On vähetõenäoline, et seda viidet loevad need, kes võiks olla huvitet, st destruktiivseid juhtimispraktikaid evivad juhid. Aga, kui järgida mõttekäike kriitilises teoorias sellest, et vägivald on ühiskondliku elu loomulik osa ja kõik inimesed on kellegi-millegi suhtes vägivaldsed, siis vist võib juhtuda, et siinviidatud mõttekäigud ikka jõuavad kusagile kohale.
Ja siiski on küsimus, et kui on olemas destruktiivne juhtimine, siis missugused allhoovused seal peituvad?
following a post-structuralist perspective, Collinson (2006, 2008) argues that leadership holds a power-based and knowledge nature that allows a dynamic relationship(s) amongst followers and leaders to be co-produced, and in which followers can develop and deploy different identities when playing their role in the leadership co-production: conformist selves may hide different motivations but perform according to the leader’s requests; resistance may emerge as an oppositional behaviour to control practises and can be designed as a way to build an alternative. However, resistance may entail harmful consequences (e.g. Latan et al., 2019) that compel followers to disguise their behaviours.
This study departs from previous research deﬁning leadership as a dynamic and bidirectional inﬂuential process in which the leader and followers both play their role(s) based on asymmetrical power conditions (e.g. Collinson, 2006; Collinson and Tourish, 2015). In such a complex and dynamic process, a follower may decide not to follow the leader. This occurs, for example when the follower’s upwards inﬂuence is intended to display resistance (e.g. Tepper et al., 2001). Learmonth and Morrell (2017: 265) asked, ‘In what sense can a person intelligibly remain a follower while simultaneously displaying dissent and resistance’? – stressing the apparent contradiction in terms. In other words, does not following the leader imply not being a follower? To answer this question, one should depart from ‘why people follow?’.
Liidrid ja … need teised
Early leadership research overvalued the leader’s role (Uhl-Bien et al., 2014). This is evident in leader-centric approaches in which followers are considered mere recipients (Uhl-Bien and Carsten, 2018), and both success and failure are of the sole responsibility of leaders (Oc and Bashshur, 2013). Later, follower-centric perspectives on leadership brought followers into the equation. However, these approaches mainly focus on leaders, and how followers’ perceptions help to construct leaders and to identify effective or ineffective leaders (Crossman and Crossman, 2011).
Destruktiivsuse juhtimise komponendid
Echoing the co-production thesis, some researchers (e.g. Kellerman, 2016; Thoroughgood et al., 2018) approach destructive leadership as a dynamic process that depends not only on the leader’s behaviours but also on followers and context.
Departing from a destructive leader-based context that challenges basic and evolutionary assumptions (Bastardoz and Van Vugt, 2019), we propose a two-layer approach based on Uhl-Bien et al.’s (2014) role-based and constructionist approaches. We argue that an integrative interpretation of these perspectives allows us to reason that, when attempting to resist to a destructive leader, subordinates (as deﬁned by their position) may display leading position behaviours (from a transitory power shift) aimed to achieve the organisational good, and thus, remain as organisational followers while not following the leader.
Ja lugemishuvi suurendamiseks mõned vihjed, mille lähemal uurimisel ilmutab ennast teadmine erinevatest põhjustest tõukuvatest järgijatest:
Obedience: When followers co-produce destructiveness […] Resistance: When followers decide not to follow the leader […] The mixed group: When followers play both sides
Almeida, T., Ramalho, N. C., & Esteves, F. (2021). Can you be a follower even when you do not follow the leader? Yes, you can. Leadership, 17(3), 336–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715020987740