Lecture 4 Flashcards
3 types of Contradictions
1) Instra-organizational
2) Moral systems vs. Hypernorms
3) Intra-individual
–> Either 1 or any combination of these may elicit episodes of emergent mora leadership.
Contradiction: 1) Intra-organizational
Us as X vs. them as Y
Contradiction: 2) Moral Systems vs. Hypernorms
Us as X vs Hypernorms as Y
Contradiction: 3) Intra-individual
Me as X vs me as Y
5 ingredients of charismatic speeches:
- Increasing the intrinsic value of effort in pursuit of goals
- Empowerment of followers by increasing self-efficacy and collective efficacy of followers
- Increasing the intrinsic value of goal accomplishment
- Instilling faith in a better future
- Increase follower (personal and moral) commitment
Strategy of Legitimacy:
Ontological persuasion
centers on premises about what can or cannot co-exist
Strategy of Legitimacy:
Historical persuasions
Appeal to history and tradition.
> Though not entirely dismissive of change, historical rhetoric is used to counteract radical change and to promote evolutionary or path-dependent change. In a defensive mode, change could be represented as significant and threatening.
Strategy of Legitimacy:
Cosmological explanations
emphasize its inevitability because of forces beyond the agency of immediate actors and audiences
Strategy of Legitimacy:
Teleological persuasion
Involves arguments focusing on a “divine purpose” or “final cause.
“Change, [whatever its content], is promoted as a necessary step toward averting a crisis. The long-term goal, therefore, was preservation of the system and the means to achieve it.
Strategy of Legitimacy:
Value-Based Persuasion
Appeals to normative authority drawn from wider belief systems, outside the particular contest, to legitimate an adopted position.
> This approach often involves ethical evaluations of the relative “goodness” or “evil” nature of a proposed change, which would involve a substantial breach with the past
Dilemma in prognostic Framing: Change versus continuity (i.e. changing traditions).
Change versus continuity (i.e. changing traditions).
Solution: Clever rhetors find ways to connect prognostic/motivational frames with a group’s history and tradition.
This involves smart collective identity work and a re-framing of history/tradition such that change is logically in line with it.
> Change is ‘normal’/’natural’ while resisting it would be unnatural
(see also Suddaby et al., 2002).
Dilemma in framing: pragmatic ambiguity vs lucidity. Pragmatic ambiquity =
Ambiguous: General terms such as “quality” (in Total Quality Management), “Lean”, “Agile”, “Quality”, “flex working”.
Allows flexible “appropriation”/translation in diverse local contexts while uniting them under one banner.
Versus lucidity (clarity of the vision). Logos: the value of a good/clear definition. Would you like to run fast for only a vague idea?
Name the 3 Micro processes of interactive framing:
- Signification
- Legitimation
- Domination
The above are always present in interactions.
Misfiring and laminations
Interactive framing accepts that past frames create behavioral norms and expectations that influence action. Name 3 lippage and misfiring (inconsistencies in behavior):
- Keying: the activity doesn’t change, but the interpretation of the interactant changes. This causes deviation in behavior.
- Frame breaks: intentional break of a frame because it is perceived as not just, accepted, right etc. These are likely when weak cultural repertoires are present.
- Ambiguity: when your frame is different than the other person without trying to change the other’s frame.
Name the 6 critical steps in the emergent moral leadership process
- The initiation = Moral awareness / motivation
- Defiance = moral courage
- Coalition building = gaining followers (statesman)
- Negotiation = gaining followers (statesman)
- Formalizing = Formalizing
6 Guardian Ship
Six critical steps in the emergent moral leadership process
1. The initiation = Moral awareness / motivation
The process starts with moral awareness and the moral voice of a leader. This means an individual becomes a focal point of influence when he or she attempts to influence the framing of a certain issue. An important factor in choosing to become a moral leader is the emotional intensity one feels towards the status quo/current frame(s). The higher the intensity (of negative feelings of course), the more likely one is to evolve into a moral leader.
Six critical steps in the emergent moral leadership process
2. Defiance = moral courage
The second step is defiance. When coming up with frames of one’s own, one is defying the current moral regime. The moral regime here means something like the status quo. So you could say a moral leader is challenging the status quo frame(s). To do this one needs moral courage. When challenging the status quo, one faces a certain risk (failure to influence the frameworks might backfire, retribution). Moral courage is what makes moral leaders persist in the face of risk. So the more moral courage, the likelier a moral leader is to act on a certain issue.
Six critical steps in the emergent moral leadership process
- Coalition building
- Negotiation
Gaining followers (statesman)
> the individual frame needs to become a collective frame! One that is supported by followers.
Six critical steps in the emergent moral leadership process
5. Formalizing = Formalizing
Symbolic leadership practices (“walk the walk”): emergent moral leaders need to continue to articulate, embody, and symbolize the values that are shared as part of the new moral framing to foster active and continued followership. Try to resonate to broader societal discourses.
Moral management: new moral frames need a big enough following to “stick”. Otherwise the frame could “bend back”. Formalization/institutionalization is important. The degree to which moral leaders are able to secure broad based and continued support for their moral framing depends on the degree to which they are able, alone or with others, to formalize the moral framing into organizational structures, policies and guidelines. (INSTITUTIONALIZATION)
Six critical steps in the emergent moral leadership process
6 Guardianship
After the institutionalization of the new moral system: a moral leader will now have a maintenance function: a guardian to uphold the boundaries around a moral system. Episodic or intermittent acts of moral leadership are required to protect the boundaries of the moral system over time.
Guardianship= a process where a leader within a local social order becomes a focal point of influence (a ‘beacon of recognition’) in maintaining and developing a characteristic set of values. They make followers into thinkers within the new moral system. Without guardianship people will bend back to self-interested motives. The guardian should be a statesman: not too much control and not too much flexibility. Balance between development, maintenance, control and protection.
Principles theologian
Remains highly entrenched in her/his own views, and is neither willing nor able to engage with alternative framings of the issue.
Principled theologian is not able to gain enough followers because of clinging to one particular frame.
> When moral leaders staunchly commit themselves to a singular and self-referential framing of an issue, they are not likely to build a strong enough following to change the moral system in their organization.
Statesman (Relational framing)
Carefully mediates between her/his own moral convictions and those of others in the organization and tries to steer a general moral course for the organization over time, whilst ensuring that followers do not substitute value-based considerations with technical, short-term, or strictly self-interested goals and tactics.
The statesman is most capable of building followers for a collective frame.
> When moral leaders in their framing mediate between their own convictions and the moral views of others on the basis of substantive, moral grounds, they are more likely to create a new moral settlement that warrants continued follower support.
Pragmatic politician (“window dressing”/strategic framing)
Flexible in own moral convictions and thus able to strategically change framing tactics to anticipate critical challenges and possible counter-arguments in order to build resonance and broad rapport around a social issue.
Pragmatic politician might work in the beginning, but in time people will see the frame as superficial, compromising too much.
> When moral leaders pragmatically combine the views of different followers in their framing of an issue, they may secure some initial common ground for the proposed change but risk that in time the framing is seen as superficial and as not sufficiently moral to warrant continued follower support.
End of emergent moral leadership: most effective when..
Moral leadership is effective when followers want to maintain the moral system themselves. The institutionalization of a new moral framing into a moral system is associated with the degree to which followers start to actively protect the boundaries of the newly established moral system.
