Leadership approached from a phenomenological point of view

As I have shown, the relational and contextual aspect places weight on how leadership is not executed in a lonely vacuum but is an outcome of cultural, social and relational dynamics. The form and meaning of leadership vary with those involved in the making of it. Thus, leadership is

‘a collective product that is real only at that moment in time and in the view of those involved in it’ (Schedlitzki & Edwards, 2014, p. 7). This is the core of the phenomenological understanding of leadership.

Aligned with Raelin’s view of leadership as interpretative action, from the phenomenological domain, Ladkin (2010) argued that the dimension of purpose, which is a central concept in phenomenology, must also be considered when speaking of the leadership context; different individuals will have different purposes for participating in different contexts, and these different purposes will mobilise different personal interpretations and understandings of the context. Thus, if we strive to grasp what leadership is, we must look for what purpose people see in the particular context (Ladkin, 2010). The purpose aspect is relevant to mention here because it surfaces in the empirical material of this thesis as a discursive practice, and thus, will be an object for further investigation.

Ladkin further developed the idea of leadership as a fluctuating and dynamic phenomenon, co-created yet individually experienced, when she invited us to examine leadership with a phenomenological lens by asking ‘“what kind of phenomenon is leadership?’ instead of “what is leadership”’ (Ladkin, 2010, p. 3). Where the first question indicates that leadership is an objective entity, the phenomenological turn implies that we must take relation, context and purpose into account when studying leadership.

According to the phenomenological perspective set forth by Ladkin, any leader will be affected by the particular context and purpose. For leadership scholars, there is much to be gained by attempting to understand what effects affect the leader and how, as well as what the consequences are, both for a deeper understanding of leadership as a phenomenon and for leadership as an occurrence in the context of a wider ecosystem of organisations.

This perspective relates closely to the idea that discursive leadership and leadership as Discourse must be distinguished (Alvesson & Kärreman, 2000b; Fairhurst, 2009; Fairhurst & Uhl-Bien, 2012), which is central to the discussion of leadership identity construction in this thesis. The distinction between discursive leadership and leadership as Discourse is pursued more closely later in this chapter, concerning leadership identity as a narrative construct.

The debate concerning leadership as phenomena and theoretical construct has significant aspects in common with the discourse on culture as concept. As with any abstract conceptualisation of culture, conceptualisations of leadership are just as tricky to match with reality as the concepts of culture. As stated by the semantic scholar Korzybski (1933) and adapted as an important note to self by many contributors in the social sciences, not the least among ethnographers, the map is not the territory. To discuss a phenomenon as an abstraction is something entirely different from living it.

Again, Ladkin indicated the essence of this problematic aspect when conceptualising leadership when she compared leadership with love. We recognise love when we feel it, but talking about love or analysing is not the same as feeling love or being in love. Love as a concept is not the same phenomenon as love in real life. In this setting, the same applies to leadership as an experienced phenomenon (Ladkin, 2010). Here, Ladkin aligned with Alvesson and Kärreman (2000b) in rejecting the quest for ‘the one’ conceptual idea of leadership, seeing the chase for an exclusive and coherent ideology of leadership as futile.

A phenomenological approach seems more fruitful to approach leadership as a myriad of ideological micropractices that build on some common ideas and beliefs, wherein the content of these beliefs and the way they are acted out will always be distinct and unique. Thus, there will be as many forms and understandings of leadership as there are people engaging in the co-creation of what Raelin (2011) termed leaderful practices, or what Ladkin (2010) saw as leadership moments.

Even if this project does not engage with leadership practice as concept according to Raelin’s idea, it addresses stories on leadership and how leaders understand themselves in the light of how they depict their experience with leadership practice. Thus, it becomes of interest to understand how leaders describe their part-taking in the participative, interpretative process of co-creation that Raelin mentions, whether they understand leadership as something that is done to others, as well as how language is an element in that understanding.

If we understand leadership as a product of a reciprocal process and social practice, this means that we must shift from approaching leadership as the instigator to focusing on social practices that produce leadership. Leadership can no longer be thought of as a static entity separated from the people it acts on or from the people who act under it. Instead, we must approach leadership in an opposite fashion: lived leadership first and leadership theory thereafter.

Ladkin developed this stance in her model of the leadership moment. She provided her model as an attempt to explain ‘the plethora’ of leadership theories and definitions as well as a new method of conceptualising the essence of leadership as an object for investigation (Ladkin, 2010). Aligned with other critical leadership scholars such as Alvesson and Kärreman, Ladkin accentuated the importance of recognising that as with leadership in theory, leadership as experience is not a static entity or status. Leadership is a social phenomenon constituted by people of flesh and blood, body and mind, operating in shifting circumstances. One can be a leader in one context and a follower

in another, or both simultaneously (as is the case for middle managers, indicated by Sveningsson and Alvesson [2003] and Thomas and Linstead [2002]).

This indicates that leadership as a phenomenon and identity emerges in particular contexts. The total particularities at any given time influence how that specific leadership is experienced and interpreted there and then by the people involved. Leadership cannot be approached as a phenomenon that exists outside of time, space and place or bodies, because leadership is constituted by and among people who act and interact at a particular time, in a particular space and in a particular place.