Alvesson 1996 - Leadership Studies - From Procedure and Abstraction To Reflexivity and Situation

LEADERSHIP STUDIES:
FROM PROCEDURE AND ABSTRACTION

TO REFLEXIVITY AND SITUATION
Mats Alvesson *
Lund University
This article reviews and develops the recent critique of empiricist quantitative and qualitative methods in
social science in general, and leadership studies, in particular. It argues for an interpretive-reflective
approach that fully acknowledges the theory-laden, interpretative nature of empirical studies and the
ambiguity of ‘data’. In addition the political and historical character of social science and the constitutive
nature of language are seen as crucial elements for consideration in reflective research. The article
suggests the use of a situational approach and careful descriptions of naturally occuring events presented
in texts in such ways that they are open for interpretations other than those chosen by the author.
INTRODUCTION
Recently there nas been a strong dissatisfaction with conventional approaches to leadership
research, which is dominated by positivistic or neo-positivistic assumptions and methods
emphasizing ideals such as objectivity, neutrality, procedure, technique, quantification,
replicability, generalization, discovery of laws, etc. The inadeqacies of the dominant
quantitative, hypothesis-testing approach have caused an increasing number of students to
use, or at least feel more open about the use of qualitative methods (Morgan & Smircich,
1980). Arguments for this shift include claims that qualitative research make possible
broader and richer descriptions, sensitivity for the ideas and meanings of the individuals
concerned, increased likelihood of developing empirically supported new ideas and
theories, together with increased relevance and interest for practitioners (Martin & Turner,
1986). Practitioners seem to view the abstractions of quantified material and statistical
correlations as very remote from everyday practice and therefore of little use.
* Direct all correspondence to: Mats Alvesson, Department of Business Administration, Lund University, P.O.
Box 7080 S-220 07 Lund, Sweden. E-mail: mats.alvesson@fek.lu.se.
Leadership Quarterly, 7(4), 45.5-485.

Copyright 0 1996 by JAI Press Inc.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
ISSN: 1048-9843
456 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 7 No. 4 1996
I believe that this shift is to be welcomed, although this is in itself insufficient as much
qualitative research is as superficial as questionnaire studies. The crucial issue is not only
the choice between quantitative or qualitative methods, but involves much more
fundamental ontological and epistemological aspects (Alvesson & Skoldberg,
forthcoming; Deetz, forthcoming; Cuba & Lincoln, 1994). As Morrow (1994, p_ 207)
writes, “. . the predominant distinction between quantitative and qualitative methods in
sociology serves primarily to conceal and confuse theoretical positions. This distinction
focuses our attention on the techniques through which social life is represented in the
course of research, as opposed to the process of representing social reality.” Many, indeed
most, variations of qualitative methodology share with (neo-)positivism a number of
assumptions and commitments which are problematic and obstruct the hope for progress-
something which must be seen as precarious and debateable rather than unidimensional
and accumulative. Many versions of qualitative method do not deviate radically from
positivist assumptions of an objective external reality, awaiting the discovery and
dissection of science, applying the method that gives privileged access to it and which uses
language as a transparent medium for measurement, being in one-dimensional control by
the observer-scientist standing outside and above the social reality that he or she
authoritatively develop or validate robust theories about. Strauss and Corbin (1990), for
example, argue that grounded theory-one of the most prominent versions of qualitative
method-“is a scientific method” that “meets the criteria for doing ‘good science’:
significance, theory-observation compatibility, generalizability, reproducibility, precision,
rigor, and verification” (p. 27).
As Strauss and Corbin point out, qualitative research, as they propose it, varies from
other forms of “science” (which they seem to use as a synonym to neo-positivism) in terms
of how these virtues are realized-the precise version of the general virtues is contingent
upon the specific methodological approach used-although they are not questioned,
challenged or radically reformulated. Nor are any alternative criteria suggested, even
though grounded theory means focusing on qualified description and empirically generated
theory development and not the testing of hypothesis.
Neo-empiricist qualitative method, including grounded theory, shares with neo-
positivist hypothesis-testing research a certain amount of realism regarding objectivity,
accumulative knowledge and acknowledges that there are problems of accomplishing
science as a completely rational project. (Neo-empiricism means a treatment of theory and
interpretation as separate from data and a strong relience on empirical evidence. This is
also a key feature of neo-positivism, but this label is normally used in a way that also
includes other characteristics not necessarily involved in other versions of empiricism, i.e.,
approaches that do not embrace the ideal of discovering laws through hypotethic-deductive
methods, e.g., neo-empiricist qualitative methods.) Insight on the problems of neo-
empiricism associated with the constructed, interpretive nature of empirical material,
although occassionally mentioned (e.g., Strauss & Corbin, 1994) tend (a) to be minimized
and (b) have a highly limited impact in practical research. In practice, awareness of the
critique of positivism leads to lip service responses and is almost neglected in terms of
implications for research practice. I also suspect that most conventional researchers are
basically ignorant of large parts of the heavy critique directed against positivism and its
modern variants delivered by an increasing number of philosophers, language students and
Leadership Studies 457
social and behavioural scientists (for reviews, see Alvesson & Skoldberg, forthcoming;
Denzin & Lincoln, 1994; Steier, 1991).
This article aims to go beyond neo-empiricist qualitative method, by reviewing and
incorporating some of the major ontological and epistemological critique of mainstream
underslung and argues for a qualitative approach that takes the social const~ctive
nature of “leadership” and other social phenomena, that is, a11kinds of empirical material
of interest in the social and behavioural sciences, seriously. It starts by examining some of
the key assumptions of positivism and neo-positivism in leadership research. I will then try
to account for the limited success of conventional research, continuing with an argument
against the ideal of developing a grand theory for leadership. Some basic difficulties in
qualitative method are highlighted in the next section. New ideas for qualitative method are
suggested after having delivered warnings against some of the pitfalls of neo-empiricist
qualitative research. The mode of study suggested aims for an interpretive, historical,
language-sensitive, local, open and non-authoritive understanding of the subject matter.
More specifically, a situational focus which is able to incorporate these ideals, is promoted.
The strengths and weaknesses of this approach are discussed.
THE SAD STATE OF THE ART IN QUANTITATIVE LEADERSHIP RESEARCH

Research on leadership has been strongly dominated by positivistic/neo-positivistic
assumptions together with an emphasis on rules and procedures for the securing of
objectivity in practice and results. Thousands of studies have been conducted. The outcome
of these enormous efforts has been meagre. There are varied opinions as to one basically
could talk about a failure or not. One review of the research concluded that “the only point
of agreement is that existing approaches have largely lost their usefulness for the further
development of the field” (Andriessen & Drenth, 1984, p. 5 14). Another reviewer claims
that “... progress continues in developing better understanding of leadership traits,
behavior, power, and situational factors” (Yukl, 1989, p_ 254), but he also concludes that
the field
. . . is presently in a state of ferment and confusion. Most of the theories are beset with
conceptual weaknesses and lack strong empirical support. Several thousand empirical
studies have been conducted on leadership effectiveness, but most of the results are
contradictory and inconclusive. (p. 253)
The state of the art includes “some real progress” at the same time as “the yield of
knowledge is much less than would be expected from the immense literature on
leadership” (p. 279), for an insider such as Yukl, who is sympathetic to “mains~eam”
views about social science. For an outsider to the dominating orientation, such as myself,
the degree of “success” in terms of developed ideas and, through positivistic methods,
validated knowledge is as low as can be expected, from interpretive and constructivist
assumptions. It may even be suggested that the answer, after considering the enormous
resources in terms of money, time, energy and talent spent on (neo-)positivist leadership
research as a gigantic experiment testing whether (neo-)positivist methodology works or
not, should be no. It fails to meet its own criteria of knowledge accumulation. If the
philosophical assumptions and rules for method were sound, then one or a set of
empirically well supported theories, explaining leadership phenomena and providing
valuable advice for practitioners, would have been produced. But this is not the case and
rather than calling for five thousand more studies-according to the logic “more of
(almost) the same”-the time has come for radical re-thinking.
Several authors have called for a radical reorientation of the elaboration and
measurement of abstracted constructs to the analysis of leadership as a practical
accomplishment and social process defined through interaction based on a qualitative
approach (Bryman, 1996; Hosking, 1988; Knights & Willmott, 1992; Smircich & Morgan,
1982). This article argues along these lines, but probably goes further than most advocates
of a qualitative approach in certain respects. For example, it addresses problems with the
constructive and political nature of the research project, the constitutive, perspectivating
role of language, and suggests an approach that allows more space for reflexivity as well as
reader engagement in the sense-making of empirical material.
PROBLEMATIZING CONVENTIONAL ASSUMPTIONS

What Is Leadership?
There is a wide spectrum of definitions of leadership and focus on the subject matter.
Yukl (1989) says that “the numerous definitions of leadership that have been proposed
appear to have little else in common” than involving an influence process. He seems to
attribute part of the lack of progress in the field to its variety. However, I think that a
common definition of leadership is not practically possible, would not be very helpful if it
was, does not hit the target and may also obstruct new ideas and interesting ways of
thinking.
Leadership must refer to a phenomenon that can be delimited and fixated for a common
definition to be possible and helpful. The degree of diversity involved must be restricted.
But this is hardly the case, given that which most academic leadership talk seems to refer
to. “Leadership” is typically defined in general terms. The ambition is to say something of
relevance across quite diverse settings. Informal leadership may well refer to (formal)
subordinates guiding (formal) superiors, not just managers influencing with their (formal)
subordinates. Leadership is often used to illuminate the behaviours, styles, personalities,
etc. of quite diverse groups, for example, university department chair-persons, SS officers,
U.S. presidents, gang leaders, project managers, nonviolence civil rights spokesmen and so
on. This diversity means that a coherent definition with universal aspirations may tell us
relatively little in terms of the richness and complexity of the phenomena it supposedly
refers to.
Definitions in general provide some clues for that which one is trying to address, but they
are less helpful than conventionally understood. Language is too ambiguous and meaning
too context-dependent for abstract definitions to work very efficiently. The definer seldom
manages to control meaning particularly well. This issue has been addressed by
deconstructionists (e.g., Calb & Smircich, 1991; Martin, 1990). This is partly related to
the ways in which words are used being informed by the root metaphors for the
phenomenon being studied. A half-conscious metaphorical structuring of the focal object
gives a particular, but imaginative rather than analytically clearcut, meaning to the words
used (Alvesson 1993; Brown 1976, 1977; Morgan, 1980, 1986). The exactly same
definition may then be informed by different metaphors and thus different meanings. In
organizational culture thinking people may, for example, embrace a similar definition of
culture as a set of meanings, ideas, values and symbolism shared by a group. But this may
well be accompanied by a high diversity of thinking due to the metaphor for culture
perhaps being one of a compass functionally guiding direction, a sacred cow protecting
certain basic assumptions and ideals from being questioned or changed or a frozen reality
where the (domin~t) meanings, ideas and values fix the current social reality and
subordinate the organizational members to it (Alvesson, 1993). Definition is thus only a
limited element in how language and cognition work. Given the variety of existant “real
phenomena” that leadership research may address, the idiosyncracies of all the
researchers-in particular if they are not all U.S. Wasps-and the ambiguities of language,
ways of thinking and doing research will not be standardized even if a particular definition
may appear to dominate.
Now I would like to iflustrate how Iittie de~nitions say by discussing the one used by
Yukl(1989). Here, “leadership is defined broadly in this article to include influencing task
objectives and strategies, influencing commitment and compliance in task behavior to
achieve these objectivies, influencing group maintenance and identification, and
influencing the culture of an organization” (p. 253). This definition is thoughtful. Knights
and Willmott (1992) cite it and adapt it in their article. But one can could very well let the
words “leadership” and “culture” change place and then have a definition of culture. Or
swop leadership and strategy. One could also replace leadership with organizational
structure, job design, social identity or something else. (Weick, 1985, has used this trick to
show how some definitions of strategy and culture are roughly the same.)
This illustrates that it is rather difficult to claim that “leadership” as a general term and
object of study stand in a clear relationship to a particular, distinct group of phenomena
possible to conceptualize in a uniform manner, for example, through the signifier
leadership. The two problems pointed at are interrrelated: the social worlds of interest for
leadership researchers do not easily lend themselves to neat categorization and ordering,
and language use has its limitations in relation to the goal of fixing meaning through
definitions.
Objective Reality and Objectivity
The aim of this section is to argue for a devaluing of objectivity as the principle virtue of
research, not to provide an overview of the various opinions on the subject. Some,
including myself, do not deny the possible existence of something worth the label
“objective reality,” but are more inclined to emphasize that social reality is not external to
human consciousness and language use. Also the researcher is part of a socially
constructed world and can hardly adapt a neutral position to that which one is studying. If
and how one, for example, studies leadership is partly a result of cultural tradition and of
“subjective” interests, values and pre-structured understandings. One’s own life history
and everyday experience informs how one thinks and acts in relationship to the subject
matter. These have an impact on the questions asked, the language used and, by
implication, the results produced. The area in which one works also affects oneself in terms
of values and preferences. A number of studies of (U.S.) economists have, for example,
showed that they seem to be affected by the assumptions of their knowledge area-they
behave in a more self-interested way than other academic groups (Frank et al., 1991). One
leaders and than other groups. Any in

this would definitely an impact the leadership produced-and
possibly for some the pecularities the field, as the rigid
principle dividing human into leaders followers.
It easy to sympathy for ideal that idiosyncracies of should be
against the of others that empirical arguments and
ideas may more or well backed interesting, etc., that they
may be Nevertheless the of objectivity managable through
high level intersubjectivity) is Too much to warrant sacred
position it has for many researchers. Rules science that
to show ultimate or way to and rationality so far
proven to uncontested or in the run (Bernstein, Data are pure,
free theory, language an interpretive they are constructed in of
a framework, prestructured and cultural vocabulary and
(Alvesson & forthcoming; Astley, Guba & 1994).
Many of “objective” are actually to critique being more
than a of qualitative As Deetz argues, “in called
‘objective’ concepts and are held priori, are projections of
own way encountering the constitute the as observed
ownership or reflection, and not subjected the ‘objection’ the outside
possible alternatively worlds”.
One of course to chase away through for objectivity the
sense evaluator interreliability. is sometimes that if than one
agrees, then is avoided objectivity is If a of persons,
in age, cultural background, preferences, etc. on a
issue, on they have a rich the case accepting what
agree upon a matter objectivity is, strong. Indeed, strong cases
rare, at in social I am impressed if U.S. students, undergone
the training and for a professor, agree their judgements.
or more may easily the same or, to it differently, the
same ignorant of languages and of making of what
see or When a degree of is present cultural and
variation, it less likely occur with and interesting than
trivial uninteresting ones.
we broaden discussion a and take complex issue as the of the of
U.S.-dominated research, reviewers have a of clues how to
the evaluation terms of to earlier negotiations of meanings at
etc. Still, there are variations. Yukl(1989) to
four on (35 of) research participative leadership appeared 1986-1988,
one written a group two to authors each, in prestiguous
and in least three the four after peer He concludes the “the
do not
In order avoid variation, procedures aiming standardize responses
used. Subjects experiments and to questionnaires forced to
to expressions the researcher’s (Deetz, 1992, for

example, or her of what relevant, the that he she has to
structure position and response alternatives the subjects. if a
utilizes another questionnaire, that person’s subjectivity puts his her
imprint the study. hiding of subjectivity through the research
to respond prestructured, standardized, processed response is
a problem with ideal of in social Another major is the
of ambiguity. order to something that to be variation
must reduced and and simplification for. The variety and
of the world is for the of fitting that give
impression of Quantification has quality, that the rhetorical of
numbers the processes construction and they are upon. The
of social risks involving basic distortion social reality,
in the of portraying falsely in to accurately, in terms
imputing certainty order at expense of ambiguity and
Another problem the ideal chasing the as an subject
away letting scientific and technique the scene, the
constraints ideas, imagination, novelty, indeed associated with
far too emphasis on techniques and, worst, data-dredging.
against objectivity a possibility, well as ideal that should take
measure to does not, course, means anything goes.
procedure and may, however, replaced by and theoretical
and sensitivity means of “qualitative rigour” thus avoids
of relativism arbitrariness. I come back this. In next section will
continue critical discussion dominating ways doing research leadership studies,
for that in large of behavioural social sciences in general.
The Critique of Questionnaires
A salient feature of responses to abstract formulations in questionnaires is that these

responses are usually remotely distanced from actions, events, feelings, relations,
articulations of opinions, etc. emerging in every day life situations. That a person is asked
to put an X in a particular response alternative from among among the five or so
possibilities in a questionnaire may say rather little of what that person feels or thinks or
behaves, in the various situations he or she encounter and which the questionnaire tries to
reflect. Apart from problems in mirroring “average” feelings, values or behaviours, these
“averages” may tell us very little. Human behaviour is usually quite flexible and varied and
is often effectively distorted in responses to questionnaire items (Bryman et al., 1988;
Potter & Wetherell, 1987).
Questionnaires may be appropriate in order to get information about simple and
relatively fixed issues, where the meaning can be standardized and quantified, such as
physical length, biological sex, income, formal education, chronological age and year of
employment. When it comes to more complex issues, respondents usually interprete
formulations and response alternatives in varying ways, far beyond the control of the
researcher. Social reality and the psychology of people cannot be translated into abstract,
standardized forms and language is not so transparant or able to function as a simple means
for the transportation of standardized meaning (Potter & Wetherell, 1987). Instead,
meaning is related to context, as already shown by Wittgenstein (1970). Consequently, the
extent to which questionnaires can produce reliable knowledge on complex issues is
questionable. The relationships between the questionnaire issue, the response to it, and the
empirical phenomenon it is supposed to mirror are simply too ambiguous, in many cases.
The critique of questionnaire research in, for example, leadership research has been severe.
That the diversity in research results typically sometimes confirms, sometimes rejects the
same theories and hypothesis is understandable in the light of how language works. The
slighest variation in formulation may create different meanings, and variation in groups of
respondents may also create different meanings if the words used are the same. The
variation in shared meanings of different national cultures, occupational groups, age and
gender coherts interfer with and distorts the measurement ambitions of questionnaire
mailers.
The Critique of Mainstream Research: An Illustration
Allow me illustrate some of the problems of this kind of study. Seltzer and Bass ( 1990)
have studied what they and others refer to as “transformational leadership.” They delivered
a questionnaire to 84 managers participating in an MBA education asking them to instruct
three subordinates each to respond to it. Measures included issues such as “charisma” (e.g.,
“My manager makes me proud to be associated with him/her”) and “leader’s effectiveness”
(e.g., “overall effectiveness of your unit”). It is perhaps hardly surprising that the
respondents are overwhelmingly positive in their responses. On average they score the next
highest response alternative on the four or five point scales used on most issues. In average
their unit is “very effective” (3.9 on the 5 point-scale), the manager makes the respondent
proud to be associated with him/her “fairly often” (2.9 on a 4 point scale), etc. One may
draw the conclusion that these exceptional results show that the 84 managers participating
in the education are, on average, an exceptionally competent bunch of people. After all not
everybody can be “very effective, ” as the word has a relative connotation; for someone to
be effective, someone else has to be less effective. An interpretation equally plausible
would be that the sample, on average, has poor judgement, strongly overestimating
themselves (their units) and their managers. A perhaps more likely interpretation is that the
procedure, where subordinates are instructed by their managers to fill in the questionnaires
make the former produce positive responses.
The choice of statements in the study is yet another problem, indicating the difficulties
associated with letting the researcher ideosyncratically decide what respondents should
reply to. The statement “My manager makes me proud to be associated with him/her” may
well be in a rather awkward relation to the words and statements that most employees may
feel relevant to describe their experiences and relations. That they put an X in square “fairly
often” may be understood as an expression of a wish to oil the relationship with the boss
(who is said to get an aggregated summary of the responses of the three subordinates by the
researcher). If it should say anything whatsoever about the experiences and feelings of the
respondent, it may equally well be seen as an expression of their immaturity/lack of
autonomy as to the charisma of the manager. In general, for someone to appear as
“charismatic,” a crucial prerequisite is probably the right kind of subordinates/followers
(Alvesson, 1995). Well-educated, autonomous people are probably not that easily affected
by the rhetoric of those business heroes often described as charismatic in popular and
scientific literature.
The entire structuring of the research object as “leadership” is another matter of dispute.
Leadership is implicitly defined as something that characterizes the formal superior in
relation to subordinates. This is, of course, far from unquestionable. In the Seltzer and Bass
( 1990) sample, 11 managers indicated that they had no subordinates which meant that they
were eliminated from the study. In many other cases, it was probably ambiguous as to the
extent to which clearcut superior-subordinate relations were present. Borgert (1994),
working as a consultant, led a “leadership” course for people who according to their
superior-who believed that they needed the course “in order to strenghten them in their
leadership role”-were “managers,” while they themselves on the whole did not seem to
experience them in that way, even protesting against this attribution through exhibiting
resistance to the course, for example, expressing doubts as to its relevance for them. (Most
of the participants were female-a group that may be less prone to emphasize and associate
their subjectivity with formal superiority than many men (Billing & Alvesson, 1994)-and
they were perhaps best described as seniors in small work groups.) Watson (1994) also
shows that managers experience their situation as contradictory and that elements of
superiority and being in control are often not salient. In the Seltzer and Bass study, as in
many other questionnaire studies, there is limited space in discovering the ambiguities of
work tasks and social relations. If people do not directly report that they have no
subordinates, then they are defined as managers and engaged in “leadership.” This
construction of social reality is, of course, far from sensitive to the ambiguities in the social
world. The research methodology simply produces a particular version of social relations,
against which multifacated, contra-intuitive empirical indications have problems in
materializing. Given the strong initial assumption that the course participants are
“managers” and that they are supposed to “have” subordinates, most of those asked to give
questionnaires to the latter probably were inclined to find some people who could be seen
to be subordinates. It is likely that this approach led to constructions quite different from
that which had been the case given a more open approach sensitive to the meanings of the
people involved instead of the rigid structuring of the social relations concerned in terms of
fixed asymmetrial relations associated with the notions of leader and subordinate.
One could also, as a thought experiment, consider the possibility of dropping the
“manager/leader” construction and replacing it with “the most senior colleague” or
something to that effect. Perhaps that person makes the respondent “fairly often” feel proud
to be associated with, “provides advice to those who need it,” etc. Here one could, of
course, talk about informal leadership but the value of that interpretation/labelling is not
self-evident. In many workplaces there probably are people who are not managers, not
inclined to exercize systematic influence from the position of “informal leader,” but who
still have a good reputation, being capable of and willing to give advice, etc. This is often
salient in professional organizations where formal managers may score lower than some
other participants on the measures employed by Seltzer and Bass of “transformational
leadership” without being perceived as exercizing (informal) leadership. It is not an
unknown phenomenon in other contexts either.
A finai point with regard to how this research design presses down a certain common
sensical, but questionable, normative structure of the research subjects. When exposed to
the statement “My manager makes me proud to be associated with him/her,” the
respondent may read it as a message from social science that it is normal for subordinates
to feel in a particular way about their managers, “once in a while,” “sometimes” or “fairly
often.” The two alternatives “frequently, if not always” and “not at all” tend to be seen as
extreme. The impression created is that one should be proud of and admire the boss, at least
occassionally, if one is not unnormal or the manager a complete failure. A particular view
of managers is thus created and communicated to (a) research respondents and (b)
uncritical readers of the study.
Much more can be said about the Seltzer and Bass’ study-or about other examples of
positivist research, but that would go well beyond the purpose of this text. One could
perhaps argue that it is in some ways weaker than the best examples of positivist
research on leadership, but many of the problems are probably common. It is important
to realize that leaders, subordinates as well as measurements of various qualities,
feelings and outcomes are subjective and social constructions and not simple reflections
of objective reality. The (subjective) moves of the researcher constructs in various ways
the “reality” that takes the superficial appearence of being stable and real. Qualitative
research includes better possibilities of being open and reflective about these moves/
constructions. These possibilities are far from always utilized, as a lot of qualitative
studies also reproduce common sensical notions of social reality. I will came back to
this.
Summing Up: The Problem of Grand Theory
One way of summing up the critique of quantitative studies, which is also valid for a
part of neo-empiricist qualitative research, is to argue for a trend from abstract, general
categories and efforts to standardize meaning towards an increased focus on local
patterns, where the cultural and institutional context and meaning creation patterns driven
by participants-or jointly by these and researchers-rather than onesidedly, indeed
authoritarianly decided, by the researcher. A more open kind of study, in which complex
social relations and processes are treated as such and not transformed into
unrecognizability through the application of standardized measures and abstract
categories, is advocated. This would mean that aspirations to develop a grand theory, in
which a limited number of variables and causal relations are seen as being relevant for the
formulation of laws or law-like patterns about leadership are forgotten or, at least,
downplayed and that the researcher takes seriously the ambiguity of that which may be
interpreted as “leadership.” This term covers a wide diversity of actions, feelings,
thoughts, relations and social processes and that the merits of applying this concept-
interpretive device-are seldom self-evident. To understand what it is about means care
about the vocabulary applied and respect for the contextual character of language and
meaning. This calls for intimacy in relation to the phenomenon under study and depth of
understanding at the expense of abstraction, generalizability and the artificial separation
of theory and data.
Qualitative method means far better possibilities in this enterprise (e.g., Smircich &
Morgan, 1982). Many versions of this are, however, empiricist in nature and unaware of
some basic difficulties with data construction, for example, in interviews. In the next
section I will review the critique before going on to formulate some constructive principles
and ideas for the redirection of leadership studies taking seriously the interpretive and
linguistic turns in contemporary social science.
CRITIQUE OF QUALITATIVE METHOD

In this section I will briefly discuss three basic difficulties associated with interviews and
long-term participant observation in naturally occuring situations, that is, ethnographies.
Interviews
A qualitative approach is often exclusively or mainly made up of interviews. Qualitative

interviews-in opposition to “talking questionnaires” (Potter & Wetherell, 1987)-are
relatively loosely structured and open to what the interviewee feels is relevant and
important to talk about. This approach is beneficial in as much as a richer account of the
interviewee’s experiences, knowledge, ideas and impressions may be considered and
documented. Interviewees are less constrained by the researcher’s pre-understanding, and
there is space for negotiation of meanings so that some level of mutual understanding may
be accomplished, making data richer and more meaningful for research purposes. Much
more complex and varied descriptions are possible (Bryman et al., 1988; Martin & Turner,
1986).
Nevertheless, there are some serious problems with interviews. As Silverman (1989,
1994) has stressed, the value of interview statements is in many cases limited in terms of
their capacity to reflect reality “out there” as well as the subjective world of the
interviewee (beliefs, attitudes, psychological traits, etc). This is partly the case because
the statements are liable to be determined by the situation, that is, they are related to the
interview context rather than to any other specific “experiential reality,” and partly
because they are affected by the available cultural scripts about how one should
normally express oneself on particular topics (see also Potter & Wetherell, 1987; Shotter
& Gergen, 1989, 1994, etc.). An interview is a social situation-a kind of
conversation-and that which is said is far too context-dependent to be seen as a mirror
of what goes on outside this specific situation-in the mind of the interviewee or in the
organization “out there.” Interviewees speak in accordance with norms of talk and
interaction in a social situation. The research interview is thus better viewed as the scene
for a conversation rather than a simple tool for collection of “data.” Silverman (1985,
1989) objects to the nai’ve and rather romantic view of research, which believes that
genuine experiences can be captured with the help of unstructured interviews. He claims
that “only by following misleading correspondance theories of truth could it have ever
occured to researchers to treat interview statements as accurate or distorted reports of
reality” (Silverman, 1985, p. 176). Like people in general, persons put in an interview
context are not just “truth tellers” or “informants,” but “use their language to do things,
to order and request, persuade and accuse” (Potter & Wetherell, 1987, p. 32). In the
research interview the intended effect is often a good impression. There is often a
positive bias in interviews. (Some studies do, however, seem to have avoided this
tremendous problem. An excellent example is Jackall’s (1988) work on the formation of
moral consciousness in corporations.)
These problems are, of course, also present in questionnaires. As illustrated above in the
Seltzer and Bass (1990) study, the inclination to give positive answers is strong. Even if the
respondents may feel freer when they fill in the forms than when being interviewed (and
often more so in other questionnaire studies than in the one by Seltzer and Bass), they are
still behaving according to social norms and responsive to the temporary subjectivities
produced by the language used and what it triggers in people.
Although Silverman and other discourse and conversation analysists probably
underrate the potential of the interview method and the capacities of the interview
subjects to provide valuable information, the drawbacks and risks of the method must be
taken seriously. Naive romanticism, where the true subjective experiences or other truths
come through, with the skillfully carried out interview, must be rejected. A possible
response to the complexity of the effects of researcher-interviewee interaction and
compliance with social norms for expression on interview statements and other accounts
is by means of careful interpretation of the validity of the accounts. They provide
uncertain, but often interesting clues for the understanding of social reality and ideas,
beliefs, values and other aspects of “subjectivities.” They may also inform the researcher
about language use-an interesting topic in itself. (As Mills, 1940, noted, we cannot
really investigate motives, but we can study vocabularies of motives. In the same way
leadership talk and-related to it-leadership ideologies in various contexts may be an
interesting subject matter. Such talk is important and has effects in terms of expressing/
reinforcing norms for leadership.) The researcher must critically evaluate and interprete
all empirical material before deciding what it can be used for. Three interpretations are
possible: (a) statements say something about social reality (e.g., leadership behaviour,
events), (b) statements say something about individual or socially shared “subjective
reality” (experience, beliefs, stereotypes, cognitions, values, feelings or ideas), and (c)
statements say something about norms for expression, ways of producing effects (e.g.,
impressions, identity work, legitimacy) or something else where accounts must be
interpreted in terms of what they accomplish rather than what they mirror (Alvesson &
Skoldberg, forthcoming). The researcher must rely on his or her clinical judgement and
capacity for reflection and, of course, compare different empirical materials. Material
from observation is important here, not to give the truth in comparisons to subjective
beliefs (observation material is also limited and ambiguous), but in order to provide
richer material for retlection and puzzle-solving.
Ethnography
An ambitious alternative to solely relying on a set of interviews is to carry out an

ethnography, which usually includes several methods, of which the most important are
(participant) observations over a long time period and interviews (Atkinson &
Hammersley, 1994; Kunda, 1992; Rosen, 199 1; Schwartzman, 1993). An ethnography is
typically broader and gives a richer, more qualitative material than, for example,
behaviourally oriented research on managerial work. The focus is on a specific site, for
example, an organization or a part of it. A close and deep contact with it is aspired for.
Elements of distance, theoretical abstraction and overview are necessary ingredients, but
the kind of strong emphasis on objectivity preventing all identification and real contact
with the research subjects being studied is considered to effectively obstruct all genuine
understanding. An ethnography often includes the study as well as reports of a set of

events/situations which have been observed by the researcher. Thick description, that is,
careful accounts of social phenomena in which layers of meaning are expressed is one
element (Geertz, 1973).
A study design focusing on the observation of a naturally occuring event avoids-or,
more usually, reduces-the researcher’s dependence on the perceptions, understandings
and accounts of respondents. The researcher may discover aspects which interviewees may
be unaware of or which, for other reasons, they find difficult to articulate. Interviews or less
formal, more spontaneous talks between researcher and informants are usually an
important complement to this method. Interviews may provide richer results as the
researcher over time gets a good pre-structured understanding, can ask better questions and
may get better contact with the natives.
Ethnographies are difficult because they are very time-consuming and there is the risk
that the researcher “goes native,” that is, becomes caught in details and local understanding
without being able to say something systematic of wider theoretical interest. A more
fundamental problem, which also characterizes other qualitative research, concerns the
difficulties in handling all the empirical material and in producing a text that does justice
to it.
Production: The Element of Fiction
Another important problem with studies based on a set of (open) interviews, but
especially with an ethnography, concerns the possibility of reproducing the empirical
material in the published text. The output of a set of (open) interviews and long-term
observer participation aspiring to describe a complex reality is always difficult to
transcribe in research texts. We have every reason to be wary of the realistic or naturalistic
mode of writing “in which the production of understanding and construction of the text are
hidden by a form of account that purports to present what is described simply ‘as it
appeared;’ this being treated, with more or less conviction, as ‘how it is”’ (Hammersley,
1990, p. 606). Along with a whole host of other problems, partly indicated above-for
instance, that interview answers are often partially determined by the interviewer, and that
the interviewees are inclined to foliow scripts allowing themselves to appear moral and
rational-the presentation of the material inevitably becomes a question of selection and
discretion. This is a particular problem of broader studies utilizing extensive interview and
observation material. Only a very small portion of all that which has been said by the
interviewees and observed, usually during several weeks or months, can be reproduced in
a publication or even fully considered in analysis (cf. Clifford, 1986). If one conducts,
tapes and carefully transcribes say 25 interviews each lasting for I-2 hours, one easily gets
600 pages of transcript. Of that material perhaps 50/o, at most, may be presented directly in
a research book and less than 1% in a journal article. It becomes necessary to be highly
selective in what is emphasized in analysis and documented in text. In order to present a
coherent description and analysis the rich varieties typical for interview accounts must be
treated with a certain bias so that a lot of the inconsistencies and ambiguities presented for
the reader are avoided (Potter & Wetherell, 1987). To accomplish a text that gives a good
account in the sense of “mi~o~ng” a reality represented in all this empirical material may
be very difficult-even if one disregards the problem of treating language as standing in a

one-to-one relationship to other phenomena.
NEW GENERAL RULES FOR RESEARCH

All that has been said above warns against empiricism, that is, a belief that data can be
separated from theory and interpretation and reveal the objective truth. Any idea of easy
access to or unproblematic accounts for empirical material must be rejected. “Data” are
never so robust, objective or mirroring as they may appear. Data are constructions made by
the researcher, to a higher (interviews) or lower (observation) degree in interaction with
research subjects (Alvesson & Skiildberg, forthcoming; Denzin & Lincoln, 1994; Steier,
1991). Language does not stand in a one-to-one relationship to (partially) nonlinguistic
phenomena such as behaviours, thought and feelings (Gergen & Gergen, 1991). The
research texts produced, even if anchored in sound empirical studies, are literary products.
Social reality never determines exactly how words should be composed in a journal article.
Texts follow conventions for writing and persuading (Calis & Smircich, 1988; Clifford,
1986; Jeffcutt, 1993; Van Maanen, 1988). Rhetoric is an unavoidable element in research
publications (Astley, 198.5; Brown, 1990). Writers’ conformism with dominant norms
within the science community should not be confused with objectivity. Texts can thus not
just mirror objective reality.
This should in no way discourage empirical studies. However, it motivates deep changes
towards a more reflexive understanding of the entire project characterized by awareness of
interpretative acts and consideration of alternative ways of describing and interpreting the
candidates for empirical material (observations, interview statements, questionnaire
responses, etc). Reflexivity involves the self-critical consideration of one’s own
assumptions and consistent consideration of alternative interpretative lines and the use of
different research vocabularies (Alvesson & Skiildberg, forthcoming). The mode of study
suggested aims at an interpretive, historical, language-sensitive, local, open and
nonauthoritive understanding of the subject matter.
Recognizing the interpretive nature of research means that no data, except possibly on
trivial matters, are viewed as unaffected by the construction of the researcher. For this
reason I prefer the expression empirical material and think that the metaphor “data
collection” is directly misleading. It sounds as if social studies resemble the picking of
mushrooms. But “in the social sciences there is only interpretation. Nothing speaks for
itself’ (Denzin, 1994, p. 500). The researcher does something active in order to produce
empirical material. Observations, even when leading to detailed descriptions, call for
immediate interpretations and the forming of gestalts of what is going on. That somebody
instructs, jokes, plans, or asks for information are interpretations, not just facts. Interviews,
at least of a qualitative nature-in contrast to what Potter and Wetherell (1987) call talking
questionnaires-call for consistent interpretations before and during the interaction with
the respondent. Without interpretations of the respondent’s person and his or her previous
accounts, the social interaction will not work, the researcher will appear as rigid and
strange-an impression that will colour (and restrict) the further responses.
Taking the interpretive nature of research seriously means that one avoids prematurely
applying totalizing concepts such as leader and leadership (and man and woman, strategy,
culture, etc. for that matter). These interpretations-it is seldom self-evident that a person,
leadership Studies 469
a behaviour or a relation are best conceptualized in these terms-must be applied with care.
The degree of asymme~ of a specific relation-no~ally seen as a major criteria for talk
about leadership-may be ambiguous, inconsistent, contradictory and even transcend
formal relations. The subtilities of the relation, as well as the variations, must be noted in
qualified research. Of course, the leader is hardly exercizing leadership over subordinates
all the time. “Leaders” interact with customers, suppliers, colleagues, superiors, etc. Also,
when interacting with subordinates they do not “lead” all the time (unless they are obsessed
with being a “leader”). They also work. (Managers are workers.) Especially in qualified
work settings, simple ordering or manager-led control of meaning are not necessarily
salient or crucial. Social processes involving planning, giving advice and support,
encouragement, providing of information, persuasion, solving problems, discussing ideas,
etc. may seldom be easily or best fitted into a leadership-follower pattern, unless the
researcher has this interpretive formula rigidly anchored in his or her head and vocabulary,
allowing it to command over the social reality he or she will make sense of without
seriously considering other interpretations (theoretical vocabularies).
Instead, what is vital is instead an open attitude, or, as Deetz (fo~hcoming) calls it, a
lo~a~emergent research orientation. This ideal may be reframed as the postponement of
closure in the research process as well as the written text. It is not unlikely that careful
interpretive work will show that the leader holds a position that is far from always salient
in everyday work and that leadership as a quality of behaviour/social relations is often
ambiguous and precarious and that it is only relatively rarely present. It is possible, for
example, that competence asymmetries on particular issues mean that a (group of) formal
subordinates take a leading role, have a more powerful impact on group discussions, the
framing of the problem situation and the route for further action pointed out. This is in line
with recent ideas saying that “leadership” is a shared social process, involving a group of
people rather than a single individual standing-out as being superior to the rest (Yukl,
1989). If leadership is not prematurily tied to formal position or defined as a fixed quality
but seen more openly in relationship to that which goes on in the work organization context
and the relations being formed and reformed in processes of sense-making, attribution and
negotiation, then it is likely that much more variation becomes salient than is the case in
interview accounts in which “leaders” are interviewed as such about leadership. The risk of
a heavy bias is especially great in questionnaires where subjects are pressed into the fixed
leader-follower structure from the very beginning with few possibilities of social reality
kicking back (encouraging the researcher to re-think his/her basic ideas and categories).
This does, of course, not necessarily mean that leadership vanishes as a phenomenon or
as something associated to a specific person, but that it becomes a more precisely
understood quality. Specific behaviours and processes will be focused, instead of the
abstract study of aggregated categories. Naturally enough, one may always question the
value of general concepts such as leadership-and the problems of references to common
sensical ideas and prejudices associated with the signifier should not be underestimated-
but it is also important to recognize that the linguistic ambiguity of broad concepts provide
unifying symbolic functions for researchers; “they are robust mechanisms for generating
scientific communion” (Astley, 1985, p. 501).
The researcher may recognize and confirm this function without fixing his or her identity
as a leadership researcher. An open attitude to the subject matter, including considerations
of alternative research vocabularies or lines of interpretation before, during or after the
research process (Alvesson & Skoldberg, forthcoming; Rorty, 1989) may benefit the
intellectual inquiry. Here, of course, it is important not to adopt the naive idea of being
“nontheoretical” as a means of being open. This simply means that cultural taken-for-
granted assumptions and other implicit theories take precedence. Openness, the
consideration of alternative routes of analysis, is better accomplished through familiarity
with a span of theories and vocabularies.
Another vital aspect of reflexive research is that it should be language-sensitive. This is
not, as in conventional research, a matter of precise definitions and operationalizations.
The ambiguities, contextual and constructive character of language has been stressed
above. Language cannot easily transport meaning across the local settings in which
statements are made. To some extent this is inherent in the awareness of the interpretive
character of inquiry, but this point goes beyond that. As Deetz (forthcoming, p. X) puts it,
“conceptions are always contests for meaning. Language does not name objects in the
world; it is core to the process of constituting objects. The appearance of labeling or
categorizing existing objects is derived from this more fundamental act of object
constitution through language.” Also, the outcomes of qualified interpretations can only
with care and pain be compared or aggregated according to a logic of knowledge
accumulation. Empirical material is linguistic phenomena. As stated above, language is
used in order to accomplish something, to produce effects.
Contextuality and language use as accomplishment are not, however, the only problems.
Social norms for expression guide the use of language, further constraining how language
can be used as a simple tool for the researcher. Take, for example, the following summary
of research on traits related to leadership effectiveness:
Traits that relate most consistently to managerial effectiveness or advancement include
high self-confidence, energy, initiative, emotional maturity, stress tolerance, and belief in
internal locus of control. With respect to interests and values, successful managers tend to
be pragmatic and results oriented, and they enjoy persuasive activitities requiring initiative
and challenge. (Yukl, 1989, p. 260)
“Traits” here may be seen as pure linguistic phenomena. It is hard for any researcher to
state that a person has high self-confidence, energy, initiative, belief in internal locus of
control and enjoy persuasive activities if the person has not stated-in an interview or in a
questionnaire-that he or she is so and so and believes or likes this and that. (Also in tests
the respondent often sees what the items refer to in terms of variables and results.) The
individual statements are, as far as I understand the research methodology, expressed on
one occasion in an artificial setting (interview or questionnaire). If similar statements are
expressed in other, everyday settings remains an open question. Whether different
respondents mean the same thing or not when they state their beliefs and joys is also an
open question. Most likely there are great variations in the original statements in the studies
where interviews have been used; how many managers explicitly states that “I have a
strong belief in the internal locus of control. 7” Also it is probable that most successful
managers sometimes talk about recession, Japanese competition and other external factors.
They may talk less about these factors than their less fortunate colleagues. It is likely that
people in successful companies are inclined to describe the results as outcomes of their
own actions and capacities, while people in less succesful organizations point at external
factors in order to account for the results. Variation amd contingencies of accounts would
indicate that the uniform results are an outcome of codification processes where a lot of
variation has been cut off (Potter & Wetherell, 1987) and complex relations has been
disregarded. Of course, this does not necessarily discredit the results, but indicates the
problems of arriving at conclusions through aggregating of quite diverse accounts.
Being agnostic about any relationship between “real” phenomena corresponding to the
words in the citation, I think that social nomls and language conventions may account for
the findings. Inherent in the idea of “managerial effectiveness” is high self-confidence,
energy, initiative, belief in internal locus of control, being pragmatic and results oriented,
etc. and so is almost, per definition, the case. Language rules prevent us from saying
something else. A manager can hardly say, unless joking, that he/she has low self-
confidence, is lazy, lacks initiative and hates persuasive activities and is an excellent
manager. (Nor can a person promoting a person to a managerial post say something of this
sort.) If there are signs that you are an effective manager, you are inclined to say these
things. (Of course, the signs are not proofs. Performance is often hard to measure and the
manager’s impact on these is a matter of debate. Promotion is to a certain extent based on
impression management and skilfull political behaviour [Jackal], 19881.) More generally,
people are probably inclined to emphasize qualities consistent with common social
understandings of, and norms for, describing the prerequisites of the job. In a study of
advertising agencies I found that the people described themselves in accordance with
established notions of advertising work. It is, of course, possible that the correspondence
between people’s psychology and ideas of the work is perfect, but the interpretation that
they follow social norms for language use appears to be more credible (Alvesson, 1994).
For example, advertising workers often describe themselves as “emotional.” Researchers
normally do not. It is hardly likely that the groups differ that much. After all, being
emotional is a basic human characteristic and the psychology of science shows that
researchers have a strong emotional involvement in their work (Barmark, 1984; Jaggar,
1989). The researcher studying the subject may also be inclined not to deviate from this
language convention. The leadership science community-and those agencies founding it
or being recipients of its knowledge products-would not reward people saying that the
positive value of managerial effectiveness is predicted by “negative” values such as
neuroticism, belief in external locus of control, low work morale, etc. (The psychoanalytic
leadership literature is, however, a bit different on this issue, e.g., Kets de Vries & Miller,
1984.) We can also understand the findings of Seltzer and Bass (1990) in a similar way. If
a person agrees with statements such as “my manager makes me proud to be associated
with him/her” and “provides advice to those who need it,” he or she is probably inclined to
put an X on a high score on “overall work effectiveness of your unit” and the supervisor’s
effectiveness simply because language rules point to a strong correspondance between
these statements. It appears odd to report that one feels proud of an ineffective manager. In
a sense it appears to be unnecessary to do the empirical research. Language analysis would
do a large part of the job (Gergen & Gergen, 1991). In generaI, tautologies seems to be
rather common in studies focusing on performance/effectiveness. (For some illustrations in
organizational culture studies, see Alvesson, 1993.)
The overall picture of language becomes more complicated if we include recent
arguments which oppose the idea of the individual as autonomous and consistent, as a
bearer of meaning and intentionality. Instead the subject is perceived as constituted by
discourses-more or less systematic forms of knowledge, ways of reasoning and
definitions of reality entrenched in linguistic practices-and as fragmented in relation to

the multiplicity of its constituent mechanisms and processes (e.g., Dee&, 1992; Geertz,
1983; Linstead & Grafton-Small, 1992; Shotter & Gergen, 1989; Weedon, 1987; Willmott,
1994). This idea is often launched under the banner of poststructuralism (sometimes
lahelled postmodernism):
Language is the central focus of all post-structuralism. In the broadest terms, language
defines the possibilities of meaningful existence at the same time as it limits them. Through
language, our sense of ourselves as distinct subjectivities is constituted. Subjectivity is
constituted through a myriad of what post-structuralists term ‘discoursive practices:’
practices of talk, text, writing, cognition, argumentation, and representation generally..
Identity is never regarded as being given by nature; individuality is never seen as being
fixed in its expression. (Clegg, 1989, p. 15 1)
It may not perhaps be necessary to dislodge the individual quite so emphatically from the
centre-that is, locating the origin of action and the creation of meaning firmly outside the
individual (in language and discourse)-as has become popular in poststructuralist circles,
but it does seem reasonable to show at least a little scepticism regarding the consistency
and nonambiguity of the subject in relation to meanings, values, ideals and discourse
processes, etc. Particularly in the context of method, where the language used has a strong
impact on the responses produced, the language-sensitive nature of human subjectivity
must be taken seriously. If we once again take Seltzer and Bass’ (1990) example,
proudness in relationship to being associated with the manager, we may doubt whether
“proud” is a real feeling existing prior to the language triggering certain reactions. A
person is not made “proud” by the manager “fairly often, ” “sometimes” etc. in the same
way as he or she may eat potatoes at certain intervals. Being asked to monitor oneself and
categorize perhaps vague, ambiguous, nonexplicit orientations in relationship to a
particular signifier for a feeling-indicated to be “normal’‘-a certain response is
constructed that is contingent upon the discourse invoked in the situation, rather than
anything just being there, spontanous, self-evident and extra-linguistic. Where the
respondent puts his X in the form may thus be seen as a temporary response to a word
rather than to a clearcut feeling being there before the word providing a particular form to
relate to. At least this possibility of discoursive constitution of subjectivity must be taken
seriously in reflexive research.
This means that great care must be taken in interpretation of the local meanings produced
and that caution and reflection should guide any generalizations to other contexts than the
temporary one of the interview or questionnaire. The interviewer must be aware of how
responses are coloured by the subjectivities triggered by the language used. If a person is
asked to describe his or her work, and the interviewer explicitly or implicity interpellates
that person as a manager, employee, woman, 50 years aged, accountant, white or whatever,
different accounts are likely to be produced. Laurent (1978) notes, for example, that
managers often describe themselves as superiors, but do no mention that they are also (may
be described as) subordinates, that is, that they have higher managers as superiors. This
hardly reflect their work situation, nor their firm beliefs about it, but the kind of
subjectivity-feelings, values, self-perception and cognitions-associated with the
managerial/superior identity triggered in the research situation. (In the depth study by
Watson, 1994, a more nuanced picture of the contradictory situation of many managers
work situation is portrayed.)
The implication is that the researcher must be aware of how important and precarius/
powerful language is. It must be made an important area of reflection as well as being an
object of study before producing interpretations and conclusions that aim to go “beyond”
language. There are no strict rules that can be formulated about how to deal with this issue.
The researcher must critically evaluate the empirical material in terms of situated meaning
versus meaning that is stable enough to make transportation beyond the local context (e.g.,
an interview conversation) and thus comparison possible. (For an extensive illustration on
how this can be made, see (Alvesson & Skijldberg, forthcoming, chapter 7).
Related to the language problems associated with contextual meanings is another crucial
aspect stressing the significance of the local, compared to the universal. Not only the
ambiguities and changing circumstances of language, but also of social and cultural
conditions motivate a trend from grand theory to local theory. The historical character of
leadership-as with other social phenomena-motivates agnosticism to the grand theory
project of developing the theory of leadership. Even though universal concepts such as
leader, follower, consideration, planning, etc. may appear as making completely different
phenomena comparable they are more likely to suppress diversity and counteract
understanding. (On these issues, see Fraser & Nicholson, 1988; Lyotard, 1984). If they are
to be used-and there are social and symbolic rather than empirical reasons for this, as
Astley (1985) points out-local grounding is necessary. To some extent this is
accomplished through the general principles outlined above. But the historical, social and
cultural character of the phenomena concerned must also be emphasized. Language use-
apart from it being context-dependent at the micro level-vary over time and place. But
also the economic and material context, the socialization patterns and produced self-
identities, the ideologies and generalized meaning patterns differ heavily between different
historical periods and also between different organizational sites in the same period. (See
Sennett, 1980, for an historical account of the changes of authority relations and the work
of Foucault, 1977, 1984, for accounts of the changes in the production of subjects
throughout history.) Sensitivity for the institutional and cultural context of leadership does
not obstruct generalizable theories, but one should be cautious about premature efforts in
this direction.
Allow me to briefly illustrate this point. I have conducted an in-depth case study of a
middle-sized (500 employees) Swedish computer consultancy company and developed the
idea of social integrative leadership (Alvesson, 1995). The concept refers to efforts by
managers to accomplish a social identity associated with employment, loyalty with the
employer, a sense of community within the groups of employees that also includes
managers, and some general ideas of ways of working typical for the company. One
purpose with this kind of leadership was to counteract fragmentation effects contingent
upon loosely coupled work tasks and to reduce turnover. In this kind of company,
particularly at the time of my study-with a scarcity of computer experts and a growing
market-this concept appeared to especially illuminate behaviours and practices observed
as well as interview statements from managers and other employees. The concept
apparantly has some relevance also for understanding leadership behaviour in other
contexts as well. More so in knowledge-intensive/professional work than work that is more
easily controlled from above through bureaucratic means. But in many other historical and
present work contexts, it is probably less salient or useful for understanding organizational
practices and relations. To emphasize the historical and cultural-institutional context of this
concept of leadership is more important than trying to test it as a gcneralizable theory of
leadership.
Realizing the historical and social nature of social science is not too far from
acknowledging its political nature (Alvesson & Willmott, 1996; Deetz, 1992). Political
here refers not primarily to local workplace politics (although these are also significant),
but to wider institutional and ideological issues which shape society and social relations.
Social science involves studying value-ladden phenomena of which the researcher is a part.
It is not the leadership of baboons or ants that we are interested in, but human relations, The
idea of studying effective leadership is hardly neutral. The political nature of leadership
studies must then be taken seriously. The ways we conceptualize and write about issues
such as leadership do not just mirror external reality existing independent of our
conceptions and writings about them. Leadership research creates ways of seeing and
valuing, supporting certain interests (normally those of Iabelled “leaders” rather than other
people) and have some impact on how leadership behaviour is exercized-through
publications and education. Much leadership thinking has a masculine undertone and is far
from gender neutral (Calas & Smircich, 1991; Heam & Parkin, 1986/1987). Political
awareness-realizing that the research texts tend to support or challenge social institutions,
ideologies and sectional interests-thus becomes an important criteria for evaluating
leadership studies. To uncritically reproduce conventional ideas of leadership in research
exercizes a conservative influence. It contributes to the freezing of social reality rather than
encouraging an open consideration of it (Knights & WiIImott, 1992).
While large parts of leadership research are implicit in political bias-the strenghtening
of asymmetrical social relations and the construction of social relations alongside a leader/
follower dichotomy-parts of it is close to openly propagandistic. Sometimes the self-
aggrandizing reports of managers-in (often transparent) tests, questionnaires or
interviews-are uncritically reproduced as research results. McClelland and Bumham
(1976), for example, claim that “the good manager’s power motivation is not oriented
toward personal aggrandizement but toward the institution which he or she serves” (p.
103). (For a totally different view, see Jackall, 1988.) Also a lot of research on charisma
tends to uncritically reproduce strongly positive images of the heroes-partly recycled in
popular media, including the heroes’ books about themselves (Carlzon, Iacocca)-and
sometimes come close to providing propaganda for certain mass medial figures and
express a worshipping attitude to charismatic leadership. (There are, of course, also more
nuanced studies on the subject matter, including an increasing interest in the “dark side of
charisma” [Bryman, 19931.)
Much of that which has been said above tends to downplay the role of empirical material
as the judge of objective reality. As stated, there is a strong trend away from dataism/
empiricism and a realization that data is fused with theory and interpretation in
contemporary social science and philosophy of science. There are also strong signs saying
that empirical verification has a rather limited relevance for the assessment of the value of
a theoretical contribution:
Theories gain favour because of their conceptual appeal, their logical structure, or their
psychological plausibility. Internal coherence, parsimony, formal elegance, and so on
prevail over empirical accuracy in determining a theory’s impact. (Astley, 198.5, p. 503)
Even although empirical documentation may serve as “rhetorical support in persuading

others to adapt to a particular world view” (ibid., p. 510), this is not to say that empirical
material is simply a projection of theory/interpretation or can only be used for illustrative
purposes. The depth and plausibility of empirical material should, according to my
opinion, definitively be one important criteria for evaluating research. Empirical material
can occassionally verify or falsify a hypothesis, but the arguments as reviewed and
presented here indicate that empirical research should not be guided by this purpose. The
robustness of the hypothesis-testing project is often illusionary and, anyway, the results are
normally contradictory. To provide qualified descriptions illuminating core phenomena
rather than abstract indicators of what goes on is one essential purpose of empirical
research. Based on such descriptions, more advanced interpretations can be made and ideas
and theories developed. The next section goes part of the way in making these proposals
somewhat more specific.
A final point concerns the nonauthoritive nature of research and writing. Apart from
the researcher refraining from deciding what is relevant and being more open for
leadership processes and the accounts of natives, research results may also be produced in
a less authorative or elitist manner than is usual. (See Cal& & Smircich, 1988, for an
exploration of authority-creating moves in a research text.) Instead, a conversational
understanding and style should be sought for. Central to this is “the dialogical character
of rationality,” and “the situated, embodied, practical-moral knowledges it involves”
@hotter & Gergen, 1994, p. 27) These knowledges “are accountable to an audience”
rather than “provable within a formal system.” I am prone to give this conversation a
more critical orientation (Alvesson & SkGldberg, forthcoming). A conversation should
not prevent evaluation, critique and challenge, but be, generally speaking, open for the
possibility that everything is less stable and clearcut than it seems and is therefore open
for discussion and reconsideration and that such reconsiderations are a major element in
the development of ideas and the process in which good or better ideas are sorted out
from less interesting, aesthetically less appealing or pragmatically irrelevant, empirically
unsupported, etc. A reasonable level of rigor is maintained while conformist
authoritarianism as well as relativism are avoided through debates about criteria and
critical evaluation of the appropriateness of various criteria as well as how specific efforts
to live up to these succeed.
At a superficial level, these general rules may appear to resemble those
methodological principles governing case studies of qualitative researchers such as
Pettigrew (1985), who (also) advocates an interest in history, context, language and
politics and who is well aware of the existence of multiple perspectives. But even if the
same or similar key words are used, this says rather little of their deeper meaning.
Pettigrew mainly sees the dimensions as features of the research object, that is
something to be empirically studied, not as an aspect of strong significance for
understanding the entire research project, and thus as elements of the reflexive research
project, that is, the self-understanding of the research project and text. Not only strategic
change, but also how one writes about it, is a political project that needs to be
476 LEADERSHIP QUARTERlY Vol. 7 No. 4 1996
understood in terms of history and context. Like most other qualitative scholars,
Pettigrew has a strong faith in empirical evidence, while the approach sketched above
stresses the const~~ted and contestable nature of empi~~al material and calls for another
balance between emphasis on the empirical material and meta-interpretations of the
research work (Alvesson & Skoldberg, forthcoming).
A SITUATIONALFOCUS
There are no strict methodological implications of the general principles outlined above.
They may be followed by various ways of doing social studies. However, what may be
referred to as a situational approach is highly consistent with and helpful in accomplishing
these ideals. A situational focus means that a particular situation-a meeting, a job
interview, a spontanous encounter, an event, a decision process, a problem or task
delimited in time and space-rather than stable behaviour patterns, attitudes or traits is in
focus. This in mm means that leadership is seen as a practical acconlplishment (Knights
and Willmott, 1992). It is empirically studied as a core phenomenon, i.e. leadership action
rather than talk about it or square-filling behaviour on questionnaires is studied. In a
situational focus actors as well as the insti~tional context are present. The focus makes it
easier than with most other methods to describe the empirical material so that it is open for
other interpretations.
Process in an Institutional Context
With a situational focus the individual actors as well as the work organization in which
they live finds clear expression. The cultural-institutional context is manifestly iinked to
the individuals who act within it and to the actions pe~orn~ed (Collins, 198 1; Johansson,
1990; Knorr-Cetina, 1981). By focusing on a particular event, the organizational
processes of which leadership may be interpreted as an example, are placed firmly in the
centre. By adopting this focus we move the spotlight away from any assumptions about
the consistent and unanlbiguous nature (or the opposite) of the manager and
nonmanagers, Interest can turn on the multiple and indete~inate aspects of socidi
processes and relations and the actions of subjects, which may be interpreted as
leadership. Of course, it is also possible with a situational focus to emphasize the actor as
central or to see what is happening as an expression of structural properties, that is,
downplaying the importance of the individuals concerned. But the general idea is to avoid
such reductionism and take into account several aspects without giving priority to any of
them. With the vocabulary of Kenneth Burke (1989) the act (what took place?), the
agent(s) (who performed the act?), the scene (what is the context in which it occured‘?),
the purpose (why was it done?) and agency (how was it done?) are considered. Even
though one may-indeed sometimes must--give these different elements various weight
and attention in specific cases, any specific element should not be viewed in isolation
from the others and allowed to completely dominate the description and analysis. The
agent should, for example, be seen as partly formed by the scene (context) in which he or
she acts, while the scene (for example the organization or its enviromnent) is affected by
the agent(s) involved and their acts.
Providing an Account That is Open for Various Interpretations
Two other characteristics are that the delimited empirical phenomena may be described
“thickly,” that is, a rather rich and detailed account can be provided, and in such a way that
it may be interpreted, without too much pain and constraint, from different angles of
approach than the one favoured by the researcher offering the account (Alvesson, 1996).
This also means that the reader can evaluate the interpretations and conclusions of the
researcher who then is unable to merely rely on statistical tables, that he or she has talked
to interviewees and subsequently coded and analyzed a specific empirical material, or the
claim to “have been there” carrying out an ethnography, to establish authority. The idea is
that restricting the empirical phenomena under scrutiny makes the description less strongly
coloured by the researcher’s framework and the use of empirical material as rhetorical
support less salient than if one presents (highly) selected extracts from, say 30 open
interviews or a year-long ethnography. In saying this I do not mean to understate the
problem of reproducing the empirical material in the text-representation is always
problematic-but simply to point out that it is less evident than with many other
approaches. It is, of course, impossible to collect or-to use a better metaphor for empirical
work-construct and (selectively) present an extensive material which is not structured by
a theoretical framework (possibly in the sense of a set of taken-for-granted ideas), the
norms of the (part of) the research community that the researcher identifies with, the
idiosyncracies of the researcher associated with sex, age, life history, etc. and, in the case
of interviews, the interaction dynamics constructing the interview situation, whether the
researcher wants it or not (Alvesson & Skoldberg, forthcoming). Such a construction
process is less active and salient in the approach suggested here, as data are not constructed
in interviews or surveys where the researcher must actively produce responses for
something to happen. Arguably, the “bias” (closure of interpretive possibilities) in
describing the event/process with a situational focus may be relatively weak, compared to
other approaches.
The Work Methodology
The situational study includes a certain amount of ethnographic work in order to (a) get
local knowledge of the work organization; and (b) get access to a number of situations in
order to find one (or more) to concentrate on. This may take some weeks of intensive study.
The situation focused on is then described in detail, either in terms of transcribed tape-
recording-if it is a highly delimited situation such as a short meeting or a section of an
interaction-or in terms of relatively detailed notes-if the situation is somewhat more
extended in time and space, thus calling for summaries in the description. Different criteria
may be used for the choice of situation. It may be relatively typical/everyday, it may be
atypical but perceived as significant, for example, a meeting prior to a major corporate
change, or it may be seen as simply interesting because it breaks with established norms
and taken-for-granted assumptions. It may exhibit strong domination, that is, a manager
talking down to his/her group, or be more symmetrical in interaction. It may be useful for
the exploration of various leadership themes, for example, socialization, punishment,
social integration, initiating structure, or generation of new ideas. The researcher can use
different types of situations for different purposes. Most important is that they function in
an inspiring way for him or her and that he/she is explicit and reflective about the use.
Over-generalization from the situation should be avoided. The situation should be seen
as saying something interesting of some aspects of leadership salient in the case, not the
total story of it in terms of consistent patterns (style, traits). A balance between going
beyond the specific case and avoiding generalizing consistency in human behaviour (also
in the case of one organization or one person) should be aspired for (Alvesson, 1996).
Theoretical rather than empirical generalization is then aimed for.
Interviews with the manager and other people involved should be conducted, if the
researcher is not certain that he or she can make interesting observations directly based on
local knowledge achieved through ethuographic work and his or her own analysis.
Interviews normally complement the description of what happened in the situation through
giving some (uncertain, but still) clues about the participant’s meanings, intentions and
interpretations of what took place. The situational focus-including the knowledge the
researcher has of it-may restrict the tendency of interviewees to provide abstract answers
with limited anchorage in “real” events, that is, counteract what may be called “moral
storytelling” in interviews. The combination of various empirical material-direct
observation and interviewees’ accounts-gives a broad and rich picture of the situation
concerned. For examples of this kind of approach in leadership and organization studies,
see Alvesson (1996) Forester (1992), Knights and Willmott (1987, 1992) Kunda ( 1992)
Rosen (1985), Smircich (1983) and Willmott (1987).
The situational focus differs from ethnography in three ways. The purpose is to explore
and learn from a situation, not an entire cultural system. The knowledge gained during a
shorter time of informal talk and observation is used primarily in order to identify a good
situation and achieve background knowledge-it is thus not, as in an ethnography, used
mainly for detailed analysis and description. Secondly, the limited focus of the situational
study makes it possible to describe the empirical material in some detail. Finally, the
concentration of this study makes more intensive interpretations possible. The empirical
material gathered/constructed during an (year-long) ethnography normally calls for
extensive work with data production, systematization, analysis and presentation. The time
and energy left for depth interpretation is reduced. The ethnography-based text is typically
more independent of the organizational processes and relations it studies, as the writer is
forced to be highly selective in the presentation of the story. Of course, an ethnography
may include or lead to one or several situational studies (e.g., Rosen, 198.5) so the
distinction is far from always razor sharp.
The situational focus differs from most studies on managerial work, as the latter
typically aims to find quantitative patterns and concentrate on overt behaviour. The rich
interpretation of a specific event or process is normally not on the agenda.
Advantages and Disadvantages With a Situational Focus
The drawback of this focus on a particular event is that such events are limited in time,
space and representativeness. By tackling themes that are expressed in the situation but
which are not solely limited to it either synchronously or diachronously, one risks giving a
somewhat selective impression of the organizational/leadership context of the
phenomenon under study. A certain amount of contextual knowledge is needed, but the
suggested focus implies that such knowledge is primarily limited to enabling an
understanding of events but should not be used for far-reaching generalisations inside or
outside the organization. The particular event under scrutiny can hardly be used as the only
springboard for an account of the whole history of the leadership of the particular group
studied. Nor does it tell us particulary much about outcomes or causalities, apart from
temporary ones. Moreover, this focus means that the insights and ideas of the research
subjects are not directly exploited to the same extent as a stronger actor-and-meanings
orientation typically associated with an interview study.
These problems should not be exaggerated. Anyway, far-reaching generalizations may
be a problematic ideal, also at the level of a single organization, as organizations and
leadership are perhaps equally well or better thought about in terms of ambiguity,
variation, multiple orderings and fragmentation than order, patterns and averages
(Alvesson, 1993; Law, 1994; Martin, 1992). The part of the study aiming to get a sufficient
understanding of contextual matters should allow the researcher to say something with a
somewhat broader empirical bearing than solely on the situation targeted. Accounts in
interviews that interact productively with the situation-the accounts may offer interesting
pieces to the puzzle-can be fully utilized as long as they are not taken for granted and
draw attention away from the situation focused upon.
While recognizing the shortcomings of the approach proposed, I am more inclined to
emphasize its considerable advantages. Interpreting a particular event means acquiring a
limited but, one may hope, profound and enlightening insight into certain aspects of the
social relations of managers and their subordinates in companies. Of particular importance
is that emphasis is placed on the processual aspects. As several authors have suggested
there is a need for a sociology and an organization theory of verbs and to study modes of
ordering rather than social order (e.g., Hosking, 1988; Law, 1994). Here the strongest
methodological advantages of the approach suggested are that it allows for (a) the detailed
description of(b) naturally occuring events. As stated above, a lot of empirical work is, in
various ways, artificial and too remote from “core empirical phenomena” and may
therefore tell us rather little of what actually goes on in acts of (possible interpreted in
terms of) leadership. The type of study advocated here has a depth and precision in terms
of the qualitity of the empirical material radically different from those typical in most other
kinds of studies.
Finally, it should be emphasized that the situational focus means that more time and
energy is left for interpretive and reflexive work: the mechanics of data “collection” is
subordinated to creative sense-making and intensive interpretation of the material. Given
the difficulties of working with empirical material this is perhaps the single most crucial
advantage.
A Brief Illustration
I will briefly illustrate the situational approach through an extract from a study I did
focusing on an “information meeting” about the reorganization of a Swedish industrial
company (Alvesson, 1996). Present during this two-hour long meeting were 100
employees/low- and middle-level managers. I think that my interpretations show how rich
a highly delimited empirical material can be as a source of knowledge development. This
single situation has kept me occupied for several months and led to more than a hundred
pages of interpretations. (These ex- as well intensive interpretations were partly contingent
upon me employing a multiple perspective approach, using the perspectives of Geertzian
culture theory, Foucault’s understanding of power/subjectivity and Habermas’s ideas on

communicative action. The situational and multiple perspectives approaches complement
each other nicely, but it falls beyond the space of this article to develop this issue,
developed in Alvesson, 1996.) My interpretation of the first utterance of the top manager
is several pages long, but for reasons of space only, the first part of it will be presented
here:
The top manager, the head of the business sector, begins the meeting by saying “Why are
you here? That is because you are managers at IndCo.” He seems to be keen to emphasise
that those present are “managers.” This is why they have been invited. No doubt they
understood this anyway, but a reminder of this aspect of their status does no harm. The idea
is to reinforce the sense of responsibility associated with the role and perhaps to give them
some small confirmation of their identities. The opportunity to participate in the meeting,
to “meet” (listen to and observe) the head of their sector, could also be seen as a kind of
symbolical reward. Those present belong to “the chosen few.” They are being informed
about the change one day before the rest of the personnel. But the agenda and the content
were roughly the same on both occasions.
It is not particularly obvious that people are “managers.” It is not just a question of
appointing somebody to a particular formal position, since the identity and the ideology
(discourse) which characterise the person in question are also crucial factors. It is not
obvious that people who are given such positions regard themselves primarily as managers
(even at second or third hand), or that they are regarded as managers by their environment.
The crucial factor, in this context, is the capacity in which they have been “called’-we
have only to think of all the possible identities and ideologies which are available (c.f.
Deetz, 1992; Therborn, 1980). A given person, for example somebody that has the title of
a department manager, is (or may be viewed as) a manager, a professional (e.g., an
engineer or a marketer), a subordinate and a colleague-as well as a friend, a member of a
family, a female, middle-aged, perhaps a “green,” a union member, and so on. People are
subject to a variety of other people’s expectations and efforts to put them into categories.
The meanings of and membership within the categories of discoursive practice will be
constant sites of struggle over power, as identity is posited, resisted and fought over in its
attachment to the subjectivity by which individuality is constructed (Clegg, 1989, p. 151).
Corporate management competes with other groups and categories for the
individual’s time, self-perception, attention and loyalty. Ideally, from top management’s
point of view, “managers” should regard themselves primarily as company people. It is
therefore important to maintain and reinforce this identity of theirs. Appealing to them as
“managers” also means that certain ideas and values about the job are being accentuated:
it is a question of responsibility, loyalty, work morale, result orientation, etc. Thus, it is
an important task for top management to continually who take
constitute people
“managership” very seriously, and who give priority to values, ideas, feelings and
actions associated with being a “manager.” At the present meeting this is what is taking
place (on a small scale). The basic idea of the meeting could be to remind people that
they should perceive the re-organization through pro-managerial spectacles (Alvesson,
1996, chapter 3).
One can, of course, based on this interpretation raise more general ideas about leadership
as a process in which the interpellation of identities is an important element. Leadership is
then viewed as working through the regulation of identities; social expectations and self-
images leader being able to frame and control
meaning.
viewed as salient in leadership
CONCLUSION
In order to respond to insights on the interpretive, constructive nature of research, the
difficulties in treating language expressions as robust data upon which theory and
verification can be built, and the significance of the cultural, institutional, historical and
political context both of leadership studies and leadership actions and relations, a move
from emphasis on rules, procedures, constraints and other means for accomplishing
objectivity to reflexivity is suggested. Reflexity means that the researcher consistently
aims at being self-aware of how his or her moves open as well as close interpretative
possibilities. Reflection over one’s own assumption is crucial. It implies an interpretive,
historical, language-sensitive, local, open and nonauthoritive understanding of the subject
matter (Alvesson & Skoldberg, forthcoming). In particular, measures are taken to avoid the
research vocabulary favouring and methodological preference taking command over
empirical social reality, suppressing alternative representations and interpretations. Here,
an important element is the consideration of alternative vocabularies and description of
core empirical phenomena in such a way that they can also be interpreted from angles other
than the one favoured by the researcher.
This move from the measurement of abstract variables and concentration on procedure
to a reflexive-interpretive qualitative approach is supported by the failures of (neo-)
positivistic research programmes to live up to their own ideals of hypothesis-testing and
knowledge accumulation and the inherent distortions included in questionnaire studies.
The critique of neo-empiricist assumptions in a lot of technically oriented qualitative
research motivates a further move to a standpoint that takes the problems of interpretations,
assumptions and language seriously. The guiding value should then be that of generating
insight, reorganizing of attention and opening up new ways of understanding (Deetz,
forthcoming). Truth operationalized in the form of ideas backed up with empirical
evidence is nevertheless almost uncoupled to theoretical ideas that are considered
interesting, relevant and significant contributions by the scholarly community (Astley,
1985; Weick, 1989).
Different kinds of specific methods may be consistent with the ideal of reflective
research (Alvesson & Skoldberg, forthcoming). This article has argued for the use of a
situational approach as consistent with this ideal. The situation described and focused
stands by itself as an object of study, but the ethnographic work which forms the context of
observation and documentation provides the researcher with sufficient background
knowledge and pre-structured understanding to grasp the preconditions of what is
happening. Local knowledge facilitates the interpretations and reduces the risk for
misunderstandings and over-interpretations. Through intensive interpretations of a
concentrated empirical material generation of ideas and insights as well as a realistic
understanding of the meaning of leadership as a practical accomplishment may be

achieved.
Acknowledgments: Revised version of paper presented at the 13th Nordic Conference

on Business Studies, August 14- 16, 1995, Copenhagen.
REFERENCES
Alvesson, M. (1993). Cultural perspectives on organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Alvesson, M. (1994). Talking in organizations: Managing identity and impressions in an advertising
agency. Organization Studies, 15(4), 535-563.
Alvesson, M. (1995). Management ofknowledge-intensive companies. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.
Alvesson, M. (1996). Communication, power and organization. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.
Alvesson, M., & Skoldberg, K. (forthcoming). Towards a reflexive methodology. London: Sage.
Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. (1996). Making sense of management: A critical introduction. London:
Sage.
Andriessen, E., & Drenth, P. (1984). Leadership: Theories and models. In P. Drenth, H. Thierry, P.J.
Willems, & C.J. de Wolff (Eds.), Handbook of work and organizational psychology, vol. 1.
Chichester: Wiley.
Astley, G. (1985). Administrative science as socially constructed truth. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 30,497-5 13.
Atkinson, P., & Hammersley, M. (1994). Ethnography and participant observation. In N. Denzin &
Y. Lincoln. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Bernstein, R.J. (1983). Beyond objectivism and relativism, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Billing, Y. D., & M. Alvesson. (1994). Gender, managers and organizations. Berlin/New York: de
Gruyter.
Borgert, L. (1994). Contrasting images: An essay on the search for reflexivity in organizing and
organization studies. Unpublished paper, University College of Falun/Borlange, Sweden.
Brown, R.H. (1976). Social theory as metaphor. Theory and Society, 3, 169-197.
Brown, R.H. (1977). A poeticfor sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Brown, R.H. (1990). Rhetoric, textuality, and the postmodem turn in sociological theory.
Sociological Theory, 8, 188-197.
Bryman, A. (1993). Charismatic leadership in business organizations: Some neglected issues.
Leadership Quarterly, 4, 289-304.
Bryman, A. (1996). Leadership in organizations. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. Nord (Eds.), Handbook
of organization studies. London: Sage.
Bryman, A., et al. (1988). Qualitative research and the study of leadership. Human Relations, 41(l),
13-30.
Burke, K. (1989). On symbols and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
B&mark, J. (1984). Forskningspsykologi. In J. Barmark (Ed.), Forskning om,forskning. Stockholm:
Natur och Kultur.
Calas, M., & Smircich, L. (1988). Reading leadership as a form of cultural analysis. In J.G. Hunt, et
al. (Eds.), Emerging leadership vistas. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Calas, M., & Smircich, L. (1991). Voicing seduction to silence leadership. Organization Studies,
12(4), 567-60 1.
Clegg, S.R. (1989). Frameworks of power. London: Sage.
Clifford, J. (1986). Introduction: partial truths. In J. Clifford & G. Marcus (Eds.), Writing culture:
The poetics and politics of ethnography. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Collins, R. (1981). Micro-translation as a theory-building strategy. In K. Knorr-Cetina & A. Cicourel

(Eds.), Advances in social theory and methodology. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
De&z, S. (1992). Democracy in an age ofcorporate colonization: Developments in communication
and the politics of everyday life. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Deetz, S. (forthcoming). Describing difference in approaches to organization science: Rethinking
Burrell and Morgan and their legacy. Organization Science.
Denzin, N. (1994). The art and politics of interpretation. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln. (Eds.),
Handbook of q~azitative research. loused Oaks: Sage.
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.) (1994). bamboos ofqaaz~tatjve research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Forester, J. (1992). Critical ethnography: on fieldwork in a Habermasian way. In M. Alvesson & H.
Willmott (Eds.), Critical management studies. London: Sage.
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline andpan~sk. H~ondswo~h: Penguin.
Foucault, M. (1984). The history of sexuality, vol. 1. New York: Pantheon.
Frank, R., Gilovich, T., & Regan, D. (1991 j. Does studying economics inhibit cooperation? Jottraal
of Economic Perspectives, 7(2), 159- 17 1.
Fraser, N., & Nicholson, L. (1988). Social criticism without philosophy: An encounter between
feminism and ~stm~emism. Tkeory, Culture and Society 5(2-3), 373-394.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Geertz, C. (1983 j. Local knowledge. New York: Basic Books.
Gergen, K., & Gergen, M. (1991). Toward reflexive meth~ologies. In F, Steier (Ed.), Research and
reflexivity. London: Sage.
Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. Denzin and Y.
Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook ofqualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Hammarsley, M. (1990). What is wrong with ethnography? Tbe myth of theoretical description”
so~~olo~~, 24,597-615.
Heam, J., & Parkin, W. (1986/1987). Women, men and leadership: A critical review of assumptions,
practices and change in the industrialized nations. International Studies of Management and
Ursanization, 163-4.
Hosking, D.M. (1988). Organizing, leadership and skilful process. Journal ofManagement Studies,
25, 147-166.
Jackall, R. (1988). Moral mazes: The world of corporate managers. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Jaggar, A.M. (1989). Love and ~owledge. Inquiry, 32,51-176.
Jeffcutt, P. (1993). From interpretation to representation. In J. Hassard & M. Parker (Eds.),
Postmodernism and organizations. London: Sage.
Johansson, O.L. (1990). ~rg~isa~onsbegrepp och begreppsn~edvetenhet. Coteborg: BAS.
Kets de Vries, M., & Miller. D. (1984). The neurotic organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Knights, D., & Willmott, H.C. (1987). Organizational culture as management strategy: A critique and
illustration from the financial service industries. Intemationaf Studies of Management and
Organization, 17(3), 40-63.
Knights, D., & Willmott, H.C. (1992). Conceptu~i~ing l~dership processes: A study of senior
managers in a financial services company. Journal ofMana~enient Studies, 29,761-782.
Knorr-Cetina, K. (1981 j. introduction. The micro-sociological challenge of macro-sociology:
Towards a reconst~ction of social theory and methodolo~. In K. Knorr-Cetina & A. Cicourel
(Eds.), Advances in social theory and methodology. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Kunda, Ci. (1992). Engineering culture: Control and commitment in a high-tech corporation.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Laurant, A. (1978). Managerial subordinancy. Academy of Management Review, 3,220-230.
Law, J. (1994). Organjz~ng rnode~~~. Oxford: Blackwell.
Linstead, S., & Grafton-Small, R. (1992). On reading organizational culture. Organization Studies,
13, 331-35s.
Lyotard, J.-F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Manchester: Manchester
University Press.
Martin, J. (1990). Deconstructing organizational taboos: The suppression of gender conflicts in
organizations. Organization Science, I, 339-359.
Martin, J. (1992). The culture of organizations: Three perspectives. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Martin, P.Y., & Turner, B. (1986). Grounded theory and organizational research. The Journal of
Applied Behavioural Science, 22(2), 141-157.
McClelland, D., & Bumham, D. (1976). Power is the great motivator. Harvard Business Review,
March-April.
Mills, C.W. (1940). Situated actions and vocabularies of motives. American Sociological Review, 5,
904-913.
Morgan, G. (1980). Paradigms, metaphors and puzzle solving in organization theory. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 25, 605-622.
Morgan, G. (1986). Images oforganizntion. London: Sage.
Morgan, G., & Smircich, L. (1980). The case for qualitative research. Academy of Management
Review, 5,491.500.
Morrow, R. (1994). Critical theory and methodology Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Pettigrew, A. (1985). Examining change in the long-term context of culture and politics. In J.
Pennings, et al. Organizational strategy and change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychotogyr Beyond attitudes and
behaviour. London: Sage.
Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, irony and solidor@. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rosen, M. (19?5). Breakfirst at Spiro’s: Dramaturgy and dominance. Journal ofManagement, 11(2),
31-48.
Rosen, M. (1991). Coming to terms with the field: Understanding and doing organizational
ethnography. Journal of Management Studies, 28, l-24.
Schwartzman, H. (1993). Ethnogruphy in organizations. Newbury Park: Sage.
Seltzer, J., & Bass, 8. (1990). Transformational leadership: beyond initiation and consideration.
Journal of Management, 16,693.703.
Sennett, R. (1980). Authority. New York: Vintage Books.
Shotter, J., & Gergen, K. (Eds.) (1989). Texts of identity. London: Sage.
Shotter, J., & Gergen, K. (1994). Social construction: knowledge, self, others, and continuing the
conversation. In S. Deetz (Ed.), Communication yearbook, vol. 17. Newbury Park: Sage.
Silverman, D. (1985). Qualitative methodology and sociology. Aldershot: Gower.
Silverman, D. (1989). Six rules of qualitative research: A post-romantic argument. Symbolic
Interaction, 12(2), 25-40.
Silverman, D. (1994). On throwing away ladders: Rewriting the theory of organisations. In J. Hassard
& M. Parker (Eds.), Towards a new theory oforganizations. London: Routledge.
Smircich, L. (1983). Organizations as shared meanings. In L.R. Pondy, P.J. Frost, G. Morgan, & T.C.
Dandridge (Eds.), Organizational symbolism. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Smircich, L., & Morgan. G. (1982). Leadership: The management of meaning. The Journal of
Applied Behavioural Science, Z&3), 257-273.
Steier, F. (Ed.) (1991). Research and reflexivity. London: Sage.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. ( 1990). Basics of quulitntive research. Newbury Park: Sage.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In N. Denzin &
Lincoln, Y. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Therbom, G. ( 1980). The power qf ideology and the ideology of power. London: Verso.
Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales ofthefield: On writing ethnography. Chicago, IL: The University of
Chicago Press.
Watson, T. (1994). In search of management. London: Routledge.
Weedon, C. (1987). Feministpractice andpoststructurulist theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Weick, K. (1985). The significance of corporate culture. In P.J. Frost, et al. (Eds.), Organizational
CuZture. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Weick, K.E. (1989). Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Academy of Management
Review, 14,516-531.
Willmott, H. (1987). Studying managerial work: A critique and a proposal. Journal of Management
Studies, 24,248-270.
Willmott, H. (1994). Theorizing human agency: Responding to the crises of (post)modemity. In J.
Hassard & M. Parker (Eds.), Towards a new theory of organizations. London: Routledge.
Wittgenstein, L. (1970). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Yukl, G. (1989). Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. Journnl of Management,
15,25 l-289.

Alvesson 1996 - Leadership Studies - From Procedure and Abstraction To Reflexivity and Situation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Alvesson 1996 - Leadership Studies - From Procedure and Abstraction To Reflexivity and Situation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Alvesson 1996 - Leadership Studies - From Procedure and Abstraction To Reflexivity and Situation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LEADERSHIP STUDIES:

FROM PROCEDURE AND ABSTRACTION

Leadership Quarterly, 7(4), 45.5-485.

THE SAD STATE OF THE ART IN QUANTITATIVE LEADERSHIP RESEARCH

PROBLEMATIZING CONVENTIONAL ASSUMPTIONS

Objective Reality and Objectivity

leaders and than other groups. Any in

to expressions the researcher’s (Deetz, 1992, for

The Critique of Questionnaires

A salient feature of responses to abstract formulations in questionnaires is that these

The Critique of Mainstream Research: An Illustration

Summing Up: The Problem of Grand Theory

CRITIQUE OF QUALITATIVE METHOD

A qualitative approach is often exclusively or mainly made up of interviews. Qualitative

An ambitious alternative to solely relying on a set of interviews is to carry out an

understanding. An ethnography often includes the study as well as reports of a set of

Production: The Element of Fiction

be very difficult-even if one disregards the problem of treating language as standing in a

NEW GENERAL RULES FOR RESEARCH

definitions of reality entrenched in linguistic practices-and as fragmented in relation to

Even although empirical documentation may serve as “rhetorical support in persuading

Process in an Institutional Context

Providing an Account That is Open for Various Interpretations

The Work Methodology

Advantages and Disadvantages With a Situational Focus

culture theory, Foucault’s understanding of power/subjectivity and Habermas’s ideas on

understanding of the meaning of leadership as a practical accomplishment may be

Acknowledgments: Revised version of paper presented at the 13th Nordic Conference

Collins, R. (1981). Micro-translation as a theory-building strategy. In K. Knorr-Cetina & A. Cicourel

You might also like