Yes it is freezing cold here in Milton Keynes. And to quote
from one of my favourite works of literature (the Game of Thrones series),
winter is indeed coming. So it is perhaps suitable that this post will concern
exposure in leadership development.
I see this as the first of several posts in this area over
the coming months.
I have spent the week on and off catching up and reminding
myself of one of my favourite organisation writers, Yiannis Gabriel. Prof
Gabriel is unusual in that his articles, books and chapters read somewhat like
a stimulating (if ‘difficult’ in the best possible way) novel. They capture the
imagination, challenge perceptions and are really very difficult to put down.
He is also a fascinating blogger:
Prof Gabriel came to the attention of the wider organisation
studies world as someone who applied a psychoanalytic perspective to his work.
And why not? I have never bought the purist Foucauldian argument that
absolutely everything is discourse, that we are somehow total prisoners to a
regime of discourse. Well, ok I am not even sure that Foucault really believed
that either. But that is for another blog post.
The point here is that psychoanalytic perspectives on
leadership allow us a glimpse of why people seem to attach to some discourses
over others. Sure, not everything is affect and emotion and I would be the last
person to overlook the importance of material conditions in people’s
identifications with discourse. For example, very real material injustice can
in large part account for people’s (largely historic) affinity to trade unions.
But let’s not overlook the emotional underbelly of attachment. In the case of
trade unions, would they not also appeal to people’s needs for safety, as well
as self-esteem (narcissistic enhancement)?
So psychoanalytic perspectives can offer us a glimpse into
why people attach to discourses, to leaders, to organisations. To return to
Gabriel, a consistent theme in his work has been that of the symbolic
importance of the leader figure in our lives. Leaders provide an authority
structure. They provide an outlet for our narcissistic identifications. They
also provide a convenient scapegoat when things go wrong! Robert Cluley and
Keith Grint have also both addressed these issues in their work.
Of course these identifications we hold with such figures
can take a turn for the worst, when the priorities of organisations become
concerned with pampering the ego of the leader. Nevertheless, psychoanalysis
provides one explanation for why the figure of a strong individual leader seems
relatively effective in keeping people together.
So you must be wanting to finish your morning coffee or
lunchtime sandwich by now, so let’s get to the point. When we talk about the
development of collaborative leadership, what is it that we put at risk – what
is it that we expose? If leadership development programmes systematically
dismantle the figure of the individual leader … What takes its place? What do
we unleash by eroding the authority structures within organisations?
The implicit assumption underlying much collaborative
leadership writing is that we will enter a kind of democratic idyll. I wonder,
though … I mean it is not as if there are too many examples of sustained
collaborative leadership practice out there to come to a view on the question
of what replaces individual-based authority structures.
I do not pretend to know the answers to these questions. But
I am left with several reflections:
First, I am not saying that we should give up on
collaborative leadership. Clearly challenging authority and questioning power
are vital. Moreover, I think there is an energy to collaboration that is
missing when someone just tells us what to do. Such an energy, if channelled
well, can undermine corrosive over-identification with authority.
But second, I am not sure that enough thought has been given
to the ethical dimension of leadership development design in general. In
particular, to the notion of what is left behind when figures of authority are
stripped away. Are we left with a mess of paranoid, anchorless individuals
scrambling about for meaning? That is clearly one of the dangers. Or else will
participants project their authority identification onto a group? Groupthink
hardly seems like much of a happy alternative.
These are issues of exposure. Of exposing human participants
to the limits of their (and our) identifications.
So third, what comes of the leadership development
participant who re-enters her/his organisation full of notions of collaborative
leadership models? If they go about attempting to undo the fabric of authority
in place in their organisations, then perhaps they should be aware of the risk,
of the exposure.
There seems to be a need for balance somehow. That is why
the work of Grint and Heifetz appeals so much to me. There is always an agent,
or agents, at the heart of a collaboration, providing that need for a figure of
credibility who can push others into taking more responsibility for leadership.
Or perhaps there is a certain strength and possibility in
creating a kind of authority vacuum in leadership development. As long as we
are reflexive about what we do in that space. But that is for another day … For
now it’s time to wrap up warm and keep ingesting those vitamins. Winter has
indeed arrived and it is time for some good fireside reading. I recommend
Yiannis Gabriel’s Organizations in Depth: The Psychoanalysis of Organizations
as a great place to start if you are interested in applying psychoanalytic
thought to your practice.
You can purchase a copy here, although
I have yet to find a university library worth its salt which does not hold a
copy.
- Owain
No comments:
Post a Comment