C LASES DE COMPLEJIDAD

Drawing on the work outlined above, this section establishes the leadership framework criteria used to analyse BDS leadership. Due to my epistemological and ontological positioning, selection of framework criteria as means of analysis follows the interpretivist approach that the research employs. This positioning will be elaborated in chapter four. As noted above, there is no ready-made set of criteria upon which to draw although the six

criteria outlined below are all drawn from the existing literature, primarily the distributive leadership framework, augmented by the relational and social movement frameworks.

Heterarchical Structure

Heterarchical structure denotes an unranked power-sharing arrangement with numerous potential configurations and is the first organisational criterion. Distributive leadership requires the presence of some form of heterarchy in the organisational structure. However this is not to say that hierarchy must be also be absent, recalling Gronn’s (2009, p. 208) premise that distributed heterarchical leadership does not equate to egalitarianism. Distributed leadership is likely to feature a mixture of hierarchical and heterarchical leadership arrangements, and it is the degree to which heterarchy is present that is an important measure; this is so because the level of heterarchy corresponds to the level of development of diffuse leadership and diverse organisational networks. Furthermore, examining the organisational structure of the leadership allows for follow-up analysis of where power and leadership potential lie.

Informal and Formal Leadership

The presence of both informal and formal leadership provides the second organisational criterion. Whilst this is linked to the criteria above, it has separate implications for the nature of the movement and the flexibility of power-sharing arrangements. Informal and formal leadership perform distinct roles, operating in different organisational networks, but need not exist in a hierarchical structure. Having both these forms of leadership present allows increased functioning of the organisation in various realms (e.g. institutional, community-based), with the leadership remaining linked and unified. The combination of these forms of leadership would include the presence of Morris and Staggenborg’s (2004, p. 188) ideal leadership tiers which sees a natural (and arguably necessary) coexistence of informal and formal leadership.

Concertive Action

Concertive action focuses on the strength of the aggregate rather than individual efforts and is an operational criterion. Distributed leadership must value the collective over the

individual. This focus takes into account the entirety of the potential power of every aspect of the organisation when working as a whole. Gronn (2002, p. 430) proposes three types of concertive action: spontaneous collaboration, intuitive working relations and

institutionalised practices. This typology allows scope for analysis based on whether concertive action is present, and if so, in which forms. Concertive action is strongly tied to a heterarchical structure with a heterarchy naturally moving the focus away from individual pursuits and reward.

Conjoint Agency

Conjoint agency, like concertive action, is a mode of operating within a distributed leadership system. It examines the nature, rather than structure, of the organisation in question and is an operational criterion. The higher degree of conjoint agency present the greater the synergy for pursuit of a mutually agreed upon outcome. Conjoint agency cannot be forced and instead arises in relation to concertive action. Concertive action focuses on the strength of the aggregate and values the potential power of each element in different configurations; conjoint agency focuses on the presence of natural synergy within these different elements of the aggregate and is psychological rather than contractual. With regards to a distributed leadership framework, conjoint agency provides a means for an analysis of the wider operation of all organisations involved in the movement. The interactions of all organisations, and thus the degree to which conjoint agency is either present or absent, has significant effects upon the efficacy of the distributed leadership structure and thus the upon the strength of the movement.

Transnational Character

Transnational leadership is a geographical criterion which takes into account the

organisational character of the movement. Where and how the movement’s leadership is

spread is indicative of the geographical distribution and raises questions about the impact of globalisation upon distributed leadership. When a movement and its leadership are transnational, the likelihood of ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ leadership is increased and so too the associated advantages and disadvantages. Transnationalism is closely linked to the development and use of technology.

Frame Resonance

While frame resonance is originally a feature of social movement leadership frameworks, the transnational character of many social movements naturally sees a distributed leadership structure emerge. Frame resonance is predominantly a geographical criterion as it is tied to transnational success. Frame resonance is important for distributed

leadership as the movement’s message must traverse geographical, social, and culture

boundaries. Framing must be both context-sensitive and unified. Analysis of frame resonance is in turn an analysis of distributed leadership, raising questions of the process for framing and who it is done by. Effective transnational frame resonance is unlikely to be centrally controlled.