Trust and self-trust as instruments for keeping control

The strong belief that a leader best builds trust by bypassing the formal hierarchy and downplaying authority to gain legitimacy is also the tale of a very confident leader. Thus, trust and self-trust again unfold as building bricks in the leadership identity construction.

4.5.3 A lot of practicing and hullabaloo

As shown in Charlotte’s depiction below, her trust project in orchestrating the collective where everyone’s talent is boosted as a foundation for trust can be a tedious task:

I have been talking about, that it is a big orchestra, but there are only a few performances and the rest of the time it is a lot of practicing and hullabaloo, and it is a lot of noise and not everybody knows they are in an orchestra or that the others can hear them, so it is never any total harmony as that term implies to me, but it could be I am misunderstanding, but it is clear that when I look back and think; now I have been the director for two and a half year and look at what we have achieved, that feeling I can have and it can be an immense uplift, but it is never clean or a glossy die-cut, there are always a lot of shadows and cuts and it never stops being exciting.

The orchestra metaphor clearly points towards the ambivalent dynamics that Charlotte identifies with as a leader. Orchestrating talents and recognising everyone’s contribution are portrayed as a demanding project. According to her account, she has replaced the use of formal authority with investment in individual employee intimacy. This is how she sees herself building trust and legitimacy in her role as a leader. Because she is a leader with self-trust, she has the capacity to manage what she describes as a leadership style different from that of other leaders. Charlotte describes how she sees the trust investment as worthwhile; the return of investment on trust that she believes she gains in her leadership triumphs over the hullabaloo.

The references to identity markers are numerous in Alex’ story. When he talks about his life as a leader, there are many parallels to the previous leaders’ stories related to how trust and self-trust seem to be crucial elements in the construction of his leadership identity.

I established a very flat structure very quickly, and that is my type. I am of course a very… I know that I have this authoritarian inside of me, and the will to instruct. All details are important, and I must often struggle a bit to let go and such, but that to perhaps get everybody on board, that to talk with…. For example, I experienced that the cleaning personnel who has the lowest status in our organization, had almost never been addressed by the former boss of the institution. (..) And I begun very early to have lunch with them, totally with intention, and to talk with them when others were watching, and set a standard, that this was new way at the nursing home, get rid of the layered hierarchy that had been built up.

This sequence elucidates how Alex sees himself as a leader who alters existing hierarchical structures to gain trust and legitimacy as a leader. His story is yet another in this project where I observe a leader who opposes leading by what he portrays as the traditional hierarchy, and instead focuses on relational investments with his employees. Moreover, his statement of being a leader who challenges established ideas about leadership hierarchies points to self-trust as a corner pillar in his identity as a leader, and correlates to how the other leaders present their leadership as representing something different. Furthermore, trust and self-trust manifest as fundamental pillars in Alex’s narrative about his leadership identity construction.

The identity aspect is overt when Alex depicts his life as a leader and shows that he is highly alert concerning his own position and ‘the kind of type’ that he thinks he is; he is the type of leader who considers it critical to maintain leadership legitimacy by demonstrating trust and self-trust.

He repeatedly refers to how he deliberately works to establish his legitimacy as a leader by challenging ideas about distance, influence and hierarchy in the organisation:

This about role models… (..). I am of the old school that prefer to be the first here in the morning and the last one to go home, without it leading to any pressure on my middle managers to follow the same pattern (..). If I am to be at a meeting at nine o’clock in the morning somewhere, I always pop by the office first. I might come at seven just to lock up the door and turn on the light, and then I am perhaps not coming back until seven hours later, but there I have been really aware. And when people talk about presence and visibility, that is something all leaders talk about, then that

is one of my tricks, I always take a round in the morning, up and see and say hello, I come at different times so I see the night shifters, if I am not there as early, then I meet the day shifters, often it goes quickly because everyone is busy with theirs, one round in the middle of the day and one round before I go home. Always, no matter what time it is. And there I feel, that people tell me where I have been previously, that this about visibility they have really felt. I am a master at getting totally disconnected and space out and get distracted (..) but still I am rated as visible.

Throughout his tale, Alex demonstrates how he believes in the importance of his physical presence and interaction with employees as tools for building legitimacy in his leadership. Here, his depiction is equivalent to Charlotte’s when she talks about the defining presence in her leadership.

At the same time, the strategic facet related to showing physical attendance is overt in his story when he explicitly ponders the identity aspect, questioning his own motivation:

(..) I remember that at my first Christmas party, I was very aware of dancing with the oldest women, - I don’t know if that was instinctively or intentionally, it was an overlap, and I always wonder about that, why I do things, if it is simply smartness and slickness, or if it is more like emotional (..).

Another incident occurs when Alex reflects on his identity as a leader, describing how he specifically sees himself engaging with the role on a conceptual level:

But I think that I very quickly, without glorifying myself, that I have always been searching for justice, and in many ways the anti-authoritarian, but then I see those driving forces in me, I really want to contribute with ideas and get things in my way, I never quite get that…. To where does the leader go? Does he go in front or by the side, or is he pulling people or does he go behind and push? I never quite get the grip of it, but I believe I had a really good effect on the nursing home, that people got on board, and that I would stand with the smokers and those who had the lowest position. I really quickly became a buddy and one you could come to and talk to. I didn’t appear dangerous to talk to, and then I also got immensely much information about how the organization worked and about what did not work, and I had seen that previously as well, that if they are not on board, it does not work if they aren’t.

In this passage, it becomes clear that Alex has a meta-perspective on his own leadership and how he manoeuvres as a strategic leader.

4.6.1 A lovely blend

Alex began by stating that he has established a flat structure in his organisation. In this paragraph, when he reflects on his superior role and responsibility as a leader, he nonetheless describes how he is highly aware of his supreme position and his own performance in a hierarchy where some have low ranks. He accounts for how he makes deliberate use of his position to manifest and deploy trust, acting with self-trust in his leadership. He reveals great concern with being a tactical leader when he portrays how he works to foster trust with his employees across hierarchy:

Yes, when I first came here I heard that there was a maintenance manager who was bloody difficult. And it wasn’t difficult at all! It was an easy thing, he just needed to be heard and seen a little. When I make changes to the structure, instead of just having leaders in on the meeting for leaders, then I take in all those who represent a domain, and they get the same representation in that leader’s meeting as the leaders.

That means, those who are responsible for cleaning, occupational therapists, culture, physiotherapy, the doctors, and that I believe is important in such organizations like ours that are so small, you must bring in those who also lead their own profession.

And then a lot is done. That maintenance manager, he almost had tears in his eyes and said, it is the first time in thirty years that I have been allows to join a leader’s meeting! He was a very authoritarian, powerful guy who performed a lot of power even if he was a maintenance manager and defined his work hours and domains, but as soon as he joined in on the leader’s meeting, then the day after I could say that now we are going to have a great Christmas tree, now you must out up the Christmas lights, or now you have to get out to help the farmer makes holes for the sheep’s fence and it must happen now, not on Monday, now, but because he in a way had been seen and because I understood his domains of responsibility and because I understood that he had domains that no one else had the chance to take, technical stuff related to fire protection technical solutions, I had to show him that I understood that. So, it is such a lovely blend of understanding other people’s domains of responsibility, understand their profession, but that they in a way are in… Anyway, the effect was superb. Suddenly the maintenance manager was Mr Nice Guy, and also perceived as that by the others.

Here, Alex describes specifically how he sees himself as a leader who works on a strategic micro level to bond with individuals among the employees to gain trust, and thus, to build trust with the larger employee community. Opposing traditional hierarchical boundaries is viewed as a crucial tactic in this. Thus, Alex displays a great self-belief in his own capability to manage beyond the

established norms and still maintain legitimacy. Again, as in previous stories, the tactic of downplaying formal authority as a method of establishing legitimacy, demonstrating self-trust and building trust is distinct.

In Alex’s story, much circles around the management of his identity as a leader. When I ask him about what he believes his strengths are as a leader, he answers:

Engagement! (..) I notice I get a little touchy; I’d rather not be perceived as a clown, but rather that it is deep engagement and real sincerity that drives me. And I believe that people perceive me not really as an entertainer, but I am very loose concerning my co-workers, no matter who it is, I try to be very loose. It’ my niche, that engagement of mine, and many have asked me about it, “could you have been other places”? (..) Sometimes I think that I have the answer to a couple of things, so then it is simply like that, that I want power to carry through with it (..).

So, that about leading is quite like – there is no doubt that leaders are a gang of narcissist too, you do have the biggest egos among leaders, and that I find a little embarrassing, and it is not only coquetry, I find it a little not so okay, so I struggle a little with… But.. I have deliberately sought power to be able to drive through engagement, about that I am not in doubt.

This paragraph shows that there is a great deal of identity work going on in Alex story. He describes how he struggles with aspects of narcissism, the sense of his ego and his lust for power.

Simultaneously, he recognises these facets as a part of the role he has actively sought. The way he reflects upon his practice, he portrays clear ambivalence to his role but also communicates a strong kind of self-trust; he admits to the ambivalence but is still dedicated to his engagement.

4.6.2 Identity contradictions

In a passage in which Alex and I discuss personal strengths and virtues in his leadership, Alex makes explicit the contradictions he experiences in his role as a leader concerning his core identity values. His identity work as a leader is once more explicit. As with the other leaders, honesty is a core idea:

I am very concerned with justice. And honesty. That perhaps is the most difficult as a leader – to be totally honest all the time. But at the same time, you care for those around you, so it is obvious that you are not honest, you spare people, you are careful with people, you vary the push (..) And concerning that I have had a lot of bad role models… people who pull the wool over one’s eye… I am a kind of guy that would

like to problematize things. But I think that good leadership is about complete honesty (..).

The way I interpret Alex here, he is displaying a highly explicit notion about what it means to him to be a leader. He identifies himself with an ideal about complete honesty, a notion he shares with the other stories presented in this project. In addition, he reveals experience with value contradictions. He portrays himself as concerned with ‘varying the push’ to spare people and to show consideration; he also wants to problematise things. At the same time, he also seeks complete honesty and justice. The sum of these aspirations clearly represents a demanding number of concerns. Again, the identity dimension in his story about his leadership is explicit and very strong. He is particularly clear on the conflicting aspect he sees concerning his identity as a leader.

He questions the legitimacy of the leader as an institutionalised role and his own representation of that institution:

It must have meaning, that which I am doing. Engagement is very much connected to meaning. It must be meaningful. It must be something that is important, and preferably for the community (..)But the construction I find really stupid. Can one lead everything, that is? Can one really lead anything? Can one jump from one place to another that is diametrically different? Sometimes in organizational life it is embarrassing – one can be a leader in big unions, and then just jump over to the employer’s side. Is that possible? What is this? Is it just a roleplay?

This passage illustrates how Alex clearly recognises the leadership role as something that is actively created and constructed, where legitimacy is at stake all the time and something that can be questioned. The validity as a leader is not at all given. On the one hand, he finds the construct stupid, whereas on the other hand, because of his ability to engage with the role, the meaning aspect is fulfilled.

Again I find a paradox. Alex does not believe in leadership as a construct per se, yet he believes fully in his own leadership construction project. He expresses a great belief in his mandate as a leader as well as utters a strong sense of self-trust in his skills to accomplish that mandate. While he is fully aware that the position as a leader is an institutionalised and constructed role, he is also highly mindful about how he manages that position, personalising it, marking ownership to it, and placing much effort into how he works with the construct to make it seem authentic and gain legitimacy.

4.6.3 A complex interface

As a construction worker of trust in this context, my reading is that Alex accounts for trust as his most critical building material to gain legitimacy. Trust is derived from honesty and justice, from opposing and altering established hierarchies. Alex articulates a great trust in his project, where he communicates a profound self-trust in his ability to manage his leadership as an unorthodox kind.

However, he keeps questioning his own role, and throughout his tale he demonstrates an ambivalent idea about his legitimacy. This doubt is particularly highlighted in a passage where he refers to the process of acquiring rabbits for therapeutic means on behalf of a nursing home. Here, the conflict he sees between leadership as a concept and his own identity and rightfulness as a leader transpires:

But in our business, it is always like this, that if you say that you will have rabbits…

If I had said in front of a hundred employees at a nursing home, that “what do you say, should we have rabbits”?, then you can swear that the first that comes to the surface is, “who shall take care of them, who will feed them, how are we going to manage that”? It is always problem-focused. It is very seldom, if you ask openly, that you get a “wow, imagine those wonderful encounters and imagine the tactile stimuli and imagine the ones with dementia who sit with these in their lap, and this we have read a lot of research about, and this works!” It is very seldom like that.

Then you shall persuade people to do something, which is professionally the right thing. This I have been giving a lot of thinking: Should you use a lot of pedagogy and a lot of… energy on it, or should you just use raw power? I use such a lovely blend. “The leadership has decided”.

Here, Alex openly expresses the incongruence lingering in his identity project as a leader; his leadership is a result of balancing between a very clear political ideology and that which he sees as reality. Reality and ideology do not always fit, and when the mismatch becomes too demanding, Alex distances himself from the leadership project as a personal undertaking, and instead refers to institutionalised ‘leadership’.

Towards the end of our conversation, Alex returns to contemplative thoughts on how he sees his role as a leader, in which he reveals a great apprehension regarding how he is perceived, and thus, again expresses how his leadership identity construction is at constant work:

(..) But I am very concerned with how I am being perceived. I might be less concerned with how I am perceived now, than before. But I am less concerned that everyone should think that I am the world’s coolest now than before. And this about having so close chemistry with people you lead, is not necessarily… You still lead and they do their job, they can perform their job totally brilliant even if… In the beginning, I misunderstood and believed I needed chemistry with everybody. But you do not get your job done if you are not fair. If you are misliked then you do not get your job done, but you don’t need to be loved, you don’t need that.

I read this paragraph as an underpinning of how Alex is concerned with his identity as a leader, and how his concern links back to trust and self-trust. Alex’s identity as a leader is constituted by what he describes as a complex interface, where many potentially conflicting notions about his legitimacy as a leader reign. According to Alex’s story, when it comes to mistakes, misunderstandings and disputes, margins are clearly experienced as a fluctuant landscape. As Alex depicts his navigation in this landscape, he outlines how a prosperous mastering of this complex interface demands a constant greenhousing of trust, driven by his self-trust.