselves in that the plans and structures are turned into understandings and practices that in situ and contextually are relevant and wise.

Therefore, from this perspective, the interactions among people are pivotal. It is their shared creation of assumptions, taken-for-granted patterns of culture and meanings of the unknown that unavoidably affects any event people participate in that will shape how ideas, leading and strategic initiatives are realised. Most of the time, people can take advantage of their routines and existing knowledge in order to understand what happens around them and to decide how they will then initiate meaningful action (Feldman & Pentland 2003; Orlikowski 1996). There is often, however, more than one set of relations involved in making decisions about how to handle a challenge, so there are several different understandings present simultaneously (Alvesson & Sveningsson 2008; Larsen & Rasmussen 2013).

At the same time, no set of relations can expect their local routines and existing taken-for-granted assumptions to be used as the only framework of reference for understanding collective challenges (Ingold 2009). Because there are often people from different local groups involved, something unexpected and unpredictable may occur in each group. Whatever ideas arise could prove to be significant and interesting, and could possibly lead to new solutions.

These ideas would be something each set of relations would have to take into consideration regarding how challenges should be handled so that the initiated actions will be appropriate and relevant (Ingold 2010; Shotter 2011). In this way, our existing knowledge is challenged by situations we find ourselves in, in which not everything is immediately understandable. At the same time, we have to continuously deal with the unknown and the new in order to understand what happens around us, decide how to act and thereby develop our knowledge.

These interactions involve plans and structures that are continuously developing and the initiation of new and unforeseen actions and previous understandings as well as the modification or abandonment of meaningful approaches (Ingold 2008; Shotter 2006; Vološinov 1986). This development happens because of people’s shared efforts in realising the goals and strategies that in some cases could have...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title Page
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Figures
• Foreword
• Notes on Contributors
• Introduction
• 1 Relational Leading
• 2 Leadership in Relational and Distributed Practice: General and Historical Perspectives
• 3 Communication as Relational Practice of Leading
• 4 Dialogue and Power
• 5 Relational Creation of Leadership Identity
• 6 Leaders’ Use of Maps, Guiding Images and Momentary Meaningful Actions
• 7 Developing the Competence to Lead in Everyday Situations
• 8 Relational Leadership: Ontology and Practice
• References
• Index