Debating Leaderless Management

Management research has traditionally assumed that leaders play an essential role in both public and private organizations and are required for a business to run smoothly. However, more recently, a vein of critical research has claimed that leaders can do more harm than good, creating confusion and putting their reputation before production and employee wellbeing. This book asks the question - what would happen if there were no leaders? Would employees be better off without formal (or informal) leaders? And even if such a utopia were desirable, would it be realizable in practice?

Auteur

Frederik Hertel, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Organization, Communication and Management. He has published articles on Leadership, Everyday Creativity in Organizations, Educational Anthropology, Philosophy of Management and Organizational Communication. He has for more than 10 years been working in public organizations as project manager and head of development before returning to academia.

Kennet Mølbjerg Jørgensen, PhD, is Professor or organization studies at the Department of Urban Studies, Malmö University. His research interests comprise power, organizational storytelling. Kenneth has authored, co-authored and edited numerous books, articles and book chapters in amongst others Organization, Scandinavian Journal of Management, Business Ethics - A European Perspective, Routledge, CBS Press, Sage and Nova.

Anders Örtenblad is Professor of Working Life Science at the School of Business and Law, University of Agder, Norway, and Professor II at Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Norway. He has edited books that have been published by Edward Elgar Publishing, Oxford University Press, Palgrave Macmillan, Routledge, Sage, and Springer. He is the editing founder of the book series Palgrave Debates in Business and Management.

Contenu

Preface by Frederik Hertel, Kenneth Mølbjerg Jørgensen and Anders Örtenblad

1. Background and introduction

Frederik Hertel, Kenneth Mølbjerg Jørgensen and Anders Örtenblad

This chapter introduces the book project, argues for the relevance of the book, and discusses how "leaderless management" is defined in the book. After having argued for the relevance of the book, the chapter outlines the theoretical foundation of the book. "Leaderless management" is defined, and we introduce the contrast between our concept of leaderless management and the concept of management /leadership introduced in modern management literature. Thereafter, we relate to existing works on leaderless management and suggest how our differs from previous literature. The final part of the chapter presents the content of the chapters and how the authors of the different chapters relate to/view the discussion about leaderless management.

PART I. Against leaderless management

(This part contains chapters arguing that "leaderless management" is a bad idea.)

2. The enabling role of leadership in realising the future

Cecile Gerwel Proches, Graduate School of Business and Leadership, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa

It is not desirable to have leaderless management. We are slowly emerging from the trail of destruction left behind by the global pandemic, COVID-19, and are yet to determine how this has impacted the workforce and the workplace. We also find ourselves further immersed in the digital era and traversing the fourth industrial revolution, while also being cognisant of the fifth industrial revolution. Increasingly high levels of Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity and Ambiguity (VUCA) will necessitate strong leadership, which will need to be task-oriented but also responsive to the needs of people. COVID-19 has illustrated how interconnected we are. We seek leadership that is cognisant of how valuable both leaders and followers are in navigating the complexity, by engaging in sense-making processes to co-create the future.

3. Leaderless management & the coach analogy

Sharon Blanchard, Principled Leadership Institute, New Zealand

In addition to working in higher education in various leadership positions for over thirty years, I have worked as a volunteer athletic coach for the same amount of time and use this analogy to explain why you need to have leaders in organizations. I believe that leaders undertake specific positions requiring a high level of accountability and responsibility, and stand completely apart from positions of management. In addition to technical skills, a coach inspires and enables their team to be the absolute best version of themselves whether on the field, in the rink, at home, school or in the office. The coach is responsible for the overall stewardship of the players, the team, and the club. The values and beliefs that are instilled by the coach provide continuity and consistency ensuring that whether the loss or the win, the teachable moment is what we grasp, and with courage, move forward. The coach, or in this case the leader, goes home each day and their team come home with them; their day does not end at 5pm. The coach shoulders their concerns, needs, and desires, as a means of moving them and the company forward. Employees have various degrees of experience, knowledge, skills, and expertise, and their accountability and responsibility within the company needs to be aligned with this. By our very human nature, we need guidance, boundaries and parameters, and even though when we establish these in an equal opportunity dynamic it isn't bullet-proof.

4. Leadership reimagined: reframing leadership for an ambidextrous world

Eric Peter Zabiegalski

Let me make myself perfectly clear, organizations cannot exist without leadership. With this said however, leaderless management often is a viable alternative to "leadering" business as usual. How can this be? The answer to that question lies within an examination of our current leadership paradigms and the troublesome contradictions they present. Leadership needs to be reconstructed and reimagined and presenting true leadership in all its manifestations should begin in earnest. A book published almost 10 years ago claimed there are over 1500 definitions of leadership and over 30 concepts, with a leadership development industry topping 300 billion dollars globally its likely more definitions have since been added. These statistics are surprising, causing one to pause and reflect. With so many definitions and concepts for leadership which is the true and correct one? Which one do people practice most often and which one do people rely on and desire? I don't feel that leadership is an apparition, I am confident it exists, leadership "happens" in organizations daily. Every day work gets done and people with leadership titles in leadership positions are present and influencing work. Despite this feeling however there is something unsettling and "off" regarding leadership and my intuition says it is in the way in which leadership is recognized, perceived, and used. Furthermore, my gut tells me that routine mismanagement, misunderstanding, and abuse of leadership concepts create a paradox and the troublesome contradiction mentioned. This paradox causes harm, suffering, and inefficiency, either bleaching and sanitizing cultures or turning them into treacherous mine fields. The result is a loss of performance seen through a climate of disenfranchised worker hopelessness or fear-based behavior. With a concept so complex and problematic, and with so many working definitions, the question for organizations becomes "is leadership necessary?" is it worth the trouble it often breeds? Can we sufficiently manage without leadership for a better organization? My position on this highly contested subject is no, we need leadership. But we must change our perception of it, seeing it for what it is and where it is. The phenomena of leadership, the acknowledgment of leaders and leading, should be a healthy par…