It’s always worth testing concepts out. ‘What is leadership?” is an interesting question because it generates so many different and varied answers. The interest then comes in identifying the fault lines.
Just occasionally you find your self hoodwinked, seduced by a concept that you really should have tested to the point of oblivion.
Learmonth and Morrell (2016) frame is so clearly. Leadership and Management – though often coupled together are not interchangeable. But the coupling is deceptive. Leader is often used to refer to someone who might just as easily – perhaps even more accurately – be considered a manager.
I appreciate there is a reasonable argument to make that references to ‘leader’ emphasises the persuasive, consensual, transformative, feminine, ethical aspects of the managers’ role. It also reminds the manager that followership cannot be taken for granted. Their institutional authority is bestowed on them by virtue of their role, but their capacity to get the on with the job requires interpersonal authority which has to be earned. If their team decide not to cooperate – there is very little they can do. I’m sure there must be a football manager (or leader) who can attest to the truth of this.
The trouble is it’s not true. Any worker who has implemented a policy of non-compliance in response to a dreadful manager or deeply offensive leader can testify. The manager has access to the heavy institutional machinery. You can make his life difficult; he can make your life impossible. Ask any professional trouble maker (or trade unionist). To recast this dynamic – manager and antagonistic worker as leader and follower is a wishful, wilful deception. Do managers really manage using the soft arts of collegiate, collaborative persuasion.
But this is where the trouble with leadership is at its most acute. When what should be considered a manager is recast as leader, those who should be considered workers are by definition followers. It is not that this does not work as such. It works. But what does is do?
Learmonth and Morrell (2016) phrase this so clearly:
many workers are indifferent to (and others despise) their bosses, assuming workers are ‘followers’ of organizational elites seems not only managerialist, but blind to other forms of cultural identity.
A leader leads and a follower follows. So much of the literature in this area is devoted to exploring models of leadership, with scant attention paid to followership. It is after all the leader who is the orchestrating hero of the hour. The follower has their task clearly defined; they need only passively slip into their allotted place, accepting the ‘leadership’ that has been distributed to them in clearly defined units.
Carol Azumah Dennis, Senior Lecturer Education, Leadership and Management.
Learmonth, M., & Morrell, K. (2016). Is critical leadership studies ‘critical’?. Leadership, Vol. 13(3) 257–271
John Law, After Method, is one of those books I’ve skirted around for years. I never quite understood Actor Network Theory and now I fear the moment has passed. We are all posthuman now. I’ve had another too quick look at it this week. And like one phrase Law uses in connection to the research process
‘Distorted into Clarity’.
An aspect of educational research involves developing a coherent narrative based on the data we have generated. And then presenting (or noticing) only those bits and pieces of our data that appear consistent with that narrative. The data overall, never presents a distinct, coherent, free from contradiction narrative in and of themselves. It is something we create. A device. This I think is in part what Law means when he refers to ‘distorting into clarity’.
The study of education policy, leadership and ethics is fraught with examples of this kind of clarifying distortion. It is hard for any analysis of the social world to do otherwise.
This is how he introduces the idea.
If we start to make a list [of the things our research is unable to to do justice] then it quickly becomes clear that it is potentially endless. Pains and pleasures, hopes and horrors, intuitions and apprehensions, losses and redemptions, mundanities and visions, angels and demons, things that slip and slide, or appear and disappear, change shape or don’t have much form at all, unpredictabilities, these are just a few of the phenomena that are hardly caught by social science methods. It may be, of course, that they don’t belong to social science at all. But perhaps they do, or partly do, or should do. That, at any rate, is what I want to suggest. Parts of the world are caught in our ethnographies, our histories and our statistics. But other parts are not, or if they are then this is because they have been distorted into clarity. This is the problem I try to tackle. If much of the world is vague, diffuse or unspecific, slippery, emotional, ephemeral, elusive or indistinct, changes like a kaleidoscope, or doesn’t really have much of a pattern at all, then where does this leave social science? How might we catch some of the realities we are currently missing? Can we know them well? Should we know them? Is ‘knowing’ the metaphor that we need? And if it isn’t, then how might we relate to them? These are the issues that I open up in this book.
Any attempt to explore organisation conflict, is confronted with these sort of difficulties
Even conflict is too string a word since this sounds like something clear, unambiguous, contradictory perceptions that emerge from or lead to antagonism. I’m thinking of something gentler, that passes by almost unnoticed.
Professional aspiration vs policy demand
The conflict between professional aspiration and policy demand (Ball’s seminal text about the struggle for the soul of the teacher is the perfect example of this); this is a tension that causes great discomfort and needs to be resolved. It results in a loss of illusio (Bourdieu), and or what might be referred to as a schizoid professionalism. It is a state that has devastating consequences for professionals. Its antidote may be found in Keats’ negative capability.
This type of contradiction can be clearly articulated though it may take some time to define and understand. My sense is that professionals may experience it as a general ill-ease; a discomfort. But, once they are offered a broad outline of its shape and implications – it is a tension that makes immediate and obvious sense.
Pot – tay – to vs. Po – tah – to
There is also the contradiction between different research participants accounts of the same event or phenomenon. A manager’s perception that their policies are experienced by staff as ‘a chocolate fountain’, an outpouring of sweet delight that staff may dip into at the pleasure, is an evocative example of this. The staff may experience managers as remote, out-of-touch, unwilling to listen …
policy as espoused vs. policy as lived, rhetoric vs. reality
We all know the organisational that’s detailed policies around equity and inclusion, That *aspires* to be an equal opportunities employer. That strives to maintain its investors in people tag but somehow even though it’s an inner city college seem not to employ any ethnic minority lecturing staff, and has an all male senior management team.
We can all think of teachers who if asked will insist that their pedagogy is based on the broad principles of Socratic questioning. But when we see them teach what we see is an extended monologue punctuated by a few ‘guess what I’m thinking’ questions thrown out every time their student audience seems to be wilting.
In less anecdotal terms an example of this from research data is a participant who says: ‘we will never let a colleague fail’ a few moments before describing how some colleagues were ‘performance managed out of the building’. (Is it just a coincidence that those from marched out of the college were also active unionists?)
Is this a simple stunning lack of reflexivity. Or worst still – a deliberate attempt to deceive. Or – thinking with Goffman – a front of house presentation of self. That is, does my interviewee ‘conduct himself [sic] during our encounter so as to maintain both his own face and the face of the other participants.’ Where the self who participates is understood as both
*an image pieced together from the expressive implications of the full flow of events in an undertaking; and as *
*a kind of player in a ritual game who copes honorably or dishonorably, diplomatically or undiplomatically, with the judgmental contingencies of the situation?’*
There is however – another source of contradiction, ambiguity, contestation and conflict. And this is one that I like a great deal: doublethink
Doublethink: the capacity to hold two contradictory ideas together simultaneously with little apparent awareness that they cancel each other out and with little sense of ill ease.
This might seem like something of an affectation.
*The test of a ﬁrst-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function*.
(F. Scott Fitzgerald, 1956: 69)
What is distinct about doublethink is that participants seem to hold views which negate each other once placed side by side but they are apparently oblivious to the contradiction.
To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them; to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy; to forget what it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word ‘doublethink’ involved the use of doublethink.
(Yep, this is part of my brief attempt to read texts that I should have read 20 years ago but didn’t or did read and promptly forgot about them. 1984 is on audible and when I take a break from reading (listening) to gruesome crime novels, 1984 is a bit of light relief.
While the conflict between managers / leaders and lecturers in FE is interesting, it is not the focus I wish to explore just now. It is the conflict captured by Stephen Ball’s ‘struggle for the soul of the teacher’ that captivates me.
This is an internal conflict that has practical implication for how people conduct themselves in the workplace and how they feel about what they do.
As with so many research interests, it is best illustrated with an anecdote. In this post I consider an extended quote from a College Leader in response to the question of whether there was an issue over which she would resign from her post.
When framing the question, I had in mind a straightforward conflict between a government insistence that Colleges deliver a particular programme or implement a specific policy coming into conflict with College Leaders’ judgement about what it means to Do the Right Thing. I wanted to know if there was any programme or policy so badly conceived that College Leaders would feel there was no scope for compromise and resignation appeared the only acceptable option.
The recent imposition of GCSE English and maths retakes is an example. Teachers (and College Leaders) are compelled to act in ways that they know to be against the best interest of their students. Its an uncomfortable, debilitating compromise.
There are studies that have explored this conflict in teachers:
but I am unaware of any who have explored this issue with College Leaders.
College leader C1N responds to my question: Is there an issue over which you would resign?
I think if it got to the stage where there were … no funding for anyone over the age 19 unless they were in work.
The issue than of austerity and cuts to funding is one that has a clear ethical impact on College Leaders. College Leader CIN goes on to elaborate on this particular issue and its implications for her college.
I’m thinking about all the work we do with young people with learning difficulties and disabilities, everything, because we are quite low performing county. So, students come out of their school with a very low base. Actually a lot of them are over 19 by the time we start to get them into sustainable employment. Lots of them miss a couple of years because they’ve just had enough and I think if it got to the stage where it was, well, actually you run academic programmes for two years post 16 and then everything else is in the workplace or higher education … start to think there’s probably not the kind of sector that I came to work in …
[… her voice trails off…]
This is a difficult question and some of our interviewees were so bright eyed with cheerful enthusiasm, I felt a deep guilt asking a question laced with such cynicism. But College Leader C1N has a clear response and a clear rationale for her response.
I’m focussing on conflict, contradiction and ethical compromise. After openly admitting that being in a position where the college was only able to help adult learners if they were in work, this is what College Leader C1N says only moments later – in an extended answer to the same question.
We (College Leader C1N and her Deputy) had (to stand there during open day and say, “We have nothing for you” over and over again). We lost a lot of the adult funding. And to see, particularly young men I think were affected, come in age, 20, 21, 22, who’d got themselves into a dead-end job after they left school because they hated it. And, they get to that stage that perhaps thinking about family and settling down and realising that they haven’t got the skills they need and coming back – we’ve just got nothing for them – is really difficult.
So, having said cuts to provision meaning she had nothing to offer 19+ learners is an issue over which she would resign, College Leader then describes having to tell 19+ learners over and over agin that the college has nothing to offer them. This sounds like a contradiction to me. She clearly did not resign. As she continues to talk of her non-resignation she does not acknowledge the contradiction but does seem to want to explain how she responds to the lack of funds for adult provision.
She talks about how she gets around, through project funding, the college’s inability to offer meaningful provision for the post 19 student.
But it is the apparent tension between these two apparently contradictory positions – one following almost immediately after the other, that I think needs to be explored and explained.
One of the many things I enjoy is reading about FE from a disciplinary space or field that I would not normally encounter. A perfect example of this is the work of Kim Mather et al.
Kim Mather, Les Worrall, Graeme Mather, (2012),”and worker resistance in UK further education: The creation of the Stepford lecturer”, Employee Relations, Vol. 34 Iss: 5 pp. 534 – 554
I tend not to include this journal on my reading lists. This is hardly surprising. A search through 255 volumes, 4 issues per volume each with issue publishing between 7 and 9 original research papers – returned 4 papers with “Further Education” in the title. (Two of which have been written by Mather et al.)
But employee relations is a key question for FE. FE has traditionally been a volatile area to work in – with regular and recurring restructures, an active union and volatile industrial relations. FE lectures are the most strike prone professional workforce. In the last few years, the demands of policy have changed what it means to be an FE lecturer beyond recognition. The literature abounds with discussion of this nature. Yet, Mather et al are one of the few authors who explore the changes from an explicit labour relations perspective.
I have an abiding interest in conflict just now. Hence my re-reading Mather et al
Here is an extract from “Engineering compliance …”
Senior managers dealt with perceived lecturers’ recalcitrance by drawing on a rangeof metaphors that both reified the dominant managerial view while also reinforcing the positional power of senior managers and the downward nature of communications. These sound-bite metaphors revealed a senior management mindset that appeared to be far removed from many of the lecturers. […] in one College a senior manager explained his approach to strategy formulation and getting staff on board: “what I’m doing is putting a story down, the model I see is that [he drew a diagram on a scrap of paper] – this is a chocolate fountain”. The allusion to the chocolate fountain is suggestive of a top-down cascade of good ideas that are dipped into, and one assumes, enjoyed by staff lower down the hierarchy.
The quote represents a particular view of not only leadership but organisational communication: one that is deeply hierarchical: leaders talk / followers listen.
But the quote is also delusional. This leader’s idea that staff on the receiving end of management communications experience them as nicely flowing sweetness suggests a disturbing disconnect between the head and the rest of the body.
To add to this desperate situation, in an earlier interview, the senior manager had castigated lecturers for refusing the live in the ‘real world’. So, from his fantasy world of management communications being something like a chocolate fountain, he accepts as real a world in which austerity is a necessity and There Is No Alternative.