Open Research OnlineThe Open University’s repository of research publicationsand other research outputs

Public leadership development facilitation and thecrossroads bluesJournal ItemHow to cite:

Smolovic Jones, Owain; Grint, Keith and Cammock, Peter (2015). Public leadership development facilitationand the crossroads blues. Management Learning, 46(4) pp. 391–411.

For guidance on citations see FAQs.

c© 2014 The Authors

Version: Accepted Manuscript

Link(s) to article on publisher’s website:http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1177/1350507614537020

Copyright and Moral Rights for the articles on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyrightowners. For more information on Open Research Online’s data policy on reuse of materials please consult the policiespage.

oro.open.ac.uk

1

PublicLeadershipDevelopmentFacilitationandtheCrossroadsBlues

Abstract

Thearticleseekstomakesenseofthechoicesfacingthepublicleadershipdevelopmentfacilitator,indesignandin-the-momentprogrammedecisions.Thechallengeispositedasoneofsituatingknowledgeoffacilitationpracticesinacriticalrelationshipwiththepublicsectorleadershipliteratureandthecriticalleadershipdevelopmentliterature.Thearticlepositionspublicleadershipdevelopmentfacilitationassittingwithinthreepressingdilemmas,orcrossroads,concerning:publicleadershiptheory,criticalleadershipdevelopmentscholarshipandfacilitationscholarship.Anarrativeethnographicmethodologyisadoptedtoexploretheconstructionsofaspecificpublicsectorleadershipdevelopmentfacilitatorasameansofanalysingfacilitatorchoicesinaction.Aninterpretationofhowthefacilitatorframesandconstructspublicleadershipinrelationtotheconstructionsofparticipantsisoffered.Thearticlesituatesfacilitatorchoicesashighlypolitical,sittingcontextuallybetweentheidealismofthepublicsectorliteratureandthesocialidentificationsofparticipants.Theauthorsoffertwodominantformsoffacilitationchoices(framingandadaptive)asaheuristicforfacilitators,practitionersandscholarswhowishtoreflectfurtherontheroleofleadershipdevelopmentinthepublicrealm.

Keywords

Publicleadership;leadershipdevelopment;facilitation;ethnography;narrative

Introduction

TheinfamoustalewhichservesasthebackgroundtoRobertJohnson’s‘CrossRoadBlues’song

seemsanappropriatemetaphorforthisarticle.Encounteringthedevilatacrossroad,lateatnight,

forcedtochoosebetweenthehardwaytoguitarprowessorthetantalisingpossibilityofaseductive

shortcut,Johnsoniscaughtatbothametaphoricalandliteralcrossroad.Wearguethatleadership

developmentfacilitatorsregularlyencountersimilardilemmas,althoughlittlehasbeenwritten

abouthowsuchchoicesbecomemanifest.Evenlesshasbeenwrittenaboutthechoicesleadership

developmentfacilitatorsfacespecificallyinapublicsectorcontext.

2

Thisarticleattemptstoaddressaneedintheliteraturetounderstandthepositioninganddecision

workofleadershipdevelopmentfacilitatorsinthecontextofoftendivergentperspectivesoffered

onpublicleadershipbyparticipantsontheonehandandtheacademicliteratureontheother.

Theleadershipdevelopmentfacilitatoroccupiesauniquepositioninthatsheorhefacesthe

complexitiesofparticipantpositioningandcontrarinessoftheorisinginanimmediateway(faceto

facewithpractitioners)andinthemoment.Suchproximitytotheimplementersofleadership,we

believe,surfacesanumberofimportantchoicesconcerningthefacilitationofleadership

development.

Thefocusofthisarticleistoexplorehowpublicleadershipdevelopmentfacilitatorsnavigatechoices

inpractice,makingvisiblesomeofthetensionspresentedintheprocess.Weapproachthisproblem

throughanethnographicstudyoftheexperiencesofaparticularpublicleadershipfacilitator,

analysingthepositioningchoiceshemakesandconsideringthedilemmasraisedbythesechoices.

Ourintentionispractical:toofferpractitionersmoresubstantivereflectivematerialtoinformtheir

choices(Watson,2010).Wealsohopetocontributetotheacademicliteratureonpublicleadership

throughofferingsomeilluminationontheimplementationconsequencesofpublicleadership

theorising.

Webeginbyconsideringtheareaofpublicleadership,andleadershipdevelopment,ascontested

fieldsofstudyandpractice.Bearinginmindthiscontestedcontext,thearticlemovesontoconsider

theroleofsuchacontestedenvironmentforthepracticeoffacilitationwithinpublicleadership

development.

Crossroad#1:Publicleadershipasacontestedfield

Thecurrenttrendwithinpublicleadershipistowardscollaborativeformsofleadership(Huxhamand

Vangen,2005;O’ReillyandReed,2012).Yetcollaborativeleadershipmaybeviewedashistorically

3

situatedamongstothertheoriesofmanagingandleadingwhichemphasiseprioritiesotherthan,and

evencounterto,collaboration.

Collectiveformsofleadershiparereferredtointhisarticleundertheumbrellatermof‘collaborative

leadership’,althoughwenotethatanumberofalternativetitlescouldbeadopted(Bolden,2011).

Collaborativeleadershipcanbeviewedasacollectionofideaswhich,atthemostfundamentallevel,

challengethenotionthatleadershipshouldbeviewedasthepropertyofanindividual,beitinthe

formofpersonalitytraitsorbehaviouraldisplays(Grint,2011).Atheart,collaborative

interpretationsofleadershiphypothesisethattheresponsibilitiesofleadingmaybesharedamongst

agroupofpeople,orevenembodiedwithinanagreedprocesswhichtranscendsandcontinues

aboveandbeyondindividualswithinagroup(Grint,2000).

Collaborativeleadershiphasonlyrelativelyrecentlybecomemoreestablishedasadiscoursewithin

publicleadership(O’ReillyandReed,2012).Theriseofcollaborativeleadershipcanbewitnessedin

notonlyscholarlyliterature,butalsoingovernmentpolicy.Despiteideologicaldifferences,both

LabourandConservativegovernmentsintheUKhaveattemptedtoembedcollaborativeleadership

inlocalpolicydelivery,withtheTotalPlaceandBigSocietyinitiatives,respectively(GrintandHolt,

2011).InNewZealand,thegovernment’sflagshipBetterPublicServicesinitiativeisrootedinideals

ofcollaborationacrossgovernmentagencies(JacksonandSmolovićJones,2012).Localcouncils,

governmentdepartmentsandagencies,eventhirdsectororganisationsarebeingencouragedas

neverbeforetocollaborateinordertogaintractiononsocialproblemspreviouslyregardedaseither

intractableoratleastincapableofbeingaddressedthroughtheprocessesofsingleorganisations

(Brookes,2010and2011;Gibneyetal,2009).

ChrislipandLarson’s(1994)seminalworkonpubliccollaborativeleadershipisoftencitedasan

influential,idealisticadvocacyoftheprinciplesofpubliccollaboration.Perhapsasinterestingasthe

book’scontentisitshistoricalcontext.Publishedinthemid1990s,thebookemergedamidstthe

dominantdiscourseofNewPublicManagement(NPM)(McLaughlinetal,2001).Theabilityofpublic

4

managerstoaddcompetitivevaluetotheirorganisationsviaenterprisingmanagerialfreedomswas

regardedastheprimarychallengeofpublicsectororganisingunderNPM.Althoughlabelleda

technical‘management’solution,NPMhasbeenassociatedwithneoliberalideology,itsrootsseen

ascontextuallyboundwithabeliefinthepowerofindividualfreedomsandchoice(Newman,2005).

AnevolutionofNPMwaswitnessedintheemergenceoftransformationalleadershiptheory(Bass

andRiggio,2005)intoapublicsectorcontext,seenasameansforthepreviouslydryscienceof

managementtotapintotheemotional,purpose-driven,heartofpublicorganisations(Gunter,

2011).YetevenNPMwasobservedasacontestedidea,withitspartialadoptionexistingalongside

moretraditionalidealsofpublicaccountabilityandprocessetc(Hood,1995).

Itwouldthusbemisplacedtocharacteriseanyeraofpublicorganisingasdefinedbyasingletheory

ofmanagingororganising,evenifcertainideascanbeidentifiedasmoreinfluentialthanothers

withinscholarshipandpolicy.Soitiswithpubliccollaborativeleadership.Oneneedonlylookwithin

theumbrellatermof‘collaborativeleadership’todiscoverthatitcanadoptahostofdifferent

connotationsdependingonwhoonereadsorasks(Edwards,2011;HuxhamandVangen,2005;

SmolovićJonesandGrint,2013;VangenandHuxham2003).Collaborativepublicleadershipisnot

onlyacontestedconstruct,butalsoonewhichexistswithinafieldofalternativepositionsfor

leadingandmanagingthepublicsector.

Viewingpublicleadershipasacontestedfieldbringsintofocusthechallengeforthoseseekingto

developpublicleadership.Whatmayatfirstsightappearasarelativelystraightforwardtranslation

ofleadershiptheorytodevelopmentpedagogyanddesigninfactpresentsitselfasasmorgasbordof

sometimescomplementary,oftentimescontradictory,theory.

Crossroad#2:Leadershipdevelopmentasacontestedfield

Broadlyspeaking,leadershipdevelopmentscholarshiphasstartedtoconsideralternativestothe

developmentofindividualtraitsandcompetencies(Day,2001).Alternativeapproachespreferto

5

viewleadershipasaprocesssharedbetweenpeople,withtheword‘leadership’offeringpotential

formoreequaldistributionofpowerwithinorganisations(e.g.Grint,2005a;Kennedyetal,2012).

Nevertheless,leadershipdevelopmentscholarshipremainsafieldlargelydominatedbyindividual-

focusedresearchandpractice(Day,2011).Thefieldcanbecomparedtopublicleadership,wherean

emergingconcernforcollectiveleadershipsitsalongside,andintensionwith,moreestablished

individual-focusedtheoryandpractice.

Thefocusontheindividualwithinleadershipdevelopment,andHRpracticesmoregenerally,has

beencriticizedaspotentiallyoppressive,ameansofcontrollingthebehaviourandactionsof

employees.Forexample,Townley(1993and1994)hastheorizedthatdevelopmenttechnologiescan

serveasdisciplinarymechanismswherebyemployersdefinewhatistoberegardedasvaluable

knowledgeandseektoknowandcontrolemployeeswithevermoresophisticatedmeansofdata

capture.

FollowingRose’s(1999)andRoseandMiller’s(1992)work,thecreepofindividualisticculturehas

beenaparticularconcernfordevelopmentresearchwithinthepublicsphere.Rose’scritiqueisthat

publicpractices,policyandculturehavebecomeincreasinglyconcernedwithidentifyingthe

individualasthesourceofsocialproblems,yetalsoasthesourceofsolutions.Suchamindsethas

becomesonormalised,itisargued,thatitisincreasinglydifficulttoviewpublicproblemsoutside

theframeworkoftheindividual(Fournier,2006).Forexample,whenorganisationsfail,thedefault

positionseemstobetosearchforcharacterflawsofpeopleinpositionsofleadershipresponsibility,

ratherthanformoresystemic,socialsolutions(Cruikshank,1999;IlcanandLacey,2006and2011;

Žižek,2009a).

Applyingthiscriticallenstoleadershipdevelopmentsurfacesitscontestedandproblematic

dimensions,exposinghowits‘neutral’practicesandtechnologiesmayservetoembedoppressive

organisationalnorms(Edwardsetal,2013).Forexample,Gagnon(2008)hasdemonstratedhow

leadershipdevelopmentprogrammesmayactasawayofsolidifyingoppressivepowerrelations

6

betweenemployeesandemployers.Programmes,shestates,canexploitinsecurityandembed

ruthlesscompetitivenorms.Morerecently,Tomlinsonetal(2013)havetheorisedthatleadership

developmentcanactasameansof‘symbolicviolence’.Suchviolence,theystate,occursthroughan

appealtothevanityofmanagers.Beinga‘leader’isviewedasmoreglamorousthanbeinga

‘manager’or‘administrator’(seealsoAlvessonandSveningsson,2003).Suchseduction,theystate,

enablestheentrenchmentofcentralisedcontrolandacultureofcompetitionthroughthe

acquisitionofcapital,inthiscaseself-capital.

Althoughthedominantconcernofcriticalscholarshasbeentohighlightthepossibilityfor

oppressioninindividual-focusedleadershipdevelopment,alternativecontributionshavemadethe

casefortheindividualasapotentialsiteofemancipation.Swan(2008,2010)viewsthepersonalasa

potentialsourceofpoliticalengagement.Personaltherapeuticinterventions,accordingtoSwan

(2010),canactasasafetyvalvefortheexpressionofangstbroughtaboutthroughacapitalistover-

preoccupationwithindividualresponsibility(Newman,2005;Shamir,2008).Moreover,asafeminist

scholar,shedoesnotviewafocusonindividualsinmanagementandleadershipdevelopmentas

necessarilyoppressive.Herpositionisthat,iftakenaspartofamoreholisticdevelopmentprocess,a

focusonthepersonalmayoffervaluableinsightsintolargerpoliticalconcerns(seealsoMills,2000;

Watson,2008).Suchistheconcernofreflexivitywithinthedevelopmentofmanagementand

leadership,ameansforparticipantstoviewtheirpositionwithinsocialandorganisationalpower

relationsthroughquestioningtheirindividually-feltandexperiencedresponses(Cunliffe,2002and

2004).

Leadershipdevelopmentprogrammeshavebeentheorisedasonemeansofconnectingthepersonal

andorganisational.Forexample,LordandHall(2005)andDayandHarrison(2007)havepostulated

thatleadershipdevelopmentoughttobeviewedasacontinuumwherebyparticipantswillneedto

firstthinkofthemselvesasindividualsinleadershiptermsbeforetheycanmoveontoconsidertheir

roleincollectiveformsofleadership.

7

Assuspiciousasweareofworkwhichclaimsdiscretepersonalandcollectivestagesofdevelopment,

whatisindicatedisthatparticipantsmayholdawidearrayofmeaningsforleadershipwork.Thisisa

viewofleadershipdevelopmentparticipantsconfirmedbyFordetal(2008)andFordandHarding

(2007).Participantsdonotenterleadershipdevelopmentprogrammesasablanksheetbutdoso

bearingtheweightofalifetimeofculturalimagesofwhatitmeanstolead.Moreover,suchimages

aredrawnfrompopularculture,whichtendstoviewleadershipasindividual,heroicand

inspirational.Toexpectparticipantstosimplydropallpreviouspreconceptionsregardingleadership

andadoptanew,collaborativeidentityseemsunrealistic.Henceamorerecentconcerninthe

leadershipdevelopmentliteraturewithexploringhowdevelopmentmayserveasanexperimental

groundforparticipantstoworkwiththeirselfandorganisationalidentities(CarrollandLevy,2010;

CarrollandSimpson,2012).

Insummary,thenatureofwhatconstitutesahelpfulleadershipdevelopmentexperienceis

contested,andthiscontestationhaschieflybeenconcernedwiththefigureoftheindividual

participant.Moreover,recentresearchhasdrawnattentiontothecomplexpositioningof

participantsinrelationtoleadership:theydonotviewleadershipinclear-cut,single-theoryterms.

Crossroad#3:Processandcontentchoicesforfacilitation

Sohowdoestheliteraturedealwiththeconceptoffacilitationwithinanenvironmentofcontested

leadershipandleadershipdevelopmenttheory?Theshortansweristhatitdoesnotaddressthe

issuedirectlybutprovidescluesaboutthekindsofchoicesleadershipdevelopersmayfacein

practice.

Facilitationasaconceptisarelativelyrecentphenomenon,stemmingfrompost-WWIIhumanist

psychology(Perriton,2007).Thepracticeoffacilitatinggroupshasitsoriginsintherapeuticpractice

andmuchoftheliteraturetendstowardsaconcernwithfacilitatorsdevelopingself-awarenessof

theirownbehaviourwithinalearninggroup(Knowles,1990;Rogers,1990).Theliteratureon

8

facilitationhaslargelytakentheformofbestpracticeguides,withthelanguageofsuchguidesoften

leavingtheimpressionthatprocessissomethingwhichcanbeperfectedinisolationtocontent

expertise(Perriton,2007).Forexample,readersareurgedtodevelopa‘trainingkit’(Bendaly,2000)

ora‘facilitator’stoolkit’(HavergalandEdmonstone,1999)inordertolearn‘faultlessfacilitation’

(Hart,1991).Theimageofatoolkitormanualencouragestheviewofacraftoffacilitationwhichis

separablefromknowledgeofsubject.

This‘neutralstance’offacilitation(GregoryandRomm,2001)doesnotsitwellwiththeexperiences

ofmanyfacilitatorsworkingwithinleadershipdevelopment(Raelin,2006).Suchfacilitation

professionalsbringarangeofcontentexpertisetotheirroles,fromon-the-jobmanagement

experiencetoscholarlyproficiencyinthefield(Swan,2010).Thatsaid,wedonotwishtobe

dismissiveofgroupprocessexpertise.Ourexperiencessuggestthatfacilitationofpublicleadership

developmentisapracticewherebyprocessworkisinformedbycontentexpertise,andviceversa.

Theconvergenceofcontent-processconcernsisoftenfeltwhenfacilitatorsarefacedwithchoices

aboutwhichdirectionsandpointsraisedbyparticipantstounderlineandexplore(Coorenetal,

2006;Raelin,2006).Thesechoicesaremagnifiedwithinapublicsectorcontextwhereparticipant

constructionsofleadershipmaydifferfrom,supportorcontradictthecurrentemphasisinthe

literatureoncollaborativeleadership.

Toconcludethisreview,itisourcontentionthatleadershipdevelopmentfacilitatorchoicesare

mademoreproblematicinthreeways:

1. Throughthecontestednatureofpublicleadershiptheory–bothintermsoftherelatively

recentriseofcollaborativeleadershipandthecontestednatureofcollaborationitself.

2. Throughthecontestednatureofleadershipdevelopmenttheoryandpractice,manifesting

inconcernswiththeexercisingofpoweroverindividualparticipants.Thepictureisfurther

9

complicatedthroughaviewofparticipantsaspossessingvariedandoftencontradictory

viewsconcerningthemeaningandutilityofleadership.

3. Throughadeficitofknowledgeconcerningtheroleoftheleadershipdevelopment

facilitator.Specifically,howconcernswithcontentexpertiseandcareforprocessshouldbe

balancedinpractice.

Theremainderofthearticleisconcernedwithconsideringhowthesethreeissuesmaymanifestin

thechoicesmadebypublicleadershipdevelopmentfacilitatorsandinsurfacinghowthesechoices

mayappearinpractice.

Theresearchsetting

Thedatapresentedisdrawnfromabroaderethnographicstudyofpublicleadershipdevelopment

programmesconductedoverathree-yearperiodinboththeUnitedKingdomandNewZealand.

Thedatapresentedinthisarticleisdrawnfromoneofthefourprogrammesobserved,thePublic

LeadershipProgramme(PLP)inNewZealand.Likemanyotherwesterndemocracies,NewZealand

policymakersarecurrentlyadvocatingamorecollaborativeformofleadershipinthedesignand

deliveryofservices.Similarlytoothernationalcontexts,NewZealandpublicservantsarealso

discoveringthatimplementingcollaborativeformsofleadershipinvolvesunsettlingdominant

paradigmsofpublicorganising,askingquestionsaboutthepurposeandnatureofpublicpolicyand

serviceswhichmaychallengeexistingmeansofconceptualisingpublicproblems,aswellasthe

dominantleadershipidentitiesheldbypublicmanagers(GrintandHolt,2011;JacksonandSmolović

Jones,2012).

ThePLPisfundedbycentralgovernmentbutdeliveredthroughaspecialistgovernmentagencyand

aimedatmiddlemanagerswithincivilservicedepartmentsandgovernmentagencies.Althoughthe

facilitationchoiceshighlightedintheliteraturereviewanddatasectiontofollowwerevisibleinthe

largerstudy,wechosetofocusonasingleprogramme(thePLP)andtheexperiencesofone

10

facilitatorinparticularinordertoofferagreaterdepthofinsight.Wechosetofocusspecificallyon

thePLPasthefacilitator,Frank,appearedparticularlyattunedtothechoicesinherentinfacilitating

theleadershipdevelopmentofpublicsectormanagers.Reflectingthemovetocollaborative

leadershiphighlightedintheliteraturereview,thePLPwasaprogrammeaimedatdeveloping

leadershipnotonlyasthepropertyofanindividualbutasacapacitybetweengovernmentagencies

anddepartments,hencethebroadcross-sectionofparticipantsinvolved.

Methodologicalsummary

Weadoptnarrativeethnographyasamethodologyforthisstudy(WatsonandWatson,2012),which

seekstoofferarichaccountoftheresearchsettingthroughimmersioninthefieldofstudy,

providingreaderswithasenseofthelivedexperienceoffacilitatingaleadershipdevelopment

programme(VanMaanen,2010and2011;Watson,2010),ora‘roomwithaview’(Cunliffe,2010:

226)ofthechallengesofdesigningandfacilitatingleadershipdevelopment.Beyondthismore

traditionalviewofethnography,narrativeethnographyisalsointerestedinhowresearch

participantsconstructtheirexperiences,specificallywithattemptsbyactorstodefinemeaning,to

createamorebroadlyacceptedmeta-narrative(GubriumandHolstein,2009).Narrative

ethnographersareparticularlyinterestedintheprocessofobjectification,orhowaparticular

narrativemayundergotheprocessofearningwideracceptance(Watson,2009).Toassistinthistask

ofexploringhowaparticularmeta-narrativeisconstructedandcontested,narrativeethnography

drawsontheanalyticalmethodsofdiscourseanalysis(DeFinaandGeorgakopoulou,2011;

Georgakopoulou,2007;NicholsonandCarroll,2013)becausenarrativeethnographerstendto

believethatnarrativesarenotconstructedbyindividualsinisolatedmomentsbutmaybeseenas

constructedrelationally,overtime.

Inthecontextofthisstudy,theprimaryauthorwasembeddedinthefieldinanobservationalrole.

Hisstrategywastoremainintentionallylow-key,forexampleseatinghimselfatthefringesofthe

11

group,onlyspeakinginopensessionswheninvitedtodosobyfacilitatorsorprogramme

participants.Emphasiswasplaceduponnotonlythestrategiesandresponsesadoptedduringthe

formalprogrammebutalsouponsideconversationswithparticipantsduringbreaksandbetween

developmentengagementsviaemailandtelephone.

Regularinformalconversationswereheldwiththeprogramme’smainfacilitator,Frank,throughout

thedurationoftheeight-monthprogramme.Inadditiononeformalinterviewwasconductedwith

Frankduringtheinitialstagesoftheprogrammeinordertogleanfromhimhisdevelopmentand

designpreferences.Asstated,Frankwastheleadfacilitatorfortheprogramme,althoughhewas

supportedbyanotherfacilitatorandguestpresenters.Thegovernmentproviderwasalsoinfluential

intermsofinformingcontentpriorities.Wethereforeacknowledgethatsomedesigndecisionsand

ad-hocdecisionsregardingtheunfoldingoftheprogrammewereoutofFrank’sdirectcontrol:for

example,intermsofpresenterresponsestoparticipantquestions.Nevertheless,primary

responsibilityforthedesignoftheprogrammeandformaintainingtheoverallprogrammenarrative

laywithFrank.

Theprogrammebeganwithfivedaysofintensivedevelopmentataresidentiallocation,whichthe

primaryauthorattendedinfull.Anadditionalfullworkingweek(fivefullobservationdays)was

spentbytheresearcherintheofficesofthegovernmentleadershipdevelopmentprovider

responsiblefordeliveringthePLP.Theresearcherwasgrantedaccesstomeetingsandmembersof

staffforinterview,whichservedasvaluablecontextualbackgroundfortheobservationofthe

programme.Followingthe10daysofobservation(providerofficesandprogramme),sevencoaching

sessionsbetweenprogrammefacilitatorsandparticipantswereobserved.Inaddition,fourhalf-day

actionlearningsessionswereobserved.Intotal,40interviewswereconducted,withprogramme

participants(34),staffmemberswithinthedevelopmentdeliveryorganisationwithinvolvementin

theprogrammemanagement(four)andfacilitators(two).Notesofobservationswererecordedby

theprimaryresearcherusingteelineshorthand.Interviewswereaudiorecorded.

12

Discourseanalysisofnarrativeswasadoptedasameansofdataanalysiswhichmightassistinthe

establishingofconnectionsbetweenthetextual,organisationalandsocialdynamicsatplayinthe

field(Georgakopoulou,2007;Krzyzanowski and Wodak, 2008;WagnerandWodak,2006;Wodak

andKryzanowski,2007).Afundamentaltenetofdiscourseanalysisisthatitseekstoexplorehowthe

broaderpoliticalterrainshapeseverydaydiscursivepracticeand,inturn,howeverydaydiscursive

practicemayinfluencethebroaderpoliticallandscape(Fairclough,1992;ZollerandFairhurst,2007).

Wewerethusparticularlyinterestedinlinguisticconstructionswhichseemedtoindicatethatthe

facilitatorandprogrammeparticipantsweredealingwithissuesconcerningthemeaningand

purposeofleadership.Inpracticalterms,suchananalysisfocusedonthediscursivestrategies,

argumentationstructureandgrammaticalcategoriesadoptedbyspeakers(Krzyzanowski and

Wodak, 2008; WagnerandWodak,2006).Inaddition,wewereinterestedinhowspeakers

representedthemselvesandothersintheirspeech,assuchdiscursiverepresentationmaybesaidto

indicateanexercisingofpower(Shuman,2005and2010),asspeakersattempttoconstructbothself

andotheridentityinrelationtotheorganisationalandsocialcontextinhand.Inotherwords,

discourseanalysisofnarrativesinanethnographiccontextisconcernedwithhowtextual

deploymentisinfluencedby,andinturnseekstoinfluence,thebroaderpoliticalandorganisational

environment.

Intermsofepisodeselection,weidentifiedeachnarrativeappearinginthefieldnotesandinterview

transcripts,with‘narrativeepisode’definedasanypassageoftextwhichwasstructuredina‘time-

relatedsequence’(abeginning,middleandend)(Watson,2009:429),involvingcharactersandan

underlyingpurpose(amoralofthetale).Eachepisodewasfirstlyanalysedintermsofwhetherthe

textpresentedthespeakerwithseveralchoices.Couldthefacilitatorhavechosenonecourseof

action,orparticularlinguisticdeployment,overanotherandwhatmighttheconsequencesof

certaindecisionshaveentailed?Wewereparticularlyguidedinourselectionbynarrativeswhich

presentedanintensificationoftextualchoices.Byintensificationwedonotrefertothenumberof

choicespresentedbuttoepisodeswhichwereindicativeofchoiceswhichappearedtosignalthe

13

shapingofthebroader,meta-narrative–intermsoflinguisticandcontentthemeswhichwere

returnedtoorre-emphasised.Ourselectionwasfurtherguidedthroughourfrequentconversations

withthefacilitatorandwithprogrammeparticipantsastowhichmomentstheybelievedillustrated

welltheshapingoftheprogrammemeta-narrative.

Facilitationchoicesinpractice

Thefacilitator

LeadingthePLPasfacilitatorwasFrank.Quietlyspoken,warmandinclusive,hewasbotha

convincingspeakerinlargegroupsandhadawayofcapturingindividualparticipantsinone-on-one

conversations.ThesurroundingsofthedevelopmentprogrammeseemedtocomplementFrank’s

earthycharm:apeacefulstatelyhomeinthesemi-ruralsurroundsofatraffic-fuelled,majorcity.Its

rollinglawns,craftedwrought-ironbalconyandthehomelywelcomeofitsownersseemedan

extensionofFrank’sownpersona.

WhatwasparticularlyinterestingtousaboutFrankwashisunwillingnesstoallowhisnarrativeon

leadershiptoberestrictedbythepersonal/collectivedyad.Farfromviewingpersonaldevelopment

asdistracting,letalonedamaging,Franksawthepersonalasapotentiallypowerfulmeansof

connectingwithparticipants.Hislogicwasthatforparticipantstoengagewithorganisationaland

socialsolutions,theyneededtofeelandconnecttotheirownpersonalexperiences,bothinsideand

outsidetheworkplace.

Suchapositionasafacilitatorofferedpotentialforasophisticateddevelopmentnarrative.Yet

throughattemptingtoworkwiththecomplexitiesofpublicleadershipthought,hispositioningalso

surfacedseveralimportanttensionsanddilemmas.Oneofthesetensionswasundoubtedlythe

balancingoftheneedsofthesponsorsoftheprogramme(thegovernmentagencytaskedwith

delivery)withwhatFrankfeltwasanappropriatedesignforthePLP.Wedonotclaimthatsucha

tensionwasproblematicinthesenseofanymajordisagreementexistingbetweenFrankandhis

14

sponsor.Theneedsofthegovernmentagencywereguidedbycentralgovernment’spushtowards

morecollaborativeformsofleadership.Franksupportedthisemphasisbutalsorecognisedthatthe

positionofindividualprogrammeparticipantsmaybemorecomplexandproblematic,requiringa

nuancedapproachtotheissueofcollaboration.Whiletheorganisationalcontextofdevelopment

programmesisnottheprimaryfocusofthisstudy,itisworthnotingthatthis(constructive)tension

betweenprogrammesponsorsandfacilitatorexistedasonefurtherfactorinformingfacilitator

choice.

TheremainderofthissectionwillanalysepointsatwhichFrankwaspresentedwithimportant

facilitationdecisionsasheworkedbothwithleadershiptheoryandthepositioningofparticipants.

Threeepisodeswhichseemedparticularlyimportantregardingthedecisionsanddilemmasfacedby

Frankasafacilitatorwereidentified.Wepresenttheseepisodesaseventswhichseemtoreflecttwo

broadcategoriesoffacilitatorchoice:framingchoicesandadaptivechoices.

Framingandadaptivechoices

Whenbuildingtheoryfromourfieldobservationswewerestruckbythepoliticalnatureofmanyof

thechoicesfacingleadershipdevelopmentfacilitators.Temptedasweweretoname‘politics’asone

choiceamongstmany,wefeltthatdoingsowouldoverlookthepervasivenessofthepoliticalinthe

choicesfacingdevelopersofleadershipinthepublicsector.Allthechoiceswepresentarestrongly

politicalones,astheyinvolvenavigatingtheideologicalconstructsofparticipants,theorists,

organisationsandpoliticians.

Thepoliticalandcontestednatureofthesechoices,webelieve,iscapturedwellinourtheorisingof

framingandadaptivechoices.Plainlyput,framingchoicesarethoserepresentingafacilitator’s

presentationoftheproblemof‘publicleadership’,meaningwhat‘leadership’istheretoachieve,

whatkindofactscanbedefinedas‘leadership’andwhoisresponsiblefortheseacts.Adaptive

choicesconcernthedegreetowhichfacilitatorsmaintaindiscomfortamongstparticipants.Drawn

15

fromHeifetz’stheoryofadaptiveleadership(Heifetz,1994;HeifetzandLinsky,2002),theyconcern

theextenttowhichfacilitatorsattempttomaintainparticipantsinaproductivestateofdiscomfort.

Theworkoffacilitationpresentsitselfinchoicesregardingwhenparticipantsshouldbepushedinto

discomfortandwhenmomentsofconsolidationmightbeconsidered.Thefollowingepisodesare

presentedinordertodrawoutsomeofthemoredetailedissuesinherentwithinframingand

adaptivechoices.

Framingchoices:Howtocontextualisetheimportanceofleadership?

ThefollowingnarrativerepresentsFrank’sinitialconstructionofthepurposeofthePLP:

Thereisaneedforanewtypeofleadership.It’seasytoestablishourlivesthroughthe

accumulationofconsumerdurablesasawayofclimbingthroughsociety,butit’salsoeasy

toloseyourway.ThepoetandleadershipwriterDavidWhytehasthisheartbreakingbut

incrediblypowerfulquotefromoneofhisparticipants,anordinaryperson,someonewho

hadworkedhardanddonewellinabigcorporateformanyyears,butwasprofoundly

unsatisfied.Shesaid,“10yearsagoIturnedmyfaceforamomentanditbecamemylife.”At

themomentwearedeepeningourvocabularyaroundtherecessionbutitisabout

rationality,structureandcost.Insomewaysmanyorganizationsneedmoreofthat.

Butitisnottheleadershipofacorporateorpoliticalelitethatwillultimatelyrevitalisethe

world.Rather,itisthepersonalleadershipofordinarypeoplethatwillmakethefinal

difference.Whocantellwhatwouldbethepositiveimpactofafewthousandpeoplefinding

moresoulandvitalityintheirlivesasthepeopleI’vespokenwithhavedone?

Weneedpersonalfoundationsforleadership.Amanagerwhohasbeenonthisprogramme

toldus:“Ihadunderestimatedtheimpactmypersonalleadershiphasonmyorganisational

leadership.I’velearntabouttheneedforpersonalspaceandpersonalreading.Ican’t

believehowmuchthataddstomylife.”

16

Asafirstanalyticstep,wewillanalysethechoicesmadebyFrankinhisframingworkandpointto

thedilemmasthisnarrativehighlightforadevelopmentpractitioner.Asasecondstep,wewill

analysetheformofthisnarrative,thetechnicalworkofFrank’slanguage.Havingmadehismore

macrofacilitatorchoices,whatarethetextualchoicesavailabletothisfacilitator?

ThefirstdecisionopentoFrankinhisframingishowtocontextuallysituatehisviewofleadership

andtheimperativeforitsdevelopment.Asseen,Frankintroducesapoliticalframeearlyon–

dissatisfactionwithcontemporaryconsumeristsociety.Nottohavetoucheduponthepolitical

wouldperhapshavebeenadevelopmentexperiencerecognisedbyparticipantsasmoreorthodox.

Nevertheless,perhapstotakeapositionfreeoraboveideologyisinitselfaformofideological

positioning,thatofatechnicalexpertknowingbetterthanthoseattunedtopoliticalvaluesand

concerns(Žižek,2009b).

Whetherornottoapplyapoliticalframetodevelopmentnarrativesisanissuewhichhastroubled

usinourexperiencesoffacilitation.Theusualstrategyistoinsertapoliticalframemoregradually,

soastogaugethemoodofthegroup.Yetasalreadyalludedto,perhapssuchastrategyisalready

anideologicalone.Presentingissuesastechnicalmaybeviewedasameansofattemptingtopaper

overthemorecomplex,politicaldimensionsofaproblem(Grint,2005b).Thepresumptionwitha

technicalframingisthatwecansomehowriseaboveideology.Butofcourseweknowthat

leadershiptheoryiswovenwithideology:forexample,thatcollaborativeleadershipmodelssuggest

atleastanaffinityforcommunalvalues.

ThechoicemadebyFrankwastoactboldly,tostakehisnarrativeclaimforleadershipandits

development,drawinguponhisexperiencesandtalentsforconnectingwithanaudience.Through

makingsuchachoiceFrankenteredtheheartofthetensionevidentintheliteraturebetweenthe

17

personal,collectiveandthepolitical.Referencingthisdebate,itwouldappearthattwobroad

readingsofFrank’sframingarepossible,afactFrank,asareflectivepractitioner,wasawareof.

Onereadingofthisinitialframingwouldbetocharacteriseitasasubstantialexampleofthe

mobilisationofaculturalfixationwiththepersonalattheexpenseofthesystemicandcommunal.

ThesuspiciouspartofFrank’sthinkingalertedhimtotheaccusationthataddressingpersonal

leadershipsoearlyinaprogrammeriskedover-simplifyingthetensionsandcomplexitiesassociated

withleadership.

Analternativereadingmightinterpretthisnarrativeasanattempttoencouragetheagencyof

participantswithinanenvironmentwhichappearstobeerodingtheabilityofparticipantstoactin

leadership.Throughromanticisingtheexperiencesofparticipants,Frankisinvitingthemtofeeltheir

frustrationwiththestatusquo.Itisaninvitationtoover-identify(Žižek,2009b),tofeeltheexcessof

apublicspherewherelackofcommunalconnection,inFrank’sopinion,hasbecomeproblematic.

EachchoicefacedbyFrankheldimportantconsequencesfortheremainderoftheprogramme.

Perhapsthemostchallengingimplicationforthedevelopmentfacilitatoristhatoptingoutof

confrontingdifficultissuescarriesasmanyconsequencesasoptingin.Wehaveexperienced

situationswhereforthebestofintentions(groupstability,participantconfidence)wehaveallowed

aparticipantcontributionweviewasunhelpfultoslide.Theactofnon-actionholdsconsequences

forfacilitation:itcanmuddythenarrativewaters,sowconfusionorleaveparticipantswiththe

impressionthatleadershipissomehowanideologicallylooseconceptwhereoneinterpretationisas

validasanother.

SittingbeneathFrank’smeta-decisionsregardingthepolitical(orotherwise),individual(or

collective?)positioningoftheprogrammelayaseriesofmoremicro,linguisticchoices.Thedilemma

facedbyFrankisawell-troddenoneconnectedtothedeploymentofrhetoric.Asfarbackas

classicaltimes,Greekphilosophersdebatedtheappropriatenessofdeployingtheartsofrhetoricin

18

teaching.WhilePlatowarnedofthedangersofirrational(manipulative)rhetoricovercomingthe

rational,Aristotlewasmorepragmatic,arguingthatamoralleaderoughttobeexposedtothearts

availableto(lesshonest)competitors(Grint,1997).Thechoiceforadevelopmentfacilitatoristo

whatextenttodeployrhetoricaldevicesandtowhatextentshouldanargumentbeallowedto

speakforitself.

Frankcouldhavepresentedhisframingquitedifferently.Opentohimwasthepossibilityofhard

data(numbers,graphsetc)asameansofpersuadinghisaudiencethateithercurrentapproachesto

leadershipwereinadequate,orthathisbeliefinpersonalagencywassupportedbyharddata.

Frank’schosenpathwastoconstructamorequalitative,narrative-basedpitch.

Sittingintheaudienceforthisspeech,itwasundoubtedlyanimpressivelyseductiveliteraryframing.

Thepointedopeningsentenceoffersdrama–acallfornewness.Thedramaticintroductionisquickly

reinforcedthroughthetragicromanticismofart.Frankdoesnotappealtoharddata,buttothe

emotionofpoetry.AfurthertwistoccursasFrankappropriatesthevoiceofthe“ordinaryperson”.

ThisappropriationfitswithShuman’s(2010)notionofanexerciseofpowerinnarrative,asFrankis

nowmorethanFrank,heisFrankplus“ordinaryperson”,havingco-optedthevoiceofthismanager.

Poetrymingleswiththepersonal(ordinarymanager).Furthermore,thismanagerispitchedasbeing

justliketheparticipantslisteningon.Theirassumedexistentialangstiselevatedtoarealmofthe

poetic,thebeautiful.

TheextendedcodaofthenarrativeinvolvesFrankofferingasolutiontothiscapitalism-fuelled

existentialcrisis.Thecodabeginswithadeepeningofthenotionof“ordinarypeople”.Further

understandingofthiscategoryispositedthroughadifferentiationbetweenthe‘ordinary’andan

‘elite’.Apocalypticnotionsofaconsumeristsocietyoutofcontrolareansweredwiththe

unexpectedsolutionofthehopeofferedbyordinary,decentmanagers.

19

Frank’sframingchoicehereoffersaninterestingtwistonacommonthemewithincriticalleadership

studies,thatasleadershipseemstorepresentsomethingintangibleandevenmetaphysical,itisalso

inpracticaltermsmoredifficulttoscrutiniseandholdtoaccount(O’ReillyandReed,2012).

‘Leadership’maythusbeadoptedasapotentiallymanipulativeframingrelatedtotheunquestioned

superiorityofseniormanagers(FairhurstandSarr,1996;Grint,2000).YetFrank’sstrategyistodraw

onaromanticised,metaphysicalleadershipinordertolendacertaintragicbeautytothepositionof

themiddlemanager(Sims,2003).Thequestionhereistheextenttowhichsuchframingchoices

assistparticipantsinbetterseeingtheirpositionwithinalarger,politicalcontext.Indeed,ifas

listenerswetendtorespondmoretonarrativesthansimple‘facts’(Gabriel,2000),thenweshould

thinkmorecarefullyaboutwhopopulatesourfacilitationnarratives.Whoareweofferingas

examplesandrolemodels?FramingleadershipintermsoffamedworldleadersorcelebrityCEOs

mightintheshorttermboostparticipantevaluationsatisfactionscoresbutofferlittleintermsof

practicalutility.

Adaptivechoices:Whenparticipantstalkback

Thereisariskofcourse,indiscussingfacilitatorchoices,thatweover-emphasisethediscretionof

facilitatorstobuildanarrativeofleadershipandunder-emphasisethecontestedenvironmentof

leadershipdevelopment.Infact,inthecaseofthePLP,participantswerewaryoftheirposition

withinthenarrativeFrankpresented.Suchwarinesswasnotdirectedatthepoliticalpositioningof

Frankbutmorespecificallywiththeirowncapacitytodiscoverapurposeandvoicewithintheir

leadership.Inparticular,participantswerecautiousoftheirabilitytoleadcollaborationin

organisationswhichhistoricallyheldalternativepriorities.

Atamacrolevel,participantsidentifiedwithFrank’snarrativeconnectingthepersonaland

political/organisational.Forexample,oneparticipant,Jan,ayoungermanager,wrappedupconcerns

withherhomelife(neglectingherchildrenetc)withconcernsaboutnotsteppingconfidentlyinto

hermale-dominatedworkplace.Anotherparticipantconnectedherfeelingsofgriefrelatedto

20

membersofherfamilypassingawaywithasenseofgriefatherperceivedincapacitytoactin

leadershipatwork,thatherorganisationseemedparalysedbyastateofsadnessfollowingadifficult

changeprojectandstaffredundancies.Theseparticipantsconnectedtheirpersonalfeelingsof

vulnerabilitywithlargerorganisationalissues.Suchareadingmorecloselyresemblesthe‘personalis

political’streamofthoughtwithinfeminism(e.g.Swan,2008b;Young,2011)thanwiththecritique

ofpersonaldevelopmentasdistractingfromcriticalthought.

Atamicro-discursivelevelparticipantsevokedbothaconnectionbetweenpersonaland

organisational,andatentativenessregardingtheirownleadershippotential.Connectingthe

personaltotheorganisational,albeituncertainlyandtentatively,wasparticularlyhighlighted

throughtheexperiencesofanothermanager,David,whoworkedinpolicy.Heidentifiedwiththe

viewofisolationpaintedbyFrank,butwasuncertainwherethislefthimregardinghisownjob.

Addressingthegroup,DavidmirroredFrank’saffinitytoliterature,quotingHamletinhispositioning

ofhisleadershipthinking:

LetmesharesomelineswithyoufromHamlet:“There’saspecialprovidenceinthefallofa

sparrow.Ifitbenow,’tisnottocome;ifitbenottocome,itwillbenow;ifitbenotnow,

yetitwillcome:thereadinessisall.Sincenomanknowsaughtofwhatheleaves,whatis’t

toleavebetimes?Letbe.”

Ihavebeentremblingonthebrink,staringovertheedgeandthinkingaboutwhetherIcan

gofurther,whetherIhaveitinmetogofurther.Ineedtostepconfidentlyintomyworkand

myleadershiprole.“Ifitbenotnow,yetitwillcome–thereadinessisall.”Iwanttobeina

moreseniorpolicyrole,butinthemeantimetostepmoreauthoritativelyandtoarticulate

myvaluesmoreinmypresentrole.Ineedtodevelopanactivitythatisjustforme.Ineedto

developmorepeerinfluenceacrossmyagency,tobuildalliancesandrelationshipswhich

arepurposeful.

21

Thisparticipant’svoiceseemedasalientexampleofthegroup’spositioningbetweenorganisational

andpersonal.Equatinghimselfwithasmallbird,asparrow,isstriking.Sparrowsareacommonbird

inNewZealandandDavidwasawareoftheircharacteristics.Theyareseeminglyvulnerable

creatures,yetareinfactdurable,effectiveforagers.Theotherpowerfulimageevokedinthis

passageisthatof“tremblingonthebrink”.WhilereferencetoHamletseemstoevokegrand

imagery,hisself-positioningstandsincontrast,asthatofasmall,frightenedanimaluncertainabout

hisowncapacityforleadership.ItisworthnotingherethatthestoryofHamletisonefrequently

drawnuponbypsychoanalyticwriterstosignalastrugglewithauthority.WhydidHamletfalter

whenfacedwiththeopportunitytomurderClaudius?Wasitconnectedtohishesitationtoassume

theburdenoftheprimalfatherfigure?Inotherwords,whatmaybesignalledhereisthedilemmaof

whetherornottoacceptthepsychicalburdensandnarcissisticpossibilitiesofferedbyleadership

(Jones,1976).Suchadilemmaishighlightedwithinaframeworkofcollaborativeleadership.Thereis

noauthorityfiguretotellDavidwhattodo.Hisdecisionistoeventuallystep“overtheedge”andto

asserthispresencemoreforcefully.Atthispointhislanguageswitchesfromliterarytopractical

statementsofintent:“Iwantto”,“Ineedto”.

Theimageofaparticipantstandingontheedgeofacliffbringstotheforeakeyseriesofdilemmas

fortheleadershipdevelopmentfacilitator.Atplayhereareanumberofparticipantswhohave,on

theonehand,seentheirownpositionwithinalargersystemmoreclearly.Yetontheotherhand

suchpositioninghasledthemtovulnerability.

Thefacilitationdecisionpresentiswhethertoengageparticipantsfurtherthroughthepersonal,to

seeksomeformofclosure.Asdiscussed,suchanapproachmayleadtoaformofindividual

satisfaction,yetultimatelyitseffectsmightbelimited(atleastwithinthetimeframeofthe

developmentintervention),withdevelopmentreservedforthepersonaldomain(self,family)of

eachindividual.Or,thefacilitatormayseektomakemoreexplicitandpracticalthelinkbetweenthe

personalandorganisational/social.Suchadecisionappearsaspractical(whatwillbethemeasurable

22

outcomeoftheprogramme?)andethical(isitfairtopushparticipantsfurtheralongan

uncomfortablelineofreflection?).

PerhapsuncharacteristicallyforFrank,inthisregardheleanedtowardscaution.Atthebackof

Frank’smindofcoursewastheknowledgethattheprogramme’sactionlearningcomponentoffered

extratimefororganisation-focusedleadershipdevelopment.Frank’schoice,whenpresentedwith

participantsunabletomovebeyondthepersonal,wasoneofsupportandreinforcement.An

exampleofhiscautionappearedinaone-to-onecoachingsessionobservedbythefieldresearcher.

Helen,aseniormanager,wasexperiencingdifficultiesatworkandinherpersonallife.

Frank:Sohowareyoudoing?

Helen:I’mexhaustedtobehonest.Myworkisslipping,mychildisill…Mybrotherdied

recently.It’stiring.TheworstthingisthatIknowmyleadershipisnotasgoodasitshould

beatthemomentandIcanfeelitslippingmore…Ifeelsadaboutthestateofmyteamand

aboutthestateofmyorganisation.Wehaveplansforrestructuring.Ithinkitisnecessary.

I’mnotsureitwillreallyhappenbecause…Ican’treallyinfluencemybosstothinkin

differentwaysbecausehehasbeenthereforsolong…[hervoicestartstotrailoff]

Frank:Ok,[pause]...Let’sfocusonyou.You,justyou.

Inthisextract,aseeminglystraightforwardquestionfromFrankopensafloodofpersonalangst,

wrappedwithinorganisationalproblems.Followingthecriticalliterature,Frank’sresponsemight

havebeentobypassthepersonalandtofocusHelenonherwork-basedissues.Herhomelifewould

beseenasadistractionfromtheaimsoftheprogramme,developingorganisationalleadership.A

secondoptionmightbetoattempttoworkthroughthepersonalandorganisationalintandem.

Frank,however,choosesathirdoption–tofocusonthepersonal.Asthesessionproceeded,the

organisationalbecameincreasinglyplacedinthebackground(“You,justyou”).Helen’sbody

languagetransitionedfromtensetoinquisitiveassheconsideredthepossibilitythatshemight

23

indulgesomeofherownpersonalwishes,suchasanescapetoawildernessspotandsometimefor

herfavouritemusicandliterature.Whenquestionedaboutthisepisode,Frank’spositionwasthat

someparticipantsneedtoconfrontonlythepersonalbeforetheycanmoveon.Theycanbecome

stuck,hebelieved.Inhisview,tohavepushedthepersonalasideatthisstageinHelen’s

developmentriskedalienatingtheparticipantandbelittlingherposition.Theadaptivechallenge

withHelen,Frankbelieved,couldbemanagedmoregraduallythroughoutthedurationofthe

programme.

ItisnotourintentiontostatewhetherthisstancefromFrankiscorrectornot,buttodemonstrate

howasinglemomentinanotherwiseinnocuousdevelopmentintervention–aone-on-onecoaching

session–canopenpossibilities,perilsanddilemmasforthedevelopmentfacilitator.Facilitators

workwithhumanparticipantsandrelatedethicaldilemmasarerarelyaddressedthroughan

impersonalleadershipliterature.Moreover,thesubtletyofmanaginganadaptiverelationshipover

thecourseofawholedevelopmentinterventionusuallylastingseveralmonths,orevenyears,is

frequentlylostinanunhelpfuldebateexpressedinbinarytermsofwhetherornottoadopta

personalorcollectivefocus.

Framingandadaptivechoicescollide:Whenispersonalagencytooagentic?

Exerciseswithinleadershipandmanagementdevelopmentarecommonlydrawnuponbyfacilitators

fortwoprimaryreasons.Thefirstistoembedlearningintroducedintoaprogramme.Thesecondis

tocreateanexperiencewhichfacilitatesamorefeltsenseoflearningdifficulttocapturewithinthe

confinesofalecture,ordiscussion.

Frankdrewondevelopmentexercisesasameansofencouragingparticipantstoviewthemselvesas

activeagentswithinleadership,ratherthanaspassiverecipientsofthemeaningmakingofothers.It

washisintentiontoencourageparticipantstorelatetheirowneverydayactionstolarger

professionaldecisions.

24

Theexercisedrawnonheretookplaceonalawnbelowthemainactivityroom.Thesettingseemed

tocontributetoafeelingofserenityandrelaxation:rollinggreenlawns,clearskyandsoundofthe

localcricketsblendingwithFrank’smelodiousdelivery.

Participantswereaskedtoclosetheireyesandvisualisethespacewhichtheyinhabitedontheday

oftheirbirth.Theywereinvitedtopicturealinealongthelawn,representingtheirlifepathandto

chooseaspotfurtheralongthatwouldrepresentwheretheywereinthepresent.Theywereasked

towalkalongthatline,pausingatparticularpointstotakenotes,onpaper,of“timesofabsolute

peakexperience,greatmomentsof[their]lives”.

Someoftheparticipantssatdownattheir‘peakexperiencemoments’,othersstood.Itwas

conductedinsilence,withonlythesoundofsurroundingnatureasanaccompaniment.As

participantsreachedtheirpresent-moment‘spaces’,somehadprogressedfardowntheir‘lines’,

otherssignificantlyless,demonstratingtheirbeliefthatmostoftheirpeakexperienceswereyetto

occur.Participantswereaskedtoreflectonwhattheirexperiencesmeantandaboutwhatwas

importanttothemintheirworkingandpersonallives.

Participantswereaskedtowalkfurtheralongtheir‘lines’toamomentinwhichtheywouldvisualise

thedayoftheirretirement.Theywereaskedtoremainatthatspotandlookbackdowntheir‘lines’,

overtheircareersandlives.Theywereasked:

Whatkindofworkwereyoudoing?What’shappeningforyounow,inyourownlivesthat

mightgiveyouthatsenseofsatisfaction?Whataresomeofthethingsyouhavehadtodoto

gettothatpointofsatisfaction?Whatarethethingsyouwillhavetodobetweennowand

thentoreallyhavethisfulfillingexperience?

Participantswereinvitedtothinkoftheirdevelopmentinthecontextoftheirfamiliesandloved

ones,aninvitationchargedwithanemotionaltoneofvoice:

25

Thinkaboutyourselfasayoungperson,theparents,grandparentsandalltheeffortand

resourcesthathavebeeninvestedinyoutobringyoutowhereyouaretoday.Lookback

throughtime.Whathopesdidtheyhaveforyouinwhatyoumightachieveintheworld?If

thatolder,wiseryouwalkeduptoyounow,whatadvicewouldtheynowgiveyouaboutthe

wayyoulive?

Theintendedeffectofthisframingistoleadparticipantstoapointwheretheyregardthemselvesas

capableofaffectingcontrolovertheirowndecisionsinleadershipandcareer.Thechoicepresented

toFrankinitiallyofcourseiswhethertoencouragesuchthoughtsatall.Thisisanadaptivechoice.

Dangerpresentsinthepossibilitythatparticipantsmaydevelopanover-inflatedsenseoftheir

capacitybothtodeterminetheirownpathwaysthroughorganisationalleadership,butalsoto

challengeestablishedwaysofleadingandpowerrelationships.

Theextenttowhichfacilitatorsencouragetheexpectationsofparticipantscanbeidentifiedasakey

tension.Ontheonehand,topresentaprogrammeasaimedatmarginalchangeinpractice,content

toleavepowerstructureslargelyunchallenged,seemsoverlyconservative.Ontheotherhand,over-

emphasisingwhatispossibleforanindividualorsmallgroupofparticipantstoachieveasaresultof

asingledevelopmentinterventionisalsoaproblematicstance.Thisisanethicaldilemma:howfar

shouldparticipantsbeencouragedtotaketheirleadershipandtowhatextentcanadevelopment

facilitatoroffersupport?

Wehaveworkedinsideorganisationswhereparticipantshaveexpresseduneaseregardingthe

safetyofspeakingup,ofchallengingpower.Wehavealsomadethemistakeofseemingdismissive

ofsuchconcerns–“youneverknowuntilyoutry!”Yetadoptingsuchastanceisinconsiderateofthe

materialrealitiesofworkingamidstpower.

Frank’sdecisionwastoencourageasignificantsenseofagencyamongsthisparticipants.Itisaview

heholdsstrongly,thatingeneralpeopleinorganisationsunderestimatethepoweroftheirown

26

actionsandvoices.Analternativeapproachmighthavebeentoplaydownasenseofagency.Sucha

strategymighthaveencouragedaseriesofdiscussionsontheroleoftheindividualmanagerwithin

alargersystem–thepossibilitiesandtherealpolitikofactinginorganisations.Perhapsthis

approachcouldbeviewedasconservative,butalsoperhapsaspragmatic.

Nevertheless,asstated,Frankchoseanalternativestrategy,onehebelievedtobemorecongruent

withhisbeliefsregardingorganisationalchangeandinkeepingwiththelevelofsupportavailableto

participants(aprogrammeofcoachingandactionlearninginadditiontothemoreformal

developmentsessions).

ThemacrochoiceforFrankinthisexercisewasthereforetheextenttowhichheencouragedthe

agencyandambitionofhisparticipants.Wenowmoveontoamoremicroanalysisofthelinguistic

choicesopentoFrank.

WhatstrikesusaboutthelinguisticworkofFrankisitsambition.Forthedurationoftheexercise

Frankseekstocreate,throughthelanguageandformofhisexercise,asuspensionoftimeand

space.Ineffect,participantsareinvitedtoparticipateintheirownstoryconstruction.

First,aninsideandanoutsideareevokedbythefacilitator.Theoutsideworldmaybebusy,even

anxiety-inducing,tothepointwherepeoplefeelthattheyhavelittlecontrolovertheirown

decisions.Insidethisdevelopmentarena,adifferentenvironmentisgenerated(pleasantscenery,

evocativefacilitatorlanguageetc).Theoutsideworldispermittedtoenter,butonlyonthetermsof

thefacilitatorandparticipants.

Second,bothtimeandspaceappeartobeunderthecontrolofparticipants.Theyenactthiseffect

throughthecarvingoutofphysicalspaceonthelawn–whereina‘timeline’theybelieve

themselvestobesituated,andsoon.Timeisalsoseenasflexible,withparticipantsdetermining

howlongtodwelloverparticulareventsinthepast,presentandfuture.Itisundoubtedlythecase

thatparticipants,intheoutsideworld,donotenjoysuchdiscretionoverthecourseoftheircareers.

27

Yetitwouldbeinadequateindeedwithinadevelopmentprogrammetosuggestthatparticipants

haveonlylimitedcontrolovertheirowndecisions,theirowncapacitytochallengethestatusquo.

ThechoiceofFranktoseektoenhancetheagencyofhisparticipantsisthusenrichedthroughhis

metaandmicro-positioningofthedevelopmentexercise.

DrawingonthecaseofFrankandthePLP,whatbecomesvisibleisaseriesofchoicesavailableto

developmentfacilitatorsinrelationtothepositioningofdevelopmentinaprogrammeostensibly

aimedatdevelopingmorecollaborativeleadership.Drawingonourexperienceasethnographic

researchers,wetheorisedtwoparticularcategoriesoffacilitatorchoiceswhichwebelievedassisted

usindrawingoutthepolitical,ethicalandpracticalnatureoftheworkoftheleadership

developmentfacilitator:framingchoicesandadaptivechoices.Theremainderofthearticleis

dedicatedtoaconsiderationofhowthistheorisationofchoicesmaybeworkedwithintheoryand

practice.

Conclusion:Livingwithleadershipdevelopmentatthecrossroads

Withpublicleadershipliteratureandpublicpolicyincreasinglymovingtowardsmoreofanemphasis

oncross-organisationalandcollaborativeleadership,leadershipdevelopmentfacilitatorsmaybe

seenasoccupyingaspacebetweenthisstanceandtheeverydayleadershipidentifications,anxieties

andpracticesofpublicmanagers.Theroleandpracticeoffacilitationmaythusbeviewedasapinch-

point,wheretheorisingofpublicleadershipmeetstheeverydayconcernsofprofessionals.Howthis

roleisconceptualisedandsupportedisanunderdevelopedyetcrucialconcernifgovernmentswish

toimplementachangeinthedominantleadershippracticesoftheirdepartmentsandagencies.

Henceaneedtobetterunderstandthechoicesleadershipdevelopmentfacilitatorsfaceintheir

practice.

Framingchoicescanofcoursebeseenascontinuouschoiceswithinleadershipdevelopment(Carroll

andSimpson,2012),thosedecisionswemakeconcerninghowcertainsessionsarepitched,the

28

lessonswegleanfromplenarydiscussionsorexercisedebriefs.Themicro-textualdecisionsmadeby

facilitators,whilesuperficiallypresentingasminorchoices,providehintstothebroaderpositioning

ofdevelopmentfacilitation.Wesuggestthatholdingtheideologicalasanexplicitreflectiveframe

mayprovevaluableinnavigatingbothdesignandin-the-momentframingdecisions.

Discussionofsuchpoliticalpositioninghighlightsanethicalconcernfortheroleofthefacilitator.

Namely,ifthefacilitatorsitsbetweenthedemandsoforganisationandthepracticeandvaluesof

programmeparticipants,suchapositionmaybecharacterisedasachargedone.Thisleadership

‘pinch-point’canbethoughtofasoneimportantplaceinwhichtheoryandpracticemeet.Weare

drawntothisnotionofa‘pinch’asitseemstocaptureourfeelingswhilefacilitatingleadership

development,thepangofpainasourtheorisingonleadershipmeetscontraryviewsand

experiences.Thedefaultofmostfacilitatorsinsuchasituationmightbetoconsiderhowshe/he

mighthavepositionedcontentdifferentlyoradoptedanalternativepedagogicalapproach.While

suchconsiderationsareundoubtedlyimportant,itisperhapsofsomecomforttosituatesuch

thinkingwithinthecontextofthe‘pinch’offacilitation,theknowledgethattheresponseof

programmeparticipantstoframingchoicesmayhaveasmuchtodowiththepositionthefacilitator

occupiesintheprocessoforganisationorsectorchangeasitdoeswithindividualdesignand

deliverychoices.

Momentsofconfusionanddisagreementasadisruptiveframeisofferedmayinfactprovea

welcomesignthatthefacilitatorisexperiencingadevelopmentalrelationshipwithparticipants.We

thusurgefacilitatorstothinkoftheirframingactivitywithinsuchapoliticalcontextasameansof

bothmoreeffectivelysituatingtheirprogrammesinthecontextofsectorandasameansofeasing

theburdenofdiscomfortoftenexperiencedwhenonefacesascepticalorconfusedgroupof

programmeparticipants.

Adoptingastrategyofreflexiveengagementinfacilitationframingchoiceswouldimplythatthe

facilitatormakespublichis/herchoices,engagingparticipantsinwhycertainframeswerechosen

29

overothers(Cunliffe,2002and2004).Suchaprocess,webelieve,wouldnotonlyindicateamore

inclusive,democraticdevelopmentexperiencebutalsodrawoutakeydevelopmentalfeatureof

collaborativeleadership.Namely,thatifcollaborativeleadershiprequiresthequestioningofexisting

ideologicalpositionsthenperhapsitissensiblethatthefacilitatorofcollaborativeleadership

developmentisabletomodelsomeoftheproblemsandpossibilitiesofsuchframingchoicesin

action.

Inamorepracticalandimmediatesense,someliteratureexiststoguidebothfacilitatorsand

practitionersofleadershipregardingthepracticeofframing(e.g.CarrollandSimpson,2012;

FairhurstandSarr,1996).Nevertheless,perhapsthisstudyhashighlightedtheimportanceoffurther

appliedresearchwhichfocusesmoreexplicitlyonthedetaileddynamicsoffacilitationframing.

Focusingonadaptivechoicesinfacilitationhighlightsimportantethicalquestionsrelatedtothe

agencyofprogrammeparticipants.Aleadershipdevelopmentprogrammewouldappearaslimited

indeedifitdidnotencourageitsparticipantstoapproachmajorissuesofleadershipwithinand

outsidetheirorganisations.Indeed,changemustoriginatesomewhereandwhynotwithmanagers

enrolledinaleadershipdevelopmentprogramme?Yetthedangerinherentinagencyisthe

possibilityofover-statingthecapacityofanyindividualorsmallgroupofgeneratingmajorstructural

changeandunderplayingthepossibilitythattheactofleadingmayasoftenbedrivenbythehistory,

culture,followers,evengeographyofanorganisation(Grint,2005b;Ladkin,2010).

Wethereforeurgeabalancedstanceinapproachingsuchadaptivechoiceswithinleadership

development.Topushparticipantstofocuslargelyontheirownagencyabovethecontextseems

irresponsibleandethicallyproblematic.Likewise,toswampprogrammeparticipantswithstructural

influencesmightgenerateadegreeoffatalism.Suchchoicesfordevelopmentfacilitatorsare

pragmaticmatterswhichcanonlybejudgedthroughcarefulresearchintothestateofpower

relationswithintheorganisationalcontextofaparticipant.

30

Thinkingofadaptivechoicesoverthecourseofanentiredevelopmentengagementcanleadthe

facilitatortothinkmorecreativelynotonlyaboutmomentsofintensificationandeasingofheatbut

alsowhatmayberealisticforparticipantstoexperimentwithbetweenengagementswiththe

facilitator,atwork.Howcanafacilitatorplanadaptiveinterventionsinordertogenerateenergyand

enthusiasmforworkplaceexperimentationinawaythatwillcreatemomentumbutnotoverwhelm?

Decisionsconcerningwhethertofocusonthepersonal,thecollective,orsomewhereinbetween,

weseeasadaptivechoices.Apersonalfocuscanofferaplaceofconsolidation,ofrestfromtheco-

constructedchallengeofcollaborativeleadership.Žižek(2009b)wouldholdsuchmomentsas

fantasies,astheyofferafalsesenseofcomfortandcompletion,thattheproblemissolved.Yet

fantasiesmayalsobeheldasvaluablesourcesofrecuperationfromtheintensityofachallenging

developmentexperience.

Afterall,reflectingonindividualagencyinthecontextofcollaborativeleadershipgeneratesaseries

ofquestionsregardingthecapabilityandauthorityofindividualleaderstoinstigateandembed

leadership.Ifwenolongerhaveafigureofauthoritytotelluswhattodoandtoreassureusintimes

ofuncertainty,thenwhoorwhatdoweturntointermsofpsychicalsupport?

Adaptivechoicesseemtohavetheeffectoftellingparticipantsthattheyaretheoneswhoneedto

acceptmoreresponsibilityforleadership,toaccepttheburdenofbeingafigureofnarcissistic

investment(Cluley,2008;Gabriel,1997),aphenomenonwhichisamplifiedthroughafocuson

collaborativeformsofleadership.Yetparadoxicallyandsimultaneouslyafocusoncollaborative

leadershipseemstounderminethisveryfigureofnarcissism,thestrongindividualleader(Costas

andTaheri,2012;Grint,2010;Stavrakakis,2008).Suchadilemmasuggeststhatfacilitatorsmayneed

tobecomemoreadeptinsupportingthepsychicalresilienceandemergingidentificationsof

individualmiddlemanagers.Wearenotsuggestingherethatonemustbeaprofessionalanalystto

facilitateleadershipdevelopment,northatoneoughttoviewdevelopmentasanexercisein

psychoanalysingparticipants.Nevertheless,itisworthbearinginmindthatfacilitationchoicesare

31

notsimplydiscursiveones,butchoiceswhichinterveneintheaffective,emotionalsideof

organisations(Gabriel,1995).Planningtosupportparticipantstobecomefiguresofleadership

authority,aswellastheconstructionofanalternativesystemofsupportandauthoritybecome

importantconsiderations.

Asafinalpoint,beyondconsiderationsofframingandadaptivefacilitatorchoicesisthesensethat

thesechoicesoverspilltheconfinesofadevelopmentinterventionandthusalsotheroleofthe

facilitator.Suchchoicesarealsomattersfororganisationsandgovernmentswhenplanning

leadershipdevelopmentinitiatives.Theideathatfacilitatorsandprogrammeparticipantsshould

enterleadershipdevelopmentinterventionscold,andthatparticipantsshouldexitleadership

developmentprogrammesintoorganisationsnotpreparedthemselvestograpplewithleadership

developmentfacilitationchoicesseemstousaflawedstateofaffairs.Keytothispaper,afterall,is

theargumentthatproblemsencounteredasrelativelyminorissueswithintheconfinesofa

leadershipdevelopmentprogrammemayinfactindicatelargerorganisationalandsocialproblems

requiringmoresystemicengagementanddebate.Thecrossroadsareeverpresent.

32

Bibliography

AlvessonMandSveningssonS(2003)‘ManagersDoingLeadership:TheExtra-Ordinarizationofthe

Mundane.’HumanRelations56(12):1435-1459.

BassBandRiggioR(2005)TransformationalLeadership.Mahwah,NewJersey:LawrenceErlbaum.

BendalyL(2000)TheFacilitationSkillsTrainingKit.NewYork:McGraw-Hill

BojeD(2001)NarrativeMethodsforOrganizationalandCommunicationResearch.London:Sage.

BojeD(2008)StorytellingOrganizations.London:Sage.

BoldenR(2011)‘DistributedLeadershipinOrganizations:AReviewofTheoryandResearch.’

InternationalJournalofManagementReviews13(3):251-269.

BrookesS(2010)‘TellingtheStoryofPlace:TheRoleofCommunityLeadership.’InGrintKand

BrookesS(eds)TheNewPublicLeadershipChallenge.Basingstoke,Hampshire:PalgraveMacmillan.

BrookesS(2011)‘Crisis,ConfidenceandCollectivity:RespondingtotheNewPublicLeadership

Challenge.’Leadership7(2):175-194.

CarrollBandLevyL(2010)‘LeadershipDevelopmentasIdentityConstruction.’Management

CommunicationQuarterly24(2):211-231.

CarrollBandSimpsonB(2012)‘CapturingSocialityintheMovementBetweenFrames:An

IllustrationfromLeadershipDevelopment.’HumanRelations65(10):1283-1309.

ChrislipDandLarsonC(1994)CollaborativeLeadership:HowCitizensandCivicLeadersCanMakea

Difference.SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.

CluleyR(2008)‘ThePsychoanalyticRelationshipbetweenLeadersandFollowers.’Leadership4(2):

201-212.

33

CoorenF,ThompsonF,CanestraroDandBodorT(2006)‘FromAgencytoStructure:Analysisofan

episodeinaFacilitationProcess.’HumanRelations59(4):533-565.

CruikshankB(1999)TheWilltoEmpower:DemocraticCitizensandOtherSubjects.Ithaca,NewYork:

CornellUniversityPress.

CostasJandTaheriA(2012)‘TheReturnofthePrimalFatherinPostmodernity?ALacanianAnalysis

ofAuthenticLeadership.’OrganizationStudies33(9):1195-1216.

CunliffeA(2002)‘ReflexiveDialogicalPracticeinManagementLearning.’ManagementLearning33

(1):35-61.

CunliffeA(2004)‘OnBecomingaCriticallyReflexivePractitioner.’JournalofManagementEducation

28(4):407-426.

CunliffeA(2010)‘RetellingTalesoftheField:InSearchofOrganizationalEthnography20yearson.’

OrganizationalResearchMethods13(2):224-239.

DayD(2001)‘LeadershipDevelopment:AReviewinContext.’LeadershipQuarterly11(4):581-613.

DayD(2011)‘LeadershipDevelopment.’InBrymanA,CollinsonD,GrintK,JacksonBandUhl-BienM

(eds)TheSageHandbookofLeadership.London:Sage.

DayDandHarrisonM(2007).‘AMultilevel,Identity-BasedApproachtoLeadershipDevelopment.’

HumanResourceManagementReview17:360-373.

DeFinaAandGeorgakopoulouA(2011)AnalyzingNarrative:DiscourseandSociolinguistic

Perspectives.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

EdwardsG(2011)‘ConceptsofCommunity:AFrameworkforContextualizingDistributed

Leadership.’InternationalJournalofManagementReviews13(3):301-312.

34

EdwardsG,ElliottCandIzsatt-WhiteM(2013)‘CriticalandAlternativeApproachestoLeadership

LearningandDevelopment.’ManagementLearning44(1):3-10.

EdwardsG,WinterPandBaileyJ(2002)LeadershipinManagement.RossonWye:LeadershipTrust

Foundation.

ErezA,LepineJandElmsH(2002).‘EffectsofRotatedLeadershipandPeerEvaluationonthe

FunctioningandEffectivenessofSelf-ManagedTeams:AQuasi-Experiment.’PersonnelPsychology

55:929-948.

FaircloughN(1992)DiscourseandSocialChange.Cambridge:PolityPress.

FairhurstGandSarrR(1996)TheArtofFraming:ManagingtheLanguageofLeadership.San

Francisco:JosseyBass.

FordJandHardingN(2007)‘MoveoverManagement:WeareallLeadersnow?’Management

Learning38(5):475-493.

FordJ,HardingNandLearmonthM(2008)LeadershipasIdentity:Constructionsand

Deconstructions.Basingstoke,Hampshire:PalgraveMacmillan.

FournierF(2006)‘BreakingfromtheWeightoftheEternalPresent.’ManagementLearning37(3):

295-311.

GabrielY(1995)‘TheUnmanagedOrganization:Stories,FantasiesandSubjectivity.’Organization

Studies16(3):477-501.

GabrielY(1997)‘MeetingGod:WhenOrganizationalMembersComeFacetoFacewiththeSupreme

Leader.’HumanRelations50(4):315-342.

GabrielY(2000)StorytellinginOrganizations:Facts,FictionsandFantasies.Oxford:Oxford

UniversityPress.

35

GagnonS(2008)‘CompellingIdentity:SelvesandInsecurityinGlobal,CorporateManagement

Development.’ManagementLearning39(4):375-391.

GeorgakopoulouA(2007)SmallStories,InteractionandIdentities.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins

PublishingCompany.

GibbC(1954)‘Leadership.’InLindzeyGandAronsonE(eds)theHandbookofSocialPsychology.

Reading,Massachusetts:Addison-Wesley.

GibneyJ,CopelandSandMurieA(2009)‘Towarda‘New’StrategicLeadershipofPlaceforthe

Knowledge-BasedEconomy.’Leadership5(1):5-23.

GregoryWandRommN(2001)‘CriticalFacilitation:LearningthroughInterventioninGroup

Processes.’ManagementLearning32(4):453-467.

GrintK(1997)Leadership:Classical,ContemporaryandCriticalApproaches.Oxford:Oxford

UniversityPress.

GrintK(2000)TheArtsofLeadership.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

GrintK(2005a)Leadership:LimitsandPossibilities(Management,WorkandOrganisations).

Basingstoke,Hampshire:PalgraveMacmillan.

GrintK(2005b)‘Problems,Problems,Problems:TheSocialConstructionof‘Leadership’’.Human

Relations58(11):1467-1494.

GrintK(2010)‘TheSacredinLeadership:Separation,SacrificeandSilence.’OrganizationStudies31

(1):89-107.

GrintK(2011)‘AHistoryofLeadership.’InBrymanA,CollinsonD,GrintK,JacksonBandUhl-BienM

(eds)TheSageHandbookofLeadership.London:Sage.

36

GrintKandHoltC(2011)‘IfTotalPlace,BigSocietyandLocalLeadershiparetheanswers:What’s

theQuestion?’Leadership7(1):85-98.

GronnP(2002)‘DistributedLeadershipasaUnitofAnalysis.’TheLeadershipQuarterly13(4):423-

451.

GubriumJandHolsteinJ(2009)AnalyzingNarrativeReality.London:Sage.

GunterH(2011)LeadershipandtheReformofEducation.Bristol:PolicyPress.

HammersleyMandAtkinsonP(1996)Ethnography:PrinciplesinPractice.London:Routledge.

HartL(1991)FaultlessFacilitation:AnInstructor'sManualforFacilitationTraining.Amherst,MA:

HumanResourceDevelopmentPress.

HavergalMandEdmonstoneJ(1999)TheFacilitator'sToolkit.Aldershot,England:

HeenanDandBennisW(2000)Co-Leaders:ThePowerofGreatpartnerships.London:Wiley.

HeifetzR(1994)LeadershipWithoutEasyAnswers.Cambridge,Massachusetts:HarvardUniversity

Press.

HeifetzRandLinskyM(2002)LeadershipontheLine:StayingAliveThroughtheDangersofLeading.

Cambridge,Massachusetts:HarvardBusinessSchoolPress.

HoodC(1995).‘The“NewPublicManagement”inthe1980s:VariationsonaTheme.’Accounting,

OrganizationsandSociety2(3):93-109.

HuxhamCandVangenS(2004)‘DoingThingsCollaboratively:RealizingtheAdvantageor

SuccumbingtoInertia?’OrganizationalDynamics33(2):190-201.

HuxhamCandVangenS(2005)ManagingtoCollaborate:TheTheoryandPracticeofCollaborative

Advantage.London:Routledge.

37

IlcanSandLaceyA(2006)‘GoverningthroughEmpowerment:Oxfam’sGlobalreformandTrade

Campaigns.’Globalizations3(2):207-225.

IlcanSandLaceyA(2011)GoverningthePoor:ExercisesofPovertyReduction,PracticesofGlobal

Aid.Montreal:McGill-Queen’sUniversityPress.

JacksonBandSmolovićJonesO(2012)‘PromotingBetterPublicServicesLeadership:An

AppreciativeCritique.’PolicyQuarterly8(3):34-40

JonesE(1976)HamletandOedipus.London:Norton.

KempsterS(2009)HowManagershaveLearnttoLead:ExploringtheDevelopmentofLeadership

Practice.Basingstoke,Hampshire:PalgraveMacmillan.

KennedyF,CarrollB,FrancoeurJandJacksonB(2012)‘ATaleofTwoPerspectives:AnAccountof

EntityandSocialConstructionistApproachesto‘Conflict’inLeadershipDevelopment.’InUhl-BienM

andOspinaS(eds)AdvancingRelationalLeadershipResearch:ADialogueamongPerspectives.

Charlotte,NorthCarolina:InformationAgePublishing.

KrzyzanowskiMandWodakR(2008)‘MultipleIdentities,MigrationandBelonging:Voicesof

Migrants’.InCaldas-CoulthardCandIedemaR(eds)IdentityTrouble:CriticalDiscourseand

ContestedIdentities.Basingstoke,Hampshire:PalgraveMacmillan.

LadkinD(2010)RethinkingLeadership:ANewLookatOldLeadershipQuestions.Cheltenham:

EdwardElgar.

LordRandHallR(2005)‘Identity,DeepStructureandtheDevelopmentofLeadershipSkill.’

LeadershipQuarterly16(4):591-615.

MabeyCandFinch-LeesT(2008)ManagementandLeadershipDevelopment.London:Sage.

38

McLaughlinK,FerlieEandOsborneP(eds)(2001)NewPublicManagement:CurrentTrendsand

FutureProspects.London:Routledge.

MillsCW(2000)TheSociologicalImagination.London:Penguin.

MooreM(1997)CreatingPublicValue:StrategicManagementinGovernment.Cambridge,

Massachusetts:HarvardUniversityPress.

NewmanJ(2005)‘EntertheTransformationalLeader:NetworkGovernanceandtheMicro-Politicsof

Modernization.’Sociology39(4):717-734.

NicholsonHandCarrollB(2013)‘IdentityUndoingandPowerRelationsinLeadershipDevelopment.’

HumanRelations66(9):1225-1248.

O’ReillyDandReedM(2012)‘TheGritintheOyster:Professionalism,ManagerialismandLeaderism

asDiscoursesofUKPublicServicesModernization.’OrganizationStudies32(8):1079-1101.

PearceCandCongerJ(2003)SharedLeadership:ReframingtheHowsandWhysofLeadership.

ThousandOaks,California:Sage.

PerritonL(2007)‘ThePersonalBecomesPolemical?TheProblematicSecondGenerationof

FacilitativePractice.’ManagementLearning38(2):155-171.

RaelinJ(2006)‘TheRoleofFacilitationinPraxis.’OrganizationalDynamics35(1):83-95.

RayT,CleggSandGordonR(2004)‘ANewLookatDispersedLeadership:Power,Knowledgeand

Context.’InStoreyJ(ed)LeadershipinOrganizations:CurrentIssuesandKeyTrends.London:

Routledge.

RoseN(1999)GoverningtheSoul:TheShapingofthePrivateSelf.London:FreeAssociationBooks.

RoseNandMillerP(1992)‘PoliticalPowerBeyondtheState:ProblematicsofGovernment.’The

BritishJournalofSociology43(2):173-205.

39

SengeP(2006)TheFifthDiscipline:TheArtandPracticeoftheLearningOrganization.London:

RandomHouse.

ShamirR(2008)‘TheAgeofResponsibilization:OnMarket-EmbeddedMorality.’Economyand

Society37(1):1-19.

ShumanA(2005)OtherPeople’sStories:EntitlementandtheCritiqueofEmpathy.Chicago:

UniversityofIllinoisPress.

ShumanA(2012)‘ExploringNarrativeInteractioninMultipleContexts.’InHolsteinJandGubriumJ

(eds)VarietiesofNarrativeAnalysis.London:Sage.

Sims D (2003). ‘Between the Millstones: A Narrative Account of the Vulnerability of Middle

Managers’Storying.’HumanRelations56(10):1195-1211.

SmolovićJonesOandGrintK(2013).‘AGameofThrones:PowerPlaysandPoliticsinPublic

CollaborativeLeadership.’PaperfortheCriticalManagementStudiesconference,July10-12,

Manchester,UK.

SorensenEandTorfingJ(2008)‘GovernanceNetworkResearch:TowardsaSecondGeneration.’In

SorensenEandTorfingJ(eds)TheoriesofDemocraticNetworkGovernance.Basingstoke,Hampshire:

PalgraveMacmillan.

StavrakakisY(2008)‘SubjectivityandtheOrganizedOther:BetweenSymbolicAuthorityand

FantasmaticEnjoyment.’OrganizationStudies29(7):1037-1059.

StokerG(2006)‘PublicValueManagement:ANewNarrativeforNetworkedGovernance?’American

ReviewofPublicAdministration36(1):41-57.

SwanE(2008)‘YouMakemeFeelLikeaWoman:TherapeuticCulturesandtheContagionof

Femininity.’Gender,WorkandOrganization15(1):88-107

40

SwanE(2010)WorkedupSelves:PersonalDevelopmentWorkers,Self-WorkandTherapeutic

Cultures.Basingstoke,Hampshire:PalgraveMacmillan

TomlinsonM,O’ReillyDandWallaceM(2013)‘DevelopingLeadersasSymbolicViolence:

ReproducingPublicServiceLeadershipthroughthe(Misrecognized)DevelopmentofLeaders’

Capitals.’ManagementLearning44(1):81-97.

TownleyB(1993)‘Foucault,Power/KnowledgeanditsRelevanceforHumanResource

Management.’AcademyofManagementReview18(3):518-545.

TownleyB(1994)ReframingHumanResourceManagement:Power,EthicsandtheSubjectatWork.

London:SagePublications.

VangenSandHuxhamC(2003)‘EnactingLeadershipforCollaborativeAdvantage:Dilemmasof

IdeologyandPragmatismintheActivitiesofPartnershipManagers.’BritishJournalofManagement

14(s1):S61-S76.

VangenSandHuxhamC(2012)‘TheTangledWeb:UnravelingthePrincipleofCommonGoalsin

Collaborations.’JournalofPublicAdministrationResearchandTheory22(4):731-760).

VanMaanenJ(2010)‘ASongforMySupper:MoreTalesoftheField.’OrganizationalResearchMethods13(2):240-255.

VanMaanenJ(2011)TalesoftheField:OnWritingEthnography.Chicago:UniversityofChicago

Press.

WagnerIandWodakR(2006)‘PerformingSuccess:IdentifyingStrategiesofSelf-Presentationin

Women’sBiographicalNarratives.’DiscourseandSociety17(3):385-411.

WashingtonM,BoalKandDavisJ(2008)‘InstitutionalLeadership:Past,PresentandFuture.’In

GreenwoodR,OliverC,SahlinKandSuddabyR(eds)TheSageHandbookofOrganisational

Institutionalism.London:Sage.

41

WatsonT(2008)‘ManagingIdentity:IdentityWork,PersonalPedicamentsandStructural

Circumstances.’Organization15(1):121-143.

WatsonT(2009)‘NarrativeLifeStoryandtheManagementofIdentity:ACaseStudyin

AutobiographicalIdentityWork.’HumanRelations62(3):1-28.

WatsonT(2010)‘Ethnography,RealityandTruth:TheVitalNeedforStudiesof‘HowThingsWork’in

OrganizationsandManagement.’JournalofManagementStudies48(1):202-216.

WatsonT(2010)‘Ethnography,RealityandTruth:TheVitalNeedforStudiesof‘HowThingsWork’in

OrganizationsandManagement.’JournalofManagementStudies48(1):202-216.

WatsonTandWatsonD(2012)‘Narrativesinsociety,organizationsandindividualidentities:An

ethnographicstudyofpubs,identityworkandthepursuitof‘thereal’.’HumanRelations65(6)683-

704.

WodakRandKrzyzanowskiM(2007)‘MultipleIdentities,MigrationandBelonging:Voicesof

Migrants.’InCaldas-CoulthardCandIedemaR(eds)IdentityTroubles.Basingstoke,Hampshire:

PalgraveMacmillan.

WodakRandKrzyzanowskyM(2008)QualitativeDiscourseAnalysisintheSocialSciences.

Basingstoke,Hampshire:PalgraveMacmillan.

ŽižekS(2009a)FirstasTragedy,thenasFarce.London:Verso.

ŽižekS(2009b)ThePlagueofFantasies.London:Verso.

ZollerHandFairhurstG(2007)‘ResistanceLeadership:TheOverlookedPotentialinCritical

OrganizationandLeadershipStudies.’HumanRelations60(9):1331-1360.