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.
2 comments:
When I first started work I was very struck by how little senior managers knew about what went on on the shop floor day to day. Later I ended up getting sucked into the same trap, of endless meetings and workload. It then became uncomfortable to "meet the people", and much more comfortable to stick with the familiar people and situations. I observed top managers doing their "performance", eg tours of the office at Christmas. Most weren't good actors and everyone found it uncomfortable. Do we teach people to be better actors? Yes, I think we probably should if it breaks down barriers. But a lot stems from an attitude of mind, that it it worthwhile spending time talking to "ordinary" people.
I like your thoughts on this steve. For me, this session was the most enjoyable, partly because Sarah takes a poststructural view; and partly because she skillfully reveals the contingency of the leadership 'performance'. To your point about actors, I agree withh you in that I don't think there's a problem of teaching aspirant leaders/mangers to act: this is an expedient, though. If there's a way to 'teach' authenticity then I think this is preferable.
Post a Comment