Understanding Leadership in the Actors Approach - Essay Example

Running head: UNDERSTANDING LEADERSHIP IN THE ACTORS APPROACH Understanding Leadership in theActors Approach By Satyam Ramesh Abstract Arbnor, I. and Bjerke, B., in their "Methodology for Creating Business Knowledge" describe the Analytical, Systems and Actors Approaches, the three different methodological approaches, opted by persons doing research/consulting/investigation. Although these approaches overlap to an extent, there exists a clear distinction between the actors approach and the other two methodological approaches. It is being increasingly felt that it is beneficial to adapt an approach that understands reality as a social construction. The emancipatory interactive action by the creator of knowledge in the research/consulting/investigation field constitutes the synthesis; the active process that creates new social reality together with the actors in the field. This paper aims at the development of an understanding of leadership in the actors approach. Understanding Leadership in the Actors Approach Leadership is legitimized or validated or rendered authoritative by knowledge. With such a perspective, let us look at the different kinds/roles of leadership in different domains. A Laboratory Director is perhaps the kind whose forte is the methodology of the analytical approach. He/she inculcates and upholds its standards rigorously. The onus is more on proofs of a particular nature to validate or reject a particular hypothesis. The analytical approach has a deterministic, mechanistic outlook and is limited for use only to the study of certain types of phenomena as an independent observer. A process and product view such as the systems approach sees results as a consequence of the synergy at work between the parts that build up the system. It also compares structures for their morphological similarity with otherwise unrelated systems. A leader in such a milieu can correlate pattern with purpose and propose specific restructuring that would better the process or system in terms of the benefits that result from it. Things appear with less fixity in this approach, they have more mutability, and there is a role of goal-setting and exercising one's volition. There is greater scope for subjectivity in this kind of leadership and the leader is deemed a success in terms of effectiveness viz. did the means suggested or strategy he adopted help achieve the desired outcomeMany industrial managers and administrators show their adeptness and abilities in applying such an approach. While the methodology of the analytical approach is only to verify compliance to pre-determined purposes, the methodology of the systems approach is about intelligent adaptation and evolution. The latter is inspired by relatively higher forms of life whereas the former appears rooted in inorganic nature. The actors approach has developed from historical and current experiences in social life by individuals and groups. It does not attempt a sacrosanct "objectivity" for knowledge but rather views it as a result derived from the inter-subjectivity of communication and interaction between individuals. It implies an increased awareness of our willful selectivity in perceiving or defining our reality. A leader who uses this approach to his/her work is empathetic, has an excellent grasp of the dialectics of inter-subjectivity, and prefers a one-to-one approach in understanding and dealing with other members of his group/team rather than treat them as objects with pre-determined roles to comply. He/she resolves contradictions that exist betweenan individual's definitions, interpretations and aspirations and those of others in the team by helping them to understand each other and their roles within the organization for affecting a synthesis where members harmonize with a collective orientation at work for the realization of their common objectives as a team. He/she is a potential leader by virtue of his skill in negotiating the psycho-dynamics to bring about the required alignments and alliances for the success of the team at work. In politics, diplomacy, media etc.,the vanguard typically demonstrates an abundance of this kind of leadership. Leadership and leadership situations in the three methodological approaches are different in terms of factors such as the personality and creativity of the leader. In the analytical approach, the emphasis is on observation and measurement, on compliance and corroboration. There is an implicit belief in immutable laws, and adherence to them. In the systems approach, the focus is on how certain kinds of structures serve certain types of ends. It uses the cause-effect principle not as an overall explanation, but to understand sub-systems which in a certain configuration make up the whole system. A person with a holistic perspective or the "guy with the biggest picture" characterizes the leader in this approach. The methodology of the actors approach, that has its philosophical roots in phenomenology, is individual centered in the sense that it fosters an understanding, among the members of a team/group, of each other as subjects who, through their interaction and work, bring into existence the reality that they live and work in. Rather than it being something "out there" independent of us, we can choose what would suit us. It means becoming aware of our own and others' instinctual mechanisms. It implies that we can adopt an outlook that would be conducive for individual and social progress, that we are free of powerful instinctual conditioning of individual and cultural traits, and can use this freedom to reciprocally arrive at a reality shaped through an unconstrained inter-subjective process. There are explanations that this has become historically possible through evolution of modern democratic society. Authoritarian, autocratic, serfdom-oriented, feudal hierarchies have given way to societies governed by representatives elected and chosen by the people through adult franchise that confers political equality in the form of one vote, one value to its citizens who are eligible voters. The constitutional ideals of such democratic societies offer basic rights and freedom to its citizens as rule of law. Correspondingly, the culture within their institutions, government, and business organizations is getting transformed to reflect contemporary values. The need to invoke divine sanction or indisputable authority or to vindicate one's leadership in some extraordinary manner may prove to be quite unnecessary in the 21st century. Mutual contract and consent, as worked out with zero or minimal reference to an external party, could become the norm. The resultant vector when two forces meet(to use a Physics metaphor) may be the natural outcome of such bipartite negotiations. The assumption in the actors approach is that both parties are not enslaved or coerced and can agree and disagree freely. The leader has no compulsion he/she can bring to bear on any other; he/she must secure agreements in much the same way marketing professionals do, by presenting their offer in its most favorable light to the target customer. He/she is one with outstanding social skills. Leaders hold their position by virtue of their ability. In pre-medieval times, this was through horsemanship and mustering of armed bands. A few centuries later, those who knew how to lead change became influential, they brought about shifts in equations often by subtle means. The 21st century ought to see an unassuming, overt, interpersonal style of leadership which vigorously pursues individual and organizational goals with the mastery of negotiation. The availability of global fora for discussion and dealing, for representation and reform, suggests that this kind of leadership should be getting more ubiquitous in the years to come. The definition of knowledge indeed is very different - from a purely objective character, and later from a partly predetermined, partly mutable character, it's moved on to become a negotiated inter-subjective construct. Today, the Laboratory Director would be chosen not for his/her command of analytical procedures but for how well he/she could dovetail its activities with others in society such as the government, private industry etc. He/she must be able to develop and defend agenda for research, understand social priorities through dialogue with various agencies, and also make sure that individual talent stay motivated. His sensitivities rather than his scientism would stand him/her in good stead. The above observations on the three methodological approaches and on the qualities desirable or expected from leadership that adopts a particular approach are influenced by the differing perspectives of reality in the three approaches. While it is possible for the researcher/consultant/investigator who adopts the actors approach to relate with the results that would have emerged if the same situation was dealt with using the analytical or systems approach, it is difficult for a person who adopts the analytical or systems approach to explain situations that are socially constructed by actors that are very different from the objectified realities that they are used to either as immutable laws or as systems. The benefits of the analytical and systems approach can be absorbed by the actors approach which is not possible the other way around as the actors approach has a holistic perspective of reality that is a synthesis of both subjective and objective characteristics. "Understanding Leadership in the Actors Approach" intends to familiarize its readers with the characteristics of leadership that adopts this methodological approach. Leaders in this approach assist team members in relating their work with those of others who work along with them and with the objectives of their association as a team. Each member of the team is expected to be not only familiar with his/her specific role in the team but also be able to relate with the roles others have and the vision they have collectively as a team. For this to be realized, the leader has to be sensitive to the needs of his team members and support them in organizing their physical, economic and knowledge resources to build in them the capacities to do better at work with the team. Businesses need to be flexible to remain competitive and adapt to the changing realities. The Actors Approach fosters the development of a comprehensive understanding of business processes by getting to know the subjective views held by different stakeholders to the process. It relates the views gathered through interaction and dialogue from the different stakeholders with the assumption that were held earlier as an objective outlook towards the business. It polls on the subjective attitudes, feelings, perspectives of different stakeholders in a business process such as employees, customers, leaders, government representatives to know their views on various aspects/attributes of the business under study and uses these as inputs to formulate decisions on what needs to be done to gain acceptance from a larger base of customers or access to markets or better employee satisfaction. Cost effectiveness in operation provides leverage over competition and more profits for business. The inadequacy of studies based on the analytical and systems approach in understanding business processes for optimization of gain has necessitated the development of the actors approach that is increasingly gaining relevance in contemporary times. The operative paradigm, that consists of methodical procedures and methodics can facilitate in the adoption of the actors approach in situations such as where the work relations of the actors is hierarchical in structure with actors above responsible for administration over a larger domain and the actors below in sub-domains of activity that constitute this larger domain. Rank, position, status, power is vested relatively more in persons on the higher rungs of this hierarchy. Work is an acceptable interpretation of instruction that had flowed top down in this hierarchy. The planning of work activities is done independent of consultation from person who implements it. How would it be possible for organizations with a hierarchical structure to adopt the actors approach The meaning or significance that work has to a particular individual determines his/her attitude towards it. It could be for him/her a means of livelihood that he has to sustain or a passion in life. Philosophers have explored concepts in the past that considered whether work was a means of life or a need of life. From this arose the concept of alienation from work. The degree of job satisfaction is influenced by significance and meaning that people attach to their work. In the actors approach, the inter-subjectivity between the actors helps bringing about the cohesion from developing and sharing a common understanding on the goals of association and the importance/significance of the contribution of each individual for the realization of these goals. The individual would prioritize on his/her commitments of work for a team that clearly defines the understanding he has with it in terms of risks or rewards. References Arbnor, I., & Bjerke, B. (1997). Methodology for Creating Business Knowledge (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. ISBN 0-7619-0450-6. (Pages faxed by customer through FedEx to academia-research.com) Balakrishnan, S.(2005). (E-mail to Author dated 10 August 2005 with subject Leadership Styles and Requirements) Messages exchanged between author, customer and administration at academia-research.com between 27 August 2005 and 12 August 2005 Read More