In order to develop an approach to investigating how the influences of formal leadership development programmes could be traced in organisations, it was necessary to take a step back and consider how similar studies had been conducted previously, and the results that these presented. This chapter addresses this task, firstly investigating literature on the study of leadership development, before moving onto work focusing on investigating the organisational influence of such
programmes. Studies specifically within the national context of Denmark will then be considered, closing in on the empirical interests of the study at hand. This guides the remainder of the chapter, which examines literatures with particular relevance for the framing of the empirical study.
Studying Leadership Development
By tracing the foci of research approaches towards the study of leadership development, a tendency towards following three main strands of investigation is revealed (Carroll & Levy, 2010; Nicholson & Carroll, 2013). The first of these are functionalist approaches, focusing upon the development of individual leaders’
repertoires of techniques and tools in order to increase their effectivity, see (Conger, 1992; Lord & Hall, 2005). The second strand is constructivist inspired approaches, regarding leadership development as facilitating an identity transition (Petriglieri 2011; Kempster 2009). Thirdly, social constructionist approaches focus on the role of discourse, understanding leadership development as interaction with and within different discourses, an approach characterised by (Carroll & Levy, 2010; Fairhurst &
Putnam, 2004; Thomas & Linstead, 2002).
Day, Fleenor, Atwater, Sturm, & McKee (2014) offers a thorough review of recent tendencies and advances in the field of research, emphasising the significant distinction between leader development, as focusing on the intra personal, as opposed to leadership development focusing on the inter-personal. More recently, leadership development has also been approached from the perspective of
philosophical hermeneutics (Hibbert, Beech, & Siedlok, 2017)as an aesthetic experience (Carroll & Smolović Jones, 2018) and as a tool for reflection (Knudsen, 2016).
A commonality of these approaches has, theoretical convergences aside, been that the focus of research falls upon the changes occurring within the outlooks and
understandings of the individual leaders participating in the regime of development programmes. Correspondingly, the influence of these development programmes at the organisational level and the relationship between LDPs and work in-situ has
remained largely in the background (Avolio, 2007; Carroll et al., 2008; Day, 2000;
Gagnon & Collinson, 2014; Porter & McLaughlin, 2006)
Investigating the Organisational Influence of Leadership Development Meta analytical reviews of literature pertaining to such an organisational influence have been completed (Avolio et al., 2010, 2009). These perceive such development programmes as leadership interventions, and through analysis of the results of relevant studies suggest that these interventions uniformly provide a positive return, with the extent of this dependent on a variety of variables such as organisational context and the theoretical approach of the particular intervention undertaken. This suggests that LDPs have a very definite influence on organisational activities, with the results also indicating that closer study of the specific organisational practice is necessary to determine how this influence manifests in the local contexts.
Studies conducted by Black and Earnest (2009) build upon an evaluation based framework (J Grove et al., 2005) by proposing a comprehensive instrument capable
of measuring outcomes of leadership development; on the individual, the organisational and the community levels. This instrument, taking the form of an online survey, also suggests positive influence of LD programmes on organisational practices. However, the very nature of the research, based on the post hoc and individual accounts of leaders, provides a very specific perspective on the organisational reality, again focusing upon the individual leader.
Bilhuber Galli & Müller-Stewens (2012) shift this focus from the individual leader, using a qualitative theory-building case study to investigate the influence of leadership development practices on an organisation’s social capital. This is understood as the structure and quality of social relationships between individuals or organizations, citing the work of Ronald Burt, where social capital is considered to be the ‘contextual complement of human capital’ (Burt, 1997, p.339)“ In their study, observations, documents and qualitative interviews were used to investigate the relationship between internal leadership development practices of a large Multi Business Firm, and the extent to which these facilitated cross-business synergy within it, in terms of strengthening social capital. The leadership development practices were found to contribute to a strengthening of social capital, with action learning activities deemed to be particularly efficient in establishing strong forms of this (Bilhuber Galli
& Müller-Stewens, 2012, 21).
Kempster (Kempster, S & Stewart, 2010) offers an alternative perspective and methodology for the investigation of leadership development, drawing on a co-produced auto-ethnography of the on-the-job situated learning processes of new manager entering a senior leadership team. While there is no formal educational setting to be taken into consideration within the study, its qualitative approach provides new insights into different kinds of leadership development processes and how these can unfold.
Research in the National context of Denmark
A survey study undertaken within the national context of Denmark, by the Danish institute for evaluation (Danmarks Evalueringsinstitut, 2012b), measures the influence of leadership development through a survey instrument directed towards participating managers’ individual evaluation. Similarly positive findings were returned from these evaluations.
The recently concluded “Leadership and Performance” (LEAP)4 project led5 by the Department of Political Science at Aarhus school of Business and Society, see (Bøgh Andersen, Bøllingtoft, Christensen, & Bøgh Hald, 2016; Bro et al., 2017; Holten et al., 2015; Ladegaard Bro, 2016) adopted an explicitly experimental approach. The research design of the project involves the implementation of field experiments involving different forms of leadership training offered to managers working in the private and public sector. The managers participating in the experiment were divided into four cohorts, one was trained in transactional leadership, the second in
transformational leadership, the third in a combination of the two, while the fourth was a control group. The effect of these interventions was then measured through pre and post survey studies of the participants and their staff, as well as analysis of broader organisational performance indicators,6concluding thus:
“Overall, the experiment shows that the leadership training actually changed the leadership behaviour of the leaders who participated.
Furthermore, leadership can have a positive effect on employee motivation when employee and organizational values are congruent.”7
4 http://ps.au.dk/en/research/research-projects/leap-leadership-and-performance/
5 The LEAP project is a cooperation between Aarhus University, Copenhagen Business School, University of Copenhagen, Aalborg University, University of Southern Denmark and KORA.
6 http://ps.au.dk/en/research/research-projects/leap-leadership-and-performance/about-the-leap-project/project-description/#x4
7 http://ps.au.dk/en/research/research-projects/leap-leadership-and-performance/ (Retrieved 24.04.18)
In an earlier PhD study (Weinreich, 2014), a more qualitative approach to studying the influence of diploma programme in leadership offered to public sector managers incorporates a survey investigation, qualitative interviews with selected managers, focus group interviews with selected employees and observation of participants in meetings. The study considers the genesis and evolution of the diploma programme in leadership on the background of a broad discourse analysis of policy reform in the Danish public sector from 2001-2011. Here the programme is perceived as an instrument offering theoretical and practical resources to reprogram professional managers and free them from their vocational humanistic training and loyalties, thereby enabling them to be more open to competition and market logics. The study suggests a targeted process of professionalization, contending that the diploma programme is intended to encourage current and future managers of institutions to accept responsibility for the implementation of governmental policies aimed at the modernisation of the public sector, while simultaneously accepting the challenge of engaging and motivating their staff to do the same (ibid; 29). This is especially relevant as the LDP studied is the same as that which is to be focused upon in the present study.
Contributing to the Existing Knowledge
The review of approaches suggests that a new dimension could be added to this area of research through the development of a detailed and focused study within the actualities of specific contexts- both educational and organisational- in order to understand situated practices of leadership development and their relationship to managerial work “in the wild.” The demand for these kinds of situated studies is underlined by Kempster (2009b, p.47),"Similarly, there has been a call for a grounded, qualitative approach into processes of leadership and its development and effectiveness within a discrete context (Bryman & Bell, 2003; Bryman, Stephens, &
Campo, 1996; Jay A. Conger, 1998; Lowe & Gardner, 2000; Parry, 1998)"
Review of the literature suggests that there is a dearth of qualitative studies into the potential influence – or indeed lack of influence –of leadership development on situated managerial work. In particular, it is difficult to find qualitative studies covering the entire process of formalised LDPs by spanning both the educational and organisational contexts, as is the aim of the present study. Closer qualitative study of these processes, then, can potentially contribute new insights into the eventual organisational influences of such programmes, what might constitute such influences, as well as enabling a greater understanding of how these may be brought about. From establishing this potential contribution, the following sections seek to engage with relevant literatures relevant to the specific areas into which the study is to explore.
The Middle Manager and Leadership
The tendency of offering leadership education to middle managers, can be regarded as reaching for a “low hanging fruit,” (Bro et al., 2017) in terms of attempting to increase organisational effectiveness, particularly by seeking to improve motivation amongst staff in public service organisations (Rainey, 2014; Vandenabeele, 2014).
This section will provide an overview of literature pertaining to the general
understandings of the middle manager and how this position is impacted upon by the prevalent focus on leadership and the proliferation of leadership development.
The position of the middle manager at the centre of the organisational hierarchy results in contradictory forces guiding their work, from above and below, where they are “controlled and controllers, and resisted and resisters” (Harding, Lee, & Ford, 2014). As such, the manner in which they manoeuvre in this organisational space is important; suggesting the orientation of their work can be directed towards different ends. This has implications for how they approach organisational change initiatives:
opposing them, supporting them or mediating between these two positions (Floyd &
Wooldridge, 1997; Rouleau, 2005; Rouleau & Balogun, 2011), and therefore potentially influencing the eventual outcomes of these. This emphasises the
importance that the work of the middle manager can have and the importance of this in terms of leadership processes.
Alvesson & Svenningsson (2003) discusses the distinctions made between
management and leadership. Their empirical study drawing on qualitative interviews surmises that the influence of leadership discourse results in the “extra-ordinisation”
of mundane managerial work. “We argue that what managers (‘leaders’) do may not be that special, but because they are managers doing ‘leadership’, fairly mundane acts may be given an extra- ordinary meaning, at least by the managers
themselves.(ibid;1438)” An implication is that such extra-ordination has positive and negative implications for understandings of status of managerial work and the identity of managers (Hay, 2014).
Kempster (2009) looks specifically at the role of leadership development in the schism between managers and leadership, using qualitative methods to gain insights into the lived experiences of participants in situated educational and organisational practices, while remaining sensitive to the fundamental differences in these. Here leadership development aims to provide “organisationally focused learning, oriented towards and aligned with corporate strategy” (Burgoyne, Williams, & Hirsh, 2004;
Fulmer & Wagner, 1999) (ibid; 85), providing the opportunity for identity
construction as one element of an experiential complex , where ”leadership learning can be seen as a continual process of ‘becoming.’” (ibid; 181)
Ford and Harding (2007) address the phenomenon from a critical management studies position, where the provision of leadership development for middle managers is perceived as an instrument for direct regulations of identity, which “encourage individuals to open themselves up to new forms of the self, but forms of the self limited within boundaries that conform to those required by the
organization”(ibid;484). This suggests a more invasive and malevolent dimension to the prevalence of LDPs.
Reconsidering the Manager in the Danish Public Sector
In recent decades, developments in the Danish public sector have been guided by broader change and reform processes in line with principles of New Public Management and geared towards increased modernisation, professionalization and quality control, (Borgnakke, 2013, p. 106; Regeringen, 2007) ultimately seeking to optimise performance and efficiency. While the normative implications of these targeted processes have had definite influences on discursive practices within the public sector, the influence on social practices and the actual work being done remains more uncertain.
Empirical studies conducted within this period suggest a gradual shift in the role and understanding of management within the Danish public sector. This can be described as giving rise to the historical transformation of the concept of management and the manager: evolving from that of a figure concerned with administrative control, to include the exercise of effective rational control, and more qualified organisational planning, before progressing into its current manifestation – as that of a professional manager incorporating each of these aspects (Rennison, 2010). This inherently involves a distancing to previous vocational values and loyalties, “The leader must step out of the specific profession - out of the professional uniform and into that of professional management where a manager has multiple disciplines and multiple positions”(ibid; 270).
These changes in the public sector give rise to a shift in the priorities to which managers of institutions should orientate their work, from those of the occupational manager8 focusing on the values of the given profession as the compass for management in providing supervision and advice to staff and monitoring standards
8 In Danish ”faglig leder”
for their work (Voxted, 2016, p.41). Instead those of a professional manager capable of undertaking the kind of strategic management approach necessary to operate within the pervasive cross-pressures of New Public Management (Torfing, 2012) communicating central goals and targets to staff (Voxted, 2016, p.42) become central.
Institutional managers are expected to be capable of acting while explicitly positioned within wider organisational structures and decision making processes. This demands an increasingly reflexive and evolving approach based on the establishment of a
‘managerial space’(Pedersen, 2008) to balance organisational actualities and traditional vocational values with a greater understanding and engagement with the translation of municipal and governmental reforms (Jørgensen & Væksthus for Ledelse, 2009).
Professionalization or Re-professionalization?
The shifts developing in the expectations towards institutional managers echoes ideas of the genesis of the “hybrid manager”(Kragh Jespersen, 2005; Sehested, 2012) and hybrid professionalism, (Machin, 2018; Noordegraaf, 2007; 2015) when professional and managerial values come together. This hybrid manager should actively
participate in the construction of their role and the manner in which they administer it, actively brokering between organisational strategy and institutional actualities and representing a fundamental change in the orientation of managerial work: from occupational professionalism to organisational professionalism (Elkjaer & Brandi, 2014; Evetts, 2003, 2013). Consideration of this as a process of
re-professionalisation provides a sensitivity to the dynamics at play and an indication of how managerial work comes to be oriented differently.
This provides the background upon which the approach to studying the organisational influence of the diploma programme in leadership proceeds. The review of literature relating to leadership development and the organisational influence of this, as well as literature pertaining to the organisational conditions of the managers participating
within the specific programme to be studied, provides an informed basis for the development of a suitable approach. This takes the form of qualitative study of situated educational and organisational practices and the extent to which these inform one another, as well as the influence this has on the professional identities of the participants.
Chapter 3: The Empirical Context