Método de evaluación de usabilidad (Nielsen, Designing Web Usability, 1999)

Conceptualising leadership as a relational process or a ‘moment’ of social relations

(Ladkin, 2010), requires purposefully moving away from ‘human-centric’ thinking and,

instead, “towards an acknowledgement of leadership’s collective and open-ended

90

primacy of the heroic/masculine model remains resistant to change in both theory and practice (Kellerman & Rhode, 2007; McManus & Perruci, 2015; Sinclair, 2005). As noted

in Chapter Four, if women’s understandings of leadership fail to transcend traditional

‘leader-centred’ viewpoints, then leadership development is limited to the replacement of

the heroic-masculine archetype with a duplicate heroic-feminine model.

How then should we think about leadership? What does exercising ‘power-with’ others

instead of ‘power-over’ look like in practice? Answers to these questions can be found in

the short story ‘Sur’ (1982) by Ursula K. Le Guin. In problematising the traditional

‘leader’ role, the story requires the reader to rethink and embrace a more complex and

collaborative understanding of the leader-follower dynamic.

In an exploratory trip christened the ‘YelchoExpedition,’ nine women undertake a secret

journey to Antarctica (see plot synopsis). Although called “mad, or wicked, or both” (p.

319), the women are mobilised for action by their collective desire “to go, to see – no

more, no less” the untouched polar snows; “if Captain Scott can do it, why can’t we?” (p.

318). However, the journey is “attended with not inconsiderable uncertainty and danger”

(p. 319), especially since they hope to “go a little further, perhaps, and see a little more”

(p. 318) than both Ernest Shackleton and Captain Scott. The Narrator remembers that: At the time we left South America, we knew only that Mr Shackleton had mounted another expedition to the Antarctic in 1908, had tried to attain the Pole but failed, and had returned to England in June of the current year, 1909. (p. 327)

It would make sense to assume that such a physically and psychologically demanding, and not to mention dangerous, expedition would require the presence of a brave and heroic leader akin to Shackleton or Scott, along with a crew of well-disciplined and loyal followers. However, the unnamed female narrator rejects this simplistic and individualistically-oriented rendering of the leader-follower dichotomy:

But then, the backside of heroism is often rather sad; women and servants know that. They know also that the heroism may be no less real for that. But achievement is smaller than men think. What is large is the sky, the earth, the sea, the soul. (p. 323)

Not only does heroism have alienating consequences for ‘others,’ but individual

91

much larger ‘space’ in which it exists. So despite the fact that the women in ‘Sur’ venture

further than both Scott and Shackleton, they decide to leave no sign of their presence in

Antarctica, “we left no footprints even” (p. 330). The Narrator reflects with more than a hint of irony: “But I was glad… for some man longing to be first might come someday,

and find it, and know what a fool he had been, and break his heart” (p. 329). Their

expedition is relegated instead to the realm of fairy tales –a “world of seven suns”

inhabited by “a great white, mad dog named Blizzard!” (p. 329).

Subverting the ‘heroic’ masculine archetype of individual accomplishment, the women on

the Yelcho Expedition favour instead what Sinclair and Evans (2015) describe as

“distributed and context-determined leadership exemplified in processes of consultation,

devolved decision-making, development and empowerment of other women” (p. 140). In

other words, leadership for these nine adventurous women becomes a collective

undertaking, a process of mutual decision-making and influence: “The nine of us worked

things out amongst us from beginning to end without any orders being given by anybody,

and only two or three times with recourse to a vote by voice or show of hands” (p. 320). Consequently, rather than power residing solely with an appointed ‘leader’ figure,

leadership is allowed to flow freely between group members, directed by the purpose or

task at hand and dependent on each individual’s skills and abilities (Gronn, 2002; Ladkin, 2010). For example, Juana, the group’s surveyor, “had trained herself well,” and

subsequently acted as the team ‘leader’ when attaining the group’s shared goal rested on her “faithful and methodical” sightings and directions (p. 327). Likewise, Berta and Eva,

the “most ingenious builder-excavators,” jointly took on the role of “chief architect-

designers,” and were responsible for directing the women in the creation of habitable ice

dwellings (p. 324). However, this doesn’t mean the formal ‘leader’ role is completely void

or unnecessary. The Narrator is giventhe “unenviable honour” of being the voice that must

be obeyed should the group find themselves in urgent danger. But to her “very great

pleasure and relief” her qualities as a ‘leader’ are never tested (p. 320).

These examples suggest that when the ‘leader’ role moves between the team, the

experience is potentially more dynamic and collaborative (Ladkin, 2010), and ultimately,

equally ‘empowering’ for all those involved. However, Le Guin is also careful not to

92

We argued a good deal. Usually at least one person grumbled about the decision, sometimes bitterly. But what is life without grumbling, and the occasional

opportunity to say, “I told you so”? How could one bear housework, or looking

after babies, let alone the rigours of sledge-hauling in Antarctica, without

grumbling? Officers – as we came to understand aboard the Yelcho – are forbidden

to grumble; but we nine were, and are, by birth and upbringing, unequivocally and

irrevocably, all crew. (p. 320, emphasis added)

But despite their ‘grumbling’ the women manage to negotiate an equitable balance of

‘power-with’ one another, and with ardent cooperation, achieve their goal.

As an illustrative example of women engaging in leadership together, ‘Sur’ disrupts the

default assumption that a single ‘leader’ figure, such as Shackleton or Captain Scott, is

tantamount to ‘leadership’. Instead leadership can be conceived of as a process, by which

leaders and followers “develop a relationship and work together toward a goal within an

environmental context shaped by cultural values and norms” (Perruci, 2011, p. 83). On the

Yelcho Expedition, the women collectively mobilise themselves in order to successfully

fulfil their vision to reach “that white place on the map, that void.” And once there “we,” not ‘I,’ “flew and sang like sparrows” (p. 326). In the context of this leadership ‘moment,’

no one person exercises ‘power-over’ the others, instead the leader-follower dynamic is

constantly being restructured. Thus, by looking more closely at the processes that make up the leadership interactions and activities between groups of people, different stories than

ones vested solely in individual achievement and the ‘leader’ role might be told,

challenging how we subconsciously think about power, organisations and society (Kelly, 2015).

Recommended reflective questions:

x What are your assumptions about the ideal partnership between leaders and

followers? Do these assumptions match the examples presented in ‘Sur’?

x ‘Sur’ suggests a model of leadership in which all group members are “crew” and

there is very little in the way of formal hierarchy. The goal guides and ‘empowers’

the group so ‘we,’ not ‘I,’ can share ‘power-with’ outside the bounds of traditional

leader-follower constraints. Do you think this model of ‘power-with’ as opposed to

93

personal level, are you prepared to let of go of the security which is‘power-over’

and embrace the unknown of ‘power-with’?

x Can you identify leadership ‘moments’ in your work experience where the ‘task’ at

hand has acted as the ‘leader’? Were the results successful?

x ‘Sur’ situates the Yelcho Expedition in relation to two well-known ‘heroic’

explorers, Shackleton and Scott, and their individual ‘successes’. However, the Narrator comments that “achievement is smaller than men think” (p. 323). Considered in terms Ladkin’s (2010) leadership ‘moment’ model, what other ‘aspects’ contribute to leadership’s success? How important are they in comparison to the ‘leader’?

x Le Guin proposes that women might be more comfortable than men with

collaborative and/or distributed leadership as a result of their “birth and upbringing” (p. 320). Do you agree with this statement?

6.4.2 Concepts 2 and 3: Understanding and Navigating Socially Constructed