Exploring Co Leadership TALK Through INTERACTIONAL SOCIOLinguistics

Leadership
http://lea.sagepub.com Exploring Co-leadership Talk Through Interactional Sociolinguistics

Bernadette Vine, Janet Holmes, Meredith Marra, Dale Pfeifer and Brad Jackson Leadership 2008; 4; 339 DOI: 10.1177/1742715008092389 The online version of this article can be found at: http://lea.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/4/3/339
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Leadership can be found at: Email Alerts: http://lea.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://lea.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav Citations http://lea.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/4/3/339
Downloaded from http://lea.sagepub.com by Tomislav Bunjevac on May 4, 2009
Leadership
Exploring Co-leadership Talk Through Interactional Sociolinguistics

Bernadette Vine, Janet Holmes, Meredith Marra, Dale Pfeifer and Brad Jackson, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand and The University of Auckland, New Zealand
Abstract This article seeks to bring to the fore the processes by which leaders cocreate leadership through collective talk within the workplace. Co-leadership has recently been recognized as an important aspect of leadership practice, especially at the top of organizations, yet it remains under-theorized and empirically underexplored. Guided by the desire to integrate concepts that have emerged from leadership psychology with discursive leadership approaches, this exploratory empirical study applies a specic form of discourse analysis, interactional sociolinguistics, to three different organizational contexts. Because interactional sociolinguistics focuses on the ways in which relationships are seen to be negotiated and maintained through talk, it is well placed to analyse leadership, a relational process involving leaders and followers that is predicated on asymmetrical power relations. The analysis demonstrates how successful co-leaders cooperate, dynamically shifting roles and integrating their leadership performance to encompass task-related and maintenance-related functions of leadership. Keywords co-leadership; discourse analysis; interactional sociolinguistics
Introduction
This article examines the concept of co-leadership, the process by which two leaders in vertically contiguous positions share the responsibilities of leadership. While the existence of co-leadership has always been implicitly recognized, it has received remarkably little attention in the way of theoretical conceptualization, let alone empirical analysis. In the popular imagination, the names of principal leaders like Winston Churchill, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela come readily to mind whenever any one is quizzed about leadership, but who were their Number 2s, their Second Lieutenants, their Right-hand Men or Women or, to use current parlance, their Co-leaders? They remain largely unknown, unless they emerge to take over the Number 1 spot, but their roles are usually duly acknowledged in the autobiographies and biographies of notable leaders. We all implicitly understand that these individuals were probably vital in the acknowledged success
Copyright 2008 SAGE Publications (Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, and Singapore) Vol 4(3): 339360 DOI: 10.1177/1742715008092389 http://lea.sagepub.com
Leadership
4(3) Articles
of the principal leaders, but we never seem to be obliged to recall, let alone investigate them. The same selective memory recall appears to afict many leadership scholars. Building on recent work on co-leadership, it is to this long overdue task that we turn in this article. We begin by introducing the concept of co-leadership, what it captures and contributes and how it might be better understood. To this end, we highlight a recent clarion call from Fairhurst (2007) to nd ways to build bridges between the two traditions that run parallel within leadership studies the dominant and longstanding tradition of leadership psychology and discursive leadership, an emergent tradition that is rapidly gaining momentum. Guided by this call, we draw upon interactional sociolinguistics, a discursive approach utilized by the Wellington Language in the Workplace Project (LWP) team to better understand a variety of workplace talk practices within numerous organizational contexts. Having turned its attention to leadership practices, LWP has endeavoured in an exploratory manner to enrich its discursive analyses with the integration of well-established concepts derived from leadership psychology. This article presents the ndings from empirical work that has been conducted in three SME organizations based in New Zealand. Analysing recorded instances of leadership performances from a sociolinguistic perspective, we exemplify the ways in which co-leadership is enacted in these distinctive organizational contexts. Our primary focus is to examine the speech practices of leaders in their interactions with their followers to show how two leadership functions task and maintenance activities are actually co-performed. Moreover, while we detect certain similarities in the ways that co-leadership is achieved linguistically, there are some important differences in practice, which are engendered by the individual leaders and the specic organizational contexts within which they act. We conclude the article by highlighting further discursive inquiry into coleadership practices. We also reect on the experience of attempting to integrate discursive leadership approaches with concepts derived from leadership psychology, pointing to the potential opportunities for further research as well as the problems that such a potentially uneasy and awkward rapprochement poses.
Co-leadership
The argument for co-leadership
First coined by Heenan and Bennis (1999), co-leadership is dened as two leaders in vertically contiguous positions who share the responsibilities of leadership. They describe co-leaders as truly exceptional deputies extremely talented men and women, often more capable than their more highly acclaimed superiors (Heenan & Bennis, 1999: 6). Among the most well-known leadership partnerships that explicitly divide leadership roles between two or more leaders at the top of the organization are the CEOCFO; presidentvice-president; chancellorvice-chancellor; prime ministerdeputy prime minister; ministersenior civil servant; and managing directorartistic director partnerships. Heenan and Bennis observe that we continue to be mesmerized by celebrity and preoccupied with being No. 1. However, this tendency overvalues the contribution of the general or CEO or president and
340
Leadership
Exploring Co-leadership Talk Through Interactional Sociolinguistics Vine et al.
simultaneously depreciates the contributions of subordinates. The genius of our age is truly collaborative, they write, the shrewd leaders of the future are those who recognize the signicance of creating alliances with others whose fates are correlated with their own (Heenan & Bennis, 1999: viii). When it comes to leadership an old clich may well ring true: two heads are better than one. Although co-leadership has yet to undergo rigorous analysis, several scholars suggest that it improves leadership effectiveness (Alvaez & Svejenova, 2005; Heenan & Bennis, 1999; OToole et al., 2002; Sally, 2002). Upper Echelons Theory, as conceived by Hambrick and Manson (1984), provides us with some insight into why this might be. This theory suggests that leadership is an important ingredient of organizational performance; however, the complexity of organizations makes it improbable that one leader alone will be able to exert great inuence over all members of the organization. A formal co-leadership structure (i.e. co-CEO, co-chair, co-director) structure can help to make this more likely but these remain the notable exception, like the triumvirate that collectively runs Google, rather than the rule. In addition, Hambrick (1989) argues that strategic leadership occurs in an environment embedded in ambiguity, complexity, and information overload. An important responsibility of top-level organizational leaders is enabling the organization to adapt to this complex environment (Boal & Hooijberg, 2000). The skills required to successfully negotiate this increasingly complex environment are extensive and may be too broad to be possessed by one leader (Alvarez & Svejenova, 2005; Story, 2005). Collaboration at the senior leadership level improves the success of the strategic organizational partnership (Huxham & Vangen, 2000), allowing top corporate managers adequate attention for different aspects of the leadership task including day-to-day operational activities and long-term strategy (Bass, 1990). It also gives the organization an opportunity to continue, even when one of the top leaders leaves the organization.
Normative and methodological issues

In the past couple of years we have witnessed growing interest in developing follower-centred perspectives on leadership (e.g. Shamir et al., 2007). Jackson and Parry (2008) suggest that we can think of the various theories which advocate that followers do and should act as leaders along a continuum. At the more conservative end of the continuum is the notion of co-leadership, which recognizes that leadership is rarely the preserve of one individual, but is frequently exercised by a pair of individuals or group of individuals, such as a top management team. Further along the continuum is shared leadership, the notion that the responsibility for guiding a group can rotate among its members, depending on the demands of the situation and the particular skills and resources required at that moment (Raelin, 2003). Even further along the continuum is the notion of distributed leadership, in which the team leads its work collectively and independently of formal leaders, by creating norms of behaviour, contribution and performance and by supporting each other and maintaining the morale of the group (Day et al, 2004; Gronn, 2002; Nielsen, 2004). Distributed leadership theories tend to be more normative than descriptive. They talk about how things should be rather than how they necessarily are. But they have done an important service, as Fletcher and Kufer note, shared approaches to
341
Leadership
4(3) Articles
leadership question this individual level perspective, arguing that it focuses excessively on top leaders and says little about informal leadership or larger situational factors (2003: 22). On the other hand, as Kellerman and Webster have cautioned, the prevailing scholarly winds have now shifted so much in favour of collaboration in contrast to hierarchical decision-making and organizational structures that the challenge for researchers has become one of guarding against excess (2001: 493). Care must be taken not to overestimate the degree that leadership is or should be shared between members of a team. What we have regularly observed in many of the empirical contexts we have studied, is that leaders often do collaborate with their followers, but not with all organizational members. Instead, as recognized by Leader Member Exchange (LMX) theory they frequently collaborate or co-lead with their closest allies, who invariably also hold formal leadership positions within the organization (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Co-leadership acknowledges and encompasses the relevance of both hierarchical authority and collaboration. This is important because, as Kellerman and Webster suggest, collaborative leadership between team members is not always necessary and does not necessarily work in all circumstances. On the methodological front, leadership research has tended to maintain a narrow focus on its unit of analysis, concentrating on dyads or individual pairs of leaders and followers (Kark & Shamir, 2002; Yammarino et al., 2005; Yukl, 1999). Consequently, leadership scholars have come to understand leadership as a series of dyadic interactions occurring within a group, over time (Yammarino et al., 1998). How a leader inuences group-level processes is not well explained (Yukl, 1999). Additionally, and of paramount concern in this article, is the question of how multiple leaders might inuence groups of followers in an empirical context. In the past, leadership research has tended to rely predominantly on information gathered from interviews and surveys, rather than on direct observation and recording of communicative interaction in workplaces. As Alvarez and Svejenova note, leadership research has predominantly focused on the personal characteristics and psychology of executives rather than on their actual behaviour and their activities in performing the tasks prescribed by their roles (2005: 3). Other scholars have also argued that more attention needs to be given to precisely how leadership manifests itself in specic contexts, in order to provide a deeper understanding of how leaders behaviour impacts the leadership process (Berson & Avolio, 2004; Den Hartog et al., 1999; Dorfman, 1996). The research described in this article attempts to address these methodological concerns by examining the actual speech of leaders in their daily interactions with others in their workplaces. Following on from Cuno, who states that leaders lead through their words (2005: 205), we believe that studying the words of leaders enables us to examine how leaders do being a leader (Holmes et al., 1999). Moreover, as Larsson and Lundholm (2007) have argued, leadership can be understood only as something that is embedded in everyday and mundane managerial work-activities, rather than outside of these. Building on Uhl-Biens relational theory of leadership (Uhl-Bien, 2006), they show in their ethnographic study of managerial work conducted within a Swedish bank how leadership is accomplished through talk-in-interaction, highlighting some of the micro-level rhetorical work through which leadership is accomplished.
342
Leadership
We take as our starting point the initial conceptualizing work that has been done on co-leadership primarily by leadership psychologists, and enrich and extend this work by conducting discourse analysis to explore the discursive processes by which co-leadership is enacted and accomplished at the micro level of everyday managerial work.
Bridging psychological and discursive approaches to leadership

In her timely and highly constructive text, Gail Fairhurst (2007) has identied and distinguished between two traditions that have become established within leadership research. The dominant and long-standing tradition, Leadership psychology, places the primary emphasis upon the individual and works almost exclusively within the cognitive realm of human endeavour. The more recent yet rapidly growing tradition, Discursive leadership, is by contrast heavily oriented towards discourse and communication. According to Fairhurst (2007) discourse can broadly take on two forms: discourse (or little d discourse) which refers to talk and text in social practices within specic local contexts. The language that is being used by the actors and the interaction processes, therefore, becomes the central concern for the analyst (Potter & Wetherell, 1987). With its focus upon exploring forms of co-leadership talk, the present study will be concerned with this type of discourse, also the domain of an interactional sociolinguistic approach. The other broad type, Discourse (or big D Discourse) relates to general and enduring systems for the formation and articulation of ideas in a historically situated time. This type of approach is probably best exemplied by the genealogical work of Michel Foucault (1982, 1988). Associated with these two broad types of discourse, Fairhurst (2007) identies a wide range of techniques for analysing discourse or discursive approaches that include sociolinguistics, ethnomethodology, conversation analysis, speech act schematics, interaction analysis and semiotics. In this study we will be using a technique called interactional sociolinguistics which will be discussed in the next section of the article. From within the extensive scope of approaches which t under the umbrella term of discourse analysis, interactional sociolinguistics ts squarely in the centre of the range, with elements of both the top down and bottom up approaches found at the extremes. It is ethnographically oriented, taking account of the analysts understanding of the socio-cultural context of the interaction under investigation, and it makes use of micro-level analytic techniques to explore how participants negotiate meaning in face-to-face interaction. As such, it makes use of the kind of background and self-reported information gathered through interviews and observations, and uses this to support analysis of talk in action. In common with Fairhurst (2007), we argue that neither leadership psychology nor discursive leadership offers the better lens through which to view and make sense of leadership. Each tradition has something to offer the other, although examples of work that bridge these two traditions are still few and far between. In effect, we still have two distinctive camps of leadership scholars each camp favouring one approach to the exclusion of the other with, somewhat ironically, very little discourse taking place between the two except that which is couched as critique. The leadership psychology camp has largely ignored discursive leadership,
343
Leadership
4(3) Articles
characterizing it as an eccentric fringe. The discursive camp, on the other hand, has used leadership psychology as both a punch-bag to vent frustration with existing conceptions of leadership and as a springboard into their specic discursive approach. While we understand how this state of affairs may have come about, we agree with Fairhursts conclusion that Discursive leadership and leadership psychology are thus usefully conceived as complementary Discourses or alternative ways of tackling and knowing about leadership (2007: 11). The following study attempts to nd a complementary connection in its concern with co-leadership which has emerged primarily from the eld of leadership psychology and has been explored in only a very limited way in a discursive manner.
Research methodology
The Wellington Language in the Workplace Project
The Wellington Language in the Workplace Project (LWP) team has consciously tried to bridge the gap between these two traditions by bringing together leadership psychology scholars with (applied) linguistics scholars, in order not only to share their knowledge, but to create a genuinely open and constructive discourse, and to create a blended, more holistic, understanding of leadership dynamics within a range of organizational contexts. The interactions that we analyse in this study are drawn from the database which includes a wide variety of New Zealand workplaces, ranging from government departments and commercial companies, to small businesses and factories. LWP was established in 1996 with the aim of identifying characteristics of effective workplace communication. Over the intervening decade, we have collected more than 1500 interactions, ranging from two minute telephone calls to long meetings, and encompassing more than 500 participants in 22 different workplaces. The method of data collection can be broadly described as ethnographic. Typically, after a period of participant observation to establish how the workplace operates, a group of volunteers use mini-disk recorders to capture a range of their everyday work interactions over a period of two to three weeks. Some keep the recorders on their desks, while others carry the equipment as they move around their workplace. In addition, where possible, a series of regular workplace meetings is video-recorded. Over the recording period we nd that people increasingly ignore the microphones and the video cameras (which are relatively small and xed in place). They simply come to be regarded as a part of the standard furniture. Thus, this methodology gives participants maximum control over the data collection process, whilst also allowing workplace interactions to be recorded as unobtrusively as possible (see Holmes & Stubbe, 2003 and Marra, 2008 for more detail on the data collection process). Unusually in research on leadership, therefore, we use authentic recorded data as the main basis for our analyses. Drawing on these data, the LWP has applied various sociolinguistic techniques to the analysis of a range of aspects of workplace talk such as humour (Holmes & Marra, 2006), politeness (Holmes & Stubbe, 2003; Schnurr et al., 2007) and professional identity construction (Holmes, 2006; Vine, 2004). The current focus of
344
Leadership
LWP is leadership as a particular aspect of workplace talk (Holmes, 2007), a focus which begs an interdisciplinary approach. Drawing on leadership scholarship, discourse analysis is employed to examine how people actually do leadership rather than how they talk about doing it.
Interactional sociolinguistics
The theoretical framework, interactional sociolinguistics, is well established in sociolinguistics (a discipline which focuses on the analysis of language use in its social context) and follows the traditions of two highly inuential scholars, linguistic anthropologist John Gumperz (1982a, 1982b, 1996) and sociologist Erving Goffman (1963, 1974). Interactional sociolinguistics analyses discourse in its wider sociocultural context, and draws on the analysts knowledge of the community and its norms in interpreting what is going on in an interaction (see Holmes, 2008; Schiffrin, 1994; and Swann & Leap, 2000 for overviews of interactional sociolinguistics). As succinctly summarized by Schiffrin: Goffmans focus on social interaction complements Gumperzs focus on situated inference: Goffman describes the form and meaning of the social and interpersonal contexts that provide presuppositions for the decoding of meaning. The understanding of those contexts can allow us to more fully identify the contextual presuppositions that gure in hearers inferences of speakers meaning. (1994: 105) What this means is that the approach benets from both contextual information and ne-grained analytic tools to understand how meaning is negotiated between participants in interaction. Using this approach, we analyse authentic everyday workplace talk for evidence of the social relationships between speakers, examining both what they say and how they say it. The analysis involves paying particular attention to the clues people use to interpret conversational interaction within its ethnographic context. In practice, this includes such features as turn-taking and content, as well as pronoun use, discourse markers (e.g. oh, okay, well), pauses, hesitations and paralinguistic behaviour, amongst a much wider range of relevant features. The ways in which relationships are negotiated and maintained through talk is clearly a key component of interactional sociolinguistics and it is, therefore, an appropriate framework within which to analyse leadership, a relational process involving leaders and those they work with, that is predicated on asymmetrical power relations. Someone may be in a position of power, but how does the way they talk reect and reinforce their position as a leader or co-leader? The content of a leaders turns are important, but we also consider the way a leader takes charge of aspects of the interaction such as turn-taking: a leader is likely to be in charge of selecting speakers, for example, through the use of questions, as well as having control of topics. In the analysis that follows we consider some of these factors, along with the way the leaders use humour and how they express approval and compliment their teams in order to accomplish different facets of leadership. We draw on recordings made in three different commercial organizations based in New Zealand. The three organizations were extracted from the much larger LWP corpus. In each case, the leaders in
345
Leadership
4(3) Articles
these organizations were selected because they were recommended to us by internal and external colleagues as exemplars of effective leaders (i.e. we take an appreciative inquiry approach in selecting our data set [see Hammond, 1996]). The rst organization, NZ Services,1 is the national ofce of a large multinational corporation. The leaders (a section and project leader) head a team of managers who are charged with establishing a new service centre. The second organization, NZ Productions, has a staff of around 50 (including a sales ofce and a production site) and the leaders include the general manager as well as the business support manager and managing director of the larger group. The third organization, Kiwi Productions, is in the same industry as NZ Productions and has an in-house staff of around 25 including the CEO and department manager who are the focus here. Their point of difference is that their ethos and goals are culturally oriented; they consider themselves to be a Maori organization, representing and addressing an indigenous market. In each organization individual leaders recorded a range of their everyday one-to-one interactions. Video recordings were also made of a series of 612 weekly/monthly meetings (the primary data source used in the examples below).
Task and maintenance leadership behaviours

Leadership psychologist researchers generally accept the recurrent salience of two major dimensions that underlie leadership behaviour: a dimension summarizing behaviours directed at getting the group to get things done (i.e. task behaviours) and a dimension summarizing behaviours directed at looking after the people in the group (i.e. maintenance behaviours) (Yukl, 2002). Drawing on the Ohio State Studies, Schreisheim and Bird (1979) labelled these two underlying dimensions initiating structure and consideration. The former captured the extent to which a leader attempts to dene his or her role and the roles of subordinates through such behaviours as planning, setting high standards, assigning tasks, expecting subordinates to stick to the rules and measuring performance. The latter dimension measured the extent to which the leader shows mutual trust between him- or herself and group members, through such behaviours as expressing concern for their feelings, being approachable, and helping them with personal difculties. Through the means of their managerial grid, Blake and Mouton (1987) ingrained this distinction in practitioners minds the world over with the need to balance a concern for production with a concern for people. In sociolinguistics the distinction is often labelled task-oriented vs. relational behaviours. In what follows we take each organization in turn and provide a range of examples from their meetings which illustrate co-leadership talk aimed at promoting task accomplishment and maintaining relationships within the group. The meeting transcripts are rich with examples, although for the purpose of this article we present a few examples from each workplace to demonstrate the relevance and salience of ordinary everyday talk in the exercise of effective leadership. From the analysis we conducted of the transcripts, we identied a number of other types of leadership behaviours that were performed by the co-leaders of each organization such as visionary and inspirational behaviours. However, we have chosen to dwell on the task and maintenance behaviours in this article because they were the most frequently practised and because we wanted to use the limited space available to
346
Leadership
provide a sufciently varied range of exemplars that could be duly compared and contrasted.
Analysis
Co-leadership context number one: NZ Services
At the rst organization, NZ Services, we explore the co-leadership of Clara, a senior manager and section head, and Smithy, her deputy and special project manager, who work closely and harmoniously together. The meetings that we examine involve Clara, Smithy and a team that reports predominantly to Smithy as project manager. We recorded a series of meetings of Smithys team involving a project to re-engineer a customer service centre. There are 14 people in the team including Clara and Smithy. The promotion of task accomplishment is a role shared by Clara and Smithy, although Smithy takes primary responsibility for this. His questions during meetings consistently focus on practical issues with the aim of making sure the project is on track, that someone is taking responsibility for tasks and that everyone understands what needs to be done. Example 1 is taken from a meeting when the project to establish an effective customer service centre is well underway. Each member of the team is updating the group on progress within their areas. After each summary, Smithy asks practical questions. Example 12 Context: update meeting of project team. Smithy: so whos going to follow that up? . . . Clara what about your projects last week? . . . have you got any issues that have come up since you started working on it? Smithys questions are direct and to the point. They are the type of questions someone in authority can ask and control the talk in the meeting by selecting both speakers and topics. Example 2 also comes from this meeting and shows that at other times Clara will ask the same type of questions. Example 2 Context: update meeting of project team. Clara: and IS are doing the set up for the training room are they? . . . what are the issues about hitting this weeks dead- um milestone? . . . where are the gaps likely to be? . . . got any other issues? At the next update meeting, Smithy checks at the beginning of the meeting that the jobs people had said they would do in the previous meeting have been done, including checking that Clara has completed her tasks. Again this reects his role as a leader, with the authority to check that people have completed tasks.
347
Leadership
4(3) Articles
Example 3 Context: update meeting of project team. Smithy: action items from last weeks meeting um Clara Banks was to arrange [system] access with Keely Cooling and youve done that? [brief discussion about this item] Smithy: okay training meeting with Fraser um re the customer satisfaction course Tessa: yep + (we did that) Smithy: Tessa to follow up [name] for notication of the training system for [system] Tessa: yep weve done that ++ Smithys practical task orientation is quite explicit as he checks that each task has been completed. It is important for the progression of the project that each task is completed on time so that the next stage of the project can be initiated, and Smithy is careful to check that everything is on schedule. Maintenance behaviours are also predominantly enacted by Smithy, although again there is sharing of this role at NZ Services. Smithy consistently engages in small talk and jokes with other members of the team before and after meetings; he behaves and is treated as one of the team. They know about his personal life and he knows about theirs. Clara is more removed, as typied in the teams reference to her at times as the Queen (see Holmes & Marra, 2006). One way Clara contributes to the maintaining of relationships, however, and shares this maintenance role with Smithy, is through the expression of approval. In Example 4, Clara expresses approval at the teams performance. Typically, approval of this type is only appropriate from a leader. Example 4 Context: meeting of project team at beginning of project. Clara: a couple of things about the project we really expecting a high performance work team and Im Im really condent that weve got that with the make up of the people weve got here. As well as expressing her expectations that they will achieve a good result with the project, and so motivating, inspiring the team and promoting task accomplishment, she expresses her condence in their individual abilities (Im really condent . . .with the make up of the people weve got here). This compliment builds good team feeling, enabling her to create team while still keeping her place and distance as the queenly leader. In a nal example from this pair of leaders we see explicit evidence of the effective co-leadership of Clara and Smithy in practice. Here we see orientation again to both task and people-oriented goals, and also co-operation between the leaders in the way that the maintenance work is achieved (see Holmes & Marra, 2004; Holmes & Stubbe, 2003 for further examples and discussion). This example follows on from Example 3.
348
Leadership
Example 5 Context: update meeting of project team. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Smithy: um Vita was to meet with IS to determine er an implementation plan for the recording device Vita: yes done it + Smithy: [parenthetical tone] Vitas done a um work plan just for that + um implementation Clara: great thatll make the plan easier
In lines 12, Smithy reports on what the team agreed Vita should do by this meeting (a practical task oriented act), and in line 3, Vita conrms that she has indeed accomplished the specied task. Since Clara makes no immediate response, Smithy proceeds to prime Clara in line 4 to provide positive feedback to Vita (Vitas done a work plan just for that+ um implementation). Clara responds appropriately in line 6 with a positive and appreciative comment. Smithys diplomatic facilitative move is made extremely discreetly, and Clara picks up his cue without missing a beat. Clara does the overt maintenance work but this is set up by Smithy. This is skilled coleadership at work subtle, backgrounded, relational work, attending to workplace relationships in the interests of the projects progress. At NZ Services, Smithy takes main responsibility for both task-allocation and maintenance behaviours. Clara is more removed both practically and emotionally, but still takes on facets of both of these roles and the two leaders work together effectively to manage the team.
Co-leadership context number two: NZ Productions

At NZ Productions, there are three co-leaders: Seamus, the managing director, Jaeson, the general manager and Rob, the business development manager. All three attend meetings of the senior management team, which provides the focus of our analysis. Eight other managers also attend these meetings, most of whom report to Jaeson. Part of the way task accomplishment can be promoted relates to planning and the setting of high standards (as evidenced in Example 4 from Clara at NZ Services). Seamus and Rob are both actively involved in this aspect of leadership at NZ Productions. At the time of recording, the company was about to go through some drastic changes as they expanded. Rob, as business development manager, was employed to help plan and push the changes through because of his business development expertise. His job responsibilities revolve around this as he helps plan and strategize the new direction for the company. In one management meeting he spends 30 minutes talking about the changes, motivating the management team and highlighting the positive impact that these changes will have. Seamus, as managing director, also takes on this role. He is highly energetic and motivated to succeed and has high expectations of his staff in relation to the proposed changes. The excerpt in Example 6 comes from a ten minute section of talk from a management team meeting where Seamus explains his expectations of the team in relation to the changes taking place in the company.
349
Leadership
4(3) Articles
Example 6 Context: meeting of senior management team. 1 Seamus: you guys are managing all areas which are gonna be affected . . . 2 youve got to own your own areas and the change within them . . . 3 promoting and embracing the change within our teams . . . 4 the ones that want to do well 5 the ones that want to embrace the change 6 theyll be jumping out of their skins to be part of it . . . 7 nothings gonna hold us back here 8 and if er if it does were gonna remove it 9 we cant get somewhere great 10 without having everyone on board 11 everyone doing their best 12 and without removing obstacles Seamus uses strong persuasive language. He talks about promoting (line 3) and embracing change (lines 3 & 5) and the aim of getting somewhere great (line 9). Any obstacles will be removed (lines 8 & 12). His expectations for his management team and for the whole organization are clear. On the practical side of task accomplishment, Jaeson is the senior manager who most regularly steps into the implementation role in NZ Productions, although at times Seamus also gets absorbed by practical issues relevant to getting things done (see Holmes & Chiles, in press). As general manager Jaeson is responsible for making sure things happen. His questions during meetings anticipate problems and identify potential issues to be resolved. In Example 7, the senior management team have been discussing a technical problem. Jaeson makes his philosophy and practical orientation quite explicit. Example 7 Context: meeting of senior management team. Jaeson: but what youre saying Ivo um just conrms what Robs team came up with you know and that is shunt these problems get them sorted as soon as possible get them out of the system dont go all the way down the system and then discover that you gotta change it you know . . . um so and (I mean) weve talked about it for ages we know that weve gotta do this In this example, Jaeson is clearly signalling the importance of anticipating ways in which things might not run as smoothly as planned. Jaeson interprets Ivos comments (what youre saying Ivo) and links them constructively to the analysis provided by Robs team, providing an indirect compliment to Ivo in the process, as well as reinforcing the analysis undertaken by Robs team. Jaesons clear, direct summary is expressed in bald imperative clauses (shunt these problems, get them sorted as soon as possible, get them out of the system) grammatical structures which emphasize his
350
Leadership
meaning. His views are equally clearly stated in simple direct language we know that weve gotta do this. In terms of addressing people-oriented goals and maintenance behaviour, Jaeson is also clearly the frontrunner at NZ Productions. He is frequently the instigator of humour, a discourse strategy which takes account of the relational needs of the team by enhancing solidarity and smoothing out tensions. In Example 8, Jaeson uses humour to ease tension in a situation where there is a general sense of frustration about an issue. They cannot get the builders, who are currently on site to construct an extension to the ofces, to pour some concrete into a hole that needs lling. Jaesons facetious question suggests that the leaders will have to do the work themselves. Example 8 Context: meeting of senior management. Seamus: Jaeson: Seamus: Jaeson: Rob: [exhales] builders are supposed to be back this week if he turns up can er we get him to pour concrete in that hole over there no hes told me hes not a concrete guy + hes a builder +++ what are you like with concrete Im okay on the end of a shovel
Rob contributes to the humour here, responding to Jaesons question. Seamus does not contribute and does not often instigate humour. Like Clara, however, he does a share of the maintenance work by expressing approval. For instance he praises Harry, a department manager, for identifying problems and sorting them out, something he is urging everyone to do as they initiate the changes within the company. As with NZ Services, the leadership at NZ Productions is shared, this time between three top level leaders. Planning and the setting of high standards are aspects of the task accomplishment role which are shared between Seamus and Rob. The practical side of this leadership function is predominantly undertaken by the third leader Jaeson, with Seamus stepping up at times according to the context. Maintenance-related aspects are also mainly fullled by Jaeson; Seamus again taking a small role here when appropriate.
Co-leadership context number three: Kiwi Productions

The third workplace is a small commercial Maori organization, Kiwi Productions, operating according to Maori values, beliefs, and tikanga (ways of doing things), and committed to furthering Maori goals. The managing director of Kiwi Produc tions is Yvonne, who also founded the company with her husband. For the rst few years, Yvonne was the only full-time employee but the company has grown and employed approximately 25 people at the time we recorded the data examined here. Yvonnes most senior manager is Quentin. We examine the way Yvonne and Quentin undertake co-leadership, examining data from general staff meetings involving all staff in the organization as well as meetings of Quentins team. Quentin is involved in day-to-day implementation and goal achievement, taking primary responsibility for task accomplishment, although like Clara and Seamus, Yvonne is involved in planning and the setting of high standards. Yvonne has full
351
Leadership
4(3) Articles
condence in Quentins abilities when it comes to getting things done and, as a result, only attends the meetings of his team when he is absent or if there is a particular issue on which she wants feedback from his individual team members. Quentins focus on the practical side of things is illustrated in Example 9. Example 9 Context: meeting of Quentins team. Quentin: that was something that I was thinking of for instance you know you wanted to like say we wanted money to do get a survey on children about [product] you know you could send that ahead of time and it could be something that they do so that when we get there its actually has been done and completed it just saves time you know and and it doesnt less interruption or you know if we wanted to talk to maybe a a group of children then you could still do that um but its just a way of thinking ahead Example 9 shows Quentin suggesting a practical way of getting feedback on some of the items that the company produces for children: conducting a survey with these children. This is evidence of his practical orientation to the tasks they must undertake, and his focus on ways to help them achieve their goals effectively and efciently. Maintenance behaviours at Kiwi Productions are also more evident in Quentins discourse than Yvonnes. He engages in small talk and jokes (classic relational behaviour), especially before and after the team meetings, but this type of behaviour is also apparent when Quentin attends the general staff meetings. In Example 10, Quentin is reporting back on what has been happening in his unit to a meeting of all the staff. In a humorous way, he relates a phone conversation he had with a person from outside the company. Example 10 Context: meeting of all staff. Quentin: when I spoke to er their manager on the phone we were were talking away and then she said um oh I (might) tell you a secret Quentin and so I thought oh (oh) this is good + um I wont tell anyone else ALL: [laugh] Quentin: and she said um + we prefer to work with [Kiwi Productions products] we cant work with [other companys products] so we we decided well thats not actually their secret ALL: [laugh] Quentin: that [Kiwi Productions products] are better than better for them to work with (so) they tried working with the other [products]
352
Leadership
and they just cant work with them so I think you know thats a credit to the work that er Rangi and [the team] have done Everyone laughs in response to Quentins humorous recounting of this story, and the humour contributes to the group cohesion. Quentin uses the narrative as a lead-in to an explicit expression of approval of the team responsible for producing the products in question, although the story itself reects positively on the whole company. This further demonstrates maintenance behaviour from Quentin. As with the other top level leaders, Clara and Seamus, Yvonne too exhibits maintenance behaviour by expressing approval of the actions taken by her employees, see Example 11. Example 11 Context: meeting of all staff. Yvonne: we had a [subject] workshop in Maori that was taken by Sheree and Pat that was amazing . . . all credit to them they were just fantastic I thought This example comes from a meeting attended by all staff at Kiwi Productions. Yvonne is updating everyone on what has been happening since the last meeting and makes a public statement about her positive evaluation of the work done by Sheree and others as she goes through her summary. Another aspect of leadership related to maintenance behaviour which is relevant for our Maori workplace arises from the cultural context. One component of Quentins distinctive role is that of cultural leader. In their own words, Yvonne provides the vision and the direction, while Quentin ensures it is achieved in a culturally appropriate way. Quentin has strong Maori language skills and Yvonne commented to us how Quentins control of the Maori language means he can speak for the organization in Maori contexts, and that he can give occasions a sense of moment (see Holmes, 2006). It is also worth noting that in addition to a relative language prociency issue with Yvonne and Quentin, there is also a gender issue here. As noted, this is a Maori organization, operating according to Maori values and tikanga (ways of doing things). In most Maori tribal areas, overt leadership on many occasions is exercised by men (Metge, 1995). Moreover, Quentins prociency in te reo Maori is greater than Yvonnes. On these two counts, then, it is appropriate for Quentin to take the lead in matters relating to Maori kawa or protocol. And this is exactly what he does. He is recognized as the cultural leader by all those who work at Kiwi Productions. He opens his team meetings with a karakia (a formal greeting in the form of a prayer used to open Maori events) and he ensures that Maori protocol is respected and followed as appropriate in all the organizations activities. One interpretation is that, like a traditional Maori chief or rangatira, Quentin weaves people together (the literal meaning of rangatira) at Kiwi Productions, paying attention to their spiritual, relational and material needs. This also goes beyond the company, enabling them to operate effectively within the wider context of the products and services they provide to the community.
353
Leadership
4(3) Articles
Effective co-leadership is exhibited in all three case studies, but for each organization the way that this is enacted varies. The higher level manager at Kiwi Productions, Yvonne, is more removed from the practical side of task-allocation than the most senior manager at each of the other two organizations. The setting of high standards is an aspect of task-allocation that all three of these senior managers take on, although Seamus at NZ Productions has another manager who shares equal responsibility for this. Clara, Seamus and Yvonne all play similar small roles when it comes to maintenance behaviour. Yvonnes second, Quentin, like the second-incommands at NZ Services and NZ Productions, takes main responsibility for maintenance aspects of leadership as well as for the practical side of task-allocation. At Kiwi Productions, the backdrop of the minority cultural norms which permeate the workplace culture, adds an interesting dimension to the maintenance responsibilities through the cultural leadership role taken by Quentin.
Discussion and conclusion

Gail Fairhurst has noted that discursive approaches allow leadership to surface in myriad forms (2007: 5). By taking a discursive approach in this study we have been able to identify how leadership is accomplished through communication not by one sole leader but by one or two other co-leaders. In this study we have focused on two elements of leadership behaviour that have long ago been identied by leadership psychologists as being central to leadership: task-oriented and maintenance-related behaviour. The analysis has shown that in these organizational contexts, leaders orient themselves to different facets of leadership according to the specic context in which they are operating as well as in a process of dynamic interplay with their co-leaders. The exact ways in which this is instantiated differ from one organization to another, as well as in different contexts within organizations. The dynamism of these enactments is readily apparent from the examples of talk we have presented which reveal how at different points in the course of one mundane interaction, coleaders share the performance of various facets of leadership. Initiatives and responses ow back and forth rather than always proceeding downwards as in more traditional models of leadership. This exploratory study has been presented to encourage leadership researchers to consider three research opportunities. First, following Gail Fairhurst, we invite scholars to begin experimenting with and investigating how a genuine and meaningful conversation might be created between the elds of leadership psychology and discursive leadership. More specically, how might that conversation be translated into the empirical realm? Tourish has eloquently characterized this challenge as one of getting leadership scholars to engage in a more interpretive dance with each other (2007: 1735). This study is presented in the spirit of showing what the rst awkward but well-intentioned steps of that dance might look like. Second, we encourage researchers to focus their attention upon the actual processes by which leadership is created through everyday talk between leaders and followers. Fairhurst (2007) has presented us with a helpful guide to seven different types of discursive methods that can enable us to access and analyse these processes. In this study we have demonstrated the empirical application of just one of these approaches interactional sociolinguistics. Svennevig (2008) has noted, what is
354
Leadership
more so needed in the future are studies of managers in their day-to-day communication with their colleagues and their employees. He points out that the work that has been done in this area has focused on expertlay communication (such as that between doctors and patients and social workers and clients) but not between leaders and followers. He also notes that the eld of communication has traditionally focused mainly on written texts such as business letters and annual reports but recently there has been an encouraging upsurge in interest in analysing conversations and management. We hope that our study will encourage and guide others to conduct more empirical work that analyses a variety of leadership conversations within a diverse range of organizational settings. Our second research objective was to encourage researchers to actively consider the possibility that leadership as something that can, and is frequently co-led by two or more leaders within a particular group or organization. Customarily, our focus has been on the sole leader at the top of the organization or at the apex of a group. It, therefore, follows that we need to move away from a preoccupation with the dyadic relationship between leader and follower as the key unit of analysis in leadership research and develop ways to examine leadership in a much more collective and dynamic manner which encompasses the discursive practices between a few leaders and their followers. With respect to leadership practice, we hope that this article successfully highlights three aspects of leadership development which do not usually receive the attention that we consider they warrant. First, it emphasizes the importance of everyday talk in the most mundane settings as an important means of creating leadership. Too often, when communication training is included within leadership development programmes, its main focus is on teaching and coaching leaders to make more powerful and compelling presentations to key stakeholder groups, both within and outside of their organizations. While it is important that these moments should be properly capitalized upon, these tend to be relatively infrequent and are often considered as special occasions and, therefore, are not seen as being entirely genuine sources of communication. The problem with the preoccupation with speeches and presentations is that leaders often miss valuable opportunities in which to communicate leadership through everyday one-on-one and small group communication, which followers generally consider to be more genuinely open and dialogic communication vehicles. Communication training, therefore, needs to highlight the importance of regular, commonplace communication such as weekly meetings or impromptu corridor conversations, and encourage leaders to utilize these to their full effect. As Tourish has observed, many of the models of leadership that are generally taught within business schools, most especially the transformational leadership model, convey the false impression that leadership consists of a few easily learned skills, which obviate the need for paying close attention to the discursive mechanism by which leaders and followers interact and take action with each other (2008: 5). The idea of promoting conversations between leadership psychology and discursive approaches to leadership has important implications for leadership scholars not only in terms of how they conduct research but also in terms of how they conduct their teaching. Traditionally, leadership psychology has dominated the teaching of leadership as reected in the primary leadership texts, both at the undergraduate
355
Leadership
4(3) Articles
and postgraduate levels. It is imperative that we begin to nd creative and meaningful ways to introduce discursive approaches to leadership into our teaching practices. One of the authors, who has traditionally emphasized leadership psychology, has responded to this challenge by co-teaching alongside a discursive leadership researcher in an attempt to model the two approaches to understanding leadership and to show how they might complement but also conict with each other. The Fairhurst (2007) text provides a helpful teaching resource in this regard. As Chen has observed, much is gained by embracing holism. In practice, understanding issues from multiple perspectives is increasingly seen as a requirement for leaders and leadership at all levels, my own experience being a case in point (2008: 7). The other taken-for-granted and under-trained area that we hope this article will highlight for practitioners is the notion of co-leadership. We hope that leaders within one organization or group will be encouraged to reect upon and actively develop their collective abilities at co-creating leadership through shared talk. This is something that they may already be doing to varying degrees of effectiveness either consciously or unconsciously. However, by simply showing them how this is accomplished in three reasonably effective yet, by and large, unremarkable organizations, it brings to the surface how simple, but frequently elusive, effective coleadership talk can be. This points to the need for co-leadership teams to engage in leadership development collectively rather than on an individual basis as is customary. Importantly, we are not arguing that co-leadership communication is not something that can or should be rehearsed as this kind of approach can be readily perceived as being inauthentic and disingenuous by followers, but it is an improvisational skill that can be improved through consistent practice and conscious experimentation. The analysis of real workplace interaction, the kind in which we all engage in the everyday enactment of our work, rather than relying solely on interview or survey data, allows us to get closer to examining leadership in action. The discursive processes by which leadership is constructed and enacted are illuminated by examining leaders at work interacting with each other and with their followers. Given the vital role of communication in the leadership process, the use of discourse analysis, and in particular interactional sociolinguistics, enriches our understanding of this process and highlights the way the leaders in the three organizations do effective leadership. Leadership is an on-going process, which must be constantly enacted, maintained and negotiated through language and communication. This article has demonstrated how Interactional Sociolinguistic analysis can provide useful insights into how this process is accomplished and thus hopefully bring leadership scholars and practitioners closer together within a cognitive realm that they can both readily relate to, in order to co-create better informed and more effective leadership.
Notes
1. All names of companies and individuals are pseudonyms designed to protect the identity of our participants. Small details irrelevant to the analysis have also been edited out or changed where they might provide clues to an organizations identity.
356
Leadership
Exploring Co-leadership Talk Through Interactional Sociolinguistics Vine et al. 2. Transcription conventions: [..] ... (..) + oeditorial comment or deleted names indicates that some of the transcription has been left out unclear parts of the transcript pause of upto one second cut off word
References
Alvarez, J. L., & Svejenova, S. (2005) Sharing Executive Power: Roles and Relationships at the Top. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bass, B. M. (1990) Bass and Stogdills Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research and Managerial Applications, 3rd edn. New York: Free Press. Berson, Y., & Avolio, B. J. (2004) Transformational Leadership and the Dissemination of Organizational Goals: A Case Study of a Telecommunication Firm, The Leadership Quarterly 15(5): 62546. Blake, R., & Mouton, J. (1978) The New Managerial Grid. Houston, TX: Gulf. Boal, K. B., & Hooijberg, R. (2000) Strategic Leadership Research: Moving On, The Leadership Quarterly Yearly Review of Leadership 11(4): 51550. Chen, L. (2008) Leaders or Leadership: Alternative Approaches to Leadership Studies, Management Communication Quarterly 21(4): 19. Cuno, J. (2005) Telling Stories: Rhetoric and Leadership, a Case Study, Leadership 1(2): 20513. Day, D., Gronn, P., & Salas, E. (2004) Leadership Capacity in Teams, The Leadership Quarterly 15(6): 85780. Den Hartog, D. N., House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., & Dorfman, P. W. (1999) Culture Specic and Cross-culturally Generalizable Implicit Leadership Theories: Are Attributes of Charismatic/Transformational Leadership Universally Endorsed?, The Leadership Quarterly 10(2): 21956. Dorfman, P. W. (1996) International and Cross-cultural Leadership Research, in B. J. Punnett & O. Shenkar (eds) Handbook for International Management Research, pp. 267349. Oxford: Blackwell. Fairhurst, G. (2007) Discursive Leadership: In Conversation with Leadership Psychology. London: SAGE. Fletcher, J., & Kufer, F. (2003) Shared Leadership. Paradox and Possibility, in G. L. Pearce & J. A. Conger (eds) Shared Leadership. Reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership, pp. 2147. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE. Foucault, M. (1982) The Subject and Power, in H. Dreyfus & P. Rabinow (eds) Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Henneneutics, pp. 20822. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Foucault, M. (1988) Technologies of the Self: A Seminar with Michel Foucault, in L. H. Martin, H. Gutman & P. H. Hutton (eds) Technologies of the Self: A Seminar with Michel Foucault, pp. 1619. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press. Goffman, E. (1963) Behaviour in Public Places. New York: Free Press. Goffman, E. (1974) Frame Analysis. New York: Harper and Row. Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995) Relationship-based Approach to Leadership: Development of Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory of Leadership Over 25 Years: Applying a Multi-level Multi-domain Perspective, The Leadership Quarterly 6(2): 21947. Gronn, P. (2002) Distributed Leadership as a Unit of Analysis, The Leadership Quarterly 13(4): 42351.
357
Leadership
4(3) Articles Gumperz, J. J. (1982a) Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gumperz, J. J., ed. (1982b) Language and Social Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gumperz, J. J. (1996) The Linguistic and Conversational Relativity of Conversational Inference, in J. J. Gumperz & S. Levinson (eds) Rethinking Linguistic Relativity, pp. 374406. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hambrick, D. C. (1989) Guest Editors Introduction: Putting Top Managers Back in the Strategy Picture, Strategic Management Journal 10(special): 515. Hambrick, D., & Mason, P. (1984) Upper Echelons: The Organization as a Reection of its Top Managers, Academy of Management Review 9(2): 193206. Hammond, S. A. (1996) The Thin Book of Appreciative Inquiry. Plano, TX: Thin Book Heenan, D. A., & Bennis, W. B. (1999) Co-leaders: The Power of Great Partnerships. New York: Wiley. Holmes, J. (2006) Gendered Talk at Work: Constructing Gender Identity through Workplace Discourse. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Holmes, J. (2007) Humour and the Construction of Maori Leadership at Work, Leadership 3(1): 527. Holmes, J. (2008) An Introduction to Sociolinguistics, 3rd edn. London: Longman. Holmes, J., & Chiles, T. (in press) Is That Right? Questions as Control Devices in Workplace Meetings, in A. F. Freed & S. Ehrlich (eds) Why Do You Ask?: The Function of Questions in Institutional Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Holmes, J., & Marra, M. (2004) Relational Practice in the Workplace: Womens Talk or Gendered Discourse?, Language in Society 33(3): 37798. Holmes, J., & Marra, M. (2006) Humor and Leadership Style, Humor 19(2): 11938. Holmes, J., & Stubbe, M. (2003) Power and Politeness in the Workplace: A Sociolinguistic Analysis of Talk at Work. London: Pearson. Holmes, J., Stubbe, M., & Vine, B. (1999) Constructing Professional Identity: Doing Power in Policy Units, in S. Srikant & C. Roberts (eds) Talk, Work and Institutional Order. Discourse in Medical, Mediation and Management Settings, pp. 35185. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2000) Leadership in the Shaping and Implementation of Collaboration Agendas: How Things Happen in a (Not Quite) Joined Up World, Academy of Management Journal 43(6): 115975. Jackson, B., & Parry, K. (2008) A Very Short, Fairly Interesting and Reasonably Cheap Book about Studying Leadership. London: SAGE. Kark, R., & Shamir, B. (2002) The Dual Effect of Transformational Leadership: Priming Relational and Collective Selves and Further Effects on Followers, in B. J. Avolio & F. J. Yammarino (eds) Transformational and Charismatic Leadership: The Road Ahead, pp. 6791. Amsterdam: JAI. Kellerman B., & Webster, S. W. (2001) The Recent Literature on Public Leadership Reviewed and Considered, The Leadership Quarterly 12(4): 485514. Larsson, M., & Lundholm, S. (2007) Leadership in Interaction: A Micro-discursive Analysis of Everyday Interactions in a Bank. Paper presented at the 6th International Conference on Studying Leadership, Warwick, UK, 1314 December. Marra, M. (2008) Recording and Analyzing Talk Across Cultures, in H. Spencer-Oatey (ed.) Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport through Talk Across Cultures, 2nd edn. London: Continuum. Metge, J. (1995) New Growth from Old: The Whanau in the Modern World. Wellington: Victoria University Press. Nielsen, J. (2004) The Myth of Leadership: Creating Leaderless Organizations. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.
358
Leadership
Exploring Co-leadership Talk Through Interactional Sociolinguistics Vine et al. OToole, J., Galbraith, J., & Lawler, E. E. (2002) When Two (or More) Heads are Better Than One: The Promises and the Pitfalls of Shared Leadership, California Management Review 44(4): 6583. Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987) Discourse and Social Psychology. London: SAGE. Raelin, J. (2003) Creating Leaderful Organizations: How to Bring Out Leadership in Everyone. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Sally, D. (2002) Co-leadership: Lessons from the Republican Rome, California Management Review 44(4): 6583. Schiffrin, D. (1994) Approaches to Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell. Schnurr, S., Marra, M., & Holmes, J. (2007). Being (Im)polite in New Zealand Workplaces: Maori and Pakeha Leaders, Journal of Pragmatics 39(4): 71229. Schriesheim, C. A., & Bird, B. I. (1979) Contributions of the Ohio State Studies to the Field of Leadership, Journal of Management 5(2): 13545. Shamir, B., Pillai, R., Bligh, M. C., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2007) Follower-centred Perspectives on Leadership. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Svennevig, J. (2008) Exploring Leadership Conversations, Management Communication Quarterly 21(4): 52936. Story, J. (2005) What Next for Strategic-level Leadership?, Leadership 1(1): 98104. Swann, J., & Leap, W. L. (2000) Language in Interaction, in R. Mesthrie, J. Swann, A. Deumert & W. L. Leap (eds) Introducing Sociolinguistics, pp. 184215. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Tourish, D. (2007) Communication, Discourse and Leadership, Human Relations 60(11): 172740. Tourish, D. (2008) Challenging the Transformational Agenda: Leadership Theory in Transition?, Management Communication Quarterly 21(4) : 5228. Uhl-Bien, M.(2006) Relational Leadership Theory: Exploring the Social Process of Leadership and Organizing, Leadership Quarterly 17(6): 65476. Vine, B. (2004) Getting Things Done At Work: The Discourse of Power in Workplace Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Yammarino, F. J., Spangler, W. D., & Dubinsky, A. J. (1998) Transformational and Contingent Reward Leadership: Individual, Dyad, and Group Level of Analysis, The Leadership Quarterly 9(1): 2754. Yammarino, F., Dionne, S., Chun, J., & Dansereau, F. (2005) Leadership and Levels of Analysis: A State-of-the-Science Review, The Leadership Quarterly 16(3): 879919. Yukl, G. A. (1999) An Evaluation of the Weaknesses in Transformational and Charismatic Leadership Theories, The Leadership Quarterly 10(2): 285305. Yukl, G. A. (2002) Leadership in Organizations, 5th edn. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bernadette Vine is a Research Fellow on the Language in the Workplace Project and Corpus Manager for the Archive of New Zealand English, both based at the School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. Bernadettes research interests include workplace communication and leadership, and she is the author of Getting Things Done at Work: The Discourse of Power in Workplace Interaction published by John Benjamins in 2004. [email: Bernadette.Vine@vuw.ac.nz] Janet Holmes is Professor of Linguistics and Director of the Language in the Workplace Project at Victoria University of Wellington. She teaches sociolinguistics and has published in many aspects of workplace communication, language and gender,
359
Leadership
4(3) Articles
and New Zealand English. Her most recent books are the Blackwell Handbook of Language and Gender, co-edited with Miriam Meyerhoff, Power and Politeness in the Workplace co-authored with Maria Stubbe, Language Matters, written with Laurie Bauer and Paul Warren, and Gendered Talk at Work published by Blackwell in 2006. The Language in the Workplace Projects current research examines Maori and Pakeha leaders discourse at work. Meredith Marra is a Lecturer in Sociolinguistics within the School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies at Victoria University of Wellington. Merediths primary research interest is the discourse of workplace meetings (including her PhD research which investigated the language of decision making in business meetings), but she has also published in the areas of humour and gender in workplace interactions. As a Research Fellow for Victorias Language in the Workplace Project, Merediths current research explores cross-cultural dimensions of talk at work. Dale Pfeifer is a Research Fellow at the Centre for the Study of Leadership, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. Her research interests include indigenous leadership, cross-cultural leadership, inter-group leadership, public leadership and co-leadership. Dale has taught a postgraduate course in Leadership Studies. Brad Jackson is the Fletcher Building Education Trust Professor of Leadership at The University of Auckland Business School. He was formerly Director of the Centre for the Study of Leadership and Head of School of the Management School at Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand. Jackson has spoken to academic and business audiences throughout the world and has published four books Management Gurus and Management Fashions, The Hero Manager, Organisational Behaviour in New Zealand and A Very Short, Fairly Interesting and Reasonably Cheap Book About Studying Leadership.
360

Exploring Co Leadership TALK Through INTERACTIONAL SOCIOLinguistics

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Exploring Co Leadership TALK Through INTERACTIONAL SOCIOLinguistics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Leadership

http://lea.sagepub.com Exploring Co-leadership Talk Through Interactional Sociolinguistics

Downloaded from http://lea.sagepub.com by Tomislav Bunjevac on May 4, 2009