Narrative construction of leader identity in a leader development program context

Jakobsen, Gitte P. Doctoral Thesis Narrative construction of leader identity in a leader development program context PhD Series, No. 16.2009 Provided in Cooperation with: Copenhagen Business School (CBS) Suggested Citation: Jakobsen, Gitte P. (2009) : Narrative construction of leader identity in a leader development program context, PhD Series, No. 16.2009, ISBN 9788759383940, Copenhagen Business School (CBS), Frederiksberg, https://hdl.handle.net/10398/7807 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/208724 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ Doctoral School of Organisation and Management Studies PhD Series 16.2009 PhD Series 16.2009 Narrative Construction of Leader Identity in a Leader Development Program Context copenhagen business school handelshøjskolen solbjerg plads 3 dk-2000 frederiksberg danmark www.cbs.dk ISSN 0906-6934 ISBN 978-87-593-8394-0 Narrative Construction of Leader Identity in a Leader Development Program Context Gitte P. Jakobsen CBS PhD nr 16-2009 Nikolaos Korfiatis • A5 OMSLAG - GB.indd 1 15/06/09 10:35:47 Narrative Construction of Leader Identity in a Leader Development Program Context Gitte P. Jakobsen Narrative Construction of Leader Identity in a Leader Development Program Context 1st edition 2009 PhD Series 16.2009 © The Author ISBN: 978-87-593-8394-0 ISSN: 0906-6934 All rights reserved. No parts of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Narrative Construction of Leader Identity in a Leader Development Program Context Industrial PhD Dissertation Gitte Petersen Jakobsen Institute for Organization, Copenhagen Business School March 2009 ii iii Acknowledgements First of all thank you to the five leaders without whom this project would never have been. Thank you for your commitment, trust and for sharing your narratives of not only the virtues, but also the doubts and struggles of leader development and practice. A warm thanks to my supervisor Professor Anne Marie Søderberg, for your patience, insights, and guidance in bringing the project forward. You truly know how to guide without taking over the helm. Thanks to Professor Mette Mønsted for your enthusiastic encouragement in the early formulation of the project, and thank you to Professor Henrik Holt Larsen for opening doors and supervision in the early phases of the project. Thanks to Anne Reff Pedersen, Jesper Strandgaard, Mads Hermansen, and Tor Hernes for valuable input at the WIP seminars and to my PhD colleagues for sharing with me the joy and turmoil of the research process and journey. In Right Management many thanks to the former CEO of Right Management Denmark, Anne Marie Hoffmann, for supporting learning and exploration in a business context, and for giving me the freedom and opportunity to engage with the PhD project. Thank you to Erik Kjær for inviting me into his facilitative practice from where I have learned so much, and a warm thanks to my former colleagues Carsten Pedersen and Palle Blakskjær, who shared with me many intense facilitative moments at The Executive Training Program, and for much laughter and gratifying work. Thank you to the SCANCOR community at Stanford University, who provided me with “a room of one’s own”, introduced me to a fantastic international learning environment and made my family’s year abroad a fabulous experience. Thank you to my sister in arms PhD student Alice Juel Jacobsen, with whom I shared many supportive discussions at working camps enriching both the product and the process. Also many thanks to Mary B.Bille for correcting my English and giving the entire dissertation a make over. Thank you to my old friend Dorte Sandager, who in the projects last hectic phase stepped in, and also warmest thanks to my long time friends Birgitte Munk, Berit Anne Larsen, and Helene Bjerg for support and keeping me smiling and sane on the road. Most of all, special thanks to Niels Jakobsen, for never loosing faith, for supporting me in every way, and for love and peace at heart, also thanks for taking time off to help the final editing. And to our children Ellen, Oskar, and Aksel, who breathes with me everyday making life a thrill, and keep reminding me that happiness lies in the small things of the world. iv v Prologue ”I am honored to be with you today at your commencement from one of the finest universities in the world. I never graduated from college. Truth be told, this is the closest I've ever gotten to a college graduation. Today I want to tell you three stories from my life. That's it. No big deal - just three stories. The first story is about connecting the dots. I dropped out of Reed College after the first 6 months, but then stayed around as a drop-in for another 18 months or so before I really quit. So why did I drop out? It started before I was born. My biological mother was a young, unwed college graduate student, and she decided to put me up for adoption. She felt very strongly that I should be adopted by college graduates, so everything was all set for me to be adopted at birth by a lawyer and his wife. Except that when I popped out they decided at the last minute that they really wanted a girl. So my parents, who were on a waiting list, got a call in the middle of the night asking: "We have an unexpected baby boy; do you want him?" They said: "Of course." My biological mother later found out that my mother had never graduated from college and that my father had never graduated from high school. She refused to sign the final adoption papers. She only relented a few months later when my parents promised that I would someday go to college. And 17 years later I did go to college. But I naively chose a college that was almost as expensive as Stanford, and all of my working-class parents' savings were being spent on my college tuition. After six months, I couldn't see the value in it. I had no idea what I wanted to do with my life and no idea how college was going to help me figure it out. And here I was spending all of the money my parents had saved their entire life. So I decided to drop out and trust that it would all work out OK. It was pretty scary at the time, but looking back it was one of the best decisions I ever made. The minute I dropped out I could stop taking the required classes that didn't interest me, and begin dropping in on the ones that looked interesting. If I had never dropped out, I would have never dropped in on this calligraphy class, and personal computers might not have the wonderful typography that they do. Of course it was impossible to connect the dots looking forward when I was in college. But it was very, very clear looking backwards ten years later. Again, you can't connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards. So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future. You have to trust in something — your gut, destiny, life, karma, whatever. This approach has never let me down, and it has made all the difference in my life.” Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple Computer and of Pixar Animation Studios, Stanford University; Speech of the Commencement1, June 12, 2005 1 The Speech of the Commencement is held every year at the graduation ceremony at Stanford University. June 12, 2005 Steve Jobs was invited to speak. This is part of the speech he delivered, the speech can be found in its entirety at: http://newsservice.stanford.edu/news/2005/june15/jobs-061505 2 brand. Hence, leadership is publicly evaluated on the basis of how the leader “tells the story” of him and the organization i.e. how he is seen to communicate organizational values and aspirations and the extent to which he exemplifies and lives the brand. The personalization of leadership implies that the leader can no longer hide “who he is” behind a role or a task, but is expected to interact with others as a person. This brings to the fore new requirements for leadership. As Hirschhorne points out, leaders of today: “…face a complex task – they have to identify with own ambitions and limitations at the very same time. They must step out of the formal leadership role and show themselves as people for their subordinates – people who not only contain strong aspects but also have limitations and insecurity” (Hirschhorne, 2003:30). In this sense, the leader has become individualized and personalized, and leadership is more and more becoming an interpersonal narrative practice. According to Danish Institute for Conjecture Analysis, these tendencies are reflected in an increasing demand for leader development programs with a personal orientation and psychologically oriented development focused on individual leaders’ personal challenges. My interest in leader development programs also derives from 15 years of working with leader development as an industrial psychologist and consultant. Throughout these years, I worked primarily with leaders from the private sector, across a broad variety of industries. I experienced in many different contexts how leaders were struggling with leadership and trying to figuring out how to be a leader. From a consultant perspective, I was puzzled by the same questions, not withstanding that I, as a consultant/psychologist, was supposed to help the leaders with some answers. Even when leader development programs seemingly did something for the leaders so that they left somewhat more knowledgeable, optimistic or self-assured, there was still no way of telling what had made the difference or how the leader development context had contributed to them becoming leaders. The exact nature of the struggles of these leaders was not very clear, since they seemed to be multidimensional and have shifting proportions. In the process of defining this research project, however, I found two significant concerns when approaching leaders and leader development. First, the state of the leadership field is not unproblematic; research in leadership has agreed on very little, and studies are characterized by inconsistencies and contradictions. They 3 have been criticized for conceptual weakness and for lacking empirical support, and the results are contradictory and inconclusive (Yukl, 1989:253). Hence, the meaning of the concept leadership is often implied or else described by a broad spectrum of definitions (House, 1997; Day, 2001). Few agree on terminology, methods or desired outcomes, and leadership is investigated without explicitly formulating the theoretical position or assumption (Peterson and Hicks, 1999). The second concern is that leadership studies have traditionally been investigated within a system-control view, often within a causal logic and with approaches focused on effectiveness (Watson, 2006:94-95). They have been dominated by quantitative and hypothesis-testing approaches with the explicated aim to formulate general rules for “good or effective leadership”, thus giving prime importance to results and outcome over process (Alvesson, 1996). To relate leader development directly to organizations' quantitative results, such as profits, return on investment or productivity, is highly problematic, however, because of the complex relation between the variables of cause and effect. Identity research with interest in process has traditionally focused on roles, role adaptation, categorization and identification processes, as in studies based on social identity and identity theory (Styker, 2000; Tajfel, 1982). Such research has focused on when identities are likely to change or the outcomes of individual change processes (Nicholson, 1984; West, Nicholson and Arnold, 1989). Still, the bridging processes that are the antecedents for outcomes and are important to identity construction processes are relatively neglected (Pratt, Rockmann and Kaufmann, 2006:236). Also Willmott (1994) points out how the performance and effectmeasurement approaches tend to: “…marginalize the personal and social competencies that are not readily standardized, measured, and evaluated”, and finds that this does not further the understanding of the complexities of management practice (1994:110). This dissertation therefore adopts a relational process-oriented approach within critical management theory that gives primacy to the exploration of complexity and the embeddedness of identity processes in language and in the social context. Identity construction processes are dynamic and cannot be isolated, nor is it possible to determine the influence of possible factors or distinguish where it starts and ends. Critical management theory offers an alternative approach to studying leadership; it describes leaders' narrative construction processes as identity work and identity struggles (Svenningson and Alvesson, 2003). 4 1. 2 Research Aim and Questions In the context of this dissertation, the narrative construction of leader identity is perceived to be a process that is inseparable from life circumstances and context. The research interest is to understand, to explore and to analyze the meaning systems and the contexts within which leaders understand themselves and others. The purpose is to understand the construction of meaning in the context of a particular leader development program. The theoretical framing of the research is based on a narrative epistemological point of departure, implying that narratives are perceived to be not only fundamental for human sense making, but also constitutional for the construction of identities (Bruner, 1987; 1990; Polkinghorne, 1988; White, 1990; Gergen, 1994; Czarniawska, 1997a). The dissertation is interdisciplinary and primarily draws from narrative identity theory and critical management studies, but it is also inspired by narrative therapy theory and practice. Hitherto, narrative therapy theories have been scarcely integrated into the academic study of narratives. I argue, however, that narrative therapeutic theories and models should be integrated, because they privilege the processes of reconstruction and offer alternative ways of interpreting narratives, as well as providing inspirational models for analysing narrative construction (Michael White, 2007; Sarbin, 1986). I investigate ontological narratives, which are narratives entailing the maintenance of a personal narrative. This only happens through the individual relating to the social world (Somers, 1994:618). This study examines the meanings that the five leaders ascribe to their experiences. It examines the processes of leader identity construction, and the sequencing and structure of the process. In an epistemological understanding of narrative, language is seen as central to identity construction. Language connects the individual with other people, with human culture and with the larger historically based human foundation (Gergen, 1997). In the context of this dissertation, identity is conceptualized as discourse and narrative resources (Potter and Wetherell, 1987). In the field of critical management theory, leader development is conceptualized as identity work. This refers to the processes of individuals are engaged in to form, maintain, and repair identities. It is investigated as identity construction through the use of narrative resources entailing identity struggles (Svenningson, and Alvesson, 2003). Thus, leaders' identity is an ongoing achievement of social interaction (Watson, 2001). The dissertation also includes positioning theory to integrate the power aspects of narrative identity construction conceptualized as negotiation of subject positions (Davis and Harré, 1990, 1991). 5 The aim is not to generate solutions to practical problems of leader development programs, nor to formulate a contribution in terms of leader typologies or normative suggestions for improving leader identity. This dissertation deals with what the leaders say, as opposed to what is objectively the case. Actions can only be inferred or interpreted on the basis of the narratives that are told (Watson, 2001c:224). This dissertation has a practical-hermeneutic interest, and the aim is to understand and gain more insight into the processes of identity construction in the context of a leader development program (Habermas, 1972). The narrative approach privileges people's narratives, but it also positions the researcher as an interactive part in the research process; hence, the researcher is not a neutral reporter of stories but a co-constructor of narratives, and this dissertation is itself a narrative product. The social constructivist research position indicates a shift from traditional psychology’s conceptualization of identity in terms of personality, needs, motivation and attitudes, towards a discursively produced individual identity, which is understood as being achieved by engaging in identity work and through social processes of interaction and negotiation (Watson, 2001b). A further distinction has to be drawn between what might be considered a good leader development program and what might be considered a piece of solid research This dissertation does not intend to prove or demonstrate the success of the Executive Training Program.4 The empirical material is not evaluated on the basis of whether the leaders perceive their participation to be a success or not. Whatever the experience and perception, the empirical material in this research context is equally relevant for exploring the interaction and co-construction involved in narrative identity. Thus, this dissertation does not set out to investigate possible outcomes and effects of leader development programs – even though this approach could well have been applied to address the need to place outcomes and effect measurement high on the agenda, as has been launched in the public sector in Denmark with the municipal reform and application of the principles of New Public Management (Klausen, 1998). These tendencies have evoked an intense interest in outcomes, which also includes attempts to measure outcome and effects of leader development programs. This research project might have been initiated in the light of this debate, but its investigation does not have this aim. The empirical context of the Executive Training Program is intended to facilitate personal leadership, and 4 The empirical context of the Executive Training Program is extensively unfolded in the last part of this chapter. 6 the focus is on the relational and psychological processes of leadership. Relational and psychological processes are not easily measured; thus, the outcomes are indicated through the leaders' own reflections, experiences and narrative constructions of leadership, all of which are increasingly important in a world where leaders must continuously negotiate their positions and prove their worth in stories of their virtues. On the basis of this first positioning of the project and the central concept of identity work, the aim of this dissertation is two fold: first, to explore what leaders engage in when doing identity work, i.e. investigate the thematic content of leaders' identity struggle; and second, to specify the processes of identity work by examining the narrative processes by which leaders construct leader identity, i.e. investigate how identity work is carried out by means of narrative resources and discourses. Therefore, the overall research question is: How is leader identity narratively constructed in the context of a leader development program? The research process of generating the empirical material and framing the theoretical approach in reading and writing led to the specification of two subquestions, which as such are both theoretically and empirically generated. The formulation of the two sub-questions aims to further specify and guide the investigation: What discourses and narrative resources can be identified in the leaders’ narratives? How is leader identity positioning used as a narrative resource to negotiate identities in relation to different actors, activities and notions? These questions imply two investigative focuses: first, an examination of the role of narratives and narrative resources for identity construction; and second, an investigation of the process of leader identity construction. Language is not something else Narrative research does not just focus on collecting data, but rather on producing new narratives where events are presented with a beginning, a core and an end. The 7 process of narrative analysis is generative, i.e. its action is to produce or construct a new narrative, a new order, a new meaning. The aim of narrative studies is to investigate how in interviews respondents impose order on the flow of experience in order to make sense of the events and actions in their lives. In the narrative approach, language is not something else; it constitutes the basic material and the infrastructure of your subject. Narratives do not speak for themselves; therefore, it is always necessary to ask about interpretations, relationships, and context in order to try to embrace the complex constitution of the narrative. In everyday life, people navigate by using language to make sense of events and experience. Often, the language is categorical, representative, and normative. The everyday language of leadership and the language used in leader development program contexts are prone to reproduce managerial discourse in applicable categorical and dichotomized language – e.g. leader styles, task-oriented versus person-oriented leadership etc. When writing a dissertation from a social constructivist position, the use of language presents a challenge. Not only does a social constructivist approach reflect on language use, but socialization into a culture takes place in language, and the research work calls on the researcher to dismiss categorical knowledge and examine the construction of categories and knowledge. Furthermore, writing in a social constructivist tradition suddenly makes certain words and terminology inconsistent with the tradition. The psychology research tradition in which I have my roots originally operates with ideas and terminology that are inconsistent with the social constructivist perspective. Hence, terms have to be translated, and the researcher has to learn a whole new vocabulary. Data is no longer data but empirical material; insider-outsider researcher positions are translated into different levels of involvement; and asymmetrical relations are translated into positioning. Thus, I as researcher am not only exploring new territory, I must also acquire a new language in order to speak in the tongue of the dynamic process I aim to explore. Returning to everyday leader practice, leaders also have to make sense of themselves and publicly create themselves in narratives. Leaders have to find language and vocabulary through which they can narrate leader identity in ways that are considered convincing, legitimate, and credible by various audiences. Towards this end, the narrative construction of leader identity is central, and it is constantly being negotiated in language, in and out of organizations. In the following, I first present an overview of the dissertation in the reading guide, and thereafter introduce the empirical context of the Executive Training Program in which the five Danish executives participated in 2005. 8 1. 3 Reading guide Be patient Toward all that is Unsolved In your heart And try to love The questions Themselves Do not seek the Answers that Cannot be Given you Because you would Not be able To live them And the point is To live everything Live the questions Now Perhaps you will Gradually Without noticing it Live along some Distant day Into the answer Rainer Maria Rilke This section provides a brief overview of the dissertation disposition and structure to support and guide the reading. Chapter 1 empirically anchors this Industrial PhD project. It describes the outset in the consultant business; the societal debates that initiated the research interest; and the paradigmatic controversies in leadership research and studies attempting to determine how to approach leadership and leader development programs. The research aim, interest and questions are specified, and the project positioned to investigate the narrative construction of leader identity in interaction with a leader development program, with special focus on contributing to the conceptualization of identity work. The empirical context of the Executive Training Program is unfolded to make transparent how the leader development program acts to co-construct leader identity interactively with the participating leaders. Chapter 2 provides the methodological considerations that construct the field of study, starting with a meta-theoretical perspective, the moderate social constructivist researcher position and its implication relative to the investigation's aim. This chapter describes and reflects upon the concrete application of the methods used and the production of empirical material, specifically case choice and the specific methods of inquiry. Reflections on the particular researcher role and different contexts of interaction are discussed in relation to ethical aspects and the research process. Finally, this chapter takes the first steps in approaching analysis by reflecting on the processes of selecting, interpreting and authoring. Chapter 3 lays out the theoretical foundation in order to position the concept of identity theoretically, primarily in social psychology theories and in the historical context. The extensive theoretical review of identity theory traces the emergence of the identity concept through time, and indicates how different historical periods and theories construct the identity concept that contributes to the contemporary 9 constructive discourses of identity. The review further serves as a backdrop for the argument that identity is deeply embedded in historical and societal processes. The linguistic turn in identity research is narrowed down in the review to describe how to make sense of narratives and to convey how a diverse theoretical outset creates differences in the ways of understanding, defining and approaching the narrative field. The narrative-oriented approach of this dissertation is theoretically defined and the process of making sense of narratives is clarified. Finally, the chapter specifies the theoretical point of departure in the narrative construction of identity, understood as processes whereby the individual makes sense of the self, understands others, negotiates power, and changes identity. Chapter 4 theoretically positions the construct of leaders and leadership by reviewing how leaders have been discursively constructed through a selection of leadership theories relevant to this aim of the dissertation. Three prevalent ways of discursively constructing leaders are identified: the trait-oriented, behavior-oriented and process-oriented discourses. In the context of the dissertation, these discourses are understood to provide leaders with narrative resources from which to built leader identity. Furthermore, the management and leadership debate forms the point of departure to specify the application of the key concepts of leaders and leadership in the dissertation. Overall, the two theoretical chapters 3 and 4 position the research project in the intersection between narrative identity theory and critical management theory, and theoretically specify how different discourses and narrative resources are constitutive to the narrative construction of identity. Chapter 5 consists of the narrative analytical framework of the dissertation, within which identity construction is understood to be embedded in particular social interactive contexts; the analytical strategy must therefore be developed to serve this end. As this dissertation investigates the construction of leader identity construction, I first provide a theoretical frame for approaching the leader occupation. Based on critical management theory, the leader occupation is approached as entailing; tension, struggle and paradox. Finally, I describe the three-step analytical strategy, with focus on the thematic, the temporal and the relational aspects of narrative construction processes, since the analytical strategy aims to explore both the what and the how of the narrative construction of leader identity in a leader development context and thereafter in interviews. Chapters 6-10 present the empirical analyses structured in five individual stories of narrative identity construction, which were developed over a three year period. 10 Each empirical analysis is divided into a thematic analysis emphasizing the construction of identity in problem stories and preferred stories; a temporal analysis emphasizing narrative construction micro-processes in landscapes of identity and storylines; and a relational analysis emphasizing the negotiation of subject positions. Chapter 11 presents the last empirical analysis, which is a thematic analysis made across the empirical material. I identify five common patterns of paradox across the empirical material analytically, and illustrate how the individual leader constructs identity in interaction with these specific paradoxes. I argue that the leader occupation accentuates particular paradoxes and tensions that can be identified in the leaders narratives of leader identity. On the basis of the analysis, I argue that when leaders engage in identity work, it can be understood as an attempt to manage particular paradoxes of the leader occupation. Chapter 12 revisits the theoretical frame as a backdrop for the concluding reflections. It discusses the dissertation's contributions, especially to narrative identity theory and critical management theory. The possibilities and limitations of the investigation and of the analytical approach are considered as well as future research perspectives and implications. 1. 4 Interacting with the Empirical Context In the following, I unfold the empirical context of the Executive Training Program (ETP); I describe the constituting parts of the program and the conditions for interaction that are created within the program on the basis of ideology and theoretical foundation, design, tools and facilitative interactions. The purpose is to illuminate the narrative construction of leaders promoted in this context,5 and make transparent how the program acts as an interactive context for identity construction by facilitating some leader identity constructs and delimiting others. I have stressed making the account matter-of-fact, in order to position the Executive Training Program empirically. Later, in chapter 4, I position the program theoretically in relation to prevalent discourses in leadership theory. 5 The word context is here used to refer to a specific setting or a set of circumstances that surround a situation or event (Synonym.com, Princeton University. 04/22/08). 11 1.4.1 Right Management The provider of the Executive Training Program is the consultant company Right Management. In the late 1990s, the American-based consulting firm Right Management had a market position primarily in the US transition business. Right Management wanted to increase their market share in the consultant business and to grow in Europe; and their strategy was to buy and merge with locally based consulting businesses in different European countries. Following this strategy, Right Management was established in Denmark in 2000 by buying the Danish consulting company Kjær & Kjerulff, which was founded in the 1970s by the two entrepreneurs and psychologists Erik Kjær and Stig Kjerulff. Up through the 1980s, they built a successful and profitable consulting business with an average of 50-70 consultants offering tailored leadership development programs, primarily to leaders in private industry in Denmark and Scandinavia. Due to the merger, Right Management obtained a strong market position in the consultancy business in Denmark and continued to offer leadership development on the basis of a humanistic psychological and existentialist-oriented ideology. In this dissertation, I investigate Right Management's Executive Training Program. The program has been a sustained business success for almost 15 years, in terms of positive evaluations, a consistent flow of participants from major companies, and economically. In this perspective and according to these parameters, the ETP program can be seen as an extreme case of seemingly successful leadership development; however, the question that remains is how do leaders understand and use the program in a short-term and long-term perspective. In the Right Management portfolio, the Executive Training Program (ETP) is its most advanced leader development program. It targets experienced executive level leaders with a minimum of 10 years of experience. The program is an open enrolment program, which means that participants are leaders from different organizations, primarily from the private sector but also from higher-level public administration. In 2005, when I started this research, the program had been conducted more than 30 times. Inside Right Management, the program was considered strategically important. Erik Kjær had been primus motor in developing the program content and design throughout a 15-year period, and he was a key actor in conducting and facilitating the program. The program was only facilitated by experienced and formally educated psychologist consultants and a facilitator team, typically consisting of Erik Kjær and two other business psychologists. 18 to use the feedback to formulate a focused development plan for behavioral change. As such, 360-degree tools are used to initiate a step-by-step goal-oriented process of development focused on self-awareness and behavior. The Leadership Effectiveness Analysis 360 degree (LEA360) is an assessment tool from the MRGroup.7 It is not a test, but as the name implies an analytical tool with which to assess leader behavior. The feedback report describes how a leader’s behavior is perceived by others and by the leader. LEA360 measures 22 specific behavioral leader characteristics or “sets”, grouped into six core functions, which serve to define the leader role. The six core functions of leader behavior in the LEA360 model are: “Creating a Vision, Developing Followership, Implementing the Vision, Following Through, Achieving Results, and Team Playing.”8 The “leader behavior set” is based on the human perceptual tendency to view situations and respond to them in a way that is consistent from one situation to the next. For example, some leaders usually seek the views of direct reports while others rarely do. Such behaviors are called “sets” within the LEA framework. Sets are relatively consistent in our minds, and they are often perceived as natural assumptions about the way the world works (MRG group 2005: 22). LEA360 provides the leader with a “snapshot” of his current leadership as it is perceived by others and by the leader himself in a descriptive feedback report. This report is then used as the basis for reflective dialogue about the assumptions and perceptions that potentially influence the leader's behavior and effectiveness in his organizational context. However, a LEA360 report does not tell us anything about what the leader actually does in real life; it only describes how the leader and others perceive his behavior. The tool also shows the extent to which all the respondents agree on certain behavioral dimensions and the variation across the respondents. This is called inter-rater agreement, and the variation can be low, medium or high to indicate the extent to which the respondents rate each dimension of leader behavior in the same way. 7 Management Research Group (MRG) is an international firm specialized in assessment-based human resource development, and it is approved by the American Psychology Association to offer continuing education for psychologists. MRG products are delivered only by certified and trained professionals and all assessment instruments are research based with a high degree of established validity. The Leadership Effectiveness 360 degree Analysis used at ETP is based on 300,000 assessment-based profiles of leaders across a broad range of industries and functions (MRG2005:26). 8 In the LEA questionnaire, respondents compare and weigh the importance of three different behaviors at the same time, and each behavior is compared to every other behavior. If a particular behavior is very important to an individual, he may rate it high every time it occurs. Thus, a leader’s score on each behavior is determined by his preferences. The individual score is then compared to a selected norm group (a normative database, here, with Danish leaders) to show the relative amount of emphasis he gives to each behavior in comparison with a similar group of people (MRG2005:26). 19 According to the MGR group, LEA360 is developed on the basic assumption that there is no “one right way” to lead. Leader behavior that is effective in one situation can be ineffective in another. The instrument presents feedback in a non-evaluative way; thus, when assessing leadership behaviors, the LEA360 is a comprehensive and descriptive rather than prescriptive assessment tool. However, the LEA360 is described as a diagnostic assessment instrument, and the aim of the process is for the leader to gain insight into his current strengths and development areas. Such insights point not only to areas for change, but also indicate direction and describe possible actions to strengthen specific behavioral patterns. The analytical framework of LEA360 provides ideas and assumptions as to what leadership is about, but the feedback results in the LEA reports are presented in a non-evaluative way, describing both the liabilities and the possibilities of different combinations of set scores. At ETP, a LEA360 is administrated prior to the program start, and the leaders receive their report in the first module and then work with it intensively throughout the rest of the program. The LEA360 feedback process is one of the three parts making up the didactic structure of the leader program, and the leaders work with the feedback report in different exercises in their basis group and with the facilitators. Moreover, the leaders bring the feedback into their home organization by conducting feedback seminars with the leaders’ own team/employees, and they meet with their nearest leader to discuss specific aspects of the report relevant to their relationship. The aim of these LEA360 meetings is to clarify the feedback, receive more insight into how others perceive their leadership, and engage in dialogue with the real organizational stakeholders in order to improve interaction in the organizational context. The organizational process's aim is to specify the expectations of others and thereby anchor the individual's developmental process in the home organization. 20 Design and Pedagogic Tools – Personal Project The second part in the ETP design is called Personal Project. This project is introduced as an opportunity for the leader to work with him on a deeper psychological level. The personal project is described in an extract of the handout guide as follows: Display 1-3 Personal Project Handout Example “When you decide on a personal project, you choose a personal theme or problem that is important and meaningful to you in the leader role. Your goal is to clarify what the elements of the problem are and the solutions that can be given. The problem can be something that is linked narrowly to the leader job, or it can be something that has a more general significance to you as a person.” “A prerequisite for you to reach a result is that you are open and prepared to share your problem with others as a means to generate inspiration to work through your personal project.” (©Right Management: Executive Training Program, ETP Personal Project,2005:1) The personal project is thus described to be focused on a problem that the leader thinks is restricting him or would be beneficial for him to solve or change. Examples of former personal projects are: the need to be liked by others; trying to please everybody; fear of failure and performance anxiety; always being number two; experiencing sustained lack of motivation; and feeling paralyzed by worries. Each leader defines and works with a personal project throughout the program, primarily in the basis group. The leader describes the problem/issue for the basis group, and this is followed by a 2½-hour individual coaching process facilitated by the facilitator. The systemic methods, Reflective Teams and Coaching, are used to facilitate the personal project process (Andersen, 1996), as the reflective team method separates listening and talking, thereby allowing time for reflection from many angles on the same problem or issue. The method maximizes the use of the resources present in the group, and it actively engages everybody, also when they are not working on their personal project. The focus person and the coach are metaphorically positioned in box 1, and the team is positioned in box 2. Only one person is activated at a time; when coaching is going on in box 1, the role of the team is to reflect on the issues being explored and to try to generate new interesting and 21 helpful perspectives, i.e. find new facets for the focus person to explore and maybe formulate interesting questions for the coach to ask. All of this is done in silence and through careful listening to and reflecting on the coaching dialogue. The group is situated metaphorically behind a transparent screen and is not allowed to comment or intervene. After some time, the facilitator takes a time out and the focus person is now placed in the listening position and instructed not to answer or comment on the group reflection and input. The group now shares and discusses ideas and insights. The facilitator makes sure that the group does not generate solutions too prematurely but remains in an exploratory mode until sufficient progress have been made in relation to unfolding and clarifying the problem. The facilitator also insures that what is said is understood and that the dialogue is respectful and appreciative throughout. This stringent process of shifting positions between listening and talking aims to foster reflection and inhibit the need to justify and explain – for example, why the others are mistaken when they propose ideas or perspectives that the focus person instantly disagrees with or dislikes. The method maximizes the creation of input by involving all resources, and it trains participants in empathy, in placing themselves in another person's shoes, changing perspective and communicating ideas in a supportive and respectful manner. The reflective team model is supported and used in combination with a four-stage coaching model. This method is introduced in the first module and also helps guide the leaders in the reflective process of exploration, supported by the facilitator. Design and Pedagogic Tools – Business Simulation The third part in the ETP program is the business simulation laboratory of the fictive company called ELTEC. In the business simulation, each of the three basis groups of 6-7 leaders functions as the board of directors of ELTEC. The board of directors includes a role for each leader, and each one has one turn to be the CEO and lead the board meeting. Besides the CEO, the roles are: “Financial Manager, Production Manager, It and Logistics Manager, HR and Communications Manager, Sales Manager and Marketing Manager”. In the program context, the business simulation is presented as a laboratory – a place for experimentation – where the leader has to deal with leadership problems of different kinds. All leaders take on the role of CEO at some point, leading the meeting and handling the actual leadership problem. The participants are instructed not to “role play” but to step into the role with their knowledge of what people in these specific positions would be concerned about in relation to the problem or task to be solved at the board 22 meeting. The other leaders are instructed to respond to the CEO's leader behavior as if it were genuine, with their own sensitivity and reactions. The idea is that they should contribute to realistically solving ELTEC's problem/task. They should argue and relate to the problem within the perspective of the role. For example, a leader in the HR Manager role would be concerned with issues of turnover, motivation, competency building and legal procedures. A leader in the Production Manager role would be concerned with issues of productivity, quantity and quality of the product, and the flexibility of the workforce. In the program context, this facilitative framing is aimed at making the simulation feel more “real” for the participants, and the intention is to train the leaders in identifying how different organizational positions and perspectives relate to common organizational issues and problems. Storytelling is a significant element in setting up the cases and in making the business simulation work in practice. In the program context, the fictive business ELTEC is described with all the necessary factual organizational information necessary for the leaders to imagine leading the ELTEC organization through its challenges. The story of ELTEC is of a family-owned electronic company situated in Jutland, producing high quality prints used in the airplane, space and car industries and in robot technology. The competitive advantage is high quality products and distribution logistics. The annual turnover is 600 million DKK. The company is owned entirely by the twins, Julie and Alfred Knudsen, and they act as the unofficial board. Their mother, the ageing Mrs. Knudsen, is the unofficial executive chairman and her stance and values significantly influence company values, such as “partnership with the local community” and “ethics in the workplace”. The following factual description of the storytelling and the ELTEC business simulation do not do justice to the colorful characters who inhabit the ELTEC story or the many humoristic phrasings and absurdities of the cases and the storytelling set-up. In the program context, the humor and absurdity but still realistic scenarios and the leader dilemmas in each ELTEC case engage the leaders, making it an entertaining and challenging laboratory experience for them. The business simulation is structured in seven cases or plots, each of which involves an organizational challenge and often more than one leadership dilemma. From a development perspective, the CEO is the focus person in each case. The case is introduced in plenary by a storytelling sequence describing ELTEC’s current situation and the problem and tasks to be solved at the coming board 23 meeting. This is followed by a 1½-hour board meeting in the basis groups, all of which are videotaped and monitored by the facilitators. They are placed in a separate room but are watching and following the progress of the group process on monitors. The facilitators are able to intervene in the process by phone or in person. A common intervention is to interrupt the board meeting by introducing different ELTEC story characters: the stuttering shop steward, the local priest Pastor Mortensen, the wife of an unfaithful member of the board etc. These characters are played by the facilitators in various disguises and are integrated roles in the seven different stories and dilemma cases. Interventions are also made by shifting leaders around and into other groups, and e.g. introducing a leader as the new Sales Manager and thus accentuating group inclusion and exclusion processes. Generally, each ELTEC case has a cover story that is introduced to everybody in plenary along with a specific task the leader has to deal with at the particular board meeting. But every case has another story or a different plot that is not introduced until later, during the board meeting. The introduction of the second plot (or more plots) increases the complexity of the case and presses the leader to take a stand on difficult leader dilemmas. Some of the cases involve a group member who is secretly instructed to play a certain role at the board meeting or to take on a specific attitude in relation to a certain topic – for example, in relation to such an ethical dilemma as in ELTEC CASE 3: “Should ELTEC accept a financially lucrative order for producing land mines?” Each ELTEC case is elaborate and has a number of pre-planed interventions that the CEO and the other leaders do not know about. Interventions are timed and introduced by the facilitators by evaluating the group processes and leader behavior at the board meeting. Interventions are never used exactly the same way but are flexibly timed and interacted with the actual participants and the progress of the group process. Another intervention is phone calls from the ELTEC owners, the Knudsen family, (or other characters) that introduce a whole new angle or dilemma into what the leader is already struggling with. Interaction with Knudsen shapes the subsequent dialogue and the rest of the board meeting. New interventions are sometimes invented to match a specific situation, or themes that have emerged in the group and that the facilitators have not experienced before. In this way, there is a lot of improvising, acting and processes of facilitative work as the program is running live. An ELTEC case is followed by a one-hour facilitated feedback and discussion session in the group with focus on the CEO's leader behavior in conducting the meeting and handling the case, interventions and dilemmas. Later, in plenary, there 24 is a shorter follow-up session during which the groups gain insight into how the other groups approached the same dilemma, and the facilitators draw parallels across the groups and summarize learning points on the leader dilemma or on group processes in handling the dilemma. Below is an example of an ELTEC business simulation case. All cases follow the sequence of introducing the current situation, the problem, and the task(s) of the leader. In the program context, this is the first ELTEC case and the interventions are milder and the plot less complex, since the main focus is to make the leaders familiar with the flow and structure of the simulation method; later the complexity and the drama increase. Display 1-4 Business Simulation – ELTEC Case Example ELTEC - CASE 1 Introduction in plenary The Knudsen twins have agreed to handover the leadership of the company to the new CEO and leader group. The new leader group has just been formed and the current situation and problems are: • The Knudsen twins are convinced that ELTEC needs a new leadership with an international perspective. They have decided to abdicate from board work and return to the golf course. • There is a need for the new leader group to make a new agenda for the organization. • Economically, the bottom line has red numbers and the arrow is pointing downwards. • There is increased competition from Asia and Eastern Europe. • There is a need for international partnerships (to make large-scale operations, optimize logistics and reduce production costs). • There is a need for professionalism in the production line, sales and marketing. • There is a need for certifications in the newest quality standards. • 80% of the earnings come from 20% of the customers. The task for the CEO is to constitute the group and mobilize a strong and close-knit leader team for the company to face the financial challenges and the economic decline appearing in the horizon. Instruction to alternative plot This case has no hidden plot as it is the first case; this business simulation is a less complex case. Interventions Intervention A: Alfred Knudsen phones to request the plan for the constitution of the leadership team: He invites the CEO and wife to the Knudsen residence, and he 25 slowly and thoroughly goes through unimportant details of the menu, descriptions of his trip to Skåne with his mother etc. And he would like the plan to be faxed to Sweden A.S.A.P. The conversation drags out, and the CEO has to find a way to finish without compromising the relationship. Meanwhile, the group is watching, listening in, and waiting for the meeting to continue. Intervention B: Another phone call from Knudsen. Knudsen thinks the first call was stopped a bit abruptly and he wants to stress the importance of them having a good dialogue and relationship. Then, Knudsen continues as before, with lots of irrelevant talk about golf courses, golf handicaps and Swedish localities, and Knudsen again reminds the CEO to send the team and business plan. Feedback Thematically, ELTEC Case 1 raises questions and reflections on how to establish and use authority and credibility as a leader. The dilemma is establishing leadership and authority in a group, while simultaneously being passed by and overruled by Knudsen’s interference on the phone. The authority theme is also at play in relation to the leader group in which the “CEO” has to position himself at the meeting in interaction. In addition, the theme of establishing a strong team in relation to the leaders’ communication and interaction is typically in focus in the feedback of case number 1. An example of the team-oriented themes is how to accommodate different needs in the group – some are task oriented and others want to get to know each other better before turning to the task. (Right Management: ETP, facilitator notes: 2005/2007) In 2005 at the beginning of the research project, Erik Kjær was central in facilitating the program, and especially with regard to the business simulation, he would story-tell the introduction and plot setup without a manuscript, improvising and including current information from the daily newspaper or debates in the media. In the context of the program, this serves to blend reality and the imaginary frame of the business simulation and mix what is real and what is an imaginary story. The case was also introduced using real life anecdotes – for example, detailed factual information on technical issues involved in using electronic print in the airplane industry or specifically referring to the work of a German professor in organizational culture. These storytelling devices add realism and relevance, as well as absurdity and humor, to the storytelling processes and the setting up of the ELTEC cases. Overall, the facilitative processes can be characterized as creating and supporting a group climate that enhances openness and self-disclosure, helps identify both development areas and strengths, and provides psychological insights (theoretically based) into the here-and-now situation regarding individuals and the group process. The process also produces acknowledgement that the facilitator is 26 also a leader and an interactive actor in the individual and group processes and progress in the ETP program context. With this positioning of the empirical context of the study, the next chapter describes the research project with regard to the research processes, the application of methods and the concrete craftsmanship involved. 27 2 Constructing the Field This chapter describes the research process, methods and the concrete craftsmanship involved in undertaking the study. A method is “a way of thinking about something” says Holstein and Gubrium (2000: 81); thus, the choice of methodology and methods9 for the dissertation implies a specific way of thinking about and constructing leader identity. In this sense, choice of methodology and methods construct in significant ways the range of contribution, as well as the limitations, of a particular research project. The chapter moves from a meta-theoretical perspective into methodological reflections, and ends with the specific choices and concrete application of methods. The structure is inspired by Peter Dahler Larsen’s (2003:24) view that “knowing” always accentuates fundamental assumptions and a particular perspective from where it is possible to choose, interpret and organize data. The chapter is thus structured in four parts: • A Meta-theoretical Perspective • A Moderate Social Constructivist Position • Application of Methods and Self-reflections • Approaching Analysis The first part reflects on meta-theory and paradigms as the backdrop of the research design and application of the concrete methods. The meta-theoretical perspective, on which this dissertation rests, is described by contrasting a realist essentialist position and an anti-essentialist constructivist position and the different ontological and epistemological foci of these two positions (Bransholm Pedersen and Drewes Nielsen, 2001). In the second part, I describe the characteristics of a social constructivist oriented study (Wenneberg, 2000), emphasizing a reflexive methodology and a reflexive researcher position (Alvesson and Skjöldberg, 2000). In the third part, the longitudinal research design and my concrete interaction with the field are described and reflected upon, including the specific methods of study: observation, interviewing and document analysis, and their applications. Finally, I 9 Methodology describes and constitutes the connection and internal coherence between the different scientific levels of the research project: from the meta-theoretical assumptions to the concrete approach and methods. Methods constitute a more limited part of the overall research design as methods are the concrete tools or instruments of investigation (Asendorpf and Valsiner, 1992). Ideally, there is coherence or consistency between the methods, methodology and the meta-theoretical perspective within the research design, and most importantly the methodological setup has to be relevant in relation to the research interest and investigative focus. 34 scientific production, such as this dissertation, is a socially constructed product communicating to specific audiences. Focus on critical reflections about what is taken for granted: Social constructivism challenges the objective basis of conventional knowledge in science and in everyday life and attempts to place knowledge within the process of social interchange and interaction. This involves looking at the way social phenomena are produced, institutionalized, and turned into tradition by humans (Berger and Luckmann, 1992 [1966]). Social constructivist inquiries doubt the taken-forgranted-ness of our everyday world and question commonly accepted categories and conventional understandings. For example, social constructivist studies criticize and question the way traditional psychology implicitly or explicitly has taken many of the cultural and societal concepts of the Western world for granted and has applied concepts in a normative fashion and thereby affirmed the Western cultural norms and presented them as part of the right and only version of reality (Burr, 2003:7). Focus on language and meaning as historically and culturally situated: Social constructivism is concerned with how our understanding of the world and ourselves is engendered and constrained by linguistic conventions. And social constructivism advocates that the terms and concepts in which people understand the world are to be understood as social artifacts – products of historically and culturally formed interchanges among people (Gergen,1985:267). Inspired by the philosopher of language, Ludwig Wittgenstein, language is understood as a precondition of thought, e.g. the way people think is based on language categories and concepts, which give people a framework for meaning creation (Burr, 2003:8). Wittgenstein says language is always “at work”, implying that humans are continuously reconstructing language. Hence, as a researcher, I need to consider what language does and how it is used in everyday life, in Wittgenstein’s terminology – e.g. that language should not be allowed to “go on holiday” (Wittgenstein, 1953:8, in Holstein and Gubrium, 2000: 83). Furthermore, Wittgenstein (1953) emphasizes that a word derives its meaning from the connections made within the contexts of its use. In practice, “language games” and social conventions specify how things work and how meanings can be ascribed and connected in everyday life; language games are rule-like directions to what goes with what, but they are not specified formally. Nevertheless, language games provide working rules, point to proper moves in the game, and to certain courses of action. In other words, talk and action become interwoven and inseparable in constructing social practices (Barginaga, 2002; Burr, 2003). 35 Focus on social action and relations of power: If reality is produced and reproduced by people acting on their interpretations and their knowledge of reality, then empirical validity is no longer the explanation of the degree to which particular concepts prevail or are sustained through time. This makes negotiated understandings of what reality is critical to social life and practice, as descriptions and explanations, as already mentioned, constitute forms of social action. Descriptions and explanations form various social patterns, and particular understandings support some patterns while excluding others. Therefore, whenever people alter their descriptions and explanations, certain patterns will be threatened and other patterns will be supported (Gergen, 1997). In prevalent societal discourses, understandings are constantly negotiated and power distributed. Understandings of what it means to be a woman, American, insane, or a leader emerge through social processes of negotiation and are not pre-given natural entities. Even though gender is biologically given, the meaning creation of what it means to be a woman or a man is constructed and varies tremendously. This might be rather subtle within cultures, but becomes obvious when we look across cultures; nevertheless, gendered identities are always constructed, charged with power, constantly negotiated and privileged in interaction in families, at work and elsewhere (Søndergaard, 1996). It should now be evident how a social constructivist position provides a view of the concept of identity processes that is very different from natural scientific approaches and traditional psychology’s search for explanations of social phenomena. This dissertation opposes the essentialism in much traditional psychology that “…traps people inside personalities or identities that are limiting for them and are sometimes pathologised by psychology, which then becomes an even more oppressive practice” (Burr, 2003:6). Traditional psychology has typically regarded language to be a passive vehicle for expressing thoughts and emotions. In this dissertation, language is seen as a constructive resource and a form of social action, through which the world is constructed and made to make sense (Burr, 2003: 8). This project applies narrative psychology and narrative therapy as a theoretical and analytical framework for approaching identity construction in order to enhance the analytical sensitivity to processes, language and complexity. Thus, attention is refocused on the social processes and the structures of human interaction, and the concept of self is relocated: “…removed from the head and placed within the sphere of social discourse” (Gergen, 1985:271). 36 Social constructivism poses the risk of relativism, however, of dissolving knowledge into a grey zone where everything is equally important or valuable. When many and different truths co-exist, it becomes much more difficult to navigate the sea of knowledge. This accentuates a social constructivist position as a balance act: on one hand, the risk is to adhere to relativism, e.g. that “anything goes”, that all conclusions are equally viable; on the other hand, the risk is of falling into the trap of halfway objectivism. Gergen (1985) proposes that the risk of relativism is off balanced by the normative rules of the knowledge communities, and the inherent dependency of knowledge on certain knowledge systems. He emphasizes that because social constructivism offers no basic rules of validity and is in this sense relativistic, social constructivist research must be evaluated, legitimized and judged in social settings (Gergen, 1985: 273). “The degree to which a given form of understanding prevails or is sustained across time is not fundamentally dependent on the empirical validity of the perspective in question, but on the vicissitudes of social processes (e.g. communication, negotiation, conflict, rhetoric)” (Gergen, 1985:268). In practice, a social constructivist position can be difficult to uphold due to the limitations of language. In speaking of “remnants of substantialism”, Gergen (2004) says that if we are to use a language of nouns, it is hard to escape the essentialism inherent in our language. His pragmatic solution, which I can only endorse, is to understand that all propositions can be de-constructed and then get on with the conversation, only interrupted by moments of critical reflexivity. 2.2.3 Reflexivity A reflexive approach looks at theories as discourses, as different ways of structuring and ordering the empirical material. Alvesson and Skjöldberg distinguish between reflexive and reflective, viewing reflexivity as a particular specified version of reflective research (2000:248). Reflexivity is typically concerned with the complex relationship between the processes of knowledge production in a context, as well as the involvement of the knowledge producer (Alvesson and Skjöldberg, 2000:5). Pinpointing this double focus of reflexivity, they quote Calás and Smircich: “…reflexivity that constantly assesses the relationship between 'knowledge' and 'the ways of doing knowledge'" (1992:240). Reflexivity becomes a core factor in conducting research, and even more so when the researcher is considered an active co-constructor. Alvesson and Skjöldberg (2000) stress the interpretative and co-constructing relation between the researcher and the researched. They suggest that interpretations come to the forefront of 37 research, that data construction be reframed as interpretation and text production reframed as authorship. Interpretation and reflection are seen as two core elements of a reflexive methodology. They say: “There’s no such thing as unmediated data or facts, these are always the result of interpretations” (2000:9). And interpretation must be an underlying activity in all aspects of the research process and not limited to a phase in the research design: “Interpreting one’s own interpretations, looking at one’s own perspectives from other perspectives, and turning a self-critical eye onto one’s own authority as interpreter and author” (Alvesson & Skjöldberg, 2000: vii.) Alvesson and Sköldberg (2000) advocate that any scientific method must create transparency throughout the research process; hence, the ability to self-reflect and to make choices evident are ways to create transparency for the reader. My researcher position as a consultant within the field of study has made a reflexive method a prevailing choice of methodology from the outset. This position makes me an interactive part of the empirical context, especially in the first phases of the study in 2005. A reflexive methodology is at the core of evaluating the quality of social constructivist inquiry, because by demonstrating the research process in writing, quality can be assessed by others and be achieved interactively. Therefore, being critically self-reflexive is at the core of demonstrating the value of a social constructivist research frame; reflexivity as the ability to break away from a frame of reference in order to see what it is not saying (Alvesson and Sköldberg, 2000:246). Three aspects can be used to evaluate the quality of research and research contributions made within a social constructivist position. The question of validity really reaches down to deeper layers of the research process, since it relates to philosophical questions and paradigmatic assumptions discussed earlier in this chapter (Brier, 2005, Fuglsang and Bitch Olsen, 2004). The criteria of validity and reliability of the natural sciences have been adopted to a large extent by the social sciences and been taken for granted in evaluating the quality and rigor of research conclusions and results (Andersen et al., 1995). Two major weaknesses of methodology have been stressed: the attempt to objectify the researcher, and the perception that the research process approximates a rational process (Andersen et al. 1995:232). Nevertheless, there is a need for qualifying “good research”, and social constructivist research needs to consider the questions implied by this term: for example, are the methods suited to answer the research questions; what is the status of the empirical material; and are conclusions made plausible and legitimized 38 in relation to the research process. However, social constructivist inquiries do not ask if knowledge is true or valid; instead, they asks how and why knowledge is produced or constructed in particular contexts (Wenneberg, 2000:37). Bent Flyvbjerg (2004) sees it as a condition for social sciences providing concrete, context-dependent knowledge that research should be explorative and focused on generating increased understanding of social phenomena. “As for predictive theory, universals, and scientism, the study of human affairs is thus at an eternal beginning. In essence, we have only specific cases and context-dependent knowledge” (Flyvbjerg, 2004:122). Legitimacy in social constructivist inquires is achieved by making the craftsmanship of the research process transparent for the reader. This is done by describing, arguing and clarifying the researcher's reflections about choices and the steps in the research process. Transparency is making research methodology and methods explicit, e.g. transparent to the reader, making explicit the inner logic of the research method relative to the research question and the research process. Transparency is obtained if the reader is able to follow and understand the argumentation as an integrated and well-argued story. The goal is to make the analytical conclusions and the research findings plausible for the reader by describing and bringing to the surface the reflexive and analytical processes that brought them about (Alvesson and Skjöldberg, 2000). Furthermore, legitimacy is achieved by communicating findings and contributions in a convincing and accepted way according to the standards of specific research communities. Olsen (2002) argues for quality assurance through two validation12 processes, of craftsmanship and communication Research contributions are legitimized through demonstrating craftsmanship, by applying the methods and techniques of the trade and interpreting statements in context; and research is legitimized through communication in the interactive negotiation of the research process and the results (Olsen, 2002). Finally, credibility and plausibility are enhanced when researchers demonstrate having “been there” in the field, by providing situational resonance and thick description. The reference is to the terminology of anthropologist Clifford Geertz (1973:13), that thick and dense description is produced by rich and detailed data rather than by generalized categorizations. Hence, generalization transforms into situational resonance, implying that the researcher is able to make sense of a phenomenon within a particular context. The researcher must make evident the 12 The terms are translated from Olsen's (2002) concepts "håndværksmæssig og kommunikativ validering". 39 value and status of an account within a specific situation in the broader context of culture and history (Gergen, 1997). Social constructivist inquiries can be seen as a particular social practice that investigates the research process and knowledge produced and emphasizes transparency, craftsmanship, and thick description or situational resonance critically reflected upon and put into perspective. 2. 3 Application of Methods and Self-reflections In the following, I describe the concrete steps and choices made in this research project to make transparent how the research design and research process has unfolded. 2.3.1 Case Study Design According to Flyvbjerg (2004), the ideal of representative sampling and generalizations has resulted in devaluating in-depth case studies and the strength of the example. Yin (1994:3) has defined a case study as a research design; Stake suggests, however, that a case study is not only a matter of methodological choice but a choice of what is to be studied. Stake emphasizes that case study research is characterized by an “…interest in individual cases rather than methods of inquiry” (Stake, 2000:435). This research aims to understand more about the qualitative particularities involved when people ascribe meaning to experiences and construct narratives of identity. A case study design gives access to in-depth examination of specific cases and generates empirical material that enables an investigation of highly complex processes and dynamics, whereas generating a large amount of quantifiable material could not approach the phenomenon. First, I present a high level view of the overall research design and methods used in this study, before going into more detail with my specific cases. The design is based on triangulation, applying multiple approaches to the study of complex phenomena and using a variety of angles, different approaches and supplementary methods (Yin, 1994). Triangulation introduces multiple sources to enhance different perspectives in this case study. My multiple methods approach involves observation, facilitation, semi-structured individual interviews, and document analysis. In addition, written material is used, particularly the participants’ action plans and personal project descriptions, which were made throughout the oneyear program and until the second interview in 2007. Below is 40 an illustration of the research design and overview of the different methods used for generating the empirical material. Display 2-1 Research Design and Methods of Generating the Empirical Material Methods Empirical Material Observation / Facilitation Observation and Facilitation13 I facilitated 9 ETP programs as a Right Management Consultant in the period 2000-2006. Empirical material for the research project was generated by observation and facilitating one program in 2005. ETP programs are 11 days in 4 modules of 3/3/3/2 days during ¾ year, accumulating approx. 110 hours of interaction. Interview Individual Interviews 2006 and 2007 I interviewed five leaders from the same ETP group. Each interview lasted approx. 2½ hours, accumulating 12½ hours of interviews and 160 transcribed pages. In 2007, I interviewed four14 leaders. Each interview approx. 2½ hours, accumulating 10 hours of interviews and 120 transcribed pages. Focus Group Interview 2006 Focus group interview with all five leaders: 2½ hours and 34 transcribed pages. 3 Interviews with Founder of Kjaer & Kjerulff A/S, Erik Kjaer Three interviews were conducted: two focused on the facilitative, pedagogical aim of the ETP program. One was conducted with a colleague, focused on historical foundation and culture of the original company Kjaer and Kjerulff A/S founded by Erik Kjaer and Stig Kjerulff. These interviews were used as basis for internal workshops for the leader development section on company values and future direction. 13 Later in the section “Establishing a research relationship and researcher role reflections” I discuss these two methods and their relative application in this study, as well as my researcher role. 14 Except one of the leaders Ben, who got stuck in the LEA process and never made it to the second interview, in spite of numerous follow-up phone calls/mails and his expressed good will and intentions to carry through. Ben’s identity narrative, “The Story of Coincidence”, found in chapter 8, will give more insight into the dynamics of this interaction from an identity construction point of view. 41 Document Analysis Leadership Effectiveness Analysis (LEA360) conducted in 2005 and 2007 Two LEA360 analyses were administered in the leaders’ home organization, each resulting in a 100 page report, including feedback from employees, colleagues, boss, and a self-assessment. The 2005 reports were an integrative part of the ETP program, and a re-test was made in 2007 and part of the 2007 interview. Documents: Personal action plans based on the LEA360 report, personal projects, participant notes written by the leaders during ETP in 2005, course evaluations 2005, Right Management internal documents: marketing material, course catalogues, ETP program materials, handouts and instructor guides. Recording Storytelling for Business Simulation and Instructor Guide In 2005, I recorded all the storytelling sequences used at ETP to facilitate a business simulation laboratory. Recordings were transcribed, analyzed and integrated into an instructor guide for future facilitation. The guide is a step by step facilitation instruction for all four modules and is now the property of Right Management. Overall, the research project and empirical work stretches over three years, and empirical material was produced in three waves. First production took place at the ETP program’s four modules in 2005: observation and facilitation in the context of the leader development program, including generation of the first written documentations from the participating leaders; the LEA360 analysis reports; personal action-plans; and personal project descriptions. The second production took place eight months after the program ended and involved five individual interviews and a focus group interview and additional documents such as copies of the leaders’ action plan revisions. The third production took place almost two years after the program ended and included interviews and a re-test with the LEA360 feedback analysis. Below is an illustration of the longitudinal design and the production of empirical material in three waves: 42 Display 2-2 Longitudinal Research Design and Methods 2005 2006 2007 Observation Facilitation Interviews A LEA360Test LEA360Test Interviews B Focus-group Interview Executive Training Executive Training Program Program Jan March – Sept. June July OctSept Written Materials Written Materials Written Materials 2.3.2 Choosing the Case and the Participants In this section, I describe and reflect on decisions made regarding methods and project design. This includes reflections on: choice of case, opportunities to learn, open enrollment programs versus internal programs, issues of confidentiality, choice of participants, and the importance of time. The choice of case is inherently connected to the research interest and aim. However, deciding on a case confronts the researcher with the insecurity of not knowing at the outset if a case will prove to be a good one in relation to the research aim. Flyvbjerg (2004) suggests that the average or typical case is often not the richest in information, and he proposes instead that extreme cases are more suitable to forcefully making a point and presenting strong advocacy. Extreme cases can be identified as cases which are unusual; they can be either especially problematic or especially successful cases of the phenomenon studied. According to Flyvbjerg (2004), selecting extreme case for studies is important: “Atypical or extreme cases often reveal more information because they activate more actors and more basic mechanisms in the situation studied” (Flyvbjerg, 2004:127). In the early phases of this research, I considered making The Executive Training Program the case of my study. In the history of Right Management, the ETP program had been an especially successful program, in terms of both economic earnings and a 43 consistent record of very positive evaluations from participants. In 2005, more than forty ETP programs had been conducted in twelve years, and no fundamental changes had been made to the program content or structure in that time. This evoked my curiosity about this particular program, but later, with the progressive development of the project and after my specification of the research question, I realized that I had to reconsider my choice of case. In the terminology of Stake (Stake, et al., 1994), my interest in and choice of the Executive Training Program as a case was initially guided by an intrinsic interest in better understanding this particular case. However, in the process of doing research, my research aim became redefined to an instrumental interest in examining the narrative construction of leader identity in a leader development program and beyond. In order to examine this question, the narratives of the participating leaders had to be made the focus of study. This made the ETP program a context for facilitating the understanding of something else – e.g. for studying the narrative construction of leader identity. In addition, the narrative construction of leader identities became the investigative focus, and the five leaders became the cases in this study. Hence, in this study, I have opportunity to learn as my leading criteria when selecting the case context and participants. This is parallel to Stake’s (2000) emphasis on learning from atypical cases and on the value of choosing variety over representative sampling when deciding on a case. Stake suggests: “Potential for learning is a different and sometimes superior criterion to representativeness. Isn’t it better to learn a lot from an atypical case than a little from a seemingly typical case” (Stake, 2000:446). The Executive Training Program is an open enrollment program, which means that the program is not part of an internal organizational development strategy. In contrast, internal organizational leader development programs do not have the same voluntary basis. They are often prerequisites for leaders to be socialized into organizational culture, or ways for leaders to climb the career ladder. Instead, in an open enrollment program, each leader volunteers and actively chooses to participate, which allows the assumption that the participating leaders are motivated to engage in identity work. Nevertheless, all leader development programs entail and accentuate different power relations, such as comparison, competition and negotiation of status, regardless of whether the program is internal or external. ETP is also an expensive program, which might motivate “getting value for money”, even when the program is paid for by the organization. The ETP program targets experienced leaders with at least 10 years of experience. 50 Gitte: So, the openness in what you had been told about the private (life ?) and regarding leadership? Jim: Yes, yes – I just couldn’t - that is the strangest thing - you are with a bunch of people who have not had or have not wanted to talk to other people about it – it is scary –just very scary to me. What I try to do here, and what has become even more clear because of this course, is to make my leaders say “things like they are” to me, so when we sit and discuss purely business – I try to get into the personal, how they are feeling at home – how they are doing and if they are taking care of themselves….Hmm, instead of just talking business with them…” The norm of openness shocked and made an impression on Jim. Nevertheless, he describes transferring aspects of the openness norm into his home organization, exemplified by how he leads and communicates with the next leader level. Jim’s expressed reservations about being open are discussed further in the case of Jim: The Story of the Perfect Match, in the analytical chapter 7. The norms of the ETP program are to a large extent formed and interacted in a small group setting; about one-third of the program takes place in groups of 6-7 leaders. Right Management facilitators continually switch between all groups (typically three) at a particular cohort. Thus, the group norms will be influenced by all three facilitators and their slightly different facilitative styles. Each group, however, has one regular facilitator who works with the “personal project” and the more intensive coaching of the group members. As a consequence of this program setup, my interaction with the leaders mainly took place in the basic group setting. In the program practice, the way in which I, as a facilitator, interact with and respond to each leader is evident to the rest of the group. This means that in my facilitator role I introduce the norms and culture of ETP, not only by telling about norms like “openness”, but even more by interacting and demonstrating the norms in the group setting. In the facilitator position, I act as a role model, and have to respond to the group members in such a way that they feel invited to be “open” and motivated to “share significant issues” with me and with the rest of the group. The groups enact their own group norms and adopt in various ways the norms of interaction of the ETP program context. The roles of facilitator and participant are asymmetrical roles, as are the roles in the interview situation (Kvale, 1997). The relational asymmetry is enhanced by the fact that all facilitators are psychologists and supposed through their education to have specialized knowledge of human interaction, communication and group processes. The following is an example of 51 how norms and culture are negotiated between the program's group members. This example is narrated by Jim during the 2006 interview; the episode illustrates the group reaction when one of the group members, Adam, is perceived to violate the norm of openness. The episode enacted the norm of openness and rendered the norm visible to the group and to me. We enter the interview in a conversation about feeling safe16 at ETP. Example – Jim interview 2006 Gitte: what was it - that made you feel safe? Jim: It was that everybody else was being open about their situation. It was the openness. Gitte: Yes? Jim: It is my impression that none of the others had hidden agendas – only once when Edith really erupted and said she felt cheated by Adam. That was really where it became obvious. And the others also agreed that Adam’s agenda; not wanting to be open – that we didn’t like it. And then of course you can always discuss whether the others had gotten to the bottom of me or not? I don’t know, there are these layers you have – and I don’t know, but I felt I got into the others and people were dealing with real issues…like Ben…hmm, and also Milton, and Edith - but we felt cheated by Adam. ------- Gitte: What do you think this episode did to the group? Jim: The rest of us became very close, but Adam, I don’t know if he felt like an outsider or became one – I think he did, but……Hmm I didn’t really care that much, because it was his own lack of effort; it was not our lack of effort – we tried to be open and to help, and if you don’t want to receive, if you want to make your own rules which are not the rules of the group, then it is up to you – He is a grown up… This can be interpreted as a very explicit example of how group norms are enacted in practice in the program and illustrating group pressure to adhere to the norm of openness and to engage in dialogue with the group about significant issues – what Jim calls “real issues”. The sharing in the group and the strong emotional reaction towards the violation of the norm of openness was mentioned by three of the 16 The word safe is translated from the Danish word: tryg – at føle sig tryg. 52 leaders in the individual interviews as an especially emotional experience that made a strong impression in the program. Furthermore, when the group requests some level of “authenticity” of its members, the example underlines group sensitivity to what could be considered impression management dialogue. Hence, the norm of openness interacted in the ETP program functions within the leader development program context as a mirror for the individual leader and initiates self-reflection. But the norm also entails pressure to accommodate the norm within the group setting, causing group members struggling with openness or unwilling to adapt to become only peripheral members and perhaps feel inadequate. In the research context, the established norm of openness, in combination with the familiarity and prior consultant-participant relationship, may have generated a special dialogue that to a greater extent could elicit stories involving problems or inadequacies than would be likely in the average interview. This is a significant feature of this particular study, which colors the investigation and its findings but also contributes a unique insight into the struggles leaders must deal with that are not often brought forward. 2.3.5 Ethical Considerations Ethical considerations are always important, and the value of the research can never outweigh any injury through personal exposure (Stake, 2000:447). Here, I consider three critical ethical aspects of my study. First, I have to consider how to accommodate what is shared with me in an atmosphere of trust and confidentiality with the research requirement of transparency and empirical richness. This is truly a balance act when, for example, one leader shares reflections about his recent divorce and another worries about his son’s development that reflect his role as a father. These might be thematically important for an understanding of the life changes and circumstance of the leaders, but they are also in an ethical grey zone in relation to the level of personal disclosure acceptable. I have chosen to leave very personal details to the private sphere, but to make significant life changes known to the reader (e.g. undergoing divorce), because such life circumstances significantly influence identity construction processes. Secondly, I meet the participants in the ETP program context in the role of facilitator and “subject matter expert”, which makes ethical considerations regarding the unequal distribution of power in the research relationship important. Although the context later changed into the context of the research project, the leaders continued to a large extent to relate to me and interact with me in much the 53 same way as in the ETP program. Both contexts accentuate asymmetrical roles of power, and the distribution of power was interacted very differently in the interview setting. For example, in the 2006 interview, Adam continuously used my name, illustrating to me the power interacted between us; I, as a psychologist researcher, was positioned as in power and maybe even as a threat to self-esteem or identity. Thus, naming can be understood to evoke familiarity and relationship, and might be a way to manage the asymmetrical relation, making it more equal or less threatening. Jim also used my name several times in the 2006 interview, but in a different more patronizing way: “Gitte, you have to understand…”, perhaps attempting to position himself in power and in control of the situation, which is in line with the identity narratives unfolded in Jim’s case: The Story of the Perfect Match, in chapter 7. Besides having caused me to consider how to use empirical material without ethically violating personal integrity, this relation has also contributed to the richness and thickness of the empirical material. In the writing, this problem also concerns how the leaders are portrayed in the dissertation. The leaders’ narratives seem to be predominately negative and focused on what is not working. Thus, when presenting the leaders’ identity narratives, it appears as if the leaders are overwhelmingly unprofessional and insecure. This cautioned me ethically as a researcher to present and author their narratives as balanced and as multifaceted as possible, still allowing the dominate narratives to be transparent and unfolded as part of a whole, and by making the reader aware of this aspect. Finally, ethics are also to be considered in relation to the Right Management organization and my facilitator colleagues. The Right Management organization might appear unprofessional in not having the most basic documentation for a program that has contributed significantly to the company's turnover for years. In addition, the extreme process-orientation and improvisational facilitation style of the ETP program could be perceived as a liability instead of an advantage, in that it turns upside-down traditional management thinking about serious goal-directed work for producing reliable outcomes. In general, this study adheres to the ethical principles for psychologists issued by The Danish Board of Psychology. In accordance with these principles, the leaders are anonymous and organizational details have been dimmed, and I have done my outmost to adhere and consider the ethical implications of my choices, balancing the richness of the material, the trust in the relationship, and the ethical considerations in relation to the participants. 54 2.3.6 The Specific Methods of Inquiry Selection and application of methods have been aimed at supporting interactively the production of detailed, thick narratives, as narratives are one of the predominant ways of constructing identity. Three methods are applied in this study: observation/facilitation, interviewing and document analysis. Observation and Facilitation Observation is one of the most common ways to approach organizational settings and is a method for generating empirical material used predominately in sociologically and anthropologically oriented studies. Observation seems to imply or require some distance to the observed phenomena, which can lead to the perception that observation produces very reliable empirical material. However, this may be slightly misleading – first, because any observation is made from an intentional position in alignment with a research focus and aim; and second, because the practice of observing in an organizational context usually involves social interaction (such as conversations, small talk or questions) that places the researcher in an interactive and influential role in relation to the field. As such, the researcher is always interactively part of the field, even when observing in a restrictive sense; the researcher is another actor in the field, influencing interaction and enhancing self-reflection in the observed, as well as influencing the very words and use of words in a given context (Barinaga, 2002: 167). My researcher position as an organizational psychologist and consultant in the ETP leader development program clearly defines me as an active participant. The question is how to act as both a facilitator and research observer in the same context. In practice, sequencing of the two activities has been essential. At one point in time, I was interacting and facilitating interaction, and at another observing and taking a reflexive position – reflecting on the interaction and reflecting on my facilitation in the current situation. This has been possible because the program design varies between periods of intense interaction and periods when other actors or facilitators take the lead. Hence, during an average 14-hour program day, there are hours and moments of actively engaging with the leaders in a direct facilitative way, and hours and moments of observing the leaders from a distance. The argument is that the researcher can do both, in the same context, but not at the same time. Furthermore, the ETP program relies on the facilitators’ ability to observe and reflect upon her emotional reactions and interaction with the participants while 55 being in the situation. In systemic counseling, this is called meta-positioning, which distinguishes between being positioned as an interactive part of a situation, and reflecting on this interaction from a position outside the situation. This is a common core skill and competency of psychologists working with group processes, and I was able to use this differentiation in my research process and in juggling the two roles of facilitator and observer (Andersen, 1996). Central to the ETP program is identifying relevant issues and the zone of proximal development17 for the leaders. The facilitative intentions of the ETP program are not specific and are only formulated in very broad terms: to facilitate self-awareness and developmental processes within an existential and humanistic psychological frame. This means that as a facilitator, I do not operate with very fixed goals about what the leaders should accomplish in the program. To a large extent, the leaders themselves provide the content, making the facilitative intentions open and responsive to what the leaders bring forth and only the overall program ideology, design and pedagogic is settled a priori, as described in chapter 1. Typically, when you have worked with an area for a long time, some of your former reflected knowledge becomes tacit, intuitive and un-reflected. This has been described as a development from novice to subject matter expert (Sørensen and Barlebo, 2005). This research process has rendered my own invisible and tacit knowledge more visible, and has forced me to reflect again on various aspects of my own practice – For example, when describing the ETP program ideology and when tracing back interactive sequences in the interviews. Reflecting in more depth on the structure, design and facilitation has provided the study with much detail and process knowledge, which would have been hard to achieve otherwise. In this perspective, the research design is an attempt to make the most of my unique access and researcher position. Interviewing The intention of the interviews was to make possible the generation of rich narratives in which the leaders made sense of themselves as leaders and e.g. unfolded the meaning of their social practice as leaders and the identity construction processes. Since the researcher is understood not only to be contributing to the data but to be an active participant in the construction of the 17 Zone of Proximal Development is a concept of psychologist Lev Vygotsky (1978) and can be defined as the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving, and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers (Vygotsky, 1978: 86). It signifies the zone of optimal development for an individual. 56 empirical material, this implies that the empirical material can only be considered inter-subjective products (Holstein and Gubrium, 2000; Rasborg, 2004, in Fuglesang and Bitsch Olsen, 2004:37). Czarniawska (2004) goes so far as to claim that narrative interviews are manipulated conversations with the potential to generate a rich source of knowledge about social practice, insofar as the interviews produce narratives. In this particular study, I conducted semi-structured interviews inspired by Holstein and Gubrium’s (1995) The Active Interview. Active interviews are socially constructed experiences, always situated and embedded and emphasizing the researcher’s co-productive processes. The active interview makes the interviewee a researcher in his own right, consulting repertoires of experiences and orientations, linking fragments and pieces into patterns, and offering his own theoretically coherent descriptions, accounts and explanations. My established relationship with the leaders during the leader development program made it possible for me as interviewer to position myself in the role of “empathic fellow traveler” in relation to the narrator (Gabriel, 2000). Hence, the interview was framed as a place of narrative production, suggesting that the interviewee held the position of storyteller (Bruner, 1986b, Riessman, 1993). The storyteller is at the same time sensitive to the situation, improvising somewhat and co-creating with the interviewer, but he is not just making it all up. Elements of improvisational narration emerge in which the interviewee combines aspects of experience, emotion, opinion, and expectation to connect disparate parts into coherent, meaningful wholes (Holstein and Gubrium, 1995: 28). Storytelling is collaboration in the sense that the interviewer and the interviewee interact dynamically to produce meaningful stories. Storytellers draw on their audiences to deliver what they think their audiences (the researcher) want to hear. Accordingly, the leaders’ awareness of me as a psychologist, as well as the developmental context and norms, may have inclined them to tell stories about problems and emotional struggles and to tell stories of self-disclosure. I interviewed the leaders in 2006 and again in 2007. Each interview lasted from 22½ hours. I carried out all interviews except one at the Right Management office in Copenhagen. The interviews were recorded on a dictaphone and subsequently transcribed. The transcription included non-verbal signs of communication: sighs, pauses, and laughter, in order to give as full a description as possible of the interactive atmosphere during the interviews. The active interview is not so much dictated by a pre-designed set of questions; it is more loosely directed and constrained by the interviewer’s topical agenda, objectives, and queries (Holstein 57 and Gubrium, 1995:29). I approached the interview as a dialogue, and the challenge was to make the leader relate to and reason about the themes of study. Andersen et al. (1995:186) state that to establish dialogue a general rule is that “the less you need to say the better”. My intention was to allow room for the leaders to narrate in their own words and language. Therefore, I tried to minimize my own influence by limiting my use of conventional leader terms and concepts and the amount of talking I did during the interview, while sustaining dialogue within a frame of relevance to the investigative purpose. Concretely, I prepared an interview guide with open and broad questions aimed at providing a broad non-directive frame for the 2006 interviews. The first question was: “How did you become a leader?” This is purposefully a very open question that does not point out any particular starting point in time or delimiting answers to the leader occupation. The leaders responded by giving very different starting points; two told stories of childhood experiences and family background, while three started their stories in high school, referring to work. However, my interview style differed from semi-structured interviews and was more in line with the introduced “empathic fellow traveler” position and metaphor. Thus, I asked broad, open questions to frame the conversation, and then listened, rephrased and primarily made reinforcing remarks to encourage further storytelling and narration. The second interview in 2007 had two parts: In the first part, I engaged in an active interview, and in the second part, I integrated the 1st and 2nd LEA360 reports in the interview. The questions again aimed to generate narratives and questions focused on how the leader made sense of events or ascribed meaning to his actions and experiences as a leader. The first part focused on the leader's current situation and significant events from the past year with focus and reflections on the leader's developmental progress so far. Because I knew their action plans and personal projects from the ETP program, I could ask specific questions about the leader's particular developmental focus. The second part was a walkthrough of the LEA360 degree report from 2007, examining one leadership dimension at the time. The discussion of the report included the new feedback scores, and I wrote the 2005 scores into the report from all respondent groups (i.e. direct-reports, colleagues, boss and self). Then, the leader was able to see the exact feedback score on a particular leader dimension in 2005 and in 2007, making any changes visible to the leader. The leader would then offer his reflections, thoughts and explanations about the feedback and would typically relate feedback to concrete events, situations and experiences, or to his goals and aspirations. Hence, in the first part, I interacted in a 58 traditional researcher role, whereas the focus on the LEA360 report results in the second part of the interview bore resemblance to the consultant role. Even though I did not interact with the participants as a consultant (i.e. did not coach or facilitate on the basis of the LEA360 feedback report), the relationship in the last part was framed by the leaders’ relating to the LEA360 analysis. Moreover, as this is not a comparative research inquiry, comparison of the two analyses are not the focus here; the focus is how the leader makes sense of his leader identity in narratives in interaction with the feedback tool, possibly providing insights on how leaders create meaning about identity by using tools such as the LEA360, which is a commonly used tool for facilitating development in leader development programs. This approach was only possible because both the leaders and I had substantial knowledge of the LEA360 tool, which made it possible for the leaders to relate to the feedback scores without using too much time understanding the tool. I engaged in this process in order to elicit narratives on how the leaders, when confronted with the feedback, could incorporate it into their function as leader. How would the leader construct meaning of his identity as a leader and his processes of reconstruction in the face of this temporary feedback from people in his home organization? I had also conducted a focus group interview with the group in 2005, after the first individual interviews. The five leaders repeated to a large extent, or reproduced, narratives very similar to those told in the individual interviews. This brings to the fore how narratives, once they are told, are remembered again, thereby sustaining themselves as central identity constructs. Ending the focus group meeting, I expressed my appreciation for their participation, and Jim responded that I need not thank them, because “…we are not doing this for you – we are actually doing it for ourselves”. He thus implied that the leaders perceived the research project as a way to continue their development process and maybe to maintain focus and gain support to turn good intentions into action. As a consequence, I did not have to do much persuasion, since the leaders perceived the research intervention as a continuation of the program. This could potentially disappoint the leaders, if they later experienced that they did not receive more active facilitative involvement from my side, but on the other hand, just the shared experience of telling about your developmental goal can be considered “therapeutic”, since the self-reflective processes initiated in the interviews seemed to fulfill the leaders' need for continued development focus. The very act of meeting someone on a regular basis to talk about your development as a leader can be considered an intervention and can be seen as sustaining the developmental focus. These reflections made me feel comfortable and consistent in my passive and questioning 59 researcher role, reassured that the active interview in itself would be sufficient to meet their expectations, and would motivate them to continue participating in the research project. Document Analysis In this dissertation, the following written material is included: the two LEA360 analyses and feedback reports; personal project descriptions for each leader; copies of participants’ log books with personal notes and reflections made during and after the program; and in addition: my observation notes from the program and meetings; Right Management documents; marketing materials; course catalogues; internal written documents on the ETP program; and course evaluations. Moreover, as an Industrial PhD, I have been obliged to make deliverables to the host Right Management. In addition to the workshops already mentioned, I documented the entire ETP program, including the extensive storytelling sequences. In 2005, only limited documentation existed and only few consultants facilitated the program. From a business perspective, this was a very vulnerable situation, and Right Management wanted to preserve the program independently of individual facilitators. This process included the recording of the storytelling sequences of the ETP business simulation and writing a detailed instructor guide. The documentation made me distance myself from the interactive role of facilitation and approach the familiar program as an unfamiliar phenomenon. I had to reflect on what we were actually doing in the program and why, and I had to document this so others would be able to facilitate the program in the future. This work resulted in an extensive ETP instructor guide, which is now the intellectual property of Right Management. 2. 4 Approaching Analysis Every researcher has to deal with the incontrovertibly traumatic transformation of the research process into a research dissertation. This transformation takes place mostly through the analysis of the empirical material and the writing of the final text, which is often the only presentation of the product as a whole to a larger public audience. Needless to say, this presentation is vital in order to make the research process and insights available to research communities and others. In this section, I briefly reflect on and describe the concrete choices made in transforming this research process into writing, under the headings: selecting, interpreting, and authoring. 66 In the third and final part, I position “narrative identity” and the process of “narrative construction of identity” at the center of this investigation. This part is structured in four interrelated functions that represent four ways in which a narrative identity construct functions in the everyday practice of work and life, as a means by which people: • Make sense of self • Understand social reality • Negotiate power • Change identity 3. 1 The Emergence of the Identity Concept The story of identity is an extensive story that stretches back through history in the philosophical development of human thinking about the self and the human condition. Hence, this review focuses on the construction of identity found in theories in the intersection of psychology and social psychology, and to a lesser degree in sociology. The identity concept appears first in 1570 as “identitie”, defined as "the quality or condition of being the same in substance, composition, nature, properties, or in particular qualities under consideration; absolute or essential sameness; oneness” (OED, 2002, in Benwell and Stokoe, 2006:18). In Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary (2006), identity is defined as: “the distinct personality of an individual regarded as a persisting entity”, and the Latin origin is “identitas”, which derives from the Latin idem meaning “the same”. In both these definitions, identity is to be understood as a whole, a unity with absolute qualities, indicating that identity is consistently the same regardless of different contexts. Identity is also approached as personal, collective, social, and organizational or as a combination of these, but in the Western world the tradition is to construct the individual as the object of study when investigating identity (Shotter and Gergen, 1989). As exemplified by the following quote, this individualized view of identity is anchored and constructed in a particular cultural context: “The Western conception of the person as a bounded, unique, more or less integrated motivational and cognitive universe, a dynamic center of awareness, emotion, judgment, and action organized into a distinct whole and set contrastively both against other such wholes and against a social and natural 67 background is, however incorrigible it may seem to us a rather peculiar idea within the context of the world’s cultures” (Clifford Geertz, 1973: 229) Historically, the identity concept has had a broad interdisciplinary foundation, and the use of the term “identity” is ubiquitous in contemporary social science, as well as psychology, psychoanalysis, political science, sociology and history. However common, the usages of the term are ambiguous and varied, even when considering only the way the term is used within the social sciences. In psychology, early research traditions had a behaviorist and natural science orientation; later, there followed a psychodynamically orientated psychology, which also had a significantly impacted contemporary idea of the self. In development and personality psychology, identity has been investigated by seeking to uncover individuals' idiosyncrasies and personality traits in order to distinguish each individual as unique. Paradoxically, this has evolved into a strong tradition in universal regularity theories of human development, which propose universal and generic phase models for identity development, often based on single case studies (Freud, 1948; 1975; Erikson, 1968; 1980; Piaget, 1954). In social psychology, with influence from sociology, identity has been investigated focusing on role behavior, identity negotiation, group membership, identification and self-categorization processes (Tajfel, 1981; Turner et. al, 1987). In social psychology and in newer sociological approaches, a substantial body of research has been based on identity theory and social identity theory, based on the early American pragmatist tradition and its notions of a social self in social symbolic interaction (James, 1948; Mead, 1934; Blumer, 1969). 3.1.1 Early Perspectives of the Self and Identity “Self” is a surprisingly quirky idea – intuitively obvious to common sense yet evasive to definition by the fastidious philosopher” (Bruner, 2002:63). The first challenge is to decide where to start when doing a review of identity. Throughout human history, the questions of what we are, who we are, and how we change have been on the philosophical and religious agenda. Regardless of the difficulties, a review of the early ideas of self seems necessary and essential to understanding how the early ideas, the roots of the historic foundation, influence our thinking about the contemporary concept of identity as well as the words we use when we discuss who we are in everyday language. The aim is to clarify some of the key concepts of self and the contextual emergence of identity historically, as 68 reflected in a selection of dominant theories on identity and self: the transactional self, the psychodynamic self, and the self-actualizing self. The Transactional Self The transactional self was born out of the European Enlightenment and resulted in a construction of the self as an idealized, abstract platform from which concepts and judgments emanated. The self is understood to transcend society, standing prior to, apart from, and philosophically above life's everyday struggles (Holstein and Gubrium, 2000:4). The Enlightenment in Europe was based on faith in human reason and rationalism, and when the French philosopher Rene Descartes (15961650) stated in a famous seventeenth-century dictum “I think, therefore I am”, the self was established as a logical, cognitively driven entity. A highly sustainable notion was formed of a separate and logically distinct self at the center of philosophy. This notion of “disengaged reason” and Descartes’ concept of “selfmastery through reason” also implies separating the mind from the body and makes way for a construction of self as subjectivity that is independent of or separate from external influence (Taylor, 1989:143). The later philosopher John Locke (16321704) also emphasized conscious reasoning and reflexive thought as the means towards morality, personal integrity and a coherent life, implying that people are rational beings and that human action is directed by thinking. People influence the world, and the world is perceived as objective and measurable (Cerulo, 1997). A pronounced dualism between mind and body, perceived as two separate entities, is one of the significant contributions of this period, and this concept still remains in everyday language and impacts contemporary meaning creation and practices. However, these ideas neglect and to a high degree ignore or minimize the emotional aspects of self, as well as the impact of contextual factors. The Psychodynamic Self In the psychodynamic tradition, Erik Erikson (1968, 1980) investigated identity formation across the individual lifespan. His influential theory on ego identity formation builds on the epigenetic principle, which implies that human beings develop through a predetermined unfolding of our personalities in specific stages, and that developmental progress is determined by how successful people are in resolving the specific psychosocial developmental tasks at each developmental stage. Stages are progressively sequential, and if the individual fails to learn the task at one stage, consequences occur at the next stage. Each stage has a certain optimal age range within which the stage has to be successfully completed. In Erikson’s framework, a successful accomplishment of a task at a developmental 69 stage leads to or establishes a certain psychosocial strength (or virtue), which supports and facilitates the individual through the rest of the stages. Erikson is an ego psychologist who to a great extent accepts and develops the Freudian notions of a psychodynamic self governed by subconscious processes and internalized social norms, in contrast with more recent studies on the identity status paradigm that emphasize choice and commitment more and assume that all individuals’ sense of identity is determined by the choices and commitments made to particular personal traits and social traits. The degree to which an individual displays commitment to the choices he or she have made are pivotal (Marcia, 1980). Erikson does however acknowledge the interactive aspects of identity construction and the influences of culture and social environment. His identity development theory is still a universal model that aims to provide a generic developmental path guided by age, time and interaction. Thus, Erikson’s theory is not explicitly sensitive to variances in individual developmental or cultural differences. Individual variance is described in a language of maladaptation or maladjustments. Hence, the development model becomes a normalization device, implying that identity can be developed along a right or a wrong developmental path, and individuals are identified according to the extent to which they are aligned with or deviate from the universal development path. The Self-actualizing Self Humanistic psychology was established as a concept in 1958 by a group of psychologists led by the American psychologist Abraham Maslow (1908-1970). In "Association for Humanistic Psychology”, prominent psychologists such as A. Maslow, G. Allport, C. Bühler, R. May, C. Rogers broke with behaviorist theory and research ideals and with classic psychoanalyst theory's deterministic view of human beings. Humanistic psychologists have their roots in phenomenology and existentialism; they emphasize what is distinctly and uniquely human, and construct the self on the basis of the central concepts of self-awareness and selfknowledge. Carl Rogers (1959; 1961) developed theory and concepts from his client-focused therapy. With a positive and optimistic view of human nature, Rogers focuses on the present as the point of departure for development, in contrast to the psychoanalytical focus on the past. Rogers defines the self as: ” The Self is an organized consistent set of perceptions and beliefs about oneself. It includes my awareness of “what I am”, “what I can do”, and influences both my perception of the world and my behavior; we evaluate every experience in terms of it and most human behavior can be understood as an 70 attempt to maintain consistency between our self-image and our actions” (C. Roger, 1961, in Gross 1987: 224). Assuming that human behavior is the result of human perception and interpretative understanding of external events, Rogers introduces the term self-image in contrast to action. Self-image is a central functionality of Rogers’ key concept: “incongruence”. The way people experience themselves and their intentions are often not congruent with how others perceive them. According to Rogers, people prefer to have congruence between their actions and feelings and their perceived behavior. Incongruence appears when a person’s actual feelings are not the feelings the person thinks he/she ought to have (the self-image). For example, a person feels relieved because of a recent divorce or death, but she thinks she should feel sad or sadder than she does. If the gap between the actual feelings/behavior and the selfimage increase, the person’s ability to grow is inhibited and the person becomes frustrated and vulnerable, and will potentially develop unbalanced behavioral patterns. The bigger the gap between the self-image and the actual self, the greater the anxiety and the emotional problems. In contrast, the congruent person is characterized by the ability to flexibly adapt new experiences into a realistic self, implying that the ways in which the person thinks, feels and acts are congruent with the self-image. Rogers claims this is the most promising position for realizing a person’s full potential, which he describes as “self-actualization”. In humanistic psychology, also called the third wave, Rogers and Maslow share a positive notion of human nature and a belief in each individual’s potential for personal growth, implied by the concept of self-actualization. Maslow (1968, 1971) describes selfactualization as: “Becoming everything that one is capable of becoming” (Maslow, 1971 in Gross, 1987: 651) and Rogers (1959) emphasizes:”…the inherent tendency of the organism to develop all its capacities in ways which serve to maintain or enhance the organism” (Rogers, 1959 in Gross, 1987:224). They both understand self-actualization as an inherently motivational force within all humans, and if social relations or context are not delimiting, each individual will strive towards realizing their full potential, i.e. will actively engage in selfactualization (Rogers, 1959, 1980; Maslow, 1968, 1971). This thinking of self-actualization and the development of full potential is prominent in organization discourses and serves as the basic ideology of leader development programs. The ETP program’s notions of leader development have been described in chapter 1. In this chapter on the discursive construction of leaders 71 in leadership theory, I unfold how theoretical discourses become narrative resources for the construction of leader identity. Early philosophical influences position the self as transitional and separate from society, and the body as separate from the mind. This self that is governed by reason and logic was in contrast to the self of the later psychodynamically oriented theories, which construct the self as simultaneously governed by unconscious, emotional and societally internalized dynamics. The psychodynamic constructs a self that is preoccupied with balancing these forces; it is a self that is subordinate to outside structural forces on the one hand and to internal but unconscious processes on the other. On addition, the psychodynamic theories contribute the idea that development of self follows universal and predefined developmental paths, which simultaneously construct any departure or variance from this predisposed path as problematic and label them as maladaptive behavior or “wrong” development, thus simultaneously establishing a normalization dogma for judging and evaluating constructs of self and identity development. Humanistic psychology oriented theories have been influential in constructing the self as an inner essence that can be discovered. The idea of self-actualization underlines that developing a self is an individual project that is achieved through finding and actualizing an inner and genuine self. Change and development increasingly become the responsibility of the individual. Each person is responsible for success or failure in finding and realizing his/her genuine self. The self is conceived as an inner quality and a relatively consistent whole, which implicitly excludes the ambiguity of being in opposition to the genuine self and constructing a false, or incongruent, self. This perspective of consistency has been very persistent over time and is found in everyday language usage. A quick look at the magazine shelf and the manifold self-help literature shows that the project of finding your “real, inner or true” self remains relevant. Benwell and Stokoe (2006) exemplify this tendency in reality television, where hosts – typically “experts” – assist people to find “who you really are”. When we consider the varied theoretical approaches, however, their persistence on sameness and unity is pronounced and is characteristically found throughout very different research fields and theories. These early theories also predominately locate the self in the individual realms of cognition, experience and psychological dynamics. 72 Display 3-1 Early Perspectives of Self and Identity Early Perspectives of Self and Identity • Focus on identity as coherent • See identity as a consistent manifestation across situations • Perceived identity as a unity • Ambiguity is excluded 3.1.2 Modern Perspectives of the Identity Concept The modern identity concept is founded on the philosophical thinking of the enlightenment period in which the self was constituted by cognitive thinking and the ability to exercise rational thinking in relation to an objective and measurable outer reality. In philosophy, the rationalist, materialist and positivist movements established a primacy of reason and realism, indicating a dualism between body/mind and mind/matter, understood as independent and separate entities. The term modernism18 describes movements that attempt to overthrow or reject the constructs of scientific rationality. However, the modernist perspective still rests on an epistemology of objectivity and is founded on the belief that the world exists independent of our knowledge of it. In a modern perspective, judgments about the accuracy and truth of theories are based on empirical comparisons of the theoretical hypothesis and the empirical data collected to test it (Giddens, 1991; Gergen, 1997). Epistemological positions are important because they form a particular optic, and specific identity constructs can be traced back to different epistemological positions and assumptions about how we can know the world, and to the ontological question of what can be known. An epistemology of subjectivity implies that all knowledge of the world is filtered through the subject, and that the world can only be understood from the point of view of the individual. Thus, knowledge is relative to the subject and is processed by cognitive, social and cultural filters. This position is found in symbolic interaction oriented theories, and it is extended in the later postmodern perspectives where reality is defined to a high 18 In this dissertation, the unsettled and ongoing discussions of the modern and postmodern positions are not central to exploring narrative identity construction processes. The aim of this introductory division is to illustrate the central philosophical and social scientific positions and describe how the concept of self /identity and society has changed and is understood differently from these two positions. Philosophers and social scientists use the term postmodern to describe the social and cultural implications of life in the late 20th and early 21st century, and the social and political ramifications in society. In this dissertation, I use postmodern to signify both the state of being and the societal and philosophical influences, because they influence my position that the construction of identity is unavoidably a societal and contextual activity. 73 degree by the individual’s subjective experience under social and cultural influence, and where the concept of identity itself is understood as a construction. The concept of social self reviewed here under a modernist heading has in its early theoretical development a subjectivist epistemological position, but later theoretical developments, especially in social identity theory, have moved slightly towards an objective epistemology. The Social Self American pragmatism19 developed in opposition to the philosophically oriented European thinking and emphasizes everyday life as an object of study of interest. William James (1948[1892]:43) proposes that the self is to be understood as an entity whose existence in the world, knowledge of itself, and sense of well-being derive from experience, and he coined the concept of the “empirical self” (Holstein and Gubrium, 2000:17). Here, the term empirical is used as a reference to general experience and not, as in contemporary usage, as a particular research method. James suggests that when individuals claim a particular identity, they think and behave in ways that demonstrate and elaborate that identity. Another prominent idea of the social self is investigated in studies of the “the looking glass self “, which suggests that the self operates in the imagination, drawing from, reflecting upon, and responding to real and imagined others 20. Charles Horton Cooley (1964[1902]) formulated this as three overriding components of the looking glass self: “The imagination of how our appearance looks to the other person; the imagination of his judgment of that appearance and some sort of self-feeling, such as pride or mortification” (Cooley, 1964:184). The self is responsive to “itself” and to how the self imagines this self from the perspective of the other. In other words, in order to see ourselves, we look to see our reflection in the reactions of others in the social context. What our imagination makes out of that reflection is the central contribution to our looking glass self. In Cooley’s terminology, the responsive process of including the perspective of the other gives rise to a sense of self-feeling in the individual. Cooley states that 19 The American pragmatists are William James, Charles Horton Cooley, George Herbert Mead, Herbert Blumer. The American pragmatist school divided into the Chicago School and the Iowa School (Cõté and Levine, 2002). 20 The looking glass self has developed into a therapeutic method with a one-way screen or mirror in which others can see you, but you can not see them. This method is used today or therapeutic training in systemic therapy and for leader development training at the Center for Creative Leadership. 74 although it is the central element for understanding the self, self-feeling can only be understood through experience: “But as this feeling is quite familiar to us and easy to recall as the taste of salt or the color red, there should be no difficulty in understanding what is meant by it. One need only imagine some attack on his “me”, say ridicule of his dress or an attempt to take away his property or his child, or his good name by slander, and self-feeling immediately appears. Indeed, we need only pronounce, with strong emphasis, one of the self-words, like “I” or “my”, and self-feeling will be recalled by association” (Cooley, 1964:172-73). George Herbert Mead (1934) disagrees with Cooley’s emphasis on the self-feeling concept, criticizing what he thinks is a construct of self that is only secondarily social and essentialist. In responding to Cooley’s self-feeling concept, Mead clarifies: “The essence of the self, as we have said, is cognitive: it lies in the internalized conversation of gestures which constitutes thinking, or in terms of which thought or reflection proceeds. And hence the origin and foundation of the self, like those of thinking, are social” (Mead, 1934:173). Cooley’s self-feeling concepts revive conations from the philosophical roots of self, those that equal individual and inner experience to the self rather than unearthing an external and social self. Much theory on identity in sociology and social psychology can be traced back to the early work of George Herbert Mead (1934). He coined the social self concept and claimed that the self is “essentially a social structure” (Mead,1934:140). Still, Mead stresses that self-consciousness, rather than feelings, provides the core of the self, since thinking has a prominent position in the development of self. Mead perceives self-consciousness as the inner representation of an external conversation of significant gestures. Hence, thinking is an inner conversation with oneself, while social interaction is an external conversation with others, and both are socially symbolic and reflectively interactive (Mead, 1934:173-174). The self is located within communicative action, where the self reflects on itself, either in the course of inner conversation, called thinking, or as an openly reflexive product of social interaction. Mead refines the conceptual framework of the “I” and the “me”, in which he defines the self, which “arises in the process of social experience and activity, that is, develops in the given individual as a result of his relations to that process as a whole and to other individuals within that process” (Mead, 1934:135, in Hatch, and Schultz, 2002: 992). To be able to know who I am, he argues, we need experiences that provide us with means and meanings through which we can become conscious about our self. 75 Consciousness per se cannot be the self’s object without substantial experiences upon which to reflect (Holstein and Gubrium, 2000:29). Furthermore, self-awareness is conceived as fundamental for humans in this tradition. The ability to think about what we do and simultaneously to be the one who is doing the thinking is a unique capability that makes humans able to be both the subject (the one who thinks) and the object (the one I think about). This unique way of relating to “the self” is basic to self-awareness and is discursively present in everyday language when I refer to my self as “I“ when I am the subject and “me” when I am the object of my self-awareness. Mead’s notions of the social self and the interaction of “self” and “society” later paved the theoretical ground for development into two distinct identity research approaches: identity theory founded on a role-based identity construct, and social identity theory founded on a groupbased identity construct. Identity Theory and Role-based Identity Identity theory was first formulated in 1966 by Sheldon Stryker and has subsequently been developed into two distinct theoretical directions within an overarching program called: structural symbolic interaction. The first direction is still represented by Stryker (Stryker, 1980; Stryker and Serpe, 1982) and focuses on how social structures affect self, and how structures of the self influence social behavior. The second direction represented by Burke (Burke, 1991; Burke and Reitzes, 1991) focuses on the internal dynamics of self-processes as these affect social behavior. Hence, each direction provides a context for the other in investigating the reciprocal relationship and linkages between self and the social world (Stryker and Burke, 2000). Identity theory has contributed significantly to identity research; in identity theory, Mead’s notion of “social behavior” is specified to “role choice behavior”. Social roles are defined as expectations attached to positions occupied in networks of relationships; and identities are defined as internalized role expectations. In order to explain why an individual chooses a particular role at the expense of another, identity theory introduces the term “identity salience”. Identity salience can vary by degrees and exactly how salient a role is to the individual determines the choice. A social role is more identity salient if a person chooses it across a variety of situations, or if most people choose it in a given situation. In the progressive development of identity theory, the society dimension became specified further as 82 Gergen (1991) calls a “saturated self”. Gergen’s description of the impact of saturation illustrates key aspects of postmodern perspectives on identity: “Emerging technologies saturate us with the voices of humankind - both harmonious and alien. As we absorb their varied rhymes and reasons, they become part of us and we of them. Social saturation furnished us with a multiplicity of incoherent and unrelated languages of the self. For everything we know “to be true” about our selves, other voices within respond with doubt and even derision. This fragmentation of the self-conception corresponds to a multiplicity of incoherent and disconnected relationships. These relationships pull us in myriad directions, inviting us to play such a variety of roles that the very concept of an “authentic self” with knowable characteristics recedes from view” (Gergen, 1991:6-7. Anthony Giddens (1991) places the emergence of the identity concept in the postmodern period, and has critically described the individual identity as embattled and troubled: “The concept of individual identity is in itself a typical institution of “high modernity” and persists through an ability to narrate one’s life, formulate it into a narrative composed of terms that will be accepted by a relevant audience” (Giddens 1991: 410). Holstein and Gubrium (2000) agree about the emergence of identity, but they oppose thinking of the postmodern self as embattled. They suggest that the tensions plaguing contemporary experience derive in part from a continued belief in a coherent self, while being confronted with society's need for myriad identities. In their opinion, there is no reason to believe identity will be overwhelmingly saturated by competing social definitions (Holstein and Gubrium, 2000:13). The postmodern gathers a movement away from personality and trait orientation towards an inter-personal and relational-oriented concept of identity; another dualism is subscribing to individual agency or social structure. The agency position proposes that people should hold on to significant agency of their own construction and self-definition processes, whereas theories with a stringent structure positioning are less optimistic about individual constructive freedom and claim that structural forces, whether unconscious processes or institutionalized power structures, restrict the way individuals can eventually construct identity. Watson (2006) makes a conceptual distinction between dualism and duality to bring to the fore the integrative process of co-construction that takes place in the interaction between the 83 individual and the organization or between the constructor of identity and a particular context. A dualism perspective indicates linearity and that identity is analytically approached as the existence of two separable entities, i.e. an individual identity and an organizational identity, conceived as two separate things, whereas a duality perspective implies that the organization and the individual are two sides of the same coin and essentially inseparable, which again makes analytical examination of the interaction the relevant focus of investigation (Watson, 2006:85-87). As early as 1968, Gergen suggested that: “…identity is an amalgam of loosely coupled identities, and that the popular notion of the self-concept as a unified, consistent, or perceptually “whole” psychological structure is possibly ill-conceived” (Gergen, 1968: 306). Nevertheless, the issue of coherence is still present in the research field, more or less explicitly. In a social constructivist perspective, identity is something you perform, and performance is evaluated by audiences. Hence, in a postmodern perspective, coherence is under maximal pressure since the social constructivist approach implies that identities are temporary and fragmented, i.e. developed in an ongoing construction process. In critical management research, changes in the conceptualization of identity are described in the following way: “Recent developments suggest that identities can be more productively viewed as social accomplishments rather than naturally occurring entities. Identity is a relational concept, it is a construction. There is no such thing as a pure identity –no essence or substance that sums up what identity is about. It is seen as multiple, fragmented, processual and situational rather than coherent, fixed and stable” (Kärremann, and Alvesson, 2001:62-63). Language is the core of any construction of reality and identity, as it connects the individual with other people, with culture and with the larger historically based human foundation, and language is seen as an actively used device for reality construction (Gergen, 1997, Czarniawska, 2004). Derrida (1976) suggests that in radical social constructionist positions, the self is no longer an essence, but has become a description: “…there is nothing beyond the text: reality is always a representation, and therefore it is language that constitutes the “I” of the subject and brings it into being through the process of signification” (Derrida, 1976 in Benwell and Stokoe, 2006:31). 84 The assumption of a universal and linear road for identity development is replaced by variability. Longitudinal research on life stories has shown that discontinuity in the development of identity is more often the case, described as multiple pathways (Josselson, 1996), second chances that are felt to initiate new segments in a life (Kotre, 1984), personal support and encouragement for change (Mishler, 1999). This assumption of variability proposes a “multi-causal” model of development, where change arises not due to a specific age or stage in life, but rather within a certain contextual, historical time interacted situation. I have already discussed the four characteristics of this tradition, when approaching identity in chapter 2, in the section on Characteristics of a Social Constructivist Position, which focuses on everyday interaction, critical reflections of what we take for granted, language and meaning as historically and culturally situated, and finally on social action and relations of power. Therefore, the following review concentrates on and emphasizes positioning theory as an example of a postmodern perspective. Positioning theory is a rising research field within the social constructivist paradigm that attempts to articulate alternative ways of understanding the dynamics of human interactions. It provides a system of concepts through which “the creation of meaning” can be analyzed and interpreted. Overall, role theory and positioning theory serve some of the same sense-making functions by ordering perceptions of social reality, and by providing interactive scripts to guide social interaction. The concept of “positioning” was developed by Davis and Harré (1990; 1991), who defined it as a “…process whereby selves are located in conversation as observably and subjectively coherent participants in jointly produced story lines” (Davis and Harré, 1991:48). Hence, a position is a performance of a certain identity – for example, if I position myself as ignorant or confused. I would be performing an identity in which I am powerless and perhaps cannot to be held accountable for my actions. The social positioning in stories, i.e. individuals choose to position audiences, characters, and themselves in their stories can take on many forms, but whatever position is taken, the positioning is contributing to a narrative construction of identity: “…positioning of the self in personal narratives signifies the performance of identity” (Riessman, 2002:702 in Gubrium, J. F. and Holstein, J. A. 2000.) The focus of this dissertation is ontological narratives and these are given legitimacy and accept in negotiations of different narrative positions via social 85 interactive processes (Gergen, 1997, Riessman, 1993). Narrative identity constructs emerging from positioning processes are not neutral, but are deeply rooted in the specific social context. Ontological narratives are given content and form by the narrative resources and discursive context from which they draw and simultaneously supply (Ainsworth and Hardy, 2004). The positioning triad is a central analytical model in positioning theory; it consists of three interrelated elements: position, storyline and speech act. A position is linked to the actions of a person in a certain position. A speech act is what the person is actually saying – what the person can be heard saying. Positioning and the speech acts are both linked to the storyline. And storylines are understood to have a base in various conventional discourses, some of which the person is in the process of living out (Harré and Moghaddam, 2003:7-9). Display 3-3 The Positioning Triad (Harré and Moghaddam, 2003:8) Positions are socially and culturally anchored in temporal social conventions, and are distributed in current discourses, for example about “what leaders do” and “what leadership is about”. Most often, leadership discourses are indistinguishable from or are woven into other societal discourses and as such are part of the broader context of life. In this dissertation, societal discourses are understood as narrative resources that are available for the individual. Temporary discourses of leadership derive from various sources, such as popular management literature and published research, and can be a narrative resource from which leaders draw when constructing leader identity (see chapter 4 for a review of discourses that construct leaders in leadership studies). The conceptual development of positioning theory is Position Storyline Speech act 86 based on a critique of the role concept and makes a distinction between a role and a position. Positioning theory criticizes the concept “role” to be relatively static, without reflecting the way social relationships are actually experienced and enacted by participants. The concept of role fails to represent the fluid character of social actions and experience, whereas positioning theory sees the interpretation of role characteristics as being negotiated in the immediate context, and individuals as being actively engaged in constructing identities outside what is considered the role. The role concept is also criticized for indirectly communicating a dramaturgical language,21 thus, giving the impression that scripts and speech acts are already written and determined more by the play than by the actors, who in role theory are presented as having limited choice in forming the role and in playing the parts of particular contexts (Davis and Harré, 1990; 1991). Hence, the identification of “role” marks out a sub-domain of a person's life, where notions of role and job are typically closely linked, and can be so prolonged that the role identity is maintained after retirement and into other domains than the profession (e.g. when a job title is mentioned in a death notice). Display 3-4 Postmodern Perspectives of the Identity Construct Postmodern Perspectives of the Identity Construct • Focus on identity as construction processes and social performance • See identity as transiently manifested in context by negotiating subject positions • Perceive identity to be simultaneously fragmented and coherently performed • Ambiguity is the core of identity and consensus perceived as issue specific and temporal This chapter has moved through decades of thinking about self and identity, and obviously such a review has limitations. The intent of this condensed review has been to bring to the surface important theoretical contributions to and movements in our conceptualization of the construction of identity as well as significant theoretical concepts, and to illustrate how conceptualizations have changed 21 The notion of identity as performance traces back to sociologist Erving Goffman (1953; 1981) drama metaphoric language, and the idea that individuals act as social actors who stage their performance to present desirable selves; that identity is understood to be performed for an audience and in social settings. 87 Identity is found by unfolding inner essence Identity is interacted socially and symbolically Identity is constructed in discourse and narrative markedly over time. Perspectives interact and continuously produce change, however, making it difficult to narrate a very stringent case. These significant changes construct the phenomenon very differently, which ultimately has consequences for the way we investigate identity and for the way we in leadership development programs attempt to approach identity construction processes. The review also illustrates how the three perspective frameworks unfold throughout history, showing that where earlier perspectives tended to favor an integrative process, perspectives of the modern period tend to favor differentiation, and postmodern perspectives seem to be marked by more or less radical views of fragmentation. The overarching aim has been to illuminate the transition of the identity concept through this extensive period with an emphasis on significant changes in the way identity has been constructed over time. With the limitations in mind, early perspectives have constructed identity as an internal project of the self, focused on agency, stability and the maintenance of unity across situations. Modern perspectives focus on the social foundation of the self in its symbolic and interactive constitution, examining multiple identities that are situationally anchored and socially activated, and formulating a social identity concept. Postmodern perspectives conceive identity as a social construct and construct identity as ambiguous and fragmented. Identity is constructed in language, in contemporary discourse and narratives, giving new directions for how to approach and study the construct we call identity. Below is a summary of these essential characteristics. Display 3-5 Developmental Paths in the Construction of the Identity Concept One identity Continuity Essence Pre-modern Essentialist Multiple identities Role/situation specific Social symbolic interaction Modern Symbolic Inter-actionist Fragmented identities Ambiguity / issue specific Discursive construction Postmodern Social Constructivist 88 One conceptualization does not replace another completely, however; former notions of identity intermingle and continue to direct studies and contemporary conceptualizations of identity. Hence, early conceptualizations of identity, as well as modern notions of identity, are still prevalent in contemporary conceptualizations of identity. 3. 2 Making Sense of Narratives In the next part of this chapter, I situate the narrative approach within a general linguistic turn in the social sciences and reflect on the distinguishing qualities of narrative and stories. I describe how to make sense of narratives and unfold how a narrative identity can be understood as functional in the everyday practice of life. The review is structured in four interrelated functions of narrative identity: making sense of self, understanding social reality, negotiating power, and changing identity. 3.2.1 The Linguistic Turn and Narrative Research In the social sciences, the linguistic turn arose in the 1980s as part of a change in general orientation that included an awareness of the importance of language. The linguistic turn marked an increasing interest in and study of language and was taken up within different disciplines, such as sociology, social psychology, communication theory and cultural anthropology (Alvesson and Kärremann, 2000b). Due to the very broad and varied interdisciplinary background, this turn resulted in highly differentiated theoretical approaches with only general common denominators, such as the shared notion that societies, social institutions, cultures and identities could be better understood if viewed as discursively constructed in texts (Alvesson and Kärremann, 2000b:137). Narratives and stories were defined as a study domain within the organizational discourse approach (Grant, Hardy, Oswick and Putnam, 2004:5). Discursive studies and discourse analysis22 generally have a literary and textual orientation where narratives are analyzed as prevailingly symbolic and rhetorical devices. In conventional research, the representative idea of language is predominant, and it is assumed that the relationship between reality and language is like a mirror where words represent and correspond to objects. These objects can be people’s inner 22 Discourse analysis is a specific direction that focuses on the detailed study of language use in a social context (Potter, 1997, Potter and Wetherell, 1987). Alvesson and Kärreman emphasize however that discourse is generally defined in a variety of ways by different researchers, thus arguing that it is a more scattered and fragmented field (see Alvesson and Kärreman, 2000b). 89 lives: intentions, values and feelings; or their external lives: social practices, relations and interaction. This is what Alvesson and Kärreman (2000b) have called the “language-as-mirror-logic”. In contrast, the narrative approach conceives of language as more complex and problematic, anchored in and dependent on social interaction and context. As a consequence, the research interest shifts towards focusing on how an account is produced and what it accomplishes (Alvesson and Kärreman, 2000b:137-138); however, the representational idea of language is not completely abandoned, since narrative research entails a critical and reflective view of the complexities of language. In the field of narrative psychology four central publications have marked the turn to narrative: Narrative Psychology: The Storied Nature of Human Conduct edited by Theodore Sarbin (1986); Jerome Bruner’s: Actual Minds: Possible Worlds (Bruner, 1986); Acts of Meaning (Bruner, 1990); and finally, Donald Polkinghorne’s (1988) Narrative Knowing and The Human Sciences. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, the interest in narrative diffused into personality and human development studies (McAdams, 1988), where narratives investigated selfdefinition in a lifespan perspective, and into clinical psychology, where the rising field of narrative therapy was exploring individual life stories. Narrative studies investigated identity at the individual level of analysis, examining a broad range of life and autobiographical stories. Among others significant contributions were those made by Dan P. McAdams, Ruthellen Josselson and Amia Lieblich, who co-edited an influential series of books devoted to narrative research and narratives studies of lives in transition (McAdams, et al. 2001; Josselson, et al, 2003; Lieblich, et al. 2006). Narrative studies with an individual level of analysis have focused on a broad range of subjects such as: social mobility and identity formation (Rosenwals and Ochberg, 1992), dealing with illness (Crossley, 2003), craftsmanship (Mishler, 1999), and adolescence (Lieblich, McAdams, and Josselson, 2006). Narrative studies investigating identity, with a group or collective level of analysis, have been conducted primarily in social identity and identity role research, building on the notion that people hold multiple identities related to gender, race, nationality, profession, age, and various other social roles. Studies with a discursive and narrative orientation and an organizational level of analysis have been done in organizations focused on organizational identity (Hatch and Schultz, 2002; Czarniawska, 1997; Alvesson and Willmott, 2002). Other focus areas have been organizational policy, strategy and storytelling (Boje, 1995; 2001), 90 and examination of organizational processes and organizing practices (Gabriel, 2000). In the field of history, Hayden White has been influential in advancing narrative research through his investigations of how historical accounts are made from different discourses representing particular positions and points of view (White, 1973; 1987). 3.2.2 A Tentative Conceptualization In everyday speech, the concept of narrative is equivocal; however, also in narrative research and studies, the application of the concepts of narrative and story are ambiguous. In an interdisciplinary and emerging field, the attempts thus far to specify and distinguish these concepts have resulted in uneven and sometimes contradictory conceptualizations. According to the terminology used in the Encarta Encyclopedia (2006), a narrator is defined as “a storyteller; somebody who tells a story or gives an account; or a narrator is a talking character in a work of fiction, who is presented as telling the story and who refers to himself or herself”. And the verb “to narrate” is defined thus: “to tell a story or give an account, usually in detail”. Here again, narrative and story definitions intermingle and are defined by each other. In narrative research, narratives have been defined in very inclusive ways, referring to any spoken or written presentations (Polkinghorne, 1988; 13). Some researchers, such as Czarniawska (2004), have criticized too inclusive definitions of narrative, because this indicates that everything told is a narrative or can be approached as such. However, narrative research has to a large extent used stories and narratives interchangeably and applied the concept of story as equivalent to narrative (Czarniwaska, 1999, 2004; Riesmann, 1993; Polkinghorne, 1988; Watson, 2001a). In the context of this dissertation, I use a narrower definition in order to facilitate exploration of the construction of narrative identity in conversation, which in my study implies a micro-process orientation and generation of rich empirical material. Also, in the light of the interdisciplinary field, a conceptual distinction seems necessary to navigate analytically, because of the multifaceted disciplines with subsequent “language problems” and conceptual mélange. I attempt here to clarify the use of narrative and story in this dissertation, drawing on historian Hayden White (1973; 1987). Hayden White (1973; 1987) distinguishes between annals, chronicles, story and narrative. In annals, events are simply listed as a registration of facts; in the 91 chronicle, events are presented and some kind of causual connections between events are provided, but no description of plot and no meaningful structure are provided in a chronicle. A narrative is a description of events in a meaningful structure, which involves temporal sequences of interrelated events or actions undertaken by characters. This definition, in focusing on meaning, sequence, actions and characters, is similar to Bruner’s (1990) narrative features, which are described in the next section. According to White, a story is distinguished by recounting events and their connections according to a plot. The plot “knits events together” and allows us to see the significance of an event, in contrast to the significance of other events. While a narrative simply describes and makes sense of what is happening, the introduction of a plot creates a story. Hence, a story needs to have a plot to be considered a story (Hayden White, 1973; 1987). Below is an example to illustrate the introduction of plot as the distinguishing characteristic of a story: Display 3-6 Narrative and Story – An Illustration Concept Example Narrative • I went to the baker to buy some bread. • I fired 30 people during the first three months as leader. Story • I went to the baker to buy some bread, because I’m in love with the girl in the baker's shop. • I fired 30 people during the first three months as a leader, and that is when I began to keep a distance to people. In the narrative field, there seems to be some agreement to define and make sense of a story through the presence of a plot. Polkinghorne, (1988) emphasizes this: “The plot functions to transform a chronicle or listing of events into a schematic whole by highlighting and recognizing the contribution that certain events make to the development and outcome of the story” (Polkinghorne, 1988:18-19). Ricoeur coined the term “emplotment” to describe the process of bringing order to disorderly events by organizing them into a sequence according to a plot (Ricoeur, 1984). Furthermore, drawing on Bruner (1986; 1990) Czarniwaska (2004) stresses how plots can be understood to embed and reflect cultural and societal conventions 98 “…stories have ontological status. We are always enveloped in stories. The narrative of human beings is analogous to the ocean for fishes” (Sarbin, 1986, in Heaven, 1999:301). This implies that narratives are not limited to ways of perceiving and representing the world. We construct our world through narratives and live through the stories told by us or by others. However, this does not replace or dismiss narratives as representations. Riesmann (1993) argues that interpretation is still unavoidable because narratives are also representations: “Nature and the world do not tell stories, individuals do” (Riesmann, 1993:2). She stresses how human agency and imagination determine what is included and excluded and how plots are made sense of. Individuals become the autobiographical narratives through which they tell about their lives, and their individual stories build on the narrative meta stories of particular cultures, interwoven with stories about life itself (Bruner, 1986). Thus, narratives are used to make sense of experience, the self and relationships with others (Riesmann, 1993, Gergen, 1997), and identities are constructed in the stories people tell about themselves (Lieblich et al., 2006). The stories we tell about others are as much about us as their alleged subjects. This indicates that not only are we significant in the stories we tell about ourselves; quite a lot can also be discerned about our own identity in the way we tell stories about others. In the context of this dissertation, this point is highly relevant, since researchers are also storytellers, adhering to academic criteria for narrative production while drawing on individual background and experiences, as discussed in chapter 2. The linguistic turn introduced a cognitive orientation for explaining social phenomena. Because narratives are constructed in language, this makes the cognitive work of coherence, structure and plot very salient and gives research a cognitive theoretical tilt that makes it convenient to produce a simplified cognitive view of identity construction while neglecting or minimizing the emotional aspects of narration and narratives. The introduction of narrative therapy theories and concepts in this dissertation also constitutes an attempt to shed more light on the tensions and emotional struggles involved in constructing identity in narratives. 3.3.2 Understanding Social Reality “How individuals recount their histories – what they emphasize and omit, their stance as protagonists or victims, the relationship the story establishes between teller and audience – all shape what individuals can claim of their own lives. Personal stories are not merely a way of telling someone (or oneself) about 99 one’s life; they are the means by which identities may be fashioned” (Rosenwald and Ochberg, 1992:1). In the view of narrative identity theory, self-perception is not seen as an individual’s personal and private cognitive structure but as a discussion of the self in a language accessible in the public sphere. This shifts the understanding from cognitive conceptual categorization towards the self as narrative, as a story that is rendered meaningful in ongoing social relations. Since the construction process of identity is expressed in language by telling stories to another person, narratives can be understood as the socially shared part of identity. Czarniawska defines narratives somewhat broadly: as a form of social life, a form of knowing, and as a form of communication. Czarniawska (2004) claims that individual as well as organizational identity are constructed in discourse and in narratives, and she suggests that identity emerges through the narrative processes that take place in interaction between people, thus denoting that social interaction is where identity is constantly being constructed and challenged. Therefore, human beings can be understood as social constructors and organizations as social constructs. The introductory quotation points to narratives as a way of understanding self in the context of a social reality where narratives are products of and are being produced in social interaction and social context. This places the audiences for the narrative of the self as the key to the question of what, how and why narratives are constructed. The first audience is the self; we tell stories to ourselves about ourselves; we rehearse stories in our imagination; we place ourselves in plots; and sometimes we are harsh critics of ourselves in our stories. Not all of these stories are subsequently told to others. Bruner (2001) even thinks that some of our internal storytelling is a process of self-creation that requires no external audience to have its effect. We rehearse stories by trying out stories with different audiences, e.g. by telling a story we perceive as sensitive to a safe audience before telling it to a wider public audience. This may be done to check the reactions of particular audiences and to improve our stories on the basis of their reactions (Linde, 1993). We also tell different stories to different audiences, and we trade stories; when I tell you a personal story, I expect one in return. Moreover, Sims proposes, drawing on Bruner (2001), that the division between self and the social may be a false dichotomy, and that it can be merged or overcome by introducing the concept of a distributed self. The idea of a distributed self places the self neither within the skull of the individual nor even within the body. Rather, the distributed self is inter-subjective and distributed beyond the individual in the organization, in relation of work, 100 family, friends, and artifacts. The basic argument is that the self cannot be understood without knowing something about where it is distributed, i.e. the areas in which the identity construct is situated. This provides a metaphor that stresses the social embeddedness of the individual, and is in strong contrast to the essentialist metaphors of identity described earlier. In the work setting, narration has been described as an important means of constructing and altering identities, thus supporting the notion of a socially constructed self (Gergen, 1997; Ibarra, 2005; Linde, 1993; McAdams, 1993). Following the same line of reasoning, Giddens claims that identity persists through the ability to narrate one’s life and formulate it into a narrative composed of terms that will be accepted by a relevant audience (Giddens, 1991). Narratives are addressed to an audience, which can be imaginative or actual, and the actual audience has to engage in evaluating whether the narrative is plausible and can be accepted as a legitimate account. Czaniawaska, (1997) says that the meaning of a narrative is negotiated between the teller and the listener, and Gergen (1997) stresses that identities are judged intelligible in particular social contexts and relationships. But how does a narrator construct a narrative that is accepted and considered legitimate and even intelligible by an audience, and what are the pitfalls in the narrative construction of identity. The construction of self in narratives in a social context runs five salient risks according to Sims (2005): the risk of defeat, disbelief, disinterest, disproof, and the risk of losing the plot. The risk of defeat is based on the idea that a plot is only interesting when it includes an element of risk, e.g. some kind of threat to be overcome, thus introducing the risk of defeat. Disbelief is simply when the audience does not believe the story, which can be ascribed to lack of coherence (Linde, 1993). The story could also be of no interest to the audience, and for an individual to be uninteresting is far more threatening to a sense of identity than being loved or hated, which both imply a much more dynamic relation that forcefully calls the self into existence. Disinterest risks total derailment. The fourth risk is that our story is disproved, whereby the underlying argument of the story is not considered valuable. This implies that every story is based on an underlying argument about what is important and what is not, which makes some causality chains believable and others less plausible and less trustworthy. The last risk of losing the plot in the presence of the audience has to do with the narrator’s ability and skill to actually construct a story. Some people are more skilled in constructing stories, and sometimes in life we lose track of our basic storylines, or we start with 101 something that ends very differently than we planned. Also, many plots are lived out at the same time and can compete, and we can lose the plot because we cannot possibly follow them all. Thus, retelling a narrative to an audience means leaving out some of the plots and drawing others together, so as to construct a coherent identity narrative with a plot that is understandable to the actual audience (Sims, 2005: 98-101). Narratives establish and restore identity continuity, when an individual is faced with change or discontinuity. An individual’s ability to establish coherence within a story and to demonstrate a coherent life story is essential for a sense of identity in the face of others and one's self. Linde (1993) says a coherent life story demonstrates that our lives are a series of unfolding, related and linking events that make sense for the individual. To establish coherence depends on the extent to which the narrative demonstrates continuity and causality: continuity is implied when the fundamental essence of the protagonist remains the same, even when the situation has changed; causality is established when the reasons used to describe the protagonist's trajectory is perceived as sufficient and/or understandable (Ibarra, 2005:3). Bruner (2002) listed guidelines for how to produce or construct a “good story”, emphasizing that a story needs a plot; plots need obstacles to goals; and obstacles make people reconsider. He urges narrators to tell only about the story's relevant past and place the characters in the social world, to give them moods, allies and connections. And he proposes the narrator should let the characters grow but keep their identities intact. Their continuities should remain evident. This is in my view an interesting aspect of narrative construction, which implies that somehow the individual simultaneously has to change and stay the same. Bruner continues that characters in narratives should explain themselves as needed, and as a narrator you should worry when your characters are not making sense – at least you should let your characters worry too, in the narrative. In my opinion, Bruner again points to something very essential for narrative conceptualization: the seemingly contradictory quest by the protagonist and audiences for coherence and meaning in identity construction, even when a process of change is causing identity incoherence or the absence of meaning. In producing a coherent narrative, just as in constructing a coherent self, this contradiction must be contained to make the narrative identities plausible and legitimate. To do this, the narrator's narration must bring together coherence and change in one embrace (Bruner, 2002:72). 102 Coherence is important in narrative studies for several reasons. First, for a story to be meaningful, it must be coherent; a criterion for the story's meaningfulness is that the different parts of the story fit together in some consistent way. Second, the individual will use this criterion to some extent to evaluate whether the individual life story is meaningful when compared to what is culturally considered a positively valued identity (Mishler, 1999: 14). In narratives and in life, characters and identity should grow but still be kept intact, a contradiction that points out the challenge of preserving some recognizable identity for others and oneself, even in processes of identity reconstruction. Major breaks in the coherence of a story challenge and potentially threaten this perception of coherence, and therefore generate narratives. 3.3.3 Negotiating Power Narratives are told in social situations and relations that significantly influence what is told; narratives told to a particular group of people might be told in a different way to other audiences. Hence, the meaning of a story is negotiated in a process of interaction; in narratives, I construct myself before the other. I construct how I would like to be known by my audience and the meaning I would like my audience to ascribe to my actions and me. Narrating can be understood as a process of meaning construction in which the negotiation of meaning is an important and somewhat neglected aspect. The term negotiating implies a locally situated negotiation of meaning and subject positions, and it accentuates the power aspects of narration in social relationships. The process of negotiating identity also entails the broader societal context and frame of reference, which provide the context and literally frame what we can think and what we can be. Narratives also function to guide, normalize and control. “We more often tell stories to forewarn than to instruct. And because of this, stories are a culture’s coin and currency. For culture is, figuratively, the maker and enforcer of what is expected, but it also, paradoxically, compiles, even slyly treasures, transgressions” (Bruner, 2002:15). In Bruner’s understanding, self-narrating is done from the outside in, as well as from the inside out. From childhood on, we become expressions of the relations and culture that nurture us, and we make and remake ourselves in the culturally provided frame of imagined possible future selves (Bruner, 2002:87). The plotting of events is central to negotiating power. Czarniawska points to the plotting battle, which is actually a power struggle. Those who “win” earn the right to define history, past events and their meaning (Czarniawska, 2004:31). The plot can also be 103 said to determine the power of the narrative, and not the degree to which the narrative can be verified or falsified with regard to facts (Bruner, 1990). Research on discourse, identity and organizational identity (Gergen; 1997; Boje, 1995) shows how the use of specific categories demarcates and differentiates identity, reflecting broader cultural context and processes of sense-making (Ainsworth and Hardy, 2004a: 157). Bruner argues that culture and individual stories are dialectically (shaping and being shaped) connected to the collective story of culture. Bruner even claims that “Storytelling becomes entwined with, even sometimes constitutive of, cultural life” (Bruner, 2002:31). From a moral perspective, narratives can be seen as stories of right and wrong. For example, narratives can be told as attempts to do the virtuous thing during times of challenge. The social and normative context and cultural valuation of certain stories over others is equivalent to Goffman’s (1959) writing on self-presentation in everyday life. Here, narratives are inevitably self-representations in which the narrator intentionally seeks to persuade herself and others of her virtues by negotiating the relative power of the narrator. A match with prevailing cultural and social conventions provides the narrator, with “imaginative power” in the particular context. Mismatch between identity narratives and dominant discourses on leadership or other aspects of life might provide the individual with less sense of identity power; then, the leader may construct an identity based on a sense of failure, shortcoming and a need for improvement and reconstruction. The negotiation metaphor highlights that narratives constitute a purposeful form of social action (Gergen, 1997), that narratives can be used as attempts to increase the power and self-esteem of the storyteller. Cobb (1993) describes how this can be done by two means: resonance and closure. Cultural resonance is achieved through the use of metaphors that allow actors to access the power of dominant cultural stories that are already established and have significant cultural meaning. The choices made in constructing a narrative are constrained by and reflect cultural conventions. This implies that the choice of characters, the inclusion of events, the determination of what is relevant, the organization of plots, form and genre are culturally constituted, which also implies limited agency for the narrator. Closure in Cobb’s terminology is achieved through narrative structures: such as using a linear plot and adhering to established conventions for producing narratives; establishing a desirable goal; explaining outcomes; and having characters with a coherent identity over time. The last point only applies when the identity change process is not itself the plot of the narrative. 104 There is still room for some individual agency and resistance, which Alvesson and Willmott (2002) describe in management research as identity struggles, indicating counter-identification and dis-identifying with the way managers have formulated the prevailing identity discourse. Discourse regulates not only what can be sensibly said about a particular object, but also who can speak and from what position. Grand Discourse is a term coined by Alvesson and Kärremann (2000) to describe this limitation, and it is defined as “an assembly of discourses, ordered and presented as an integral frame in which actors are required to take certain positions in order to speak and from which particular practices follow, in this sense it represents a power structure” (Alvesson and Kärremann, 2000:1133). Narrative therapy hypothesizes that only experiences that are part of a larger story will have significant impact on people’s lives. Narrative therapy facilitates the building of the plots that connect a person’s life together, which involves finding and amplifying the “unseen storylines” that often comprise a problem-saturated narrative. Reauthoring implies the activity of identifying neglected aspects and events, and evolving them in alternative storylines. Michael White (1995; 2007) suggests that gaps exist in dominant stories, and that no story will dominate every aspect of individual identity. It is from the search and exploration of these gaps that stories can be enriched and thickened in order to make way for the emergence of alternative identity stories (White and Epston, 1990). 3.3.4 Changing Identity “…Narrative acts of self-making are usually guided by unspoken, implicit cultural models of what selfhood should be - and, of course, shouldn’t be” (Bruner, 2002:65). Identity construction processes are virtually processes of change, as every narration is a new version of a story told and potentially creates new insights into the overall life story of the narrator. Construction processes are the focus of leader development programs, but these often focus on fixing problems or developing what the leader or others perceive to be problematic aspects of the leader's identity (negative identity stories). Identity changes are linked to turning points or significant events in the protagonist's identity narratives. Bruner defines a turning point as 105 “…those episodes in which, as if to underline the power of the agent’s intentional states, the narrator attributes a crucial change or stance in the protagonist’s story to a belief, a conviction, a thought” (Bruner, 2001:31). Identity change has also been understood within the realm of the equilibrium model, which is a common metaphor for change processes in psychology as well as in organizational studies. Thus far, the main exploration of narrative content has evolved around the concept of plots, whereas this model stresses that states of equilibrium are being replaced by states of disequilibrium. Todorov (1971) integrates these notions as he defines a plot in the following way; “[It] consists in the passage from one equilibrium to another” (Todorov 1971/1977:11, in Czarniawska, 2004:19). In the context of this dissertation, these plot and equilibrium model ideas imply that a narrative begins with a stable situation, which is then disturbed by some power or force. The result is a state of disequilibrium introduced by action or some kind of force directed in the opposite direction. Thereafter, a second equilibrium is established that is similar to the first, but the two are never identical. Czarniawska says that what the second equilibrium has obtained may be similar to the first, but often the second equilibrium is the reverse of the first (Czarniawska, 2004:19). This could indicate that identity reconstruction processes occur in a pendulum movement, changing from one (extreme) to the opposite before, maybe with time, finding a more balanced expression. Drawing on social constructivist theory and a critical management ideology, Sveningson and Alvesson (2003) argue that identity is a process of becoming conceptualized through identity work and identity struggles. Identity work is defined as the process of: “…people being engaged in forming, repairing, maintaining, strengthening and revising the constructions that are productive of a sense of coherence and distinctiveness” (Sveningson and Alvesson, 2003: 1165). This definition punctuates the notion that identity work is an activity people engage in to achieve a sense of coherence and establish a sense of “knowing who I am”. It is a continuous process of becoming in which people construct themselves as different and similar to specific others in order to narrate a distinct identity. Highly complex, fragmented contexts, such as crises or transitions, are likely to increase awareness of the constructed quality of self-identity and compel the individual to engage in identity work (Sveningson and Alvesson, 2003:1165). As a consequence, eminent contexts in which to investigate identity work are situations where identity 106 is challenged and where self-doubt and openness are encouraged. The concepts of identity work and identity struggles are central for this dissertation in investigating identity construction processes as a continuous process of construction and reconstruction. In chapter 5 The Analytical Framework, I further relate these concepts to the leader occupation and specify how these notions are integrated into the analytical approach. 3. 4 Summary In this dissertation, the following assumptions about identity constitute the basic understanding for investigating the narrative construction of identity. Identity is perceived as a constant process of construction, and people engage in identity work to reconstruct and restore a sense of coherence and continuity of identity in narrative form. Identity work increases in connection with situations in which people are faced with change, challenges or discontinuities. With the changeability of the world and life circumstances, people are in a constant process of becoming and identity is always in the making. People organize and make sense of their lived experiences in narratives. They perform stories to express selected aspects of their lived experience, and this storytelling become constitutive for shaping lives, social relations and the perception of reality. People depend on language in order to ascribe meaning to their lived experiences, using the narrative resources of the culturally and historically based language at hand. Conventional language structures and rhetoric can be considered both facilitative and restrictive for the construction of identity, and stories are told in retrospect from a particular position, using conventional schemes (e.g. genres and structures). The concept of negotiation brings power aspects of narratives to the fore, and stresses that narrative accounts are social performances in which interaction with particular audiences is vital to any identity construction in the process of evaluating and accepting the narrative as legitimate and plausible. Identity construction processes are especially prevalent in situations of conflict or when events are challenging or tension is provoking for the individual. These are described by Bruner (1986; 1990) as “significant events and turning points” and by Svenningson and Alvesson (2003) as “critical episodes” that initiate “identity struggles” and “identity work”.. These processes are unfolded in chapter 5 on building the analytical strategy. Individuals construct different narrative identities, which become salient in different contexts (e.g. identity hierarchies are evoked in specific settings). The process of reconstructing identity is described as a balancing of opposites, e.g. balancing a sense of coherence with reconstructive incoherence. Identity reconstruction processes are also described as identity work and identity struggles, indicating both active constructive engagement 107 and identity tension. Although much narrative literature has a cognitive orientation, identity construction processes are emotional experiences for the narrator and most often also for the listener. People connect emotionally with, and are moved by, each other in narrating their storied lives, and people struggle with the tensions of constructing identities over and over again in everyday interaction and practice. The telling of narratives is understood as social performance. In a performance perspective, narratives are believed to be performed with a particular audience in mind and produced for an audience in social situations (Goffman, 1959). When telling narratives of identity, we are performing preferred identities and negotiating different subject positions. A performance perspective does not imply the performed identities are inauthentic or somehow fake; on the contrary, the investigative point of departure is that narratives are unavoidably performed identities and incontrovertibly situated and accomplished in social interaction (Riessman, 2002: 701). In this sense, identity cannot be anything other than performed, since it evokes and takes place in social interaction. Even in solitude, “the other” is present in our minds as an imaginative actor. This is emphasized by the American pragmatists’ early construction of the social self. I have now described the multifaceted emergence of the identity concept in a time perspective, and the multidisciplinary narrative field. I have unfolded significant conceptualizations of how to make sense of narratives, as well as how the construction of narrative identity functions in everyday life, helping the narrator to make sense of self, understand social reality, negotiate subject positions and power, and change identity constructs. In the next chapter, I briefly review and discuss the discursive construction of leaders in leadership theory. Discourses of leadership theory are used by leaders to define and impart language to “leadership”, and as such, discourses serve as narrative resources for them. Hence, a discursive framing of leadership in a selected body of leadership theory facilitates and specifies the exploration of the narrative construction of identity. 114 empirically, and it was believed that universal traits could be identified and that the defining characteristics of the successful leader could be isolated (Stogdill, 1974). Trait theories of leadership rest on a paradigm in which innate qualities are given priority, and where individual personality characteristics determine good leadership. Within this individualistic perspective, leaders are believed to be born not made. Taken literally, this devaluates leader development programs and renders development efforts superfluous, since the trait-oriented discourse implies that individuals become leaders by virtue of their personality and the unfolding of inner traits, without taking contextual factors into account. Early trait theory was flawed by lack of theory and trait measurement instruments, and appears to have been rather theoretical (Bass, 1990, Yukl, 1989). The traitoriented discourse can be considered to have a rather static and deterministic view of people; nevertheless, its nature-nurture dialectic is often discussed in theoretical and commonsense debates regarding leaders. Theoretically, the trait approach had a significant renaissance in 1980s with the theory of transformational leadership (Bass, 1985; Bass and Avolio, 1994) developed by Burns (1978), which stresses the leader’s ability to motivate and empower employees, since ordinary people can achieve extraordinary results. Thus, transformational leadership constructs the leader as an agent of change who relies on communication and interpersonal skills. However, transformational leadership is often compared with transactional leadership, where the motivating factor is the more traditional notion of selfinterest, conceptualized as pay and job security in exchange for a reliable work force. The concepts of management and leadership in transactional and transformational leadership have much in common, and they have been seen as related by several researchers (Rost, 1991; Bennis, 1989; Yukl, 1989). In the late 1980s, in a societal context of organizational restructuring and competition, the need for leaders who could bring about transformational change was conspicuous, and theories of charismatic leadership emerged. The charismatic leader construct can be seen to combine early trait and “great man” theories with notions of the transformational leader. The charismatic leader is defined as a person who builds a positive vision for the future and restores declining morale. The leader is constructed as a savior and was later more critically referred to as the heroic leader (Northhouse, 2004). Later, public scandals involving prominent executives diminished faith in the notion of charismatic leaders, which was criticized for being overly individualistic and unrealistic, and quieter and less individual leader constructions were promoted (Mintzberg, 1999). More recent trait-oriented 115 discourses are the emotional intelligence theory (Goleman, 1995) and the multiple intelligence theory (Gardner, 1983). However, despite the more interactive emphasis in these theories, the concern and focus is still the development of individual emotional intelligence. The theory on emotionally intelligent leadership argues that central to the theory is a profound level of self-awareness. Interpersonal skills are described as knowledge of others and the ability of the leader to navigate in social situations, thus promoting an individual leader construction as a prerequisite for understanding and interacting successfully with others. This theory also slides into the behaviororiented discourse (Goleman, 1995). Finally, non-academic leadership literature often subscribes to the trait-oriented discourse, as reflected in the hundreds of books and biographies based on the ideas of great and successful business leaders that seem to have much popular appeal. In a theoretical narrative perspective, this can be understood to represent a classic genre of the hero (i.e. leader) who can solve all problems, answer all questions, settle insecurities and save us basically from kinds of trouble. The traitoriented discourse thus constructs a hero leader who is very persistently present over time but is also constructed as larger than life. 4.2.2 The Behavior-Oriented Discourse From the 1960s as researchers began to look more closely into what leaders do, alternative approaches to leaders took form. This started what has been called the behavioral paradigm, which accumulated studies of leader behavior and styles (Yukl, 1989). Early approaches identified leader styles, such as the autocratic style or participative style in McGregor’s (1960) X and Y theory. The Managerial Grid was another early behavioral approach that distinguishes between manager task/production and employee/people orientation (Blake and Mouton, 1994). However, these early behavior-oriented theories provide little guidance regarding what constitutes effective leader behavior in different situations and leaves open the question of when a particular leader style is appropriate and how people, task, and organizational factors interact. Fiedler (1964; 1972) suggests that management style and organizational structure are influenced by various aspects of the working environment, which he calls contingency factors. Fiedler’s contingency model distinguishes between task-oriented and relationship-oriented managers and includes different task structures and power positions as crucial factors that determine management style. Notably, however, contingency studies do not assume that the leader is able to adapt his style; rather, leaders should be matched with the situation, or the situation should be molded to fit the leader (Fiedler, 1964). 116 However, theories in this tradition focus on both behavioral and contingency aspects of leadership (see also Bass, 1990; Yukl, 1989; House, 1991). The widely used situational leadership model is based on similar ideas of style, but in contrast to contingency theory, this theory implies that the leader must adapt leader style to the specifics of the situation (Blanchard and Zigarmi 1994). Situational leadership theory suggests that leaders have to lead according to the situation. Since no specific leader style matches every situation, it proposes four different leader styles: directing, coaching, supporting and delegating. The argument is that the leader should assess the developmental level of employees to determine the most appropriate leader behavior in the situation. The flexible repertoire of leader behaviors presented indicate that leaders are discursively constructed in different behaviors, styles, roles, competencies or activities, which also imply that leaders are made and that leadership is something you can learn. In behavioral and contingency theories, leaders are constructed as being involved in processes of influence, and interpersonal relations become central. The focus thus shifts from the leader as a person to the leader’s interpersonal behavior and competence and social relations skills. Consequently, in the behavior-oriented discursive frame, it is no longer enough to unfold inner traits; the leader has to learn how to be a leader, has to acquire knowledge of the leader role and his preferred leader style, and has to learn to apply specific leader behavior to particular situations. 4.2.3 The Process-Oriented Discourse Theories under the umbrella of the process-oriented discourse share a positioning of leaders and leadership as a socially embedded process of becoming. Studies focus on the situational and contextual aspects in which leaders emerge, and leaders are basically approached as constructed in social situations. The process-oriented discourse is found in contemporary critical management studies that emphasize critical reflection, power relations, political sensitivity and language. Accordingly, a radical perspective within this discourse rejects a priori definitions of leaders and leadership. The focus of the studies is the investigation of exactly how leaders are constructed. Alvesson (1996), who represents the process-oriented discourse, proclaims that leader definitions do not create clarity: 117 “Language is too ambiguous and meaning too context dependent for abstract definitions to work very effectively” (Alvesson, 1996:458). He therefore rejects a priori definitions and categorizations and instead insists that leaders be conceptualized as embedded in empirical practice and social contexts. Alvesson suggests approaching leaders with a reflexive-interpretive method that emphasizes social constructive processes, local situations, and linguistic aspects of leadership (Alvesson 1996). Management studies following a social constructionist perspective have focused on leadership as connected to “identity work” (Alvesson and Svenningson, 2003). Identity work and discursive leadership practices are approached by examining language, discourses and narratives, and people are understood as conglomerates of multiple identities. Each identity construct is perceived to be constructed in continuous conversations involving different and multiple identities. Watson (2001b) describes management as a practice filled with moral dilemmas and characterized by ongoing learning; it involves a practice where the leader never can get everything “right”. Watson's concept of “negotiated narrative” entails a processual understanding of the managerial role, which indicates that leaders interactively construct identity when debating, comparing and negotiating narratives of leadership in a critical, reflexive manner among peers. This dissertation investigates from a moderate social constructivist position and as such is positioned within the process-oriented discourse. Chapter 5 unfolds in more depth how the leaders' ideas and the leader occupation have been conceptualized and constructed in critical management theory within a process-oriented discourse. 4. 3 Summary In the three discursive frameworks, leaders are constructed as an extraordinary individual in terms of outstanding traits, personality or personal charisma; in terms of behavior, leader roles, styles, and competencies as assessing and matching their behavior according to the characteristics of the situation; and as ever emerging in a process of becoming, through social interaction and in interaction with particular contexts. In a leader development program, discourses provide narrative resources from which leaders can construct leader identity. The discourses implemented in the program co-construct leader identity in interaction with the other actors in the program context. A leader development program in which leaders would be discursively constructed with emphasis on inherent traits can be considered a waste 118 of time, since the trait-oriented discourse perceives innate traits as relatively stable and unchangeable personality characteristics. The behavior-oriented discourse indicates that leaders can modify behavior, e.g. learn to differentiate leader behavior and choose the most effective behavior in the situation. This discourse constructs leader development as assessment, which legitimizes the use of diagnostic tools (i.e. leader test and an analysis such as the 360 degree analysis of leader behavior). Such tools can be important to identify skills and areas of improvement. This discourse constructs becoming a leader with the connotation of solving a problem or fixing something that is not functioning well. In leader development programs, this understanding accesses knowledge about better leadership practices; thus, following leader development programs should facilitate self-awareness, identify interpersonal skills, and provide training to strengthen leaders' identified areas of liability. The process-oriented discourse constructs leader as continuously emerging and emphasizes that leadership is a constant and never-ending process involving identity tensions and struggles. This discourse thus transcends the notion of learning and constructs leader work practice as a way of being in the world; as a way to live one's life. Multiple conflicting identity constructs are constantly emerging and situating the individual in highly complex and paradoxical organizational and societal contexts where the leader is constructed in fragmented, issue-specific terms, and where becoming a leader involves constant identity work through interacting with different people and practices. On the basis of the selected review, the following display provides a schematic view of how leaders are conceptually constructed in the three discourse frameworks. This is not intended to be a complete or exhaustive review. The intent is, in the context of this dissertation, to illustrate key differences of construction in the three prevalent discourses of leaders in leadership theory in order to provide a backdrop for the following analysis of narrative construction of leader identity, and to better understand the discursive and narrative recourses available to leaders in the process of constructing themselves. 119 Display 4-1 Three Discourses in Leadership Theory Trait-oriented Discourse Behavior-oriented Discourse Process-oriented Discourse The Leader Construct The hero leader Normative: The right personality The leader role Differentiated: Matching behavior and situation The emergent leader Fragmented: Conflicting and multiple identity constructs Narrative Resources Trait Personality Charismatic leadership Leader style Multiple roles Situated leadership Identity work Multiple identities Issue-specific leadership Leader Construction Born Unfold who you are Express personal talent and inner qualities Find leader within Learn Feedback on behavior Identify competency gaps Develop self-reflection Learn competencies Live Engage in identity work Practice self-refection Reconcile opposites Balance paradoxes Identity Labels The independent leader The socially dependent leader The oxymoronic leader27 independent and socially dependent These three discourses are part of the shared knowledge pool that is available for leaders in constructing leader identity. As I have described, the ETP leader development program provides a context within which a mélange of especially the traitand behavior-oriented discourses is available for the leader. This further emphasizes that the ETP program draws prevalently on the traitand behaviororiented discourses, whereas this research study is positioned in the realm of the processoriented discourse. In the next chapter, I describe the narrative analytical framework and strategy, including a more in-depth discussion of theoretical concepts used to analytically approach the leader occupation, in preparation for the subsequent narrative analyses. 27 The word oxymoron means: "the conjoining of contradictory terms” (Synonym.com /03-11-09). It thereby underscores the balancing of opposites and contradictions accentuated in the process-oriented discourse, and it adds to the argument that the leader occupation entails paradoxes, which is unfolded further in this dissertation. 120 121 5 The Narrative Analytical Framework This chapter describes the analytical framework used to investigate how leaders use narratives to construct identity in interaction with a leader development program. First, I unfold narratives as an epistemological approach that serves as backdrop for the analytical strategy and analytical guidelines. Second, I revisit the theoretical framework for approaching the leader occupation in order to identify characteristics of the leader occupation and key concepts to be used in the analysis, before entering into the concrete construction of the analytical strategy. The narrative analytical strategies consist of three analytical steps and three supportive models. The analytical steps are: a thematic analysis of narrative resources, a temporal analysis of the narrative construction process, and a relational analysis of how subject positions are negotiated. Applying a narrative-oriented epistemology indicates that the research interest is to understand, explore and analyze the meaning systems and the contexts within which people understand themselves and others. Hence, the aim is to better understand the creation of meaning that takes place in everyday life, in the day-today situations of lived experience (Søndergård, 1996). Narratives are useful in understanding and shaping the self, others and the world we inhabit; however, no narrative completely communicates human experience, nor can all of what we are be transmitted in a single story. Although the social constructivist assumption underpinning this research does not reject the existence of a material reality, independent of human consciousness, it nevertheless asserts that reality is accessible only through social processes of meaning creation (Crotty, 1998). The implications are that regardless of how central narratives are to the construction of identity, narratives are not all there is. And no matter how dominant one story may be in the individual identity construction, it is not the only possible or accessible story. Bruner frames this point of departure eloquently: “…experience is richer than discourse. Narrative structures organize and give meaning to experience, but there are always feelings and lived experience not fully encompassed by the dominant story” (Bruner, 1986b:143). Narratives can be understood both as a means and resource for constructing identity, but also as a significant genre for analyzing identity with emphasis on multiplicity and meaning (Riessman in Gubrium and Holstein, 2002: 705-706). In this research project, I develop and apply a narrative analytical strategy, because it 122 enables the study of leaders’ experiences and construction of meaning, thereby supporting my goal of illuminating the dynamics of the “…active, self-shaping quality of human thought, the power of stories to create and refashion personal identity” (Hinchman & Hinchman, 1997: xiv). Narrative analysis has to do with “how protagonists interpret things”, says Bruner (1990; 51), and I would add that it has to do with how we can go about systematically interpreting the protagonists’ interpretations. However, there is no “one ready-to-go” narrative method or narrative analysis, and the design of the analytical strategy is to a large extent produced by the individual researcher (Czarniawska, 2004; Riessman, 1993). Søndergård (1996: 63) even claims that the building of the analytical instruments is the most important contribution of narrative research. The investigative focus of this dissertation is ontological narratives. Ontological narratives are stories people tell in an effort to make sense of how they experience themselves and how they would like to be understood; hence, ontological narratives can be understood as an attempt to bring structure to personal lives (Somers, 1994; Søreide, 2006). When the narrator (in this case, the leader) tells and interprets ontological narratives, the leader is simultaneously constructing one or several narrative identities. Ontological narratives are located in historical time, and they are situated in social relations in concrete situations and experiences (Bruner; 1986a; 1990, Polkinghorne, 1988). Besides communicating the idiosyncratic story of the individual, ontological narratives are a resource for examining present cultural and societal conditions, which makes ontological narratives a resource for communicating about social conventions. Thus, in this perspective, the analysis reflects broader societal contexts and discourses, and the narrator is actively constructing and being constructed by prevalent contemporary discourses about identity, leaders, organizations and society (Riessman, 2002). This dissertation attempts to build a multifaceted, narrative analytical strategy for studying the leaders’ narrative construction of identity. In my analysis, I attempt to preserve and unfold the complexity of the construction process and allow diversity and conflicting identity constructs to emerge. I seek to unfold the narrator’s own process of creating meaning, sequencing and structuring, and at the same time avoid too excessive categorization and simplification of the empirical material. Identity is perceived as a relational construct, and the analysis emphasizes the way social interaction plays a part in negotiating subject positions in narratives, in the interview, and the ETP context. The analysis investigates how identities are 123 constructed by use of narrative resources, and how identities are negotiated in social contexts (Lieblich et al., 1998). The overarching idea is to build a processsensitive analytical frame for investigating the leaders’ narrative constructions of identity based on the following guiding principles: • Examine the use of narrative resources to create meaning regarding leader identity • Unfold narrative construction that is sensitive to process and multiple identities • Explore negotiation of subject positions The epistemological point of departure guides the investigative interest and significantly influences my choice of analytical methods as well as the final research product. An outline follows regarding how the leader occupation can be approached and understood relative to the building of the analytical strategy. Finally the concrete analytical strategy and three analytical steps are described and unfolded in the last section of this chapter. 5. 1 Theoretical Frame for Approaching the Leader Occupation This section is a brief theoretical excursion into selected key elements of how the leader occupation can be understood in relation to narrative construction of identity. The aim is to clarify relevant theoretical concepts and the language used to approach the construction of leader identity. This research project investigates five men who have been practicing as leaders in various leader occupations for from fifteen to twenty-five years. In constructing the analytical strategy, I have been inspired by critical management theories and discourse analysis (Alvesson and Deetz, 2000; Alvesson and Kärreman, 2000; Alvesson and Willmott, 1992; Ainsworth and Hardy, 2004a). More specifically, I apply the concepts of identity work and identity struggles by Svenningson and Alvesson (2003), conceptualizing narratives of tensions and struggles as indicators of identity work, e.g. identity construction processes. Furthermore, I build on critical management studies by Tony Watson, arguing that the leader occupation entails certain paradoxes that leaders must manage (Watson, 2001a; 2001b; 2001c, Watson and BargielaChiappini, 1998). 130 only endlessly rearranged and managed. This view indicates that organizational dynamics are understood to continuously generate tension and behavioral patterns characterized by irregularity, instability and unpredictability (Stacy, 1999:13). This last perspective implies that the leader is continuously “at work” and has to manage tensions connected to the inherent paradoxes of the leader occupation. This view is aligned with the argument of this dissertation that each leader has to work continuously to balance the tensions in the social environment and within himself. Leaders have to work with their temporal identity constructs in the current organizational context and work practice – a process in which the leader is always in the making, Watson calls this the “unavoidable realities of managerial work as a social, political and economic practice” (2001b:395). This last view is the basis for my approach to the leader occupation and for understanding the construction of leader identity. Interestingly, however, in the ETP program, I observed empirically that many leaders approach leader development with the first view; the participating leaders approached leader development as something to be fixed or a problem to be solved. The leaders expressed that it would be nice to get rid of the tension and solve the leader challenges once and for all, so they could carry on and do their job uninterrupted and undisturbed by inconvenient identity struggles. Needless to say, these leaders became both disappointed and disillusioned when they discovered that the ETP program offered no quick fixes, or short-cut tools for “becoming a leader”. In the following empirical analyses, I return to this observation and unfold it further. A paradox must be distinguished from a dilemma:30 a dilemma can be defined as “a situation where a choice must be made between two equally undesirable possibilities”. This implies that dilemmas can be solved by making choices. Selecting one option over another frames an either/or choice situation. In contrast, paradox is defined as the continuous managing of two contradictory options, without giving in to either one; thus, the propellant in a paradox is the balancing of both/and at the same time (Stacy, 1999:13). Paradoxes of the leader occupation are accumulated by the organizational division of labor to make work more efficient, and the need for control and task integration. In bridging this paradox, the leader becomes a central mediator (Stacy, 1999). The notion of the leader occupation accentuating paradox is used to thematically analyze the five leaders’ narrative construction of identity. Paradox is also central in the final analysis in chapter 11, where I analyze across the empirical material to analytically illustrate how five 30 In Oxford English Dictionary (March, 2008) defined as a choice between two (or several) alternatives, which are or appear equally unfavorable; a position of doubt or perplexity. 131 empirically identified paradoxes interact with the five leaders’ construction of identity. In the previous sections, the leader occupation is approached as entailing tensions, identity work and struggles and as a position that accentuates paradox, because the leader occupation is situated in organizations anchored in a western capitalist societal context. Having this contextual understanding in mind, I describe in the next section the concrete analytical approach. 5. 2 A Three-Step Narrative Analytical Strategy This section describes the analytical strategy and the concrete steps undertaken. I argue for the relevance of key theoretical concepts and substantiate their relevance in relation to the investigative focus. In general, the building of the concrete analytical framework is inspired by three sources: the substantial work with narratives, identity and culture by cognitive psychologist Jerome Bruner (1986a; 1990; 2001; 2002); the theories and conceptualizations of narrative therapy by psychotherapist Michael White (1989; 1995; 2007), who is a key contributor in developing narrative therapy and practice; and finally, from positioning theory (Davis and Harré, 1990; 1991; Harré and Moghaddam, 2003) I draw the intention to apply the concept of “positioning” to emphasize the social and relational aspects of the identity construction process, and to make interpretative explorations into how people negotiate subject positions of power and agency when constructing identities in narratives in social contexts. 5.2.1 Thematic Analysis: Re-authoring Conversations in Problemand Preferred Stories Narrative therapy has been influential for the analytical framework of this dissertation, because it offers dynamic conceptualizations for understanding the narrative construction processes. Narrative therapy has not hitherto been integrated much in narrative academic research. In narrative therapy, the therapeutic aim is processes of reconstruction, but most importantly, narrative therapeutic theory contributes with strong process sensitivity with which to understand narrative processes as inter-subjective practice. Philosophically grounded in poststructuralism, and greatly inspired by Michel Foucault’s thinking about power and knowledge (Monk et al., 1997), the key issue within narrative therapy is to question taken-for-granted assumptions and challenge previous knowledge in a nonjudgmental context. Narrative therapy examines how personal stories are authored 132 and can be re-authored, and it focuses on the shaping moments of people’s lives, the turning points and significant relationships as they are remembered in conversation. In the therapeutic process, aspects of identity can be organized in working categories of identities, beliefs, values, and principles, including commitments, intentions, and hopes (White & Epston, 1990). Specific narrative terminology has been developed to describe the process and sequence of the therapeutic processes and the processes of meaning creation within them (Monk et al, 1997; Payne, 2000; White, 1995; White and Epston, 1990; Winslade & Monk, 1999). The story is the basic unit of experience. Stories are believed to guide how people think, act and feel. People make sense of their experiences in stories, and stories organize the experiences of life. This notion is similar to what I have previously described as ontological narratives. However, only experiences that are part of a larger story will have significant impact on people’s lives. This is why narrative therapy aims to develop the plot, which connects a person’s life together into stories that are meaningful for the individual. The concept “dominant story” signifies that individual identity can be dominated by particular stories about who we are. A dominant story is often a problem-saturated narrative. For some people, it seems as if their identity is overshadowed by one or a few very dominant storylines. The dominant story will be reflected in the choice of content (i.e. narrative themes) but also in the rhetorical form and in the story structure, e.g. the form of telling (Riessman, 1993). It is a basic assumption of narrative therapy that the dominant stories in which individuals narrate their experience do not sufficiently represent their lived experience. Therefore, narrative therapy involves finding and amplifying “unseen storylines”, also called alternative stories, which unfold significant and vital aspects of the individual’s identity construct that contradict dominant stories (White and Epston, 1990). Most often, dominant stories are taken for granted by the individual, who rarely questions or even thinks that he could be something other than the person the dominant story describes. The therapeutic work thus involves questioning the “takenfor-granted assumptions” in the dominant story and helping to unfold hidden (e.g. untold) aspects of the identity construct and make them emerge by giving voice to a new identity story (White, 2007:61). A re-authoring conversation is defined as a conversation in which individuals are invited to link events of their lives in sequence through time according to a theme or a plot. According to White and Epston (1990), personal experiences are often 133 strikingly storied by others, and in re-authoring conversations, neglected aspects and events are identified and evolved into alternative storylines,31 Alternative storylines are stories about neglected but potentially significant events that are “out of phase” with the dominant identity story. In the therapeutic situation, these experiences or events provide a starting point for re-authoring conversations (White, 2007:61). Gaps always exist in dominant stories, and no story will dominate every aspect of an individual’s identity; it is from the search for and exploration of these gaps that stories can be enriched and thickened in order to make way for alternative identity stories, and new identity stories can be re– authored (White, 2006; 2007). In a re-authoring conversation, the therapist uses questions as scaffolds to encourage people to explore and metaphorically to fill the gaps with alternative stories. I have developed my first thematic analysis from the idea of dominant problem stories and alternative – also called preferred – stories in narrative therapy in order to identify how leaders use narrative resources to construct leader identity between the desired (the preferred story) and the problem story (the undesired). This illuminates the process by which leaders create meaning in narratives. The framework enables identifying and analyzing contributions to the dominant problem story, and the extent to which the leader is constructing alternative identity stories – e.g. whether leader narratives have been reflected upon, questioned, supplemented, thickened or re-authored identity stories. Hence, the first step of the analysis explores how the leader is constructing problem stories and preferred stories. Empirically, leaders connect stories to certain areas of life. Some stories, for example, are narrated as focused on predominately personal, relational or organizational themes. I have chosen analytically to use and sustain the leaders’ thematic categorization of the stories, because it reflects their narrative construction of meaning. This thematic structuring and categorization possibly makes it easier for the leader/narrator to perform and communicate a wellstructured and coherent story, and it may provide the narrator with more confidence and direction in the telling. While being aware that these categories are constructs that are intertwined and often hard to distinguish from one another, the thematic categories do provide order and make it possible to distinguish between different identity constructs. They thereby facilitate my analytical tracking of stories and identification of how specific stories are reconstructed over the time period from 2005 to 2007. 31 In narrative therapy there is an implicit assumption that dominating stories are oppression the individual, indicating an emancipatory therapeutic intention and indicating that dominating stories are negative problem stories that delimiting and inhibiting the individual. 134 The analytical model illustrated below is divided into stories analyzed as problem stories and preferred stories and their narrated consequences. In the model, consequences of refers to the leaders’ own interpretation of the consequences of a particular story, i.e. the leader’s story and creation of meaning about consequences of a particular problem story. Display 5-1 Problem Stories, Preferred Stories and Consequences Stories focusing on Problem stories Consequences of problem stories Preferred stories Consequences of preferred stories Personal Themes Relational Themes Organizational Themes In summary, the model is used to identify significant themes of problems and preferences in each leader’s narrative construction of identity, and the model helps identify reconstruction in the retrospective narratives. The model further illustrates the multiplicity of stories in each leader’s construction of a narrative identity, and gives insight into the themes of tensions involved in identity work. 5.2.2 Temporal Analysis: Constructing Storylines in Landscapes of Identity Narrative analysis enables the researcher to ask questions about how stories are told and to not simply focus on what is told, the narrative content (Riessman, 1993, 2002). Thus far, I have focused the analytical strategy on how leaders construct identity by making use of narrative resources in thematic plots of problem stories and preferred stories. In presenting this first analysis step, I have already indicated and described different ways in which leaders negotiate and position themselves as leaders; the second step in the analysis aims to further investigate the process of 135 narrative construction, i.e. how leaders link various fragmented narratives into coherent stories of identity. To explicate the process of narrative construction, I draw on Jerome Bruner (1986a, 1990), who introduced the metaphor that identity can be understood as a “Landscape of Mind”, which is stretched between two dimensions: a landscape of action and a landscape of identity. The two are related in a dynamic and interdependent relation, and together they make up what he calls the individual landscape of mind. The landscape of action is composed of events and experiences linked in a sequence through time and forming a plot. The landscape of identity is composed by the interpretive conclusions the individual makes in order to make sense of experiences, actions and events. Identity conclusions take the form of stories in which an individual creates meaning about who the leader thinks he is. Identity conclusions are stories about what he has learned in life, what he aspires to be, and what actions should be avoided. Identity conclusions are anchored and formulated in the language of a specific cultural or organizational context, which simultaneously provides the leader with a conception of socially acceptable identity constructs for leaders. In this way, the landscape of identity is composed of or is stretched out between the events/experiences and the identity conclusions made by the individual, but they are also shaped by contemporary identity categories of society and culture (Bruner; 1986a). In order to analyze and illustrate processes of construction, I have developed the analytical model: A Storyline Map, inspired by the theoretical ideas of landscapes of action and identity (Bruner, 1986a; 1987; 1990) and making evident the dynamic interrelation between experience and interpretation, between action and narrative. The model is also reworked from Michael White’s (1995, 2007) re-authoring conversations map, which is a therapeutic model used in narrative therapy for mapping experiences. In the following, I describe and explain the constitutive parts of the Storyline Map model. The model has two horizontal axes: a landscape of action and a landscape of identity. They signify how narrative construction can be related to specific events or be related to identity conclusions made by the leader on the basis of specific events, experiences or actions. The leader’s narrative of actions and narrative of identity conclusion are placed on a continuum from past to present to introduce the temporal aspect of when the event or identity conclusion took place. For example, if the leader tells a narrative about an event that took place in childhood, this is placed in the remote past section, while a narrative about the present is placed to the right, signifying present time. Sometimes people link narratives from the past 136 and the present into the same storylines; or they cluster narratives positioned in the same time. Each narrative is identified by a short title or heading to give the reader a brief clue about the creation of meaning in the narrative. Narratives are connected with lines to illustrate how specific narratives of events are linked to particular narratives of identity conclusions made during the interview. Thus, the arrows and numbers indicate the sequencing and ordering of the ways in which the narrator connects narratives in the landscape of action with narratives of identity conclusions. The arrows illustrate the dynamic sequencing in the construction processes, and as the following analysis will demonstrate, the map shows how specific narrated events can be the outset for multiple identity constructs, and how leaders position themselves in narratives by linking experiences and identity conclusions. The narrative ordering and clustering makes it possible to recognize the way individuals make events/actions comprehensible by identifying the whole to which they connect and contribute. Polkinghorne, (1988) suggests that the plot or storyline is the means by which a specific event is made to cohere into a narrative. The plot (or the storyline) shows how the part contributes to the whole, e.g. to the construction of the overall ontological narrative. In this sense, the organizing storyline theme identifies the significance and role of single events in the construction of identity (Polkinghorne, 1988:18). Svenningson and Alvesson (2003) supplement these ideas by specifying and defining storylines to be versions of identity that are situationally defined. I proceed using the terminology storylines to describe the interrelatedness of narrated events and narrated identity conclusions, because the term “plot” has two interpretative connotations that somehow contradict my research intentions. First, the term “plot” gives access to a more limited stock of identity constructs. Plot categories are relatively few and restrictive – such as plots of tragedy, romance or comedy – and this is contra-productive to my intent of producing richer, varied and detailed knowledge of leader identity that approximates the leader's idiosyncratic and empirically defined categories. Second, the plot metaphor signals a deliberate and conspiratorial construction process, as if the leader is intentionally constructing identity in a certain image in a controlled and deliberate construction process. This in my view minimizes the social interdependence and co-productive aspects of the construction process, which I attempt to bring to the surface in my analytical design and approach. In many cases, the plot is an attractive construct for pulling together fragmented stories or story pieces into a coherent plot structure, but in this dissertation it does not support the explorative nature of the investigation and the 137 analytical intention of giving priority to the empirical material's complexity. Therefore, I use the storyline concept to bring the social construction process to the surface and provide more empirical latitude for the unintended and coincidental. Furthermore, the analytical mapping in the storyline map model gives an indication of how the leader positions himself in the identity construction process. In combination with the thematic analysis, this illuminates dominant narratives and specific positioning, which can be advanced to increase our understanding about how leaders are constructing identity in narratives. The analytical framework builds on the concept of stanza, which implies that the analytical unit of a narrative is a series of “lines on a single topic” or a “particular perspective", while the concept of scene implies clusters of stanzas that “sound as if they go together”, which is parallel to my application of storylines in this analytical model (see also chapter 2, Gee, 1991:23-24; Riessman, 1993:45). The accumulated storylines make up the ontological narrative of the individual, and if these storylines are re-authored or reconstructed, it indicates, within this analytical framework, identity work and identity change. Each storyline consists of narratives of experience and narratives of identity conclusions told in sequences, as indicated by their numbers, and together construct a thematic specific identity storyline. The storylines together signify important identity constructs through which the leader makes sense of himself as a leader. When reading the model, you follow the numbers and arrows and thereby the leader’s process of narrative linking and clustering in order to make sense of himself as a leader. For example, the leader might in a narrative of experience (narrative number 1) describe the experience of firing 30 employees as a young leader. On the basis of this, the leader makes an identity conclusion (narrative number 2) that tells how he decided that he would be a better leader if he kept people at a distance. Then, more narratives are added to give more nuances to the storyline construct of “distant leadership” (narratives number 3-6). Below is an example: an illustrative storyline map and a list of the constituting narratives of a storyline. 138 Display 5-2 Storyline Map: an Illustrative Example Landscape of Identity (Narrative of Identity Conclusion) Landscape of Action (Narrative of Experience) REMOTE PAST PRESENTPAST RECENT PRESENT 2 Narrative of identity conclusion Storyline 2 Storyline 1 Storyline 3 1 Narrative of experience 5 Narrative of identity conclusion 4 Narrative of identity conclusion 2 Narrative of identity conclusion 5 Narrative of identity conclusion 4 Narrative of identity conclusion 6 Narrative of identity conclusion 5 Narrative of identity conclusion 3 Narrative of identity conclusion 1 Narrative of identity conclusion 3 Narrative of experience 6 Narrative of experience 3 Narrative of experience 1 Narrative of experience 4 Narrative of experience 2 Narrative of experience Storyline 1: Example 1. Narrative of experience: leader fires employees for the first time. 2. Narrative of identity conclusion: leader concludes that keeping a distance is better. 3. Narrative of experience: leader fires employees a second time. 4. Narrative of identity conclusion: leader concludes and legitimizes distance. 5. Narrative of identity conclusion: leader concludes that people are functions and numbers to him. 6. Narrative of experience: leader avoids small talk with employees. The storyline map illuminates the process of constructing identity, in narratives (i.e. stanzas) and in storylines (i.e. clusters of stanzas constructing distinct meaning). It gives a graphic view of the invisible processes by which leaders piece together in narration who they are as leaders. The storyline map helps illustrate how leader narrate what they have experienced, what events have been significant in their lives, and how they make sense of those experiences and events. The storyline attempts to bring to the surface construction process sequence and ordering, as well as the sense-making process of how leaders narrate leader aspirations temporally: then, now and in the future. 139 5.2.3 Relational Analysis: Negotiating Subject Positions In chapter 2, Constructing the Field, I describe my researcher position as a moderate social constructivist position. In accordance with this position, I approach identity in my analytical framework both as a relatively stable construction and as a continuous process of positioning and negotiation of subject positions. In positioning theory, positions are understood as “clusters of rights and duties”, and the distribution of positional power depends on subtly varying presuppositions (Harré and Moghaddam, 2003). One way of negotiating a powerful subject position is to have access to the locally situated repertoire of acceptable conduct or to the distribution of duties to perform certain actions (Harré and Moghaddam, 2003:3). Discursive practice is a constitutional force in the provision of available subject positions; thus, a position incorporates both a conceptual repertoire and a location within the structure of people using the repertoire (Davis and Harré, 1990:3). In this way, different positions give access to different images, expectations, practices, opinions and values, and they therefore form the core of the construction of the world and the subject's place in it. Moreover, subject positions are constantly negotiated and evaluated between the narrator and the listener, between the narrator and his momentary audience. Czarniawska-Joerges has described this as: “…a continuous process of narration where both the narrator and the audience formulate, edit, applaud and refuse various elements of the ever-produced narratives” (Czarniawska-Joerges, 1994:198). Positioning accentuates the power aspect of narrative construction and brings to the fore the constitutive power of discursive practice. In this sense, the narrative negotiation of subject positions is closely linked to clusters of rights and duties to think, act and speak in particular ways (Harré and Van Langenhove, 1999). The extent to which the act of positioning is a deliberate act guided by reflected calculation or is a more spontaneous and unreflected act is hard to determine and outside the scope of this investigation. Theoretically, however, a distinction can be made about two extreme forms of positioning: one form is planned and executed deliberately, and another form is not reflected action but based on everyday routines and taken-for-granted beliefs. In the latter form, positions almost seem to be part of the natural order of things and are enacted unquestioned (Harré and Moghaddam, 2003). Research has been conducted to investigate taken-for-granted positions of gender, age and illness, which have unfolded the constructed yet 242 pronounced ambivalence when Adam says that the new foreign owners have sent him away to be straightened out and simultaneously assures the listener that it is voluntary and that no one is “twisting his arm”. This accentuates another prevalent theme in Adam’s case: communication or “double-talk” in Adam’s stories when constructing leader identity is present in his communication with the program's ETP group and with me in the interviews. In the ETP program's introductory exercise in 2005, Adam gives a first construction of his leader qualities, emphasizing that he is a good leader because he gives employees’ freedom and responsibility and provides a secure environment in which it is no shame to make a mistake. He thinks that he is pragmatic, communicates very directly, and is good at answering questions. Furthermore, he gives positive feedback, and because he is direct, the employees do not have to guess what he wants. In the first module, Adam is influenced by the critical circumstances in his home organization, a situation that in his own view he has failed to solve, and which has therefore resulted in increasing disagreements. These circumstances make Adam's motivation to participate less a matter choice than is usually the case for the average participant. Adam openly explains to the ETP group the reason for his participation: "Because I yelled at the new CEO, I had to attend this program.” His ambivalence about joining the leader development program is expressed in narratives throughout the program. Adam explains how he has been sent off to “smooth out the edges”, thus stating indirectly that something is wrong with him. Adam uses the metaphor of fighting when he says, “No one is twisting my arm or anything". In using this metaphor, he conveys his feelings and denies them simultaneously, which can be interpreted as a way to overcome or handle the apparent double-bind situation he is in. When Adam defines his personal project in module 1, he narrates three significant themes of tension. His developmental goals are described as the struggle to become more patient, to work on his communication, and the use of dominance, which at this point in time he specifies in relation to identity work as: “…to become more emphatic, more patient, and less dominating”. Adam perceives that he is as not very empathic with other people, reflecting that he is perhaps not trying hard enough to see things from others people's point of view; e.g. he is not trying to put himself in their shoes. Adam also describes struggling with his impatience. This is a theme of tension that he experiences is damaging the quality of his relations with other people. Being dominating is a third theme of tension and is described by Adam as a potential problem to him as a leader. Adam 243 emphasizes communication as an area for improvement and elaborates that he has difficulties accepting others and showing appreciation and acknowledging their results. Adam is worried that he might discourage others in this way. Furthermore, Adam describes feeling a sense of time urgency, as if he is under constant time pressure, not only at work but in life in general. Adam reflects that he somehow is always in a hurry and acts as if everything is an emergency, both in his family and in other close relations. He thinks that as a consequence of this problem story, he is “losing his nuances” and missing out on something. In the second module, Adam (like Jim) describes how shocked he was by the openness and willingness to share different experiences in the group and with the other participants in the ETP program. Adam says: Adam: “When you come from the part of the country that I do, that kind of openness is almost deadening.” This experience of openness makes Adam reflect on how he uses his time in his home organization. Adam explains that he suddenly realizes he is “spending a lot of time getting back at his superiors”. He describes how he is always poking at the top management team, often indirectly but with persistency and every time he has the opportunity. Adam realizes that this behavior is the opposite of being open, and he concludes that he might be hiding behind ambiguous communication in order to let his dissatisfaction be known while preserving a cooperative appearance by not being too open or too bluntly confronting the powerful new owner. In module 3, Adam tells the group that he has become more conscious of “his tendency to be dominant”. He says that he has become more aware of the fights he wants to take and the fights he should not take. Adam explains feeling he has improved his ability to control himself, and that he is also delegating more than before. One aspect of Adam’s personal project was to reduce his working hours, and he explains that he has succeeded in reducing them by 25%, resulting in more time for himself and his family. During the coaching session, Adam is investigating two themes. The first theme is how to be more open with other people and with himself. Adam explains this theme is about being emotionally honest with others and with himself about “how he feels about things”. The second theme involves considerations about pursuing a career as self-employed. In Adam's description, there is a tension between holding on to his dreams and concern that others would not understand and support him. Moreover, Adam is reluctant about sharing his thoughts with others, because that would give 244 others the opportunity to influence him and thereby decrease his influence and sense of independence. The coaching session ends with the group feedback and advice to Adam: “We believe you need: • To be provoked in your preconceived notions about life – we say this with affection! • To build on the openness you have achieved. You have opened up from the program start and until now – you should try to open up at home, too • To train your communication skills; less circular communication and more straight talk • To make a decision about what you would like to do, be honest with yourself and act on your conviction • To try to loosen your need to control every situation; take your wife on a survival trip and let her make all the decisions” Adam writes this advice in his personal logbook42 but to the part about being more emotionally open, he adds the three words: "Pride, vulnerability and honor”. These reflections indicate what Adam is struggling with when having to reconstruct his identity according to the advice he has received. These terms were not explicitly mentioned by Adam in the coaching session, which I understand as a sign of his lack of openness. Nevertheless, I interpret the reflective insight made by Adam in connecting his development to these identity aspects to signify identity work and an increased understanding of his identity construction. With the benefit of hindsight, it would have been interesting to investigate these identity themes in the coaching session in order to unfold how Adam makes sense of these terms in relation to constructing identity in stories of pride, vulnerability and honor. In module 4, Adam gives a status report on his personal project. He emphasizes needing to work on his patience and still needing to take time to relate to others and to try to see situations from their points of view. He adds that he should try to be more emotionally open to and let others take the lead. Adam has also become aware that over the years he has become a lot more pessimistic than he used to be. He concludes that this is because he is compromising his own wishes more than before, which is making him bitter and negative. Adam says he feels as if he has lost his dreams and maybe even part of himself, and talks about finding himself again and revitalizing his “youthful self”.43 Adam writes in his logbook that he used 42 Adam’s log book was made available to me when I collected written empirical material as part of the 2006 interview. 43 In Danish, the expression is literally: my youth's I (“Mit ungdoms-jeg”). 245 to be an optimistic and happy person but has now become a pessimist, and that he feels guilty when he is absent minded and not spending enough time with his family. In constructing this story, Adam refers to and uses a life assessment exercise from the ETP program to support the argument that his motivation and enthusiasm has dropped markedly. He explains that five years ago he had his “dream job”, and when looking forward, he still feels confident that in five years time he will have re-establishment his old optimism, which according to Adam would happen if he realized his dreams. Thus, the present is positioned as a time of disillusion and discomfort for Adam, and the past and future are positioned as more attractive. The third module includes a feedback exercise in which all participants in the program give and receive feedback. Feedback is given on thirteen different behavioral dimensions on a scale from 1-5. It is written on a one-page form for each person, and then the participants engage in an interactive process, consulting each other for elaborations and exemplifications of the scores. The aim of the exercise is for each leader to receive concrete feedback on how his behavior is perceived by others and to practice giving and receiving feedback. One feedback dimension is about communication. It assesses whether the leader is perceived to: “communicate in clear language, is easy to understand and expresses opinions clearly”. On Adam’s feedback sheet, all members of his basic group give him a significantly lower score on this specific dimension than the rest of the class. I interpret this to indicate that the norms of honesty and openness that characterize the smaller groups are challenging to Adam and to his group. In the group, Adam's communication style of hiding behind vague or unclear statements contrasts with the openness required for identity work. Therefore, Adam’s communication is provoking for the other group members, as it threatens their potential gain from the group process. The group members feel that they are perhaps wasting their time and effort when Adam does not respond within the established interaction patterns, is not “playing by the rules” (i.e. norms) of the program, avoids self-disclosure and rejects identity work. At this point in time, the group is not including or referring to Adam’s organizational situation in understanding his behavior and communication. Instead, they are more explicitly trying to make Adam understand the group norms of honesty and pressure him to “say things like they are”. From an analytical perspective, this group process resembles the intentions of the new owner by sending Adam on the program “to smooth the edges”. Seemingly, the group at this 246 point is concerned with Adam’s concrete interaction in the group and with the way he communicates with them. The group's struggle with Adam on these issues places him at the periphery in the group, which might make it even more difficult for him to open up. On the other hand, the group is still communicating respectfully and stressing its positive intentions, which is indicated when they add: “We say this with affection” to their first piece of advice that his preconceived notions of life should be provoked. In relation to the LEA360 report, Adam focuses first on his communication skills upwards in relation to his boss, and secondly describes becoming aware of a very dominating behavior towards others, a behavior he ascribes to having a high level of self-esteem. Adam says that he will try to keep this insight in mind, especially in the critical conversations he will be having with his boss in the near future. However, Adam also raises the issue of his relation with authorities as a theme of tension. He feels authorities increasingly constrict his range of action, and this is very tension-provoking for him, because he has a strong drive to be free, in charge and to make independent decisions. Therefore, in his current situation, Adam “feels like a bird with the wings clipped off”. Adam describes how feeling free is central to him, but because he simultaneously feels very responsible for supporting his family, he cannot just follow his own wishes. Ironically, he is struggling to solve the tension by working long hours, which makes him feel guilty in relation to his family for not spending more time at home. This story illustrates the dilemma of balancing family life demands and job demands, as well as the dilemma of balancing the wishes and needs of the organization with those of the individual leader. Display 10-1 Adam: Problem Stories, Preferred Stories and Consequences Stories focusing on Problem Stories Consequences of problem stories Preferred Stories Consequences of preferred stories Being part of the new European Management team Feels encaged and limited Being autonomous and independent Feeling powerful and in charge Being dominant and having a sense of urgency Gets his way and results faster, sustains power Listening more to others Establishing better relationships Personal Themes Becoming negative and pessimistic Compromises his own dreams and wishes Following his dreams more Being more optimistic and positive 247 Being closed, not emotionally open Hides his own feelings, feels dissatisfied in relations Spending more time with others, having closer relationships Feeling less alone, more as part of a community Bullying and being impatient Damages relations Being more patient Getting more out of relations, less conflicts Relational Themes Lacking empathy Focuses only on results Focuses on results and people Getting people on board Organizational Themes Disagreeing with new owner Is restricted by authorities Reestablishing the positional power of the past Sustaining organizational influence This section shows how Adam constructs problem stories from the feedback he receives from the different exercises in the ETP program. Adam also integrates the LEA360 report in his construction of identity stories, and he refers to the concrete feedback given to him by others during the program. However, Adam does not incorporate the new CEO's positioning of him in the problem story, which I read as Adam rejecting the problem story and insisting in constructing his own identity, which is in accordance with the independence and individual freedom stories that are prevalent in Adam's overall leader identity construction. 10. 2 A Middle Ground…Narrative Construction of Identity in Storylines The first interview takes place in Copenhagen, approximately eighteen months after the end of the ETP program. Adam has taken the early morning plane and explains that he has used the commute to think about the process he has been through. He has a piece of paper with prepared notes in front of him. In setting the scene for the interview, I ask Adam for his accept to use a dictaphone, and as I turn it on, Adam’s spontaneous first remark is: "Now, I have to mind what I say”.44 In this way, he strikes the significant theme of communication as a game of hide and seek that has influenced Adam’s communication with the ETP group and influences the interaction and dialogue in the subsequent interview. Using communication as a strategy to achieve particular goals is a central construct in Adam’s construction of leader identity, which I unfold in the storyline of communication as strategy later in this section. 44 In Danish, the specific expression for this is "Nu må jeg vare min mund”. 248 First, I ask Adam about the circumstances leading to his enrolment in the ETP program. Laughing, Adam says that he was sent off to be straightened out, because he shouted at the owner and disagreed with the new strategic changes. Major organizational changes had taken place; a new international owner had entered the scene with ideas about a more homogeneous organization with a global range of operations and reorganization of management into a central European management group. Since the program end, the organization headquarters had moved to Copenhagen, leaving Adam in Jutland with decreased influence. In Adam’s understanding, these organizational changes symbolize a transition: Adam: "… from a leader style with a high degree of independence to what I would call an AP Møller leader style, where you are supposed to just click your heels and agree.” Adam tells the story of meeting the new owner for the first time. After a whole-day meeting, they meet in the bar to have a drink. In this informal setting, the owner tells Adam a story of how some employees might be very good at achieving results but not very good at being team players. During the conversation, it becomes obvious to Adam that even though his organization has good economic results, this is not enough for the new owner. He realizes that he is expected to be part of the team and to adapt to the decisions taken. He is left with the impression that the new owner perceives him as one who only plays by his own rules. Adam responds that management should rather focus on getting better results in other parts of the company, instead of focusing on his organization and his lack of team playing. Later, the team-player problem story is unfolded with a more defensive stand towards the new management, as Adam connects this story to human rights and advocates for his freedom of speech. The quote below indicates that the organizational conflicts have not culminated, but could have turned into even more rigid opposition: Adam: "You know what, Gitte. I think that I am disappointing them, because I want to reserve the right to say what I think and don't want anyone to come and change that! Of course I have to be relevant and factual, but if someone wants to deny me my freedom of speech then it is without my cooperation. I feel very strongly about this, and I think others have realized that too, by now…” In the following, I unfold three significant storyline constructions in Adam’s case. The narrative construction of identity is first expressed in the storyline, The Lion’s 249 Roar, about executing power, persuasion and position as a leader. The second storyline, Communication as Strategy, focuses on communication and relationships, and finally the storyline, Choosing my Battles, is thematically about reflective insight and behavioral modification. Storyline 1: The Lion’s Roar The storyline of the lion’s roar is constructed in several narratives in the 2006 interview. Adam uses power struggles and fighting metaphors to describe his leadership and organizational circumstances, and themes of influence and power are central in constructing leader identity. Adam constructs the storyline of The Lion’s Roar with its outset in lessons learned in his first job as an engineer in the organization where he is now CEO. Adam describes that in his opinion the organization offered him the best apprenticeship possible. When asked to elaborate, Adam tells the story of the lions. Adam describes being turned down the first time he applied for a job in the organization. The foreman sent him away because he lacked an education. He takes a degree in engineering and returns to the organization and is hired as one of the first engineers in the company's history. At this time, according to Adam, the organization had a strong leader combination, with a very dynamic, opportunity-seeking owner and a very administrative and well-disciplined CEO. Adam was the first young engineer to enter the organization and was physically located on the management hallway in an office between the two leaders. Adam explains: Adam: "It was such a hallway made of marble; we called it the hallway of the lions, and you can rest assured that I got inputs to both my right and my left ear.” Hence, the construction of leader identity is marked by strong mentors and the presence of role models. Adam emphasizes being a “competitive person”, which means that he always tries to do the best he can. Adam emphasizes that preparation is vital to a strong performance, and he describes how he always prepares himself by imagining the opponents’ role, arguments and points of view, and how he loses respect when other people are not well prepared. In conclusion, Adam says that over time he became one of the lions; he was included in top management decisions, and the CEO and owner eventually used him as sparring partner in the daily work. Adam elaborates on the meaning of his mentors to him and to his development as a leader: 250 Adam: "That is one of these gifts you cannot buy for money. All respect to you and the other facilitators, but such a pair of mentors… (pause), and at 26 I was also at an age when you can still accommodate something new. This was such a gift.” Gitte: "What did you learn about being a leader there?” Adam: "Well, I learned a lot about customers and customer relations. I learned much about developing the business; to have visions and be aware of business opportunities, but managing the personal was not something we were very good at…” Adam first explains the problem story of managing personal with reference to the geographical location of the organization in Jutland, which is a part of Denmark where people are described culturally as notoriously shunning praise and recognition. He explains that if in this part of country you give positive feedback, employees want to have a raise. Adam also connects this to the story of how one of his mentors used to say leadership is all about “…finding talented people and then keeping them”. According to Adam’s understanding, this means that employees ideally simply carry out the assigned job, because that keeps the organization running – "you should just stay and take care of your job”. Adam does not reflect on the implicit message of not wanting employees to develop in the job. He tells the story without explicitly agreeing with this attitude, except for the fact that he brings it up and gives the story space. Adam is constructing leader identity by using these stories of how to manage power and relations as a leader. In the interview, I return to the lion metaphor and ask how the “lion hallway” got its name. Adam tells the following story: Adam "If you knew the owner – I mean, of course he wasn’t a lion, but he could roar like a lion. You were never in doubt about who was the king of the organization. The elephant might be big, but the lion knows how to be respected. But it is not a name I have given; it was there before me.” Adam does not answer my question about whether the owner was feared; instead, he tells some of the lessons he learned from the owner. These stories construct leadership using positional power to influence people and get your way. The use of power is described in ambiguous terms: first, you roar to announce your kingdom (your power) and gain respect on the basis of your positional power. Thus, Adam explains that when the lion roars to scare everyone, the lion does not have to fight, because the fear is sufficient to keep everybody in their place. Adam narrates the 251 following identity conclusion, referring to lessons learned from one of his mentors, the company owner: Adam: “The day you use the power you have, you will lose it. Because then you lose respect and without respect you have dropped your leadership on the ground.” Gitte: “Then what did he (the owner) mean by power and how concretely are you supposed to use your power?” Adam: "Well, you shouldn’t ever put people down or sit on people just because you can, and the owner never did that himself.” Gitte: “Then what did he do?” Adam: “He used persuasion, argumentation, and motivation, which is also persuasion. And inspiration, by being the one in front; and to me that is the clearest role model for good leadership.” Later, this storyline is supplemented with the stories of a third mentor who helped Adam construct leader identity in regard to the relational dimensions of leadership. This storyline is not illustrated in the storyline map but is included here to show how storylines are reconstructed or integrated with new storylines over time. It shows how narrators use new experiences to modify and reconstruct the meaning of leader identity. After returning from England, Adam gets a job in a small family business where Adam is invited into the absolute inner circle and becomes in his own words “part of the family”. The bond is so close that he is written into the family will. In this strong relational context, Adam is reconstructing leader identity as the third mentor becomes his role model for managing the human aspect of leadership. Adam describes how this mentor teaches him things he would never have learned in the hallway of the lions. Primarily, Adam learns “how to appreciate things”, even small and seemingly mundane things like remembering people’s birthdays and making phone calls to wish a Merry Christmas. Adam describes discovering how these small things really matter to people and to him, and he experiences how leading people this way makes everybody feel appreciated, recognized and creates a positive welcoming environment. Adam describes noticing how this third mentor always treats everybody as equals; he would remember and include the production workers and would always talk respectfully to everybody. Adam contrasts these experiences with the silence, the lack of feedback and “the freedom of responsibility” that prevailed in the lion organization. In his storyline construction, the more authoritarian leader identity is now 258 Storyline 1: The Lion’s Roar 1. Narrative of experience: Adam applies for a job in the organization and is turned down because he lacks education. 2. Narrative of experience: Adam becomes an engineer and is hired in an engineering position. 3. Narrative of experience: Adam is placed between two strong mentors, a fantastic apprenticeship. 4. Narrative of identity conclusion: Adam concludes that business is more important than people. 5. Narrative of identity conclusion: Adam concludes that it is best to keep people in their place. 6. Narrative of identity conclusion: Adam concludes that positional power and fear wins respect. 7. Narrative of identity conclusion: Adam concludes that persuasion is good leadership. Storylines 2: Communication as Strategy 1. Narrative of identity conclusion: Adam concludes he is most comfortable hiding behind unclear talk. 2. Narrative of identity conclusion: Adam concludes that tactics work to confuse the listener. 3. Narrative of identity conclusion: Adam concludes that interaction is a big game of chess. 4. Narrative of identity conclusion: Adam concludes that he is social with a purpose. Storyline 3: Choosing my Battles 1. Narrative of identity conclusion: Adam concludes that he has become more clear about his values. 2. Narrative of experience: Adam receives feedback that employees are surprised when he does not take a certain fight. 3. Narrative of identity conclusion: Adam concludes that he is making better choices than before. 4. Narrative of identity conclusion: Adam concludes that he prefers being a big fish in a small pond. 259 Display 10-2 Storyline Map – Adam 2006 Landscape of Identity (Narrative of Identity Conclusion) Landscape of Action (Narrative of Experience) REMOTE PAST PAST RECENT PRESENT 2 Hired as engineer 3 Lion Hallway two mentors 4 Business is important 7 Persuasion works 1 Most comfortable 4 Social w/ a purpose Storyline 2 Communication as Strategy Storyline 1 The Lion’s Roar Storyline 3 Choosing My Battles 1 Values clearer 3 Better choices 2 Suprises employee 2 Tactics to confuse 3 Interaction chess game 1 Applies and is rejected 5 People stay in place 6 Power is respected 4 Prefers big fish The storyline map illustrates how Adam in storyline 1 is constructing significant leader identity conclusions on the basis of narratives of experiences that took place over 30 years ago. Adam’s case illustrates how, on the basis of certain narratives of experience, he constructs four central identity conclusions that significantly constitute his leader identity. It is interesting that in his narrative construction of leader identity, he primarily links narratives of identity conclusions together and makes more limited use of narratives of experiences when constructing leader identity (i.e. storyline 2 and storyline 3). This I interpret to imply that Adam to a lesser extent applies narratives of experience to construct who he is, and that he prefers to make his own autonomous conclusions; therefore, he does not include narratives of feedback from others, as for example Jim did in his construction process. The significant themes of tension for Adam at this point in time are accentuated by his disagreements and power struggle with the owner. Adam is fighting for his own organizational survival in the organization where he started his professional life and where he has been the CEO for the past six years. The disagreements with the owner accentuate significant identity constructions of Adam: to be autonomous and independent. The owner’s introduction of the team player problem story can be understood as a response to Adam’s leader identity focus on results and goals and 260 independent decision making. The storyline of The Lion’s Roar illustrates how Adam is socialized into an authoritarian leader style by his first two mentors. At first, Adam constructs the stories with little critical reflection. The stories are told acknowledging that he induces fear in others and uses power positions to persuade, but the potential negative consequences for the employees are not included in the storyline. Later, however, he contrasts this first experiences and leader identity construct with experiences and lessons learned from his third mentor. In this relationship, Adam learns appreciation of others and leadership based on respect and care. He is distancing himself from the leader identity construct from the lion’s hallway, thus understanding the benefits of people-oriented leadership; he adopts some of the behavioral gestures but does not significantly reconstruct the storyline of “people being a means to an end”. The second storyline of communication as strategy is not positioned as a problem story by Adam, although he acknowledges that others might consider his “talking around things” as tiresome and confusing. Adam is very explicit about how he uses communication tactics to obtain certain results, to persuade, and to sustain a sense of control of situations. This identity construct, communication as strategy, is positioned by Adam as beneficial to him and entails a preferred story which reaches back into experiences in the past, e.g. in primary school, as a way of overcoming things and as a helpful strategy to avoid being socially exposed as ignorant and incompetent. The third storyline; choosing my battles, indicates a beginning reconstruction of the storyline of persuasion. The storyline implies a realization that not all battles can be won, and that the lion strategy of persuasion has limits. This realization leads to the identity conclusion than instead of fighting every battle, it might be wiser to consider the importance of the issue first. On one hand, the storyline indicates that Adam has reconstructed the storyline of the autonomous persuasive fighter into a more reflective position. I interpret this to indicate that Adam has come to terms with the fact that organizational processes and decisions can never be a complete reflection of one mindset but have to be negotiated among many interests. However, the storyline can be read to resemble a “divide and rule” strategy, which is yet another way to persuade and to sustain power. 261 10. 3 An Open Ending…Storyline Reconstruction and Continued Struggles This section is based on the 2007 interview and unfolds significant events and identity conclusions made by Adam in regard to the narrative construction of identity in problem stories and preferred stories up to this point. The section examines whether storylines have been reconstructed and subject positions recaptured, and analyzes Adam's identity negotiations at this specific point in time. Storyline Reconstruction and Tensions During the past 12 months, major changes have happened in Adam’s professional life. Shortly after the last interview, Adam resigned after a total of almost 23 years in the organization, including seven years as CEO for Denmark. The founder died in spring 2006, and Adam describes that with his death his immunity is removed. Until then, a series of events had accumulated into a situation in the fall of 2006 in which Adam feels that either he resigns or he will be fired. Until the very end, Adam hopes he can take on leadership of one of the business areas, but communication from the new owners is clear: Adam has to go. Adam resigns with a feeling of relief but also without a new job, and without having looked at other business opportunities. For the first time in his adult life, Adam is without a job and has to start from scratch re-inventing himself. Adam describes the situation as “scary and liberating”, and clashing with what he considers in general to be his security and stability oriented profile. The situation is particularly a strain for Adam because he is without concrete goals for his professional life. This is contradictory to his identity construct, which is result and goal oriented, but simultaneously Adam feels a tremendous relief and sense of liberation. Adam is re-orientating himself, which he concretizes thus: he has something to offer smaller family-driven companies, where he feels able to contribute with stronger business understanding and more professional leadership. After his resignation, he is unemployed for a year, during which time he is negotiating with more than one family-owned organization about managing a generational shift process. Eventually, he enters a small organization to take over leadership together with a capital investor. Adam has somehow re-established the situation of the past as described in the former section in stories of the three different mentors. I interpret this as Adam having managed to place himself in a well-known position, thereby recreating stability and security in his professional life. The prolonged and turbulent transition from the old organization and the 262 scattered dreams he left behind has been a dramatic experience for Adam, and so has the experience of being unemployed for a year. Together, these experiences signify a turning point in his life and in his perception of his own professional identity. In the following, I examine how these experiences have resulted in alternative storylines for Adam. The 2007 interview and the re-test with LEA360 are significant input to this analysis. This time the LEA360 analysis is administered in Adam’s new organization after approximately five months in the job. The employee respondents have worked with Adam for five months and the colleague respondents for eight months. Thus, the respondents are not the same as in 2005, but all respondents have had sufficient time and interaction with Adam to assess his leader behavior and give feedback based on their perceptions and experiences. There are Other Things to Life than Work Adam says that the process from 2005 and until the 2007 interview has made him more aware about what he values and what he wants in the future. Adam says that the process has resulted in a change in his self-perception, since he experienced suddenly having his hands holding on tightly, but to the wrong end of the rope. Adam: "Yes, it has changed me. It has changed my view on certain things, but how I can use it, I don’t know (laughs).” Several times during the interview, Adam gives concrete examples of jobs he could take if necessary: he could be a security guard at the airport; or he would not mind for a shorter period cleaning in a warehouse and sweeping the floor. In these stories, Adam communicates a changed attitude towards work; in his stories, he minimizes the value of work and diminishes the importance for him of power positions and career. He is mostly worried about the economic consequences of such a career change and is concerned about his family's reaction if he no longer contributed to the household economy as they are used to. Adam: "I reached the conclusion that if another job didn’t turn up, then I would just have to go outside and enjoy the good weather. If you understand what I mean; there are other things to life than work.” Hitherto, Adam has spent most of his adult life working hard to pursue career and business goals, and he has been an active member of numerous industry interest groups and boards; therefore, this indicates a completely different approach to work 263 and life. Furthermore, Adam says that his feeling a need for stability and security has changed, and he has become more aware of the value of taking time to be with people and to listen to others. In a Learning Mode In 2007, Adam entered a new organization, and the first period is characterized by him being in a “learning-mode”, since he has little knowledge of the product. His leader identity construct is formed by his need to listen and understand the business, and to learn from scratch what the organizations is all about. Adam: "I do not approach the task with the same kind of self-confidence, maybe my self-confidence has grown, but I do not approach things with the same conviction – a little more humility. You could reach a wrong conclusion – I think that is necessary in this situation.” The dominant persuasive leader storyline taught by the mentors was culturally the right one in the “lion” organization, and it was a leader identity Adam was comfortable with and which worked for him in that context. Looking back, Adam proposes another reason for him becoming excessively dominant in his former organization. Adam says that because of his socialization into the organization and his deep knowledge of almost every part of the business, from the product materials to sales and customer relations, he simply felt that he always knew what was best, and therefore did not need to listen. In Adam’s case, the new organization context forces him to listen more, to approach the task with the help of social skills, and to approach the leader occupation with more humility than before. Back in 2005 in the old organization, all LEA360 respondents perceived Adam to be extremely dominating with a 75% score on the Dominate dimension, while Adam in his selfassessment scored himself in a middle position (45%). Now, in the 2007 re-test, Adam assesses himself as very low (5%), which indicates almost the opposite behavioral tendency. And the respondents assess the Dominant dimension in 2007 as low middle range (35%), which is a much more moderate dominance position than before. In the LEA360 theoretical framework, excessive use of dominance is considered a liability, because it implies that you bully and force your way on others. In this perspective, the modification of Adam's dominance score indicates an improvement of his interpersonal and relational skills. The overall picture of the changes from the LEA360 assessment in 2005 to the retest in 2007 is that Adam's leader profile has become modified and especially the social interactive scores are more moderate than in 2005. Adam’s self-assessment 264 scores from 2005 to 2007 have changed significantly in the dimensions of Cooperation (self score from 55% to 90%), Empathy (self score from 5% to 45%), and Outgoing (self score from 40% to 70%). This indicates that Adam has changed his self-perception of who he is as a leader and that he values and includes more interpersonal skills than before – this compared with the Dominant score decreasing (self score from 75% to 35%) and Adam’s score on Self significantly increasing (self score from 30% to 95%). Overall the two reports indicate that Adam has engaged in identity work that has significantly altered both the way others perceive him as a leader and Adam’s LEA360 self-assessment, which I interpret as indicators of leader identity reconstruction, primarily of the storyline of the lion's roar, which is thematically about dominance and power-based leadership, but also reconstruction of the narratives of empathy and social interaction. Adam: "I am more involving. I listen to others more, and I am less dominating, because I am in a situation where I am in a learning mode.” Interestingly, Adam explains this reconstruction of leader behavior as due to “the situation”. He thereby makes use of the behavioral-oriented leader discourse of matching behavior and situation (see chapter 3). Adam's reaction to the changed score on cooperation is that he believes it expresses a wish on his behalf to be more cooperative. Adam is very careful and reluctant to draw identity conclusions based on the feedback in the LEA360 report. Instead, he again stresses that he is in a learning position in the organization, and maybe also with himself. Adam says he feels that he has the ability to be empathic from his childhood, but he has somehow lost it on the way and might even have become callous. Now, he feels time is running out, and based on his professional experiences and the ETP program, he ascribes the empathy problem story to the “organizational situation he was in”. Adam makes the identity conclusion that he has the ability to adapt to any situation, which is an affirmation of his identity theme of survival that is implicit in the narrated persuasion and power storylines. In concluding the interview, Adam says that he is happy about the higher scores on empathy, which to him is a confirmation that in relation to this aspect of leadership he is moving in the right direction. Adam: "I think it confirms a bigger self-awareness about what is important to me.” Adam remarks that, metaphorically speaking, he has become not only older but also more “round”, thus linking this story to the 2006 storyline of choosing your battles. He still thinks it is important to fight for what you believe, but in retrospect there 265 are things he regrets not having pursued when he was younger, referring to his dream of being self-employed. This I interpret as the revitalization of the autonomy identity construct, but Adam now constructs this as a problem story never to be realized. In the 2006 interview, one of the most significant identity themes was the different ways Adam used communication as a strategy to obtain results with people. The storyline was never unequivocally reconstructed by Adam as a problem story, although in passages in the interview he acknowledges the drawbacks of the strategy in that it creates distance to others and makes them feel manipulated or used. Simultaneously, he describes how the communication strategy was central to his leader identity construct and proved helpful and efficient in achieving results in the organization of the lions. Adam did construct the lack of openness with others as a problem story and expressed a wish to be more open and to have more significant relations with others. In 2007, communication, positional power and persuasion tactics are not at all on the agenda for Adam. Instead, he is preoccupied by his new leader position and is more concerned with adapting, understanding and listening. In the previous section, I emphasized how both the interaction with me and the empirical material reflected double-talk, beating around the bush, and just pure ambiguity. This also made the analysis of the storylines difficult in Adam’s case. To my surprise, the 2007 interview contains only minor examples of this communication strategy. On the contrary, the interview is characterized by long and clearly formulated passages. In a context perspective, this can be interpreted as reflecting Adam's entering a new organizational context. In his new position, he is less powerful and much more insecure and dependant on others than in the old organization. In a cultural perspective, the “lion” organization was characterized by a leader culture with very explicit use of power, and where leading people by fear and persuasion was undisputed and accepted. Entering a new organization also makes Adam free to reconstruct himself as a leader; he is no longer limited by former leader role expectations, and in that sense, he is set free to construct a different leader identity in interplay with the new organizational culture. Finally, the past events Adam has been through can be considered a significant life crisis. The strain of 2½ years of organizational power struggles with the new owner, the negative exit from the organization, and a full year of unemployment have accentuated identity work and contributed to the reconstruction of dominant identity storylines into what, at the time of the 2007 interview, seems to be an almost opposite leader identity construct. As of now, we can only guess whether 266 these reconstructions are primarily situationally imposed and express Adam’s ability to adapt to the new situation and whether the dominant and persuasive leader strategies will remain reconstructed when Adam feels more knowledgeable and at home in the organization. Negotiated Subject Positions The specific circumstances of Adam's experiencing being enrolled in a development program to “smooth the edges” position Adam in opposition to the owner and to the ETP program. This positioning contrasts with the autonomous positional power Adam exercised as CEO and in stories about Adam negotiating that things were better in the old days. He is therefore negotiating a new subject position of being “wrong”, as e.g. the new owner states that Adam is not a team player, and challenges his autonomy by ordering him to participate in a development program. The new owner has exercised his power over Adam, has twisted his arm, and he has been forced to comply so far. Throughout the 2006 interview, Adam is positioning himself as a strategic fighter who primarily relates to other people with the aim of achieving a goal. Adam positioned people as means to ends and as opponents to be persuaded and manipulated in the direction Adam desires. When Adam constructs other people in this way, he simultaneously position himself as “a lone cowboy” with no social strings and little relational interest. In the story of the third mentor, Adam negotiates understanding the value of appreciating people, but only minor reconstructions seems to be made to the dominating storyline of The Lion’s Roar. In the storyline of Communication as Strategy, Adam positions himself as a performer and player on the social scene. Social interaction is a big game of chess and by using ambiguous communication Adam avoids being checkmated by someone else. In ambiguous communication, Adam can hide his feelings of ambivalence and still communicate them. He can negotiate his socially unacceptable approach to other people as means, and hide feelings of insecurity and incompetence, e.g. “being undressed “ and feeling powerless. In the 2006 interview, Adam has positioned education and learning as a necessary evil, as an anti-identity he only submitted to in order to gain positional power. However, in the 2007 interview, Adam is turning this identity storyline upside down. He is now positioning himself to be in a learning mode, approaching people by listening in order to understand the new organization. The subject position of 267 Adam is one of humility and signals more respect. He is dependent on others to succeed. These constructions of leader identity in the two interviews stand out as direct opposites. It appears that Adam has re-constructed this anti-identity storyline of learning, because his survival and success in the new organizational context depend on his ability to learn from others. Concluding Reflections – Looking Back In the last part of the interview, I ask Adam to try to pull together his reflections and the important insights made during the last three-year period. At first, it is hard to make sense of the answer, so I thank him for participating and turn off the Dictaphone; but then the conversation continues and I turn it on again. In the subsequent sequence, Adam reflects on the ETP program, referring to feedback from an ETP participant who told him that he is “not very open to other people’s way of doing things”. Adam tends to agree with her and explains that he has to think things through for himself first before interacting, which is in accordance with Adam’s emphasis on preparation. Adam stresses that development requires “blind faith”, and when asked if this has been an issue in relation to the group or facilitators, Adam tells the following story, making reference to the old and now deceased owner: Adam: “Yes, without having thought much about it, I think so. The people I have called my mentors I have had faith in. They have been people who have formed me, and because I trusted them, they have been part of what has moved me.” Gitte:” No?” Adam:” Maybe someone might think that I have stopped developing, but there are other reasons... What I really want to say is that being curious about the whole of the business, that is where I score extremely high; that the organization has to be kept on its toes…maybe sometimes a little bit too much.” The open ending for Adam is giving up his dream of continued leadership of the lion organization, which implies that he has lost the power struggle, which is to him an unsatisfactory exit from an organization that has been central to his professional life for more than 25 years. Adam's participation in the development program was imposed on him, but the years of struggling also entail a new beginning for Adam, since the pressure has forced him out of the comfort zone and has made way for a reconstruction and modification of former dominate identity constructs to accommodate the new situation and organizational context. 274 autonomy or deviation, whereas other organizations have broader margins and perhaps even encourage and reward autonomy and difference. In this dissertation, the construction of leader identity is understood as interacting with particular paradoxes of the leader occupation. For some of the five leaders in the empirical material, this paradox of organizing and autonomy has been prevalent; for others, it has not been the focus of attention at the time of the inquiry. However, the paradox accentuates different storylines for different leaders, In the case of Adam, this paradox is central to his narrative construction of identity. Adam’s participation in ETP was initiated by the new owner with the declared aim of "smoothing out the edges". Taking the hierarchical power distribution into consideration, this implies that Adam must comply with the new organizational strategy and give up the autonomy and positional power he has had until now. This case illustrates the intricate balance between what degree of autonomy can be accepted or tolerated in an organization and when borders are crossed and the leader considered a disloyal organizational actor who cannot to be trusted to support the organizational strategy and decisions. In narratives, Adam is distancing himself from the CEO’s request to become a “team-player” and negotiating his independence and power position by attempting to prove the others wrong and by fighting back. Thus, Adam’s positioning in relation to this paradox is to fight for his independence and autonomy, “his right of speech”, and thus affirming an identity construct of autonomy. The conflict with the CEO accentuates the importance of independence and autonomy for Adam. Eventually, Adam loses the battle and leaves the organization and in this sense reclaims his autonomy. In contrast to Adam’s case, Jim is the CEO of a successful organization and in a hierarchical power position. Jim chooses to engage in identity work to become more knowledgeable about himself but without any external pressure. On the one hand, Jim’s leader identity construction emphasizes inclusion, and he describes identifying with the organization to an extent where it becomes difficult to differentiate between them, as illustrated in the analysis of the “we” language in chapter 7. However, Jim’s construction of leader identity also indicates a need for extensive individual freedom and autonomy, illustrated in Jim’s narrative that he is not able to take an order, i.e. he has difficulties with compliance. Due to his organizational position, Jim has considerable influence on the values and practices of the organization. In his storyline Values as filter, Jim is positioned as a rather independent constructor of company values, and he narrates how he demands employees to adopt and comply with the organizational spirit and values. Jim 275 describes this as “looking out for the organization as a whole” in terms of care and organizing, but the compliance Jim demands of others is still significant. In the 2007 interview, Jim’s demands have expanded and are not solely focused on performance; they now imply that employees must comply with organizational values (i.e. to develop oneself), and to demonstrate that they “fit in”. The organizing and autonomy paradox is managed by Jim by expanding his autonomy. In a sense, he has become the organization. Furthermore, Jim’s positioning in relation to this paradox is somewhat contradictory. He is one with the organization, while at the same time emphasizing his own autonomy, and he has difficulties submitting to the demands of others. This eventually leads to the open-ended conclusion that he “he is not able to do himself, what he demands of others”, as described in chapter 7. Hence, the paradox interacts with Jim’s narrative construction of identity with a simultaneous identification with the organizing and a distancing from it, thereby preserving his own autonomy. In Ben’s case, he is pushed to submit to the new organizational standards of being a leader that his new boss introduces. Ben narrates how his past position of relative autonomy and freedom to construct leader identity is becoming jeopardized by new demands for people-oriented leadership and practices. First, Ben tries to comply with the new organizational demands and reconstruct his leader identity construct. But in his reconstructed storyline Where My Heart Lies, he is willing to compromise his autonomy, primarily to preserve an interesting job. Later, Ben explains in storylines how the pressure to become more relation-oriented undermines his feelings of competency and his ability to practice his professional skills and do what he finds interesting. In relation to this paradox, Ben is at first positioning himself so as to accommodate the demands of the new CEO and reconstruct his leader identity, i.e. give up aspects of autonomy. In the identity work process, therefore, Ben is distancing from his passion for the task, and his identity construction is predominantly negative and narrated in problem stories. Ben returns to the editorial department and his preferred identity construction of professional autonomy, but still with the tension of being less the organizational leader he is supposed to be in the eyes of the new CEO. The storyline of Expert to Generalist in Walther’s case describes the tension between the organizational need for an expert lawyer and the lawyer’s wish to become a generalist leader. In his organization, Walther manages to incorporate more departments into his area of responsibility and thereby meet his own need for a more extensive generalist leadership. In choosing this strategy, he is still meeting the needs of the organization while trying to make room for more autonomy for 276 himself within the organization. However, Walther narrates perceiving the organization to have the upper hand in the situation, because he is reluctant to leave the organization for fear of failure and losing an economically secure job that he does well. In this perspective, Walther interacts with the paradox of autonomy and organizing by enduring the tension of having to fulfill the organization's demands for an expert leader even though he wishes to pursue his own wishes. Walther distances and opposes the organizational demands, but he still fulfills and works in accordance with the preferred leader identity construction of the organization. First with changes in top management are there possibilities for Walther to follow through on his wishes for a generalist leader identity from a secure organizational position. Thus, external changes and Walther’s compliance with the organizational demands over time resolve the conflict for Walther, and he eventually seems able to balance the two dimensions of the paradox within the organizational context. The foregoing empirical analyses of the five leaders demonstrate how organizations directly or implicitly communicate about leadership practices and define preferred leader identity constructs. This can be communicated in written material describing expectations and demands in various positions, but none of the leaders made reference to any such narrative resources. Instead, their narratives illustrate that leaders were most often promoted into leader positions without guidance and with only limited direction from the organization. The empirical material suggests that leaders will look to their nearest leader as a role-model for how to be a successful leader in a given position, in an attempt to figure out what the leader position entitles and what is expected of them in their capacity of being a leader. Therefore, this research stresses the importance of the relationship with the nearest leader, as a co-constructor of leader identity and representative of the organization. In the empirical material, we have seen in the case of Adam how this relationship can take the form of mentorship where significant leader identity storylines have been molded and constructed from experiences with mentors in the lion’s hallway. The process of adapting to or mirroring the nearest leader as a role model is further exemplified in Milton’s case, where he describes how for years he constricted himself to be serious and overly responsible as the older brother, a positioning where Milton unreflectively enacted some of the anti-identity constructs of his father, specifically the angry and short-tempered leader. Milton’s reconstruction of this significant identity construct is an example of an alternative approach to managing the paradox of organizing and autonomy, as Milton constructs a leader 277 identity that feels more in accordance with himself (his autonomy) and less as a non-reflected accommodation to his father's role model. The empirical material also illustrates that the nearest leader has a significant impact on the leader's construction processes, also when they oppose or reject the leader style or conduct of the nearest leader. Evidently, the nearest leader evaluates subordinate leaders, and his expectations and ideas about what leadership should look like and the patterns leader behavior should follow have a significant impact on the leader's own evaluation and construction of leader identity. In the empirical data, changes in upper leader positions have directly influenced four of the leaders to engage in leader development, and their perceived need for change is narrated as being related to tension with higher management (i.e. the cases of Milton, Ben, Walther and Adam). Identity tensions and struggles emerge if the leader perceives organizational demands to be incompatible with his personal values and ideas about being a leader and/or about life. Tensions emerge if the overall notion of the leader role is incompatible with other important constructs of identity – for example, the notion of people-oriented leadership in the case of Ben, and the notion of being a teamplayer in the case of Adam. Tensions can relate to particular delimited aspects of a leader role, and the leader may still enjoy other aspects of being a leader (e.g. in the case of Adam, the tension of being put under pressure to comply with the new strategy while still enjoying responsibility and positional power; and Ben enjoying the professional work while being less interested in leading people). Nevertheless, organizations can prescribe a specific preferred leader identity that is remote from the individual’s former experiences with leadership or very different from his personal preferences and behavior. This creates tensions of balancing the organization's expectations and demands with the needs and expectations of the leader. The needs of the organization and the leader can be in conflict, as in the case of Walther wanting to become a generalist leader, and in the case of Adam wanting to preserve his autonomous position of power. The amount of empirical material dedicated to constructing anti-identities indicates the importance of distancing and opposing the construction of leader identity. In narratives, the five leaders all construct their preferred identity constructs by positioning them in opposition to something; the leaders distance and create differences in relation to particular actors, actions and perceptions (Garcia and Hardy, 2007). Thus, the empirical analysis also shows that the leaders position 278 themselves as similar to or different from certain discourses of leadership and concrete feedback from others. The study indicates that the applications of antiidentity constructs are as important for identity construction processes as envisioning a preferred identity construct. Perhaps due to the lack of clarity regarding the leadership concept and practice, it is easier to explain “what is not me”, than to narrate what leadership is or preferably should be. 11. 3 The Paradox of Empowerment46 and Monitoring Most organizations are divided into minor sections and departments, which can complicate the distribution of tasks, communication and interaction. The dispersed work organization fuels the tension of how to integrate tasks into shared results and cohesive products. It accentuates the paradox of how to work in the same direction, preserve a holistic view of the organization, while being physically removed from the action and other people. This accentuates the paradox of how to monitor the tasks and processes involved in everyday operations, how to act as a global entity and simultaneously be present in the local, as well as how to acknowledge local diversities in global organizations. The paradox of empowerment and monitoring resonates the paradox of autonomy and organization, but here the leader's challenge is focused on how to balance empowering and monitoring when delegating tasks to other people, primarily employees (see Watson and Bargiela-Chiappini; Watson, 2001b:392). The paradox of monitoring and empowerment in the divided organizational context accentuates the question of how to preserve control of the result by monitoring tasks and performances when physically removed from activities, e.g. when work takes place in decentralized and dispersed locations. And how can the leader have updated information and knowledge of employee performance and task progression, when work takes place under the direct supervision of somebody else. Hence, one aspect of this paradox is how leaders can monitor and stay in touch when physically removed; another aspect is how leaders can monitor the work of employees in a way that will not undermine the employees' own sense of responsibility, initiative and engagement and thereby jeopardize empowerment. How can the leader avoid monitoring the employees' work and performance too much and thereby introduce a sense of insecurity in employees who might feel that 46 For the purpose of this dissertation, I consider empowerment a relational dynamic or the process by which a leader shares power with subordinates. Power, in this context, is interpreted as the possession of formal authority or control over organizational resources (Conger and Kanungo, 1998). 279 the leader distrusts their ability to carry out the task. Monitoring employees too often or being very directive when monitoring can lead to the perception that the leader has not actually let go of the assignment, which can cause employees to decline responsibility. The risk of too much empowering could result in the leader being totally unaware of what is being accomplished and work progress and ignorant of any potential problems in sub-units that can jeopardize deadlines, quality standards and the successful completion of tasks. Empirically, this paradox is accentuated when leaders talk about delegating47 assignments, tasks and responsibilities to others, primarily employees. The empirical material is rich in stories indicating the different struggles involved in managing this paradox in everyday life. In traditional leadership theory, delegation is considered an important leader tool, both because the leader can not do everything on his own but even more because delegation is a tool to develop employees by assigning new challenging tasks, building new skills, and enhancing motivation. Hence, delegating in this perspective is a necessary tool for distributing tasks and getting things done through other people in the organization. In the empirical material, delegation is narrated as creating tensions in various ways; the five leaders struggle with different aspects of delegation: to communicate expectations clearly up front, and to follow up and monitor progress as illustrated in the case of Milton, who also struggles with trusting employees to have sufficient skills and qualifications to solve tasks. Jim has been a bottleneck in his organization, because he prefers to have control and therefore monitors too much and in too much detail. Finally, Ben attempts to manage this paradox by empowering his employees, e.g. by giving employees the best assignments, and this to an excess that leaves Ben out of touch with the production phase. Ben negotiates the need for him to monitor employees in the story of “employees are grown-ups who can run their own job" - a narrative construction of identity that implies that he rejects monitoring and control. In the case of Jim, the storyline of Letting Go signifies that Jim’s identity work with this paradox involves his attempts to stop controlling and monitoring everything that is going on in his organization. It thereby exemplifies yet another narrative construction of identity in interaction with the paradox of empowerment and monitoring. 47 For the purpose of this dissertation, delegation is defined as the act of assigning tasks as well as responsibility for completing tasks to others, primarily employees. [Document text truncated for crawler view.]