Abstract
These two books elaborate on the notions of organizational leadership and ethics. Both books try to articulate these two themes within the framework of the literature on organization studies.
Todnem and Burnes (2013) define the goal of their edited collection as follows:
The purpose of this latest addition to the series Understanding Organizational Change is not to shout eureka and claim some new, earth-shattering contribution to the field. The purpose is simply to address an issue as old as civilization itself by re-establishing a focus on what for so many operating, wheeling and dealing, living, developing, surviving and breathing within organizations seem to be uncomfortable with: ethics, change and leadership (ECL). All interconnected, they form the basis for sustainable organizations. (p. 1)
In fact, the intellectual and moral task to examine the question of ethics, change and leadership concerns society as a whole and not only the specific groups of employers As Todnem and Burnes (2013) point out, ‘[w]e all have a role to play and responsibility to take when these decisions of ECL are to be made. To really deal with ECL will be uncomfortable and challenging to us —leaders and followers’ (p. 3).
In the first chapter, Patzer and Voegtlin provide an overview on the current literature on organizational change, ethics and leadership. They argue that it is an ‘underdeveloped field’ (p. 11). In the second chapter (‘Perceptions and development of ethical change leadership’), Newton analyses how leaders can ‘lead change ethically’ (p. 35). Her paper is based on qualitative research. In the third chapter (‘Justice and the ethical quality of leadership’), Rhodes deals with the relationship between justice and organizational leadership. He criticizes the existing dominant literature from a Levinasian and deontological perspective (p. 69). In the fourth chapter (‘Virtuality and materiality in the ethics of storytelling answerability. Implications for leadership and change’), Boje and Saylors argue that ‘social materiality’ should be emphasized rather than ‘social constructionism’ (p. 75). In the fifth chapter (‘Mind the gap. Hypocrisy monitoring and integrity striving as a source of ethical leadership’), Dufresne and Clair analyse the notion of hypocrisy in the context of ethics, leadership and organizational change (p. 116). Leaders are urged to try to reduce hypocrisy in their organizational practices (p. 110). In the sixth chapter (‘Moral agency in strategic change. Coping with ethical tensions through irony’), Franck and Mantere deal with the question of irony in an organizational strategic change. A case study in a multinational is used (p. 125). The authors argue that ‘through irony, criticism can be accommodated and a space for dissent can be created without a complete and sudden overhaul of organizational systems’ (p. 142).
Beyond, in the seventh chapter (‘Incompetent or immoral leadership? Why many managers and change leaders get it wrong’), Diefenbach criticizes the notion of transformational leadership using some theoretical and empirical research as well as a narrative approach. He insists, particularly, on the ‘incompetence’ and the ‘immorality’ of some leaders (p. 151). In the eighth chapter (‘Leadership narcissism, ethics and strategic change. Is it time to revisit our thinking about the nature of effective leadership?’), Higgs deals with leadership failures or ‘derailments’ (p. 171). Narcissism, accordingly, is understood to constitute an important reason of leaders’ failures (p. 177).
Chapters nine (‘Leadership for sustainable futures’) and ten (‘Leadership for the age of sustainability. A dualities approach to organizational change’) confront more specifically the question of sustainability. Sustainability would imply ‘identifying and negotiating with an increasingly complex set of external stakeholders’ (p. 212). Leaders, it is suggested, need to ‘find a balance between order and disorder’ (p. 236).
Finally, in the conclusion (‘Looking back to move forward’), Burnes emphasizes the notion of ‘participative management’ developed by Kurt Lewin. In other words, leaders should be ‘democratic’ (p. 252).
In contrast, Mick Fryer’s (2011) monograph Ethics and Organizational Leadership. Developing a Normative Model provides a more unified line of reasoning. Fryer’s book undertakes two tasks:
This study has two aims. Firstly, the book will explore various ideas about what might constitute ethical leadership. These ideas are gathered from the leadership literature, from moral philosophy, and from my own empirical research (…) It is by illuminating those tensions that I plan to work towards the book’s second aim, which is to develop a normative model of ethical organizational leadership (p. 2).
The argument draws on Hegel’s Phenomenology of the Spirit and Habermas’ theory of communicational rationality as well as on empirical research. Fryer characterizes an ethical leadership as ‘facilitative leadership’ (p. 199). However, facilitative leadership is hindered by the contemporary capitalism which imposes ‘the maximization of commercial performance and the acquisition and retention of power’. Nonetheless, accordingly, Fryer following Habermas in asserting that ‘communicative action can fight back’ (p. 200). This resistance could be implemented by, for instance, ‘single-issue protest groups, the environmental lobby, student bodies, and the news media’ (p. 200).
Several remarks can be made concerning both books. First, parts of Fryer’s (2011) book and some chapters Todnem and Burnes (2013) ground their reasoning on empirical research or case studies in order to draw universal claims, in particular the chapters of Newton and Franck and Mantere. This is problematic because it is implicitly based on the metaphysical idea of a universal human nature. However, it could be argued that ethical behaviours are relative to contexts, history, culture or singularity. Therefore, a case study might not allow us to understand ethics and leadership in general, but only a specific anecdotal situation. This issue could have been dealt with more thoroughly.
Second, both texts lacked a systematic engagement with the influence of the contemporary transformations of capitalism on the ethics of leadership. In other words, these reflections on ethics and leadership appeared very abstract. The functioning of ethics in neoliberal and post-Fordist society is not similar to ethics in traditional or Fordist society. More important, the issues of power and exploitation within organizations are neglected because the approaches of both books do not provide a political economy.
In effect, Ethics and Organizational Leadership and most of the chapters of Organizational Change, Leadership and Practice assume that a democratic and ethical management is possible (Fryer, 2011: 200; Todnem and& Burnes, 2013: 246). Nonetheless, this assumption is never significantly argued. The idea that leadership would be anti-democratic is never discussed (Parker 2002; Rancière 1991, 2007).
Finally, most of the chapters of Todnem and Burnes (2013)(except perhaps Rhodes, Boje and Saylors) lack a substantial engagement with the history of philosophy and, in particular, the contemporary debates involving phenomenology and post-structuralism.
That said, both books are to be welcomed for many reasons. They provide an overview of contemporary theories and debates in the field of organizational leadership and ethics, re-ignite important concerns around ethics and morality that are all too often hidden from view in the discourse of ‘heroic’ leadership, and lay out a research agenda for future scholarship in the field.