Twitter on võimaliku omanikuvahetuse saagas saanud palju tähelepanu igapäevameedias, kuid Twitter ühe iseseisva juhtimisosalisena organisatsioonis, ei ole sugugi nii palju tähelepanu saanud. Siinviidatud vabalevis olev tekst võiks huvi pakkuda kõikidele organisatsioonihuvilistele. Tekstis leidub palju organisatsioonide mõistmiseks kasulikke mõttekäike.


“Leaderless” is a label that the press has given to many recent social movements, with activists sometimes proudly adopting this term themselves. This label—and the idea behind it—gained traction with the explosion of the Arab Springs in 2011, and from there spread to other movements that also labelled themselves as leaderless, including France’s Yellow Vests in 2018 and social movements in Algeria, Chile, Lebanon, Iraq, and Hong Kong in 2019 (Bohlen, 2020; Graeber, 2018; Serhan, 2019; Western, 2014).

Võimusuhetest ei ole pääsu:

Scholars have questioned this notion, arguing that it hinders movements’ effectiveness because by disavowing power relations, movements make it possible for stealth leadership to arise (Sutherland et al., 2014; Western, 2014).

Autorid lubavad ja väidavad:

We investigated movement leadership dynamics in the platform environment of contentious politics and argue that leadership is not limited to individual leaders, but is instead a relational process with “far-reaching influence” on people’s “values, ideals, aspirations, emotions and identities” (Alvesson and Spicer, 2012: p. 384). We also argue that leadership is a necessary process for questioning authority in problematic power relations (Alvesson and Spicer, 2012; Barthold et al., 2020; Zoller and Fairhurst, 2007).

Traditsiooniline perspektiiv (ei ole vähemalt Eestis kusagile kadunud):

Recent critical leadership scholarship has advocated a shift, from romanticized notions of the heroic leader to more-contemporary visions in which leaders support and enable individuals’ autonomy and selfguidance (Collinson et al., 2018; Eslen-Ziya and Erhart, 2015; Fryer, 2012; Raelin, 2016b; Salovaara and Bathurst, 2017).

Suhete tähendus ilmutab ennast:

The ontological shift from entitativity to relationality has led to critical leadership studies emphasizing the need for research to capture “situated interrelations and intersecting practices of leaders and followers and managers and workers” (Collinson, 2017: p. 273).


In other words, communication is a process in which both sociality and materiality take part to create meaning. In this meaning-making process, agency—the ability to make a difference—emerges relationally in hybrid form, from humans and non-humans (Cooren, 2006).

Miks Twitter?

We chose to conduct our research on Twitter because researchers are permitted to harvest tweets that by default are public, whereas on other platforms, such as Facebook and Telegram, users assume that only those in their network or group can see their messages.

Lugemishuvi suurendamiseks:

Leadership is not only a distributed and dialogically constructed phenomenon (Gronn, 2002) but also a set of multivocal sociomaterial practices. Technologies do not simply provide us with new possibilities; they are also active agents in doing leadership work.

Poon, M., & Kohlberger, M. (2022). Twitter as a leadership actor — A communication as constitutive of organizing perspective on a ‘leaderless’ social movement. Leadership.