Paradox and Neuroscience: Emerging Theories of Leadership This prĂŠcis presents a snapshot of leadership theories and notes their shortening lifespan; it comments on why leadership theories emerge and names the most recent. Next, the prĂŠcis covers organizational paradox and social neuroscience, approaches that are not conditioned by organizational boundaries and seem relevant to the quickening complexity of our times. Olivier Serrat 01/06/2018
1 If "There's nothing so practical as a good theory," as the social, organizational, and applied psychology pioneer Kurt Lewin (1951) quipped to lasting effect, why do we have so many of them in the field of leadership studies? We have or have had—and the following list is not exhaustive—the Great Man Theory, the Trait Theory of Leadership, the Skills Theory of Leadership, the Style Theory of Leadership, the Situational Leadership Theory, the Contingency Theory, Transactional Leadership, Transformational Leadership, Leader–Member Exchange (or Relational) Theory, Distributed Leadership, Servant Leadership Theory, Ethical Leadership Theory, as well as Authentic Leadership Theory. Thinking of scholars and practitioners in leadership studies, "The Blind Men and the Elephant" syndrome comes to mind: ever more, it seems, leadership means different things to different people, with each theory—in turn— claiming its place in the sun and allegiance over the others. Halfheartedly, observers might accept that there must important truths in each leadership theory and the better we know them the better we are likely to lead; to note, having had their fill of the characteristics of the leader and those of the follower, some of the faithful have moved to ponder the characteristic of the situation. What sense are we to make of the volatility of leadership theories that, much as the S&P 500 companies, have a shortening lifespan?1 Since every theory is born out of an environment, there must be a correlation between what theories attract favor and changing needs for explanatory power. Why Theories Emerge Much as the proverbial onion, new leadership theories add to the corpus of knowledge; only rarely do they replace earlier paradigms in a field that, excepting biology, is drawn entirely from social sciences.2 Theories are the products of their times:3 therefore, much as theories in other fields, leadership theories evolve—shift their line of sight might be a better expression—to better explain everyday realities and sometimes also to circumscribe changing circumstances as the goalposts move. Because there has been massive growth and change in the size, prevalence, complexity, and influence of organizations, we should expect additions to the corpus of knowledge in leadership theory. The only constants impacting consideration of leaders and leadership in organizations—the two concerns being increasingly divorced as we shall see— pertains to the division of labor into various tasks to be performed and the coordination of these tasks to accomplish the activity for which an organization was set up (Mintzberg, 1979). Hence,
1
The lifespan of large, successful companies has never been shorter: in 1965, the average tenure of companies on the S&P 500 was 33 years; by 1990, it was 20 years. 2 Warts and all, the Great Man Theory still attracts followers (even though it was popularized back in the 1840s). The need that people have for charismatic infusion (and their fascination with the power and authority that accompany it) must be hard-wired. 3 Morgan (2006) is a perceptive investigator of the nature of metaphor and its role in understanding organization and management: he distinguishes organizations as machines, organisms, brains, cultures, political systems, psychic prisons, flux and transformation, and instruments of domination; there are profound implications from using imagery—consciously or not—because all organization and management theories are based, usually unconsciously, on which images theorists have in mind. (The image of organizations as machines is common.) Images offer insights but unavoidably engender great distortions.
2 from among emerging theories of leadership,4 it is those that are not conditioned by organizational boundaries and most pertinently enable us to address the quickening complexity of our modern times that should attract attention: two such theories are paradoxical leadership and neuroscience leadership.5 (Complexity leadership is another.) What follows is an aperçu of organizational paradox and social neuroscience with brief explanations of how understanding of each might shape leadership actions in workplaces (and elsewhere). Paradoxical Leadership Merriam-Webster defines a paradox as a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true. The ancient Greeks, to whom Western civilization owes so much, were of course aware that a paradox can take us outside our usual way of thinking: combining para- ("beyond", "contrary to", or "outside of") with doxa ("opinion", from dokein "to appear, seem, think"), they formed paradoxos, meaning "contrary to expectation." Today, pace the staidest (and fast-disappearing) working environments, there is little doubt that modern organizations are hotbeds of paradox. We are all familiar with the tensions of organizational life; they impact individuals (work vs. family), leadership (control vs. empowerment), learning (reflection vs. performance), performance (competition vs. collaboration), promotion (seniority vs. meritocracy), rewards (individual vs. group), strategy (change vs. stability), structure (centralization vs. decentralization), and teamwork (task vs. relationships), to name a few. To better explain the new reality and help navigate it, Smith and Lewis (2011) called for a theory of paradox to replace contingency theory (which too commonsensically argues that organizational systems are most effective when internal elements align with the external environment). Citing in full: "Organizing raises multiple tensions, such as collaboration–control, individual–collective, flexibility–efficiency, exploration–exploitation, and profit–social responsibility. As environments become more global, fast paced, and competitive, and as internal organizational processes become more complex, such contradictory demands become increasingly salient and persistent. Leaders' responses to these tensions may be a fundamental determinant of an organization's fate." … "[Accepting that contingency 4
One should qualify the term "emerging"; certainly, nothing presses at the gate. Interest in traits and styles harks back to the 1930s–1940s and 1960s, respectively; contingency became a subject of interest in the 1970s. Supposedly "new" leadership theories feeding off interest in charisma and transformation came into being in the 1970s and 1980s, respectively, both related to the Great Man Theory. (Transformational leadership is probably the most well-researched concept.) Leader–member exchange is a more recent addition from the mid-1990s. Ethics and authenticity joined the family in the late 1990s and early 2000s. From the mid-2000s, applications of complexity science to leadership theory may make up the most recent model; I think they represent the most radical departure compared to previous explanations. An important point is that no theory stands alone: there are key differences but many similarities (if not overlap): stating the obvious, it is more profitable to treat the corpus of knowledge in leadership theory as one, recognizing that not every theory is suited to all circumstances; hence, it is likely that future research will integrate existing theories into an overarching model of leadership effectiveness, hopefully eschewing jargon and vague concepts. 5 Clarifying, paradoxical leadership and neuroscience leadership are more concerned with approaches to how we think about leadership processes and their execution than hard-and-fast theories.
3 theory offers one response to tensions,] Paradox studies adopt an alternative approach to tensions, exploring how organizations can attend to competing demands simultaneously. Although choosing among competing tensions might aid short-term performance, a paradox perspective argues that long-term sustainability requires continuous efforts to meet multiple, divergent demands. Discussions of paradox from the late 1980s motivated research in such domains as innovation, change, communication and rhetoric, identity, and leadership". (Smith & Lewis, 2011, p. 381) Helpfully, Smith and Lewis (2011) grouped organizational tensions in four categories that have to do with (a) learning, (b) belonging, (c) organizing, and (d) performing; the four perspectives— surely, a better term than categories—provide eminently practicable entry points for discerning and managing what tensions associate with them. Vitally, Smith and Lewis (2011) also recognized an important ontological debate: Are tensions inherent to systems or are they social constructions that emerge from cognition and rhetoric? 6 (p. 383). Awareness that social constructivism has a hand in the "existence" of tensions can do no harm either: this is because irrespective of whether they are "real" or not organizational tensions cannot be wished away; and so, pending the emergence of new forms of organizing, the organizations, leaders, teams, and individuals that can visualize and reframe paradox will produce superior outcomes (compared with those who cannot). To this intent, Poole and Van de Ven (1989) identified four strategic responses: "(i) acceptance, keeping tensions separate and appreciating their differences; (ii) spatial separation, allocating opposing forces across different organizational units; (iii) temporal separation, choosing one pole of a tension at one point in time and then switching; and (iv) synthesis, seeking a view that accommodates the opposing poles" (as cited in Smith & Lewis, 2011, p. 385). Poole and Van de Ven (1989) and Smith and Lewis (2011) are complementary texts: the four strategic responses in Poole and Van de Ven (1989) (e.g., acceptance, spatial separation, temporal separation, and synthesis) find actionable ground across the four types of organizational tension mentioned in Smith and Lewis (2011) (e.g., learning, belonging, organizing, and performing). Managing paradox turns management from a science into an art: it springs from different mindsets and requires completely new sets of skills. To enlighten the traveling knowledge worker, Smith and Lewis (2012) posited that four leadership skills are necessary: (a) cognitive complexity, (b) confidence, (c) conflict management, and (d) communication7 (p. 227). This said, a word of caution is in order: even if they did not define leadership, Smith and Lewis (2011, 6
From the field of organizational culture, a parallel to this ontological debate can be found in the work of Martin (2002), who distinguished three perspectives: (a) integration, (b) differentiation, and (c) fragmentation. [Paradoxically, if wordplay is permitted, Martin (2002) thought that the three socially-constructed perspectives were themselves in irremediable conflict even if she deemed each legitimate.] 7 A great many publications make much of the ambidexterity that paradoxical leadership entails or rests on; Lavine (2014) provided a handy list of sources on the subject (pp. 191–192). Like many in Asia, I believe in the relevance to ambidexterity of the principle of yin–yang, which accepts seemingly opposite or contrary forces may actually be interconnected, complementary, and even interdependent. Accepting duality, specifically, being able to "hold" competing interests in mind to reap the benefits of positive outcomes from both poles, is about letting go of attachments and preferences, which can be achieved with emotional intelligence and critical honesty about "comfort zones". "Integrative complexity" is another name for the ability to move beyond the strengths-based paradigm of skill development, think about what to learn next in a fundamentally different ways, listen less to intuition and more to counterintuition, run toward tension, and learn how to work with opponents instead of just one's friends (Simmons, 2018).
4 2012) evidently considered it the property of individuals as distinct from a relationship between leaders and followers or a social process: in the event leadership is, say, a social process, there may be no reason to actualize leadership skills for managing paradoxes. Irrespective, there are plenty of opportunities for individuals: Smith, Lewis, and Tushman (2016) recently authored an article on "both/and" leadership that underscored the necessity to have leaders who embrace strategic paradoxes as organizations face increasingly unpredictable, complex, and challenging environments; in closing, Smith, Lewis, and Tushman (2016) cited Nobel Prize–winning physicist Niels Bohr: "How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress" (p. 70). This is all sage advice, to be taken at heart in workplaces (and elsewhere). Neuroscience Leadership For most of the 20th century, social and biological explanations were treated as incompatible. But, from the 1990s, advances in social neuroscience began to vindicate Aristotle's concept of man and woman as social animals. An exciting new field, the potential of which is well-nigh limitless,8 social neuroscience seeks to understand how biological systems implement social processes and behavior, this to inform and refine theories about the latter. With the help of neurobiological techniques such as functional magnetic resonance imaging,9 social neuroscience confirms that human life revolves for the most part around pain and pleasure; and so, it ought not surprise that our social behaviors are often governed by one overarching organizing principle, namely, minimizing threat and maximizing reward, the said principle being conditioned by brain networks that are used primarily for survival needs. In The Neuroscience of Leadership, Rock and Schwartz (2006) drew hard conclusions from cutting-edge research (that severally promote or challenge other leadership theories): (a) change is pain, (b) behaviorism does not work, (c) humanism is overrated, (d) focus is power, (e) expectation shapes reality, and (f) attention density shapes identity. Subsequently, Rock (2008) developed a model defining five domains of social experience that are deeply important to the brain, namely, (a) status, (b) certainty, (c) autonomy, (d) relatedness, and (e) fairness, aka SCARF, and which allow exploration of nuanced actions to reduce threats and increase rewards in the context of collaborating with and influencing others.10 With notable exceptions, the authors of books on leadership, certainly in the 1950s–1970s, often had a background in psychology; this may have had to do with the (then) continuing impact of Scientific Management, which aimed to prime individuals and groups for peak performance; and so, earlier leadership studies drew considerably on theories of motivation and personality, to name but two. With social neuroscience, brain-based approaches should help study the building blocks of what professionals do: past the assembly line lampooned in Charlie 8
The ambit of social neuroscience is such that it is only a matter of time before it brings new tools, methods, and approaches to the challenges people and organizations face. 9 Magnetic resonance imaging measures patterns of blood oxygenation responses in the brain as a subject engages in a particular task. 10 Usefully, Rock (2008) also made suggestions for further research, which serve to underscore the limitless potential of the neuroscience of leadership. Questions that still beg answers are: Which of the domains in the SCARF model generate the strongest threats or rewards given different types of organization? What are the links between the five domains? What are the best techniques for minimizing threats and maximizing rewards in each domain? Does the relative importance of each domain vary across, say, individuals, gender, or tenure? What are the implications of the model for organizational design?
5 Chaplin's cinematographic masterpiece on the industrialized world (Modern Times, 1936), the compass of concerns and possible interventions has grown much wider: social neuroscience can shed bright light on how to, say, make decisions under pressure, negotiate transactions, promote change, solve complex problems, spark creativity and innovation, and try to persuade others. Not to forget, since his work preceded Rock and Schwartz (2006), Ehin (2000) offered fascinating insights to those who seek to understand how one might relate human nature to organizational context: he did so by drawing attention to innate self-centered and other-centered human drives—that we more commonly refer to as selfishness or altruism—and suggesting that for voluntary workplace collaboration and innovation to thrive leadership must develop organizational "sweet spots". Again, this is all sage advice, to be taken at heart in workplaces (and elsewhere). Conclusion "I think the [21st] century will be the century of complexity," Stephen Hawking said on January 23, 2000 in his "millennium" interview by the San Jose Mercury News: this has become a widely cited prophecy and we are, indeed, more than ever in need of practical theory. Past unadventurous obsession with "leaders", emerging theories must be framed by appreciation of volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity because—like it or not—this is the world in which we live. Specifically, such theories must stop explaining the oppressive structures, practices, and habits that conventional leadership theories have covered ad nauseam because the very nature of organizations, nay, the very act of organizing, is now different. Ever more, kaleidoscopic combinations of hierarchy, market, and network (or community) forms of organizing appear in organizations across the public, private, and civil sectors; as a result, leadership styles and frameworks—designed in general for the closed systems of yesteryear— are consumed by fire-fighting (rather than fire prevention and mitigation) and contribute less and less to the success of collective effort. Paradoxical leadership and neuroscience leadership are not hemmed in by organizational boundaries and seem more relevant to the quickening complexity of our times; in the Age of Complexity, their concepts, findings, and recommendations will henceforth shape leadership actions in workplaces (and elsewhere). References Ehin, C. 2000. Unleashing intellectual capital. Woburn, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann. Lavine, M. (2014). Paradoxical leadership and the competing values framework. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50(2), 189–205. Lewin, K. (1951). Problems of research in social psychology. In: D. Cartwright, (Ed.) Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers (pp. 155–169). New York, NY: Harper & Row. Martin, J. (2002). Organizational culture: Mapping the terrain. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations. Pearson. Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Poole, M., & van de Ven, A. (1989). Using paradox to build management and organization theories. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 562–578. Rock, D. (2008). SCARF: A brain-based model for collaborating with and influencing others. NeuroLeadership Journal, 8(1), 1–9. Rock, D., & Schwartz, J. (2006). The neuroscience of leadership. Strategy+Business, 43, 1–10. Simmons, M. (2018, May 5). Studies show that people who have high "integrative complexity" are more likely to be successful. [Blog Post]. Retrieved from https://medium.com/the-
6 mission/studies-show-that-people-who-have-high-integrative-complexity-are-more-likelyto-be-successful-443480e8930c Smith, W., & Lewis, M. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: a dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36, 381–403. Smith, W., & Lewis, M. (2012). Leadership skills for managing paradox. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5, 227–231. Smith, W., Lewis, M., & Tushman, M. (2016). Both/And leadership. Harvard Business Review, 94(5), 62–70.