Análisis de los puestos

In this first of three findings sections, where is leadership, and how is its production implicated with power dynamics? Recall that I define leadership in terms of producing direction, i.e. turning points, which may materialise in three major ways:

a) A course of action has changed

b) Multiple courses of actions present themselves, yet the current one is actively reinforced

c) A difference to organising, i.e. to the practices under construction, has been made

In my theoretical framework, meanwhile, I define power in terms of one person’s actions structuring another person’s (or a group of peoples’) possible actions. In this concluding part of the first findings section, I will briefly elaborate on how leadership has materialised in the foregoing data, and how it is implicated with power relations. Although each of my three sections features all three ‘expressions’ of power, each section emphasises one of the faces in particular. The present section especially considers shaping norms, while section 4.2 attends to enabling/constraining action, and 4.3 to inclusion/exclusion. At the end of each of my three sections, therefore, I will attend to each ‘face’ respectively. It should be noted though that I may refer back to other sections; that is, section 4.2, for instance, may pick up aspects regarding enablement/constraint that have been discussed in section 4.1, and so on. I will repeat this procedure in the following two findings sections (4.2 and 4.3) as well.

In the above findings, the work of leadership is evident mainly in terms of three turning points. First, vignette 2 is a prime example of producing direction. To reiterate, the machine operator Keith encountered a problem that prevented his ordinary flow of doing to continue. He therefore took the initiative to analyse and solve the problem at hand. In other words, leadership materialised in terms of Keith being struck by unexpected events and having produced direction by setting and executing a particular course of action in response, which enabled the continuation of the production schedule.

A second turning point in the data is the establishment of the NOW initiative by the CEO, Jack, and Maria, a POD manager. As the tale so far has shown, TexCo found themselves at crossroads, needing to make drastic changes in order to survive

forward, and thus made a difference to organising in the sense of some practices needing to be dropped, whereas other practices needed to be refined and developed. Bringing to life the initiative has given the 12 members of the team discretion with regard to developing these new ways of working as in this section. Strikingly, this turning point one can be argued to be both a manifestation of leadership and power, since, as discussed in the following, setting the true north essentially entailed shaping what is legitimate and what is not, thereby structuring possible actions. From this perspective, the two NOW turning points can be seen as the enabler of other turning points down the line, such as the NOW initiative by itself.

Therefore, third and lastly, through engendering said new ways of working under the banner of ‘culture of innovation’ – embracing collaboration, autonomy and empowerment, creativity etc. – the NOW initiative itself can be seen as a turning point. Although I have not discussed a specific turning point in terms of observational data, the previous section let’s us glimpse into the ways the staff-led initiative, as an aggregate of multiple turning points, has made a profound impact on practices of organising – whereas the establishment of NOW can be seen as having set direction (the ‘true north’). Akin to the second, this turning point arguably has wider reaching effects, than for example turning points that change direction in the moment (such as Keith). Thus the NOW turning point materialises both as leadership and power, as it also structures future possible actions in the sense of what can and cannot be done – e.g. Keith being enabled to take the initiative.

Since this thesis is more concerned with how turning points are produced rather than what turning points are evident, I further consider how power dynamics were implicated in the production of these turning points. In this section, we can discern power dynamics implicated in the work of leadership in terms of three central and inherently related ways: by shaping norms and legitimacy (e.g. expecting staff to act according to the NOW sentiment, being pro-active in the production of direction), through regulating access to leadership practices (inclusion/exclusion; in this section, both Adrian and Abigail were removed); and, deeply linked to norms, by enabling and constraining action (showing that some activities are rendered possible, such as Keith taking the initiative, whilst others are rendered unacceptable, like Abigail refusing to evolve).

Shaping norms has been evident at multiple occasions during my time in the field, hence in the data and particularly this first section of my findings chapter that especially attends to how the company has evolved from the old days to the NOW era. Consider, for example, the quotes on the wall of the museum room. These I took not only to be a representation of the company to outsiders, but also a representation of particular desired and expectation-laden ways of being – e.g. the expectation to not only realise one has a voice, but also to be using it. Notions of access also map onto shaping legitimacy. Both Adrian and Abigail, two prominent figures in this section, were removed from practice essentially because they did not comply with the new ‘standards’ engendered by the NOW initiative (whether they were incapable of changing or simply refused to I cannot say). In this sense, the NOW initiative, if seen through a ‘power lens’, was involved in re-shaping what are considered legitimate and illegitimate ways of practicing.

Through establishing expectations, legitimacy was also driven by utilising discourse, such as employee ownership. Consider, for instance, how Jack reiterated employee ownership during the year-end presentation, or how he strongly encouraged, if not demanded, machine operators to address issues with colleagues themselves – after all, it is ‘their’ company. Implicit in shaping legitimacy and by extension norms is a fundamental imbalance of power in the sense that some actors are more influential when it comes to establishing what is seen as legitimate and acceptable. Furthermore, this points to a paradox, further explored in section 4.2: on the one hand such exercise of power enables others to do certain things (taking the initiative, hence producing direction), but constrains from doing other things (waiting for the bell to ring, hence not partaking in the work of leadership) on the other. In this section Madeleine, or Phil, for example, echoed this sanction by speaking of being shown the gate if one does not make an impact.

The example of Abigail and Adrian in relation to shaping norms links to another vital aspect of the data: norms have fundamentally evolved, ultimately affecting the ways direction might be produced and hence how leadership may materialise. As the section has argued, participating in the work of leadership in the old days meant mindlessly following and executing orders – if one was allowed access to leadership

participation in a project was completely shut down as soon as the board realised it was going to come to fruition. After the NOW initiative had been introduced, the work of leadership acquired new meaning. Arguably, leadership may still be about producing direction, yet the form this production may take has substantially evolved towards voicing concerns and challenging people, taking initiative, ‘making an impact’, as well as working and producing direction autonomously.

In the next section – 4.2: The ‘Boundedness’ of Empowerment – I am going to explore some of these aspects in more detail, concentrating particularly on the power face enablement/constraint, which is closely related to shaping norms/legitimacy.