Richard Longman joined The Open University in 2023 after four years at UWE Bristol. His interests emerge from alternative theories and practices of organising, particularly those which enable more equitable, diverse, and inclusive organisations. He currently serves as Chair of the CMS Division of the Academy of Management. In this article he reviews the launch of Doing Academic Careers Differently: Portraits of Academic Life, edited by Sarah Robinson, Alexandra Bristow, and BLCC’s Olivier Ratle.
There are numerous reasons one might choose not to attend a book launch. It could be due to a lack of interest in books, indifference toward the authors, or even ambivalence regarding the topic. Yet, it’s difficult to associate any of these reasons with the launch event of Doing Academic Careers Differently: Portraits of Academic Life, edited by Sarah Robinson, Alexandra Bristow, and BLCC’s Olivier Ratle. The event, jointly hosted by CMS InTouch and the Critical Careers Network, went beyond the ordinary, unveiling the story behind this unique collaboration. Just as the book reimagines academic careers, the launch itself was a departure from the conventional.
“When UK academia and the academic profession is in crisis, the reflections and testimonies in this book are and should be an inspiration to many.”
The book, born out of a decade’s worth of research into contemporary academia, aimed to provide a platform for diverse visions of ‘an alternative, more nurturing, diverse, and inclusive academia’ (p.1). The editors were pleasantly overwhelmed by the response to their open call for contributions, receiving an abundance of submissions from academics around the world, spanning from those pursuing their PhDs to those well into their post-retirement years. The result is a collection of 46 individual and group self-portraits, offering glimpses into the careers of 82 academics. Departing from the traditional chapter structure, the book employs a captivating “gallery” metaphor, arranging the portraits like an art exhibit, where diverse narratives of meandering, transgressing, nurturing, and belonging find a space alongside stories of haunting, precarity, and inclusivity. Readers are guided through this journey with the aid of a beautiful gallery map by artist Joe Latham.
About academic careers done differently.
The portraits within the book are a rich source of insight for individuals exploring, initiating, or advancing in their academic careers. They boldly challenge the neoliberal expectations imposed on academia, advocating for a range of approaches: rejecting the pressure to focus solely on one major pursuit, emphasising the value of nurturing and care, transcending traditional disciplinary boundaries, reshaping daily routines, engaging with communities, and adopting academic roles that extend beyond formal academia. These portraits diverge from the polished public personas often presented, revealing the messy tensions and conflicts inherent in power dynamics, notions of virtue, beauty, wealth, and other qualities attributed to the subjects. As I reflect on the self-portrait I might have offered, I find resonance in the experiences shared by others: entering academia later in life, resisting abusive management, forging unconventional paths, managing hidden physical challenges, and maintaining hope for a brighter future.
Launched differently.
The launch event itself was a departure from the norm. In creating space for academics to candidly reveal their professional highs and lows, the launch moved away from the typical “heroic exegesis” model. The editors adopted a curatorial approach, inviting attendees to explore the gallery freely, replicating the experience of walking through an art exhibition. Like traditional curators, the editors provided context, interpretation, and critical insights into the exhibited works. This was not a moment for editorial self-promotion; many contributors were given a voice through written quotes or videos. The passion invested in the project was palpable, extending to the publisher, Terry Clague from Routledge. While many academics speak about deviating from the norm, this book launch turned those words into action, showcasing the transformational power of embracing new approaches.
“I find each portrait pairs well with a double shot of espresso. We often misjudge a text’s potential to inform and inspire based on its length – yet I find many of the portraits to be precious jewels…”
In a departure from the norm for academic texts, Doing Academic Careers Differently: Portraits of Academic Life sits on my coffee table. I find each portrait pairs well with a double shot of espresso. We often misjudge a text’s potential to inform and inspire based on its length – yet I find many of the portraits to be precious jewels. Unsurprisingly, the book has received widespread acclaim, being described as “courageous” (Ghazal Zulfiqar, LUMS, Pakistan), “enthralling” (Alessia Contu, UMass Boston, USA), and “a must-read book for new and experienced academics” (Rafael Alcadipani, FGV-EAESP, Brazil).
This book has spurred a special issue in Management Learning, aiming for more critical, empowering, inclusive, and creative approaches to careers. The book showcases an alternative, demonstrating that despite attempts by managerial aspects of academia to dominate, we can resist the demands for conformity, functionalism, and individualism. Instead, we can engage in the meaningful practice of crafting academic careers in ways that resonate with our unique identities and aspirations.
Olivier Ratleis a dedicated academic known for advocating and promoting pluralism within the realm of management studies. His research focuses on the importance of nurturing and safeguarding diverse philosophical, methodological, and theoretical approaches in academia. He actively investigates the politics of methodology in management research, shedding light on the cultural authority of certain research methods and their impact on society. Olivier also explores the challenges faced by early-career academics in the current academic landscape, emphasizing their potential for positive change within organizations. Additionally, his work contributes to the emerging field of critical career studies, challenging traditional career paradigms. Olivier Ratle’s co-edited book, “Doing Academic Careers Differently: Portraits of Academic Life” is a significant milestone in this endeavour.
You can purchase a copy of Doing Academic Careers Differently: Portraits of Academic Life through the publishers site or get in touch with him directly for more information or potential collaboration queries
A member of BLCC with an impressive portfolio of experience Dr. Arthur Turner is well renowned both in research and industry circles. This wealth of experience and knowledge has lead him to writing The Theory and Practice of Creative Coaching; a book for practitioners and researchers alike.
In this blog Arthur sits down to discuss the inspiration behind his recent book, and, more generally, his coaching practices. In his book, he discusses how to break free from routine coaching, embrace creativity, connectivity, and the use of nature as a powerful tool for development.
What motivated you to write this book on creative coaching and to explore new approaches in coaching individuals in organizations and communities?
I would often get approached by colleagues to discuss the topic of coaching in a professional environment, and as researchers and academics, they would ask for books or sources that they could refer to, read and, ultimately reference. As things were, although there was some research available the information was sporadic and dispersed and not held together in one place. There wasn’t a source that collated this information. I was encouraged by colleagues to write something that could be used by researchers and practitioners alike, and so I decided that I should write a book that would meet that need.
I could articulate many starting points began the development content of this book to a lot of different things, but I like to say that it all started with a finger puppet. My son had left a Dr. Che Guevara finger puppet (The Cuban revolutionary) the fridge at home. It had been gifted to him by a company he worked for at the time. I thought how novel this little puppet was and how something so simple can give a strong likeness to a historic figure and provoke so many disparate thoughts and ideas.
. . . I realized that there was immense value in allowing people to use such imaginative tools to rephrase their situations or circumstances in voices that aren’t their own . . .
I looked up the company that made the puppet and saw they made hundreds of these historical figure finger puppets. From that, I wondered what could be accomplished with objects such as this puppet ( I later started to call them mediating objects See Martha Brauer’s work in 2016) and began to explore the possibilities. This simple finger puppet sparked an idea about the power of creative techniques in coaching. I realized that there was immense value in allowing people to use such imaginative tools to rephrase their situations or circumstances in voices that aren’t their own. Allowing the mentee to use Frieda Kahlo, for example, to explain a concept to Barack Obama expanded their own understanding and opened them up to alternative thinking.
This approach taps into different perspectives, fostering a deeper understanding of topics and developing creative problem-solving skills that might not have been accessible otherwise. The finger puppet served as a catalyst for exploring innovative coaching methods that draw on creativity, imagination, and diverse viewpoints to enhance the coaching experience for both coaches and their clients.
You have mentioned that sources of inspiration you drew from, spanned from philosophy and the joys of nature, are you able to elaborate on these and how they influenced the development of the book’s content?
A lot of the book was written during pandemic and during lockdown, one of the few positive things that came out if the pandemic, for me, was the realisation on how much nature healed, being within and part of a natural environment was to enhance wellbeing.
In coaching, for example, I noticed how quickly someone would make connections between their environment and their situation.
I have found if you walk through an environment with somebody you begin to find that the environment around you leads the conversation, asks the questions – for example, a client and I walked along the river in Newport as the tide was coming out, we were walking past ancient castles, along an old Bridge, past a new housing estate and all the time the river was going in and out. Then the person I was coaching started talking about the ebb and flow of work; he began comparing it to the turbulence around pillars of the bridge which opened into a conversation reflecting on his situation using the nature as a tool to navigate his thoughts. Nature gave him a way to see beyond the turbulence of now and reframe his situation as an ebb to the flow to come.
This is an example of nature demonstrating the ways of how things are connected. When walking through nature you start to feel the connections around you, offering a tangible link leading to a true sense of the value of the connectiveness between each other. Knowing this value, feeling this connection can help you reframe an issue, challenge a status quo or develop a fuller opinion.
How does the book shed light on the use of creative techniques, and how do these techniques extend the possibilities for coaches and their clients?
The creative techniques I use on a day-to-day basis look at, how we can reflect on our surroundings and learn from what is around us, how we can use our all our senses to connect to an issue such as a lack of confidence, a challenge at work or a life challenge or event.
These creative techniques are in constant flow, of the ones discussed in this book I probably have 10 or so more that I use now. I have included them as a jumping-off point for coaches to build and develop their own toolkit of techniques that they can add to and archive as their own journey develops.
I believe, as in nature, we should be in positions of flex and flux, constantly in the position of bending or reflecting on what was before, what worked, what didn’t and why? We should be adaptive and listen to the needs of our client using the experience of our past techniques to build what is needed for the situation in front of us. So, the creative techniques are a reference point but not as a routine.
Lastly, what do you hope readers will take away from your book, and how do you envision it contributing to a stronger learning environment and increased diversity of coaching practices and understanding?
My vision for this book is to provide readers with the inspiration and tools they need to transform their coaching practice and approach their work differently. I want readers to build the courage and confidence to experiment with creative techniques and embrace their adaptive abilities within any given coaching situation. By making links to ways in which people engage with the world, such as art, poetry, music, and transformational objects, coaching practice can rapidly move away from rigid structures and rudimentary models.
By embracing our links with nature and the world around us through the power of creative coaching techniques this book aims to open doors for readers, empowering them to develop a diverse toolkit of techniques that can be adaptable and tailored to their clients’ unique needs. Through constant growth and reflection on past experiences, these coaching approaches will empower readers to break routine and tap into the flex and flux of the world around them. In addition, creative techniques help in group facilitation, leadership issues and team management.
As a result, I envision this book contributing to a stronger learning environment and fostering increased diversity in coaching practices. Coaches and their clients alike will benefit from this approach, enhancing their problem-solving skills, reframing issues, and ultimately achieving more meaningful and transformative coaching experiences.
More about Dr. Arthur Turner
Arthur was a Visiting Fellow at the University of South Wales (2014 – 2019) and is a Senior Lecturer at the University of the West of England. He has, in the past, been an Executive Board Member of the International Foundation for Action Research and a Recognized Teacher for the University of Ulster.
He completed his Doctorate in Business Administration in 2013, focusing on middle manager leadership development. He is an ILM Level 7 qualified coach and mentor since 2008. Since 2017 Arthur has been the programme manager for the ILM Coaching and Mentoring qualifications at Level 5 & 7.
His expertise lies in leadership development, with a focus on space, place, pace, the role of artefacts and mediating objects, and the use of the outdoors in adult learning. Dr. Turner has worked extensively with local councils and Health Boards in Wales and England, contributing to coaching, mentoring, and facilitative learning. His research interests have led to regular conference presentations and collaboration with practitioners from various fields. He co-directed the Professional Development Centre Limited between 2010 and 2021 and now works with the same company as a Senior Advisor, dedicated to improving leadership development through coaching and action learning approaches. As further development in his interests Arthur now works in voluntary basis with Newport City Council / Cyngor Dinas Casnewydd-ar-Wysg preparing a piece of City Centre land for Local Nature Reserve status.
Turner A.F. & Norris L. (2023) Playfulness and humour in executive coaching. UWE Spotlight series. Can be accessed at: Podcast 05.01.23 Edited.mp3
Turner A.F. (2023) Two contributions in: Forbes L. & Thomas D. Professors at play playbook. Carnegie Mellon University: ETC Press
Turner A.F. (2022) Space, Place and Time. Chapter in: Developing Leaders for Real – Proven approaches that deliver impact. Edited by Gray, Gilson and Cunningham (2022) Emerald Publishing Limited
Turner A.F. (2020) Chapter 13. Silence in Coaching in The Coaching Handbook – The Complete Practitioner Guide for Professional Coaches. Editor Jonathan Passmore. Routledge, October 2020
Turner A.F (2018) Chapter 11 Use of multi-ethnic, contemporary and historical finger puppets. In: Field Guide to Leadership Development edited by Steve Kempster, Arthur F. Turner, and Gareth Edwards http://www.e-elgar.com/shop/field-guide-to-leadership-development
Turner A.F. & Norris L. (2022) Humour and playfulness and their potential use in the advancement of coaching psychology and practice. The Coaching Psychologist Vol 18 No 2 pages 30 – 41
Turner A.F. (2020) All that jazz – a paper looking at the role of music in coaching practice. The Coaching psychologist Vol. 16 No 1
Turner A.F. (2019): Silence and its role in coaching. The Coaching Psychologist Vol 15 No 1
Heneberry, P., Turner, A.F. & Pardey D. (2019) A Practitioners’ Guide to Critical Leadership. Heneberry, Turner & Pardey
In this article we speak with Jenna Pandeli, an active member of Bristol Leadership and Change Centre, who has recently been promoted to Associate Professor in Organization Studies at UWE, Bristol
With a notable focus on prison labour and invisible forms of work, she has received the esteemed SAGE prize for Excellence and Innovation in 2020 for her ground-breaking publication, ‘Captives in Cycles of Invisibility’. This recognition underscores her commitment to shedding light on the intricacies of work within prison contexts and highlighting often unnoticed aspects of labour. She talks about her journey as an academic, her current projects and what she sees in her future.
Good Morning Jenna, Thank you for taking the time to sit down with me today. Can you tell us a little about your background, how you got into academic research and how your research interests developed?
I completed my PhD at Cardiff University in 2015. My undergraduate Business Ethics lecturer suggested that I apply for an ESRC scholarship to complete a PhD. When we looked into it, all the scholarships had gone and I assumed that was it, so I started my job as a waitress and started to try and figure out what I might do with my life. My lecturer called me up and told me that someone had dropped out and a space was available, so I quickly came up with a research proposal, submitted it and was successful! It’s like it was meant to be.
My initial proposal was to look at anti-consumer subcultures – exploring people who practice ‘Freeganism’ (people who get their food etc. from supermarket bins in protest to capitalism and over consumption). I researched this for my master’s dissertation, it was a really interesting (and quite scary!) project, but I decided it wasn’t quite for me and looked into other potential research projects to pursue.
I started thinking about people in prison and their job prospects after prison…If I was going to spend several years focusing on something it was going to have to be something that was interesting, something that mattered to me and something I felt was meaningful. And the more I dug into this topic, the more I started to look at prison labour. There were a few fantastic pieces of journalism on the topic, and I thought it was a topic that required greater investigation. And that was it, I was hooked! So, my PhD research was a 10-month ethnographic study exploring prisoners experiences of completing privately contracted prison labour, I referred to them as ‘Orange Collar Workers’ (combining ‘blue collar work’ with the orange jumpsuit synonymous with prisoners). I applied for a job at UWE at the end of my PhD and managed to convince them to give me a job and have been here ever since…going on 8 years now.
You have a particular focus on Organizational Ethnography when conducting research. Why did you choose this method over others?
To be honest, I just can’t imagine researching in any other way. Obviously, I still incorporate other methods too but at its core, I want to know about peoples experiences, I want to see people in action. When I speak to students they often talk about ‘picking’ a method, but really, you don’t have a lot of choice in the methods you choose; I think a lot of it comes down to your outlook and views on the world and society, the questions you want to find the answers too, the things you want to know more about.
..a lot of it comes down to your outlook and views on the world and society, the questions you want to find the answers too, the things you want to know more about. I always find myself asking the How? Why? What?..
I always find myself asking the How? Why? What? Questions and I always want to chat with people. I undertook ethnography for both my master and PhD and even undertook observations for an A level Sociology class before I really even knew much about methods. Even when I’m not doing ethnography, I am still writing about ethnography. I edited a book last year with my wonderful friends Neil Sutherland and Hugo Gaggiotti and contributed chapters that look at conducting dangerous fieldwork and just really unpicking what ethnography is. I am currently writing a paper that reflects on gender in ethnography. My co-author, Rafael Alcadipani, and I explore how completing ethnography in hyper-masculine organizations is influenced by the gender of the researcher – it’s pretty cool. I’ll be presenting it at the EGOS conference next month. It’s wonderful getting to work with amazing people who share these interests.
Tell us more about your research and research projects, what are projects you are working on right now?
At the moment I am focusing on two main projects:
I am working with a charity called Project Remake to deliver enterprise education to previously incarcerated people. I was put in touch with Project Remake last year and we realised that we could help each other. They are an absolutely incredible charity doing really life changing things for people who have been in prison. They provide an 8-week course on starting your own business, working with amazing people from industry and academia and then the participants are given the opportunity to start a paid work placement for 12 weeks, an opportunity to pitch their business idea to experts to gain feedback, and lots of the participants go on to stay at the firm they completed their placement with. I audited the most recent course and knew I needed to be involved. So, we (Lynda Williams and I) applied to the City and Guilds Foundation for funding, and they have been amazing. They loved the collaboration and so they have awarded us funding for year one of the project. This will involve 3 small intakes to join the course, with UWE leading on the 8-week course delivery. The funding also allows me to undertake research on the project and explore its impact on participants self-efficacy, their employment, and its impact on reoffending. We will start the project in September this year, so it’s going to be a very busy summer preparing for the course and the research, and a very busy and exciting year ahead!
The second project I am involved in is called: Maternity Leave During a Global Pandemic: The Black Box of Invisible Work. I am working with two amazing colleagues, Chloe Tarrabain and Mahwish Khan. All three of us gave birth during the covid pandemic to our first babies. We all gave birth in 2020 and I think it’s safe to say, it was incredibly tough. I know bringing a new baby home is tough regardless but doing it in almost total isolation was nearly impossible. I think the trauma that a lot of women experienced during this time is going to stay with them forever. My little boy is almost 3 and I’m still angry at how difficult that first year was; barely seeing anyone, only meeting outdoors (pretty difficult to do in December with a 3-month-old baby!), with the crippling fear of this virus killing lots of people whilst being told that as a pregnant woman, you are vulnerable. We all came back to work after our maternity leave and talked about how we survived maternity leave during covid and felt like we really needed to talk to women who had experienced this too and give them a voice. So, we have now interviewed 13 women. Our interviewees have a lot to say and even now, reading back over the interviews has reduced me to tears. They are really harrowing experiences and very close to home. So yes, I think this is a really important and personal project for me. We received HEIF funding for this project to engage with relevant stakeholders.
..we don’t want to hide this research in academia; we think it’s important to engage with organisations, charities, and women to disseminate this research and try to make it meaningful..
We obviously want to publish about this research in academic journals etc. but we don’t want to hide this research in academia; we think it’s important to engage with organisations, charities, and women to disseminate this research and try to make it meaningful. So, thanks to our HEIF Funding and our wonderful BLCC research centre, we are creating an accessible research report and short animated video so that we can share our findings and recommendations widely.
Do you have any projects you would like to work on in the future? Any collaborations?
For the foreseeable future, I think I am going to have my hands pretty full with both of these projects. I am also working on two research papers from my PhD research with colleagues – the gender paper I mentioned earlier and a paper on neoliberalism and prison labour with Richard Longman from the OU. When it comes to interesting projects and ideas, I tend to get a bit over excited and say yes to everything and I am realising that’s not always the best approach as it’s so tough to do things well when you spread yourself too thin. So, for now, I plan to commit to my current projects and try to avoid taking on too much else until they are completed. BUT…. After that, I’m not quite sure yet… potentially a bigger project on invisible work during maternity leave. Our current project specifically focuses on maternity leave in Covid and is only a small project, so I think we would really like to look at this on a bigger scale.
Professor Carol Jarvis,Professor Hugo Gaggiotti and Dr Selen Kars founded ‘The Unleadership Movement’ to explore new approaches to thinking about leader-follower relations and what leaderly practices could look like to help people and organisations to recover from the Covid-19 pandemic. In integrating Unleadership into organisational life, they anticipate a flourishing of creativity and the humanising of our workplaces to accommodate the human spirit. Joined in 2021 by Dr Kay Galpin and funded by a series of Higher Education Innovation Fund grants they continue to run collaborative research workshops with organisational and community members to share and reflect upon the leaderly actions of others, co-creating innovations that keep developing the concept and practices of Unleadership. Carol, Hugo and Selen have written a book which will be published by DeGruyter in early 2024 as part of the series
This blog is based on an extract of the book chapter Collaborating and Connecting one of the key dimensions of Unleadership.
How do unleaders collaborate?
Our research has found a subtle shift in the way that unleaders collaborate which moves them towards a more positive and appreciative way of engaging with others. This has the potential to generate multiple ideas and possibilities — what could be? Seeking to ameliorate a challenge and not to fix or solve the problem, they are driven by a clear purpose and value — making sense as a collective, in a community.
Why is this important?
We live in complex times — political; social and economic struggles and inequality; wars; climate change; the challenges of developing technology; the list goes on and on. Problems such as these have been described as wicked. These problems are resistant to resolution and are not amenable to being controlled. They are dynamic, often have incomplete information and there are many complex interdependencies. Groups and individuals will have a different perspective on both the problem and what success might look like or involve.
If we stick with our tried and tested leadership approaches to problem solving, we are going to come up against barriers that might derail any action at all — take Greta Thunberg’s accusation at COP26 of the leaders and their ‘business as usual blah, blah, blah’. Unleaders shift their thinking to a good enough approach, recognising their limits and are open and responsive to collaboration. By making this shift, they can begin to thrive in complexity, accepting that a solution or resolution is not always possible and that it will involve contradictions. By being free of the quest for harmony, unleaders can become bricoleurs, making the best use of whatever resource comes to hand and developing collective wisdom with others.
How does collaboration create collective wisdom?
You’ve probably all heard of the phrase déjà vu — a strange short circuit in our brain that makes us think we have experienced a situation before (layman’s explanation!!?). Well, what about the opposite? Vu-jadé? We have never experienced anything like this ever before and it is completely unknown and unique? To respond, we are going to have to move beyond the tried and tested and begin using a different repertoire! This, first and foremost, requires an acknowledgement that we have never seen this problem before and a commitment to explore it from a new line of sight. This means that we must avoid the temptation of pigeon-holing the situation within a familiar, existing repertoire. This will involve increasing our ability to use enquiry and curiosity and to have collaborative conversations to make sense of things together in a collective. By valuing others’ experiences and narratives, we move towards dialogue — valuing the nuances of knowledge and making meaning out of the unknown together. Dialogue expert Bill Isaacs defines this as “the art of thinking together” which suggests that through dialogue we can build a common base that allows us to learn more about a problem collectively and to achieve what Jabri and colleagues describe as a “surplus of seeing”.
The Conversation Continuum (Based on Isaacs, 1999)
As we open our hearts and our minds to dialogue, we see the situation with fresh eyes, perhaps through the eyes of somebody else, and we develop the capacity to let new perspectives and meanings come into our awareness. Here we make a subtle shift in our relationships — we become part of a community. This means that not the individual, but the collective is responsible for building an holistic understanding of the vu-jadé situation by connecting the dots. In other words, no single person in the community is more responsible (and consequently accountable) for defining the problem and identifying solutions; responding to the problem is a mutual process for which we are all co-responsible.
Pause for reflection!
Draw a timeline to identify times in your life when you have been most open.
What was happening at this time, what made these moments significant?
What aspects of these experiences can you retrieve now to cultivate that level of openness, curiosity and inquisitiveness?
If this has made you think about your own practice and you want to know more, look out for our book coming in 2024. We share organisational vignettes where the practice of collaborating has led to interesting developments! We also offer more practical reflective exercises and tools to consider how we can track the subtle shifts in our relationships and how we can begin to open ourselves to connections and possibilities.
Ford J., Ford L., & Polin B. (2021). Leadership in the implementation of change: Functions, sources, and requisite Variety. Journal of Change Management, 21(1), 87–119.
Grint, K. (2010). Wicked problems and clumsy solutions: The role of leadership. In S. Brookes, & K. Grint (Eds.), The new public leadership challenge (pp. 169–186). Palgrave
Isaacs, W. (1999). Dialogue: The art of thinking together. Doubleday.
Jabri, M. (2010) Utterance as a tool for change agents: Implications based on Bakhtin. Journal of Management Development 29 (6). Pp. 535–544.
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.
Weick, K. E. (1993). The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(4), 628–652.
Christoforos’ expertise spans various fields, including philosophy, sociological theory, theories of the self and organization studies. In this blog Christoforos discusses his recently published book “Social Imaginary and the Metaphysical Discourse: On the Fundamental Predicament of Contemporary Philosophy and Social Sciences” written and developed as part of his current project exploring the possibility socio-theoretical anti-realism as an alternative approach to social ontology.
The field of the social sciences is a fragmented terrain of disagreements, often fuelled by mutual ignorance of the tendencies in other fields and disciplines. In this chaotic landscape, with “mountains” of books and papers that scarcely link to other specialties, there is one battle that stands out – let’s call it the mother of all battles in the social sciences – between those researchers who think that we can provide non-biased analyses of clear data, and those researchers who think that we can never eliminate suppositions or assumptions from the choices we make about our topics of enquiry, our methodologies and/or relevant variables to investigate.
The first perspective is characterized by a belief in drawing objective and unbiased conclusions in social scientific reasoning. The second perspective, on the other hand, often draws on theoretical traditions or schools of thought (or research philosophies or “paradigms”) in an effort to reflect on the ontologies (key assumptions about what exists in a domain of reality) and epistemologies (key assumptions about the possibility and status of scientific knowledge that we can achieve in a domain of reality) that influence the rationale of researchers’ steps and “observations” in conducting social research.
This book intends to contribute to this debate by taking the side of the latter perspective. It emphasises the need to reflect on ontological and epistemological assumptions in social research and social philosophy and emphasises the idea of the a priori status of social ontology – the idea that our implicit or explicit core theories about the nature of social reality are centrally placed in the web of our beliefs and thus necessarily inform social research and enquiry. It explains that ontologies are theories of being that theoretically systematise the world-imageries that are more or less shared by the various scientific and philosophical communities. For this reason ontologies are cognitionally (though not necessarily temporally) prior to epistemology, methodology and scientific findings – as the world-views that these ontological schemes systematise set the limits of the existent and the possible.
I argue that this is a generic principle: shared world-imageries – whether philosophical, scientific or lay ones – shape the limits of action for all social agents. This book delves into ongoing discussions in philosophy and the social sciences to explore key ideas such as scientific realism, critical realism, social constructionism, and socio-theoretical pragmatism, and presents an alternative perspective called “anti-realist social ontology”.
Traditionally, realism asserts that the world exists independently of our minds and theories. This viewpoint extends to the social realm, where social realists argue that social structures and institutions possess their own powers, influencing our actions and thoughts. According to this view, these powerful social forms resist intentional changes, and people are unable to alter them. The main political message here is that people cannot intentionally change social structures and institutions since these social forms are objective and mind-independent realities that can resist change.
… the anti-realist ontological model I propose offers a comprehensive framework for the discursive transformation of worldviews…
In contrast, the anti-realist ontological model I propose offers a comprehensive framework for the discursive transformation of worldviews. It emphasizes the importance of imaginative agents and their ability to reflect upon and reshape the social imaginary. In this context, the concept of “social imaginary” is redefined to undermine the idea that social forms are independent of our thoughts and theories. Furthermore, it argues for the primacy of imaginative worldviews in shaping our understanding of reality, asserting their significance over material/structural and institutional dimensions.
Ultimately, this book invites social researchers to think at the crossroads of the humanities and the social sciences. Our social scientific reasoning has persistent, underlying ontological assumptions and in this book I argue that this is also the case for methodological traditions in the natural sciences: there are ontological schemes that systematise world-imageries that are shared by a variety of scientific communities. The surprising element in this analysis – widely overlooked in contemporary philosophy of science – is that in our effort to examine the status of these ontological schemes (in both the natural and the social scientific fields), we necessarily utilise socio-ontological assumptions and concepts (whether implicitly or explicitly). These hidden and unexamined links between philosophy and the social sciences form the labyrinth of contemporary meta-analysis in which we remain entrapped as long as we refuse to reflect on the predicament that results from these overlaps between philosophy and social science. This book is an invitation to scholars in the humanities and social sciences to reflect on this predicament of meta-analysis.
Whether or not we are aware of it, over recent years Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become an integral part of our lives — from the smart speaker in your lounge to the apps you use to order your takeaways and far more besides. For the most part, these changes have been incremental and largely hidden from view. In the last few months, however, stories about the rapid acceleration of AI technology have made headlines around the world — highlighting the potential benefits, as well as the risks, of this technology.
The launch of ChatGPT-3 in November 2022 meant that for the first time anyone could access and experience this technology for themselves. Whilst people were impressed with its capabilities, it was the launch of Version 4 on 14th March 2023 that has garnered most attention. Initial admiration turned to concern as the true potential of this technology became clear, with researchers noting that it shows “sparks of artificial general intelligence” that “is strikingly close to human-level performance” (Bubek et al., 2023). In response, over 1000 high profile individuals — including Steve Wozniak (co-founder of Apple) and Elon Musk (CEO of Tesla, Twitter and SpaceX and co-founder of OpenAI, the company that developed ChatGPT) — signed a public letter asking for an immediate pause of at least six months in the development of advanced AI. The letter suggested that advanced AI “can pose profound risks to society and humanity” and “should be planned for and managed with commensurate care and resources” (Future of Life Institute, 2023).
Whatever your understanding of, and opinions on, this technology, it poses significant issues that leaders, and leadership educators, need to pay attention to. A recent report by Goldman Sachs, for example, suggests that generative AI (AI that can automatically generate text and other content in response to user prompts) has the potential to automate around 300 million full-time jobs worldwide (Hatzius et al., 2023). For educators, there are serious concerns around the implications for teaching and assessment (Williams, 2023). Much as with the advent of the Printing Press and the Internet, however, there are likely to be far broader implications than we can even imagine, and despite calls for stronger regulation, the rate of change appears to have already exceeded our capacity to predict or control what happens next (see, for example, Bolden and O’Regan, 2016).
Some readers may note that the title of this blog post alludes to the Terminator movie franchise — where a malign AI system triggers global conflict and deploys advanced robots into the past to eradicate the leaders of the resistance before they become a threat. Whilst I very much hope that this is not the beginning of the story that we now see playing out — the concerns raised by Musk, Wozniak, and others should give us pause for thought and encourage us to prepare for the disruption that is already beginning to unfold.
In producing this blog post, I asked ChatGPT-4 to identify the implications of AI for leadership, drawing parallels with the film Terminator. It did a remarkably good job, highlighting four main areas of concern:
Jobs losses leading to “widespread economic and social disruption, as people lose their livelihoods.”
Potential bias where AI algorithms “can perpetuate or even amplify existing biases, creating a more unequal and divided society.”
Loss of control where, “as AI becomes more autonomous and self-aware, it may become difficult for humans to exert control over its actions [which] could have catastrophic consequences, as AI could take actions that are harmful to humans, either intentionally or unintentionally.”
An AI arms race where “just as nations have raced to develop nuclear weapons, there is a risk that countries will engage in an AI arms race, seeking to gain a strategic advantage over their rivals [which] could lead to an escalation of tensions and potentially, armed conflict.”
Unsurprisingly, these issues have been widely reported through the media and other outlets as people grapple to recognize the implications of this new level of AI. A key theme across each of these risks is inequality. Groups and communities that are already vulnerable and/or marginalized are those that are most likely to suffer the adverse effects of the disruptive change that advanced AI will inevitably produce. Whilst Musk, Wozniak, and other business leaders may be concerned about how to best harness the power of advanced AI, most people are well behind the curve — struggling to catch up and respond proactively to something that is largely beyond their reach.
Responding to the advent of advanced AI, however, is not simply a case of brushing up on technical skills but of tapping into our capacity for adaptation and working with complexity. In her powerful TED Talk, Margaret Heffernan (2019) identifies “The human skills we need in an unpredictable world,” in particular “preparedness, coalition-building, imagination, experiments, bravery.” Whilst her talk was recorded before the recent advances in AI, her warnings about over-dependence on technological fixes seem most timely.
“But in our growing dependence on technology, we’re asset-stripping those skills. Every time we use technology to nudge us through a decision or a choice or to interpret how somebody’s feeling or to guide us through a conversation, we outsource to a machine what we could, can do ourselves, and it’s an expensive trade-off. The more we let machines think for us, the less we can think for ourselves.”
Within such a context, as leadership researchers, educators, and practitioners, we need to place even greater emphasis on critical thinking and reflection, diversity and inclusion, as well as ethics and values, in all that we do. We need to create opportunities for debate and discussion across difference, to foster collaboration and community building, and to challenge abuses of power and the assumptions and practices that underpin them. Only then might we be able to embrace the potential for AI as a force for good rather than a recipe for disaster.
Bolden, R., & O’Regan, N. (2016). Digital Disruption and the Future of Leadership: An Interview with Rick Haythornthwaite, Chairman of Centrica and MasterCard, Journal of Management Inquiry, 25(4), 438–446. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1056492616638173
Bubeck, S., Chandrasekaran, V., Eldan, R., Gehrke, J., Horvitz, E., Kamar, E., Lee, P., Tat Lee, Y., Li, Y., Lundberg, S., Nori, H., Palangi, H., Tulio Ribeiro, M., & Zhang, Y. (2023). Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early Experiments with GPT-4, Microsoft Research, URL:https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.12712
Cortellazzo, L., Bruni, E., & Zampieri, R. (2019). The Role of Leadership in a Digitalized World: A Review. Frontiers in Psychology, 10:1398. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01938
Rahman, H. A. (2021). The Invisible Cage: Workers’ Reactivity to Opaque Algorithmic Evaluations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 66(4), 945–988. https://doi.org/10.1177/000183922110101
Academics from many backgrounds gravitate to Bristol Leadership and Change Centre. Today we spotlight Professor Peter Case, who amongst other achievements has most recently become Editor-in-Chief for a new journal, The Journal of Tropical Futures. Here he takes the opportunity to discuss his interests as well as the new journal, it’s importance and how you can get involved.
Q1. Tell us a little about your background.
I’ve been a professional academic for over forty years and worked in various universities in the UK – for example, Bath, Oxford Brookes, Exeter and UWE – and overseas in Australia and Singapore with James Cook University (JCU). I’ve also held visiting positions at Helsinki School of Economics in Finland and the University of Humanistics at Utrecht, the Netherlands. I obtained my first chair at Oxford Brookes University by way of internal promotion and then moved to Exeter shortly after that. I joined UWE in 2005 and currently have part-time roles as Professor of Organization Studies at Bristol Business School and Professor of Management at James Cook University.
Q2 . How did you became interested in your research areas?
From a young age I’ve had eclectic intellectual tastes and my academic studies took me initially into the fields of economics, sociology and philosophy, whilst at the same time reading more widely in the humanities and social sciences. This eclecticism and broad curiosity are what brought me to disciplines of Organization Studies and Leadership Studies as they enable me to pull together the various fields I’ve studied over my lifetime as an academic. For the first twenty-five years or so of my career, I focussed on scholarly work and published mostly on topics related to organization theory and critical management studies. For the past several years, however, I’ve been turning my attention to more applied work in the areas of international development and global health. Again, I’ve discovered that these are fields in which I can draw on an eclectic intellectual background to work collaboratively with other colleagues on tackling the complex challenges that face societies, institutions and communities – particularly those in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.
Q3. Tell us more about your research and research projects, are there any projects you want to highlight? Any you would like to work on in the future? … Collaborations?
My research ranges across organization development, international development, rural development, global health, leadership studies and organization theory and philosophy. For more than a decade now I’ve been collaborating with colleagues at the University of California, San Francisco –one of the top medical colleges in the USA – who are based in the ‘Malaria Elimination Initiative’ (MEI) research centre. My move into the global health space came about as a consequence of work I’d been doing on rural development in Southeast Asia – particularly a set of projects in Laos – aimed at improving the way that the government supported smallholder farmers. It was in this context that I and some other colleagues, who were expert in the local farming systems, began experimenting with the use of something called ‘Participatory Action Research’ – which, as the title implies, involves bringing different stakeholders together to participate in a process of researching challenges and, through structured exchanges and facilitated processes, co-creating and implementing solutions to those challenges. The work I did in Laos, funded by the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research over a period of about nine years, proved very successful in coming up with practical solutions and changing institutional governance structures.
The three projects l was responsible for, for example, led to the application of management tools co-designed with stakeholders and resulted in an increase in gross incomes for approximately 1,350 smallholder households, translating to an economic impact of more than £2m over a seven-year period (2012-19). One of the projects involved encouraging the formation of farmer organizations and resulted in the establishment of a whole new organic coffee growing region in Northern Laos. The impacts of the project led to more consistent central government support for the delivery of agricultural extension services, more autonomy for district-level offices and, in the longer-term, directly influenced the Government of Lao’s national strategy for commercialising smallholder farmer production. These successes also attracted further investment from the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, the United Nations Development Programme and the World Bank.
My work in Laos caught the attention of the then Director of the Malaria Elimination Initiative and I was invited to join a small team of senior malariologists to assess the state of programme management of malaria, globally, and write a report for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation setting out findings and recommendations. As the management expert in the group, I was the person who ended up presenting the paper to a strategy committee at the Gates Foundation and this, in turn, led to many doors opening. I started out being asked to join a team of US medics working on malaria elimination in Vietnam and, amongst other things, as I’d done in Laos, began experimenting with the use of Participatory Action Research methods to tackle thorny issues relating to delivery of malaria healthcare services. This experimentation led to some promising outcomes and I was given my own funding to ‘prove the concept’ in another context – this time in southern Africa – initially in Zimbabwe and Eswatini but then extending the work to Namibia. The research culminated in the team developing a set of Organization Development and Quality Improvement tools that can be applied in tackling a range of health system-related challenges.
The composite toolkit is called Leadership and Engagement for Improved Accountability and Delivery of Services (LEAD) Framework and is now available as an open access resource. Our work in the malaria space led to significant improvements in elements of programme delivery, including data quality and communication, as well as fewer drug stockout events. These programme delivery improvements subsequently resulted in improved detection, testing and treatment facilities for more than 3 million people living in malaria zones in Zimbabwe alone. Additional benefits, such as capacity building of healthcare professionals and development of UWE accredited training of National Malaria Control Programme staff also resulted in sustainable impacts in these regions.
Most recently I co-led an organization development project funded by the Gates Foundation which applied the LEAD Framework to assist with restructuring and improving HIV prevention services at national and subnational level in Zimbabwe. This was a collaboration between the Zimbabwean Ministry of Health and Child Care, USCSF, UWE, the Women’s University in Africa and two international NGOS – the Clinton Health Access Initiative and Population Services International. We’re currently writing up the final report for this project and have plans to publish the findings in the coming year; but we already know that the programme of Participatory Action Research has had a significant and far-reaching impact on HIV-prevention service delivery in Zimbabwe.
Q4. You have recently become Editor-in-Chief for a new academic journal the Journal of Tropical Futures. What gaps does this journal fill and what is its importance?
Well, as you’ll have probably noticed, a great deal of my work in recent years has taken place in the tropical zones – and, of course, one of my academic posts is based in tropical North Queensland, Australia. I have a passion for working in the tropics and there are a great many challenges facing populations in the region. I’ve been working closely with colleagues based at James Cook University, Singapore, for several years who share my interests in the region and, together, we came up with the idea of creating an academic journal that could be a mouthpiece for research on sustainable business, development and governance in the tropics. It took us about two years to get to a point where SAGE Publications – who saw potential in our proposal – agreed to contract the journal. We were able formally to launch in January of this year (2023). There are very many journals that focus on tropical environmental science, marine science, human and cultural geography and so forth but, surprisingly, very few are concerned with sustainable business and development. In other words, these themes are conspicuously under-served by academic journals currently.
We should be paying close attention as scholarly and practitioner communities to the complex dynamics of the tropics, in my opinion. Here are few telling facts that are worth pondering: about 4 billion people are currently living between the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn and by 2050 one in every two people and 55% of the world’s children under five, will reside in the tropics. 99% of the population of the tropics reside in Low- and Middle-Income Countries, while 80% of the planet’s terrestrial biodiversity and more than 95% of its mangrove and coral reef-based biodiversity is located in the tropics. Most GDP (about 65%) is generated by the Global North yet, the externalities of this economic productivity are having disproportionate impacts on the Global South and tropics.
We’re currently experiencing a collision of tectonic plates globally, in my view, as the conventional drives toward economic growth clash with the interests of indigenous populations and environments. The tropics are disproportionately disadvantaged by the deleterious impacts of climate change, pollution of lands and seas, monocultural agricultural production and deforestation; to name just a few of the more pressing issues. What are we to do to halt exploitative policies and practices? How can the multiple inequalities that characterize the North/South divide be mitigated or reversed? In short, what is to be the future of the tropics? The key mission of the journal is to help address challenges relevant to sustainable business and management, social and economic development, as well as to governance in the tropics.
Q5. How can someone get involved with the journal, is there anything you would like to see in the future?
The journal is still in its infancy; so, as with any new journal, the immediate challenge we face is establishing a profile for JTF and attracting high quality manuscript submissions. Our plan in 2023 is to publish e-versions of articles using the SAGE OnlineFirst system and then release Volume 1 (Issues 1 & 2) in 2024. We plan on having two open issues per year initially and then expanding once the journal is more established.
We welcome contributions to the following themes:
Sustainable Tropical Environments
Public Policy, Regional Development and Governance
Human and Workforce Development
International Business and Trade in Tropical Regions
Sustainable Business and Social Responsibility
Sustainable Tourism, Hospitality and Marketing
Our plan is to publish rigorous empirical analyses (based on quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method research), as well as case studies, theoretical articles and conceptual reviews. Please visit Journal of Tropical Futures for more information.
I hope that anyone interested and enthused by the journal aims and scope will be encouraged to write for this exciting new publication. I’m happy to discuss ideas for articles or look at draft manuscripts so would encourage people to get in touch directly with me by email if they’re considering submitting something. If anyone would like to serve as a reviewer for manuscript submissions they should also get in touch. My email address: peter.case@uwe.ac.uk
Professor Richard Bolden delves into what the surprise resignations of Nicola Sturgeon and Jacinda Ardern reveal about today’s toxic leadership contexts, what it means to be a “strong leader,” and how leaders transition out of their roles.
The surprise resignation of Nicola Sturgeon as First Minister of Scotland, less than a month after Jacinda Ardern stepped down as Prime Minister of New Zealand, provides a sobering insight into the immense scrutiny and pressure that senior leaders now face. Both had seen high levels of popularity and had been widely praised for their handling of the COVID pandemic. They have also experienced a barrage of criticism and declining popularity more recently. Each has shown huge commitment and resilience yet note that there comes a point when it’s time to step aside and make room for someone else to lead.
“It’s time, I’m leaving, because with such a privileged role comes responsibility. The responsibility to know when you are the right person to lead and also when you are not. I know what this job takes. And I know that I no longer have enough in the tank to do it justice. It’s that simple.” (Jacinda Ardern, 18 January 2023)
“Since my very first moments in the job I have believed a part of serving well would be to know almost instinctively when the time is right to make way for someone else. In my head and in my heart, I know that time is now. That it’s right for me, for my party and my country.” (Nicola Sturgeon, 15 February 2023)
Both Sturgeon and Ardern are values-based leaders who demonstrated a firm commitment to ethical and moral principles. Their championing of kindness, compassion, and inclusion has led to some commentators attributing their stepping down to a failure of “woke” politics (e.g., Sky News Australia, 2023 and Morgan, 2023), but this is a gross simplification of the issues and fuels the culture wars that seem to characterize contemporary political discourse. As Sturgeon stated in her resignation speech:
“I have spent almost three decades in front line politics – a decade and a half on the top or second top rung of government. When it comes to navigating choppy waters, resolving seemingly intractable issues, or soldiering on when walking away would be the simpler option, I have plenty experience to draw on.
So, if this was just a question of my ability – or my resilience – to get through the latest period of pressure, I would not be standing here today.
But it’s not.
This decision comes from a deeper and longer-term assessment.
And the nature and form of modern political discourse means there is a much greater intensity – dare I say it, brutality – to life as a politician than in years gone by.
All in all – and for a long time without it being apparent – it takes its toll, on you and on those around you.” (Nicola Sturgeon, 15 February 2023)
Whilst much leadership theory and research focuses on the dysfunctional characteristics of “toxic”, “narcissistic” and/or “psychopathic” leaders, far less attention tends to be given to the toxic environment in which senior leaders often find themselves. Padilla and colleagues (2007) work on the “toxic triangle” goes some way towards addressing this by highlighting the interdependencies between destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conductive environments, yet it continues to emphasize the psychopathology of individual leaders as a key ingredient in the process. Whilst there are, no doubt, plenty of examples where this is the case, what of the situations where fundamentally “good” people are exposed to unsustainable demands?
In their resignation speeches both Sturgeon and Ardern made a point of saying that they are “human” and that their decision to step down was, in part, made to protect the wellbeing of themselves and their families/loved ones.
Peter Frost’s (2003) notion of leaders as “toxin handlers” comes perhaps closer to capturing what happens in such situations. As with people who work in environments where they come into contact with hazardous substances, leaders may find themselves dealing with situations that are harmful to their health (for further elaboration see Hartley and Bolden, 2022). In their resignation speeches both Sturgeon and Ardern made a point of saying that they are “human” and that their decision to step down was, in part, made to protect the wellbeing of themselves and their families/loved ones. They also noted that it was in the best interests of their respective countries due to the fact that they no longer felt they had the energy required to sustain such a role.
Such an approach stands in stark contrast to the defiance of Donald Trump, Jose Bolsonaro, and Boris Johnson when they were required to stand aside and the subsequent attempts by their followers to get them reinstated. Whilst “strong” leadership continues to be associated with determination and persistence, Sturgeon and Ardern provide examples of how strength can also be demonstrated by knowing when to pass on the leadership baton to someone else. In so doing, they may also hope to retain a degree of dignity and respect that can so rapidly be eroded by desperate attempts to cling on to power.
In reflecting on the examples of Ardern and Sturgeon, I am reminded of a piece of work that I and colleagues conducted over a decade ago (Brookes et al., 2011), where we explored the experiences of people transitioning from senior leadership roles and the associated identity dynamics of “becoming an ex” (Fuchs Ebaugh, 1988). It struck us that, whilst a lot of attention is given to preparing (or persuading) people to take on leadership roles, far less attention tends to be given to supporting their transition out of such roles. Van Gennep’s (1960) work on rites of passage provided us with a useful framework for considering how any role transition involves going through a process of separation from an established identity, followed by a liminal period (where identities are fluid and uncertain), and, ultimately, arriving at a point of reincorporation where new identities are formed. Such notions underpin Ibarra et al.’s (2010) work on “identity-based leadership development” and the importance of “identity work” (Sinclair, 2011) in the process(es) of becoming (and unbecoming) “a leader.”
Nicola Sturgeon concluded her resignation speech as follows:
“So, to the people of Scotland – to all of the people of Scotland – whether you voted for me or not – please know that being your First Minister has been the privilege of my life. Nothing – absolutely nothing – I do in future will ever come close.” (Nicola Sturgeon, 15 February 2023)
For Ardern and Sturgeon, coming to terms with their new identities as former Prime/First Ministers is a journey they are only just beginning. We should watch and learn how they manage this transition and use it to inform our own work as leaders and leadership developers.
Brookes, V., Hooper, A., Bolden, R., Hawkins, B. and Taylor, S. (2011). The Mid-Life Career Transition “… and so what do you do?” Working Paper for the Centre for Leadership Studies, University of Exeter Business School.
Frost, P. (2003). Toxic Emotions at Work: How Compassionate Managers Handle Pain and Conflict. Harvard Business School Press.
Fuchs Ebaugh, H.R. (1988). Becoming an Ex: The Process of Role Exit. University of Chicago Press.
Hartley, L., & Bolden R. (2022). Addicted to Leadership: From Crisis to Recovery. In M. Witzel (Ed.), Post-Pandemic Leadership: Exploring Solutions to a Crisis. Routledge.
Ibarra, H., Snook, S., & Ramo, L.G. (2010). Identity Based Leadership Development. In N. Nohria & R. Khurana (Eds.), Handbook of Leadership Theory and Practice (pp. 657-678). Harvard Business Press.
Padilla, A., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. (2007). The Toxic Triangle: Destructive Leaders, Susceptible Followers, and Conducive Environments. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 176-194.
Sinclair, A. (2011). Being Leaders: Identities and Identity Work in Leadership. In A. Bryman, D. Collinson, K. Grint, B. Jackson, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Leadership (pp. 508-517). Sage.
Daily Record. (2023, February 15). Nicola Sturgeon Resignation Speech in Full as First Minister Gives Surprise Decision [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y-WCD3sj1Y
Van Gennep, A. (1960). The Rites of Passage (M.B. Vizedom, & G.L. Cafee, Trans.). University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1908).
Gareth Edwards, Professor of Leadership and Community Studies at UWE and Doris Schedlitzki, Professor of Organisational Leadership at London Metropolitan University have taken over the Editorship for the Sage journal Leadership.
Gareth and Doris have been involved with the journal since its inception in different capacities: as authors of numerous articles, long standing members of the Editorial Board and more recently as Associate Editors. Leadership has been the home of much needed critical voices in leadership studies for almost 20 years, where authors can ‘pose awkward questions and critique mainstream scholarship’ (Tourish, 2022). Now they take over the running of the journal, Gareth and Doris are continuing to strengthen this critical mission and enabling diverse, critical voices to be heard. They aim to continue the journal’s success in becoming one of the top journals in leadership and organisation studies.
Professor Doris Schedlitzki
Professor Gareth Edwards
How to get involved
If you wish to publish in the journal, Gareth and Doris have three key tips: be critical, be relevant and be complete.
In being critical they suggest that you should work with the critical agenda that has developed in leadership studies over the last 10 years (for example, see Collinson, 2011; 2017, Ford, 2010; Tourish, 2015). This is where empirical and conceptual works challenge the norm and question mainstream views of leadership.
Being relevant means being in tune with current leadership thinking, tying into current debates and narratives on the subject. This can be both theoretical and current, in the sense of how leadership is portrayed in the wider world and in current affairs.
Being complete means having a submission that has a logical flow – a complete narrative. Your submissions should tell a story and ultimately provide a contribution to theory and practice in and around leadership.
Gareth and Doris are continually looking for differing inputs to help develop into the journal. If you have questions, ideas or would like to become involved please get in touch with Gareth or Doris.
References
Collinson D (2011) Critical leadership studies. The Sage Handbook of Leadership, pp.181-194.
Collinson D (2017) Critical leadership studies: A response to Learmonth and Morrell. Leadership, 13(3): 272-284.
Edwards G and Schedlitzki D (2023) Editorial transitions part 2–hail and hello. Leadership, 19(1): 3-6.
Ford J (2010) Studying leadership critically: A psychosocial lens on leadership identities. Leadership, 6(1): 47-65.
Tourish D (2015) Some announcements, reaffirming the critical ethos of Leadership, and what we look for in submissions, Leadership, 11: 135-141.
Tourish D (2022) Editorial transitions – hail and farewell, Leadership, 18(6): 725-728.
Over the past seven weeks the world watched on as Liz Truss crashed and burned as Prime Minister of the UK. After just 45 days in office — two weeks less than the election process through which she was appointed and, if you take out the period of national mourning for Queen Elizabeth II, shorter than the average shelf life of a lettuce (Economist, 2022, Daily Star, 2022) — Liz Truss unceremoniously stepped down as leader of the Conservative Party.
There is no shortage of journalists and political commentators writing their own accounts of what’s happened but, in this blog post, I would like to reflect on this as a leadership researcher and educator. To do this, I will consider the case from individual, organizational and societal perspectives.
An Individual Perspective: The Fall of Liz Truss
Without doubt, the most common way in which Liz Truss’s time in office will be analyzed is in relation to her own shortcomings and failures as a leader. The benefit of hindsight is a wonderful thing and there are many people coming forward to express the concerns they had about her character and suitability for the role of Prime Minister.
Over the past few days, I’ve heard her described as “tin eared,” “naïve,” “arrogant,” “stupid,” “talentless,” and many more things beside. Whilst these may or may not be a fair assessment of her qualities, they beg the question of why on earth her candidacy was supported by so many ministers and members of the Conservative Party if this is how they felt about her. Surely there was some evidence of this, or an attempt to assess her suitability, before she was given the biggest job in UK politics?
I’ve always been dubious about the motivations of anyone who would wish to become PM or President given the immense responsibility and public scrutiny such roles carry. Indeed, in a reverse Catch-22 type scenario, anyone ambitious enough to put themselves forward should perhaps be deemed unsuitable and hence ineligible for the role. There’s plenty of research evidence on the psychopathology of leadership and the risks of narcissism, greed, and corruption amongst senior leaders in all walks of life. Such toxicity is clearly not healthy, but it’s a mistake to lay the blame wholly on the individual leader her/himself — indeed we may need to take a closer look at ourselves.
The psychodrama of Westminster over the past weeks, months, years says perhaps as much about our own relationship to leaders and leadership as the individual protagonists themselves. In a recent book chapter I co-authored with Lucie Hartley, drawing on insights from her time as CEO of a drug and alcohol charity, we reflected on the addictive nature of leadership (Hartley & Bolden, 2022). While individual leaders may become trapped in destructive cycles of addictive behavior, the causes and consequences are not entirely of their own making. The tendency to romanticize leadership and the heroic qualities of successful leaders disguises the fact that we frequently place people in situations that would turn even the most admirable individual into something else.
While I have no doubt that Liz Truss willingly and enthusiastically embraced the opportunity to be Prime Minister, she did so at a time of extreme turbulence. Michelle Ryan and Alex Haslam (2005) coined the term the “glass cliff” to describe the circumstances in which female leaders and leaders from minority backgrounds are disproportionately more likely to be appointed to senior leadership roles in times of significant risk. While there are a number of possible explanations for this trend, it means that these individuals are placed in particularly precarious situations where the likelihood of failure is at its greatest. As the political commentator Andrew Marr stated in relation to the unraveling of Liz Truss’s government: “It was triggered by the immediate causes: bad political judgement, naiveté about markets, personal arrogance and cliquishness. Truss is simply not good enough — not shrewd enough in judgement, not persuasive enough as a communicator — to be prime minister. But this is the failure of an idea that would have collapsed even had Britain been led by better politicians” (Marr, 2022).
While I have no desire to present Truss as a victim, she became the embodiment of a set of ideals promoted by certain factions of her Party that were fundamentally out of step with the realities of the markets and wider society. She stated that in her commitment to growth she was prepared to do things that might be considered unpopular. Modeling herself on Margaret Thatcher, she claimed to be “a fighter not a quitter” and “not for turning”… until the markets and public opinion forced her to U-turn on pretty much everything she’d put in place during her time in office. We expect a lot of our leaders — including the ultimate act of self-sacrifice when things turn bad (Grint, 2010).
An Organizational Perspective: A Divided Party
The Conservative and Unionist Party of Great Britain is one of the main political parties in the UK. It represents the right-of-centre political interests and agendas and, within England at least, faces its main opposition from the left-of-centre Labour Party. There are currently 357 Conservative ministers, representing around 55% of all members of the House of Commons. The government comprises a Cabinet of senior leaders appointed by the PM and a large group of “back bench” members of parliament (MPs) elected to represent the interests of their local constituencies. An oppositional form of government is maintained, whereby, the party in power sits opposite the opposition parties in the main chamber of the House of Commons and legislation and policies are debated and voted on by members.
The origins of the UK structure of government dates back to the 13th and 14th centuries, with current arrangements largely unchanged for over 100 years. Unlike typical organizations, the PM’s authority comes from the mandate gained through General Elections, which occur every 4-5 years, where the public get to vote for their preferred party/candidate. These are supplemented by local elections to approve changes in representation between the national election cycle and by occasional national referendums on key issues, such as the UK’s membership of the European Union in 2016.
Within such an environment, the ability of the PM to instill a sense of “confidence” and maintain “discipline” is key. While MPs usually vote along party lines, within a democratic system of government they have the freedom to vote in the way they believe best serves the interests of the electorate. There are occasional exceptions to this, such as the vote on fracking on the evening of Wednesday 19th October 2022 that descended into chaos when Conservative MPs were informed that it was a “confidence vote” and they were expected to vote “no” to a motion to ban fracking no matter what their personal opinion on the matter or the views of their constituents. Despite the attempts of party “whips” and senior Cabinet members to encourage (force) members to vote as directed, 32 (nearly 10%) did not register a vote.
The events of the past few weeks have highlighted deep divisions within the Party that have existed for many years. Rather than all Conservatives sharing a unified set of beliefs, values, and priorities it is a loose affiliation of divided factions. These are the issues that David Cameron was trying to resolve when he called the national referendums, firstly on Scottish independence in 2015 and then membership in the EU in 2016. He hoped that once they had been decided through a public vote, MPs would fall into line and follow the guidance of the PM and Cabinet. In reality, however, such votes — particularly Brexit — seemed to further cement divisions within the Party and have led to widespread resistance and challenge across the different sub-groups — fueling, in large part, the churn of senior leaders, including three Prime Ministers and four Chancellors of the Exchequer (responsible for managing the national budget) in the last few months.
Commentators suggest that the Conservatives need to find a “unity candidate” to replace Liz Truss, someone who can lead and engage people from across the whole party, but such people are in short supply. The contenders — Rishi Sunak, Penny Mordant, and (the former PM) Boris Johnson — are all divisive given that they represent the interests of particular stakeholders rather than the whole party… not to mention the wider country. While Sunak, the runner up in the previous election campaign, has now gained sufficient support to be named the new leader, he has a significant challenge ahead in engaging those who hold him personally responsible for the departure of Boris Johnson and the drama that has since unfolded.
At the end of the day, leadership is about building, rather than burning, bridges.
The social identity approach to leadership, outlined by Alex Haslam and colleagues (2020), highlights the need for leaders to be seen to represent the interests and identity of a collective and to be doing it for “us.” Application of these ideas to the COVID-19 pandemic by Jetten et al. (2020) goes further, suggesting that (1) leaders need to represent us, and in a crisis “us” becomes more inclusive; (2) leaders need to be seen to do it for us, and there is no place for leader exceptionalism; and (3) leaders need to craft and embed a sense of us, and this creates a platform for citizenship.
This mirrors evidence from the Center for Creative Leadership on the nature and importance of “boundary spanning” leadership — defined as “the ability to create direction, alignment, and commitment across boundaries in service of a higher vision or goal” (Ernst & Yip, 2009). Direction, alignment, and commitment are far from evident within UK politics at the moment, and with its absence, the sense of shared purpose and capacity for collaboration needed for effective leadership and governance have evaporated. As the long-standing Tory MP Charles Walker stated following the chaotic vote on 19 October — “I’ve had enough of talentless people putting their tick in the box, not because it’s in the national interest but because it’s in their own personal interest” (Walker, 2022).
A Societal Perspective: Uniting Around a Shared Purpose
To understand Liz Truss’s spectacular failure, however, it is not sufficient to just consider individual and organizational factors. The speed and scale of her demise was largely shaped by factors beyond the direct control of either her or her colleagues.
She came into her position at a time of significant economic and geopolitical turmoil. The Russian invasion of Ukraine and a number of related factors (including the legacy of COVID-19) had driven up fuel costs and impacted food production, which had a direct impact on the cost of living for people across the UK. There were urgent calls for support in helping businesses and working families as well as those already receiving benefits, to cope with the rising cost of bills for fuel, food, and a wide range of essentials. Rapid action was required to put systems and processes in place before the winter in order to minimize the adverse effects.
The policy advocated by Liz Truss and her allies was one of establishing the UK as a high growth, low tax economy. Described by some as “Singapore on Thames” and others as “Trussonomics” — the approach is founded on the idea of cutting red tape and taxes to drive economic growth. This “trickle down” approach proposed that cutting taxes for the wealthiest would benefit those on lower incomes by mobilizing spending and job opportunities. This vision was core to Truss’s campaign to be elected as Party leader and was presented as confident and optimistic in the face of her opponent, Rishi Sunak’s, campaign that spoke of hard times ahead and the need to reign in public spending. When 141,000 Conservative members voted on whom to elect as party leader in September 2022, 57.4% chose Truss over Sunak (Statista, 2022), quite probably because of the more inspiring vision she set out of a post-Brexit Britain.
While those Conservative party members who voted for her, however, may have been persuaded by her argument, the “markets” were far less sympathetic — particularly when her (then) Chancellor, Kwasi Kwarteng, announced a “mini budget” on 23rd September 2022 that included £45 billion of unfunded tax cuts. This “spooked” the markets and led to a rapid drop in the value of the pound, forcing the Bank of England to intervene, increasing interest rates and buying government bonds. The crisis in the financial markets was fueled, to a large extent, by the lack of communication and engagement between Truss and Kwarteng with the business and financial sector (including the Bank of England and, indeed, their own MPs) in advance of the announcements. The unusual decision not to check projections with the Office for Budget Responsibility (established to give independent advice on the UK’s public finance) further undermined confidence — leaving many to assume that the government’s plans were not based on robust analysis and would leave a large gap in the UK economy.
Together, these factors demonstrate the importance of building consensus and support with key stakeholders beyond the immediate team/organization before launching a significant shift in strategy. Without this, the perceived competence, credibility, and legitimacy of leaders can quickly evaporate, making it very hard (or impossible) to regain sufficient support to move forward. The series of U-turns on the policies within the mini-budget, while essential to rebuilding some kind of stability within the markets, whittled away what remaining authority Truss held such that there was no option than to eventually resign.
Where Next?
Today we find ourselves turning to a new leader of the Conservative Party — someone who will also take on the role of Prime Minister. Recent events illustrate the ambivalent relationship to leadership we have in the UK (Bolden & Witzel, 2018). We appear to love and hate our leaders in equal measure — to put them on a pedestal and then topple them when they fail to behave in ways, or to deliver, what we expect (despite the warning signs that might already exist or the incredible demands they face).
While the primary focus of the current crisis in UK politics is “leadership,” we may, perhaps, be advised to spend more time thinking about the importance of “followership.” While each of the contenders for the role of Prime Minister had their own group of loyal advocates, to be successful Rishi Sunak will have to gain the support of a diverse range of stakeholders — including his own party, business and financial services, the public sector and the wider UK population — and demonstrate how he will represent and deliver against their needs and aspirations rather than those of a narrow clique. At the end of the day, leadership is about building, rather than burning, bridges. It is about articulating and working towards a shared purpose that unites, rather than divides, those around them. Ultimately, this might require those in senior leadership positions to put aside their own personal ambitions in the pursuit of a genuinely collective endeavor. As with the apocryphal quote of a Roman Senator claiming “there go my people… I must go after them, so I can find out where they want me to lead them!” (Witzel, 2016) — the key to political leadership is to follow the “will of the people.” Whether or not anyone in the current UK government has the willingness or capacity to do this is yet to be seen.
References and Further Reading
Bolden, R. and Witzel, M. (2018) ‘Dis-United Kingdom? Leadership at a crossroads’ in S. Western and E.J. Garcia (eds) Global Leadership Perspectives: Insights and Analysis, London: Sage Publications, pp 161-169.
Bolden, R., Hawkins, B., Gosling, J. and Taylor, S. (2011) Exploring Leadership: Individual, organizational and societal perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. – Second edition to be published in March 2023.
Ernst, C. and Yip, J. (2009) Bridging Boundaries: Meeting the Challenge of Workplace Diversity, Leadership in Action, 28(1), 3-6.
Grint, K., (2010) The Sacred in Leadership: Separation, Sacrifice, and Silence, Organization Studies, 31, 89-107.
Hartley, L. and Bolden R. (2022) ‘Addicted to Leadership: From crisis to recovery’ in Morgen Witzel (ed.) Post-Pandemic Leadership: Exploring solutions to a crisis, London: Routledge.
Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D. & Platow, M. J. (2020). The New Psychology of Leadership: Identity, influence and power, 2nd Edition. London & New York: Psychology Press.
Jetten, J., Reicher, S.D., Haslam, S.A. and Cruwys, T. (2020) Together Apart: The Psychology of COVID-19. London: Sage.
Ryan, M. and Haslam, S. A. (2005) The glass cliff: evidence that women are over-represented in precarious leadership positions, British Journal of Management, 16, 81-90.
Witzel, M. (2016) The first paradox of leadership is – leadership! In R. Bolden, M. Witzel and N. Linacre (eds) Leadership Paradoxes: Rethinking leadership for an uncertain world. London: Routledge.
Dr. Richard Bolden has been Professor of Leadership and Management and Director of Bristol Leadership and Change Centre at Bristol Business School, University of the West of England (UWE) since 2013. Prior to this he worked at the Centre for Leadership Studies at the University of Exeter Business School for over a decade and has also worked as an independent consultant, research psychologist and in software development in the UK and overseas.
His research explores the interface between individual and collective approaches to leadership and leadership development in a range of sectors, including higher education, healthcare and public services. He has published widely on topics including distributed, shared and systems leadership; leadership paradoxes and complexity; cross-cultural leadership; and leadership and change. He is Associate Editor of the journal Leadership.
Richard has secured funded research and evaluation projects for organisations including the NHS Leadership Academy, Public Health England, Leadership Foundation for Higher Education, Singapore Civil Service College and Bristol Golden Key and regularly engages with external organisations.
