Relational Leadership

Theory, Practice and Development

Nicholas Clarke

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781317216933
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Business General
• Index: Business

The traditional idea of leadership as being about the solo, heroic leader has now run its course. A new way of thinking about leadership is now needed to address major challenges such as achieving greater social responsibility, enhancing leadership capacity and recognising the importance of context as affecting how leadership occurs.

Relational leadership offers a new perspective of leadership that addresses these challenges. At its core, relational leadership recognises leadership as centred in the relationships that form between both formal and informal leaders and those that follow them, far more so than the personality or behaviours of individual leaders.

This book introduces readers to the most up-to-date research in this area and the differing theoretical perspectives that can help us better understand leadership as a relational phenomenon. Important characteristics of effective leadership relationships such as trust, respect and mutuality are discussed, focusing on how they develop and how they bring about leadership effects. Specific forms of relational leadership such as shared leadership, responsible leadership, global team leadership and complexity leadership are addressed in subsequent chapters. The book is the first to examine recent ideas about how these new forms of relational leadership are put into practice as well as techniques, tools and strategies available to organisations to help do so.

The inclusion of three detailed case studies is specifically designed to help readers understand many of the key concepts covered in the book, with key learning points emphasised. The book offers an excellent summary of the state-of-the-art topics in this new and exciting field of relational leadership.

1

INTRODUCTION TO RELATIONAL LEADERSHIP

The challenges of capacity, context and responsibility

Globalisation and significant advances in technology have combined to place limits on the mechanistic organisation, and the associated notions of rationality that it entailed. Now complexity, dynamism and an increasing recognition of the irrationality of organisational life, have coalesced to place severe strains on traditional notions of leadership that dominated much of our thinking from the early twentieth century. The shift to knowledge economies in many post-industrial societies, means that no one employee will be equipped with the full range of skills, capabilities and knowledge to successfully deal with the complex problems now facing organisations. Continuous change and innovation are now seen as pivotal to the success of not only organisations but economies, in this dynamic social, technological and global changing landscape. As organisations are increasingly required to work in partnership with each other and part of complex networks, whether they be supply chains, strategic alliances or other collaborative arrangements, this has placed new entreaties on leadership. It requires new thinking to consider not just what leadership looks like in teams and organisations, but also at the inter-organisational level too. All this has added far greater levels of complexity to our understanding of leadership. Relational leadership is now considered by many as a far more effective way to organise and implement leadership to respond to the challenges facing twenty-first-century organisations.

The landscape of relational leadership is expanding. At its core lies the idea that leaders and followers exist in a reciprocal relationship, and it is the relationship itself that constitutes what we refer to as leadership. Traditional theories that have shaped our understanding of leadership all share a common idea. That is, leadership is essentially about what leaders do. In particular, how they act, or should act in order to influence their followers to achieve particular goals. Consequently, there is a huge body of research that has examined the characteristics of leaders, the types of behaviours or styles they adopt, and how these affect followers. Relational leadership takes an altogether different approach. First, it challenges the very notion that leadership should be seen as a property of single individuals – generally, those we tend to view as leaders due to their holding formal leader positions.

Some of the major contrasting factors between traditional and relational perspectives of leadership are shown in Table 1.1. A chief characteristic of relational leadership is that the focus is by and large, on how leadership emerges as a dynamic process. Rather than thinking about leadership as primarily to do with the characteristics or behaviours specific leaders show, it is better considered as a process; a consequence of the interactions between organisational actors, that is influenced by the context in which these interactions take place. This has a number of consequences for understanding what leadership is. The first, is that leadership is a social process that occurs between people. To focus merely on the characteristics of leaders or what they do is therefore fundamentally flawed or reductionist, since it says little about the role of followers in how leadership is both created and enacted. Second, since leadership is a social process, then fundamentally leadership must if anything be about the nature of relationships between leaders and those that follow or who are influenced by them. Third, since relationships between people are by their nature dynamic, evolving and influenced by the context in which they occur, then one can assume that the nature of leadership (and its effectiveness) is likely to be more akin to a dynamic process, which may or may not take place (or emerge) depending upon these local, ‘in situ’ factors. This refers to the specific context surrounding the interpersonal space that exists when they are together. Followers thus take on a far more active role in the leadership process than has traditionally been the case. A major aspect of relational leadership, then, is that it recognises that leadership emerges partially because followers interpret themselves as having a leadership relationship with a leader. From this perspective, how followers perceive leadership or their social constructions of leadership, have a direct input and influence on the leadership relationship. At its heart then, relational leadership shifts the emphasis away from understanding leadership as just about individual actors, towards viewing leadership as a much broader social phenomenon. In short, it is the relationship between actors that constitutes what we refer to as leadership.

Table 1.1Contrasts between traditional and relational perspectives of leadership

Aspect	Traditional Perspective of Leadership	Relational Perspective On Leadership
Source of Leadership	Hierarchy and Position	Knowledge
Locus of Leadership	Formal and Planned	Self-Organising and Emergent
Focus of Perspective	Individual	Social and Collective
Leadership Occurs through	Behaviour/Personality	Relationships
Influence	Top Down	Bottom Up and Mutual
Role of Followers	Neglected	Central
Organisational Environment	Stable	Complex and Dynamic
Organisational Structure	Bureaucratic and Mechanistic	Organic and Networked
Leadership Effects	Universalist	Contextual
Leadership Goals	Rational and Planned	Ambiguous and Processual
Leadership Perspective	Entity	Entity and Social Constructionist

Why do we need a new way of thinking about leadership?

There are many ways of thinking about leadership, and therefore many alternative theories that each seek to explain what the phenomenon of leadership actually is. Early ideas have included trait theory, which sees leadership as essentially arising from the characteristics or personality an effective leader should possess; leadership as a behavioural category, which has viewed effective leadership as consisting of a combination of task-related and person-centred behaviours; and style theories, which have perceived effective leadership as a matter of alternative leadership styles (such as authoritative or democratic). Latterly, more emotionally centred leadership theories, such as transformational leadership, have occupied significant interest by both academics and practitioners alike. What all these theories share is a perception of leadership as a hierarchical top-down activity, located in a particular individual, mostly occupying a formal managerial role. They also have virtually ignored the role of followers as being part of the leadership equation. Followers have instead, tended to be treated as passive recipients of leader influence. These traditional ways of thinking about leadership are termed ‘leader-centric’. This notion of leadership as a top-down influence process is very much suited to bureaucratic organisational structures, which by their nature require layers of hierarchy in order to control how work is performed. With the demise of bureaucracy and shift towards flatter organisational structures in the 1980s, these leader-centric ideas of leadership were already beginning to show they were less effective, as companies restructured to organise work more efficiently. Fast forward two decades and the advent of globalisation heralding greater competition, advances in technology connecting business, the shift towards knowledge-based economies, and changing demands and expectations of those who work in organisations are among many of the reasons commonly cited as to why a new way of thinking about leadership is now needed. Many now share the view that ‘leadership’ is in crisis, unless significant changes are adopted by organisations. This crisis can be summarised in terms of three considerable challenges that a new model of leadership now needs to address. These are the challenges of: (1) leadership capacity; (2) leadership context; and (3) leadership responsibility.

(1) The challenge of leadership capacity

One of the central ideas in relational leadership – that leadership is a fluid capacity which emerges in response to the particular challenges that arise – was highlighted above as a means to capitalise on collective knowledge and skills in the organisation. Leadership is seen as too important for dealing with the complex challenges facing organisations, to see this as a set of tasks that only managers or those in formal leader positions can be expected to deal with successfully. This is put forward as a major advantage of relational leadership. But the importance of this is not just based on arguments relating to the limits of any one individual’s understanding or cognitive capacities for navigating a way through complex business environments. Neither is it based on egalitarian notions that challenge authority or power structures in organisations, traced to Marxist ideas of capital and class. There is instead a more prosaic reality, namely that major demographic changes within Western economies in particular, will see most organisations facing a significant shortage of skilled employees to fill positions, including those at managerial level typically undertaking leadership roles. In the United States, for example, an estimated 77 million baby boomers will leave the labour market and head for retirement this decade. This will create a major recruitment crisis for business with its impact also on management and leadership positions (IMD, 2008; Su, 2007). In the United Kingdom, a recent survey of businesses suggests nine out of ten organisations believe that insufficient management and leadership skills is negatively impacting on their business (Bloomberg, 2016). Whilst the Deloitte Global Human Capital Trends 2015 report (Deloitte, 2015), similarly highlighted that a shortage of leadership skills was identified by 86 per cent of business leaders they surveyed. This has been a key factor in what has become referred to among HR practitioners as the ‘war on talent’, with a concomitant step change in HR practices that seek to recruit and retain the best qualified from a shrinking global pool. Today, succession planning and talent management now dominate most companies’ lists of key HR priorities (McDonald, 2008). But surveys such as these have been a consistent feature for decades now. Ten years ago, the 1997 US Fortune 500 survey (Black, Morrison, & Gregerson, 1999) similarly bemoaned that 85 per cent of organisations lacked the necessary leadership talent. Whilst over two decades ago, the report A Challenge to Complacency (Coopers & Lybrand, 1985) for the UK government identified similar concerns. Similar reports of this nature can be found from Africa to Asia to Australia, and across the globe (Deloitte, 2015; Goater & Moore, 2016; Roux, 2011). Most continue to argue that the solution to this capacity problem is far greater investment in training and developing the right leadership skills by organisations to ensure a steady flow of leadership talent. This argument suggests the problem is merely one of skill mismatch, particularly among graduates or within first line management levels. So, for example, it is commonplace to hear organisations say they are struggling to find individuals who are creative, inspirational and emotionally intelligent. But the speed of change in technology and advances in science, now suggest it is unlikely that organisations will be in a position to plan what future leadership skills they need, beyond a short time horizon. They are therefore always likely to be in a constant state of ‘catch up’, finding themselves having to constantly reconfigure what skill sets are required. The problem of a lack of leadership talent is essentially framed as a lack of talent to fill formal leader roles. Relational leadership recognises that there is a huge reservoir of untapped leadership talent within organisations that is not about the roles and functions of those in managerial positions. It enables an organisation to draw upon skills and strengths from across the organisation, in the pursuit of leadership activities where knowledge is distributed.

(2) The challenge of context

The second major challenge for leadership is the increasing importance now attached to context. Despite the pre-eminence often afforded to leadership as accounting for organisational success, it remains the case that there are relatively few studies that have offered empirical support for a relationship between leadership and organisational performance (Agle, Nagarajan, Sonnenfeld, & Srinivasan, 2006; Bycio, Hackett, & Allen, 1995; De Hoogh et al., 2004). Few have stopped to ask why this is so. Instead, the way most organisations have tended to think about leadership is heavily influenced by a ‘best practice’ mindset. By this it is meant that good leadership can reasonably be recognised or assessed, and more importantly that what might be thought of as good leadership is by and large, likely to be effective across most circumstances or situations. This is because most of us see leadership as responsible for causing change, i.e. shaping circumstances and context. Indeed shaping change is often highlighted as what differentiates leadership from management. This remains heavily entrenched in our unconscious, as collective ideas about leadership that have been moulded through the iconic notion of the heroic leader. The person who saves a country from crisis or turns around the misfortunes of a business. This is because typical representations of leadership paint it as captured in the qualities and characteristics held by an individual. The idea that leadership, and particularly effective leadership, might be significantly influenced by context does not fit well with this notion of what leadership is thought to be about. But increasingly, research is showing that context has a significant influence on whether particular types or forms of leadership have effects. Consequently, a number of writers have emphasised the importance of placing context at the heart of what might be termed effective leadership (Osborn, Hunt, & Jauch, 2002; Porter & McLaughlin, 2006; Shamir & Howell, 1999).

The importance of context to leadership is not new, however. It has roots as far back as the 1960s, when Fiedler proposed his contingency theory of leadership (Fiedler, 1967). In this early contribution, Fiedler posited that the optimum leadership style enacted by a leader depended on the favourability of the situation. This was determined by the quality of relations between a leader and followers, the extent to which the task is clear and unambiguous, and the inherent power in a leader’s position. For Fiedler, where the task is unambiguous and both quality of relations and power position are high, then a task-oriented leadership style is appropriate. However, where the task is ambiguous and both relationship quality and power position are low, then a considerate leadership style is necessary. However, the idea that leadership might be more or less effective depending upon particular situational contingencies was quickly superceded in the 1980s, with the rising popularity of visionary ideas of effective leadership. These placed far greater emphasis on leaders being inspirational and charismatic, as a means to motivate followers to a higher purpose to achieve organisational goals.

More recently, the importance of context has resurfaced again within the leadership literature, this time going much further than that initially proposed by Fiedler. For example, Osborn et al. (2002), argue that leadership is ‘embedded in time, in a place and in the collective minds of the observers’ (p805). This suggests effective leadership is not only culturally dependent, but also subject to organisational needs and constraints, as well as changing conditions. Supporting this perspective, have been a number of empirical studies that challenge the universalistic notion of leadership effectiveness. Shim and Steers (2012), undertook a study of Hyundai motor group and Toyota motor corporation, both competitors in the global automotive industry. The authors found that leadership practices were distinctly different, but each suited to the particular organisational and cultural context. They found that Toyota competed by seeking to control and mimimise the impact of a turbulent business environment, through a deliberate planned strategy supported by formal control systems. This suited the stability and predictability of the organisation’s culture. Hyundai by contrast adopted a more emergent strategy. This was better suited to an organisational culture characterised by flexibility, speed and responding to uncertainty. Importantly, the leadership style in each case differed. In the former, the authors characterised ‘steady-state’ leadership strategies. Here the key leadership role is to develop planning and operating systems that attempt to control unexpected events. In the latter, an ‘entrepreneurial’ leadership strategy emphasised developing a culture to respond to continuous change. The leadership role here is to develop an overarching vision, but enable people and systems to be responsive to the unexpected. There are many other examples of how contextual considerations appear to be significant. Differences have been found in the effectiveness of particular leadership styles in the private and public sectors. This is suggested as a result of differences in the bureaucratisation and politicisation of work in these environments (Fernandez & Rainey,...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of Figures and Tables
• 1 Introduction to relational leadership: The challenges of capacity, context and responsibility
• 2 Relational leadership from an entity perspective: The relationship as leader–member exchange
• 3 Relational leadership from a socio-constructionist perspective
• 4 Respect, trust and mutuality: The sine qua non of relational leadership
• 5 Emotional intelligence and relational leadership
• 6 Shared leadership
• 7 Responsible leadership
• 8 Global team leadership
• 9 Complexity leadership
• 10 Case studies
• References
• Index