Download - Non-Entitative - Social Constructive Approaches to Leadership

8/9/2019 Non-Entitative - Social Constructive Approaches to Leadership

1/9

Title

A Non- Entitative Perspective on Organisation & Leadership

Sub-Title

A critical examination of the practical and conceptual liabilities inherent in traditional entitative

approaches to the study of leadership as a key attribute of organisational behaviour.

Abstract

Historical approaches to leadership research have focused on paradigms which are entrenched in

an entitative concept of organisation which (Hosking, 1988; Hosking & Morely, 1991) argue

dominate the disciplines of organisational behaviour and human resource management. Such an

approach focuses on the characteristics of individuals and groups within organisations, and the

person and the organisation are viewed as separate and distinct entities. This essay explores the

nature of non-entitative approaches to leadership research and articulates some key conceptual

and practical liabilities associated with traditional entitative approaches.

Key Words

Trait, Style, Behavioural, Transformational, Charismatic, Contingent, Entitative, Social

Constructivist, Organisation, Environment, Membership and Organisational Boundaries,

Organisational Identity, Organisational Purpose, Organisational Structure, Organisational

Environmental Independence, Socially Constructed Realities, Social Construction, Networking,

Enabling, Negotiation.


2/9


3/9

Organisational Identity: the organisation has an identity of its own which is recognised

by all of its members and none-members alike.

Organisational Purpose: the organisational entity has a clearly defined purpose(s) which

is more or less understood by all of its members this is what some researchers refer to

as the existence of shared goals and/or values.

Organisational Structure: the organisational entity has a structure that is clearly defined

and related to the stated and understood organisational purpose(s). The structure is

assumed to be a relatively stable feature of the organisation that defines accountability for

organisational outcomes and serves to organise and control work primarily through the

use of authoritarian power.

Organisational-Environmental Independence: the organisation and the environment are

viewed as separate and independent entities.

The understanding of organisations as well defined entities has pervaded

research, whether research has addresses closed-system, open system or

evolutionary theory. (Meyer, 1985, p.57)

Hosking & Morely (1991) go on to argue that social organisation is better understood in terms

of relational processes, which focus on organising, which is achieved through cognitive, political

and social process. Such an approach leads to the idea of socially constructed realities, which

once recognised makes it possible to theorise the interrelations between persons, processes and

organisation (Hosking & Morley, 1991, p. 61)

From a systemic perspective Hosking & Morley (1991) provide an excellent interpretation of

the mechanism of socially constructed realities, which are not constrained by any of the tenets of

non-entitative perspectives articulated by Meyer (1985).

Structures emerge, not in relation to system needs [organisational purpose(s)] but

in the process of projects1. In systems terms, parts are interrelated, not through

shared needs, but through the influential actions of persons past and present.

1 The term Projects is used by Hosking & Morely, (1991) to define more or less widely held shared values and

interests which are constructed through a process of social exchange predicated on negotiation.

Non- Entitative Social Constructive Approaches to Leadership Page 2 of 8


4/9

Persons, through their social relations, create more or less widely shared

constructions of their contexts. (Hosking & Morley, 1991, p. 61)

The processes of social construction are argued to be derived from exchange relationships in

three principle domains, Political Processes, Cognitive Processes and Social Processes. Political

Processes emphasise the relationships involving influence and the effect that this has on the

decision making processes. Thus, a managerial perspective based on influence derived from

authority within a fixed, formalised organisational structure is rejected in favour of more pluralist

interpretation of influence that recognises that individuals and groups differ in their interests and

in their valuing depending on their relationship with their context. Therefore, the ability for

actors to influence is embedded in the quality of their social relationships and the relationship

between these and the environment which in turn reinforces a contextually interdependent

relationship between the organisational entity and its environment. Cognitive Processes are used

as a generic term to define the processes of knowing by which individuals make sense of

environmental information. Social Processes emphasise the transient nature of social interaction

as individuals attempt to sustain or change a sense of social order.

Within a non-entitative framework leaders are those who consistently make effective

contributions to social order and who are expected and perceived to do so (Hosking, 1988,

p.153) and in practical terms define leadership as:

..a more or less skilful process of organising, achieved through negotiation, to

achieve acceptable influence over the description and handling of issues with and

between groups. (Hosking & Morely, 1991, p.240)

This perspective views leadership as an influencing process which underpins a relationship of

mutual creation between individuals, the organisation and the environment, and conceptually

overcomes the constraints of entitative approaches which emphasise the separateness and

independence of individuals, organisations and contexts. Networking, negotiating and enabling

are viewed as the essential skills for the performance of leadership and in line with non-entitative

perspectives can be defined in terms of cognitive, political and social dimensions.



5/9

Networking is viewed as the process of relationship building within and between groups,

relationships may be more or less helpful to interdependent individuals, however, it is through

the social aspects of networking that individuals organise their interdependencies and social

order more generally. Networking allows individuals to build a more complete and less

subjective, idiosyncratic picture of the organisational-environmental relationship. This mutual

sense making through open-ended dialogue is an important cognitive dimension of networking,

and provides a stark contrast to the entitative perspective of leaders imposing meaning on

followers via a visioning process, which in turn may result in dependent or counterdependent

followers. Networking, by its very nature makes it possible for individuals to respect differing

valuations and interests as well as influence their creation. Thus, networking may be considered

to be a political process that is concerned with creating and influencing commitments to

particular relationships, understandings and actions, and mobilising resources in support of these

as social orders are changed or sustained.

Negotiating: Hosking & Morely (1991) cite Smith & Peterson (1988) in explaining that

negotiation is a process in which individuals discuss whether changes in their relationship are

possible and desirable. This can be explained in terms of the extent to which individuals can

negotiate shared meanings and/or values and forge commitments to collective action based on

these.

Enabling: if leadership is to result in a culture of productivity, leaders need to encourage and

support contributions from others. This may begin with questioning entitative perspectives,

which separate leaders from non-leaders, and showing commitment to developing cooperative

contexts in which differences in knowledge, interests and outlooks are valued. Within a

cognitive perspective this emphasises the importance of dialogue, which creates, shared

meanings as a prerequisite for cultural change within groups. Hosking & Morely (1991) cite

(Neilsen, 1968; Grob 1984) in making the important point that it is a culture, which allows

group members to develop more robust, differential, and powerful identities in each others eyes,

which is necessary if differences are to be recognised and respected. Which Grob (1984)

defines as:



6/9


7/9

Thus, non-entitative perspectives on organisations and leadership provide a research framework,

which may provide researchers and leaders/followers with fresh insight into how social contexts

may support or inhibit the:

expression or development of particular leader/follower personalities, affect the level of

reciprocal influence between leader and followers, and affect the expression and strength

of leader/follower power, style and behaviour,

downward influence of power, which is the defining feature of organisational hierarchies

and a key feature of traditional unitarist managerial perspective on leadership which

assumes that the goals of leaders, followers and the organisation are shared,

construction of knowledge and meaning within and between group members, who may or

may not be working within boundaries and roles defined by formal organisational

structures and boundaries,

the negotiation and social exchange necessary to interpret and shape the environment and

in turn to be shaped by it in a relationship of mutual creativity and influence.

Hosking & Morely (1991) argue that such insight is not possible within constraints of entitative

research paradigms in which:

Group tasks are defined as structured or unstructured independently of the leader

(eg Fielder, 1967). Subordinates are defined as features of the leaders context

and defined, for example, as mature or immature (see Hersey & Blanchard (1977)

as this was regardless of their relational setting a tacit assumption that

[organisational] interests are shared by managers and non-managers [this is a

central tenet of charismatic and transformational leadership theory represented by

an idelogocial vision of a desired future state highly discrepant from a status quo

with serious shortcomings]Entitative treatments of person and organisation

treat their relations as interactions between independent inputs Taken as a



8/9

whole, this entitative perspective of leaders in organisations results in a very

partial and restrictive understandings concerning persons, processes and

contexts. (Hosking & Morely, 1991, p.243-244)

Thus, the entitative separation of people and contexts inherent in trait, style/behaviour,

charismatic and transformational leadership theories, according to (Hosking & Morley, 1991)

fails to provide an inadequate conceptual framework for the analysis and interpretation of

leadership within a socially constructive reality which recognises the interdependent nature of

people, processes and contexts.

References:

Bass B M, 1990, Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research: New York: FreePress

Fiedler F E, 1967, A theory of leadership effectiveness, New York: McGraw-Hill

Grob L, 1984, Leadership: The Socratic model in Kellerman B (Ed), LeadershipMultidisciplinary Perspectives, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall in Hosking D M & Morely I

E, 1991 A Social Psychology of Organising People, Processes and Contexts, London: Prentice

Hall

Hersey P & Blanchard K H, 1969, Management of organisational behaviour: Utilising human

resources, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall in Northouse P, 2001, Leadership Theory andPractice (2nd Ed), London: Sage Publications

Hersey P & Blanchard K H, 1977, Management of organisational behaviour: Utilising human

resources, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall in Northouse P, 2001, Leadership Theory andPractice (2nd Ed), London: Sage Publications

Hosking D M & Morely I E, 1991 A Social Psychology of Organising People, Processes andContexts, London: Prentice Hall

Hosking D M, 1988, Organising, Leadership and Skilful Process, Journal of management

studies, 25, p.153

Meyer M, Stevenson W & Webster S, 1985, Limits to Bureaucratic Growth, New York: Walter

de Gruyer

Neilsen, 1968 as cited in Bass B M, 1990, Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and

research: New York: Free Press



9/9

Northouse P G, 1997, Leadership - Theory and Practice, London: Sage Publications

Northouse P G, 2001, Leadership Theory and Practice (2nd Ed), London: Sage PublicationsSmith P B & Peterson M F, 1988, Leadership and Organisational Culture, London: Sage

Publications

Thomson P & McHugh D, 1995, Work Organisations A Critical Introduction, London:

Macmillan
