Friday 15 December 2006
so long, conference!
Many thanks to the conference organisers and all who attended who made this such a wonderful two days. And thanks to you for navigating this far, for reading this, for the comments I'd love you to make, and to continuing the discussions.
attack of the 40 foot Siamese twins - responses to the panel
Here's where the empire strikes back: John, from Warwick, is speaking now. Go for it John - give 'em hell! John is asking about differences in the types of discourses between science and more ordinary discourses. Robin is responding with an erudite and referenced (he's talking in paragraphs, just like the science language that John has raised the question about). And its a long paragraph... it's still going. I have, of course, missed the bulk, nay trimmed the bulk of the answer to this question by my nibbling at this keyboard. Now Michael Cox from Canada has stood up, next to me, asking knowing why and knowing what - how do you bridge those solitudes? Praxis is nice, but it seems to me that they really are two different worlds driven by two different logics. Jean is saying that perhaps each position learns from the other position. You mean one defines the other? Whey hey! Enter Ferdinand Saussure stage left. Jean is saying we need a good dialogue between these competing/mutual positions. Need a good rodding, a good seeing to, via the dialectical method (talking, it's good to talk). Now Kim is talking, addressing the duality of this conference - practice/theory. What is the subsequent output of this dialectcism? I'm a much more difficult manager, more prickly, spikey, more tougher person. practitioners may not want to know what theorist want to know, and vice versa. Umm, interesting. Now Roger Gill, who is bringing academics and practitioners together. Neither group wanted to meet with the other group - yuk, I'm not meeting them. Isn't theory about good practice (I think you'll find it was Einstein who said that)? A gent from Cardiff now (sorry, I didn't catch your name, just your city and institution - how strange), will we get any closer to practice given the funding politics we're currently repressed by? Right on brother! Here's Robin with a 'yes and no' - yes, repeat, NO. Robin has lifted the veil of his disguise; maybe he never had one. In the sum total of things, its not important. Come on conference! Get this into your heads - you've blown this out of all proportion! Look at the figures, the vaguely facty and absoluty (plenary) figures. Now Keith is backing the yes/no answer. Academics are supposed to be indecisive, rather than dam well doing it. Here's a tension to chew on! Lara Croft, from Tomb Raider University, eat your heart out!
Simon Weston, now, from Lancaster - pressure towards practice, that pure theory is a good thing, there's a place for both not either or. Today's critical theory is tomorrows normative fodder. What production line is this, what Fordist factory are we visiting here on this factory visit? Now Denis from Abderdeen; as academics, even when we try to become normative, we always surround it with qualifications, 'ifs' and 'buts', and that we're "willing to abandon our theories". But practitioners want certainty. Enough of this wishy wishy, Dr. professor washy! Do we (both sides of the sectarian divide) have to abandon some of our values? Robin is applauding consultants who appear to embody certainty but who back-door radical uncertainty. Peters & Waterman of In Search of Excellence. Pull on this bit of wool and it will unravel. Another question running towards the riot police of the panel:, shields raised; here, capitalist/academic agents, chew on this molotov cocktail. Now Martin Clarke: do managers really want quick responses? No: not in his experience. They value the reflective space that this academic staging enables [nods from the panel]. And Ivan, from Cranners: we seem to be struggling around some practical issues. Organisations are always pilgrimiging to academics and finding an irrelevant lack of action. Consultancies provides answers, solution and direction. We must provide direction too - we are directionless. Quick, where's the sat nav? We're lost! What substitute gadget can you go out and buy? Now Anne from Lancaster, who can't believe what she's saing, who's defending her role as practitioner and who's defending the consultancy model. Don't think, cos you'll cock-up on the money front. Steady! Now a gent from Canada - sorry, I didn't catch your name. Executives are obsessed with minimising risk. Consultants rock! "Listen, Mr Consultant, I want you to minimise our risk with some fancy thinking". Academics are obsessed that we'll be attacked on page 84, paragraph 3 of our papers around our statistics. Get a life, Dr Academic! Vive la intuition, spring of '68 revolution, don't crave another academic paper. What we have right now is lousy, NYPD blue. Now a measured response from Jean from the Panel (who've now, effectively, capitalised their name by commenting on the comments from the audience, rather than sitting back in the audience, exit the cockpit). Frank Hamilton: let's reframe this a minute...don't have a minute to spare, to reflect, too busy earning, publishing. How do the reward structures we're under mould what we're doing? How many of us are changing what we're doing, based on the inflexibility of the structures in academe? What mechanisms will allow us to talk to practitioners? Now Mike Osbaldeston, who's quizzing the tightrope: see the storm?; run for your life, inelegantly, down that tightrope! Grab, grapple, swing but scurry on to the next rope. Sod the pole, sod the finesse of getting along the rope. The pressure of context forces us back on our intuition: hey, at last, a triumph (a trump) for irrationality. MO has a lot of time for intuitive practitioners. I haven't got time to read another paper! Spare me. Now David Collinson; it might help us to drop the dichotomy. Drop the dead dichotomy! Cumon David, we need a new comment here... And on that note, the panel is closing. Robin is having the final word... Course textbooks reach practitioners, at least, but they're not real. No no, Kim is last wording about design science and predictive (I always forget the opposite in this distinction that David Tranfield uses) science. This has been the attack of the 40 foot Siamese twin's (thanks Michael for suggesting the image to this post) response to the panel. Phew!
Simon Weston, now, from Lancaster - pressure towards practice, that pure theory is a good thing, there's a place for both not either or. Today's critical theory is tomorrows normative fodder. What production line is this, what Fordist factory are we visiting here on this factory visit? Now Denis from Abderdeen; as academics, even when we try to become normative, we always surround it with qualifications, 'ifs' and 'buts', and that we're "willing to abandon our theories". But practitioners want certainty. Enough of this wishy wishy, Dr. professor washy! Do we (both sides of the sectarian divide) have to abandon some of our values? Robin is applauding consultants who appear to embody certainty but who back-door radical uncertainty. Peters & Waterman of In Search of Excellence. Pull on this bit of wool and it will unravel. Another question running towards the riot police of the panel:, shields raised; here, capitalist/academic agents, chew on this molotov cocktail. Now Martin Clarke: do managers really want quick responses? No: not in his experience. They value the reflective space that this academic staging enables [nods from the panel]. And Ivan, from Cranners: we seem to be struggling around some practical issues. Organisations are always pilgrimiging to academics and finding an irrelevant lack of action. Consultancies provides answers, solution and direction. We must provide direction too - we are directionless. Quick, where's the sat nav? We're lost! What substitute gadget can you go out and buy? Now Anne from Lancaster, who can't believe what she's saing, who's defending her role as practitioner and who's defending the consultancy model. Don't think, cos you'll cock-up on the money front. Steady! Now a gent from Canada - sorry, I didn't catch your name. Executives are obsessed with minimising risk. Consultants rock! "Listen, Mr Consultant, I want you to minimise our risk with some fancy thinking". Academics are obsessed that we'll be attacked on page 84, paragraph 3 of our papers around our statistics. Get a life, Dr Academic! Vive la intuition, spring of '68 revolution, don't crave another academic paper. What we have right now is lousy, NYPD blue. Now a measured response from Jean from the Panel (who've now, effectively, capitalised their name by commenting on the comments from the audience, rather than sitting back in the audience, exit the cockpit). Frank Hamilton: let's reframe this a minute...don't have a minute to spare, to reflect, too busy earning, publishing. How do the reward structures we're under mould what we're doing? How many of us are changing what we're doing, based on the inflexibility of the structures in academe? What mechanisms will allow us to talk to practitioners? Now Mike Osbaldeston, who's quizzing the tightrope: see the storm?; run for your life, inelegantly, down that tightrope! Grab, grapple, swing but scurry on to the next rope. Sod the pole, sod the finesse of getting along the rope. The pressure of context forces us back on our intuition: hey, at last, a triumph (a trump) for irrationality. MO has a lot of time for intuitive practitioners. I haven't got time to read another paper! Spare me. Now David Collinson; it might help us to drop the dichotomy. Drop the dead dichotomy! Cumon David, we need a new comment here... And on that note, the panel is closing. Robin is having the final word... Course textbooks reach practitioners, at least, but they're not real. No no, Kim is last wording about design science and predictive (I always forget the opposite in this distinction that David Tranfield uses) science. This has been the attack of the 40 foot Siamese twin's (thanks Michael for suggesting the image to this post) response to the panel. Phew!
definition of 'plenary' - full, complete, entire, absolute
Here we all are, back in the big room, the full jar, with an array of academics sat at the bottom of the room, the ranks of amassed practitioners stacked in a bank above them, waiting to discuss. What is practitioner oriented about this staging? What is full, complete, entire, absolute (dictionary definition of plenary) about this? Jonathan Gosling is asking "what benefit will come about, what are we adding to via our studies of leadership studies?" Are we closer to an anatomy of leadership via these efforts: what are the affordances of productions such as this conference and its wider discourse? So these questions, or proxies for these questions, have been posed to our august panel.
Keith Grint is starting: he's criticising comments from a critic of 'all this philosophic nonsense' rather well, using humour. The below the belt target that Keith has centred in his sights are the banks of airportainia books that are consumed on flights, at airport gates, in snatches of time where we're acting the travelling business person. What is the ineluctable draw towards normativity? Are we compromising ourselves, or rather, why do we compromise ourselves? It's as if there's a gigantic magnet pulling at our metallic clothes, at our suit of armor, drawing us inexorably towards normativity. Keith is naked in front of us: he's unmeshed himself from the suit - and receive a ripple of applause.
Robin Wensley is now in the pedagogic cockpit of this laboratory room 16. Most of the issues that can be posed about leadership research can be easily classed under the management debate. Robins is enumerating several issues that are true of both discourses, e.g. the role of the normative pull: what are our scholarly outputs; epistemology and ontology questions. It's only partly a Mode 1 and Mode 2 issue. We should be more interested in what is the specific nature of leadership knowledge? What is the balance between folk wisdom and 'scientific' knowledge? We cannot but engage in these debate, but there are some underlying differences in the nature of these knowledge. So what have scholarly outputs to do with this? Let's look at the annual UK consultancy business revenues - approx. £10 billion. UK b-schools, £1bn. RAE and research funding, £10m. So, we are "small bit players" in this game, based at least on these foundational figures. Or, we could look elsewhere for affordances: we should look at more than just stories; to look more carefully at which the argumentation is presented in particular fields. There are various ways of being critical and rigorous in our endeavours; but we should be doing more that just stories. And so the the 'ologies. A particular version is to argue that management knowledge is so context dependent that effectively management itself ia 'category mistate' It could be that this is even truer in the case of leadership"
Jean Hartley is staying seated: should we be contributing to theory or norative practice. We should be looking at both, says Jean. What are the ways to link theory to practice? PRAXIS is the best notion to explain this: theory informs practice and practice informs theory. Weick's notion of sense making is a good example of praxis. How about walking a tightrope, with a balancing pole, with theory on one end and practice on the other. Loose hold of either of these pole components and you'll fall to your (academic) death - in fact you're dead already [my comments, though I know Jean thinks this, so that's OK]. How annoying to have this simplistic bipolarity: this is Jean's point but my point to Jean. Practicing thinkers and thinking practicers - really Jean? Why do we uphold this distinction still, after all this time? Who's talking here, panel? Weick, and sense making or sense imposing? A dialectical process - is that all that's left to superglue theory to practice? Trouble with glue is you get it on your hands; don't get superglue on your hands cos you'll stick your fingers together: you'll fail in your enjoining intentions, but succeed in not using what is surely a normative solution to the T/P gap. Jean is talking about 'time' now, and now methodological - access to research fields and the kind of evidence we're able to collect. What is evidence anyway? And CONTEXT is important too - really? What has that added precisely?
Keith Grint is starting: he's criticising comments from a critic of 'all this philosophic nonsense' rather well, using humour. The below the belt target that Keith has centred in his sights are the banks of airportainia books that are consumed on flights, at airport gates, in snatches of time where we're acting the travelling business person. What is the ineluctable draw towards normativity? Are we compromising ourselves, or rather, why do we compromise ourselves? It's as if there's a gigantic magnet pulling at our metallic clothes, at our suit of armor, drawing us inexorably towards normativity. Keith is naked in front of us: he's unmeshed himself from the suit - and receive a ripple of applause.
Robin Wensley is now in the pedagogic cockpit of this laboratory room 16. Most of the issues that can be posed about leadership research can be easily classed under the management debate. Robins is enumerating several issues that are true of both discourses, e.g. the role of the normative pull: what are our scholarly outputs; epistemology and ontology questions. It's only partly a Mode 1 and Mode 2 issue. We should be more interested in what is the specific nature of leadership knowledge? What is the balance between folk wisdom and 'scientific' knowledge? We cannot but engage in these debate, but there are some underlying differences in the nature of these knowledge. So what have scholarly outputs to do with this? Let's look at the annual UK consultancy business revenues - approx. £10 billion. UK b-schools, £1bn. RAE and research funding, £10m. So, we are "small bit players" in this game, based at least on these foundational figures. Or, we could look elsewhere for affordances: we should look at more than just stories; to look more carefully at which the argumentation is presented in particular fields. There are various ways of being critical and rigorous in our endeavours; but we should be doing more that just stories. And so the the 'ologies. A particular version is to argue that management knowledge is so context dependent that effectively management itself ia 'category mistate' It could be that this is even truer in the case of leadership"
Jean Hartley is staying seated: should we be contributing to theory or norative practice. We should be looking at both, says Jean. What are the ways to link theory to practice? PRAXIS is the best notion to explain this: theory informs practice and practice informs theory. Weick's notion of sense making is a good example of praxis. How about walking a tightrope, with a balancing pole, with theory on one end and practice on the other. Loose hold of either of these pole components and you'll fall to your (academic) death - in fact you're dead already [my comments, though I know Jean thinks this, so that's OK]. How annoying to have this simplistic bipolarity: this is Jean's point but my point to Jean. Practicing thinkers and thinking practicers - really Jean? Why do we uphold this distinction still, after all this time? Who's talking here, panel? Weick, and sense making or sense imposing? A dialectical process - is that all that's left to superglue theory to practice? Trouble with glue is you get it on your hands; don't get superglue on your hands cos you'll stick your fingers together: you'll fail in your enjoining intentions, but succeed in not using what is surely a normative solution to the T/P gap. Jean is talking about 'time' now, and now methodological - access to research fields and the kind of evidence we're able to collect. What is evidence anyway? And CONTEXT is important too - really? What has that added precisely?
is distributed leadership in its infancy?
I'm in a punning mood this morning: I'm playing with the words that we're hearing in lecture room 17 right now, from a team from the OU entitled An empirical study of the factors influencing the emergence of distributed leadership. We're hearing a genealogy of the concept of DL: an increased dissatisfaction with leader-focused approaches; increased need for team-based interdiciplinary knowledge work; growing adoption of social constructivist paradigm in studying leadership; such is the basis of this paper's claim.
So, "DL is in its infancy", we're told - I'm not so sure my little hombre, as the argument in my previous post alluded to. I think you'll find this infant is either as old as the hills or an 'emperors new clothes' concept that emerge out of conferences like this. DL is still posited, here, as based on singular individuals or groups of individuals - infants or otherwise. In what way is DL written into existence, too? Is it written into existence by the very smart, statistical and coherent presentation that is being delivered to us as I type? The performativity in this presentation is most definitely the figure for me today, from the ground of the conference and the ground of an apparent extra-linguistic leadership field. There is a performance going on here: plenty of rules, a stage, a script, a critical audience who are mostly silent, a dramaturgical tradition, criteria of goodness. How is this performance being consumed?; not to mention, why is it being consumed in this fashion?
So, "DL is in its infancy", we're told - I'm not so sure my little hombre, as the argument in my previous post alluded to. I think you'll find this infant is either as old as the hills or an 'emperors new clothes' concept that emerge out of conferences like this. DL is still posited, here, as based on singular individuals or groups of individuals - infants or otherwise. In what way is DL written into existence, too? Is it written into existence by the very smart, statistical and coherent presentation that is being delivered to us as I type? The performativity in this presentation is most definitely the figure for me today, from the ground of the conference and the ground of an apparent extra-linguistic leadership field. There is a performance going on here: plenty of rules, a stage, a script, a critical audience who are mostly silent, a dramaturgical tradition, criteria of goodness. How is this performance being consumed?; not to mention, why is it being consumed in this fashion?
distributed leadership - distributed conference
Day 2 - and we're off already. I'm sat at the back of lecture room 17, in the 'distributed leadership track' of the conference. The team from Exeter are presenting their piece on distributed leadership and I have half an eye on it, half an eye on this blog, and the other half (!) on visioning my own presentation just before the break. I was never good at math, and so it seems something has to give. I'm affraid that this morning it's the current paper that is the looser - sorry Exeter.
One other conception of distributed is 'networked': and I'm pleased to see that stevemac has joined this networked discussion. The speaker in front of me has been given his 2-minute call and is speeding up. What does this say about the patterns of consumption and production of knowledge in this conference, in this traditional staging: I've heard several apologies from speakers these two days, a regret or dissapointment about the process of delivering the paper and not having enough time. I find this interesting, as I do, of course, what it is speakers are saying, don't get me wrong. But I also find the activity of this blog interesting, the conversation I'm having with my brother in Devon right now, via instant messenger, the quality of the interface of the installation software that I'm currently downloading, the Blackberry on my hip that is vibrating. Distraction?; disruption?; lack of attention?; distributed?; distributed attention?;yes and yes. The discussion in front of my has changed to questsions and answers, probing the speaker's notion of distributed leadership.
One other conception of distributed is 'networked': and I'm pleased to see that stevemac has joined this networked discussion. The speaker in front of me has been given his 2-minute call and is speeding up. What does this say about the patterns of consumption and production of knowledge in this conference, in this traditional staging: I've heard several apologies from speakers these two days, a regret or dissapointment about the process of delivering the paper and not having enough time. I find this interesting, as I do, of course, what it is speakers are saying, don't get me wrong. But I also find the activity of this blog interesting, the conversation I'm having with my brother in Devon right now, via instant messenger, the quality of the interface of the installation software that I'm currently downloading, the Blackberry on my hip that is vibrating. Distraction?; disruption?; lack of attention?; distributed?; distributed attention?;yes and yes. The discussion in front of my has changed to questsions and answers, probing the speaker's notion of distributed leadership.
Thursday 14 December 2006
spectral leaders, spectral speakers
After all, this blog was never an attempt to document the conference, nor, I believe, even just those presentations that I attended. This was always going to be my re-presentation of these presentations. Uppermost in this interpretation is my joy at having heard all of the speakers I was fortunate to enough to listen to. Sadly, half of todays' speakers aren't featured on these pages, and my apologies to anyone who feels excluded. I can only offer some poststructurally oriented solace in that we can only ever filter, exclude and marginalise what we receive, or what there is to receive. This is differance, in a Saussurian and Derridian sense: to differ and to defer are the bases of linguistic meaning - a part of what 'flipchart' means is not chair nor computer. Whilst it seems rather far fetched to say that my exclusion of other speakers has in some way defined those absent speakers, I would say that shared the discourse of the non-spectral speakers I, in some way, beckon the others. Then perhaps I'm just trying to philosophise my way into relevance.
I look forward to the second day of the conference. If you're taken by the urge to comment on this blog, please go ahead and click on the 'comment' link under the post that takes your fancy.
Philanthropeneurs: social change leaders or quiet revolutionaries? An eighteenth century Irish case study
Colm is up next, following on from Robert and Peter, which continues the historical theme. Colm speaks quietly in a darkly rich Irish accent, and talks of a personal oddessy. He's talking about his experiences in Dubai, and how he heard praise for Osama bin Laden as a leader, and the incongruity of the bin Laden family owning and running a major construction company in Dubai. So Colm is both provocative and evocative - expect some music in this (52 slide) presentation. Excellent! The lights are now dimming in the room and some wonderful music issues forth. Wow - you have to hear this fantastic orchestral Celtic pipe music! The accompanying text is telling the story of Edmund Rice. You have to be here to experience this - it's great. Because we, the audience, are doing the reading of the Rice's history, we're imbuing his life with life. The music only adds to this, creating a compelling combination. And, so far, Colm has hardly said a word. Some wonderful puns there on 'shins' that I can hardly comment on here.
Questions: I went into a different place during that presentation. Can philanthoreneurs create learning organisations? Edmund Rice is a change agent: there are comparisons with the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation in the Ricean principles - that education is the future.
Questions: I went into a different place during that presentation. Can philanthoreneurs create learning organisations? Edmund Rice is a change agent: there are comparisons with the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation in the Ricean principles - that education is the future.
Leadership and spirituality: Wilberforce and the abolition of the slave trade
Peter is talking about spirituality - a nice follow on from the last post. Peter makes a nice compliment of Robert's congruent presentation style in not using PowerPoint slides: but Peter is using slides for his own benefit - it is late in the day and these slides are an expedient. Peter has a great interest in spirituality but recognises the difficulty of introducing this topic into secular organisations. There's something of a pre-paradigmatic-ness about spirituality in leadership: it seems to come before everything.
As for Wilberforce, who is credited as abolishing leadership, and his leadership, this is around his visibility: he was a great orator. He was an appalling organiser, but a brilliant communicator. Peter's point is to offer, via Wilberforce and this paper, an interpretation of the leadership discourse. He's talking about 'complex responsive processes' after Stacey. Wilberforce was educated, wealthy and well connected. Peter is now launching into a deep genealogy of Wilberforce's network - I can only direct you to his paper for more details. And I find myself searching Peter's text, his spoken text, for a distillation, rather than let the story wash over me which is what I know I should do to extract the most utility from his thoughts. I wonder what a poststructural, new historicist take on this history would reveal?
Back to Stacey: we don't focus on individual if we want to understand how complex processes work. This is best understood in the way the conversation changed: the nature of conversation and conversational themes. This theme of conversation also relates to spirituality: using the hub of conversation that Wilberforce was as a force for Christian change, where true religion is the union of the soul with God. Peter's summary slide, outlining leadership, spirituality and complexity, picks up the words 'values', 'beliefs', 'integration', 'communal' and 'community'. The slide then beautifully (technologically) merges into a whole - leadership, spirituality as complex processes. So, some implications? Leadership promoting non-material values. Is there then a warrant that is issued via parrhesia, that it is okay to upset friends and people generally by ones frankness of speech? Is it truth above all?
As for Wilberforce, who is credited as abolishing leadership, and his leadership, this is around his visibility: he was a great orator. He was an appalling organiser, but a brilliant communicator. Peter's point is to offer, via Wilberforce and this paper, an interpretation of the leadership discourse. He's talking about 'complex responsive processes' after Stacey. Wilberforce was educated, wealthy and well connected. Peter is now launching into a deep genealogy of Wilberforce's network - I can only direct you to his paper for more details. And I find myself searching Peter's text, his spoken text, for a distillation, rather than let the story wash over me which is what I know I should do to extract the most utility from his thoughts. I wonder what a poststructural, new historicist take on this history would reveal?
Back to Stacey: we don't focus on individual if we want to understand how complex processes work. This is best understood in the way the conversation changed: the nature of conversation and conversational themes. This theme of conversation also relates to spirituality: using the hub of conversation that Wilberforce was as a force for Christian change, where true religion is the union of the soul with God. Peter's summary slide, outlining leadership, spirituality and complexity, picks up the words 'values', 'beliefs', 'integration', 'communal' and 'community'. The slide then beautifully (technologically) merges into a whole - leadership, spirituality as complex processes. So, some implications? Leadership promoting non-material values. Is there then a warrant that is issued via parrhesia, that it is okay to upset friends and people generally by ones frankness of speech? Is it truth above all?
Friendship and Leadership
Robert French is reading his paper, now, in lecture room 14. After a quick coffee, I'm listening to Robert is talking about monks, friendship, ardent longing, the 'desire to see your faces', the 'yearning for kisses' - these as a discourse from people who don't know each other, but somehow share a language and an intensity in friendship. Robert here is making a delicious distinction between pre-modern and modern discourses that value friendship: this pre-modern notion of friendship is now lost in the modern world. What is the place of friendship in organisations and leadership? Is it too late? Is the way from knowledge to action via friendship (addressing the theme of the conference)? Look at the acknowledgement sections of paper's and books, where friends are valued in "I'd like to thank my friends and colleagues..." French cites friendship as the site of some organisational successes, i.e companies (Innocent Drinks) and charities start as a bunch of friends.
Robert is sat, propped against the front desk of this lecture room, talking in a very friendly manner - so commensurate with his topic. He's on the topic of hospitality now (I'm thinking of Derrida and The Politics of Friendship): food and drink and conviviality as a site of friendship; then into the commodification of friendship, such as at the checkout of Waitrose who urge staff to greet, pack and thank the customers they serve. Now conversation; the point of friendship or the mechanism of friendship, where the 'con-' in conversation and convivial is the 'with' or alterity of otherness. Is friendship more important than justice, is friendship more of a foundational candidate? Over to the flip chart now and Robert has written the word 'parrrhesia' - frankness of speech, or as Foucault says 'fearless speech', where the speaker risks his life in using frankness. Or Blake, "opposition is true friendship". Fearless speech is a strong idea, especially in the Middle Ages: there were no institutionalise channels for decision making, so friendship acts as a structure to enable decisions to be made. Flattery rather than parrhesia, where politicians and some leaders would rather have complimentary comments made of them rather than frankness.
Friendship is usually 2 or 3, rather than many: true of the Christian church. This builds intimacy and immediacy and points to its requirement in leadership. So the task we could undertake is to identify the aspects of this friendship state of mind, the elements, the rituals, the cutting-across elements of friendship, to building a culture of friendship for leadership development.
Questions: can you have truth telling without the friendship? Not sure: it's a bit like arranged marriage versus romantic marriage; we opt for the latter. On the topic of scale, and power dynamics, how do ideas of friendship map onto the realities of power? There's a Kantian imperative, deontological basis of French's response - how would you welcome a friend and what institutional mechanisms can be replicated in the guise of friendship. Consider the 'Society of Friends', the Quakers? How does their egalitarian notion of friend impact leadership? From hero to host, from Margaret Wheatley, with the shift from friend to host.
Robert is sat, propped against the front desk of this lecture room, talking in a very friendly manner - so commensurate with his topic. He's on the topic of hospitality now (I'm thinking of Derrida and The Politics of Friendship): food and drink and conviviality as a site of friendship; then into the commodification of friendship, such as at the checkout of Waitrose who urge staff to greet, pack and thank the customers they serve. Now conversation; the point of friendship or the mechanism of friendship, where the 'con-' in conversation and convivial is the 'with' or alterity of otherness. Is friendship more important than justice, is friendship more of a foundational candidate? Over to the flip chart now and Robert has written the word 'parrrhesia' - frankness of speech, or as Foucault says 'fearless speech', where the speaker risks his life in using frankness. Or Blake, "opposition is true friendship". Fearless speech is a strong idea, especially in the Middle Ages: there were no institutionalise channels for decision making, so friendship acts as a structure to enable decisions to be made. Flattery rather than parrhesia, where politicians and some leaders would rather have complimentary comments made of them rather than frankness.
Friendship is usually 2 or 3, rather than many: true of the Christian church. This builds intimacy and immediacy and points to its requirement in leadership. So the task we could undertake is to identify the aspects of this friendship state of mind, the elements, the rituals, the cutting-across elements of friendship, to building a culture of friendship for leadership development.
Questions: can you have truth telling without the friendship? Not sure: it's a bit like arranged marriage versus romantic marriage; we opt for the latter. On the topic of scale, and power dynamics, how do ideas of friendship map onto the realities of power? There's a Kantian imperative, deontological basis of French's response - how would you welcome a friend and what institutional mechanisms can be replicated in the guise of friendship. Consider the 'Society of Friends', the Quakers? How does their egalitarian notion of friend impact leadership? From hero to host, from Margaret Wheatley, with the shift from friend to host.
Visible Leadership: the empty triumph of individualism
Sarah Hurlow is up next; talking about individuals and individualism in the public sector arena. An opening question: how is the 'truth' of leadership constructed (precariously) and with what consequences (unintended)? So what is 'visible', 'vibrant' and 'living' leadership and what is this rhetoric? Sarah is taking a poststructural approach to her study, which peaks my interest straight away. What, then, is accountability in local government? There is the traditional notion of the faceless bureaucrat administering services for the collective good. Then, in a historical progression that Sarah is alluding to, there's the neoliberal entrepreneurial manager meeting needs of customers in the market place. And thirdly, there is the Third Way where the leader has a personalised relationship with responsible consumers of public services. This latter position Sarah puts forward as the more 'pragmatic' way of leading that builds on the idea of a consumer. Sarah's historical treatment is interesting, especially her interest in the Third Way notion principally. IS the consumer a more unpredictable and unstable entity that we normally believe them to be? Yes, is Sarah's response. Can one then consume local government?
So what are the conditions and consequences of the construction of this particular 'truth' of leadership? Sarah's methodological approach was to examine the role of language as a representational system that produces the objects of which it speaks - a truly poststructural angle of entry into this issue! She examined texts; interviews, governance reports, documents. And how the texts mean. Language is unstable, with multiple unintended meanings across binary oppositions. I think I'll be illustrating Sarah's point later, when I give my own presentation. You can do management from your desk, but you have to be seen to do leadership: about the 'face' of leadership, which is privileged over management - a kind of logocentrism of leadership, in the Derridian sense.
There is then a 'performance' of leadership: a standing up front, a kind of theatricality of leadership, a leadership culture flag waving and baby kissing. The celebrity of leadership, a la Big Brother, or football managers or fly-by-night pop stars, after which they can revert back to their real personage.
So what are the conditions and consequences of the construction of this particular 'truth' of leadership? Sarah's methodological approach was to examine the role of language as a representational system that produces the objects of which it speaks - a truly poststructural angle of entry into this issue! She examined texts; interviews, governance reports, documents. And how the texts mean. Language is unstable, with multiple unintended meanings across binary oppositions. I think I'll be illustrating Sarah's point later, when I give my own presentation. You can do management from your desk, but you have to be seen to do leadership: about the 'face' of leadership, which is privileged over management - a kind of logocentrism of leadership, in the Derridian sense.
There is then a 'performance' of leadership: a standing up front, a kind of theatricality of leadership, a leadership culture flag waving and baby kissing. The celebrity of leadership, a la Big Brother, or football managers or fly-by-night pop stars, after which they can revert back to their real personage.
A Leaders Journey to engage in times of change
This is the presentation of a paper by Jane Trinder, Jankowicz and Kakabadse: about the ability to engage and engagement from a personal (Jane is presenting) point of view. Jane is talking about her search for the answer from august institutions who she felt ought, or may, have some sort of answer regarding how leaders can/should engage. So, not finding it, Jane stepped out of organisational life and is in the process of studying for a PhD, investigating this topic. Jane's premise is that people would rather be involved in being engaged than not: as engagement is often linked to customer satisfaction, employee satisfaction, improved organisational performance.
Some typical solutions to engagement are: vision, leadership, development, tools, praise, stakeholder communication, communication skills, doing what you're best at. But the contexts in which these factors operate, the following map onto the previous. vision is short term; who is your role model; which deckchairs are being shuffled; there's increasing bureaucracy; and there are espoused theories in distinction to theories in action. Jane's focus today is on psychology and the psychologistic aspects of engagement: i.e. commitment, job involvement and job satisfaction. These three boil down to the values set and individual beliefs and attitudes; affective relationships, or emotional buy-in to the job. Can engagement be viewed solely as a 'choice'? That engagement has meaning for me, that I feel safe and that the leader is available to me and how available I am to my job. But what is it like when you are engaged? One is attentive, connected to others, integrated with the overall process and wanting to participate, and one is focused: these are what constitute presence.
But Jane's point is: we're not doing it, are we! She draws a distinction between 'conventional' and 'post conventional' to illustrate a progression towards this papers conclusion about what constitutes a better form of engagement. A post conventional leader is, variously: motivational; transformational; networked; legacy plus results; constant and cyclical; and using conflict to enable transformation. It's a shame that Jane is not leaving, deliberately she says, time for questions at the end of this presentation. Does this reveal 'conventionalness' in her approach? ...But, it turns out she did have 3 minutes for questions and fielded them.
Some typical solutions to engagement are: vision, leadership, development, tools, praise, stakeholder communication, communication skills, doing what you're best at. But the contexts in which these factors operate, the following map onto the previous. vision is short term; who is your role model; which deckchairs are being shuffled; there's increasing bureaucracy; and there are espoused theories in distinction to theories in action. Jane's focus today is on psychology and the psychologistic aspects of engagement: i.e. commitment, job involvement and job satisfaction. These three boil down to the values set and individual beliefs and attitudes; affective relationships, or emotional buy-in to the job. Can engagement be viewed solely as a 'choice'? That engagement has meaning for me, that I feel safe and that the leader is available to me and how available I am to my job. But what is it like when you are engaged? One is attentive, connected to others, integrated with the overall process and wanting to participate, and one is focused: these are what constitute presence.
But Jane's point is: we're not doing it, are we! She draws a distinction between 'conventional' and 'post conventional' to illustrate a progression towards this papers conclusion about what constitutes a better form of engagement. A post conventional leader is, variously: motivational; transformational; networked; legacy plus results; constant and cyclical; and using conflict to enable transformation. It's a shame that Jane is not leaving, deliberately she says, time for questions at the end of this presentation. Does this reveal 'conventionalness' in her approach? ...But, it turns out she did have 3 minutes for questions and fielded them.
Developing Future Leaders - the contribution of talent management
Eddie (and Ann and Angelita) are the first slot after lunch - good luck Eddie! The team were paid to do this research, so the sponsors have asked to remain anonymous: interesting start. They're looking at TNC's and talent management inside these corporations. What is 'talent' then? We'd like to know your definition of talent Eddie. There is a cultural perception that talent is the critical success factor for success. Keep the talent away from the competition; accelerate the development of high potentials; and ensure the right people in the right jobs at the right time (old wine in new bottles). Such is the LR of Eddie's paper.
Here we go on a definition of talent: but first some definitional questions. What happens to non talents? what happens if you don't define talent? How do you do it without dehumanising the workforce? So what percentage of the organisation is talent(ed)? 3-5% for Berger; 100% egalitarian paradise; and somewhere in between these extremes.
Do you tell people whether or not they're considered as talented? People leave if they think their company will not meet their career expectations. Line managers influence turnover decisions most. But, difficult conversations are necessary. Is an opaque system subversive? Do you lose discretionary effort if opaque? Impact on reflected self and self esteem. Do you perform better if you know which rung of the ladder you're on.
So how do you develop high potential? Core competence development can conflict with individual difference. Focus on strengths or weaknesses; need for original commitment to continuing professional development; accelerated path or differentiated path? What is the impact on moral development (i.e. the longer you've been in the workforce, working, the more ethical you become. But the higher up the org echelons you are, the less ethical you are. Umm...interesting; this from the LR. So do talented individuals want to be managed? Can talented individuals actually be managed? Does everyone want to be considered talented? And there's the fervent belief that "talent will save the day!" So, does TM contribute to the development of future leaders? Good intentions are more difficult to achieve than anticipated. Lack of segmentation results in an enhanced performance management system. Culture of an organisation is key to acceptance. High transparency may disenfranchise. Low transparency may be self-defeating.
Here we go on a definition of talent: but first some definitional questions. What happens to non talents? what happens if you don't define talent? How do you do it without dehumanising the workforce? So what percentage of the organisation is talent(ed)? 3-5% for Berger; 100% egalitarian paradise; and somewhere in between these extremes.
Do you tell people whether or not they're considered as talented? People leave if they think their company will not meet their career expectations. Line managers influence turnover decisions most. But, difficult conversations are necessary. Is an opaque system subversive? Do you lose discretionary effort if opaque? Impact on reflected self and self esteem. Do you perform better if you know which rung of the ladder you're on.
So how do you develop high potential? Core competence development can conflict with individual difference. Focus on strengths or weaknesses; need for original commitment to continuing professional development; accelerated path or differentiated path? What is the impact on moral development (i.e. the longer you've been in the workforce, working, the more ethical you become. But the higher up the org echelons you are, the less ethical you are. Umm...interesting; this from the LR. So do talented individuals want to be managed? Can talented individuals actually be managed? Does everyone want to be considered talented? And there's the fervent belief that "talent will save the day!" So, does TM contribute to the development of future leaders? Good intentions are more difficult to achieve than anticipated. Lack of segmentation results in an enhanced performance management system. Culture of an organisation is key to acceptance. High transparency may disenfranchise. Low transparency may be self-defeating.
Perceived Leadership Behaviour
Here's Anders talking about his study about how one's leadership style can be heavily -more heavily influenced than perhaps we'd like to admit - by one's career history. This heavily statistical study draws some interesting conclusions about our ability to develop leaders, and the possibility of changing the agenda of that developmental role to surface our preconceptions about our ability to change. At least these are my preconceptions of this paper: I was sat with Anders at the start of the day, where we were talking about territorialization and leadership.
One parenthetical comment about territories: it's amusing, the performance here, to see us all dashing between rooms to catch the start of the next presentation. Presenters will be well into their stride, with PowerPoint slides and narratives, as 'stragglers' will creep into the room. I myself missed the beginning of this paper. There are so many fragments at play here: so many partialities, of understanding, of agreement, of membership of the conference track and the conference generally.
Anyway, Ander's conclusion is that "context matters", and that history matters too. So far, then, we have a singular individual and a plurality of contexts; are these potential metaphysical foundational candidates?
One parenthetical comment about territories: it's amusing, the performance here, to see us all dashing between rooms to catch the start of the next presentation. Presenters will be well into their stride, with PowerPoint slides and narratives, as 'stragglers' will creep into the room. I myself missed the beginning of this paper. There are so many fragments at play here: so many partialities, of understanding, of agreement, of membership of the conference track and the conference generally.
Anyway, Ander's conclusion is that "context matters", and that history matters too. So far, then, we have a singular individual and a plurality of contexts; are these potential metaphysical foundational candidates?
Managing Political Awareness
This paper is about influence inside and at the boundaries of organisations, and about political leadership and formal representation. How can political leadership be applied to the study of leadership in general? This is one of the questions of this paper. Managers and leaders are increasingly have to work with a wider range of stakeholders: alliances, supply chains, partnerships, lobby & advocacy groups, regulators, governance institutions, the media and formal political institutions. All of these are just some of the constituents the leaders face. So how do you operate as a leader in increasingly globalised world? Are we all agreed on this being our context?
So what is meant by political awareness and what are the components of political skills for managers such that these skills can be developed? And, interestingly, what are the political components of this presentation and this paper generally? The speaker does make plain the stakeholders behind the commissioning of this paper.
What is meant by politics?
So what is meant by political awareness and what are the components of political skills for managers such that these skills can be developed? And, interestingly, what are the political components of this presentation and this paper generally? The speaker does make plain the stakeholders behind the commissioning of this paper.
What is meant by politics?
- politicking - pursuit of self-interest
- winning turf wars
- public mechanism for the distribution of resources - influence & negotiation
- pursuit of common purpose through reconciling differences
- achieving sufficient consensus to take action
What are the arenas for managing political awareness? This paper presents these as the external policy of the sector; the formal political and governmental context at EU level; influencing the strategic direction of the organisation through partners, networks and alliances; interests and power blocs within the organisation. From the focus groups of this paper, the team has created a matrix of competencies: strategic direction and scanning; building alignment and alliances; reading people and situations; interpersonal skills; personal skills. This grouping is presented as an inverted pyramid, as there seems to be a teleology towards the singular individual, and away from the strategic perspective. Here, again, is an instance of the homogeneous, centralised and differentiated individual; unless, of course, this personal singularity is distributed across the receding components of the pyramid (though I think this would've been explicitly stated. I'd be interested to hear whether the speaker has considered including Laclau's (and Gramsci) notion of hegemony. I look forward to reading this paper. And also to surface, rather subversively, the political machinations of the educational process - to turn the mirror on ourselves.
Questions? A good question around Starbucks and the issue of 'legitimacy'; who is legitimatized, who is politically empowered to take decisions? Who decides what is legitimate; and what is authorization? Are these foundational questions, questions that look to find a metaphysical essence of hegemony: and the attendant issues, raised by Laclau, about the universality versus particularity of hegemony.
Peter Zimmerman - the relative importance of leadership behaviours in virtual & F-2-F interactions in global virtual teams
Peter is with Shell and has based his study on observations of the operation of virtual global teams from inside Shell - he has an engineering background and already his slides are displaying complex networks and array of connections within and between the teams he's observing. He is allying his paper to knowledge into action and positions the paper as action research. The paper posits leadership as 'influence' and applies this to how global virtual teams (GVTs), and is founded on a literature review that isolates the discourse on task-focused and relationship-focused behavioural concepts. Peter carried out a web based questionnaire, with 30 respondents; together with some semi-structured interviews. Such is the basis of Peter's paper.
Referring to an earlier post about 'consumption' and action. I find myself adopting a consumer identity as Peter speaks, looking to gather and utilise the conclusions he makes. Such as, the degree of virtualness increases, so does task-orientation.
Some behaviours that were rated with high importance were:
Referring to an earlier post about 'consumption' and action. I find myself adopting a consumer identity as Peter speaks, looking to gather and utilise the conclusions he makes. Such as, the degree of virtualness increases, so does task-orientation.
Some behaviours that were rated with high importance were:
- keeping promises
- demonstrating confidence in the professionalism of others
- recognising individual team member contributions
- clarity of communication as the team becomes more virtual
- anticipation of problems
- use the most appropriate CMC tools and language
Peter's slides are very detailed and are a representation of the gist of his paper. I find this interesting: speakers here only have 20 minutes to 'get across' the gist of their papers - a kind of performance, not dissimilar to the performance of this blog. Questions? What conclusions can be generalized and what are context specific in Peter's research? What are the life-cycles of virtual teams or organisations. One questioner from the OU works in a team where the leader has almost dissapeared, and where my colleagues are only email addresses. And what is virtuality?
More Opening Re-Marks and KEYNOTE
Disneyization - I wonder how this applies to the rigmarole of academe and of conferences? A kind of self-parody: the language, linguistic gestures, the compliments and references to wider bodies of discourse. There's also a suspension of something; a putting on hold of certain urges, to dispute not just the content of what's being said but how it is being said. The current speaker is talking about leadership in higher education, which seems germane to the conference. I wonder what impact this paper, its delivery and its standing at the beginning of the conference has on the remainder of the conference? Why this paper at the start: what qualities are being assumed about this paper as a paper? The warrant for this presentation are wholly academic; its gestures are firmly within the language game of academic research; the field of play for the conference seem to be in the process of being laid down here - the goal posts erected, the lines painted on the grass, the referee doing his final warm-up, and us, the players, pushing back into the chairs of comfort in having expectations met (namely, of attending a conference in an academic institution). I wonder about the conference's duality between practitioner and theorist and the strap line of 'knowledge into action' is, or is not, valued here...
Interesting hiatus - the speaker has just reached for his glass of water and I noticed his hand was shaking. Now this could mean many things. Then, just after I noticed this the slide became stuck; the zapper wasn't working and the next slide couldn't be shown. After Kim stepped up and fiddled with the PC, the correct slide came up and the speaker continued. During the 30 or so seconds whilst this 'technical hitch' was being remedied, a murmur arose in the audience. I only mention this as part of my foregrounding of the apparatus of the conference, which is an emphasis related to the focus of my paper on re-focusing our eyes on the apparatus of education and the role this plays in its referent - in the case of this conference, leadership.
The conclusions from this opening keynote: how are the conclusions to be orchestrated and are they as multiple as I'm saying they are? One conclusion from this paper is that we need more research about what constitutes leadership in higher education. HE is conservative and possibly the research agendas on leadership in HE reflect the same conservatism. Some formal conclusions, from the speaker, are that the topic is less to do with "getting more out of followers" and more on "the ends of HE education leadership". What other conclusions exist around the room - wouldn't that be interesting to find out? We're breaking for tea soon, so I'll try and capture some other opinions
Interesting hiatus - the speaker has just reached for his glass of water and I noticed his hand was shaking. Now this could mean many things. Then, just after I noticed this the slide became stuck; the zapper wasn't working and the next slide couldn't be shown. After Kim stepped up and fiddled with the PC, the correct slide came up and the speaker continued. During the 30 or so seconds whilst this 'technical hitch' was being remedied, a murmur arose in the audience. I only mention this as part of my foregrounding of the apparatus of the conference, which is an emphasis related to the focus of my paper on re-focusing our eyes on the apparatus of education and the role this plays in its referent - in the case of this conference, leadership.
The conclusions from this opening keynote: how are the conclusions to be orchestrated and are they as multiple as I'm saying they are? One conclusion from this paper is that we need more research about what constitutes leadership in higher education. HE is conservative and possibly the research agendas on leadership in HE reflect the same conservatism. Some formal conclusions, from the speaker, are that the topic is less to do with "getting more out of followers" and more on "the ends of HE education leadership". What other conclusions exist around the room - wouldn't that be interesting to find out? We're breaking for tea soon, so I'll try and capture some other opinions
Opening Remarks
Using uppercase in my title for this post refers to the formality of the speech that is currently being given by our hosts here at Cranfield. The room is packed - almost 100 in the room here. It appears that the conference is attended mostly by academics, but reference and welcomes have been given to several corporate participants: and the spread of nationalities is considerable. Some sponor endorsements and recognitions for Sage and Palgrave... Over now to Kim James, who steps up to the lecturn. Lecturn - funny word that and a strange piece of furniture that somehow acts as a warrant, a permission to inhabit the pedagogic cockpit. But now, over to some administrative announcements - why aren't these valorised as much as the papers? Latour would be proud of me - these fire exit, room locations, dinner arrangements are all part of studying leadership, aren't they. Umm...
consuming my own product
Here I am, sat in in LR16, about to listen to the opening remarks, and I find myself at the receiving end of my own product. Often, I've been in this lecture theatre at the front end, in what I call the pedagogic cockpit with the paraphenalia of whiteboards, lecturns, computers. But here I am in the stalls, receiving and consuming my own product. Does that make me a cannibal?
nationality, territorialization and identity
what are our territories of leadership? How do our national identities influence our perceptions of leadership? Wow - just having some great conversations with gentlemen from Canada, the US and Sweden. And we're talking, or at least I'm thinking, of national stereotypes and doing our best to empathise and to share our experience and knowledge of these different fragments. Now we're onto Gilles Deleuze...
Mingle, mingle
I've just turned up and am already in a conversation with an executive doctorate student about identity, intuition and essences around what and individual leader's intent is. Does an intent, does this person's articulation of this intent constitute his/her status as a leader? Interesting: I guess this still posits a singular individual as the essence of leadership. I'll be interested to hear how/whether this proclivity persists throughout today. More later...
Wednesday 13 December 2006
Conference Eve
Hi - I'm Toby and I'll be at the conference which starts tomorrow. I'm writing this blog as an attempt to capture some of the flavour of the two days, and to share it with my friends and colleagues. I'm also presenting a paper on the last morning of the conference, entitled Troubling Leadership Education: Poststructural Margins.
I'm really looking forward to meeting and talking with, what looks to be so far, a wonderfully diverse audience of people attending. Feel free to post on this blog your comments either about the conference, or about your attitude to leadership, and the study of leadership, generally.
Monday 11 December 2006
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON STUDYING LEADERSHIP: KNOWLEDGE INTO ACTION, 2006
Thursday 14th - Friday 15th December 2006Cranfield School of Management, Bedfordshire, UK
Cranfield School of Management is proud to host the fifth annual Studying Leadership Conference in 2006. The conference will be held at the Cranfield Management Development Centre, the School’s dedicated facility for residential conferences and programmes, at the Cranfield University campus. The Cranfield conference will follow in the well-established traditions set by previous events at Said, Lancaster and Exeter.
We are encouraging papers on any aspect of leadership research and particularly welcome papers which may inform leadership practice. The closing date for full papers is 20th November 2006.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
