Rethinking followership: A post-structuralist analysis of follower identities

The Leadership Quarterly 17 (2006) 179 – 189

Rethinking followership: A post-structuralist analysis of follower identities David Collinson * Lancaster University Management School, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK

Abstract A number of recent studies highlight the importance of followership, of identity issues for leadership processes, and of leaders’ capacity to shape followers’ identity. Reviewing these various contributions, this article outlines the potential value of poststructuralist theories for the study of followership and follower identities. It presents an alternative way of conceiving identity and power and examines a wider repertoire of follower selves, exploring in particular the workplace enactment of conformist, resistant, and dramaturgical identities. Suggesting that leaders’ impact on followers’ identities may be more complex than previously recognized, the article concludes that studies of leadership need to develop a much deeper understanding of follower identities and of the complex ways that these selves may interact with those of leaders. D 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Followership; Follower identity; Conformity; Resistance; Dramaturgy

1. Introduction It is often stated that the essence of leadership is followership and that without followers there can be no leaders. There are certainly many more followers in the world than leaders and even many leaders in organizations are themselves also followers. Yet despite this, research on leadership has historically been heavily leader-focused with little attention paid to followers. Studies have typically concentrated on leaders as if they were entirely separate from those they lead while followers have tended to be treated as an undifferentiated mass or collective. The growing literature on followership constitutes one specific challenge to these traditional assumptions. Insisting that followers are integral to the leadership process (Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2001), an increasing number of writers argue that bexemplaryQ, bcourageousQ, and bstarQ followers are a precondition for bsuccessfulQ organizations (e.g., Chaleff, 2003; Kelley, 1992, 2004; Lundin & Lancaster, 1990; Potter, Rosenbach, & Pittman, 2001; Raelin, 2003; Rosenau, 2004; Seteroff, 2003). Rejecting the common stereotype of followers as timid, docile sheep, these writers argue that in the contemporary context of greater team working, bempowered, knowledge workersQ, and bdistributedQ and bsharedQ leadership, bgood followership skillsQ have never been more important. This article seeks to contribute to the emerging interest in followership by exploring the construction of follower identity in the workplace. Historically, a considerable number of different intellectual traditions have examined self,

* Tel.: +44 1524 593147; fax: +44 1524 844262. E-mail address: [email protected]. 1048-9843/$ - see front matter D 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.12.005

180

D. Collinson / The Leadership Quarterly 17 (2006) 179–189

identity, and subjectivity. Some of the most influential include the philosophical approaches of existentialism (Sartre, 1958) and phenomenology (Schutz, 1972), the sociological theories of symbolic interactionism (Mead, 1934), interpretative sociology (Weber, 1947), and social anthropology (Becker, 1971; Cohen, 1994), and the more cognitive perspectives of social psychology (Allport, 1955; Kelly, 1955; Tajfel, 1974) and psychoanalysis (Freud, 1930; Jung, 1964). Recently, there has been a resurgence of interest in identity issues within social theory (Bauman, 2004; Elliott, 2005; Jenkins, 2004) and in management and organization studies (Aaltio & Mills, 2002; Ibarra 2004; Thomas, Mills, & Mills, 2004). This article considers the value of post-structuralist analysis, an approach that has been at the forefront of new thinking on identity. Exploring the inter-relations or bdualityQ (Giddens, 1979, 1984, 1987) between structure and action, the perspective outlined below seeks to acknowledge the importance of both structures (avoiding voluntarism) and agency (avoiding determinism). By examining how workplace structures, cultures, identities, and practices can reflect and reproduce one another, this approach is concerned to reveal the dynamic and shifting nature of organizational and group relations and the active agency of those in subordinate positions. The following article also draws on my own qualitative empirical research findings over the past 25 years in various UK sectors, ranging from manufacturing and financial services to printing and the North Sea oil industry, addressing topics such as shop floor culture, gender and masculinity, workplace safety, and managerial careers. These studies have involved research with those in senior positions and with the workforce at all levels within the organization. A recurrent focus has been the impact of leadership and management practices on followers and their numerous responses to these initiatives. The article begins by reviewing the available work on identity in the leadership literature. A small number of studies suggest that leaders can shape followers’ identity. Critically evaluating these ideas, the article builds on a series of alternative, post-structuralist assumptions about the nature of subjectivity and power and explores a wider repertoire of follower identities, describing in particular the workplace enactment of conformist, resistant, and dramaturgical selves. A central argument here is that leaders’ impact on followers’ identities may be more complex than previously recognized. The article concludes by suggesting that studies of leadership need to develop a much deeper understanding of follower identities and of the complex ways that these selves may interact with those of leaders. 2. Identity in leadership studies Just as the importance of followership is increasingly being recognized, there is also growing interest in the role of social identity within leadership dynamics. Informed by the idea that leadership is primarily a group process, social psychologists have developed bthe social identity theory of leadershipQ which asserts that social identity is implicated in all forms of leadership (van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003). Hogg (2001) argues that leadership is contingent upon the degree to which leaders are perceived as bprototypicalQ of the group’s identity. He predicts that followers will endorse leaders they see as quintessentially embodying the values of groups with which they strongly identify (Hogg, Martin, & Weeden, 2003). Haslam and Platow (2001) assert that leadership and identity are mutually interdependent features of group life. Leadership depends on group members sharing a consensual social identity and leaders can play a fundamental part in constructing this shared identity. For Haslam and Platow, the very possibility of leadership depends upon the existence or creation of a shared group identity. Other writers in this tradition argue that identity is important for understanding leadership decision-making (Kramer, 2003), language (Reid & Ng, 2003), and influence tactics (van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2003). While most of this work has concentrated on leaders’ identity, there is also some interest in the way that leaders may influence followers’ identity as an indirect means of increasing their commitment (Chemers, 2003). Informed by the transformational leadership literature in particular, recent research suggests that leaders need to identify, satisfy, and even change followers’ needs, values, and goals (Bass, 1998; Burns, 1978). Grint (1999) argues that in seeking to persuade followers to follow, leaders try to bforgeQ followers’ identities. In their bself-concept based theoryQ of charismatic leadership, Shamir, House, and Arthur (1993) argue that by focusing on followers’ identity, charismatic leaders can profoundly transform subordinates’ commitment so that they perform above and beyond the call of duty. The authors contend that people are motivated by concerns to express themselves, enhance self-esteem, and to retain a sense of self-consistency over time, deriving meaning and identity

D. Collinson / The Leadership Quarterly 17 (2006) 179–189

181

from continuity between the past, the present and the projected future. Shamir et al. argue that charismatic leaders can bengageQ, bestablishQ, bvalidateQ, bimplicateQ, bevokeQ and brecruitQ followers’ identities. Leaders can, for example, act as role models, articulate a vision and encourage followers’ psychological identification and value internalization. In their bfollower-centered perspective on leadershipQ, Lord and Brown (2001, 2004) argue that research needs to understand the bself-regulatory mechanismsQ which are central to follower motivation and then work backwards to analyze how leaders might influence these processes (research has typically worked in the converse way). Defining leadership as a social process through which the leader changes the way followers envision themselves, Lord and Brown view identity as a highly important underlying mechanism that can provide a flexible, integrating framework for the study of leadership. They focus on the concept of self because it can be influenced (by leaders), is internal to subordinates (shapes their motivations), and is robust (is informed by extensive literature). Lord and Brown view identities as self-categorizations based on similarities with and differences from others (personal identities) and those based on group membership (social identities). The self guides perception and behavior and gives meaning to memory. It is not a unitary whole but a confederation of selves that vary across time and context. Lord and Brown argue that, as we cannot simultaneously attend to the memories and behavioral information associated with the many alternative selfconcepts that we possess, bthe working self-conceptQ (WSC) tends to predominate at any one time. The WSC is a continually shifting combination of core and peripheral self-schemas that acts as a self-regulating mechanism, simplifying processing and avoiding potential conflict between differing aspects of the self. It comprises three main components (self-views, current goals, and possible future selves) interacting to create control systems that regulate motivation and affect. The authors recommend that leaders influence followers by shifting the salience of different elements of subordinates’ identities or by creating new aspects of their self-concept. Leaders should link motivation and reward to followers’ identities, bactivatingQ the appropriate self rather than directly stressing specific goals. For Lord and Brown, such self-relevant linkages will be more powerful motivators because they engage a number of affective, cognitive, and behavioral processes, not triggered by externally imposed goals. The foregoing social psychological literature demonstrates the importance of identity for understanding both leadership and followership. In particular, Lord and Brown’s ideas on the self-regulating and multiple aspects of follower identity point to the important links between identity and power (see also Lord & Hall, 2003). Poststructuralist approaches share a concern with precisely these issues. However, they also tend to offer a much wider view of both identity and power. Post-structuralist approaches view identity as highly ambiguous, multiple and potentially contradictory, locating subjectivity in its organizational and social conditions and consequences. For them, it is not only group, but also organizational membership that crucially shapes identity processes. Many poststructuralist studies also explore identity construction in specific empirical contexts. Both Shamir et al. and Lord and Brown acknowledge that their ideas on follower identity are based on theoretical propositions that have not been tested empirically. 3. Post-structuralist perspectives on social identity Questioning the prevailing functionalist paradigm with its tendency to separate bindividualsQ from bsocietyQ, poststructuralist approaches hold that people’s lives are inextricably interwoven with the social world around them (Layder, 1994) and that individuals are best understood as bsocial selvesQ (Burkitt, 1991) whose actions always have to be understood within their complex conditions and consequences (Giddens, 1984). In particular, they focus on the ways that specific bpower/knowledgeQ regimes are inscribed on subjectivities. This approach has been heavily influenced by Foucault’s (1977, 1979) emphasis on the social, organizational and historical contingency of subjectivity and its discursive embeddedness in power and knowledge. Foucault argues that social control is typically reproduced through surveillance systems that render individuals bcalculableQ and bconfessionalQ selves who collude in their own subordination. Foucault’s emphasis on the way that identity can be incorporated into disciplinary processes clearly has some resonance with Lord and Brown’s focus on the bself-regulatingQ nature of identity. However, pointing to much wider regulatory forces, Foucault develops a fundamentally different view of power and subjectivity. Traditional conceptions treat power as a solely negative and repressive property exercised in a top down fashion. The foregoing writers on follower identity tend to associate power with coercion and differentiate this from leadership, which they define as an influence process that mobilizes others in the attainment of collective goals. Understanding leadership as a positive

182

D. Collinson / The Leadership Quarterly 17 (2006) 179–189

process of disproportionate social influence, they distinguish between influence (where followership is voluntary) and power (where followers are coerced into compliance or obedience). By contrast, post-structuralist perspectives reject this dualistic separation between power and influence and the assumption underpinning it, that power is inherently negative and coercive. They conceive of power as also being positive, productive, and creative, particularly in relation to producing identity. Accordingly, they view influence as one form of (leaders’) power. Equally, by treating power as an embedded and pervasive feature of organizational structures, cultures, and practices, post-structuralists problematize the notions of voluntary and freely chosen followership that inform much thinking on follower identity and followership more generally. For example, Foucault contends that monitoring produces subjects through bnormalizationQ, a process by which the eccentricities of human beings are measured and if necessary bcorrectedQ. Normalization constructs identity and knowledge by comparing, differentiating, hierarchizing, homogenizing, and excluding. Others have drawn on these ideas to illustrate how different organizational practices can regulate identity, producing bdisciplinedQ and bobedientQ selves (Rose, 1989). While identity has often been viewed in the literature as a singular, unitary and coherent entity, post-structuralists emphasize its multiple, shifting, fragmented, and non-rational character. Rather than viewing the self as an objectifiable, cognitive essence, post-structuralists argue that identity processes are fundamentally ambiguous and always in a state of flux and reconstruction. They suggest that identities are also frequently characterized by paradox and contradiction. In her study of a family-owned Japanese firm, Kondo (1990) contends that actors should be seen as multiple, gendered selves whose lives are shot through with contradictions and creative tensions. Arguing that identities are open, negotiable, shifting, and ambiguous, Kondo suggests that multiple selves are bcraftedQ not least through ambiguity, paradox, and contradiction. Recognizing that paid work (for men) is a crucial source of masculine identity, post-structuralist studies of men also reveal how masculine identities are diverse, differentiated, and shifting across time, space and culture (Hearn & Collinson, 2006; Martin, 2001). Barrett (2001) found that US navy officers defined themselves through masculine identities. Aviators emphasized their risk taking; surface warfare officers prioritized their endurance while supply officers highlighted their technical rationality. Reproducing a dominant masculinity valuing a rugged heterosexuality, navy officers differentiated themselves from women and gay men. These studies demonstrate that (gendered) selves can be constructed through simultaneous processes of identification and differentiation. Post-structuralist writers also question the search for coherent and consistent identities that tends to be taken for granted in the foregoing literature on follower identity. In an earlier article, I highlighted the neglected importance of insecurity for understanding identity constructions, particularly in Western societies (Collinson, 2003). Uncertainties and insecurities about who we are, how we should live, and what significant others think of us can take many different forms. Historically, there has been a broad (albeit uneven) shift in social values from bascriptionQ in feudal societies to bachievementQ in meritocratic societies. While this transformation has resulted in increasingly individualized and open identities providing greater freedom and choice, it has also produced more precarious, isolated, and insecure subjectivities (Fromm, 1977). No longer fixed at birth by, for example religion or gender, identity now has to be recursively earned and achieved. As individuals search to revalidate identity, insecurities about self may become a permanent feature of everyday experience. Sennett and Cobb (1977) describe how meritocratic ideals can produce in American manual workers ba doubt about the selfQ and a preoccupation with reconstructing a dignified identity in conditions of its erosion. Corporate restructuring and recent moves towards more flexible, temporary, and outsourced employment can further reinforce such employee insecurities (Sennett, 2000). In addition to social and economic change and the impact of organizational structures and practices, insecurities about identity can be exacerbated by the ambiguities of subjectivity and individuals’ attachment to particular notions of self. In so far as subjectivity is characterized by a dual experience of self, as both subject (active agent in the world) and object (individuals can reflect back on themselves and also on the way (they believe) others see them), there is an irreducible ambiguity at the heart of identity construction. Accordingly, attempts to overcome or deny this ambiguity by trying to define an entirely clear, coherent and consistent self as either subject (for example, leader) or object (for example, follower) may further reinforce, rather than resolve the very ambiguity and insecurity identity strategies are intended to overcome (Collinson, 2003). The narcissistic search to create and maintain a specific and clear identity can be especially contradictory given that we rarely, if ever, experience a singular or unitary self (Nkomo & Cox, 1996). Simultaneously occupying many

D. Collinson / The Leadership Quarterly 17 (2006) 179–189

183

subjective positions, identities, and allegiances, human beings construct co-existing identities from many different aspects of our lives (e.g., ethnicity, religion, family, gender, age, occupation, nationality, sexuality, political beliefs, and so forth). While elements of these multiple identities may be overlapping and mutually reinforcing, others can be in tension and even incompatible. In sum, a post-structuralist reading of the foregoing studies of follower identity suggests that they subscribe to an overly rational view of identity (as WSC) and a rather narrow definition of power (as coercion). Furthermore, it contends that the multiple nature of self is not necessarily automatically in balance, as Lord and Brown propose, but may also create unresolved tensions for followers. Viewing identity as a self-regulating mechanism, Lord and Brown’s rather mechanistic model seems to underestimate the conflicts, ambiguities, and tensions that may characterize follower identity construction within the workplace. Their recommendation that leaders should try to influence followers’ identity illustrates the very disciplinary processes post-structuralists seek to critique. Arguing that selves are much more open-ended, ambiguous, and uncertain, post-structuralists also question distinctions between bpersonalQ and bsocialQ identities and the idea that the self can be conceptualized at different levels (Lord and Brown differentiate between individual, relational, and collective). Such distinctions may have some heuristic value. Yet, in practice and particularly in experiential terms it is difficult to demarcate clear boundaries between different aspects of identity. Post-structuralists suggest that such levels are inherently ambiguous, typically blurred, and usually overlapping. Gleeson and Shain (2003) examine the contradictory identities of academic middle managers in mediating largescale organizational change and intensified targets. They document the volatile working conditions that give rise to ambiguity and double identities for middle managers who are caught in the middle between senior management and lecturers. Middle managers’ attempts to manage these changes and the ambiguous and vulnerable identities it produces informs their responses in terms of bwilling complianceQ (those who are wholeheartedly committed to the change process), bunwilling complianceQ (those who are skeptical and disenchanted but only develop a range of defensive coping strategies), and bstrategic complianceQ (those who are able to reconstruct the change process in ways that maintain their core values). Building on these ideas, the following sections now examine followers’ conformist, resistant, and dramaturgical selves in turn, three identities that have re-occurred in leader-follower dynamics within my own empirical research. These are not meant to provide an exhaustive list, but are rather indicative of the different follower identities that can be enacted in the workplace. 4. Conformist selves Foucault pointed to the way that workplace surveillance systems produce disciplined selves. His arguments have inspired researchers to explore how, for example, corporate culture (Casey, 1995), performance assessment (Townley, 1994), and new technologies (McKinlay & Starkey, 1998) can discipline employees by tying them to particular identities. As Alvesson and Willmott (2002) argue, bidentity regulationQ is now a central feature of organizational control in bpost-bureaucraticQ organizations. These studies illustrate how workplace discipline can actively construct followers’ conformist selves. A post-structuralist reading suggests that many of the aforementioned studies on followership promote conformist follower selves through their focus on codified blueprints of the perfect follower. Prescribing the essential qualities of exemplary followership (for example, integrity, honesty, and credibility), they produce objectified categories that reduce the complexity of followers’ behavior to conformist ideal-types and neglect any bnegativeQ aspects of followers’ behavior (Bratton, Grint, & Nelson, 2004). Shamir (2004) presents a more sophisticated overview of five main follower motivations, all of which can be viewed as examples of conformist selves. bPosition-basedQ followers respect leaders’ formal position in a social institution. bCalculated followersQ believe that following will help them achieve their goals. bSafety-basedQ followers hope that leaders will satisfy their needs for security. bMeaning-basedQ followers fear chaos and look to leaders to provide order and meaning. Finally, bidentity-basedQ followers seek to enhance their own self-esteem by identifying with leaders they perceive as powerful and attractive. The approach outlined in this article suggests that, far from being separated off as a discrete follower concern, identity-based motivations crucially inform all five of these categories. From this post-structuralist perspective, conforming individuals tend to be preoccupied with themselves as valued objects in the eyes of those in authority (Collinson, 1992). Conformist selves can take many different forms, reflecting

184

D. Collinson / The Leadership Quarterly 17 (2006) 179–189

different degrees of follower commitment to the organization and its leadership. While the deferential worker is a clear illustration of an obedient identity, a more contemporary example is the ambitious, striving self of the upwardly mobile bknowledge workerQ. Grey (1994) explores the disciplinary impact of career as ba meaningful project of the selfQ. He shows how aspiring individuals tend to treat all organizational and even personal relations as a means to the end of career progress. A post-structuralist approach suggests that this instrumentalism may also have counter-productive effects. Career success might not achieve the material and identity security or the sense of control followers desire. While the remuneration, status and perks of more senior positions could enhance their identities, highly ambitious followers can feel compelled to work longer hours, meet tight deadlines, travel extensively, and be geographically mobile at the behest of the company. This in turn could increase stress levels, be incompatible with domestic responsibilities, and even contribute to the breakdown of marriages (Collinson & Collinson, 2004). By limiting their analysis to conformity, writers on followership tend to under-estimate its potentially detrimental consequences. Yet, the Nazi extermination of six million Jews and the explanation from those involved that they were just dobeying ordersT serves as an extreme and stark reminder about the potential dangers of conformity. While Milgram’s (1963) experiments highlighted peoples’ willingness to obey authority, Fromm (1977) pointed to bthe fear of freedomQ where individuals try to shelter in the perceived security of being told what to do and what to think, viewing this as a less threatening alternative to the responsibility of making decisions for themselves. Hogg (2004) recognizes that unquestioning conformity can have harmful consequences and may compromise the quality of decision-making. Similarly, Bratton et al. (2004) highlight the negative organizational effects of bdestructive consent Q and the potentially positive consequences of bconstructive dissent Q. The production of conformist follower selves is certainly one possible outcome of contemporary leadership dynamics. Yet is conformity inevitable? Post-structuralist writers suggest that other follower identities often emerge in organizations. 5. Resistant selves While very few studies of leadership (or followership) examine follower resistance, oppositional selves are a central concern of post-structuralist analysis. This perspective holds that workplace resistance is not only a primary means through which employees may express discontent, but is also a way for followers to construct alternative, more positive identities to those provided or prescribed by the organization (Collinson & Ackroyd, 2005). Often informed by Foucault’s (1977) assertion that power invariably produces resistance especially in the guise of micro acts of local defiance, post-structuralists point to the construction and protection of self as an important motivator for follower resistance. Equally, such ideas build on Goffman’s (1968) work on the bunderlife of total institutionsQ which also made important connections between identity and resistance in organizations. Chaleff (2003) is one of the few writers on followership to consider the possibility of followers’ more oppositional identity (see also Kouzes & Posner, 2004; Rosenau, 2004). Observing that bhonest feedbackQ from followers to leaders is frequently absent in organizations, he suggests that close followers need to be more bcourageousQ, to voice constructive criticism particularly if they believe the leader is not acting in the best interests of the company. Chaleff recommends that courageous followers should challenge leaders’ views and decisions (whilst also displaying integrity, responsibility and service). Chaleff cites Hirschman (1990) who argues that in responding to organizational decline, individuals are likely either to resign from (exit) or try to change (voice) products or processes they find objectionable. Hirschman assumes that consumer and employee behavior are synonymous. Yet, it is usually much easier to stop buying a product than it is to resign one’s job. A post-structuralist approach would argue that Chaleff tends to underestimate the costs and overestimate the possibilities of both voice and exit for employed followers. The ramifications of risking dissent may be much more severe than Chaleff acknowledges. For example, the growing literature on bwhistle blowingQ suggests that followers who express their concerns in precisely the way advocated by Chaleff need to recognize that their actions might be career-damaging and may even result in being fired (Miceli & Near, 2002; Rothschild & Miethe, 1994). Those in senior positions frequently view whistle blowing as bdisloyaltyQ and may dismiss resistance as the action of dlosersT (Barron, Crawley, & Paulina, 2003). For many employees the possibility of being disciplined for expressing dissent and of having to find another

D. Collinson / The Leadership Quarterly 17 (2006) 179–189

185

job can be quite daunting, creating material (salary) and symbolic (erosion of autonomy and self-respect) anxieties that can significantly limit their enactment of courageous, resistant selves. Despite the widespread decline of organized industrial action, the introduction of new surveillance technologies, and disciplinary working practices, research suggests that resistance continues to characterize many organizations (Hodson, 2001). Post-structuralists demonstrate the diverse, shifting, and multiple nature of oppositional identities (Jermier, Knights, & Nord, 1994). They argue that workplace resistance is often covert and subterranean, expressed in sabotage, indifference, and even irony and satire (Rodrigues & Collinson, 1995). While such processes have received far less attention than visible resistance like strikes, their disruptive effects should not be underestimated. Camouflaged worker discontent may even be targeted at customers (Leidner, 1993). Followers’ dissent can be fuelled by their awareness of significant discrepancies between leaders’ policies and actual practices and by leaders repeatedly changing the rules or the goals of performance measurement. Detecting inconsistencies between the team working ideal and work intensification, workers in a U.S. Subaru Isuzu plant refused to participate in corporate rituals, sent highly critical anonymous letters to the company, and used humor to make light of the company’s team-working and continuous improvement philosophies (Graham, 1995). Rejecting a corporate culture designed to colonize employee selves, Australian call center workers constructed an opposing identity through humorous cynicism (Fleming & Spicer, 2003). Israeli employees drew on national identity to resist a merger between two previously competing international organizations (Ailon-Souday & Kunda, 2003). Chaleff’s focus on courageous followership has some similarities with my own examination of bresistance through persistenceQ (Collinson, 2000). Here followers sought to render leaders’ decisions more visible through persistent demands for greater information, accountability and openness. While this strategy was relatively effective in achieving change, it was also rather uncommon. bResistance through distanceQ was much more prevalent. Restricting output, effort, knowledge, and communication, workers constructed counter-cultural identities in opposition to leaders. By psychologically distancing themselves from the organization, followers tended to divide their identity between the bindifferent me at workQ and the breal me outsideQ. They built a psychological wall between bpublicQ and bprivateQ selves, privileging the latter and de-emphasizing the former. Feminist post-structuralist studies reveal that followers’ oppositional selves can also take gendered forms. Writers describe how male-dominated counter-cultures are typically characterized by breadwinner identities and the valorization of bpracticalQ manual skills as a confirmation of masculinity and opposition to management (Cockburn, 1983; Willis, 1977). Research on female-dominated workplaces suggests that women may also resist managerial control strategies (Ashcraft & Mumby, 2004). In addition, these writers address the contradictory effects of follower resistance. Burrell (1992) contends that resistance might constitute a visible target, enabling the intensification of discipline and control. Willis (1977) reveals that by validating the masculinity of manual work, the counter-cultures of working class bladsQ facilitate their smooth transition into precisely the kind of employment that entraps them, possibly for the rest of their working lives. Similarly, the precarious nature of resistance through distancing can be literally bbrought homeQ to workers when markets deteriorate and companies announce lay-offs (Collinson, 2000). In sum, post-structuralist studies highlight the importance of resistant selves in the workplace. This focus on followers’ opposition suggests that identity construction in organizations may be shaped by differentiation as much as identification. It also reveals the significant barriers that can limit follower’s explicit dissent and the potentially contradictory outcomes of oppositional identities. The persistence of resistant selves underlines that leaders cannot always control followers’ perceptions, identities and practices. By also emphasizing the possibility that resistance will be subject to discipline and sanctions, post-structuralists observe that followers may feel compelled to bself-censorQ for fear of the consequences that dissent may produce. In such cases even silence might be an expression of a resistant self. 6. Dramaturgical selves Within contemporary UK organizations it is now common for employee performance to be monitored through, for example, productivity targets, appraisal systems, performance-related-pay, and league tables. Post-structuralists suggest that such audit cultures construct identity, providing a quantified measure of a calculable self that can be graded and compared. Under the gaze of authority, individuals become increasingly aware of themselves as visible objects. As a result of routinized surveillance and the heightened self-consciousness it produces, followers can become increasingly skilled manipulators of self and information (Collinson, 1999).

186

D. Collinson / The Leadership Quarterly 17 (2006) 179–189

This dramaturgical notion of self applies Goffman’s (1959) ideas of impression management to surveillance processes. Suggesting that social life is analogous to a theatrical performance, Goffman argued that interaction is like an information game in which individuals strategically disclose, exaggerate, or deliberately neglect information. Social psychologists view impression management as a normal and vital component of organizational life, emphasizing its utility in practices like appraisal, negotiations, and career strategies (Giacalone & Rosenfeld, 1991). While these writers prescribe impression management, post-structuralists argue that assessment processes are disciplinary, frequently intensifying followers’ material and symbolic insecurity and making employees more likely to engage in impression management (Collinson & Collinson, 2004). Bowles and Coates (1993) contend that evaluative practices encourage employees to construct the kind of self they think appraisers want to see. Miller and Morgan (1993) observe that increased surveillance of academic performance has intensified the use of impression management in the construction of CVs. Followers may also deploy dramaturgical strategies to reduce the visibility of surveillance. Research on North Sea oilrigs found that offshore workers frequently restricted the reporting of accident-related information (Collinson, 1999). In the context of a performance assessment system that prioritized safety above all other considerations, oilrig workers felt compelled to conceal or downplay information about accidents, injuries, and near misses. Precisely because such practices constituted a sacking offence, workers also disguised their under-reporting. While digital technologies can be used to intensify surveillance (Lyon, 2001), virtual audiences may also provide a new stage for dramaturgical performances. By reconfiguring time and space, technologies like email and cell phones can facilitate dramaturgical claims by leaders and followers about where they are, what they are doing, and even who they are. In addition, on-line and email protocol raises further questions about the strategic and political nature of communication. This is not just in relation to the content of messages, but also regarding who is being emailed, who is copied in, and who is excluded. Equally, users may dramaturgically self-censor and strategically monitor their on-line practices, aware that messages can be monitored, recorded and stored. Certainly electronic communication can become a highly contested terrain. The distancing features of electronic communication may enable the exercise of authority and control, encourage bflame mailQ, and could even facilitate employee resistance. Suffice it to say here, that such virtual selves raise important questions for future research on leadership and followership. In sum, while the leadership literature tends to assume that it is primarily leaders who use impression management (see Gardner & Avolio, 1998), a post-structuralist perspective highlights the importance and extent of followers’ dramaturgical selves especially in the context of increased surveillance. In so far as monitoring tends to intensify individuals’ self-consciousness, followers can become skilled choreographers of their own practices, learning over time to be more self consciously strategic in response to bthe gazeQ. Dramaturgical selves may be conformist, resistant or, more typically, a mixture of both. As Kondo argues, employees often consent, cope, and resist, at different levels of consciousness at a single point in time. 7. Conclusion This article has addressed the growing importance of followership and follower identity for understanding leadership processes. Historically, studies of leadership have either neglected followership or restricted their concern to a focus on followers’ attributions of exceptional qualities to leaders through, for example, romanticism, idealization, and fantasy (Shamir, 1999). Informed by the growing interest in identity issues, more recent studies argue that leaders should motivate followers by shaping their identities. This article has argued that leaders’ impact on follower identities may be more complex than previously recognized and that studies of leadership need to develop a broader and deeper understanding of followers’ identities, and of the complex ways that these selves may interact with those of leaders. While it is often assumed that leaders and followers retain a shared sense of identity, post-structuralist analyses reveal that followers’ identities may be more differentiated and contested within the workplace. Followers might enact resistant and dramaturgical selves producing outcomes that leaders may not anticipate, be aware of, or indeed even understand. Research suggests that leaders often seem surprised by the unanticipated ways followers react to their plans (Collinson, 2005). In transnational corporations employees may inhabit very different cultures and might construct rather different selves to those familiar to leaders. Even in more local contexts, leaders may need to make much greater efforts to work effectively with increasingly heterogeneous and diverse staff members (Offerman, 2004). Equally, while followers typically have to negotiate asymmetrical power relations and the possibility of being

D. Collinson / The Leadership Quarterly 17 (2006) 179–189

187

disciplined for expressing dissent, their self-censorship should not necessarily be confused with commitment or consent. A post-structuralist approach also suggests that, rather than being a fixed and objective essence, identity is much more open, negotiable, and ambiguous. Given the socially constructed, multiple, and shifting character of selves, attempts to construct coherent identities may produce contradictory effects, actually reinforcing the very insecurities they are intended to overcome. Accordingly, researchers should not simply assume that leaders are able effectively to manipulate followers’ identities. If leaders are to cultivate a deeper understanding of follower identities, they may need to let go of their own selfpreoccupations. As Collins (2001) suggests, blevel 5 leadersQ, who are relatively humble and thus less concerned with self, may be more effective. Recent studies suggest that some leaders act in highly self-obsessed and narcissistic ways (Kets de Vries, 2001; Maccoby, 2001; Roberts, 2001). Shamir, Dayan-Horesh, and Adler (2005) argue that some leaders seek to influence followers by strategically constructing their own life histories and identities in selfaggrandizing ways. Similarly, leadership development programs can perpetuate leaders’ self-preoccupations through their emphasis on bself-developmentQ, bself-awarenessQ, and bself improvementQ (Jones, 2005). This research suggests that leaders’ identity pre-occupations can restrict their understanding of followers and ultimately constrain effective practice. In sum, post-structuralist perspectives argue that the identities of followers and leaders are frequently a condition and consequence of one another. This raises an interesting possibility, rarely considered in the literature, that followers might also impact on leaders’ identities. While some authors propose that we should concentrate exclusively on followers (Meindl, 1995), a post-structuralist analysis views the identities of followers and leaders as inextricably linked, mutually reinforcing, and shifting within specific contexts. The current interest in distributed and dispersed leadership and empowered and exemplary followership suggests that the traditional dichotomous identities of leader and follower are increasingly ambiguous and blurred. This challenge to dualistic thinking raises fundamental questions for the future of leadership both in theory and practice. References Aaltio, I., & Mills, A. J. (2002). Gender, identity and the culture of organizations. London7 Routledge. Ailon-Souday, G., & Kunda, G. (2003). The local selves of global workers: The social construction of national identity in the face of organizational globalization. Organization Studies, 24(7), 1073 – 1096. Allport, G. W. (1955). Becoming. New Haven, Conn7 Yale University Press. Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. (2002). Identity regulation as organizational control: Producing the appropriate individual. Journal of Management Studies, 39(5), 619 – 644. Ashcraft, K. L., & Mumby, D. K. (2004). Reworking gender: A feminist communicology of organization. London7 Sage. Barrett, F. J. (2001). The organizational construction of hegemonic masculinity: The case of the U.S. navy. In S. M. Whitehead, & F. J. Barrett (Eds.), The masculinities reader (pp. 77 – 99). Cambridge7 Polity Press. Barron, R. S., Crawley, K., & Paulina, D. (2003). Aberrations of power: Leadership in totalist groups. In D. van Knippenberg, & M. Hogg (Eds.), Leadership and power: Identity processes in groups and organizations (pp. 169 – 183). London7 Sage. Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership. New Jersey7 Lawrence Erlbaum. Bauman, Z. (2004). Identity. Cambridge7 Polity Press. Becker, E. (1971). The birth and death of meaning. Harmondsworth7 Penguin. Bowles, M., & Coates, G. (1993). Image and substance: The management of performance as rhetoric or reality? Personnel Review, 22(2), 3 – 21. Bratton, J., Grint, K., & Nelson, D. (2004). Organizational leadership. Mason, Ohio7 South Western/Thomson. Burkitt, I. (1991). Social selves: Theories of the social formation of personality. London7 Sage. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York7 Harper Row. Burrell, G. (1992). The organization of pleasure. In M. Alvesson, & H. Willmott (Eds.), Critical management studies (pp. 66 – 89). London7 Sage. Casey, C. (1995). Work, self and society. London7 Routledge. Chaleff, I. (2003). The courageous follower (2nd ed.). San Francisco7 Berrett-Koehler. Chemers, M. M. (2003). Leadership effectiveness: Functional, constructivist and empirical perspectives. In D. van Knippenberg, & M. Hogg (Eds.), Leadership and power: Identity processes in groups and organizations (pp. 5 – 17). London7 Sage. Cockburn, C. (1983). Brothers. London7 Pluto. Cohen, A. P. (1994). Self consciousness: An alternative anthropology of identity. London7 Routledge. Collins, J. (2001). Good to great. London7 Random House. Collinson, D. L. (1992). Managing the shopfloor: Subjectivity, masculinity and workplace culture. Berlin7 Walter de Gruyter. Collinson, D. L. (1999). Surviving the rigs: Safety and surveillance on North Sea oil installations. Organization Studies, 20(4), 579 – 600. Collinson, D. L. (2000). Strategies of resistance: Power, knowledge and subjectivity in the workplace. In K. Grint (Ed.), Work and society: A reader (pp. 163 – 198). Cambridge7 Polity Press.

188

D. Collinson / The Leadership Quarterly 17 (2006) 179–189

Collinson, D. L. (2003). Identities and insecurities: Selves at work. Organization, 10(3), 527 – 547. Collinson, D. L. (2005). Questions of distance. Leadership, 1(2), 235 – 250. Collinson, D. L., & Ackroyd, S. (2005). Resistance, misbehavior and dissent. In S. Ackroyd, P. Thompson, P. Tolbert, & P. Batt (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of work and organizations (pp. 305 – 326). Oxford7 Oxford University Press. Collinson, D. L., & Collinson, M. (2004). The power of time: Leadership, management and gender. In C. F. Epstein, & A. L. Kalleberg (Eds.), Fighting for time: Shifting boundaries of work and social life (pp. 19 – 246). New York7 Russell Sage Foundation. Elliott, A. (2005). Concepts of the self. Cambridge7 Polity Press. Fleming, P., & Spicer, A. (2003). Working at a cynical distance: Implications for power, subjectivity and resistance. Organization, 10(1), 157 – 179. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish. London7 Allen Unwin. Foucault, M. (1979). The history of sexuality. London7 Allen and Unwin. Freud, S. (1930). Civilization and its discontents. London7 Hogarth. Fromm, E. (1977). The fear of freedom. London7 Routledge Kegan Paul. Gardner, W. L., & Avolio, B. J. (1998). The charismatic relationship: A dramaturgical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 23, 32 – 58. Giacalone, R., & Rosenfeld, P. (Eds.) (1991). Applied impression management. London7 Sage. Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory. London7 Macmillan. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Cambridge7 Polity. Giddens, A. (1987). Social theory and modern sociology. Cambridge7 Polity. Gleeson, D., & Shain, F. (2003). Managing ambiguity in further education. In N. Bennett, M. Crawford, & M. Cartwright (Eds.), Effective educational leadership (pp. 229 – 246). Open University with Paul Chapman Publishing. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Harmondsworth7 Penguin. Goffman, E. (1968). Asylums. Harmondsworth7 Penguin. Graham, L. (1995). On the line at Subaru-Isuzu. Ithaca7 ILR Press. Grey, C. (1994). Career as a project of the self and labor process discipline. Sociology, 28(2), 479 – 497. Grint, K. (1999). The arts of leadership. Oxford7 Oxford University Press. Haslam, S. A., & Platow, M. J. (2001). The link between leadership and followership: How affirming social identity translates vision into action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1469 – 1479. Hearn, J., & Collinson, D. (2006). Men, masculinities and workplace diversity: Power, intersections and paradoxes. In A. Konrad, P. Prasad, & J. Pringle (Eds.), Handbook of workplace diversity (pp. 299 – 322). London7 Sage. Hirschman, A. D. (1990). Exit, voice and loyalty. Cambridge, Mass7 Harvard University Press. Hodson, R. (2001). Dignity at work. London7 Cambridge University Press. Hogg, M. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(3), 184 – 200. Hogg, M. (2004). Obedience. In J. M. Burns, G. R. Goethals, & G. J. Sorenson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of leadership (pp. 1105 – 1111). London7 Sage Reference/Berkshire. Hogg, M., Martin, R., & Weeden, K. (2003). Leader-member relations and social identity. In D. van Knippenberg, & M. Hogg (Eds.), Leadership and power: Identity processes in groups and organizations (pp. 18 – 33). London7 Sage. Ibarra, H. (2004). Working identity. . London7 Harvard Business School Press. Jenkins, R. (2004). Social identity (2nd ed.). London7 Taylor and Francis. Jermier, J. M., Knights, D., & Nord, W. R. (Eds.). (1994). Resistance and power in organizations. London7 Routledge. Jones, A. (2005). Ritual process, liminality and identity in leadership development programs: A cultural analysis. Paper presented at the Sixth International Conference on HRD Research and Practice Across Europe. Leeds Business School, May. Jung, C. (1964). Man and his symbols. London7 Aldus Books. Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. New York7 Norton. Kelley, R. E. (1992). The power of followership. New York7 Doubleday. Kelley, R. E. (2004). Followership. In J. M. Burns, G. R. Goethals, & G. J. Sorenson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of leadership (pp. 504 – 513). Oxford7 Sage Reference/Berkshire. Kets de Vries, M. (2001). The leadership mystique. In K. Grint (Ed.), Leadership: Classical, contemporary and critical approaches (pp. 250 – 271). Oxford7 Oxford University Press. Kondo, D. K. (1990). Crafting selves: Power, gender and discourses of identity in a Japanese workplace. Chicago7 University of Chicago Press. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2004). Follower-oriented leadership. In J. M. Burns, G. R. Goethals, & G. J. Sorenson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of leadership (pp. 494 – 499). London7 Sage Reference/Berkshire. Kramer, R. M. (2003). The imperatives of identity: The role of identity in leader judgment and decision making. In D. van Knippenberg, & M. Hogg (Eds.), Leadership and power: Identity processes in groups and organizations (pp. 184 – 196). London7 Sage. Layder, D. (1994). Understanding social theory. London7 Sage. Leidner, R. (1993). Fast food, fast talk: Service work and the routinization of everyday life. Berkeley7 University of California Press. Lord, R. G., & Brown, D. J. (2001). Leadership, values and subordinate self-concepts. The Leadership Quarterly, 12(2), 133 – 152. Lord, R. G., & Brown, D. J. (2004). Leadership processes and follower self-identity. New Jersey7 Lawrence Erlbaum. Lord, R. G., & Hall, R. (2003). Identity, leadership categorization, and leadership schema. In D. van Knippenberg, & M. Hogg (Eds.), Leadership and power: Identity processes in groups and organizations (pp. 48 – 64). London7 Sage. Lundin, S. C., & Lancaster, L. C. (1990). Beyond leadership: The importance of followership. Futurist, 24, 18 – 22. Lyon, D. (2001). Surveillance society. Buckingham7 Open University Press. Maccoby, M. (2001). Narcissistic leaders: The incredible pros, the inevitable cons. In W. E. Rosenbach, & R. L. Taylor (Eds.), Contemporary issues in leadership 5th edition (pp. 281 – 295). Boulder, Colorado7 Westview Press.

D. Collinson / The Leadership Quarterly 17 (2006) 179–189

189

Marion, R., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2001). Leadership in complex organizations. The Leadership Quarterly, 12(4), 389 – 418. Martin, P. Y. (2001). Mobilizing masculinities: Women’s experience of men at work. Organization, 8(4), 587 – 618. McKinlay, A., & Starkey, K. (Eds.) (1998). Foucault, management and organization theory. London7 Sage. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society: From the standpoint of a social behaviorist. Chicago7 Chicago University Press. Meindl, J. (1995). The romance of leadership as a follower-centric theory: A social constructionist approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(3), 329 – 341. Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. (2002). What makes whistle-blowers effective? Three field studies. Human Relations, 55(4), 155 – 167. Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 69(2), 137 – 143. Miller, N., & Morgan, D. (1993). Called to account: The cv as an autobiographical practice. Sociology, 27(1), 133 – 143. Nkomo, S. M., & Cox, T. (1996). Diverse identities in organizations. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (pp. 338 – 356). London7 Sage. Offerman, L. (2004). Leader-follower relationships. J. M. Burns, G. R. Goethals, & G. J. Sorenson (Eds.), (2004). Encyclopedia of leadership (pp. 828 – 833). . Boulder, Colorado7 Sage Reference/Berkshire. Potter, E. H., Rosenbach, W. E., & Pittman, T. S. (2001). Followers for the times: Engaging employees in a winning partnership. In W. E. Rosenbach, & R. L. Taylor (Eds.), Contemporary issues in leadership (5th ed.). Boulder, Colorado7 Westview Press. Raelin, J. (2003). Creating leaderful organizations. San Fransisco7 Berrett-Koehler. Reid, S. A., & Ng, S. H. (2003). Identity, power and strategic social categorizations: Theorizing the language of leadership. In D. van Knippenberg, & M. Hogg (Eds.), Leadership and power: Identity processes in groups and organizations (pp. 210 – 223). London7 Sage. Roberts, J. (2001). Corporate governance and the ethics of narcissus. Business Ethics Quarterly, 11(1), 109 – 127. Rodrigues, S. B., & Collinson, D. L. (1995). Having fun: Humor as resistance in Brazil’. Organization Studies, 16(5), 739 – 768. Rose, N. (1989). Governing the soul. London7 Routledge. Rosenau, J. (Fall, 2004). Followership and discretion. Harvard International Review, 14 – 17. Rothschild, J., & Miethe, T. D. (1994). Whistleblowing as resistance in modern work organizations. In J. M. Jermier, D. Knights, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Resistance and power in organizations (pp. 252 – 273). London7 Routledge. Sartre, J. P. (1958). Being and nothingness. London7 Methuen. Schutz, A. (1972). The phenomenology of the social world. London7 Heinemann. Sennett, R. (2000). The corrosion of character: The personal consequences of work in the new capitalism. New York7 Norton. Sennett, R., & Cobb, J. (1977). The hidden injuries of class. Victoria, B.C.7 Cambridge University Press. Seteroff, S. S. (2003). Beyond leadership to followership. Victoria, B.C.7 Trafford. Shamir, B. (1999). Taming charisma for better understanding and greater usefulness: A response to Beyer. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(4), 555 – 562. Shamir, B. (2004). Motivation of followers. In J. M. Burns, G. R. Goethals, & G. J. Sorenson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of leadership (pp. 499 – 504). Sage Reference/Berkshire. Shamir, B., Dayan-Horesh, D., & Adler, D. (2005). Leading by biography: Towards a life-story approach to the study of leadership. Leadership, 1(1), 13 – 29. Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4(4), 577 – 594. Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behavior. Social Science Information, 13(2), 65 – 93. Thomas, R., Mills, A. J., & Mills, J. H. (Eds.) (2004). Identity politics at work: Resisting gender, gendering resistance. London7 Routledge. Townley, B. (1994). Reframing human resource management: Power, ethics and the subject at work. London7 Sage. van Knippenberg, D., & Hogg, M. (Eds.) (2003). Leadership and power: Identity processes in groups and organizations (pp. 123 – 137). London7 Sage. van Knippenberg, B., & van Knippenberg, D. (2003). Leadership, identity and influence: Relational concerns in the use of influence tactics. In D. van Knippenberg, & M. Hogg (Eds.), Leadership and power: Identity processes in groups and organizations (pp. 123 – 137). London7 Sage. Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. New York7 Oxford University Press. Willis, P. (1977). Learning to labor. London7 Saxon House.