Tasks in the generative leadership; creating conditions for ... - CiteSeerX

Tasks in the generative leadership; creating conditions for autonomy and integration Mattias Åteg*, Lena Wilhelmson**, Tomas Backström***, Marie Moström Åberg*, Bengt Köping Olsson***, Loe Önnered*** *Dalarna university, ** Stockholm university ***Mälardalen university

Abstract The paper focuses competences needed in order for first line managers to pursue a leadership practice called generative leadership. Work organisations where employees are required to autonomously and in work groups make decisions, take responsibilities and interact in multiple directions, raises demands on managers to have competence to organise for integrated autonomy, communication and border crossing, and to enhance group creativity and work attractivity. These competencies identified so far include being able to enable group interaction, foster dialogue competence, enable utilization of language ambiguities, encourage transparency, and organise for job embeddedness. Keywords: Generative leadership, integrated autonomy, balanced communication, dialogue, group creativity, transparency, attractivity, commitment, job embeddedness.

Generative Leadership This paper is part of a conceptual framework of an ongoing research project, called Regisserad kompetensutveckling1, focusing leadership aiming at enabling generative (Surie & Hazy 2006) qualities in the workplace, where increased competence in work groups can be created if the manager creates opportunities for communication and cooperation. The paper deals, from a perspective of complexity theory, with a new type of leadership: Generative leadership, and the competences needed in its practice (Backström 2004; Wilhelmson 2006). However, the competences for generative leadership will be further explored and elaborated, in collaboration with participating organisations, during the course of the research project. In earlier studies of leadership in Sweden, new ways for leaders to relate to employees (here called generative leadership) that is seldom described in international literature has been identified. These leaders are focusing on facilitating the team’s performance, thus giving employees the role of integrated autonomous co-workers (Backström, Granberg & Wilhelmson 2008). In our work on generative leadership we are using theories about complex adaptive systems, since these theories include how collective phenomena emerge from the interaction of base units (Haken 1983). One general feature of self-

1

(Directed competence development, in English.)

1

organising complex systems is dualism, i.e. it is influenced by two “forces with opposite direction”. Typically, one “force” is drifting the system towards order and stability, the other towards chaos and disintegration. In leadership research, this is evident in the duality between control and flexibility (Lewis 2000; Sánchez-Runde & Pettigrew 2003). Suggested ways to manage such paradoxes are to have open discussions, experimenting, common goals and focus on the task, that may lead to a view of diversity as something good. The aim is to describe competencies needed in order for managers to pursue a leadership practice here called generative leadership, based on the understanding of generative leadership used within the context of the ongoing research project Regisserad kompetensutveckling.

Competences needed in generative leadership Below, the concept competence is frequently used. Competence is a widely used concept which is somewhat differently understood in different contexts. Here, competence is seen as the individual’s potential to act in relation to his/hers work, in a way that is well suited to its purpose (Hansson 2006).

Competence to organise for integrated autonomy Employee autonomy and integration in relation to the work organisation is the key duality when understanding generative leadership. These concepts are useful in analysis of decentralized work systems (Backström 2009; Hagström, Backström & Göransson 2009). Autonomy requires a distribution of decisions to the employee paired with enough competence and other resources on the hand of the employee. Individual competence may be assumed to concern cognitive and existential dimensions influencing individual autonomy, and communicative and collective dimensions influencing social integration (Hagström & Hanson 2003). In a team, there will be a distribution of different levels of competence among the members. If some have high competence that may give the team enough collective competence to reach autonomy, and to be able to autonomously respond to local circumstances. Of key importance is the relation between higher competent team members and others. In order to favour autonomy in the team, highly competent employees need to catalyze competence development of the others. Integration of the actions of employees is inherent in every work organisation through different kinds of control: direct control, bureaucratic control, technological control, and normative control. A mixture of these is often used. However, a high degree of

2

normative, and a lower of direct, control may be a way to have both autonomy and integration in the organisation. Normative control consists of socially constructed structures, such as a common vision (Källström 1995), a company culture (Alvesson & Willmott 2002), an institutionalized praxis (Berger & Luckmann 1966), a relatonic (Backström & Döös 2008), and membership (Luhmann 1990). Normative control has a feature of circular causality (Haken 1983): the structures controlling the behaviour of the employees are constructed by the behaviour of the employees. Integration through normative control may be the easiest to combine with autonomy. But there are also dangers; studies of team work show that normative control may develop into concertive control, where colleagues restrict each other’s autonomy more than any leader possibly could (Barker 1999). A model of how to form integration, using a common vision (Källström 1995), exemplifies a normative control system. The model consists of five parts: 1) Vision, the topmanagers understanding, developed in dialogue, of what the organisation is striving for, giving direction, inspiration and support communication. It should be both simple and in need of interpretation. 2) Communication, to sell the vision and reach consensus, making it possible for employees to act accordingly. This gives respect to the employees, and gives them information and understanding about the work context. 3) Consensus, when accepted, the vision is a law against which managers and colleagues may judge action. 4) Force, to be used e.g. due to lack of time or the inability of single employees to accept the vision. 5) Control, continuous dialogue and feed-back show if the vision is understood and used, show that managers care, and motivate use of the vision. Thus, communication is a key mechanism for all types of normative control and hence for integration. Consequently, quantity and quality of interaction are central themes in most articles on leadership from a complexity perspective (see e.g. Backström, Döös & Wilhelmson 2006; Surie & Hazy 2006; Uhl-Bien, Marion et al. 2004). Following the above, central competences for generative leadership are to organise for both autonomy (by enabling group interaction to foster both individual and collective competence development) and integration, (by normative control and using and contributing to development of communication skills in the work group).

Competence to organise for communication Good relations at the workplace are of main importance for the well-being of all employees. A manager, who takes on the task of generative leadership (Surie & Hazy 2006) in relation to e.g. members in a team, might find it useful to acquire insights in the art of communicating through dialogue in a knowledge creating way (Isaacs 1993).

3

Research point out positive communication in work teams as promoting efficiency (Losada & Heaphy 2004). For the generative leader the aim is to create emotional spaces characterized of a balance between Advocacy – Inquiry and Self – Other. But, maybe most important, to create a positive climate (ibid). Practical competencies in communication that a generative leader should master, is the ability to ask questions, active listening, to give feedback and to communicate in different levels, especially a meta-level (Engquist 1992; Isaacs 1999). Dialogical quality in group communication arise when all the members of the group have acquired dialogue competence; being capable of talking, listening and critically reflecting at the same time. And, to do that with a positive approach towards each other. Dialogue competence brings two qualities to the communication; an integrating quality and a differentiating quality (Wilhelmson 1998). Managers as well as followers have achieved conversational practices out of interaction habits in work life, often grounded in experiences of power and gender. Some people are used to taking a dominant role, others to taking a subordinate role. Men and women display different conversational styles (Tannen 1984). The generative leader who supports dialogue in work groups need strategies to handle communicative habits of power and gender as well as to support abilities to talk, listen, critical reflect and critical self-reflect. The task is to support and hold back, to balance among perspectives, and to foster dialogue competence among the members of the organisation. Generative leadership can benefit from balanced communicative and dialogue competencies, both as a skill of the leader him/herself and as a skill to improve the communication habits of followers as a means to develop cooperation in work tasks. The generative leader can support competent dialogue behaviour through role modelling. The members in a team learn how to cooperate by guiding each other in group conversations which become true dialogues. The aim is to learn from each other's experience and to act in tune with each other and thus create a synergy effect, being a positive learning environment for each other. Participants support each other in a learning process where they deliberately influence each others’ way of thinking and acting.

Competence to enhance group creativity The theory of creativity propounds variety to be fundamental: when people with different viewpoints interact, outcomes are potentially innovative. The quality emerging from the social interaction might stimulate creative initiatives and thus increase the group’s innovative potential (Thompson & Choi 2006). One possible key to facilitating and

4

managing such a creative collective is awareness and conscious utilization of the ambiguity of language. The tension at the intersection between different domains of knowledge might be managed constructively so as to elicit energy, momentum and driving force in a mutual effort to reach productive and durable solutions (Paulus & Nijstad 2003). It is important for the study of group creativity to make some distinctions between individuals’ creative processes and groups’ creative processes. The function of divergence in the individuals’ creative processes could be described as a broadened thinking e.g. ‘lateral thinking’, whereas the function of divergence in group creativity call for the preservation of each members way of thinking respectively (Olsson 2007b). Furthermore, when individuals describe their experiences from intense creative activities the concept of flow is often used (Csikszentmihalyi 1996). In order to establish a creative group climate still building constructive group ideas, there is a need for improvisational abilities. In the domain of musical as well as theatrical improvisation sophisticated and constructive methods for stimulating collective creative interaction have been developed (Kamoche et al. 2002). Building on co-players’ ideas is a view on the creative collective that stresses the democratic and even an altruistic dimension. It is about building on group ideas and adapting one’s own preferences in order to maintain a comprehensive view of the idea development process. Cross, Christiaans and Dorst (1996) have found a pattern of group interaction they call ”megaturns” that has been a key component of descriptive models of the structure of group conversation (Stasser & Vaughan 1996). This pattern occurs when a group member put forward a suggestion or argument by pointing to and/or handling a central object or sketch. Reid and Reed (2000) argue that this kind of figural reasoning plays a prominent lead role in creative group interaction. They maintain that the content of group discussion is the entraining process, capable of modifying and pacing natural rhythms of group interaction. Olsson (2008) suggests that the understanding of the creative groups’ regular pattern of interaction may be as central as cumbersome when it comes to leading the groups’ creative processes. These findings points to the need of developing ability to perform in relevant and appropriate timing.

Competence to organise for border crossing Traditional hierarchic organisations causes problem because the torrent of information will follow the hierarchic ways. Relevant information might not reach the receivers that have most use for it. A leadership that allows contacts between members in the

5

workplace and with members of external networks will create conditions for more efficient activity. Network systems need to be open to be efficient. Open innovation systems have a positive impact on social welfare and the trend towards democratized innovation means benefits for both firms and users. (von Hippel 2005). Transparency is a key word in a discussion about network oriented organisations and their possibility to increase their efficiency through sharpened communication and reciprocal learning in network systems. Transparency can also be related to democracy, particularly when it comes to public organisations (Nayland 2007). How can a leadership be formed that encourage the increase of transparency, and at the same time secure the benefit from the information flow between different networks? An answer within the framework of generative leadership is to organise for increased contacts with different external relations. A starting point for a persons environmental scanning is his own process for perspective building. Which form it will take depends partly on the degree of activating in the perspective building process and the degree of structure in the social environment that surrounds the individuals (Hamrefors 2002). The impact from the surrounding world is not a matter only of interaction between individuals, but also a question of different ways to work, routines, processes etc. Reciprocal learning alliances are becoming increasingly important and common as a means to compete. However it requires that the partners willingly disclose valuable aspects of their knowledge structures. Firms that share their knowledge in this way should find that the blending of knowledge, the co-learning and joint discovery really creates knew knowledge (Lubatkin, Florin & Lane 2001).

Competence to enhance work attractivity Through generative leadership organisations can better meet employee’s expectations on autonomy and self-fulfilment, thereby creating good conditions for recruiting and retaining competent personell (Backström, Döös & Wilhelmson 2006). Researchers have long been interested in why people choose to enter organisations, why they are motivated, and why they stay (Sekiguchi, Burton & Sablynski 2008). In the context of generative leadership, there seems to be high correspondence of factors contributing to team performance and integrated autonomy and those contributing to attractive work. Work attractivity deals with the ability of an organisation to: recruit competent personell (applicant attraction); have a high degree of job stability (retention); and foster employee commitment (Åteg, Andersson & Rosén 2009; Åteg & Hedlund work in progress). Research on applicant attraction is extensive with a range of theoretical perspectives. Attracting and retaining high-quality applicants is seen as one of the most

6

important activities for success (Holcombe, Ehrhart & Ziegert 2005), which can provide a sustained competitive advantage (Turban, Forret & Hendrickson 1998). Research focusing on retaining employees explores job stability – why people stay. This includes job embeddedness2: the totality of forces keeping people in their current employment (Sekiguchi et al. 2008). Retention also depends on the compatibility of individual interests and personality with organisational goals and culture. Retention is enhanced by organisational socialization, influencing adaptation to organisational goals and values (Coldwell, Billsberry, van Meurs & Marsh 2008). Job embeddedness also enhance employee performance (Sekiguchi et al. 2008). Embeddedness brings focus to social networks, where employees are tied to organisations through links, investments and appraisals. High embeddedness makes voluntary exit less likely (Sekiguchi et al. 2008). Highly embedded employees are involved in and tied to projects and people (links), fit well and can apply skills, and makes losses by quitting (Holtom, Mitchell & Lee 2006). Commitment in the context of attractive work involves: the degree to which people are attentive and absorbed in performing their roles (Saks 2006); employees’ high energy, feeling of great pride and enthusiasm, and willingness to completely focus on their task (Wildermuth & Pauken 2008). In work teams, commitment is the willingness to subsume individual interests and benefit within the collective interest and benefit, and allow others to make demands on their time and energy (Drath et al. 2008). In the context of generative leadership and attractivity, job stability and commitment are of great interest. The competences needed in order for leaders of autonomous work teams to be able to arrange for organisational, group and relational conditions that contribute to work attractivity, is here argued to be how to organise for job embeddedness and commitment (through team work, well functioning social relationships, socialisation and participation, team autonomy, and social support).

Conclusion Decentralized work, not controlled in detail through managers and work processes, leads to a search for new ways of leadership. Solutions are often built on commitment to goals, transfer of responsibilities to employees (Hansson 2006) and group autonomy (Brav 2008). Group autonomy in turn enhances participation, commitment and well-being (Wallo 2008) and is supported by constructive dialogue from leaders and co-workers (Brav 2008). In our aim to describe important competencies for generative leadership,

“Embeddedness” has been used by authors such as Granovetter (1985) in the sociological literature to explain the process by which social relations influence and constrain economic action.

2

7

we have stated that leaders need competence to organise for integrated autonomy, communication and border crossing, and to enhance group creativity and work attractivity. Central competencies for generative leadership in order to organise for autonomy and integration, is to be able to enable group interaction to foster both individual and collective competence development, to use normative control, and to contribute to develop communication skills in the work group. The competences needed to organise for communication are to foster dialogue competence in work teams, to be able to balance and acknowledge the existence of different perspectives. In order to increase the emotional spaces and attain positive climate in work groups, competence to communicate with a dialogical quality and an ability to regard issues from several angles, is important. To enhance creativity within generative leadership utilization of language ambiguities and to purposefully make use of tensions between fields of knowledge, but also to be able to make use of ideas generated in work teams as a means to adapt and develop one’s perspective. Generative leadership can foster competence development by encouraging transparency in contacts with external relations, e.g. being a precursor with transparency and disclosure of knowledge, and by creating conditions for work teams to organise in a manner that stimulates border crossing. Central competences in generative leadership in order to enhance work attractivity are how to organise for job embeddedness and commitment. Job embeddedness can be increased by organising work in autonomous teams, where employees in the performance of their work tasks are required to create and uphold links to co-workers and external contacts such as customers and colleagues. Being able to give social support contributes to well functioning social relationships and socialisation. The competencies for generative leadership identified above are not to be seen as definite. During the course of the research project the competencies will be further developed, based on collaboration with participating leaders, work groups and organisations, as well as in relation to the research field.

References Alvesson, M. & Willmott, H. (2002). Identity regulation as organizational control: Producing the appropriate individual. Journal of Management Studies 39(5): 619-644. Backström, T. (2004). Collective learning: a way over the ridge to a new organizational attractor. The Learning organization, 11(6), 466-477. Backström, T. (2009). How to organize for local resource generation. The Learning Organization, 16(3). Backström, T. & Döös, M. (2008). Relatonics - a key concept for networked organizations. In G. Putnik and M. Cunha (Eds.), Encyclopedia of networked and virtual organizations. (3: pp.1367-1374). Hershey, PA, Idea Group Inc.

8

Backström, T., Döös, M. & Wilhelmson, L. (2006). Chefen som regissör - ledarskap och medarbetarskapets självorganiserande processer. In C. von Otter (Ed.) Ledarskap för fria medarbetare. (pp. 123-158). Stockholm: Arbetslivsinstitutet. Backström, T., Granberg, O. & Wilhelmson, L. (2008). Alternativa former av ledarskap en kunskapsöversikt om chefers ledarskap. In M. Döös & K. Waldenström. Chefsskapets former och resultat - två kunskapsöversikter. Vinnova-rapport 2008:15. Stockholm: Vinnova. Barker, J. (1999). The discipline of teamwork - Participation and concertive control. Thousand Oaks, California, SAGE. Berger, P. & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York: Doubleday & Company. Brav, A. (2008). Industrial work groups: The impact of job design, leader support and group processes on initiative and self-organisation. Örebro: Örebro university. Coldwell, D., Billsberry, J., van Meurs, N. & Marsh, P. (2008). The Effect of PersonOrganization Ethical Fit on Employee Attraction and Retention: Towards a Testabel Explanatory Model. Journal of Business Ethics, 78, 611-622. Cross, N., Christiaans, H. & Dorst, K. (1996). Introduction: The Delft protocols workshop. In Reid, F. & Reed, S. (2000). Cognitive entrainment in engineering design teams. Small group research 31(3). Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity – flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: Harper Collins. Drath, W., McCauley, C., Palus, C., Van Velsor, E., O'Connor, P. & McGuire, J. (2008). Direction, alignment, committment: Toward a more integrative ontology of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 635-653. Engquist, A. (1992). Kommunikation på arbetsplatsen. Chefen, medarbetaren, gruppen. Stockholm: Rabén & Sjögren. Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structures: the problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481-510. Hagström, T. & Hansson, M. (2003). Flexible work contexts and human competence - an action-interaction frame of reference and empirical illustrations. In A. Bron and M. Schemmann (Eds.), Knowledge society, information society and adult education. Münster: LIT Verlag. Hagström, T., Backström, T. & Göransson, S. (2009). Sustainable competence: Reproduction and innovation in a bank. The Learning Organization, 16(3). Haken, H. (1983). Synergetics - An introduction - Non-equilibrium phase transitions and self-organization in physics, chemistry and biology. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Hamrefors, S. (2002). The observant organization. From Business Intelligence to Intelligent Business. Lund: Studentlitteratur. (In Swedish) Hansson, M. (2006). Att vara sin egen chef - om oreglerat och självorganiserat arbete. In C. von Otter (Ed.), Ledarskap för fria medarbetare. Stockholm: Arbetslivsinstitutet. Holcombe Ehrhart, K. & Ziegert, J. (2005). Why Are Individuals Attracted to Organizations? Journal of Management, 31(6), 901-919. Holtom, B., Mitchell, T. & Lee, T. (2006). Increasing human and social capital by applying job embeddedness theory. Organizational Dynamics, 35(4), 316-331. Isaacs, W. (1993). Taking flight: Dialogue, collective thinking, and organizational learning. Organizational Dynamics, 22(2), 24-39. Isaacs, W. (1999). Dialogue and the art of thinking together. New York: Currency Cop. Kamoche, K., Cunha, M. & Cunha, J. (Eds.). (2002). Organizational improvisation. London: Routledge. Källström, A. (1995). I spetsen för sin flock - Normer för svenskt management. Gothenburg Research Institute, Handelshögskolan, Göteborgs Universitet. Lewis, M. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760-776. Losada, M. & Heaphy, E. (2004). The role of positivity and connectivity in the performance of business teams. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(6), 740-765. Lubatkin, M., Florin, J. & Lane, P. (2001). Learning together and apart: A model of reciprocal interfirm learning. Human Relations, 54(10), 1353-1382.

9

Luhmann, N. (1990). Essays on self-reference. New York: Colombia University Press. Nayland, D. (2007). Achieving transparency: The visible, invisible and divisible in academic accountability networks. Organization, 14(4), 499-516. Olsson, B. (2007b). Languages for creative interaction: Descriptive language in heterogeneous groups. The 10th European conference on creativity and innovation, ECCIX. Copenhagen 14-17 October, 2007. Olsson, B. (2008). Beskrivningsspråk i och för kreativ praxis: Idéutveckling under gruppsession. Doctoral dissertation no. 68. Mälardalen University press. Paulus, P. & Nijstad, B. (Eds.). (2003). Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration. New York: Oxford University Press. Reid, F. & Reed, S. (2000). Cognitive entrainment in engineering design teams. Small group research, 31(3), 354-382. Saks, A. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of managerial psychology, 21(7), 600-619. Sánchez-Runde, C. & Pettigrew, A. (2003). Managing dualities. In A. Pettigrew et.al. (Eds.), Innovative forms of organizing. London: SAGE. Sekiguchi, T., Burton, J. & Sablynski, C. (2008). The role of job embeddedness on employee performance: the interactive effects with leader-member exchange and organization-based self-esteem. Personell Psychology, 61, 761-792. Surie, G. & Hazy, J. (2006). Generative leadership: Nurturing innovation in complex systems. Emergence: Complexity & Organization, 8(4), 13-26. Stasser, G. & Vaughan, S. (1996). Models of participation during face-to-face unstructured discussion. In F. Reid & S. Reed, (2000). Cognitive entrainment in engineering design teams. Small group research, 31(3). Tannen, D. (1984). Conversational style: Analysing talk among friends. Norwood NJ. Thompson, L. & Choi, S. (Eds.) (2006). Creativity and innovation in organizational teams. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Turban, D., Forret, M. & Hendrickson, C. (1998). Applicant Attraction to Firms: Influences of Organization Reputation, Job and Organizational Attributes, and Recruiter Behaviours. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 52, 24-44. Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R. & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(4), 298-318. Wallo, A. (2008). The leader as a facilitator of learning at work. A study of learningoriented leadership in two industrial firms. Linköping: Linköping University. Wildermuth, C. & Pauken, P. (2008). A perfect match: decoding employee engagement Part 1: engaging cultures and leaders. Industrial and commercial training, 40(3), 122128. Wilhelmson, L. (1998). Learning dialogue. Discourse patterns, perspective change and learning in small group conversation. (Doctoral thesis, in Swedish). Arbete och Hälsa 1998:16. Solna: Arbetslivsinstitutet. Wilhelmson, L. (2006). Transformative Learning in Joint Leadership. Journal of Workplace Learning, 18(7-8), 495-507. von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing Innovation. London, MIT Press. Åteg, M., Andersson, I.-M. & Rosén, G. (2009). Change Processes for Attractive Work in Small Manufacturing Companies. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 19(1), 35-63. Åteg, M. & Hedlund, A. (work in progress). Researching attractive work - a theoretical framework.

10