This approach has been recently developed within the social science based Constitutive model, where it is suggested that the situation and the leadership is determined by “various accounts and interpretations” made by “popular” observers (ibid: 5-6). This latter model is more of an insight into the way situations and actions can be constructed or even reconstructed. Such leadership is evinced when persuasive and powerful leaders, effectively articulate their actions, to “powerful” observers (ibid: 8).The powerful the latter the greater the leader, for such stakeholders constitute and maintain such observations throughout society. Some argue that this model does “not offer a definitive account on the ethical aspects of leadership”, the leader is as seen more as a social construct who simply conforms to certain leadership expectations (ibid: 8). Conversely, the question may be asked whether leadership needs to be ethical, and what’s wrong with leadership based on responding to change (see section 1.2).
This final leadership model, the Transactions approach, is a more reciprocal and ethical. Focused on the exchanges made between the leader and his followers, and how such a leader gains and maintains influence over time (Heifetz, 1994). This time-bound influence is found when “a leader reaps the benefits of status…in exchange for reducing uncertainty…providing followers with a basis for action (ibid: 17). This approach is also based on the persuasive powers of leaders and how such leaders adjust “to the expectations of followers” (ibid: 1). this theory therefore, offers a more integrated approach to analysing and understanding leadership (finding it contextually bound) but also there is greater emphasis on the relationship between leaders and their followers. The next section will shed more light on this, offering an approach that like this transactional approach is more realistic and reflects the increasing complex and expanding arena of leadership. This process-centric analysis, also offers a more pragmatic angle – one based on human interaction.
-
From the alternative to the mainstream: Adaptive leadership
A salient characteristic of many post-modern socio-political literature, is a paradigm-shift from ‘grand-theories’ or definitive-based analysis, to an analysis that is more focused on the dynamics, processes, or ideal-type ‘realities’. Leadership literature seems to have undergone the same ‘paradigm shift’ in analysis, away from such prescriptive and descriptive analysis, that was more preoccupied with the “necessary aspects-of-leadership” (Grint, 2000:3). The above theories were mainly focussed on traits, characteristics and behaviours that leaders possessed, and how such people should use these skills efficiently. They are focused on viewing leadership in terms of individuals and the roles and responsibility as leaders; it fails to recognise the hidden fact that leadership is a basic element of mankind and evolution. If we were to view leadership, away from these “loaded” notions, and to “simple describe the dynamics of prominence, power, influence, and historical causation”, we would come closer to understanding the complexities and the nature of leadership in general (Heifetz, 1994: 19). Heifetz (1994), in his publication entitled “leadership without easy answers”, introduces an alternative analysis, and that suggests that leadership should be seen more as an “activity” (ibid: 20). In line with the principals of “adaptive-work” (see table 1), he introduces a concept that is more focused on influencing others to face tough problems. This concept named Adaptive leadership cannot be viewed isolation, away from the Adaptive Work concept, the very heart of this theory.
Adaptive Work: This concept has been succinctly and accurately described by Manning (2004) as “doing things we have never done before and don’t know how to do…creating change that requires new learning, new ways of doing work” (Manning, 2004). More specifically, Adaptive work refers to “the learning required to address conflicts in the values people hold…Adaptive work requires a change in values beliefs, or behavior” (Heifetz, 1994). In actualizing this mode of working, Heifetz and Laurie (1997) identified six principals for leading adaptive work, these have been outlined in the below table.
Table 1: Adaptive-Work /Leadership Principals
Source: Adapted from Heifetz and Laurie (1997)
As opposed to Technical work (work that we have prior knowledge of), adaptive work is required when communities/organisations face a period on uncertain change (Manning, 2004). Therefore the essence on management within this context is very much about ‘Change management’, and guiding others through such change. This type of leadership is more focused on the exploration of relationships, values, aspirations, mutual exchange, in order to gain understanding, and to facilitate change (Steffen, 2003).
- Summary
This review on leadership literature, warns against focusing of individual, personal traits without examining the context and leadership dynamics (including the role of followers). Also the literature has shifted emphasis away from the “leader’s personal style”, to viewing leadership more holistically, and as a social process (Hartley, Lawton, 1998:12). This approach (Adaptive Leadership) requires a rubber, flexible leadership style, one that is able to mould around these changes, able to change long-standing patterns of behaviour/culture, and stimulate and motivate others to identify their own sustainable solutions (Heifetz, Sinder 1988).
This adaptive leadership is a complex concept, one that has it own inherent limitations. Firstly, as Grint (2000) concedes, it is fundamentally an Ideal-type, an extreme, thus making it difficult to “validitate the claim that such a [concept] exists” (Grint 2000:4). Also, this concept is more focussed on structures and does not provide any direction, standards, or tangible and measurable goals. Is any of this needed within an ever-changing, complex, multi dimensional arena such as the political arena, itself an ideal type? What is needed within the Community leadership/public sector arena, is the ability to manage change. For the underlying goal of leadership within this context is to “represent and to transform” (Hartley, Lawton, 1998:14).
The main goal of Adaptive leadership is to represent as many views as possible (from the “basement to the balcony”), and to transform established norms, into socially constructive ends (Heifetz, 1994). Therefore if leadership is to be within the context of multi-level and inter-organisational governance, then the Adaptive model would seem to be the most appropriate tool for addressing some of the dilemmas and challenges leaders face within this arena. The next section would describe this current political map, illustrating the complexities of providing leadership from this vantage point.
2.0 Networked Governance
As Hartley and Lawton (1998) agree, community leadership is about both responding to and anticipating, the various profound and fundamental changes that are taking place throughout society (Hartley, Lawton, 1998:1). These changes have made the field of governance a complex one that is both multi-faceted, and rapidly expanding. Contemporary governance has tended seem increasingly tangled, in web of “profound changes and external pressures” that increasingly shift societies towards partnership and community based solutions to their growing cross cutting pressures (Hartley, Lawton, 1998:2). These factors create a multitude of challenges and dilemma for effective community leadership. This study will firstly, outline some of these political, technological, and socio-economical changes. For it is within this context that we can truly gauge and understand the dynamics of contemporary community leadership. The latter becoming increasingly complex, involving the “managing [of] complex and fluid inter-relationships between states and civil society and overlapping relationships between [the] different levels of government” (Bennington 2001:1).
2.1: Political Arena: local
Local Democracy: Democracy, is probably the most useful tool in engaging the community to learn and address its own issues as opposed to “pushing the work on to the shoulders of its authority (Heifetz, Sinder:201). A fundamental challenge to community leadership and representation has been the evinced decline in local democracy in the UK. Local election turnout has in Great Britain has slumped to being the lowest in Europe, even though at the national level, turnout is close to the OECD norm (Curtis, 1999). In fact this ‘Crisis in local Democracy in Britain”, has meant that large sections of the community are not engaged in the governance process in general, and are not articulated their diverse concerns, and therefore these needs and wants are not being met through conventional service provision and delivery . Local government should act as a tool for highlighting and addressing specific needs and wants of its diverse populace, and therefore ensuring that national government and governance in general, reflects and responds to them. Therefore, local government has to be democratic, and national government should be more preoccupied a process of democratic renewal if it truly aims to ‘modernize’ government.
The National Context: The current Labour party, in its quest to find a ‘Third Way’ solution to such problems, has focused much of its attention around modernizing and renewing local government (Stewart 2003:4). This government Modernization Agenda argues for a greater role for local authorities in leading their communities, and providing services of their locality.(Hartley, Allison 2000). In achieving this objective this government has gone beyond simply setting the wider policy agenda, to adopting a variety of measures to monitor performance and reward in a results orientated manner. This has meant that there is little room for manoeuvre for local authorities, who are becoming more preoccupied with meeting such targets and objectives.
Great Britain has the lowest level of turnout in local government elections in the European
Union even though its turnout in national elections is close to the OECD norm.
Socio-economic: Demographic and social developments such as ageing populations, environmental degradation, international/local criminal networks, social exclusion, and multi-cultural cohesion. Information, technological, and communication advances, and the burgeoning information society, with its implications on society, organisations, and individual pattern of life (ibid: 1). Economic developments such as the increase in multi-national trade and industry, with its impact on state sovereignty, and cultural determination. Also these Trans-national/intercontinental agents display a growing tendency to ‘de-localise’ or ‘trans-nationalise’ production process, leading to what some have described as an “international division of labour” (leslie, 2002:5)
Political change (eg, the loss of legitimacy of traditional political parties; low electoral turnouts, disengagement from traditional forms of politics)
organisational and cultural change (eg, the limitations of command and control hierarchies, and of unregulated competitive markets, and the need for more flexible, adaptive systems to respond to increasingly complex and diverse patterns of social life)
:
Steffen 2003 Transformations on public health Catalyzing meaningful change through adaptive Leadership: cited:
://www.turningpointprogram.org/Pages/transformations/transformations_spring_2003.pdf
Accessed
http
is a social process that creates meaning through
exploration of relationships, values, aspirations, mutual exchange, gaining
understanding, and change.
Marty Linsky. Belknap Press,
2002. (This text builds on Heifetz’s
This context of uncertain change requires a leadership that
For further comprehensive analysis refer to Curtis 1999, The Crises in Local democracy in Britain and Rawlings and Thrasher 2000
