By Dr Kellen Kiambati
There is a pivot point between those ontologically based concerns and more specific questions about how leadership gets accomplished by attending to the dynamic at the heart of leader- follower interactions. Although much of the literature assumes ‘followers’ and ‘leaders’ to be distinct modes of operating, there are also hints that separating the two roles in real life may not be completely straightforward.
The work of Cecil Gibb and Peter Gronn highlighted the way in which leadership, as indicated by level of influence, flowed amongst group members rather than being situated solely with one person. Difficulties are associated with clearly identifying who might be following and who might be leading during any period of collective activity. The apparent ambiguity inherent between ‘leaders’ and ‘followers’ has been noted and developed into more relationally- oriented leadership theories.
Scholars such as the ‘father of transformational leadership’, Bernard Bass, have urged us to go beyond equating ‘leadership’ with ‘leaders’, to recognize the essential nature of the relationship between ‘leaders’ and those who would follow them (Bass 1985). In his landmark article of 1995, James Meindl calls attention to the ‘romance of leadership’, suggesting that our over- reliance on ideals of individualistic leadership models is flawed.
Instead, he argues that we need to examine the relationships involved to fully appreciate the leadership dynamic. These writers herald a more general trend in leadership theorizing away from ‘heroic’ models of leadership in which the ‘leader’ is recognized as the one person responsible for ‘leadership’ to more inclusive and complex perspectives.
The question is ‘What is going on in the relationship between “leaders” and “followers”?’ In particular, is there a way of getting beyond thinking of ‘leaders’ and ‘followers’ as separate independent entities, to examine the ‘space between’ them as a force in its own right? What does such an analysis imply? As a starting point, let us explore two key contemporary theories of relational leadership and consider the questions arising from them.
Relational Leadership
Probably the most well known theory of ‘relational’ leadership is Leader-Member Exchange, developed by writers such as Gerstner and Day (1997), Graen et al. (1982) and Graen and Uhl- Bien (1995). The hallmarks of this theory are that leadership occurs through one- to- one relation between a ‘leader’ and a ‘follower’, and that the quality of that relationship will differ between ‘leaders’ and individual ‘followers’. This can result in the creation of ‘in- groups’, who will go above and beyond the call of duty to fulfill the requests of the ‘leader’, while those further from the ‘leader’s’ favour (in out- groups) may not be so highly motivated to do so.
Although Leader-Member Exchange theory describes this phenomenon of in- groups and out- groups, it does little to probe what occurs between leaders and followers to create the in- or out- group effect. What happens in the space between leaders and followers to create the experience of the exchange? Building on Leader-Member Exchange theory, the social network perspective developed by writers such as Prasad Balkundi and Martin Kilduff broadens the scope of attention away from one- to- one relationships to encompass larger groupings. They propose that at its essence, ‘leadership is the relationship which connects individuals so they experience themselves to be part of an extended network of people working together in some way’, (Balkundi and Kilduff 2005).
In this way their work calls attention to the span of people who create the experience of leadership. However, it does not examine the internal mechanisms by which networks operate or the means by which they are held together. Although Leader-Member Exchange theory and the social network perspective advance a conceptualization of leadership based primarily on the actions of individual ‘leaders’, the scholar Mary Uhl- Bien suggests a further step can be taken in understanding leadership as a relationship. She proposes that instead of remaining focused on the separate identities of ‘leader’ and ‘follower’, a truly ‘relational’ view of leadership would attend to the middle space; that is the relationship between those engaged in leadership itself. Such an approach would start from the ‘relationship’ as the unit of analysis, rather than from the individuals comprising the relationship.
She argues that in order to truly understand what is happening in ‘relational’ leadership, we need to pay attention to the ‘space between’ ‘leaders’ and ‘followers’ (2006). Doing so, Uhl- Bien suggests, focuses our attention on the ‘place’ where leadership actually occurs. How might it be possible to perceive this seemingly invisible space operating between ‘leaders’ and ‘followers’?
Are there conceptualizations, which might enable us to go beyond recognizing them as separate entities and bring our attention to the space between them as an active dynamic in its own right? I believe the phenomenologist, Maurice Merleau- Ponty, introduces a way of constructing intersubjectivity that could provide insight into this invisible, yet potent space.
Merleau- Ponty and Intersubjectivity
Born in 1908, Maurice Merleau- Ponty was Professor of Child Psychology and Pedagogy at the Sorbonne before taking up his post as Professor of Philosophy at the Collège de France.
His philosophical work was influenced by his study of psychology, especially his understanding of infant development, along with his exploration of psychological pathologies. This practically based engagement with human development is apparent in his philosophical works where he also demonstrates a keen understanding of the neurological, as well as psychological aspects of perception.
Philosophically, Merleau- Ponty aligned himself early on with the German phenomenologist Husserl and was one of the first French philosophers to engage seriously with Husserl’s ideas. Another key influence on Merleau- Ponty’s thinking was through his long- term friendship with the existentialist Jean- Paul Sartre.2 Merleau- Ponty’s most well- known book, The Phenomenology of Perception published in 1945 (1945 [1962]), presents a radical formulation of the embodied nature of perception. However, the ideas presented in his final book The Visible and the Invisible (1968), which was incomplete at the time of his sudden death in 1961, are particularly relevant to exploring the ‘in- between space’ of human interactions. Here, two ideas, which inform Merleau- Ponty’s thinking about intersubjectivity; ‘reversibility’ and ‘flesh’ will be introduced. In order to understand these concepts, two other foundational ideas are offered: ‘immanence’ and ‘transcendence’. They serve as building blocks to understanding Merleau- Ponty’s notion of intersubjectivity.
The Intertwining of Immanence and Transcendence
A basic understanding of the terms immanence and transcendence is needed in order to follow Merleau- Ponty’s argument. Each of these terms has been extensively theorized. In this article I take Immanence to refer to the embodied, present, material aspects of humanness. Human immanence is realized in its fleshy, material, physical aspect. Our corporeal bodies are immanent. Transcendence, on the other hand, refers to the aspects of humans, which are seemingly unbound by material corporeality.
The animating force of the human body, for instance, can be described as ‘transcendent’, as can the human capabilities of imagination, intention, rationality and consciousness. They seemingly move beyond and independent of the physical body. In the West since the time of René Descartes (1596–1650) a seventeenth century French philosopher, the cognitively- based, transcendent aspects of being human have been privileged over the more immanent, corporeal ones. This can be explained in part by the Enlightenment’s pursuit of unquestionable truth. Enlightenment science noticed how the sensory awareness afforded to the body could sometimes be ‘faulty’.
We mistake ice on the road for glass, for instance; we perceive pools of water that deteriorate into mirages; we watch the sun set in the Western horizon and conclude that it circles the Earth. Moreover, our experience of qualities such as colour, weight, dimensions and taste are subject to individual interpretation. Our perceptual apparatus are not refined enough to hear certain pitches or to see tiny phenomena. Enlightenment science aspired to go beyond the abilities of our embodied constraints to discover immutable certainties about the world. The instrument for doing so was deemed to be our reasoning mind which through exacting training and the use of the scientific method could discover such absolute ‘truths’.
Descartes’ famous pronouncement, Cogito ergo sum encapsulates the view of the mind split from matter championed since the seventeenth century. Although phenomenologists before him sought to reconceptualize an integrated form of mind-body relationship inherent to the human condition and human knowing, Merleau- Ponty is recognized as presenting the most complete account of the intertwining of human immanence and transcendence. Merleau- Ponty argues that rather than being irreconcilably separated, immanence and transcendence mutually inform one another and it is only through their interaction that humans can know at all.
In conclusion, one of the unanswered questions relational leadership theories pose is how the ‘middle space’ operating between leaders and followers might be conceptualized. First, they point to the central role perception plays in leaders’ and followers’ understanding of one another. Second, they provide a means for understanding the way followers and leaders can remain distinctive and yet join in a co- constructed experience perceived as ‘leadership’
