Title

A Non- Entitative Perspective on Organisation & Leadership

Sub-Title

A critical examination of the practical and conceptual liabilities inherent in traditional entitative
approaches to the study of leadership as a key attribute of organisational behaviour.

Abstract

Historical approaches to leadership research have focused on paradigms which are entrenched in
an entitative concept of organisation which (Hosking, 1988; Hosking & Morely, 1991) argue
dominate the disciplines of organisational behaviour and human resource management. Such an
approach focuses on the characteristics of individuals and groups within organisations, and the
person and the organisation are viewed as separate and distinct entities. This essay explores the
nature of non-entitative approaches to leadership research and articulates some key conceptual
and practical liabilities associated with traditional entitative approaches.

Key Words

Trait, Style, Behavioural, Transformational, Charismatic, Contingent, Entitative, Social

Constructivist, Organisation, Environment, Membership and Organisational Boundaries,
Organisational Identity, Organisational Purpose, Organisational Structure, Organisational
Environmental Independence, Socially Constructed Realities, Social Construction, Networking,
Enabling, Negotiation.
Historical approaches to leadership research including to trait, style (behavioural),
transformational, charismatic, situational and contingent approaches have presented research
paradigms which are entrenched in an entitative concept of organisation which Hosking &
Morely (1991) argue dominate the disciplines of organisational behaviour and human resource
management. Such an approach focuses on the characteristics of individuals and groups within
organisations, and the person and the organisation are viewed as separate and distinct entities.
They cite Meyer (1985) who in relation to entitative streams of research states that:

“[We] have proceeded on the assumption that organisations were well defined
units with identifiable, more or less permanent boundaries. We have assumed that
since we know what organisations were, entities called organisations were
appropriate for research” (Meyer, 1985, p.57)

Central to entitative perspectives is that the concept of organisation is seen to require explanation
as a whole, thus emphasising the separateness and independence of individuals, organisations
and contexts. Thus, individual behaviour is theorised independently of context and the extent to
which context shapes behaviour and behaviour shapes context is ignored. (Hosking & Morley,
1991; Thomson & McHugh, 1995). This short essay draws heavily on the work of Hosking &
Morley (1991) to presents an alternative, social constructivist view of organisations, organising
and thus leadership, which emphasises a contextually interdependent relationship between
organisational entities and their environment.

Meyer (1985) as cited by (Hosking & Morley, 1991; Thomson & McHugh, 1995) argues that
entitative approaches to the study of organisational behaviour, human resource management and
thus leadership are characterised by five defining features.
Membership and Organisational Boundaries: the organisation unlike informal grouping
defines by nature of its boundaries and structures who is and who is not a member. Thus,
such specifications for organisational membership differentiate one organisation from
another, and separate an organisation from its environment.

Non- Entitative – Social Constructive Approaches to Leadership Page 1 of 8

 Organisational Identity: the organisation has an identity of its own which is recognised
by all of its members and none-members alike.
Organisational Purpose: the organisational entity has a clearly defined purpose(s) which
is more or less understood by all of its members – this is what some researchers refer to
as the existence of shared goals and/or values.
Organisational Structure: the organisational entity has a structure that is clearly defined
and related to the stated and understood organisational purpose(s). The structure is
assumed to be a relatively stable feature of the organisation that defines accountability for
organisational outcomes and serves to organise and control work primarily through the
use of authoritarian power.
Organisational-Environmental Independence: the organisation and the environment are
viewed as separate and independent entities.

“The understanding of organisations as well defined entities has pervaded

research, whether research has addresses closed-system, open system or
evolutionary theory.” (Meyer, 1985, p.57)

Hosking & Morely (1991) go on to argue that social organisation is better understood in terms
of relational processes, which focus on organising, which is achieved through cognitive, political
and social process. Such an approach leads to the idea of socially constructed realities, which
once recognised makes it possible to “theorise the interrelations between persons, processes and
organisation” (Hosking & Morley, 1991, p. 61)

From a systemic perspective Hosking & Morley (1991) provide an excellent interpretation of
the mechanism of socially constructed realities, which are not constrained by any of the tenets of
non-entitative perspectives articulated by Meyer (1985).

“Structures emerge, not in relation to system needs [organisational purpose(s)] but

in the process of projects1. In systems terms, parts are interrelated, not through
shared needs, but through the influential actions of persons past and present.
1
The term ‘Projects’ is used by Hosking & Morely, (1991) to define more or less widely held shared values and
interests which are constructed through a process of social exchange predicated on negotiation.

Non- Entitative – Social Constructive Approaches to Leadership Page 2 of 8

 Persons, through their social relations, create more or less widely shared
constructions of their contexts. (Hosking & Morley, 1991, p. 61)

The processes of social construction are argued to be derived from exchange relationships in
three principle domains, Political Processes, Cognitive Processes and Social Processes. Political
Processes emphasise the relationships involving influence and the effect that this has on the
decision making processes. Thus, a managerial perspective based on influence derived from
authority within a fixed, formalised organisational structure is rejected in favour of more pluralist
interpretation of influence that recognises that individuals and groups differ in their interests and
in their valuing depending on their relationship with their context. Therefore, the ability for
actors to influence is embedded in the quality of their social relationships and the relationship
between these and the environment – which in turn reinforces a contextually interdependent
relationship between the organisational entity and its environment. Cognitive Processes are used
as a generic term to define the processes of knowing by which individuals make sense of
environmental information. Social Processes emphasise the transient nature of social interaction
as individuals attempt to sustain or change a sense of social order.

Within a non-entitative framework leaders are “those who consistently make effective
contributions to social order and who are expected and perceived to do so” (Hosking, 1988,
p.153) and in practical terms define leadership as:

“..a more or less skilful process of organising, achieved through negotiation, to

achieve acceptable influence over the description and handling of issues with and
between groups.” (Hosking & Morely, 1991, p.240)

This perspective views leadership as an influencing process which underpins a relationship of

mutual creation between individuals, the organisation and the environment, and conceptually
overcomes the constraints of entitative approaches which emphasise the separateness and
independence of individuals, organisations and contexts. Networking, negotiating and enabling
are viewed as the essential skills for the performance of leadership and in line with non-entitative
perspectives can be defined in terms of cognitive, political and social dimensions.

Non- Entitative – Social Constructive Approaches to Leadership Page 3 of 8

Networking is viewed as the process of relationship building within and between groups,
relationships may be more or less helpful to interdependent individuals, however, it is through
the social aspects of networking that individuals organise their interdependencies and social
order more generally. Networking allows individuals to build a more complete and less
subjective, idiosyncratic picture of the organisational-environmental relationship. This mutual
sense making through open-ended dialogue is an important cognitive dimension of networking,
and provides a stark contrast to the entitative perspective of leaders imposing meaning on
followers via a visioning process, which in turn may result in dependent or counterdependent
followers. Networking, by its very nature makes it possible for individuals to respect differing
valuations and interests as well as influence their creation. Thus, networking may be considered
to be a political process that is concerned with creating and influencing commitments to
particular relationships, understandings and actions, and mobilising resources in support of these
as social orders are changed or sustained.

Negotiating: Hosking & Morely (1991) cite Smith & Peterson (1988) in explaining that
negotiation is a process in which individuals discuss whether changes in their relationship are
possible and desirable. This can be explained in terms of the extent to which individuals can
negotiate shared meanings and/or values and forge commitments to collective action based on
these.

Enabling: if leadership is to result in a culture of productivity, leaders need to encourage and

support contributions from others. This may begin with questioning entitative perspectives,
which separate leaders from non-leaders, and showing commitment to developing cooperative
contexts in which differences in knowledge, interests and outlooks are valued. Within a
cognitive perspective this emphasises the importance of dialogue, which creates, shared
meanings as a prerequisite for cultural change within groups. Hosking & Morely (1991) cite
(Neilsen, 1968; Grob 1984) in making the important point that it is a culture, which allows
group members to develop more robust, differential, and powerful identities in each others eyes,
which is necessary if differences are to be recognised and respected. Which Grob (1984)
defines as:

Non- Entitative – Social Constructive Approaches to Leadership Page 4 of 8

 “Enabling as a collective, creative activity in which the horizons of meaning
surrounding the issues at hand are perpetually stretched.” (Grob, 1984, p.276)

Form a cognitive perspective Hosking & Morely (1991) outline three critical aspects to the
process of enabling:
group members, especially leaders, must recognise that they are all likely to depend a
great deal upon the ‘local knowledge’ of other people,
group members, especially leaders must through the adoption of appropriate problem
solving procedures and/or establishing norms of behaviour which support active, open
minded thinking, and understand and recognise the importance of constructive
controversy,
and given that not all group members will react in the same way to constructive
confrontation, leaders need to be aware that individuals may require help in handling the
anxieties of group life

Entitative perspectives on enabling are often inextricably linked with managerial practices of
empowerment, which are concerned with distributing power and thus influence, equitably within
organisational contexts. However, such processes are still bound up in unitary assumptions
about the valuations and interests of individuals, clearly distinguishing between individuals and
context and based on tacit assumptions that “instrumentalities are what are important about
social relationships” (Hosking & Morely, 1991, p.258) An important political aspect of
enabling is the emphasis on the quality of social relationships as a determinant of
interdependence. Thus, enabling is concerned with helping others to help themselves within
their own relational setting and in so doing enabling others in relation to their own valuations and
projects and not with respect to the goals of the leader. Hosking & Morely (1991) view power
equalisation (empowerment) as a version of managerialism unless individuals are helped to
construct the valuational bases of their activities and relationships.

Non- Entitative – Social Constructive Approaches to Leadership Page 5 of 8

Thus, non-entitative perspectives on organisations and leadership provide a research framework,
which may provide researchers and leaders/followers with fresh insight into how social contexts
may support or inhibit the:

expression or development of particular leader/follower personalities, affect the level of

reciprocal influence between leader and followers, and affect the expression and strength
of leader/follower power, style and behaviour,

downward influence of power, which is the defining feature of organisational hierarchies

and a key feature of traditional unitarist managerial perspective on leadership which
assumes that the goals of leaders, followers and the organisation are shared,

construction of knowledge and meaning within and between group members, who may or
may not be working within boundaries and roles defined by formal organisational
structures and boundaries,

the negotiation and social exchange necessary to interpret and shape the environment and
in turn to be shaped by it in a relationship of mutual creativity and influence.

Hosking & Morely (1991) argue that such insight is not possible within constraints of entitative
research paradigms in which:

“Group tasks are defined as structured or unstructured independently of the leader

(eg Fielder, 1967). Subordinates are defined as features of the leader’s context
and defined, for example, as mature or immature (see Hersey & Blanchard (1977)
as this was regardless of their relational setting… a tacit assumption that
[organisational] interests are shared by managers and non-managers [this is a
central tenet of charismatic and transformational leadership theory represented by
an idelogocial vision of a desired future state highly discrepant from a status quo
with serious shortcomings]…Entitative treatments of person and organisation
treat their relations as interactions between independent inputs …Taken as a

Non- Entitative – Social Constructive Approaches to Leadership Page 6 of 8

 whole, this entitative perspective of leaders in organisations results in a very
partial and restrictive understandings concerning persons, processes and
contexts.” (Hosking & Morely, 1991, p.243-244)

Thus, the entitative separation of people and contexts inherent in trait, style/behaviour,
charismatic and transformational leadership theories, according to (Hosking & Morley, 1991)
fails to provide an inadequate conceptual framework for the analysis and interpretation of
leadership within a socially constructive reality which recognises the interdependent nature of
people, processes and contexts.

References:
Bass B M, 1990, Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research: New York: Free
Press

Fiedler F E, 1967, A theory of leadership effectiveness, New York: McGraw-Hill

Grob L, 1984, Leadership: The Socratic model in Kellerman B (Ed), Leadership

Multidisciplinary Perspectives, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall in Hosking D M & Morely I
E, 1991 A Social Psychology of Organising People, Processes and Contexts, London: Prentice
Hall

Hersey P & Blanchard K H, 1969, Management of organisational behaviour: Utilising human

resources, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall in Northouse P, 2001, Leadership Theory and
Practice (2nd Ed), London: Sage Publications

Hersey P & Blanchard K H, 1977, Management of organisational behaviour: Utilising human

resources, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall in Northouse P, 2001, Leadership Theory and
Practice (2nd Ed), London: Sage Publications

Hosking D M & Morely I E, 1991 A Social Psychology of Organising People, Processes and
Contexts, London: Prentice Hall

Hosking D M, 1988, Organising, Leadership and Skilful Process, Journal of management

studies, 25, p.153

Meyer M, Stevenson W & Webster S, 1985, Limits to Bureaucratic Growth, New York: Walter
de Gruyer

Neilsen, 1968 as cited in Bass B M, 1990, Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and
research: New York: Free Press

Non- Entitative – Social Constructive Approaches to Leadership Page 7 of 8

Northouse P G, 1997, Leadership - Theory and Practice, London: Sage Publications

Northouse P G, 2001, Leadership Theory and Practice (2nd Ed), London: Sage Publications
Smith P B & Peterson M F, 1988, Leadership and Organisational Culture, London: Sage
Publications

Thomson P & McHugh D, 1995, Work Organisations – A Critical Introduction, London:

Macmillan

Non- Entitative – Social Constructive Approaches to Leadership Page 8 of 8