Document 1957570

Monstrous leaders: A new leadership category Torkild Thanem, Stockholm University The final version of this paper is published in Mercury Magazine (2014), no. 7/8, pp. 64-­‐67 (http://www.fek.uu.se/mercury/) At a time when organizations and employers expect maximum commitment from managers and employees, human passions and emotions become key sources of inspiration and central targets of exploitation. Monstrous leaders are driven by their passions to the point of obsession. But it is difficult for employees to relate to them and to commit to the organizational goals they pursue. In this essay I will show how monstrous leaders constitute a new leadership category alongside Max Weber’s ideal types of the traditional, the autocratic and the charismatic leader. But more importantly, I will identify the problems and challenges that monstrous leadership poses for contemporary organizations, and discuss how you might avoid becoming a monstrous leader. What is a monstrous leader? While fairy tales such as Beauty and the Beast and animated films such as Monsters.Inc tell us that monsters can be good, the monstrous is typically associated with the evil, the ugly, the weird, the enormous and the deviant. Without seeking to further demonize the monstrous or to reconstruct it as a positive term, the point is that the monstrous is a boundary-­‐disrupting force: monsters disrupt and exceed boundaries of shape, size, morality and social practice. There is no necessary opposition between being human and being monstrous. From human biology we know that human beings would get so constipated that we would die without the non-­‐human bacteria that populate our digestive systems. And from human societies and work organizations we know that people break social and organizational rules to deal with problems that are too complex to be specified in manuals and handbooks. Leaders may be monstrous too, particularly when they invest so much passion in their leadership that they disrupt the formally and socially defined boundaries of their leadership role – that is, when their passion for the job transgresses their formal job description and the social expectations of fellow managers and employees. The monstrous leader’s passion for the job is similar to the nerd’s and the geek’s passion for a specialist interest. Like these figures, monstrous leaders are so passionate about the task at hand that it becomes an obsession where little else matters. But unlike the nerd and the geek, the monstrous leader is eager for other people to share their passion. Such extreme passion may even be found in charismatic leaders. However, whereas charismatic leaders are able to spread their passion to devoted followers, monstrous leaders lack the extraordinary or ‘magical’ personality 1 traits that enable charismatic leaders to do so. Monstrous leaders have limited sensitivity to the needs and views of other people, and they are unable to transmit their passion to potential followers. This is not necessarily because they do not care about other people. An example of monstrous leadership In my own research on workplace health promotion, leaders in one government organization sought to help other employees eat more healthy and do more physical exercise in order to improve employee health, reduce sickness absenteeism, and enhance organizational performance. These leaders all had a strong personal passion for working out and eating healthy, and they hoped to involve others through a number of activities: lunch walks, step counting competitions, floor hockey games and lectures by expert dieticians were organized frequently. The main initiator was a devoted vegan who enjoyed cycling to work, skiing and running. Activities were scheduled during working hours and promoted through frequent email reminders, leaflets and word by mouth. Moreover, all organizational units were required to discuss health issues during regular unit meetings, and individual employees were expected to confess what they had done in the past week to improve their health. Despite good intentions, and whilst several employees did participate in this health scheme, it provoked resistance and cynicism from a number of other employees. In particular, staff were suspicious why they should devote precious work hours to exercise or talk about health, and they felt that health and wellbeing was a personal matter which the employer should stay clear of. Whereas the leaders exploited their personal passions in order to benefit the organization and individual employees, several employees sought to re-­‐assert a strict boundary between the formal sphere of work and the informal sphere of health, wellbeing and personal lifestyle. Resistance increased as haughty and patronizing leaders offered tastings of their own healthy salads whilst commenting negatively on what other people brought for lunch. Since there was no indication of an extraordinary, ‘magical’ or charismatic personality amongst these leaders, they were not able to enthuse or arouse followers. Rather, employees became followers of the health scheme insofar as they shared the leaders’ passion for healthy eating and physical exercise. Employees who did not share this passion, perhaps because they had other passions in life, became resistors rather than followers. Although these setbacks challenged the health scheme as well as the leaders’ authority, their passion for health and wellbeing kept them going – to do more than the job required and to do more than what was expected by other employees. Monstrous leadership, then, is quite different from Max Weber’s ideal types of traditional, autocratic and charismatic leadership. Even though Weber’s three ideal types continue to shape much of our thinking around leadership, almost a hundred years after his death, a fourth category is needed to grasp the power and limitations of passionate leadership: 2 Purpose Recruitment principle Principle of followership Key practices Defined through Traditional leadership Sustain tradition and social structure Family ties, inheritance and nepotism Personal loyalty and obedience Common upbringing Autocratic leadership Make rational and just decisions Merit and aptitude Tradition Formal rules Charismatic leadership Enthuse followers Extraordinary personality and ‘magical’ powers Impersonal duty Psychological arousal Separate formal Exploit role from extraordinary personal interest personality for the cause Follower recognition and support Monstrous leadership Help followers change and improve Passion and devotion Shared passions Exploit personal interest and passions for organizational benefit Passionate transgression of formal role and social expectations Table: Not 3 but 4 leadership categories. Monstrous leaders are victims and perpetrators Of course, this is no flattering picture of leadership, but I would be hard pressed to blame it all on individual leaders. Monstrous leaders are victims as well as perpetrators, and the example above may draw attention to the ungratefulness that many leaders feel when passionately going beyond the call of duty: Rather than enthusiastic followers they are met by resistance and criticism, disengagement, cynicism and apathy. Further, monstrous leadership cannot be isolated to the area of workplace health promotion. The news media regularly alerts us to leaders who pressure employees to participate in after-­‐work socials, and leaders who monitor employee’s leisure activities and off-­‐work political activities. Indeed, the social and organizational conditions that generate monstrously passionate leadership are alive and kicking across the organizational landscape. Since the rise of corporate culture as a dominant management tool, a number of forces are enabling the growth of monstrous leadership and monstrously passionate leaders: 1) Organizations are increasingly cultures of maximum commitment where there is no limit to how much you can do to improve your capabilities and performance as a manager or employee: As long as you are passionate and devoted to the job and to the organization, anything is possible! 2) This turns the manager’s and employee’s life and self, body, emotions and passions into individualistic and enterprising objects of exploration and exploitation, self-­‐management and improvement. 3) Consequently, the emphasis on the infinite potential of the manager and the employee to be explored, exploited and managed as an organizational resource leads to a confusion and disruption of work/life boundaries: Our 3 passions become key organizational assets rather than dangerous threats to rational management and decision-­‐making. It is difficult to challenge these ideas. They are deeply ingrained in contemporary organizations as well as in the popular leadership literature, where passionate leadership has become a buzzword. However, the problems of monstrous leadership imply that it would be foolish to simply accept these ideas. The problems of monstrous leadership As indicated above, monstrous leaders pursue and expect enhanced relationships with employees. Monstrous leaders do not stop at managing work tasks and formal work relationships. Indeed, areas that were traditionally deemed outside of work and irrelevant to work are central targets of monstrous leadership. To work hard, you need to be able to play hard – not in just any game, but in the game where your leader’s passion is. The problem is that others do not necessarily share the leader’s passion. Fellow managers and employees may have other passions in life. This, along with the monstrous leader’s obsessive and extreme behaviour, makes it difficult for others to relate to monstrous leaders. Rather than turning employees into devoted followers with enhanced commitment, monstrous leadership produces resistance and criticism, disengagement, cynicism and apathy. Avoid becoming a monstrous leader This does not mean that there is no escape from becoming a monstrous leader, or that the only escape is through becoming a charismatic, autocratic or traditional leader. The dark side of charisma, bureaucracy and nepotism are well known. Rather, the problems of monstrous leadership suggest that leaders would be well advised to look beyond their own passions. I am not denying that your passions and personal interests may help you do outstanding work, make good decisions, and manage others with care and sensitivity. But leaders need to nurture a critical distance to their own passions. By genuinely engaging with others – with the diverse views, needs and passions of other people – you might prevent your passion from becoming an obsession. *** Admittedly, there is something obvious and commonsensical about these cautions. Nevertheless, the drive for passionate leadership is so deeply ingrained in contemporary organizations and in the popular leadership literature that it is easy to become aloof to the unintended consequences of becoming too passionate at work. Monstrous leaders are so caught up in their own passions and interests that they forget that everybody is not like them. Hence, they lose a basic affinity to others, which is necessary in order to turn employees and colleagues into genuine participants with their own passions rather than like-­‐
minded followers who simply share the leader’s passion. Sure, speaking of monstrous leaders is a double-­‐edged sword. Given the problems associated with monstrous leadership, who will ever admit to being a monstrous leader? And, given the obsessive nature of monstrous leadership, will 4 a monstrous leader even be capable of recognizing that s/he has become too passionate about the job? As I indicated up front, monstrous leadership is an ideal type leadership category, alongside Weber’s ideal types of traditional, autocratic and charismatic leadership. Hence, it may be a useful tool in helping leaders, employees and other organizational stakeholders identify problematic practices in themselves and in others. Indeed, many of us are so passionate about what we are doing that we sometimes forget what is going on in our surroundings and what we were recruited to do in the first place. In this sense, our passions may transgress social and organizational norms so much so that we become monstrous. This does not necessarily mean that we are absolute monsters, who completely lack regard for our colleagues. Drawing attention to the monstrous transgression of passionate leadership may therefore serve as a wake-­‐up call – to look beyond one’s passions before it’s too late, and before one becomes an absolute monster. Further readings Thanem, T. (2013) 'More passion than the job requires? Monstrously transgressive leadership in the promotion of health at work', Leadership 9(3): 396-­‐415. Thanem, T. (2011) The Monstrous Organization. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Thanem, T. (2006) 'Living on the edge: Towards a monstrous organization theory', Organization 13(2): 163-­‐93. Thanem, T. & Pullen, A. (in progress) 'Difference, diversity and inclusion in monstrous organizations', special issue of Equality, Diversity and Inclusion -­‐ an International Journal. About the author Torkild Thanem is Professor of Management & Organization Studies at Stockholm University School of Business, where he teaches qualitative research methods and the politics of change management. He is currently researching leadership and human resource development in a large consultancy firm, and his former research includes studies of urban planners, homeless people, and transvestites. Torkild’s latest book is titled The Monstrous Organization (Edward Elgar, 2011), and at present he is writing a book (with David Knights) titled Embodied Methods for the Social Sciences (forthcoming with Sage Publications). Torkild is an Associate Editor of the journal Gender, Work & Organization, and he serves on the editorial boards of the British Journal of Management and Organization. He gained his PhD from Warwick Business School, UK. Born and raised in Norway, Torkild has a monstrous passion for cross-­‐country skiing and cross-­‐dressing. Email: [email protected] Web: http://sites.google.com/site/torkildthanem/ 5