Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Constructs of leadership remain deeply contested despite the research effort expended in this area, suggesting that alternative approaches yielding different insights may prove useful to furthering understanding of this enigmatic concept. In this article I adopt a narrative approach to explore constructions of leadership in and through the TV Western drama series Rawhide, a cattle drive epic, in which leadership is a central theme. Here, I present two readings of leadership as portrayed by trail boss Gil Favor and I draw on this double movement and the possibilities for ironic epiphany opened up by it in analysing leadership. The first reading addresses the text through the lens(es) of leadership theory drawing on both contemporary theory (Rawhide was first broadcast between 1959–1965) and more recent constructs. This analysis of the text produces insights into the epistemic constraints, or social discourses, which surround its production; the second reading looks for ways to disrupt the narrative of leadership presented. This gives rise to paradox and produces leadership as irony. The article concludes by considering the implications of this for conceptualizing leadership.

Keywords

Ironic epiphany irony leader leadership as irony narrative paradox parody repetition with difference TV Western unreliable narrator

Leadership has attracted extensive scrutiny over many years and in many domains but still remains enigmatic and poorly conceptualized. The characteristics of the leader, the traits of leadership, the distinction between leadership and management, the role of followers and so on have all proved ‘hard to capture’ (De Boer et al., 2010: 230) and despite the research effort expended have succeeded only in offering limited analytical insights. Indeed, in an attempt to chart developments in leadership research and conceptualizations of leadership over the past hundred years or so, Grint (2010a: 49) teases out a number ‘patterns of leadership’, but even he admits that this may be a little fanciful, a means to impose order on a recalcitrance more convincingly characterized by contradiction and confusion perhaps. Even defining ‘the leader’ has proved problematic. In this respect, Grint concludes, perhaps the best we can do is to say that being a leader is ‘having followers’—though this too could be construed as controversial in these supposedly post-heroic times of distributed, dispersed and otherwise diffuse forms of leadership (see Gronn, 2003). Indeed, both the utility and desirableness of the concept of leadership itself has been challenged by Alvesson and Spicer (2011: 9) who argue that since ‘the term easily oscillates between what everybody does and what only an exceptional group of “real leaders” do [leadership] easily becomes everything and nothing’, and they question what adherence to the concept masks or conceals in the construction of social reality.

Arguably, the research base has focused too narrowly on positivist approaches with a heavy emphasis on correlations between leadership style and organizational effectiveness giving rise to essentialisms such as the ‘transactional’ leader and the ‘transformational’ leader which exaggerate the role of the great and powerful individual resulting in ‘context insensitive understandings of leadership’ (Alvesson and Spicer, 2011: 19). Part of the problem, Alvesson and Sveningsson (2003) suggest, is the lack of attention paid to the meanings attributed to ‘leadership’ by actants themselves or to what they refer to as the ‘mundane’ in leadership research which considers the possibility ‘that what managers and leaders do is not always remarkable or different from what other people do in work organizations’ (p. 1436). As an alternative to this approach with its emphasis on the development of psychological models of ‘the leader’, a recent move in organizational research has seen the analysis of fiction as a means to generate insights into organizations, management and leadership (see, for example, Beyes, 2009; De Cock and Land, 2005; Land and Sliwa, 2009; Rhodes and Brown, 2005; Rhodes and Parker, 2008; Sliwa and Cairns, 2007). Relations between fiction and social research are complex (Watson, 2011a). De Cock and Land (2005: 519) refer to three ‘modes of engagement’ with literature: Mode 1 subjects academic writing to the methods of literary criticism, making academic texts ‘subject to critique using literary theory’. The main aim of this, the authors suggest, is to improve the literary quality of research texts, but the tools of literary theory can also be used to analyse research texts in order to examine the rhetorical strategies utilized in their construction (see, for example, Watson, 2009). Mode 2 concerns the ‘use of literary genres as alternative modes of representation for organizational knowledge and research’ (De Cock and Land, 205: 519), i.e. the writing of fictional/semi-fictional research texts or the incorporation of poetry, drama, etc. into academic texts; finally, Mode 3 draws on literature as a pedagogical ‘tool to explicate theory’, largely for the purpose of illustration of themes and ideas or as a resource for critique. De Cock and Land refer to the interdisciplinary boundary that these modes of engagement traverse as the seam. The authors consider what this seam contributes to both disciplines:

Through our exploration we point to the dynamic tensions and incongruities that flow from this organization/literature relationship, thereby furthering an engagement between the organizational and the literary that neither reduces one to the other, nor privileges their separation. (De Cock and Land, 2005: 518)

The interdisciplinary tensions produced by this juxtaposition create a productive site which can usefully be exploited by the social researcher. Indeed, works of fiction have the potential to move beyond the ‘illustration of themes’ becoming an analytical tool for the development of theory. And against Bridges’ (2003: 96) contention that ‘the real has a kind of logical priority over fiction and represents a kind of measure, a gold standard against which the value or currency of fiction is judged’ and therefore that ‘the fictional must always be parasitic upon the factual narrative’, Beyes (2009) asserts the primacy of the novel in developing insight into ‘the social body’. Drawing on Rancière (2004), Beyes argues that the novel constitutes ‘a kind of symptomatology of society’(p. 421, emphasis in original) and goes on, ‘as scholars we are heirs to novelistic inventiveness. And it follows that reading novels might offer more than finding illustrations that fit accustomed ways of analysis, namely an expanding of the imaginary of organization studies’ (p. 422). Although Beyes takes as his case the novels of Thomas Pynchon, other organization scholars have analysed less highbrow cultural works. Rhodes (2001) for example analysed management at the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant in The Simpsons (Fox TV), arguing that television provides many representations of organizations in which narratives of leadership and management are developed. Rhodes’ analysis highlights the little understood though important function of satire and irony as analytical tools in social research (Brown, 1989; Watson, 2011b). While satire is a form of representation offering critique, irony is a rhetorical trope that ‘involves creating a disjunction between the conventional image and the reality it represents’ (Oswick et al., 2002: 299). By unmasking unexpected correspondences and unsuspected differences irony achieves ‘a derealization of the conventional in order to re-realize it in a more cogent and illuminating form’ (Brown, 1985: 581). In this way, irony functions as a tool for the development of theory. Similarly, Beyes (2009: 422) talks about two movements in the analysis of literary texts. The first movement is ‘emplacement’, analysing the text for its exemplifications of organizational issues—a straight reading of the text if you like; the second is ‘displacement’ which looks for ‘possible disturbances of, or openings for, thinking and writing organization’. In this article I draw on this double movement and the possibilities for ironic epiphany opened up by it in analysing leadership in and through the iconic TV Western drama series, Rawhide (CBS), a cattle drive epic, which ran for eight seasons from 1959–1965.

Nealon (2005: 130) defines the ironic epiphany as ‘the postmodern rescue of the ontological moment of wonder from its subordination to knowledge’. As used in this article, it is a revelatory moment of dramatic irony which ‘occurs over the heads of the characters’ (McColl Chesney, 2010: 34) and which affords analytical insight, bringing about a change of outlook:

The ‘logic’ of dramatic irony consists of three elements. First, there is a juxtaposing of opposites, of thesis and antithesis, the association of which was unexpected. The peripety, or reversal from one term to its opposite, must be as inevitable as their initial association was unforeseen. Finally, there is dramatic resolution, a synthesis and antithesis on a higher level. (Brown, 1989: 174)

The ironic epiphany can be represented as the disjunctive moment, the forward slash, in the double movement emplacement/displacement. It is the disruption which offers the opportunity for the emergence of new insight. In the following analysis, then, the text is first subjected to a reading through the lens (or lenses) of leadership theory which treats the cattle drive as a metaphor for ‘the organization’; then an alternative interpretation of onscreen events is offered. Finally, a dramatic resolution (of sorts) is achieved which effects a radical displacement of leadership.

Rawhide

Rawhide was set in post Civil War America, the era of the ‘Wild West’. Between 1867 and 1871, in order to meet the demand for beef in the Eastern states of America, Confederate veterans rounded up the cattle in the West driving the herds north to railheads from where they were transported to Chicago (Greenland, 2010). In Rawhide trail boss Gil Favor (played by Eric Fleming) and his crew must drive 3000 head of cattle 1000 miles along the ‘Sedalia trail’ from San Antonio, Texas, to the rail head at Sedalia, Missouri. Along the way they have adventures or ‘incidents’ as the programme has it.¹ Although Rawhide is ostensibly ‘period drama’ it is also of its period (the Cold War era of the late 1950s and early 1960s), drawing on the mythical, though not unproblematic, aura of the cowboy hero who embodies ‘a specific, glorious vision of the western liberal ideology’ (Kaulingfreks et al., 2009: 153). Leadership is a central theme and this is set out explicitly at the start of each episode when Gil Favor sits astride his horse, surveys the scene and delivers his homily underlining the meaning to be attached to the ‘incident’ which forms the narrative core for the episode.

Gil Favor (known always to his crew as Mr Favor, or just ‘Boss’) leads his team of stalwart regulars (including a very young Clint Eastwood as Rowdy Yates, the Ramrod of the outfit) ² and other less committed, often untrustworthy, more or less villainous or just plain ornery hands he is forced to pick up along the way. These latter characters destabilize the unit, providing the disequilibrium necessary for the emergence of narrative (Todorov, 1971). Here I first give a synopsis of an episode that exemplifies the drama and is subjected to closer analysis. I then interrogate the portrayal of Gil Favor as trail boss in the programme, drawing on theories of leadership (emplacement); this is followed by displacement which provides an alternative reading as a means to unsettle notions of ‘leadership’.

Incident of the dog days: synopsis

(Season 1, episode 14, first broadcast April 17, 1959)³

While many ‘incidents’ involve encounters with people met along the way the episode analysed here is centred on the herd and the cattle drive itself, and unusually, its focus is lack of leadership and poor judgement on the part of Gil Favor, and what befalls the outfit as a result …

The episode begins with Gil Favor’s customary homily:

Every once in a while you have to get away from the herd, so you can listen to the sound of it. You can tell a lot from the way the cattle bawl. But the same can’t be said for the drovers you hire along the way. It’s hard to judge a man by his voice. That’s why we keep gainin’ some, losin’ others. It’s my job to judge, and sometimes I miss. My name’s Gil Favor, trail boss. (Greenland, 2010: 97–98)

The episode opens with one of the new hands, in this case an older man called Jed, a former trail boss himself, warning Gil Favor that the drive is about to cross a 40-mile bad stretch at the wrong time of year. Drought means there is no water or grazing for the ‘beeves’. Jed warns Favor that he risks losing the herd.⁴ (In fact, Jed lost his own herd trying to cross this very spot some years ago). However, a detour might take as much as three weeks. Favor decides to go ahead anyway and is immediately challenged by Pete, the Scout:⁵ ‘You made a bad decision, Mr Favor, and on a cattle drive a trail boss can’t afford to make a bad decision’. Gil Favor replies, ‘You’d better stick to scoutin’, Pete’. This ill-tempered exchange sets the theme for the episode: the focus on Gil Favor’s judgement and his refusal to listen to advice from his crew.

The complicating narrative action in the episode is provided by the new drovers picked up to get the herd across the dry plains. One, Talby, thinks another, going by the name of ‘Johnny Camber’ is really Billy Carter, the gunman responsible for killing his daughter. But Gil Favor takes Johnny at face value and tells Rowdy he thinks Johnny Camber is who he says he is. Next, things start to go missing, and though Rowdy is suspicious of one of the new hands, Myers, and takes his suspicions to Favor there is no proof—Gil Favor says unless there is clear evidence the man deserves the benefit of the doubt. Wishbone, the cook (an irascible, but usually comic character), quits after Gil Favor criticizes his food, and then at one point even pulls a gun on Rowdy Yates and threatens to blow his head off. The outfit is clearly falling apart and the cause is presented as Gil Favor’s ill-judgement: ‘Maybe it’s Mr Favor, going across the dry plains when he should have gone round’. The first water hole they come to is surrounded by the bleached bones of dead cattle. It is poisoned. They have to turn the cattle real quick to keep them from drinking it. More trouble breaks out in camp. Gil Favor even has to break up a fight between Pete and Rowdy. A more serious fight between two of the new hands sees one man knifed. The killer, Myers, rides off only to be pursued by Jed who shoots him and returns with all the items stolen from the men—Myers was the camp thief, Rowdy was right all along. One of these stolen items is a photograph of Talby’s daughter—it proves Johnny Camber is really Billy Carter (Gil Favor was wrong about that too). Talby challenges Billy to a gunfight, but Favor steps in and says he will fight Billy himself. He shoots to disarm rather than kill. But Billy does not fire in return, in fact his gun is not even loaded. He says he wanted to die. He tells his story—of how on the day he married Talby’s daughter he laid down his gun and threw his bullets away for good. Soon after, someone challenged him to a fight and she hurled herself in the path of the bullet and was killed. They were on their way to tell Talby that she was expecting a baby. Talby and Billy are reconciled. After further trouble between Pete and Favor, Pete quits and three men leave with him. The next waterhole they come to is dry. Gil Favor voices his doubts to Rowdy, ‘One thing a trail boss needs is good judgement’. He tells the men he has no right to lead them anymore. He gives them one last order, clear out. On their own they have a chance. The men refuse to obey. Gil Favor cracks a rare smile. Then Pete and the others return—they got lost and couldn’t find their way—but they have found water ahead. The episode does not end, as most do, with Gil Favor calling out ‘Head ‘em up, move ‘em out!’, instead it closes with the cattle drinking. The credits roll to Frankie Laine singing the title song.⁶

Emplacement: Gil Favor as leader

Rawhide is centred on the construction and performance of masculinities. Women as characters occupy marginal positions: they are either ‘ladies’ to be respected, or they are not. Either way they are usually trouble and either way Gil Favor keeps them at arms length, ill-at-ease in their company, but always acting correctly and offering protection. Distance is also evident with his handling of the men too. An exception is Rowdy Yates whom in the current discourse we would say Favor mentors, but who also acts as a confessional and a means by which we, the viewers, can access Favor’s more private thoughts and doubts. The relationship with Pete is usually characterized by mutual respect but it lacks intimacy. Gil Favor does not court popularity or attempt to be ‘one of the boys’, maintaining a stern countenance at all times and never engaging in horseplay. To the extent that the cowboy is a ‘charismatic leader’ who ‘fights for social decency, not for personal gain’ and ‘leads oppressed people towards his social vision’ (Wright, 2001: 118) then Favor fits the bill, but in line with the capitalist fervour evident in America at the height of the Cold War, the spiritual goal of the cattle drive is literally (and ironically) the market.

In discussing multiple masculinities in the workplace Collinson and Hearn (1994: 13) set out five discourses and practices of masculinity each of which constructs power relations in different ways and is associated with different management ‘styles’. These are: authoritarianism, paternalism, entrepreneurialism, informalism and careerism. In Rawhide, Gil Favor’s approach can best be understood as authoritarianism, ‘characterized by an intolerance of dissent, a rejection of dialogue and debate and a preference for coercive power’ (Collinson and Hearn, 1994). This is the leader as commander⁷ who typically leads from the front, takes ‘hard decisions’ and ‘enforces social order’ (Spicer, 2011: 120). Indeed, Gil Favor spends a lot of his time breaking up minor disputes among the men and reinforcing his role as leader: ‘There’s only going to be one boss in this outfit’, ‘Anytime you’re ready to run this drive you let me know’, etc. But this exists alongside, or shifts between, an evident paternalism, a protective ‘rule of the father’ who is ‘authoritative, benevolent, self-disciplined and wise’ (Collinson and Hearn, 1994: 13). This accords with a view of leadership prevalent at the time and characterized by McMurry (1958) as ‘benevolent autocracy’. Bennis (1959: 275), in critiquing McMurry’s thesis, says this ‘sounds like a nostalgic and romantic image of the old-time entrepreneur—the good father, strong, wise, smart, aggressive; a man utterly independent’—a description which describes Gil Favor consummately. McMurry’s benevolent autocrat, Bennis goes on, presents ‘a virtuous and popularized psychoanalytic justification for rigid autocracy on the putative basis that that is the way people are’. The literature on management and leadership at that time places considerable emphasis on human motivation in relation to work, and hence what strategies are required to manage workers. Thus, McMurry’s rather pessimistic view of human nature is echoed in McGregor’s ‘Theory X, Theory Y’ (McGregor, 2006, originally published 1960). Theory X holds that humans are irresponsible and motivated only by self-interest; while Theory Y takes the opposite view, that humans are creative problem solvers, motivated more by the need for self-actualization than by rewards and punishment. A manager’s actions will depend upon whether he subscribes to human motivation in terms of Theory X or Theory Y. For the most part, it might be concluded, Favor tends towards Theory X. Certainly he has no illusions about his men’s finer instincts (again, Rowdy is an exception, and is usually cast in a romantic, if immature mold, easily taken in by the whiles of woman). Indeed Favor is, on occasion, surprisingly tolerant (given his upright, moral stance on most matters) of the crew going off into the nearest town, frequenting saloons and even engaging in what we would call now ‘antisocial behaviour’, such as shooting the place up (see, for example, series 1, episode 4, Incident of the Widowed Dove). While in many respects Gil Favor does exemplify Gene Autrey’s chivalrous ‘Cowboy Code’ (no date), his character is complex and the ambivalent relation of the cowboy to ‘polite society’ (see Parker, 2011) is a recurrent theme.

Models of management prevalent in the period which saw the show’s first airing ‘represented managers in tough, rational and abstract terms’ (McDowell, 2001: 187) and most studies, with a few notable exceptions (see Roper, 1996), largely ignored or obscured the emotional nature of management and workplace relations. Collinson and Hearn (1994: 6) comment on the ‘embeddedness of masculine values and assumptions in the structure, culture and practices of the organization’. While Rawhide is underpinned by this ‘masculine ethic’ (Kanter, 1977) the relationship between Gil Favor and Rowdy Yates clearly does have an emotional dimension. However, whereas an earlier reading might have viewed this as the portrayal of a father-son relationship, more latterly it emerges as a subtext of desire. Fifty years on the paratext surrounding Rawhide (the ‘secondary signals’ which frame a text, Genette, 1997: 2) has changed and current readings inevitably invite intertextual allusion to gay cowboy literature such as Annie Proulx’s Brokeback mountain (2005, originally published 1997). The metaphor of intertextuality, and opportunities for the production of parody as repetition with critical distance that it affords, points up the socially constructed nature of leadership and highlights the role of discourse in conferring meaning. In this way, Favor’s leadership can be read, with this critical distance, as a seductive performance: his upright posture in the saddle, the sure and confident way he turns his horse, his complex choreography of the cattle drive—even his leather chaps speak authority.⁸ Favor’s leadership is signalled by his visibility and presence such that ‘what is folded within the manager’s body is the organization “itself” for the mimetic relationship between the organization and the body cannot be missed ’ (Harding, 2003: 125). This embodiment, as part of a relational ‘aesthetics of leadership’ (Hansen et al., 2007: 545), evokes a desire which gives rise to followership—a desire which extends to the viewer too in an aesthetic which in Rawhide is indelibly linked to the romance of the cattle drive, the cowboy and the West as the mythical origins of America.

Displacement: Gil Favor as narrator

Analysis of leadership in Rawhide as ‘emplacement’ depends upon the illusion of the real-time unfolding of events that make up the ‘incident’. Immersion in the fictional world implies a willingness, an obligation even to ‘disattend the puppeteer’ (Jahn, 2001: 676, citing Erving Goffman). At any point in the drama it is presumed by the viewer that the outcome of the events is unknown to the actants themselves. As part of this process the viewer regards the characters as autonomous within the drama to the extent that their words and actions are considered to be spoken by them and ‘really’ theirs, and we understand their relationship to Gil Favor in these terms. Favor’s authority is constructed as stemming from the acceptance of his position by his men and his leadership is thus presented as objectively real within the context of the unfolding drama. But this is not, however, to reduce the viewer to one of Garfinkel’s (1967) cultural dopes. Viewers may be well aware of the discursive (ideological) nature of character constructions (Fiske, 2010: 161) while remaining willing to suspend this higher knowledge and submit to the illusion of the fictional world created and its narrative conventions. This literary realism fosters a traditional image of the leader in terms of responsibility, accountability and authority. The apparently simple goal of getting the cattle to the railhead masks the complexity of the task—the unknown and unknowable lying in wait— giving rise to the ‘incidents’ which provide opportunities for the exercise of leadership. Thus, in Incident of the dog days, Gil Favor’s (usually pretty well infallible) judgement is called into question by the men, a questioning that results in the destabilization of the unit almost to the point of collapse, but in the end we see his superior judgement as leader emerge, enabling him to lead his men and beeves across the dry plains to safety.

If, however, we take a different starting point possibilities for an alternative analysis and interpretation emerge which bear directly on the construction and framing of leadership. At the beginning of each episode Gil Favor delivers the prologue, setting out the moral of the story. Indeed, Gil Favor can be taken as the narrator of the drama as well as a character within it. The narrator is ‘the agent who manages the exposition, who decides what is to be told, how it is to be told (especially, from what point of view, and in what sequence), and what is to be left out’ (Jahn, 2001: 670). This implies that far from unfolding into the unknown, the story is being constructed and told in retrospect by him and hence from his point of view. Such a reading is warranted precisely by the delivery of the prologue as Gil Favor’s telling. This re-positioning of Gil Favor as homodiegetic narrator enables insights from narratology to be deployed in an analysis of the drama thereby generating insights into leadership. It is this move that gives rise to the ironic epiphany as ‘the moment of wonder’ (Nealon, 2005: 127). But, in this case, the ironic reversal is precisely that which disinvests leadership of its wondrous, ‘sacred’ (Grint, 2010b) element, instead we can now see it as the somewhat dubious narrative of an ageing cowboy. In this way Favor’s leadership does not so much, ‘through the provision of safety and security’ ‘silence the anxiety of followers’ (Grint, 2010b: 101) as literally render followers silent. Such a reading immediately arouses questions concerning Gil Favor’s reliability as narrator.⁹ Whose version of events are we now seeing and how much credence can we place on them? This insight radically undermines the generic conventions which guide the viewer’s assumptions (Beebee, 1994). Thus the frequent repetition of utterances such as ‘Mr Favor’s the boss’ can now be read as how he imagines, or would like, his men to see him: repetition becomes a rhetorical device to convey his position of authority and identity as leader to the narratee (i.e. the person to whom Favor addresses his narrative). Indeed on occasions, ironically, these utterances come out quite stilted as if the men resist this attempt at ventriloquization.

Moreover, in this reading Gil Favor—to whom we can impute agency as narrator—can now (re-)write the narrative so that even his ‘wrong’ judgements can be seen, with the benefit of hindsight, to have been inspired: his ‘misjudgement’ of Johnny Camber/Billy Carter is a case in point. Though he was wrong about the identity of Camber/Carter, yet he was right in the much more significant judgement of the man and his motives. Similarly, the complicating narrative action which sees the unit fall into disarray and which (in Favor’s telling) is interpreted by the men as caused by his poor judgement (‘Maybe it’s Mr Favor, going across the dry plains when he should’ve gone round’) can be seen as a narrative device which serves to point up the failings of his followers since it is actually their questioning of Favor’s decision that is the cause of the trouble. In this way Favor creates, through his narration, the illusion of leadership which has Jed say in the end (not without ambivalence since his motives in supporting Favor’s decision are open to question), ‘You had the right hunch all along. Looks like you’re going to make it’.

Indeed, with respect to Incident of the dog days an alternative narrative could be constructed which emplots these incidents in quite another way producing a different narrative of leadership, i.e. Gil Favor’s judgement is deeply flawed and it is only through the actions of the men, particularly Pete who is driven away but who finds water and out of a sense of loyalty to the crew returns, that disaster is averted. Or we could say that it is entirely through chance and random events that a satisfactory outcome is achieved at all. In this way, leadership, as narrative construction, can be seen to reside in the discourse (the telling) rather than the story (the events):¹⁰ it is the narrating act that ‘shapes and transforms the story’ (Alber and Fludernik, 2009: 3.2). The narrative version told by Gil Favor becomes, through metonymy, the organizational narrative.

A dramatic resolution…

The reframing of the narrative as Gil Favor’s telling signals a paradox in which Rawhide presents as two ultimately undecidable and mutually incommensurable allegories of leadership. In the first, leadership is situated in the relation between leaders, followers and context which shapes decision-making. In the second, leadership is constructed post-hoc as the meaning given to events/actions. Yet, as Fairhurst (2009: 1615) points out, context is ‘not simply “read” as if it were merely awaiting discovery’ rather, ‘context is predicated on … a clear formulation of what for others might be a chaotic welter of impressions’. This ‘chaotic welter’ can be represented by considering an extract from the synopsis of Incident of the dog days provided on ‘tv.com’:¹¹

Favor stops Talby from shooting Johnny Camber. He says he’s gunslinger, Billy Carter, who killed his daughter. Old trailboss Jed lost a herd over this land. A detour around would take two to three weeks. Carl Myers says he’s taking cockleburrs out of Rowdy’s bedroll. Jed Blaine says he thinks they can make it across the dry plain. Bates and two others quit. Pete and Rowdy are ready to mix it up. Jed tells Pete Favor wants him. Clark accuses Myers of being a card cheat and a trail camp thief. Talby says Billy ran off with 18 year old daughter and killed her. The watering hole is poisoned. Rowdy and Pete fight … etc.

A paradox arises as a result of the future orientation which locates leadership-as-context in decision-making and a past oriented leadership-as-narration which is predicated on sense making (Weick et al., 2005). Meaning cannot be decided until after the event, yet context drives decision-making. Thus leadership is both always already constructed and always still undecidable, indefinitely deferred in the current moment. The recognition of this paradox undermines essentialist understandings but offers up possibilities for reconceptualizing leadership in an altogether more satisfyingly ambivalent and ambiguous manner. In particular, this reframing starts to address Alvesson and Spicer’s (2011: 200) question: ‘what exactly is it that the language of leadership does not allow us to see. How does it mask important aspects of social reality … ?’. Perhaps what it most urgently seeks to mask is its own undecidability. Instead, essentialist conceptualizations of leadership construct contexts which give rise to particular desired versions of leadership. This is the sleight of hand that paradox points up. Allard-Poesi suggests that what she calls the postmodern route that ‘invites us to engage against our sensemaking process’ (2005: 190, emphasis in original) leads us into a trap which disengages us from ‘the mode of living that we are trying to understand’. But arguably, the inducement to ‘engage against’ is precisely what fosters the recognition, reflexively, of the paradox of ‘leadership’ thereby presenting opportunities for actors (leaders and followers) to ‘shift their expectations for rationality and linearity’ (Smith and Lewis, 2011: 385).This is an insight which goes beyond an appreciation of leadership as a social construct which merely paves the way for the emergence of new essentialisms. Rather, as paradox it resists attempts at closure.

Parody and irony are, Alvesson and Spicer suggest, ‘dissenting tropes’, analytical tools with which to examine social constructs. Hutcheon (1998, quoted in Nünning, 1999: 125) defines parody as ‘repetition with critical distance that allows ironic signalling of difference at the very heart of similarity’. The double reading emplacement/displacement is a repetition which opens leadership up to critique and which gives rise to the ironic epiphany as the disruption of an essentialist ontology of ‘leadership’. But this move also produces the concept of leadership itself as parody: leadership becomes a repetition with difference rendering it a deeply ironic concept. The production of leadership as paradoxical repetition does not, however, lead to impasse rather it constitutes a theoretical tool enabling further analysis. In this way a resolution and synthesis is achieved (while the ground is laid for a new antithesis). And so the cattle drive keeps rollin’…

Footnotes

Notes

Author biography

Cate Watson is Senior Lecturer in Educational Leadership and Management at the University of Stirling. Address: School of Education, University of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA, UK. Email: cate.watson@stir.ac.uk

References

Alber

Fludernik

(2009) ‘Mediacy and Narrative Mediation’, in Huhn

Pier

Schmid

Schonert

(eds) Handbook of Narratology, pp. 174–89. Berlin and New York, NY: De Gruyter.

Allard-Poesi

(2005) ‘The Paradox of Sensemaking in Organizational Analysis’, Organization 12(2): 169–96.

Alvesson

Spicer

, eds (2011) Metaphors we Lead By. Understanding Leadership in the Real World. London: Routledge.

Alvesson

Sveningsson

(2003) ‘Managers Doing Leadership: The Extra-ordinarization of the Mundane’, Human Relations 56(12): 1435–59.

Autrey

(no date). The Cowboy Code. Retrieved August 20, 2012, from http://www.geneautry.com/geneautry/geneautry_cowboycode.html

Beebee

T. O.

(1994) The Ideology of Genre: A Comparative Study of Generic Instability. Pennsylvania, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Bennis

W. G.

(1959) ‘Leadership Theory and Administrative Behavior: The Problem of Authority’, Administrative Science Quarterly 4(3): 259–301.

Beyes

(2009) ‘An Aesthetics of Displacement: Thomas Pynchon’s Symptomatology of Organization’, Journal of Organizational Change Management 22(4): 421–36.

Bridges

(2003) Fiction Written Under Oath?: Essays in Philosophy and Educational Research. Dordrecht: Springer.

10.

Brown

R. H.

(1985) ‘Narrative, Literary Theory, and the Self in Contemporary Society’, Poetics Today 6(4): 573–90.

11.

Brown

R. H.

(1989) A Poetic for Sociology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

12.

Collinson

Hearn

(1994) ‘Naming Men as Men: Implications for Work, Organization and Management’, Gender, Work and Organization 1(1): 2–22.

13.

Culler

(2001) The Pursuit of Signs. London: Routledge.

14.

De Boer

Goedegebuure

Meek

V. L.

(2010) ‘The Changing Nature of Academic Middle Management: A Framework for Analysis’, in Meek

L. V.

Goedegebuure

Santiago

Carvalho

(eds) The Changing Dynamics of Higher Education Middle Management, pp. 229–41). Dordrecht: Springer.

15.

De Cock

Land

(2006) ‘Organization/Literature: Exploring the Seam’, Organization Studies 27(4): 517–35.

16.

Fairhurst

(2009) ‘Considering Context in Discursive Leadership Research’, Human Relations 62(11): 1607–33.

17.

Fiske

(2010) Television culture, 2nd ed. London: Routledge.

18.

Garfinkel

(1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

19.

Genette

(1997) Palimpsests. Literature in the Second Degree. ( Newman

Channa

Dobinsky

Claude

trans.). London and Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

20.

Greenland

(2010) Rawhide. A History of Television’s Longest Cattle Drive. Albany, NY: BearManor Media.

21.

Grint

(2007) ‘Forward to the Past or Back to the Future? Leadership 1965–2006’, in Dopson

Earl

Snow

(eds) Mapping the Management Journey. Practice, Theory and Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

22.

Grint

(2010a) Leadership. A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

23.

Grint

(2010b) ‘The Sacred in Leadership: Separation, Sacrifice and Silence’, Organization Studies 31(1): 89–107.

24.

Gronn

(2003) ‘Leadership: Who Needs It?’, School Leadership and Management 23(3): 267–91.

25.

Hansen

Ropo

Sauer

(2007) ‘Aesthetic Leadership’, The Leadership Quarterly 18(6): 544–60.

26.

Harding

(2003) ‘On the Manager’s Body as an Aesthetics of Control’, in Carr

Hancock

(eds) Art and Aesthetics at Work, pp. 115–24. London: Palgrave MacMillan.

27.

Herrnstein Smith

(1981) ‘Narrative Versions, Narrative Theories’, in Mitchell

W. J. T.

(ed.) On Narrative, pp. 209–32). Chicago, IL and London: University of Chicago Press.

28.

Jahn

(2001) ‘Narrative Voice and Agency in Drama: Aspects of a Narratology of Drama’, New Literary History 32(3): 659–79.

29.

Kanter

R. M.

(1977) Men and Women of the Corporation. New York, NY: Basic Books (AZ).

30.

Kaulingfreks

Lightfoot

Letiche

(2009) ‘The Man in the Black Hat’, Culture and Organization 15(2): 151–65.

31.

Land

Sliwa

(2009) ‘The Novel and Organization: Introduction from the Editors’, Journal of Organizational Change Management 22(4): 349–56.

32.

Love

C. M.

(1916) ‘History of the Cattle Industry in the Southwest’, The Southwestern Historical Quarterly 19(4): 370–99.

33.

McColl Chesney

(2010) ‘Joyce between Dante and Beckett: Italian Susurrations and Reverberations’, Journal of Irish Studies 25: 28–35.

34.

McDowell

(2001) ‘Men, Management and Multiple Masculinities in Organizations’, Geoforum 32(2): 181–98.

35.

McGregor

(2006) The Human Side of Enterprise. London: McGraw-Hill Companies.

36.

McMurry

R. N.

(1958) ‘The Case for Benevolent Autocracy’, Harvard Business Review 36(1): 82–90.

37.

Nealon

J. T.

(2005) ‘Disastrous Aesthetics: Irony, Ethics, and Gender in Barthelme’s “Snow White”’, Twentieth Century Literature 51(2): 123–41.

38.

Nünning

(1999) ‘The Creative Role of Parody in Transforming Literature and Culture: An Outline of a Functionalist Approach to Postmodern Parody’, European Journal of English Studies 3(2): 123–37.

39.

Olson

(2003) ‘Reconsidering Unreliability: Fallible and Untrustworthy Narrators’, Narrative 11(1): 93–109.

40.

Oswick

Keenoy

Grant

(2002) ‘Metaphor and Analogical Reasoning in Organization Theory: Beyond Orthodoxy’, Academy of Management Review 27(2): 294–303.

41.

Parker

(2011) ‘The Wild West, the Industrial East and the Outlaw’, Culture and Organization 17(4): 347–65.

42.

Proulx

(2005) Brokeback Mountain. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

43.

Ranciere

(2004) The Politics of Aesthetics: The Distribution of the Sensible. London: Continuum International Publishing Group Ltd.

44.

Rhodes

(2001) ‘The Simpsons, Popular Culture, and the Organizational Carnival’, Journal of Management Inquiry 10(4): 374–83.

45.

Rhodes

Brown

A. D.

(2005) ‘Writing Responsibly: Narrative Fiction and Organization Studies’, Organization 12(4): 467–91.

46.

Rhodes

Parker

(2008) ‘Images of Organizing in Popular Culture’, Organization 15(5): 627–37.

47.

Roper

(1996) ‘“Seduction and Succession”: Circuits of Homosocial Desire in Management’, in Collinson

Hearn

(eds) Men as Managers, Managers as Men, pp. 210–26. London: Sage.

48.

Sliwa

Cairns

(2007) ‘The Novel as a Vehicle for Organizational Inquiry: Engaging with the Complexity of Social and Organizational Commitment’, ephemera: Theory and Politics in Organization 7(2): 309–25.

49.

Smith

W. K.

Lewis

M. W.

(2011) ‘Toward a Theory of Paradox: A Dynamic Equilibrium Model of Organizing’, The Academy of Management Review 36(2): 381–403.

50.

Spicer

(2011) ‘Leaders as Commanders: Leadership Through Creating Clear Direction’, in Metaphors We Lead By. Understanding Leadership in the Real World, pp. 118–37. London: Routledge.

51.

Todorov

(1971) The Poetics of Prose. Oxford: Blackwell.

52.

Watson

(2011a) ‘Staking a Small Claim for Fictional Narratives in Social and Educational Research’, Qualitative Research 11(4): 395–408.

53.

Watson

(2011b) ‘Notes on the Variety and Uses of Satire, Sarcasm and Irony in Social Research, with Some Observations on Vices and Follies in the Academy’, Power and Education 3(2): 139–49.

54.

Watson

(2009) ‘The Impossible Vanity: Uses and Abuses of Empathy in Qualitative Inquiry’, Qualitative Research 9(1): 105.

55.

Weick

K. E.

Sutcliffe

K. M.

Obstfeld

(2005) ‘Organizing and the Process of Sensemaking’, Organization Science 16(4): 409–21.

56.

Wright

(2001) The Wild West. The Mythical Cowboy and Social Theory. London: Sage.

The ironies of leadership: insights from a narrative analysis of the TV Western drama series,Rawhide

Abstract

Keywords

Rawhide

Incident of the dog days: synopsis

(Season 1, episode 14, first broadcast April 17, 1959) 3

Emplacement: Gil Favor as leader

Displacement: Gil Favor as narrator

A dramatic resolution…

Footnotes

Notes

Author biography

References

(Season 1, episode 14, first broadcast April 17, 1959)³